On 17 April 2014
at the Tashkent City Court a meeting of the Appeal Panel on the case against
Fakhriddin Tillaev and Nuraddin Djumaniyazov took place. The sentence is
upheld.
On 17 April 2014 at a meeting of the Appeal Panel Nuraddin Djumaniyazov
and a lawyer Polina Brownerg who represents Fakhriddin Tillaev were present.
The sentence is upheld. The human rights activists intend to appeal to a
Supervisory Court.
On 13 March 2014 Polina Brownerg, a lawyer representing Fakhriddin
Tillaev filed appeal with the Appeal Panel of the Tashkent City Criminal Court.
The defence was counting on annulment of the sentence for lack of evidence.
By Judgement of the Shaykhantahur
District Criminal Court of the Tashkent city of 6 March 2014, two human rights
activists who are members of the “Mazlum” Human Rights Centre, Fakhriddin
Tillaev and Nuraddin Djumaniyazov were charged found guilty of a crime of human
trafficking under Article 135, Part 3, Subsection “d” of the Criminal Code of
the Republic of Uzbekistan.
.jpg) |
| Nuraddin Djumaniyazov |
The term of the sentence
(clarified information). Tillaev was sentenced to 10 years and 8 months of
imprisonment. After applying an act of amnesty, his sentence stands at 8 years
and 9 months. Djumaniyazov was sentence to 9 years of imprisonment; after
applying an act of amnesty, his sentence stands at 6 years. Both terms are
deemed to start on 2 January 2014.
Specifics of the practice of Uzbek Courts. It is not the first time that a sentence read out in the Court room is
different from the one that was handed down. On 6 March 2014 the Judge Sanjar
Makhmudov announced that both human rights activists received identical terms
i.e. 8 years and 3 months. It later emerged that Tillaev’s term was 8 years and
9 months and Djumaniyazov’s term was 6 years. The Judgement does not explain
why Tillaev received a more severe punishment than Djumaniyazov.
A summery of the
Appeal Application. The Application
states that according to the Judgement Fakhriddin Tillaev is found guilty of
being a member of an organised group which included Nuraddin Djumaniyazov and
Khurram Berdiev, who lives in Kazakhstan; in September 2013 they sent the
citizens of Uzbekistan Farkhad Pardaev and Erkin Erdanov to city of Shimkent of
Kazakhstan with promises of salary of 600-1,000 USD.
According to the narrative
of the Judgement, Tillaev did not travel with the “victims” to Kazakhstan and
is only indirectly linked to this story. According to the “victims”, he met
with them at a market place, when he approached them asking to sign up to the
Trade Union of Freelance Labourers. He did not see them after that.
Fakhriddin Tillaev stated that
he has nothing to do with Fakhriddin Pardaev and Erin Erdavon getting into to
Kazakhstan. This was confirmed by the victims themselves, who passed the border
crossing legally, without assistance of Tillaev and obtained a registration
once there. When they arrived at the place of work, it turned out that they
know nothing about construction works. Pardaev and Erdanov were offered to
return to Uzbekistan. However, they asked very insistently to be given any
work. They did not do a good job of even not complex tasks. Pardaev and Erdanov
partially confirmed this; a citizen of Kazakhstan Zhanar Demeuova gave a
witness account to this effect. According to her, they lacked any desire to
learn anything or do any work. She added that no one abused or mistreated them.
Pardaev and Erdanov always
had mobile phone is their possession. They could have contacted the police in
Shimkent at any time or report to their family if they were subjected to
beating, or abuse. Somehow, they never took this option.
It is absolutely unclear,
why the victims who have skills as an electric, plumber, driver and plasterer
did not want to work locally where they lived. These skills are very much
sought after and well paid in Uzbekistan.
When they returned to
Uzbekistan, neither Pardaev nor Erdanov sought medical care for alleged bodily
harm caused. But, thanks to timely help from Abdulla Tojiboy Ogli and under his
dictation they put down a complaint to the Tashkent city Department of the Ministry
of Internal Affairs in which they wilfully distorted the facts in relation to
their time in Kazakhstan.
During the investigation
stage, a statement provided by Zhanar Demeuova was included in the case
materials. She asserted that Pardaev and Erdanov did not work, were not skilled
and only caused expenses.
The Court received an
application to call Ms Demeuva as a witness, she agreed to give evidence, but
the Court rejected the application.
The investigation was
expedited and it took only 1 hour 50 minutes to charge Tillaev, question him as
accused and to allow time for him to read the case materials against him. The
case was referred to the Prosecutor’s Office on the same day.
It took 2 hours to question
Tillaev, Djumaniyazov, Pardaev, Erdanov and Abdulla Todjiboy Ogli. After this,
the Court left the room to elaborate on the Judgement and rejected an
application by Fakhriddin Tillaev requesting a medical examination.
The application by Tillaev
requesting a medical examination was filed on 23 January 2014. The
investigating officer K. Abduzhalolov accepted it. But, up to this day, neither
Tillaev nor his lawyer received the results of the medical examination.
On 5 March 2014, one day
before the hearing, the investigating officer reported in writing that the
application was sent to the Warden of the Tashkent Prison. It is not clear what
provision of which law was the investigating officer guided by when deciding
that the Warden of the Tashkent Prison was an appropriate official to consider
this application as opposed to a forensic specialist.
The defence is of an
opinion that the case lacks evidence of Fakhriddin Tillaev’s guilt. The lawyer
applied to repeal the Judgement of the first instance on the basis of the
following provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of
Uzbekistan:
- Article 497-1 (Decisions Subject to Bringing
Complaint and Protest against by Way of Appellate Procedure);
- Article 497-2 (Persons Who Have Right to Bring
Complaint and Protest against Sentence by Way of Appellate Procedure);
- Article 497-3 (Procedure for Bringing Appellate
Complaint and Protest against Sentence);
- Article 497-4 (Procedure
for Extending Time Limit for Bringing an Appellate Complaint or Protest).
The Association for Human Rights in Central Asia is of an opinion that
the hearing by the Appeal Panel was not objective: it relies on the evidence
given by persons who could not prove that they were subjected to exploitation
in Kazakhstan; even if the exploitation took place connection of Tillaev and
Djumaniyazov to this is not proven.
