Uzbekistan: overturn the unfounded criminal sentence against blogger Otabek Sattoriy and release him

 

The authorities of Uzbekistan should overturn the sentence passed against blogger Otabek Sattoriy and release him from prison, Association for Human Rights in Central Asia (AHRCA) and International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR) said today.

On 30 March 2023, independent blogger Otabek Sattoriy is facing a court hearing in Navoi, where he is currently serving a prison sentence, concerning an incident on 10 March 2023 in which he allegedly violated prison rules[1] by queuing with other prisoners for food in the canteen instead of taking his food separately (as he has special dietary requirements). He received an official warning and tomorrow, the court will rule on whether Sattoriy infringed prison rules and decide on the next steps. IPHR and AHRCA believe this is a new attempt to put pressure on the blogger and his family. 

Previously, on 10 May 2021, Muzrabad District Court in the Sukhodarya region sentenced Sattoriy to six and half years in prison after finding him guilty under one count of slander (article 139 of the Criminal Code) and four of extortion (article 165 of the Criminal Code). He appealed the ruling but in July 2021 Samarkand Regional Criminal Court dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court of Uzbekistan subsequently rejected Sattoriy’s cassation complaint and upheld his sentence in April 2022. His lawyers tried twice to appeal against the Supreme Court’s decision, but without success.

Sattoriy has been serving his sentence in prison colony No. 4 near the city of Navoi since 28 July 2021.

There are credible allegations that the criminal case against Sattoriy was fabricated to punish him for peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention recently called for Sattoriy’s immediate release after concluding that “the basis for the arrest and subsequent detention of Mr. Sattoriy was in fact his exercise of freedom of expression.” 

An independent blogger, Sattoriy is known for speaking out about corruption. Prior to his arrest he had repeatedly criticized and accused representatives of local authorities in the Surkhandarya region of corruption, including the former mayor (hokim) and other officials[2],  on social media and in YouTube^[3] videos under the name of "Halk Fikri" - "People's Opinion". ^[4] As his posts drew the attention of the general public, he began to receive death threats from unknown people warning him to stop blogging.

On 30 January 2021 plainclothes police officers detained the blogger near his house and on 1 February 2021, Termez City Criminal Court remanded him in custody. He was accused of extorting a new mobile phone from the director of the local Sherabad bazaar in December 2020 by threatening him to publish information about shortcomings at the bazaar unless he gave him the phone.

During the trial Sattoriy stated that he had gone to the bazaar in December 2020 together with a journalist of the media outlet effekt.uz to report about food prices after President Mirziyoyev had promised that there would be no price hike ahead of the New Year festivities. Two men who introduced themselves as employees of the bazaar reportedly told Sattoriy that it was not allowed to take photos at the bazaar. After a verbal fight the men reportedly grabbed Sattoriy’s mobile phone and damaged his jacket.

According to one of Sattoriy’s former lawyers Umidbek Davlatov[5], the blogger then filed a complaint with the district authorities. Sattoriy’s lawyer and a fellow journalist both stated that the director of the bazaar subsequently offered Sattoriy to compensate him by replacing the damaged phone with a new one.

Prior to his detention on 30 January 2021, the director of the bazaar reportedly called Sattoriy, and they agreed to meet near the blogger’s house. However, as soon as the director gave him the new phone in the car and Sattoriy was walking away, plainclothes police officers approached and detained him at the gate of the house. His family was not told where he was. At 9 p.m. that evening the house where Sattoriy lived with his parents was searched by several dozen officials. Sattoriy’s family were informed of his whereabouts only two days later.

He was charged with extortion in connection with the phone and shortly afterwards additional charges of slander and extortion were brought against him based on complaints filed by individuals whom Sattoriy had accused of corruption in his blogs.

During the first seven days of his detention, nine victim complaints were allegedly lodged against Sattoriy, although not one had been registered before he was arrested. Later, those who lodged complaints against Sattoriy admitted that they were put under pressure to make these false statements.

There are also credible reports that Sattoriy was subjected to torture and ill-treatment during pre-trial detention from 30 January to 11 March 2021 at Termez Police Station. He was not allowed family visits, nor to receive parcels of food, clothes or medicines.

He suffered from headaches, cystitis, kidney infections, high fever and convulsions, exacerbating his asthma and allergies. He caught Covid-19 but his relatives were not allowed to pass him medicines.

Sattoriy was threatened during questioning. The head of Termez City Polic department reportedly told him “You’ll be behind bars for the rest of your life”. His first state-appointed lawyer who represented Sattoriy 31 January to 1 March 2021 failed to take action to protect Sattoriy and was close to the police investigators. Sattoriy was not allowed a lawyer of his own choosing at this point.

From 31 January 2021 until the end of the year, Sattoriy’s family came under pressure from law enforcement officials:  including surveillance; being followed; cars parked outside the house.

According to Sattoriy’s supporters, it transpired during the trial that the director of the bazaar had kept the bazaar running although the tax authorities had ordered it to close down. This was apparently why no filming was allowed in the bazaar and employees reacted aggressively when Sattoriy and the journalist – who were not aware of this background – started taking photos.

The circumstances of the case clearly suggest that case against Sattoriy was fabricated in retaliation for his independent blogging on corruption related issues. His case also fits into a broader pattern, in which independent journalists and bloggers repeatedly have been detained and criminally prosecuted in Uzbekistan after raising issues that are inconvenient to those in power.

IPHR and AHRCA call on the Uzbekistani authorities to put an end to the persecution of Otabek Sattoriy and to promptly release him in accordance with the decision issued by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on his case. In order to prove the genuine nature of their commitment to human rights reform, the authorities must safeguard freedom of expression, including on social media platforms in accordance with its international human rights obligations. As long as Sattoriy remains behind bars, the authorities must ensure that he has access to adequate medical assistance for his health problems and protect him from abusive treatment.

Annex: Detailed background to the case:

On 20 December 2020, Otabek Sattoriy and journalist Farhad Ismailov, (from “Effect.Uz”[6]) visited Sherabad market to report on food prices on the eve of the New Year holidays, after President Mirziyoyev had issued instructions on 16 December 2020 not to hike prices on food during the holiday. As Sattoriy filmed the prices on the food stalls on his phone, he was attacked by two market employees who snatched his mobile phone, disabled the phone and refused to return it.

Sattoriy lodged a complaint with Sherabad District local authority (hokimiyat) and met  the head of Sherabad District Administration[7], who contacted the Director of the Sherabad market (Lochin Turaev), and the acting head of the Sherabad Regional Police Department, Sherkhan Allamuradov, asking them to investigate the theft. [8]

Officials questioned the two market employees about the robbery and Sattoriy’s phone was returned to him but it was damaged. The police officer failed to open a criminal case into the incident (theft). [9] On 28 January 2021, the Deputy Head of Sherabad District Administration asked Sattoriy if he had been given a new phone, and called the Sherabad market director to ask when he would replace the damaged phone. On 29 January 2021 Sattory broadcast a statement on youtube[10] saying that he had been summoned to court, and that he feared it was an act of provocation. He was arrested the next day.

On 30 January 2021, the Sherabad Market director, Lochin Turaev, arranged to meet Sattoriy at his house to give him the new phone, and they met and talked in the director’s car. When the meeting ended, at about 5.00 p.m., Sattoriy began to walk away holding the new phone when he was surrounded by some 30 law enforcement officials who detained him, handcuffed him and took him to another car. At 9 p.m. that evening the house where Sattoriy lived with his parents was searched by several dozen officials.[11]

Sattoriy’s family were informed of his whereabouts only two days later. Sattoriy’s mother, said: “Neighbours told us that people in civilian clothes had grabbed our son and taken him away against his will. We watched the recording on our house security camera. We did not understand who these people were, and why they had taken Otabek away. We looked for him everywhere, called the police, but could not find out anything.”

On 2 February 2021, senior police investigator P. Mamatmuratov took on the criminal investigation against Sattoriy, despite not being initially named as an investigator.[12]

On 3 February 2021, the head of the Investigation Department under the Sukhandariya Regional Department of Internal Affairs issued a decision to set up another investigative group under Mamatmuratov, involving all (over 100) police investigators and operational officers in Surkhandarya region in the case, as if Sattoriy stood accused of a serious crime.[13]

During the first seven days of his detention, nine victim complaints were allegedly lodged against Sattoriy, although not one had been registered before he was arrested. Later, those who lodged complaints against Sattoriy admitted that they were all put under pressure to make these false statements.

There are also credible reports that Sattoriy was subjected to torture and ill-treatment during pre-trial detention from 30 January to 11 March 2021 at Termez Police Station. He was not allowed family visits, nor to receive parcels of food, clothes or medicines. In early February his relatives passed him some food packages, but on 16 February the police investigator called them and told them to take the parcel back.

According to Sattoriy’s family, from 30 January to 20 February 2021, he was kept in a cold cell wearing only a T-shirt. An ambulance was called to him, but he was not treated. He suffered from headaches, cystitis, kidney infections, high fever and convulsions, exacerbating his asthma and allergies. He caught Covid-19 but his relatives were not allowed to pass him medicines.

Sattoriy was threatened during questioning. The head of Termez City Police department reportedly told him “You’ll be behind bars for the rest of your life”.

Sattoriy’s first state-appointed lawyer represented him from 31 January to 1 March 2021 but failed to take action to protect Sattoriy. Sattoriy was not allowed a lawyer of his own choosing at this point.

From 31 January 2021 until the end of the year, Sattoriy’s family came under pressure from police officers: including by being under surveillance and having cars parked outside the house.

On 10 May 2021 Muzrabadsky Regional Court of Sukhandarinsky region found Sattoriy [14] guilty of extortion of a mobile phone from the Director of the Sherabad market, of two counts of Slander (Article 139 part 2 point g) and three of Extortion (Article 165). He was sentenced to six and a half years behind bars.

          Legal defence

In Uzbekistan, few lawyers agree to defend bloggers and critics of the authorities for fear of reprisals. According to our information, high ranking officials took an interest in Sattoriy’s trial, including threats towards the family and lawyers. Sattoriy was initially provided with a state- appointed lawyer, who failed to act in the interests of his client and allowed him to sign documents against his interests.

A second lawyer failed to speak out on procedural violations committed during the investigation and trial. The lawyer reportedly received threats from persons who reportedly knew the khokim of Termez City, and then became less active in the caes.

From 26 March to 11 May 2021, lawyer Khursanoy Kuchayeva from Termez represented Sattoriy during the trial.

At the appeal stage, lawyer Shakhriddin Kholmuradov joined Sattoriy’s defence team and in October 2021 lawyer Shavkat Tadjiev. Tadjiev has studied the materials of the criminal case, met Sattoriy several times, and on 10 December 2021 filed a cassation complaint with the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan. Four lawyers Shavkat Tajiyev, Shakhriddin Kholmuradov, Shavkat Ergashev and Umidbek Davlatov participated in Sattoriy’s defence at the cassation court.

          Trumped up charges

The verdict found Sattoriy guilty of five of the nine counts that were considered during his trial.

-The first concerns about the extortion of a mobile phone (Article 165 part 2 point "a")

Lochin Turaev, the Market Director (market Chinara Gul Baraka LLC), filed a complaint with the Surkhandarya Department of Internal Affairs accusing Sattoriy of extorting a Vivo-X50 mobile phone worth 5 million soums (about $500). The court relied solely on Turaev’s testimony and that of the investigation. According to the defence, the court did not fully and objectively examine records of correspondence, an analysis of which indicates that changes have been made to the information that fixes the time of messages and other chronological information in favour the prosecution. The court also refused to consider Sattoriy’s claim that his phone had been damaged during a robbery at the market.

-The second count concerns extortion of two apartments (Article 165, part 3 "Extortion of property on a large scale")

In 2020, Otabek Sattoriy became the owner of two apartments in a multi-storey building. The court sentenced him for extortion of someone else's property on a large scale, in relation to these two apartments. 

Sattoriy registered these two apartments as his property at the request of his mother and sister, after they received housing as compensation for two demolished houses.[15]

On 4 October 2018, a trilateral agreement was concluded between the head of the Termez City Administration Israil Khudaiberdiev, the developer Tulkin Shopulatov, and Sattoriy’s mother and sister (Hidolat Islamova and Sitora Sattoriy) establishing that they would receive two apartments in lieu of their demolished houses, but without specifying the size of the apartments. This document stated that the amount outstanding for these apartments would be paid by the local authority budget.  This transaction was formalized with a notary.

After Sattoriy complained, the developer called him to give him a warrant for the possession of a three-room and two-room apartments.

On that day, Otabek's mother was sick and unable to move because she had high blood pressure, she asked to reschedule the date of the meeting, but the developer insisted on signing the documents on that day. His pregnant sister also felt unwell, and they agreed that the developer would issue warrants for the two appartments to Otabek Sattoriy, as they trust him. However, the Sattoriy family did not obtain the registration for these flats until Summer 2020 and therefore Otabek Sattoriy continued to write complaints to the President.

On 4 February, 2021, the developer Shopulatov issued a demand for the return of the two apartments, as his company had not received full payment from the local authorities and the contract of the sale was thus terminated.

At Otabek Sattoriy’s trial, Shopulatov testified in the Muzrabad court (first instance) that he had no claims against Otabek Sattoriy and that he had written the original complaint against Sattoriy under pressure from the khokim of Termez, Khudaiberdiev. However, the court did not take this into account. At the appeal stage Shopulatov changed his testimony in support of Khudaiberdiev. The court also heard from a notary that Sattoriy had paid for the two flats in full.

The accusation of extortion on a large scale of two apartments, in fact relates to legal compensation for two demolished houses. Otabek Sattoriy did not take someone else’s property. According to the materials of the criminal case, Sattoriy complained to the virtual complaint service and did not meet with officials (the hokim and the developer), therefore, the accusation of extortion on an especially large scale is unfounded.

-The third count refers –to extortion of 10 000 US dollars (Article 165 part 2 point "a" Extortion on a large scale)

After Sattoriy was arrested, Utkir Turdiyev, Deputy Director of the Surkhandarya regional territorial branch of the joint-stock company "Hududgaztaminot", (gas company) stated that he was seeking 10 000 US dollars in damages from Sattoriy for posting videos on social networks about the distribution of gas cylinders to the population using fraudulent schemes. Although no evidence of extortion was presented in court, Sattoriy was sentenced on this charge.

- The fourth count concerns Article 139 (“Slander”) of part 3, paragraph “a”, “d”, slander, in order to commit a grave or especially grave crime from mercenary or other vile motives Mastona Akhmedova, Head of Human Resources of the Surkhandarya branch of the Republican Specialized Scientific and Practical Medical Center of Oncology and Radiology, in Termez City, claimed that Sabokhat Ravshanova, with whom she is in conflict, caused her reputation “irreparable damage” when she criticized her in a video statement that distributed by Sattoriy.

The statement referred to doctors from the hospital holding a banquet while patients were waiting for them.  The court did not accuse Ravshanovaof slander, making the accusations against Sattoriy absurd and unfounded.

- The fifth count concerns slander, out of selfish or other vile motives (Article 139 (“Slander”), part 3, paragraph “d”).

Sattoriy posted a video statement from Saodat Vakhidova about Nasiba Norbayeva, former registry office employee at the Public Services Agency of Denau district in Surkhandarya region. He posted the statement on the Khalk Fikri (People’s Opinion) telegram channel and in the Facebook group of the same name. This statement claims that Norbayeva accepted bribes in relation to this, additional charges were brought against Sattoriy on 24 February 2021 (under Articles 139 (“Defamation”) and 140 (“Insult”). During the trial, the court rejected the accusations of insult due to lack of evidence of his guilt and left the accusations of libel.

On several occasions, Sattoriy and his lawyers asked for a legal assessment of the correspondence between Sattoriy and market director Turaev, who accused him of extorting the mobile phone. Analysis of this correspondence shows that the case file contains fragments of correspondence, with distorted information in the chronology of messages and individual statements.

The court sentenced Sattoriy for soliciting a $10,000 bribe on the basis of perjury.

Sattoriy’s trial illustrates that the judicial authorities in Uzbekistan, including the Supreme Court, are not independent from the executive. 

The evidence presented by Sattoriy's defence team clearly points to violations of Article 95-1 (“Evaluation of Evidence”) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Uzbekistan, which states that evidence is subject to assessment in terms of relevance, admissibility and reliability.

According to paragraph 1 of article 484 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Uzbekistan, incomplete or one-sided investigations provide a basis for annulment or amendments of a court decision.

An additional reason for annulment of the sentence is the fact that Otabek Sattoriy was subjected to illegal detention, as confirmed by the conclusions of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary detentions, on 10 February 2023, indicating violations of international obligations that Uzbekistan has undertaken to fulfill.

Currently, Otabek Sattoriy is being held in KIN-4 in the city of Novoi, having already served one third of his sentence. He is suffering from stress and poor health.

Based on the above, we call on Uzbekistan to release Otabek Sattoriy.

---

[1] Decree №174 of 29.12.2012, https://lex.uz/acts/2216121

[2] Tura Bobolov was the former hokim of the Surkhandarya region; Хоким Сурхандарьинской области Тура Боболов покинул пост 24 декабря 2022 года, причина не указывается. https://kun.uz/ru/news/2022/12/26/tura-bobolov-osvobojden-ot-doljnosti-xokima-surxandarinskoy-oblasti?ysclid=lecjjcees9360790335

[3] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpgE1ePcdCDhEe10p4Zb3yA

[4]https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%A2%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0_%D0%90%D0%B1%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87

[5] Umidbek Davlatov has already passed away in the meantime.

[6] https://effect.uz/

[7] Ziyodullo Davlatov was removed from his post in January 2023

[8] article 166 of the Criminal Code of Uzbekistan.

[9] in violation of Article 324 (“Statement of persons”) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The original team of investigators from Surkhandarya Regional Police Investigative Department were N. Normuminov, B. Khushbokov, A. Atamurodov, F. Aliboev and M. Mamatkoriev.

[10] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxI2CfjCY-g

[11] There was also a search of a Captiva car belonging to an employee of the American company Khayotbakhsh Zamin. This car was not indicated in the search warrant and therefore the seizure of documents and things from the car was not legal.

[12] A violation of procedural law, as he was not part of the already established investigative group.

[13] This investigative decision does not explain the decision to involve “all” 100 investigators and operational officers in the region in the investigation into this one case.

[14] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN7VR4TUhEQ

[15] In October 2018, by decision of the administration of the city of Termez, two houses were demolished. Hidolat Islamova (mother of Otabek Sattoriy) was the owner of the house on Salomatlik street No. 1 (151 sq. m.) and Sitora Sattoriy (Sattoriy's sister) - on Salomatlik street 1 "A" (46 sq. m.). As compensation, the administration of Termez initially allocated one-room and two-room apartments to the owners, with an area much smaller than their demolished houses. In response to this decision of the khokimiyat, Otabek Sattoriy sent a complaint in the interests of his mother and sister to the online reception of the President of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev. Only after the fourth complaint in 2020, the khokimiyat revised the decision and allocated a three-room apartment of 88 sq.m for Khidolat Islamova and a two-room apartment of 72 sq.m. m. for Sitora Sattoriy.

 

Uzbekistan: Briefing for visit of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

 

Briefing on human rights concerns in Uzbekistan for UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, 

March 2023

 

Dear High Commissioner,

Prior to your upcoming visit to Uzbekistan, Association for Human Rights in Central Asia (AHRCA) and International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR) would like to take this opportunity to provide some information about our concerns regarding the human rights situation in the country. We would be most grateful if you are able to raise these concerns and recommendations with the Uzbekistani authorities during your visit. 

Overall, despite much-publicised steps by President Shavkat Mirziyoyev to improve Uzbekistan’s image in the eyes of the international community, human rights in the country remain severely restricted and too often violated. 

In particular, we draw your attention to the fact that during the process of legal reform, human rights defenders receive large numbers of complaints related to persecution for criticism, injustice and abuse of power from individual citizens, especially journalists and bloggers. Victims of torture and extrajudicial killings have not been able to access justice. There were also numerous reports of violations of social rights. 

We would like to draw your attention to the following serious human rights concerns and recommendations to the Uzbekistani authorities:

Referendum on the Constitutional amendments scheduled for 30 April 2023

A period of public consultation on amendments to the Constitution of Uzbekistan was held last year from 25 June to 1 August 2022. Comments and input were collated through a dedicated 2 website, “My Constitution”, which received 62,238 proposals in the first stage and 150,505 in the second stage. A further nearly 10,000 comments and analytical remarks were sent directly to the Parliamentary Legislative Chamber.

However, although these figures look impressive, in reality insufficient time was allowed to properly take citizens’ comments into account and outspoken criticism of the process of constitutional reform has led to security risks for individuals, especially those in Karakalpakstan.

Serious violations related to the 2022 Karakalpakstan events

Thousands of people gathered in the Republic of Karakalpakstan in western Uzbekistan on 1-2 July 2022 to peacefully protest against proposed constitutional amendments, which would have deprived the republic of its sovereignty and its right to secede from Uzbekistan. According to available information, the authorities used force to disperse protesters in the capital Nukus and other cities in the Republic, using methods such as water cannon, rubber bullets, stun grenades and smoke bombs, and clashes between police and demonstrators were reported. Videos circulating on social media showed numerous people, who appear to be dead or badly injured lying on the pavement. According to official information provided later, 21 people died and over 270 required medical assistance in connection with the protests.1 At the time of writing the authorities have not made public the names of those killed nor details about the circumstances under which they died. Civil society representatives believe that the casualties of the recent events are higher than the official figures suggest, and estimate that at least 50 people died.

The Uzbekistani authorities depicted the events as an attempt to seize power in Karakalpakstan and accused protesters of seeking to storm government buildings. They imposed a month-long state of emergency in the Republic and suspended internet access, thereby restricting access to information. Internet access in Karakalpakstan today remains weak and unreliable.

Over 500 people were detained in connection with the protests. While many of them were released after being subjected to administrative penalties, some faced criminal charges for allegedly infringing on the constitutional order and other offences. Among those detained and charged in connection with the protests are well-known journalists, bloggers and activists from the region, who publicly criticised the proposed constitutional amendments and are accused of playing leading roles in the protests.

AHRCA and IPHR are seriously concerned about credible reports of excessive use of force, arbitrary detentions, and torture and ill-treatment of detainees in connection with the measures taken to put down the protests in the Republic of Karakalpakstan. There is a pressing need for the authorities to impartially and thoroughly investigate all allegations of human rights violations related to the mass protests and to ensure accountability for them.

Some of the hundreds of people who were detained in connection with the protests, including well-known journalists, bloggers and activists who had publicly criticised the proposed constitutional amendments, were subsequently criminally charged. A trial against 22 people charged in relation to the protests, which began in the city of Bukhara in November 2022, was undermined by the lack of transparency and other shortcomings of fair trial guarantees. Although the first hearing was broadcast publicly, in an attempt to ensure transparency, the live broadcast was stopped as defendants made allegations about having been tortured; and subsequent trials continued behind closed doors.

Among those on trial were lawyer and blogger Dauletmurat Tazhimuratov and journalist Lalagul Kallykhanova who were charged with encroaching on the constitutional order and other serious crimes for allegedly playing leading roles in the protests. In January 2023, the court handed down its verdicts: Tazhimuratov was sentenced to 16 years in prison, while Kallykhanova was given a suspended seven-year sentence and placed under probation for three years. Tazhimuratov vehemently denied all charges, while Kallykhanova confessed to wrongdoing and expressed remorse, giving rise to concerns that she might have been pressured to do so in exchange for a lighter sentence, although she subsequently made a statement saying that her sentence was “deserved”. 

Tazhimuratov complained of having been subjected to torture and ill-treatment during detention but the authorities failed to investigate his complaints impartially and thoroughly, and the fact that he spoke out only made his situation worse. Other alleged victims of torture and ill-treatment refused to speak out in court, fearing reprisals.

All the defendants on trial and their relatives were required to sign non-disclosure agreements, forbidding them to discuss their cases with human rights and international organisations. They were provided with state-appointed lawyers, with the exception of Tazhimuratov.

Recommendations to the Uzbekistani authorities: 

— impartially, thoroughly and transparently investigate all allegations of human rights violations related to the mass protests in Karakalpakstan and ensure accountability for them, bring the perpetrators of abuse to justice and ensure redress for victims. 

Freedom of expression

Harassment of journalists and bloggers

Under President Mirziyoyev, and encouraged by the government, blogging began to develop in Uzbekistan. This initially raised hope for democratic reforms. However, bloggers have been used to boost the positive image of the government, and when they speak out critically about corruption or human rights violations, many face persecution and prosecution for alleged slander, extortion and fraud, in trials which fail to present sound material evidence of the alleged crimes committed.

Numerous individuals have faced retaliation for blogging on corruption and other issues considered sensitive by the authorities. In accordance with amendments to the Law on Informatisation adopted in March 2021, the owners of online resources, including bloggers, are required to ensure that their resources are not used for the dissemination of ‘knowingly false’ information, ‘defamatory’ information, or other information defined as impermissible through vaguely worded language. The failure to promptly remove such information, if detected, might result in restrictions in accessing the online resources in question.

Monitoring of the situation by independent groups indicates that between January 2020 and November 2022, more than 20 leading bloggers came under pressure from the authorities because of their criticism of state bodies and officials.3 Several bloggers were convicted on criminal charges initiated in apparent retaliation for their posts on issues considered sensitive by the authorities. For example, in January 2022 blogger Miraziz Bazarov was convicted of slander and sentenced to three years’ restriction of liberty because of social media posts critical of the authorities on issues such as the lack of transparency over the government’s use of COVID-19 related loans and double standards amongst officials in relation to LGBTQI+ people. Another blogger, Otabek Sattoriy was sentenced to 6 and a half years imprisonment on trumped up charges of libel and extortion, in retaliation for his criticism of corruption of local officials. In February 2022 Sobirjon Babaniyazov was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for allegedly insulting President Mirziyoyev on social media.

In addition, in 2022 alone, more than 20 attacks on bloggers and journalists were reported, including Karakalpakstani lawyer and blogger Dauletmurat Tazhimuratov, whose house was reportedly stormed by security forces in July 2022 in retaliation for him having spoken out on the constitutional rights of Karakalpakstani people. He was arrested and allegedly subjected to physical abuse in custody. As already mentioned above, in January 2023, Tazhimuratov was sentenced to 16 years in prison.

In another case illustrating the continued dangers associated with journalistic work in Uzbekistan, human rights activist, independent journalist and former political prisoner Aziz Yusupov was arrested in September 2022 and subsequently charged with drug possession, in an apparent attempt to prevent him from participating in a human rights event in Warsaw and from exercising his right to freedom of expression. Although Yusupov was released on a restricted freedom sentence in December 2022, the conditions of his release do not allow him to continue his human rights activities and he, among other prohibitions, cannot use the internet or participate in an association for the next five years. 

We are concerned about the fate of blogger Abdukadyr Muminov, who has been in detention for over a month and has not been provided with a lawyer of his choice. He was initially provided with a state-appointed lawyer who failed to work in the interests of his client. Muminov has reportedly 3 See more in November 2022 update on Uzbekistan, refused four state-appointed lawyers and his family have not been able to see him. The authorities do not respond to requests from the lawyer engaged by his family.

Recommendations to the Uzbekistani authorities: 

— Cease intimidation and harassment of media, bloggers and journalists;

— Publicly condemn such actions by official bodies and ensure that any such incidents are thoroughly and impartially investigated, and the perpetrators brought to justice.

Restrictions to access to internet resources 

The Uzbekistan government uses the practice of internet shutdowns, blocking and disabling websites, social media platforms and internet messengers in order to silence critical voices. To date, many sites of international human rights organisations are not accessible, especially the pages in Russian or Uzbek. The authorities particularly clamp down on access to information and media freedom during periods of heightened security concerns, such as the Presidential elections and the civil unrest in Karakalpakstan. 

Critical independent media were often targeted with cyber-attacks during the last year. At least two independent media outlets were subject to attacks and removal of content in June and July 2022 after publishing critical information related to the political environment. Previously, access to social media was restricted in early November 2021 by the state agency in charge of oversight of telecommunications, after it accused several platforms of failing to store user data on servers located in Uzbekistan, a requirement introduced under a law adopted in January 2021.

Internet services were disrupted in June 2022 in the region of Karakalpakstan, after bloggers, journalists and activists expressed their discontent with the proposed constitutional amendments. As the protests were violently met by the government, the Internet blackout made it difficult to obtain and verify any information in relation to the events. Several important articles concerning the events in Karakalpakstan were also taken down for some time from independent outlets websites.

Recommendations to the Uzbekistani authorities:

— Ensure the right of access to information is respected by creating an environment where journalists, civil society activists and citizens are able to collect and disseminate information of public interest;

— Cease the arbitrary blocking of access to websites and mobile phone services and ensure that people have unhindered access to information on- and offline.

Freedom of peaceful association and assembly 

The operating space for civil society remains seriously restricted in Uzbekistan. The process of registering new NGOs remains fraught with difficulties, and the NGOs that manage to get registered are mainly those which work in humanitarian fields for the provision of help to victims of trafficking and to support persons with disabilities. It is particularly difficult for NGOs working in the human rights field to get registered. Several independent NGOs have repeatedly been denied registration on grounds that appear to be politically motivated.

For example, since 2019 human rights defender and former political prisoner Agzam Turgunov has received 11 rejections when attempting to register the NGO ‘Human Rights House’, with the Ministry of Justice referring to alleged minor technical mistakes in the application. Even the involvement of well-known lawyer S. Mayorov has not helped overcome the obstacles to registration for the organisation. In 2022, in an attempt to prevent Turgunov from exercising to perform his human rights work, the human rights defender was further subjected to harassment and intimidation by state officials. In a welcome development, in September 2022 human rights activist Nikolay Kungurov was able to register a human rights organisation, but only after Kungurov stated he would take legal action against the authorities for not implementing a decision of the UN Committee for Human Rights. 

NGOs are also subject to excessive reporting requirements and restrictions on their activities and access to funding. A government resolution adopted in June 2022 further increased state interference into NGO activities by introducing a new mechanism for state approval of foreign grants received by NGOs and compulsory partnership with state agencies on the implementation of foreign funded NGO projects. This new mechanism contradicts the Law on Non-Profit Organisations currently in force, as well as the provisions of the Constitution of Uzbekistan.

Public assemblies in Uzbekistan remain rare as punishments and risks for protesters are high. Despite the risks of detention and fines facing protesters, in the last two years several protests took place in relation to illegal demolitions of private housing, and the switching off of energy supplies. The events in Nukus in July 2022 in Karakalpakstan led to the largest protests amongst the general public. Prior to the summer 2022 Karakalpakstan events, mass protests had not taken place in Uzbekistan for a long time, reflecting the restrictive environment for the exercise of the freedoms of peaceful assembly and expression in the country.

Recommendations to the authorities of Uzbekistan: 

— Swiftly register the independent civil society group Human Rights House and other peaceful civil society groups seeking registration in Uzbekistan; 

— Provide an enabling environment for civil society by bringing national legislation in line with international standards and implementing them in practice.

Torture and ill-treatment 

President Mirziyoyev’s stated promises to address the root causes of torture have led to some steps to address the endemic problem in the country. Legislation was adopted stipulating that evidence obtained under torture is not admissible in court and to improve transparency in the criminal justice system. Additionally, medical examinations for prisoners were introduced after transfers from pre-trial detention to prisons, to check for signs of torture or ill-treatment. 

However, our organisations’ monitoring has not found cases where investigations into incidents of torture or ill-treatment have been opened if injuries are detected through the medical examinations. This is especially the case for pre-trial detention centres run by the State Security Service of Uzbekistan. Attempts to find out why this is happening have led to medical reports being destroyed from archives. 

However, despite these positive steps, cases of torture continue to occur and are typically not properly investigated by the authorities. Most recently two journalists were allegedly tortured after critical comments about the situation in the Karakalpakstan autonomous region. 6 Despite their online statements about their treatment at the hands of law enforcement services no steps were taken to effectively and thoroughly investigate the complaints, identify the perpetrators and bring them to justice.  

There remain numerous obstacles that prevent victims of torture in Uzbekistan from lodging complaints about torture or ill-treatment at the hands of law enforcement officials, and having their complaints investigated effectively. Moreover, detainees often refrain from lodging complaints for fear of reprisals or because they do not believe that they can attain justice through the criminal justice system. In addition, to the knowledge of the authors of this report, no victim of torture in Uzbekistan has been granted compensation for moral damages in recent years. Cases such as that of torture victim Alexander Trofimov continue to illustrate the inability of the judicial system to impartially investigate cases of torture and bring the perpetrators to account. 

Additionally, our organisation remains concerned that prison authorities continue to target prisoners convicted of anti-state offences or affiliated with banned religious groups for particularly harsh treatment. 

Detention conditions for prisoners can amount to torture or inhuman, degrading treatment as they sometimes lead to injuries of prisoners and risk to life. Penitentiary institutions are currently undergoing renovations but our monitoring indicates that heating systems still function poorly, there is a shortage of water including drinking water, that prisoners' access to medical care is insufficient and restricted, even for the disabled and those living with AIDS. 

Recommendation to the Uzbekistani authorities: 

— Set up a genuinely independent mechanism which is properly resourced and allowed to investigate allegations of torture and ill-treatment. 

 Criminalisation of homosexuality and persecution of LGBTI

Alongside Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan is the only former Soviet country that has not decriminalised homosexuality. In 2022, research by IPHR and partners demonstrated that lesbians, gays, bisexual and trans people (LGBT) in Uzbekistan continue to be at constant risk of serious human rights violations, including intimidation, humiliation, extortion, torture and ill-treatment, without any possible recourse to justice.

Article 120 of the Criminal Code of Uzbekistan punishes consensual sexual relations between men by up to three years’ imprisonment. Information submitted to IPHR by its local partners in January and February 2022 respectively indicates that 36 persons were convicted under the Article in 2021, 25 of them to terms of imprisonment. However, these statistics represent only the mere tip of the iceberg and, in reality, many more people live under the looming threat of Article 120 in their daily lives.

Some official representatives continue to claim that criminalisation of homosexuality is justifiable on grounds including religion, culture, tradition and public opinion, and state that decriminalisation would have negative implications for society and for the country’s reputation in the Muslim world. 

Recommendation to the Uzbekistani authorities:

— Decriminalize consensual sexual relations between men and swiftly and unconditionally release and rehabilitate all those convicted of Article 120. 

Uzbekistan: Forced evictions in Uzbekistan: families at risk

 Olga Abdullayeva and her family at imminent risk of forced eviction

Unlawful forced evictions have formed a widespread pattern of human rights violations in Uzbekistan for many years, depriving thousands of people of their property and driving them into poverty and homelessness.

     

AHRCA and IPHR monitoring shows that the Uzbekistani authorities continue the practice of forced evictions, working under the influence of private enterprises - and often with interference of the regional government structures (Khakimyat - the municipality) in the proceedings.

  

Since 2017, victims of forced evictions and illegal demolitions have begun to emerge in connection with the Tashkent City Project and similar construction projects unfolding in other cities in Uzbekistan. From Tashkent alone, our organisations have received more than 30 appeals from victims. We represent the interests of those people who have attempted to seek legal redress and attract the attention of the public and the media.

     

We have observed that during litigation in almost all courts, these people have been confronted with a biased judiciary, which has worked in collusion with developers and representatives of the khokimiyats. The courts have made decisions which violated the constitutional principle of protecting private property, under the pretext that developers are carrying out construction of public importance. They have used the provisions of the Law “On Procedures for Seizure of Land Plots for Public Needs with Compensation" (approved by the Senate on 28 May 2022), which states that the concept of "public and state needs" is not contrary to the guarantees of property protection.

   

The Anti-Corruption Agency and the Presidential virtual reception office have to date proved ineffective in protecting victims of illegal demolitions, as they lack the authority to  investigate allegations of corruption and violations of the law by state authorities. Instead, requests are forwarded to these same authorities and often delay the procedure of defending the victims.

      

Cases of persecution of lawyers defending the interests of demolition victims have also been recorded; in some cases they have been forced to withdraw from some demolition cases, and in others their lawyer's licence has been revoked.

   

On a positive note, expert assessments by the Constitutional Court, the Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Ombudsman were heard in some cases and referred to in official letters, although they were unfortunately not taken into account in the courts’ final rulings.

   

As a result, the applicants find themselves unable to access effective remedies in Uzbekistan. Many of them additionally report that their phones have been tapped by the security services, or that they have been warned that their names are already on "political" lists.

   

UN concern

 

The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights  (CESCR) considered the Third Periodic Report of Uzbekistan on 22-24 February 2022, and adopted concluding observations on 4 March 2022. The Committee expressed concern about violations of the right to adequate housing and called on the Uzbekistani authorities to “(a) Ensure that evictions are carried out only as a last resort, and in  accordance with the law and in conformity with the provisions of the international Covenants on human rights; (b) If eviction does take place, ensure that procedural protections and safeguards are respected, such as conducting genuine consultation, ensuring adequate and reasonable notice, and ensuring the availability of alternative accommodation in a reasonable time, and the provision of legal remedies;  (c) Ensure the availability of and accessibility to affordable legal aid for  residents affected; (d) Prevent homelessness in cases of evictions by ensuring the availability of adequate alternative housing; (e) Consider its general comment No. 7 (1997) on forced evictions.“  Prior to the hearing, IPHR had submitted a joint report to the Committee in January 2022 with recommendations to the Uzbekistani authorities regarding forced (housing) evictions.

 

Case of Olga Abdullayeva

 

The following case of Olga Abdullayeva illustrates the arbitrary and illegal nature of court decisions to annul the registration of private property rights and seizure of private property, the dependence of the judiciary on local power structures, intimidating means used by powerful companies to pressure owners of apartments to sell against their will, unfair trials when people try to defend their right to own property, and the injustice of inadequate offers of compensation.

      

Olga Abdullayeva was one of the first victims of illegal demolitions and appealed to the public for support, using national and international remedies. Defending her interests, she began to blog about her fight on her Facebook page and describe each stage, making suggestions to other people in a similar situation. On 10 February 2023, she received the decision of the Supreme court (last instance), which rejected her request for the restoration of her right to property, of which she was deprived under illegal grounds.

  

There follows a chronology of events which illustrates how Olga Abdullayeva was deprived of the property rights for property she legally owns:

   

In 2018 Olga Abdullaeva and her family learned that their privately owned apartment on S.Azimova Str., 3, Yashnabadsky district, Tashkent, was to be demolished because the property had been allocated to a private company: On 27 March 2018 the Tashkent municipality (Khokimiyat) allocated a plot of land (2,1 hectares) to the private company “Training project” in the area of S.Azimova Str 2,3 and 5 Yashnabadsky District of Tashkent without Abdullayeva’s approval. Thereby, the Khokim of Tashkent exceeded his authority by taking a decision contrary to existing safeguards to protect private property. National law stipulates that in cases of land allocation and demolition of houses the owner must be consulted and give their consent.  The Ministry of Construction gave the company permission to build residential and administrative buildings in that area, although the “Training Project OOO” is registered as a retail company with no connection to the construction or real estate development industry. The building plans were approved by the Administration of Architecture and Construction of Tashkent.

  

As Abdullayeva opposed the decision, the developer filed a lawsuit against her, in order to forcibly relocate her and her family to another dwelling of the developer’s choice on Tepakurgan St., 2, Yunusabadskii district, Tashkent. Both the decision of the inter-district Mirabad Court from 11 October 2019 and the appeal decision of the Court of Tashkent from 13 March 2020 satisfied the demand of the plaintiff. Thus, the Mirabad Court decision is seen by housing rights activists as an arbitrary decision, treating the dwelling owned by Olga Abdullayeva as a municipal dwelling rather than private property. The latest court order obliged the “Training Project” company to pay 268,730,911 UZS (21,700 EUR) in compensation to Abdullayeva, a sum for which one can no longer buy property of equivalent standard in the centre of Tashkent.

  

On 11 August 2020, the Deputy Ombudsperson issued a statement on the case highlighting that several national norms and laws had been violated and that the eviction orders issued by the courts were consequently to be cancelled. On 16 November 2020 the Ombudsperson sent a communication to the Supreme Court about the case, pointing to the failure to comply with national provisions and regulations, and highlighting the need for an assessment to determine the market value of Abdullayeva’s property. On 15 December 2020 the UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing also addressed the Court raising concerns that no solution compatible with international human rights law had been found in the case.

  

On 29 December 2020 a panel of judges on civil cases to the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan ruled to annul previous decisions and send the case for re-trial. The company “Training Project” also lodged another complaint against Abdullayeva for unauthorised occupation of a plot of land. Since February 2021 both cases have been heard as one case. In the new review of the case, Abdullayeva lodged a complaint against “Training Project” and against Tashkent Land Resources and State Cadastre Administration demanding, inter alia, that the eviction be declared unlawful, and asking for adequate compensation. However, both Mirabad Court and the Court of Tashkent ruled in favour of the private company and rejected Abdullayeva’s complaints in decisions issued on 7 May 2021 and 12 October 2021 respectively. Moreover, the courts ruled that Abdullayeva should pay “state duty fees” of 10,749,233 UZS (869 EUR).

          

Abdullayeva then filed a cassation appeal which was finally rejected by the Supreme Court on 10 February 2023. The hearing was marked by numerous procedural violations, including the following:

  

● The Supreme Court’s referred to non-legal acts as the basis for its decision, such as the mayoral decision on eviction instead of a legislative act or regulation.

  

● The decision violates national law, namely article 53 of the Constitution which establishes that private property, like other forms of property, is inviolable and is under the protection of the state; articles 7 and 32 of the Law "On property in the Republic of Uzbekistan" provide that the owner can be deprived of his/her property only in cases and in the manner provided by law - that Uzbekistan ensures the constitutional rights of the owner, and does not allow forcible seizure of property. Moreover, article 7 of the Law “On the Protection of Private Property and Guarantees of the Rights of Owners” establishes that in the relationship of the owner with state bodies, the principle of priority of the rights of the owner applies, according to which all contradictions and uncertainties arising in connection with the implementation of the rights to private property set out in law are to be interpreted in favour of the owner. In addition, according to articles 4 and 5 of the Urban Planning Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, the urban planning activities of legal entities and individuals should be limited if they impede and encroach on rights and legitimate interests of the owners and users of these plots of land.

  

● The Supreme Court failed to consider the argument that the municipality’s decision was unlawful because the owner's opinion was not sought beforehand. As justification the Court stated that this question is out of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

  

● The Supreme Court rejected Abdullayeva’s claim that her property was not initially included in the allocated area to “Training Project” but was later unlawfully added, referring to the opinion of the Administration of Architecture and Construction of Tashkent and to the written statements from the Ministry of Construction. According to the Supreme Court the statements of both authorities are “reasonable and convincing” because these bodies possess “the necessary qualifications and competences”. The Supreme Court ignored a letter from the Ministry of Justice which stated that the allocation of land to “Training Project” was made without legal permission. After assessment of the compliance of the processes preceding the decision of the municipality with legal requirements, the Ministry of Justice declared the demand of “Training Project” for allocation of land unfounded.

  

● From the Supreme Court’s arguments, it is clear that the topographic map of the allocated land to “Training Project” was made after the municipality’s allocation decision. In the architectural plan there are two different maps regarding the disputed land area. In the first one Abdullayeva’s property on S.Azimova St., 3 is not included in the land allocated to “Training Project” but the map included the carriageways of streets, particularly S.Azimova St. 4.

  

In the second, adjusted, map the carriageways of streets are excluded from the land allocated to “Training Project” but Abdullaeva’s property is included. The Supreme Court argued, based on a letter of the Ministry of Construction, that the first map was only preliminary and that the ‘definitive’ second map, and its adjustments were made by the Chief Architectural and Planning Department without changing the size of the plot of land, which makes it lawful. Additionally, the Supreme Court referred mainly to non-legal acts (such as the letter from the Ministry of Construction) in order to judge the lawfulness of the architectural plan.

  

● Regarding compensation the Supreme Court also decided, based on state technical expertise, that the value of the proposed alternative apartment on Tepakurgan St., 2 in Yunusabadsky district, Tashkent (64,600 EUR) corresponded to that of the value of Abdullayeva’s property on S. Azimova St., 3 (86,000 EUR). However, this conclusion was based on cadastral documents and a state technical expertise and not conducted by a professional real estate evaluator as established by law. An independent market value calculation, commissioned by Abdullayeva with the private company UHY Appraisers, estimated the value of her flat to be more than double: 2.381.587.655 UZS (193.000 Euro).

  

Thus, the apartment offered by the developer as alternative accommodation falls far short of being of equivalent value to Abdullayeva’s previous flat and cannot be considered as adequate compensation. Furthermore, Abdullayeva was not consulted as to whether the new flat‘s location was suitable for her and her child's needs. The Company “Training Project” also lodged a complaint against Abdullayeva for “unauthorised occupation of a plot of land”, which was rejected by the Supreme Court on the grounds that after the Abdullayev family’s eviction, the plot of land will be available again.

  

With this final decision from the Supreme Court from 10 February 2023 all national remedies have been exhausted and AHRCA and IPHR are concerned that Olga Abdullayeva and her family are at imminent risk of a forced eviction from their property. At the time of writing, Abdullayeva still considers her eviction unlawful and has not accepted the alternative accommodation offered by the company “Training Project”.

  

Olga Abdullayeva has written dozens of complaints to various instances: the judiciary, the Prosecutor's Office, the Cabinet of Ministers, the Virtual Office of the President of Uzbekistan and a number of public organisations. The Constitutional Court, the Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Ombudsman all issued opinions in support of Olga Abdullayeva in 2020, concluding that her house was not on the list reflected in the Tashkent City Council decision and therefore was not subject to demolition. However, the conflicting party, represented by the developer, used falsified and forged documents, as well as false witnesses, in order to obtain the area in the city centre where Olga Abdullayeva's house is located.

  

Olga Abdullayeva has now exhausted all legal remedies and is in imminent danger of forced eviction. In this regard, the intervention of the international community and authoritative public and political figures is extremely important.

  

This case deserves the attention of investors and investment companies as it illustrates the risks and consequences of the lack of guarantees to private property in Uzbekistan.

  

Recommendations to Uzbekistan:

Uzbekistan should comply with its international commitments, including those to the right to private property under the framework of the EU GSP+ trade scheme.

Uzbekistan should protect the right to adequate housing and take steps to restore justice to Olga Abdullayeva.

Uzbekistan should carry out evictions only as a last resort, once all other feasible alternatives have been explored and and in compliance with international standards, inter alia to carry out genuine consultation with the people affected, give reasonable notice, making all plans transparent and informing all those affected, providing alternative housing, compensation and access to legal support.