UZBEKISTAN
Joint report of the civil society submitted for
Universal Periodic Review
2nd cycle
Association for Human Rights in Central Asia - AHRCA, Uzbek-German Forum
for Human Rights – UGF and Centre for Civil and Political Rights – CCPR Centre,
would like to draw your attention to their joint NGO report on Uzbekistan. In
December 2008, during the first review of Uzbekistan, UN member-states made
recommendations to the government on the implementation of international
treaties in the sphere of human rights. The authors of this report have
analysed the implementation of these recommendations by the government of
Uzbekistan.
In October 2012, in accordance with the established procedure, the
present report was submitted for inclusion in the documents for the second UPR
review of Uzbekistan. It focuses on 6 problem areas identified by the UN Human
Rights Committee when it considered the report of Uzbekistan on the
implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) in March 2010. The report examines the current situation with regard to
each of these areas and then provides a number of recommendations drafted by
the human rights defenders under each heading. The parts of the Report are as
follows:
I. Prohibition of torture, inhuman and degrading
treatment and punishment;
II. Forced labour and child labour;
III. Independence of judicial power, the right to fair
trial, arbitrary arrest and detention;
IV. Freedom of expression and freedom of opinion:
persecution of human rights defenders, non-governmental organisations and
journalists;
V. Freedom of conscience: illegal religious groups and
“extremists”;
VI. The situation of Andijan survivors and repatriates.
On 25-28 March 2013 in Geneva, within the framework of the UPR process,
pre-sessional meetings will take place between representatives of the civil
society and government delegations to discuss the human rights situation in
Uzbekistan. The authors of the present report have been given the opportunity
to participate in these meetings and present their concerns and recommendations
to the government delegations who will take part in the review of Uzbekistan on
Wednesday 24 April.
October
2012
This report is the result of a
joint effort from various human rights defenders to provide first-hand
information from reliable sources on the ground. Below are a few of those
organisations that took an active part in the compilation process:
Association des
Droits de l’Homme en Asie Centrale – AHRCA
http://nadejda-atayeva-en.blogspot.com/
Email : asiecentrale@neuf.fr
Centre MBE 140, 16, rue du Docteur Leroy, 72000 Le Mans France
Phone: + 33 6 49 38 86 59;
Uzbek-German Human Rights
Forum – UGF
Email : info@uzbekgermanforum.org
Phone : +49(0)176 875 326 84
Centre for Civil and Political Rights – CCPR Centre
http://www.ccprcentre.org/
Rue de Varembe 1, PO Box 183, 1202 Geneva (Switzerland)
Phone: +41(0)22/33 22 555
Email: info@ccprcentre.org
Word
count (excluding footnotes): 5580 words
Introduction
The present report provides an analysis of the
status of implementation of some of the recommendations made in December 2008
by the Human Rights Council during the review of Uzbekistan in the first cycle
of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR).
The report addresses the recommendations made during the first UPR cycle
on six areas of concern, which were also raised by the Human Rights Committee,
after reviewing Uzbekistan in March 2010.
The areas of concern are the following:
I. The prohibition of torture, inhuman and degrading
treatment and punishment;
II. Force labour of children and adults;
III. The independence of the judiciary, right
to a fair trial and arbitrary detention;
IV. Freedom of expression: the persecution of
human rights defenders, NGOs and journalists;
V. Freedom of religion: illegal religious
groups and the “extremists”;
VI. The situation of Andijan survivors and
returnees.
I. The prohibition of torture, inhuman and degrading
treatment and punishment
1. Uzbekistan has enshrined the
prohibition of torture in its domestic legislation[1]
and has also ratified the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). However, despite the
State’s commitment under the first UPR cycle to examine the possibility of ratifying the Optional Protocol to the CAT[2],
this ratification is still pending to date. Moreover, the existing laws and
international obligations undertaken are far from being implemented in
practice, contrary to the State’s assertion during the first UPR cycle[3].
This report provides recent examples of the deficient
implementation of measures preventing and combating torture and ill-treatment
in Uzbekistan.
2. The standard methods of torture
currently used by Uzbek police, as documented by the civil society, include:
severe beatings, burns, starvation and sleep deprivation, suffocation with a
plastic bag or gas mask, tying up and hanging by the hands, administrating
electric shocks, rape or threat of rape, deprivation of access to lavatory and
threats of use of violence against relatives.[4]
As an illustration, the case of Ravshan Kosimov, who was brutally tortured
while in custody on charges of spying for the United States, crossing the
border illegally and violations of military discipline[5].
Also, the case of Lieutenant Hayitali Iglamova, brought unconscious with an
open head injury, concussion and broken ribs following his arrest on 10
February 2010[6].
3. Torture and other ill-treatment are
used to extract confessions and to coerce witnesses into testimonies that were
influential to establishing guilt. Despite national law forbidding the
admission in court of evidence obtained through torture[7]
and the 2004 ruling of the Supreme Court on the inadmissibility of evidence
obtained unlawfully[8],
there are still cases where evidence obtained through torture is admissible in
Court. On 9 December 2011 ten people were sentenced for sabotage of rail tracks
to 7-12 years imprisonment each. According to medical reports, the accused were
sodomised with batons, intimidated and threatened. As a result of this
treatment a confession was obtained[9].
Also on 22 January 2010, Muslimova Husan was convicted for the robbery of a
house. During his detention, police obtained from him a confession after being
beaten. At trial he raised the fact that he had given a confession under
duress. However, the judge disregarded the claims[10].
Similarly a case was reported in June 2010, where 6 men were caught stealing
candy, bottles of ketchup and an old refrigerator from a school kitchen. The
accused showed obvious signs of severe physical mistreatment and reported to
the court that they had been subjected to threats and physical abuses by the
police. The judge preceded
with the case, regardless their testimonies.[11]
4. Deaths in custody are still
commonplace in Uzbekistan due the widespread practice of torture. In 2010 alone
39 people died allegedly from torture carried out in detention centres[12].
As an illustration: on 20 November 2011, Ruzikulov Alimardon Muhammadievich died in the
detention centre ATC Chirakchinskogo Kashkadarya region, as a result of inhuman
treatment imposed on him to extract a confession by force.[13]
Some of these deaths are also caused by suicide resulting from continuous
submission to torture.
5. There are various reports of cases
of violence against women, including sexual violence, in places of detention,
as acknowledge by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against
Women (CEDAW) in its latest Concluding Observations on Uzbekistan[14]. The female’s prison # 64/7 located in the Zangiata,
Tashkent district, holds more than 3,500 female prisoners. One of its sections
is only populated with pregnant women and prisoners with small children. Most
of these women got pregnant as a result of rape during their pre-trial
investigation. As an illustration: Nasiba Zhumaniezova,
born in 1980 and sentenced by Khoresm Oblast Court for drug addiction charges,
got pregnant while staying at the Zangiata female prison. During the time up
to her pregnancy, she did not receive any outside visits[15].
Similarly, Holiskhon (last name witheld at her request) was sentenced in 2009
to a lengthy term of imprisonment for unlawful possession of narcotics. During
the preliminary investigation, she was raped, became pregnant and gave birth in
prison[16].
6. The government’s response to a
reported claim of torture is usually to redirect it to the Prosecutor’s office.
The results of these investigations are never shared with the complainant and
reports from the Prosecutor’s office remain confidential. On the very rare occasions
when a criminal case is brought against the perpetrator, the latter will hardly
ever be charged with a more serious offence than “exceeding his official
authority”, which will only cause the person to getting dismissed from office.[17]
7. The Government has taken no
substantial measures to prevent or eliminate the practice of torture and put an
end to the existing impunity with regard to this practice[18].
The only measures taken by the Government consist of leading workshops and
conferences, to which independent journalists and human right defenders are
frequently not invited. These measures are clearly insufficient to prevent the
practice of torture.
Recommendations:
8. Ensure, prompt, thorough and impartial investigations into all
complaints of torture and ill-treatment by an independent body[19]
and prosecute, bring to justice and punish all perpetrators, according to the
crime of torture foreseen in the Criminal Code;
9. Establish an independent medical
service to conduct medical examinations of all detainees promptly after arrest
and on a regular basis, in line with the Istanbul Protocol. Cases of death in
custody should specifically require their attention. Results of such medical
examination should be communicated to the counsel and relatives of the prisoner;
10. Ratify the Optional Protocol of the Convention
against Torture before the next UPR cycle and honor
its commitment to establish a national independent mechanism to monitor all
places of detention, as accepted by the State during the first UPR cycle[20];
11. Comply with and assess the
efficiency of the National Plan of Action for the implementation of the
recommendations made by the Human Rights Committee, following consideration of
the third periodic report (2010–2013), in particular with regard to the recommendation
11 dealing with torture.
II. Forced labour of children and adults
12. The rights of children in Uzbekistan
are recognised and protected in various legal instruments[21].
In addition, Uzbekistan has ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,
the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International
Labor Organization (ILO) Convention № 29 «On Forced Labour», №105 «Оn the
Abolition of Forced Labour», № 138 «Оn the Minimum Age of Employment», and №
182 «Оn the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst
Forms of Child Labour». On 12 September 2008, the National Programme for the
Implementation of the ILO Conventions and Compliance with their Standards and
Working Conditions was adopted. In paragraph 11 of the National Programme the
government established the rules prohibiting organisations and individuals
forcing minors to work.
13. Forced child labour continues,
however, to be a major problem in the country, as acknowledged recently by the
Human Rights Committee.[22]
The ILO Committee on the Application of Standards also indicated in 2010 and
2011that Uzbekistan violated these conventions, but the Uzbek government denied
the existence of forced labour or responded by introducing new administrative
documents that have actually had no real impact on the actual situation on the
ground.
14. According to the monitoring results,
school students from almost all cotton-growing areas of the country were
brought to work in the cotton harvest, including in the regions of Bukhara,
Samarkand, Kashkadarya, Surkhandarya, Syrdarya, Tashkent, Khorezm, Jizak, Fergana,
Namangan, Andijan, and the Republic of Karakalpakstan. Although the State committed in the first UPR cycle to ensure regular
inspections of harvesting practices to monitor and guarantee full compliance
with international standards[23], it refused the visit of an ILO expert during this
year’s cotton harvest.[24]
15. There is
no firm stake on the government side to publicly condemn child labour or firmly
prohibit any type of support to this practice, as undertaken during the first
UPR cycle and stated on various reports submitted to the UN Committee on the
Rights of the Child[25]. As an illustration, the
“National Programme for
the Implementation of the ILO Conventions and Adherence to Standards and
Conditions of Work” has been concealed from the general public, because of the deterrent effect it has on families with children
working in the cotton field.[26] Children are sent to pick cotton by the
decisions made by the administration of schools, and these are acting on the
orders of the district and regional administration heads. Various means of
coercion are in use, but a special role is given to prosecutors' offices and
the police[27].
16. Over the past three years the
practice of forcing parents and students to write and present to the school
written statements in which they request permission to participate in the
cotton harvest has spread. The children and parents are threatened if
they refuse to participate in the cotton harvest. A school teacher from Jizzakh region, Ziyodullo
Razzakov[28] was
dismissed for objecting to the school management for attracting children to
harvest cotton. Razzakov appealed against his dismissal through the Jizzakh
inter-district court, but his appeal was dismissed. He is currently out of work
and received several threats.[29].
17. In September 2011, the public was
made aware of a document prepared by the Department of the Interior of the
Khorezm region[30],
which explicitly states the centralised mobilisation of students and children
to pick cotton in the Khorezm region[31].
These kinds of press releases are distributed to the local media and at the
staff meetings of the provincial authorities during the harvest season. The
farmers, heads of local administration (khokimiyat), heads of schools and other
educational institutions and law enforcement agencies take part in these
meetings.
18. The productivity targets are based on age groups and
no hourly pay rate are in effect. They are paid from 100 to 125 Uzbek soums (4
to 5 cents) per Kg, which is less than half as much than the cotton pickers in
neighbouring South Kazakhstan. Furthermore, the children who are forced to live
on the cotton fields, see the cost of their meals and transportation deducted
from their salary. It was also reported that on some occasions part of their
salary is injected in the school fund.[32]
19. Cotton pickers, including children, university and
college students and adults, work in harsh climatic conditions and are exposed,
without the necessary safety equipment, to pesticides, herbicides and
defoliants. Furthermore, no clean drinking water is provided and they are fed a
meagre diet. The barracks accommodating the children do not meet basic health
and safety standards. On 12 September
2011, a student from the Pediatrics Faculty of the Andijan Institute of
Medicine sent an email to Radio Liberty describing the harsh working conditions
for children.[33]
About 2 million
children every year are interrupted from the educational process at different
times, from 15 to 70 days a year to participate in the cotton campaign.
20. The forced labour has resulted in many children’s
deaths in 2010-2011. On
15 November 2010 Oysha Suvanova and Abdurasul Suvonov, were returning home from
the cotton fields and were hit by a car along the motorway Jandar-Karakul of
Bukhara region. Ahrorjon Abdumannonov, followed
the same fate when he was coming
home from the cotton fields near Olmazor-Papskiy district of Namangan region.
Similarly, Erkin Eshboev was crushed by a tractor on 13 September 2010 on the
“Usmana Yusupov”, Farm, Nishan District of Kashkadarya region. On 17 October
2010, Lochin Norboev died of acute respiratory virus (ODS), since he had a cold
and he did not receive medical care during the cotton harvest in the village of
Shohusmon, Forij district of Jizzakh region.[34]
21. Not only pupils of schools and
students but the farmers themselves also are subjected to coercion. Those who
do not grow cotton, but more profitable crops in their fields, or use their
private fields for grazing livestock, are prosecuted.
22. The
forced mobilisation of labour has significantly increased in the past two years
due to the government’s attempt to shift the burden of forced labour from
children to adults. Until recently a large part of the work force came from
social sector institutions in the provinces. It was reported that also workers
of the Uzbek-American joint venture General Motors Uzbekistan were sent to work
in the 2011 cotton season, apparently with the tacit consent of the company’s
management.[35]
However, recently it has become a widespread practice in other sectors, under
threats of employment dismissal. As of 1 April 2012 approximately two million
adults are being forced to engage in cotton harvesting.[36]
23. In
18 September 2011, many companies in the
capital, including privately-owned ones, were given instructions “from above”
to send their employees to the cotton fields[37].
As an illustration, the employees of a large engineering factory in the capital
received instructions from the administration of the factory that they were to
harvest cotton. The company’s management put together a list of 50 people.
According to undisclosed sources, the Ministry of Health received orders to
send from each district of Tashkent city 1000 medical personnel to the cotton
fields[38].
On 20 September 2011,under the order of the Ministry of Health, 10 family doctors
from Polyclinic No. 13 in Tashkent city went to harvest cotton for a length of
10 days. At the end of September, approximately 50 teachers from Tashkent’s
Uspensky music school were sent to pick cotton in Jizak.
24. The World Bank has provided
assistance to the Uzbek agricultural projects such as ‘the Rural Enterprise Support Project” regardless of the
involvement of child labour or force labour of adults.[39]
Recommendations:
25. Accept a visit of an ILO mission to monitor the situation of forced
labour during the next harvesting season;
26. Investigate and take
administrative and penal actions towards those officials who incentivise or
facilitate the labour of children in cotton fields, as committed to do during
the first UPR cycle[40],
and provide statistics of those actions during the next UPR cycle;
27. Ensure the
conduct of an independent investigation of all child labour complaints;
28. Include members of independent human rights NGOs in a national
supervisory body monitoring the practice of child labour.
III. The independence of the judiciary, right to a
fair trial and arbitrary detention
29. During the
first UPR cycle, the State of Uzbekistan considered as implemented the
recommendation to ensure that the Judiciary has sufficient independence from
the Executive branch[41].
The Human Right Committee has recently flagged, however, the lack of separation
of powers between the Judiciary and the Executive, since the latter renews
judges’ positions every five years[42].
If officially all judges are drawn from the Senate, in practice the power of
appointment resides in the hands of the presidential administration.[43]
More importantly, the judges do not benefit from judicial immunity.
Additionally, the Executive approves the Court’s budget.
30. Furthermore,
although Uzbekistan has passed legislation in 2008 guaranteeing the rights of
every detained suspect or accused to contact a lawyer or relative immediately
upon arrest,[44] it
still remains unclear how these guarantees are enforced in practice. There are
clear indications, however, that more than 99% of the prosecutor's motions for detention are met by the
courts since the new law was passed, showing that alternative measures to detention
are hardly ever considered.[45]
In addition, a recent study showed that prosecutors do not present sufficient
evidence to court to justify the need of detention measures, and pre-trial
judges do not sufficiently cross-examine the claims against the evidence
presented by the defence when imposing detention. Counsels appointed ex officio do not argue sufficiently in
favour of the defendant, and almost 99% of the detention decisions appealed are dismissed.[46]
31. There are also cases of arbitrary
detention being reported. On 7 May 2010, S.Alimov was taken to the police
department of Yakkasaray, Tashkent. He was neither informed that he was being
arrested nor of his rights and he was interrogated without the presence of a
lawyer. The record of his detention does not reflect the actual time of arrest,
since almost 24 hours were left unreported.[47]
32. The Human
Rights Committee has also expressed its concern over the recent legal reform,
giving the Ministry of Justice authority to examine and renew lawyers’ licences
every three years.[48]
33. Trials are usually held in closed
sessions without giving notice to the relatives of the defendants and without
granting the defendant an opportunity to be provided with legal counsel.
Convictions are often based on undisclosed evidence. As
an illustration: the trial of Norboy Kholjigitov, head of the HRSU
section[49]
in the district of Ishtikhan, arrested on 4 June 2008, was held in closed
session. The defendant and his lawyer repeatedly filed a request for disclosure
of evidence, including the audio recording of the interrogation. The Court,
however, refused to do so[50].
According to Ezgulik’s 2011 report, 75% of the criminal accusations were
related to crimes against public safety and no defendant was acquitted in the
whole of 2010. [51]
Appeals are usually dismissed.[52]
34. Furthermore,
many defendants are tried several times for the same offence violating the
prohibition against double jeopardy.[53]
Furthermore,
there are intrinsic issues with regard to the use of hearsay in court and
failure to uphold the obligation of cross-examination in court. For example, in
the case of Muslimova
Husan, cited above, the trial panel rejected exculpatory evidence and the
defendant was convicted without the possibility of appealing the judgement.
Recommendations:
35. Ensure
mandatory access to legal counsel upon arrest to all suspects and the efficient
functioning of a system of legal aid;
36. Ensure the
principle of
equality of arms and automatic access for the defence to exculpatory materials
and evidence presented by the prosecution in court;
37. Establish
procedures and objective criteria in the law for the appointment, sufficient
long tenure, promotion, suspension and dismissal only on serious grounds of
misconduct or incompetence of the members of the judiciary, ensuring total
independence from the executive branch, including financial independence;
38. Ensure that all trials
are held publicly as a general rule and that, even when the public is excluded
under justified reasons, the judgment is made public in all circumstances,
except where the interest of children otherwise requires or the proceedings
concern matrimonial disputes[54].
IV. Freedom of expression: the persecution of Human
Rights Defenders, NGOs and journalists
39. One of the foundations of democracy
is the existence of accountability mechanisms, of which the independent media
constitutes a cornerstone. In Uzbekistan, the National Information Agency is
under the tight control of the government. The 2006 legislation is still in
force, limiting the right to disseminate information only to journalists and
NGOs registered or accredited by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Similarly,
the Council of Ministers runs the three most influential newspapers (i.e.
Pravda Vostoka, Halk Suzi, Narodnoye Slovo) as well as the four national
channels. The July 2011 hunger strike organized by two journalists of TV and
radio channel “Yoshlar” in protest of media censorship is a salient
illustration.[55]
40. The Human
Rights Committee has recently expressed concern about the continued harassment,
assault, intimidation and imprisonment of human rights defenders, journalists
and NGOs members.[56]
The Committee also noted that international NGOs are being denied entry to the
State. It also perceived a failure to investigate claims of assault,
harassment, threats of journalists and human rights defenders[57].
41. Human rights defenders and
journalists are indeed often subjected to inhuman treatment and torture upon
detention. As an illustration: the journalist Dilmurod Sayid, despite his critical
health condition, was not released on amnesty.[58]
42. Although
during the first UPR cycle the State considered as implemented the
recommendation to adopt
effective measures to prevent any harassment or intimidation of
journalists and activists, there is no open policy in this regard within the
government. There are
no cases either of persecution of journalists or human right defenders reported
to the police because the State is the actual perpetrator of those threats and
the victims do not trust the judicial system. The Monitoring Centre of the
Communications and Information Agency produces « an expert assessment » of
journalistic publications which is then used as ground for prosecution. As an illustration: Сriminal charges of
"slander" and "defamation" were brought against journalists
Abdumalik Boboyev, Elena Bondar, Vladimir Berezovsky and photographer Umida
Akhmedova based on "an expert assessment" of the Agency.
43. Despite the fact that the State
considered during the first UPR cycle that the registration procedures are
applied fairly and without discrimination[59],
Ezgulik is the only surviving independent local NGO in Uzbekistan, registered
in 2003 thanks to the international pressure. Vasilya Inoyatova reports that
Ezgulik is regularly the object of government retaliation. Two of Ezgulik
activists are currently serving long prison sentences. Recently, the hard disk
of Ezgulik’s head office computer containing confidential information was
stolen. Ezgulik’s 13 branches located all across the country are regularly
denied their registered status. Furthermore, Ezgulik’s investigation into the
mysterious death of the famous artist Dilnura Kodirjonova lead them to face a
charge of defamation for which they were fined three million 500 thousand som
by the Municipal Civil Court and their equipment was confiscated.
44. The
foreign press and international organizations are also increasingly being
subjected to reprisals from the government. In 2011, the authorities closed
Human Rights Watch’s office in Tashkent. Uzbek journalists who are denied the
right to legally work with non-accredited foreign media are forced to work
under a pseudonym. Although the State mentioned during the first UPR cycle that
the order of accreditation of foreign journalists established by the national
legislation corresponded with the international standards[60],
Voice of America (VOA), RFE/RL and the BBC were denied official accreditation
after the 2005 Andijan massacre. On 13 September 2010, Abdumalik Boboev, a
journalist working with VOA, was charged by Tashkent city prosecutor’s office
with libel, illegally crossing the border and the publication of material containing
threats to national security[61].
45. The Human
Rights Committee has also noted the existence of criminal provisions (art.
139-140 Criminal Code) to convict journalists and human rights defenders who
criticise the government authorities for defamation and insult[62].
The government has not
indicated any intention to amend or repeal these provisions, which are still
widely used as legal grounds for conviction. In 2010 more than 10 journalists
were serving jail time for political charges. As an illustration: in early
2010, Umida Ahmedova was charged with libel of the entire nation under Article
139 and 140 for a photo of the rural life.
46. Amend articles 139 and 140 of the
Criminal Code on defamation, in order to avoid any type of imprisonment with
regard to these offences;
47. Provide accreditation to all foreign
news agencies and international NGOs which have been divested since 2005;
48. Release from detention journalists
and human rights defenders convicted on questionable charges and put an end to
criminal prosecution of journalists for their professional activities;
49. Abolish the practice of resorting to
“expert assessments” issued by the Monitoring Centre of Communications and
Information Agency as a basis for prosecution.
V. Freedom of religion:
illegal religious groups and the “extremists”
50. The Human Rights Committee has
recently highlighted the failure of the government to uphold the freedom of
religion, particularly in regard to its non-registered religious groups[63].
51. Approximately 89% of the population
in Uzbekistan is Muslim. Of these, 94% belongs to Sunni Islam and only 6% to
Shia Islam. Of the remaining population, 9% are Russian Orthodox and 2 % follow
other religions. All religious groups must be registered, but the government
regularly denies registration to some groups. Although the State disregarded
the recommendation made during the first UPR cycle to simplify the registration
procedure, since it considered it as already implemented[64],
the burdensome registration’s requirements persist and lead to some religious
groups being refused registration on a technicality. Unregistered
religious groups are deprived of their right to worship. They experience raids,
harassment, detention and criminal charges. The registration of religious
communities solely enables the State to reinforce its control over these
religious groups. This process results in systematic and thorough religious
censorship. As an illustration: The “Jehovah’s Witnesses” have been denied
registration 23 times in Tashkent and 13 times in other regions.[65]
52. Article 19 of the Law on Freedom of
Conscience and Religious Organisations, providing for the right to distribute
religious objects and religious literature, is subordinated to the Regulations
of the Cabinet of Ministers on Religious Affairs, obliging all dissemination of
religious material to be licensed by the Committee on Religious Affairs, under
the Cabinet of Ministers. Without permission and examination by the Committee,
distribution or personal use of religious material is strictly forbidden.
53. The Human Rights Committee also held
that article 216(2) of the Criminal Code, (Violation of Legislation on
Religious Organizations) unlawfully criminalises proselytism and other
missionary activities[66]. There are indeed many provisions in the
Criminal Code restraining freedom of religion and discriminating against
religious groups: article 159, referring to anti-constitutional activity,
article 216 against the illegal public association and religious organisations,
article 244 (1) for disseminating material constituting a threat to public
security and public order and article 244(2) for involvement in religious
extremist, separatist, fundamentalist or other banned organisations. Article
201 of the Administrative Code (Violation of the procedure for organisation of
meetings, rallies, marches and demonstrations) allows for repeat religious
offenders to see their fines increased from 200 to 300 times the minimum
monthly wage under the Criminal Code and from 50 to 100 times the minimum wage under
the administrative code.
54. Despite being the majority of the population,
Muslims also face strict controls on their religious activities. A Special
Commission under the Cabinet of Ministers annually establishes restriction on
the number of people who are allowed to perform the Hajj. For instance, in the
mosque of “NovzRa” Chilanzar, district of Tashkent, the participation to the
Hajj is limited to 4,500 worshipers a year. According to the Imam of the mosque
“NovzRa”, organizing the trips for the “Hajj” and “Umrah”, the participation
quotas have been reached until 2014. The government also prohibits the training
of imams for Shiites in the country and does not recognise any training
received abroad. Individuals are being persecuted for wearing the hijab[67].
Public places of worships are strictly controlled and supervised by law
enforcement agencies and special security services. As an illustration: in
Autumn 2010, while mass worship was taking place in the mosque
of,Mid Chirchik and Upper Chirchik districts, the police were posted
at the door of the mosque and started detaining students simply for attending
the Friday’s worship.[68]
In an attempt to obstruct the work of foreign NGOs, the State has a times
resorted to false accusations of missionary activities.
55. The Committee also acknowledged that
some citizens are being arbitrarily detained for their religious beliefs[69].
Members of religious groups that are deemed extremist are banned and
criminalised by the State. These banned organisations are vaguely called
“Wahhabi” and also include: izb
ut-Tahrir (HT), Akromiya, Tabligh Jamoat. A great number of followers of the Turkish
Muslim theologian Said Nursi, accused of “extremism”, were convicted between
2009 and 2010 with sentences ranging from 6 years to 12 years[70].
It appears that they were convicted for religious extremism because they
practiced Islam outside the State controlled traditional stream. [71]
56. Many cases of extremist suspects
being subjected to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment have been reported.
As an illustration: On 7 June 2011, Mirzaev Abdulaziz who had been convicted
for extremism on 15 May 1999, died while serving his sentence in the prison of
Kashkadarya colony 64/51. Upon examination, his body showed signs of torture
and the law enforcement officers pressured the victim’s relatives to hurry the
burial. There is strong evidence indicating that there is a widespread use of
torture in facility 64/6 located in the city of Chirchick, Tashkent region. The
facility, run by Colonel Ulugbek Khamidov, detains more than 350 religious
prisoners convicted for “anti-constitutional activity” (Art.159 Criminal Code).[72]
Recommendations:
57. The requirements for the
registration of religious groups must be simplified and applied without
discrimination de iure or de facto against religious minorities;
58. All cases of religious extremism allegations
must be promptly, thorough and independently investigated by an independent
body.
59. The Jaslyk prison and the detention
center 64/51 in Chirchick, Tashkent region, should be subjected to a visit of a
Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion.
60. All the legal provisions restricting
freedom of religion in a disproportionate and unjustified manner, such as the
criminalisation of proselytism, restrictions on the freedom to prepare and
distribute religious texts or publications, or the persecution of followers of
alternative beliefs on the grounds of “extremism” or “fundamentalism”, should
be immediately abrogated.
The situation of Andijan survivors and returnees
61. The Human Rights Committee raised
the issue of the failure by the State to conduct an independent and
comprehensive investigation to establish accurately the circumstances of the
events in May 2005, during which 700 civilians were killed by the military and
the security services.[73]
62. After the Andijan massacre, the
authorities continued to carry out “sweep” operations, a prolongation of the
May 2005 events[74].
These security agents were assigned to identify and neutralise all individuals
who either participated in the protest or witnessed the events[75].
The methods used to advance this identification process included: blocking the
escape route of refugees into neighbouring Kyrgyzstan, arresting as many people
as possible from the village Bogi Shamol, arresting all individuals injured who
are considered as de facto active
participants and use of torture during interrogations to extract any relevant
information[76].
63. Many of the people arrested died
from torture. To our knowledge at least 9 bodies were returned to their relatives.
The bodies had various signs of torture including: open and close fractures of
the limb and ribs, bruises around the nose, ears and mouth, stab wounds, nails
hammered on fingers, sexual organs chopped off, bullet wounds. As an
illustration: Giyosiddin Umarov was tortured to death, his body was returned on
29 December 2010 from the central prison in Tashkent.
64. According to data collected by Human
Rights Watch, as many as 245 individuals were prosecuted and convicted between
September 2005 and January 2006. From these 245 cases only 15 trials were held
in open courts. To date, we have been able to retrieve data for only 241
accused. Most of them seem to be serving an open-ended prison sentence.
Additionally, there are a number of persons who have gone missing after their
arrest. We have been informed of 15 missing people to date and more are
expected to have gone missing but have been intimidated by the State into
keeping silent.
65. The relatives of refugees who still
live in Uzbekistan are being persecuted by the authorities. They are regularly
called in for questioning, threatened, humiliated and abused. Neighbourhood
committees called makhalla hold
meetings in which they publicly condemn the families of refugees or victims of
the Andijan events. Teachers also publicly shame the children of the Andijan
victims. The government refused to issue exit visas for family members of
refugees. Consequently, many refugees had to risk returning to Uzbekistan in
order to be reunited with their family.
66. In the best cases, the refugees who
decided to return to Uzbekistan are forced to make a public apology for crimes
they did not commit. They are also called in for questioning every 15 days
during which time they are asked to give a detailed description of their daily
activities and are subjected to insults. Their stigmatisation makes it nearly
impossible for them to find a job. Employers who hire a returnee would be
called in for questioning by the SNB.
67. More often, returnees are arrested
upon their arrival and convicted for anti-constitutional behaviour. As an
illustration: in March 2010, Dilorom Abdukadirova, who had been granted refugee
status in Australia, returned to Uzbekistan. Upon her arrival, she was arrested
and sentenced to 10 years of prison time for “illegal border crossing” and
“attempting to overthrow the constitutional order”.[77]
Recommendations:
68. There should be a thorough and
independent investigation of the cases of torture of Andijan prisoners;
69. Information relating to the arrested
missing people should be released.
70. An independent complaint mechanism
should be created to enable the family of refugees and survivors of Andijan to
entrust it with legal complaints without the risk of further victimization.
71. The State should not interfere with
visa application of refugees relatives.
[1] See articles 24, 25 and 26 of the Uzbekistan
Constitution. Article 235 of the Penal Code also prohibits forced confession
and torture “by an investigator, prosecutor or other officials of the law
enforcement bodies or penal institutions”.
[2] Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review,
Uzbekistan, A/HRC/10/83, December 2008, para. 105.1 and 2, and Addendum to the
Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review,
A/HRC/10/83/Add.1, para. 3.
[3] A series of practical recommendations were disregarded by the State
during the first UPR cycle on the grounds that they pertained to measures
« already being implemented», Ibid, para. 106.
[4] “Torture in
Uzbekistan: still systematic and unpunished”, by Human Rights Alliance of
Uzbekistan, Committee for the Liberation of Prisoners of Conscience,
Uzbek-German Forum for Human Rights submitted to the 98th session of the UN
Human Rights Committee: “Available through the OHCHR website http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/ngos/JointStatement_Uzbekistan98.pdf
[5] Mr. Kosimov was finally convicted to 15 years imprisonment in a trial
that did not respect the due process. Information obtained by CCPR Centre from
reliable sources in the country.
[6] Information obtained by CCPR Centre from reliable sources in the
country.
[7] Article 235 of
the Penal Code
[8] Concluding
Observations of the Human Rights Committee: CCPR/C/UZB/CO/3 (HRC, 2010) para.
11.
[9] Information obtained by CCPR Centre from reliable sources in the
country.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Analytic Report of the Human Rights Situation in the Republic of
Uzbekistan for the Year 2010 by Human Right Society of Uzbekistan- Ezgulik,
(Tashkent, 2011).
[13] Ibid.
[14] CEDAW,
CEDAW/C/UZB/CO/4, February 2010, para 24.
[15] Information obtained by CCPR Centre from reliable sources in the
country.
[16] See also the case of Normatova Dilfuza Mardon kizi of Surkhandarya
region. Information obtained by CCPR Centre from reliable sources in the
country.
[17] “Torture in
Uzbekistan: still systematic and unpunished” by the Human Rights Alliance of
Uzbekistan, the Committee for the Liberation of Prisoners of Conscience and
Uzbek-German Forum for Human Rights submitted to the 98th session of the UN
Human Rights Committee. See also Concluding Observations of the Human Rights
Committee: CCPR/C/UZB/CO/3 (HRC, 2010), para. 11.
[18] As recommended
by Germany, United Kingdom, France, The Netherlands, Denmark, Canada, France,
Sweden and Ireland during the first UPR cycle, Report of the Working Group on
the Universal Periodic Review, Uzbekistan, A/HRC/10/83, December 2008, para.
106.4.
[19] Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: CCPR/C/UZB/CO/3
(HRC, 2010) para. 11.
[20] Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review,
Uzbekistan, A/HRC/10/83, December 2008, para. 104.11.
[21] The Constitution of Uzbekistan provides for the protection of the
child: Article 37 guarantees fair conditions of labour and prohibits any forced
labour; article 65 protects motherhood and childhood. Furthermore, the January
2007 Laws for the protection of the rights of the child establish that all
persons under the age of 18 should be considered children (Art.3) and that all
children should be protected against exploitation (Art.10). Article 20
establishes that employment is allowed from age 16 but individuals who have
reached 15 years of age may be employed with the written consent of one of
their parents. Employment of students must be light, causing no harm to health
and development and not interfering with their studies, Report by the
Association of Human Rights in Central Asia on Forced Labour in Uzbekistan on
Forced labour in Uzbekistan (February 2010, France).
[22] Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: CCPR/C/UZB/CO/3
(HRC, 2010) para. 23.
[23] Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review,
Uzbekistan, A/HRC/10/83, December 2008, para. 104.31.
[24] “A Chronicle of
Forced Labour: Report from the Uzbekistan Cotton Harvest 2012” by Uzbek-German
Forum for Human Rights, Issue 3, September 18, 2012.
[25] Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review,
Uzbekistan, A/HRC/10/83, December 2008, para. 104.30. In
the third and fourth national reports of the Republic of Uzbekistan on the
implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Section G.
"Abuse and neglect" (art. 19), paragraphs 686, 687, 688, 689, 690,
691, 992, 1012, state that the State provides protection against coercive forms
of labour, including child labour. Responsibility for the implementation of
obligations under international agreements and national laws and relevant
regulations of the President and the Cabinet of Ministers is vested in the
General Prosecutor's Office of Uzbekistan and the Ministry of Labour and Social
Protection of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Monitoring of implementation is the
responsibility of the Prime Minister of Uzbekistan.
[26] Information gathered by Association des Droits de
l’Homme en Asie Centrale from reliable sources in the country.
[27] ETAT № 306 of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan, Tashkent. Accepted October 15, 2009, at
19 hours
and 5 minutes.
[28] The
article "Jizzakh teacher - opponent of child labour - fired" January
12, 2012 online free journalists “Uznews.net” http://www.uznews.net/news_single.php?lng=ru&cid=3&sub=top&nid=18750 ;
[29] The article "How many years we repeat the world..." November
3, 2011 http://pressuzinfo.uz/index.php?title=sport&nid=7&my=112011&st=0
[30]The full text of a document of the Ministry of Interior and its
translation attached: http://ahrca.ru/images/stories/cotton_mia_press_release_ru.pdf
[31] "In order to provide quality cotton
harvest in 2011 in a short time period it is considered necessary to attract
202 641 people to pick cotton, of which 34 800 are students of the
universities, colleges and schools. To accommodate them, 463 temporary hostels
(302 field huts (shiypon)), 109 houses of private individuals and 52 tents,
etc.) are provided."
[32] “Forced Child Labour during the Cotton harvest in Uzbekistan: Monitoring
results for the period from September to November 2011” by Uzbek-German Forum
for Human Rights submitted to 63rd session of the Committee on the Rights of
the Child, (March 2012).
[33] Ibid.
[34] See also the case of Bakhodyr Pardaev, a pupil of
school number 24, grade 6 of Chirakchi district of Kashkadarya region, hit by a
car on 24 September 2011, and the case of Jahongir
Ergashev, pupil of grade 9 of Guzar professional college, who died on 7
September 2010 in the village of Keroit, Guzar district of Kashkadarya region,
as a result of a conflict with classmates during the cotton harvest on the
field. Information
gathered by Association des Droits de l’Homme en Asie
Centrale from reliable sources in the country.
[35] http://www.fergananews.com/article.php?id=7099
(retrieved on 11.09.2012).
[36] Report on the results of harvest survey in 2011, Uzbek-German Human Rights Forum.
[37] Information obtained by Uzbek-German human Rights Forum from reliable
sources in the country.
[38] Ibid.
[39] The project
report: ‘Project
Appraisal Document on a Proposed Credit in the Amount of SDR 41.3 million (US$
67.96 million Equivalent) to the Republic of Uzbekistan for a Rural Enterprise
Support Project, Phase II, World Bank: May 8, 2008 (report No: 43479-UZ,
available online< http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/main?pagePK=64193027&piPK=64187937&theSitePK=523679&menuPK=64187510&searchMenuPK=64187283&siteName=WDS&entityID=000333037_20080522025832>
vividly conveys a misperception of the magnitude of the issue of child labour.
[40] Report of the Working Group
on the Universal Periodic Review, Uzbekistan, A/HRC/10/83, December 2008, para.
104.26.
[41] Ibid, para 106.6.
[42] Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: CCPR/C/UZB/CO/3
(HRC, 2010) para. 16.
[43] “Torture in Uzbekistan: still systematic and unpunished” by the Human
Rights Alliance of Uzbekistan, the Committee for the Liberation of Prisoners of
Conscience and Uzbek-German Forum for Human Rights submitted to the 98th
session of the UN Human Rights Committee.
[44] Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated 11.07.2007,
number ISG-100 "On amendments and additions to some legislative acts of
the Republic of Uzbekistan in connection with the transfer to the courts the
right to authorize the detention" adopted by the Legislative Chamber on 15
June 2007, approved by the Senate on 29 June 2007 and entered into force on 1
January 2008.
[45] The Prosecutor General’s Office announced that in 2008 "... in the past, prosecutors made 16,610 applications for
detention on remand of which 16 338 of these applications were granted by the
courts, and 248 were declined."
[46] Survey of an expert group of practicing lawyers
based
on evidence obtained monitoring criminal cases for
about a year after the entry into force of the 2008 Law.
[47] Information obtained by CCPR Centre from reliable sources in the
country.
[48] Concluding
Observations of the Human Rights Committee: CCPR/C/UZB/CO/3 (HRC, 2010) para
17.
[49] Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan.
[50] Information obtained by CCPR Centre from reliable sources in the
country.
[51] Analytic Report of the Human Rights Situation in the Republic of
Uzbekistan for the Year 2010 by Human Right Society of Uzbekistan- Ezgulik,
(Tashkent, 2011).
[52] Ibid.
[53] Analytic Report
of the Human Rights Situation in the Republic of Uzbekistan for the Year 2010
by Human Right Society of Uzbekistan- Ezgulik, (Tashkent, 2011)
[54] Human Rights Committee, General Comment 32, CCPR/C/GC/32, July 2007,
para. 29.
[55] Analytic Report
of the Human Rights Situation in the Republic of Uzbekistan for the Year 2010
by Human Right Society of Uzbekistan- Ezgulik, (Tashkent, 2011)
[56] Concluding
Observations of the Human Rights Committee: CCPR/C/UZB/CO/3 (HRC, 2010), para.
24.
[57] Ibid.
[58] Analytic Report
of the Human Rights Situation in the Republic of Uzbekistan for the Year 2010
by Human Right Society of Uzbekistan- Ezgulik, (Tashkent, 2011)
[59] Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review,
Uzbekistan, A/HRC/10/83, December 2008, para. 106.21.
[60] Addendum to the Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic
Review, A/HRC/10/83/Add.1, para 45.
[61] Information obtained by Uzbek-German Human Rights Forum from reliable
sources in the country.
[62] Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: CCPR/C/UZB/CO/3
(HRC, 2010), para. 24.
[63] Concluding
Observations of the Human Rights Committee: CCPR/C/UZB/CO/3 (HRC, 2010), para.
19.
[64] Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review,
Uzbekistan, A/HRC/10/83, December 2008, para. 106.7.
[65] Information obtained by CCPR Centre from reliable sources in the
country.
[66] Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: CCPR/C/UZB/CO/3
(HRC, 2010), para. 19.
[67] Information obtained by CCPR Centre from reliable sources in the
country.
[68] Ibid.
[69] Ibid.
[70] Analytic Report of the Human Rights Situation in the Republic of
Uzbekistan for the Year 2010 by Human Right Society of Uzbekistan- Ezgulik,
(Tashkent, 2011).
[71] Information obtained by CCPR Centre from reliable sources in the
country
[72] Information obtained by CCPR Centre from reliable sources in the
country
[73] Concluding
Observations of the Human Rights Committee: CCPR/C/UZB/CO/3 (HRC, 2010), para.8.
[74] “Andijan refugees speak out” by Andijan: Justice and revival.
[75] Ibid.
[76] Ibid.
