Central Asia: Protests crushed, NGOs under pressure and activists intimidated

Written statement by International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR, Belgium); Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law (KIBHR, Kazakhstan); the Legal Prosperity Foundation (LPF, Kyrgyzstan); Nota Bene (Tajikistan); Turkmen Initiative for Human Rights (TIHR, based in exile in Austria); and the Association for Human Rights in Central Asia (AHRCA, based in exile in France) to the 2019 OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting[1]

The space for civil society remains narrow in Central Asia as the authorities of the region restrict freedom of association, peaceful assembly and expression in ways that contradict their international human rights obligations and commitments. The harsh response of the Kazakhstani authorities to the mass protests surrounding the presidential elections held in June 2019 cast a shadow over the beginning of new President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev’s period in office. The authorities have yet to properly investigate the documented violations of the rights of peaceful protesters during these and other protests held this year. Since taking office in late 2017, Kyrgyzstan’s President Sooronbay Jeenbekov has adopted a more constructive approach to civil society compared with his predecessor. However, as in other countries of the region, NGOs still face widespread mistrust and suspicion, especially if they work on minority rights and other sensitive issues. Uzbekistan’s President Shavkat Mirziyoyev has set out to enhance the role of civil society but has failed to initiate systematic measures to end the longstanding pattern of repression and engage in open dialogue with civil society actors. In Tajikistan, civil society also remains under pressure, as recently highlighted by several UN human rights bodies. The Turkmenistani authorities strictly control civil society space and intimidate, harass and silence those who criticize and challenge the regime. 

Below these and other issues are described in more detail.

KAZAKHSTAN

In Kazakhstan, gross violations of the right to peaceful assembly have taken place since March 2019. As UN Human Rights Commissioner Michelle Bachelet pointed out at the opening of the 42nd UN Human Rights Council session on 9 September 2019, ”a wave of peaceful protests since March has been met with the arrests of over 4,000 people” in the country[2].Violations peaked as the authorities responded harshly to peaceful protests held in Almaty, Nur-Sultan (previously Astana) and other cities in connection with the presidential elections on 9 June 2019. During several days of protests, police and special forces detained thousands of peaceful protestors, often using excessive force. Police also rounded up passers-by and briefly detained several journalists and monitors who were covering the protests[3]. Many of those detained were held for 10 hours or more without being allowed to contact their relatives or have access to legal assistance, and several hundred people were warned, fined or sentenced to periods of detention of up to 15 days following court hearings that violated due process and fair trial standards[4]. The authorities have yet to initiate thorough and impartial investigations into the violations documented during these protests.

While national law requires public organizations to obtain official registration to operate lawfully in the country, some NGOs addressing issues that the authorities deem sensitive have been unable to register. For example, the authorities have repeatedly returned the applications for registration of Feminita, which defends the rights of LBQ women, sex workers and women with disabilities, and Atajurt, which has documented the brutal crackdown on the Kazakh and other ethnic minorities in China’s Xinjiang province[5]. Independent trade unions also continue to experience serious obstacles to registration. The country’s largest independent trade union association, the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions of Kazakhstan was closed down by court order in 2017. Its leader Larisa Kharkova is still serving the sentence she received when convicted on criminal charges brought against her in retaliation for her trade union activities in the same year: four years of court-imposed restrictions on her freedom of movement, as well as a five-year ban on holding leading trade union positions[6] .

The pattern of politically motivated prosecution of independent civil society activists, trade union leaders and lawyers remains of serious concern. In two recent cases that attracted wide attention, the authorities used criminal prosecution as a means to silence rights activist Serikzhan Bilash, who has campaigned on behalf of ethnic minorities in China’s Xinjiang province, and trade union leader Erlan Baltabay, who has spoken out in support of independent trade unions. Bilash, who went on trial in August 2019 after being held under house arrest for months on charges of “inciting national discord”, eventually agreed to plead guilty and end his activism in exchange for escaping a seven-year prison sentence[7]. Baltabay was handed a seven-year prison sentence in July 2019 on charges of “embezzling trade union funds”, charges that have previously been used against other outspoken trade union leaders.8 However, he was subsequently amnestied under the terms that he “repented” and “admitted his guilt”, and his sentence was replaced with a fine[9]. The authorities have also brought criminal charges against several peaceful protesters because of their alleged involvement in the banned opposition movement Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan, which is exile-led but operates in practice through social networking sites[10].The names of these individuals have been added to a civil society list of political prisoners in Kazakhstan, which currently features 20 names[11]. Among them is civil society activist Max Bokayev, who was sentenced to five years in prison in 2016 because of his role in peaceful protests against land reforms.

Recently youth activists such as Beibarys Tolymbekov and human rights lawyers such as Aiman Umarova have also been subjected to intimidation and harassment[12]. After the presidential elections, civil society monitors were pressured to stop drawing attention to violations witnessed during the elections[13].

KYRGYZSTAN

Since taking office in November 2017, Kyrgyzstan’s current President Sooronbai Jeenbekov has attempted to ensure a more constructive relationship with the country’s vibrant civil society, in keeping with his pre-election promise. This is a welcome change in approach from that of his predecessor. However, human rights NGOs still often face negative and suspicious attitudes and members of nationalist movements harangue and attack civil society actors, accusing them of undermining national values and stability with the help of foreign funding. Nationalist movements have particularly, but not exclusively, targeted organizations that promote women’s and LGBTI rights. On 23 May 2019, a group of individuals who introduced themselves as members of the Youth Patriotic Movement interrupted a meeting organized by the Kyrgyz NGO Coalition against Torture, aggressively demanding it to end[14].

Some representatives of the authorities have also called for new restrictions on NGO activities. For example, several members of parliament and the deputy head of the national security services made such calls and sought to revive the controversial initiative to adopt a “foreign agents” law following a civil society march in support of equal rights and opportunities on 8 March 2019, which critics dubbed a “gay parade”[15].The parliament previously rejected a “foreign agents” draft law in 2016.

Human rights defender Azimjan Askarov continues to serve a life sentence, contrary to the 2016 decision issued by the UN Human Rights Committee, which found that he had been arbitrarily detained, tortured and denied fair trial rights and should be immediately released. The Kyrgyzstani authorities failed to comply with this decision, instead sending the case back for retrial, which was conducted based on the results of the initial, flawed investigation and ended with the Chui Regional Court upholding his sentence unchanged in January 2017. In July 2019, this court again upheld Askarov’s sentence, following his request for a review of his case in view of recent amendments to the Criminal Code. He was not allowed to attend the quick hearing[16]. The defence said it would appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. During his nine years behind bars, Askarov’s health has seriously deteriorated and he has not received adequate medical care for his health problems. IPHR and other human rights NGOs have therefore called on the Kyrgyzstani government to release Askarov to a safe third country for urgent medical examinations and treatment[17]. Recently the authorities renewed their attempts to seize Askarov’s house to secure the payment of compensation he was ordered to pay when convicted in 2010, thereby putting his wife at risk of becoming homeless[18].

Peaceful protests regularly take place without interference in Kyrgyzstan. However, in some cases, the authorities selectively restrict the right to freedom of assembly. For example, a local court banned protests on the central streets of Bishkek between 1 and 20 June 2019 in connection with the meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization that was taking place in the capital. In April 2019, the mayor of Bishkek caused an outcry among human rights defenders when calling for a moratorium on demonstrations in the capital, saying that they disturb the lives of residents, tourism and business and waste public resources[19]. He made the statement as the supporters of opposition politician Omurbek Babanov were planning a large demonstration to mark the politician’s return to the country[20]. Babanov was forced to leave the country after running during the presidential elections in 2017. 

TAJIKISTAN

In the last few years, the space for civil society has been shrinking in Tajikistan and NGOs have been subjected to growing pressure. When reviewing Tajikistan’s implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in July 2019, the UN Human Rights Committee raised concerns about the “chilling effect” of recent NGO legislation, “frequent inspections of NGOs resulting in fines and even closure of some NGOs” and “undue restrictions” on the exercise of freedom of peaceful assembly[21]. Although NGOs were already subjected to close scrutiny by the authorities, amendments to the Law on Public Associations that entered into force earlier this year introduced additional reporting obligations for such organizations. The amendments also included vaguely worded provisions charging the Ministry of Justice, which oversees the work of public associations, with informing the relevant authorities if they suspect that an organization may be used as a cover for the financing of terrorism or extremism activities. Civil society groups are concerned that these provisions may result in undue restrictions of the activities of NGOs[22]. It is also highly problematic that the government failed to include civil society organizations in the process of drafting a new Law on Non-Commercial Organizations, a law that will directly affect them. NGOs were only given the opportunity to provide comments in May 2019, by which stage the draft law was almost finalized. The draft law contains problematic provisions; in particular, NGOs fear that some organizations may face difficulties retaining their legal status under the new law given the lack of clear wording on this issue in the draft shared with them[23].

In its concluding observations issued in July 2019, the UN Human Rights Committee also expressed concern about intimidation and harassment of independent journalists, opposition members, and lawyers working on politically sensitive cases in Tajikistan. Recent cases of concern include that of journalists working with the Tajik Bureau of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) who have been deprived of accreditation[24] and that of the chair of the Union of Lawyers, Saidbek Nuritdinov, as well as other lawyers who have been threatened and harassed because of their professional activities[25]. The pattern of persecution also includes the arrest and imprisonment of inconvenient individuals following unfair trials held in violation of international standards. A case that has attracted wide international attention is that of lawyer Buzurgmehr Yorov, who was arrested in September 2015 and sentenced to close to 30 years in prison on a range of spurious charges after taking on the defense of leaders of the banned opposition Islamic Renaissance Party of Tajikistan (IRPT). In May 2019, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issued its opinion on this case, deeming Yorov’s detention unlawful and calling for his immediate release[26].

Another UN body, the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, which visited Tajikistan in July 2019, expressed concern about allegations of the forcible return and enforced disappearance of members of opposition movements residing abroad[27]. In one such case documented by international human rights NGOs, the leader of the banned Group 24 opposition movement, Sharoffiddin Gadoev, was arbitrarily detained in Russia, taken to Tajikistan and held for two weeks without charge before being transferred back to Europe[28].

TURKMENISTAN

The Turkmenistani authorities tightly control the dissemination of information inside the country, suppress dissent and treat any independent civil society activity as a threat. Independent human rights NGOs cannot operate in the country in the current conditions and exiled groups are under pressure. In addition to being blocked in Turkmenistan, the website of Austria-based Turkmen Initiative for Human Rights (TIHR) is regularly subjected to cyber attacks, which the organization believes are initiated by the Turkmenistani security services. Recently the site has been the target of malicious attacks on an almost monthly basis, resulting in an ongoing threat to its functioning. The Turkmenistani authorities also try to discredit information posted by TIHR and other independent exile-based sources, using state media to challenge and attack their publications[29].

Turkmenistan-based journalists who cooperate with foreign-based media, civil society activists and others who openly criticize the authorities face the constant risk of intimidation and harassment. For example, journalist Soltan Achilova, who currently cooperates with TIHR, has repeatedly been subjected to harassment. In March 2019, Achilova was stopped at Ashgabat airport and told that she had been blacklisted for travel abroad when she was on her way to Georgia to participate in an international seminar[30]. The migration services later confirmed the ban in writing, without providing any explanation for it [31]. Five months later, in August 2019, the journalist was informed that the ban had been lifted.

The Turkmenistani authorities also continue to use politically motivated imprisonment as a tool to intimidate and silence government critics. Among the victims of this practice are dissident Gulgeldy Annaniyazov, cotton harvest monitor Gaspar Matalaev and journalist Saparmed Nepeskuliev. Annaniyazov was arrested on charges of illegal border crossing after returning to Turkmenistan in 2008 and subsequently handed an 11-year prison sentence. This year he had five more years added to his sentence shortly before it was due to expire and he remains behind bars[32]. Matalaev, who was given a three-year sentence on fraud and bribery charges following an unfair trial in 2016,[33] was released from prison in early September 2019 after serving his entire sentence[34]. Nepeskuliev was released in ill health in May 2018 after serving out a three-year sentence, in his case on charges of possessing a banned medicine. In March 2019, TIHR learned that the journalist had been able to leave Turkmenistan to undergo treatment abroad[35]. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has deemed the detention of all these three men unlawful.

As documented by the Prove They Are Alive NGO coalition, over 100 people imprisoned following politically motivated and unfair trials remain disappeared within Turkmenistan’s prison system, with family members not having received any information about the fate and well-being of these individuals for years[36].

The Turkmenistani authorities regularly mass mobilize state employees, students and other residents for official celebrations, parades and other public events, at the threat of dismissal or other repercussions. This practice is contrary to the right to freedom of assembly, a key element of which is voluntary 6 participation in events. Those targeted are also often required to help cover the costs of mass events. For example, residents were required to contribute funds to pay for the purchase of bikes, tracksuits and other equipment for a mass biking event held on 3 June 2019. This day is now marked as global World Biking Day at Turkmenistan’s initiative[37].

UZBEKISTAN[38]

Uzbekistan’s current government has stated its intent to allow space for civil society to operate. Since President Mirziyoyev took office, the authorities have also taken some welcome steps, such as the release of a number of activists and journalists previously imprisoned on politically motivated grounds, the adoption of a presidential decree aimed at enhancing the role of civil society organizations and the invitation of international human rights NGOs (including IPHR) to visit the country. However, over the past year, independent civil society activists, human rights defenders and journalists have continued to face reprisals for their peaceful activities. Activists recently released after serving long prison sentences, as well as other activists have been subjected to state surveillance and are believed to have had their phones tapped prior to and during the visits of international experts and foreign delegations. At least four individuals remain behind bars after having been convicted in unfair trials on charges believed to have been brought in retaliation for their criticism of the authorities. Three of them have been imprisoned since President Mirziyoyev came to power. 

Attempts by the former political prisoners and human rights defenders Azam Farmonov, Dilmurod Saidov and Agzam Turgunov to register a new, independent human rights NGO, “Restoration of Justice” have to date been unsuccessful. Since February 2019, their application to register this organization has been rejected three times on various pretexts, and they are now only allowed to reapply in November 2019, once three months have passed since the most recent rejection. They are considering appealing to court against the rejections. The three activists have also been subjected to intimidation and harassment, apparently because of their attempts to set up the new NGO. In the case of Turgunov, this has included persistent surveillance, checks and threats by police, local authorities and security services. On 11 September 2019, he was summoned by police and questioned for several hours - particularly as to whether he is in contact with the exiled leader of the Erk opposition party, and what he thinks of this party. In addition, several times in the last year Turgunov has been convicted and fined on charges of administrative offences believed to have been brought in retaliation for his human rights activities.

Since the NGO Ezgulik obtained registration in 2003, no independent human rights organization has been able to register in Uzbekistan. At the same time, national law prohibits the activities of unregistered NGOs and provides for both administrative and criminal penalties for involvement in such activities. There have been reports of pressure and intimidation by state officials on lawyers who assist with attempts to legally register human rights NGOs. Far-reaching restrictions on the operation of NGOs also remain in place. While new regulations adopted since President Mirzoyev came to power no longer require NGOs to obtain government approval in order to conduct events, NGOs are still required to inform the authorities about planned events several days in advance. They are also subject to burdensome reporting obligations and face significant barriers on receiving foreign funding. As a result, the operating environment for NGOs remains highly challenging.

The Uzbekistani government has also failed to show openness towards engaging in constructive dialogue with local independent civil society groups. For example, local civil society groups were virtually excluded from the Asian Human Rights Forum, which was organized by the Presidential Human Rights Center in Samarkand in November 2018 and attended by representatives of the government, international organizations and NGOs from other countries.

Recommendations

The authorities of Kazakhstan should:

• Conduct independent, impartial and thorough investigations into all allegations of the excessive use of force, due process violations, as well as other human rights violations perpetrated in connection with peaceful protests held since March 2019, in particular those on 9-11 June 2019, and hold accountable all officials who are guilty of violations.

• Adopt concrete measures to bring national law and law enforcement practice on assemblies into compliance with international standards.

• Ensure that public organizations and trade unions are not denied registration on arbitrary grounds.

• Put an end to intimidation and harassment, including the use of politically motivated charges against civil society activists, human rights lawyers and trade union leaders.

The authorities of Kyrgyzstan should:

• Seek ongoing dialogue with civil society, promote positive attitudes toward its representatives, and condemn, investigate and hold accountable the perpetrators of hostile verbal and physical attacks on civil society groups and activists.

• Release Azimjan Askarov and allow him to go to a safe third country where he can have access to the medical examinations and treatment he urgently needs; and put an end to the attempts to seize his house.

• Safeguard the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, in accordance with national and international standards, in all cases and refrain from imposing selective, arbitrary restrictions on this right.

The authorities of Tajikistan should:

• As called for by the UN Human Rights Committee, ensure that all existing and future laws and regulations governing NGOs are in full compliance with the ICCPR and do not lead in practice to undue control over or interference in the activities of NGOs.

• In accordance with the recommendations of the UN Human Rights Committee, put an end to intimidation and harassment, including the use of criminal charges as a form of retaliation against independent journalists, opposition members and lawyers.

• Comply with the decision of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in the case of Buzurgmehr Yorov and commit to implementing the recommendations of the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances in its forthcoming report.

The authorities of Turkmenistan should:

• Take concrete steps to promote an environment in Turkmenistan in which human rights groups can operate openly and without the fear of persecution and cease discrediting and obstructing the work of exiled Turkmenistani human rights groups.

• Put an end to intimidation and harassment of independent journalists, civil society activists and other critical voices, including the use of arbitrary travel bans.

• Release individuals imprisoned on politically motivated grounds; and provide information about the fate and whereabouts of those who have disappeared in prison.

• Stop forcibly mobilizing residents for public mass events.

The authorities of Uzbekistan should:

• Cease the surveillance and harassment of independent journalists, human rights defenders and civil society activists and ensure that no one is imprisoned on politically motivated grounds.

• Bring legislation, regulations and practice on the registration, operation and funding of NGOs in line with international human rights standards and allow such organizations to register in a simple, transparent procedure and carry out their activities without undue state interference.

• Ensure that no further obstacles are put in the path of the registration of the human rights NGO “Restoration of Justice” and stop pressuring the founders of the organization.

• Welcome and facilitate constructive dialogue between the authorities and local civil society.

______

[1] The statement has been prepared for Working session 6: Fundamental freedoms, including Freedom of peaceful assembly and association, 19 September 2019.

[2] Opening statement by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet, 9 September 2019, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24956&LangID=E

[3] For more information about these developments, see update prepared for the CIVICUS Monitor by KIBHR and IPHR, August 2019, https://www.iphronline.org/kazakhstan-change-of-power-and-marred-elections-protests-and-crackdowns.html

[4] See joint statement by KIBHR and the Charter for Human Rights, 10 June 2019, https://bureau.kz/novosti/sobstvennaya_informaciya/sovmestnoe_obrashenie_den_vyborov/

[5] See more in update prepared for the CIVICUS Monitor by KIBHR and IPHR, which was posted in August 2019, https://www.iphronline.org/kazakhstan-change-of-power-and-marred-elections-protests-and-crackdowns.html

[6] See more in update prepared by KIBHR and IPHR for the CIVICUS Monitor, August 2017, https://www.iphronline.org/kazakhstanlitany-abuses-continues-even-expo-2017-spotlight.html

[7] The Diplomat, “What’s the Price of Freedom? Kazakh Activist Accepts Plea Deal,” 19 August 2019, https://thediplomat.com/2019/08/whats-the-price-of-freedom-kazakh-activist-accepts-plea-deal/

[8] KIBHR, “Дело принципа”, 17 July 2019, https://bureau.kz/novosti/sobstvennaya_informaciya/delo_principa_/

[9] Forbers, “Токаев помиловал журналиста Голышкина и профсоюзного деятеля Балтабая”, 10 August 2019, https://forbes.kz/process/tokaev_pomiloval_jurnalista_golyishkina_i_profsoyuznogo_deyatelya_baltabaya/

[10] KIBHR, “В Казахстане увеличилось количество политзаключенных,” 23 August 2019, https://bureau.kz/novosti/sobstvennaya_informaciya/v_kazakhstane_uvelichilos_kolichestvo_politzaklyuchennykh/

[11] The list is available at: http://tirek.info/dir/wpbdp_category/list01/page/4/

[12] See statement by the Norwegian Helsinki Committee, IPHR and KIBHR, “Kazakh human rights lawyer harassed”, 6 June 2019, https://www.iphronline.org/kazakh-human-rights-lawyer-harassed.html and statement by KIBHR and IPHR, “Kazakhstan: Cease undue pressure on young civic activist Beybarys Tolymbekov”, 17 May 2019, https://www.iphronline.org/kazakhstan-cease-unduepressure-on-young-civic-activist-beybarys-tolymbekov.html

[13] KIBHR, “Заявление по прошедшим президентским выборам в Республике Казахстан”, 24 June 2019, https://bureau.kz/novosti/zayavleniya_i_obrasheniya/zayavlenie_po_proshedshim_prezidentskim_vyboram_v_rk/ 9

[14] See Frontline Defenders, “Meeting of Coalition against Torture aggressively interrupted by members of Youth Patriotic Movement of Kyrgyzstan”, 24 May 2019, https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/case/meeting-coalition-against-tortureaggressively-interrupted-members-youth-patriotic-movement

[15] See more in briefing paper for EU-Kyrgyzstan Human Rights Dialogue prepared by IPHR, the Legal Prosperity Foundation and Kyrgyzstan’s Coalition against Torture, May 2019, https://www.iphronline.org/eu-kyrgyzstan-human-rights-dialogue-briefingpaper-documents-civil-society-concerns.html

[16] The Observatory for Human Rights Protection, Kyrgyzstan: Life sentence of Mr. Azimjan Askarov upheld by Chuy Regional Court of Kyrgyzstan, 31 July 2019, https://www.fidh.org/en/issues/human-rights-defenders/kyrgyzstan-life-sentence-of-mr-azimjanaskarov-upheld-by-chuy

[17] Joint letter to Federica Mogherini, 11 June 2019, https://www.iphronline.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Joint-NGO-letter-toHRVP-on-Kyrgyzstan-Askarov_11June2019.pdf

[18] Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), “На дом осужденного правозащитника Аскарова вновь наложен арест”, 8 May 2019, https://rus.azattyk.org/a/kyrgyzstan_rights_azimjan_askarov/29928019.html

[19] See quote of the mayor at https://24.kg/english/114818_Return_of_Omurbek_Babanov_Mayor_of_Bishkek_makes_statement/

[20] For more information about these developments, see update for the CIVICUS Monitor prepared by IPHR and the Legal Prosperity Foundation, July 2019, https://www.iphronline.org/kyrgyzstan-civicus-april-june-2019.html

[21] Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the third periodic report of Tajikistan, 22 August 2019, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2fTJK%2fCO%2f3&Lang=en

[22] See Joint submission to the UN Human Rights Committee ahead of the consideration of Tajikistan’s Third Periodic Report at the 126th session in July 2019, https://www.iphronline.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Tajikistan-torture-submission-1.pdf

[23] See more details in update for the CIVICUS Monitor prepared by IPHR, September 2019, https://www.iphronline.org/tajikistaninternational-bodies-alarmed-at-pressure-on-media-and-civil-society.html

[24] RFE/RL, “RFE/RL Reporter Stripped Of Accreditation In Tajikistan”, 26 June 2019, https://pressroom.rferl.org/a/rferl-reporterstripped-of-accreditation-in-tajikistan/30022290.html

[25] See statement by members of the Civic Solidarity Platform (CSP), “Lawyers under pressure in Tajikistan: Civil society concerned about recent cases of harassment and intimidation of lawyers in Dushanbe”, 17 September 2019, https://www.iphronline.org/lawyers-under-pressure-in-tajikistan-civil-society-concerned-about-recent-cases-of-harassment-andintimidation-of-laywers-in-dushanbe.html

[26] Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Opinion No. 17/2019 concerning Buzurgmehr Yorov (Tajikistan).

[27] Enforced disappearance: Experts urge Tajikistan to comprehensively address challenges, 5 July 2019, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24796&LangID=E

[28] Amnesty International, “Tajikistan: Further information: Opposition activist released: Sharofiddin Gadoev”, 5 March 2019, https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur60/9957/2019/en/

[29] For more information about these developments, see update for the CIVICUS Monitor prepared by TIHR and IPHR, August 2019, https://www.iphronline.org/turkmenistan-attacks-the-credibility-of-independent-news-sources-and-locks-up-critics.html

[30] TIHR, “Journalist Soltan Achilova barred from exiting Turkmenistan”, 15March 2019, https://en.hronikatm.com/2019/03/journalist-soltan-achilova-barred-from-exiting-turkmenistan/

[31] TIHR, “Journalist Soltan Achilova officially denied exit from Turkmenistan”, 29 July 2019, https://en.hronikatm.com/2019/07/journalist-soltan-achilova-officially-denied-exit-from-turkmenistan/

[32] Prove They Are Alive!, “International community should urgently intervene on behalf of Turkmen political prisoner Gulgeldy Annaniyazov”, 10 May 2019, https://provetheyarealive.org/international-community-should-urgently-intervene-annaniyazov/

[33] See Frontline case file, https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/case/gaspar-matalaev-remains-prison

[34] Cotton Campaign, “Gaspar Matalaev Free after Three Years of Unjust Imprisonment,” 9 September 2019, http://www.cottoncampaign.org/gaspar-matalaev-free-after-three-years-unjust-imprisonment-767448.html

[35] TIHR, “Journalist S. Nepeskuliev safely leaves Turkmenistan”, 24 March 2019, https://en.hronikatm.com/2019/03/journalist-snepeskuliev-safely-leaves-turkmenistan/

[36] Statement by the Prove They Are Alive! Campaign on the International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances, 30 August 2019, https://provetheyarealive.org/disappearances-in-turkmenistan-must-stop/

[37] See more in update for the CIVICUS Monitor prepared by TIHR and IPHR, which was posted in August 2019, https://www.iphronline.org/turkmenistan-attacks-the-credibility-of-independent-news-sources-and-locks-up-critics.html

[38] For more information about the issues covered in this section, see briefing paper prepared for the EU-Uzbekistan Human Rights Dialogue by the Association for Human Rights in Central Asia and IPHR, June 2019, https://www.iphronline.org/protectionof-fundamental-rights-in-uzbekistan.html

Is the decision to close the Jaslyq prison colony a fact or a renaming exercise?

So far, the news about the closure of Jaslyk is only a news that raises questions. 

  

Will 3 August 2019 become the day of an important historical reference point in the development of human rights in Uzbekistan?

President of the Republic of Uzbekistan, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, issued a decision to close the Jaslyq concentration camp (УЯ 64/71), a modern laboratory of brutal human experiments, that was created by dictator Islam Karimov. Jaslyq has long become a symbol of cruelty of the repressive Karimov regime.

For 17 years, step by step, the international democratic community has been pushing Uzbekistan to comply with the request of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Theo van Boven, to close down Jaslyq.

  

Much work remains to be done for implementation of this crucial decision and for this to lead to eradication of the practice of torture in the country.

However, doubts are already cast upon it really happening, because this prison colony, which is located in the village of Jaslyq of Karakalpakstan, is being transformed into another institution belonging to the Main Directorate of Corrections, Pretrial Detention Facility No. 2 under the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Karakalpakstan.

One cannot help but draw a parallel between the decision to reform the National Security Service of Uzbekistan, which in practice turned out to be only an exercise of renaming of the punitive body of the government. As to torture, it continues, as was the case before, within the walls of this prison colony and other institutions of the penitentiary system.

By virtue of the principles of the Constitution, it is incumbent on the President of Uzbekistan, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, as a guarantor of rights and freedoms in the country, to promptly demonstrate to the Uzbek people and the international community his preparedness to achieve the complete liquidation of the Jasylyq prison colony as a guarantee that such crimes will not continue.

The President of Uzbekistan must acknowledge that the practice of torture still exists; he has to create a National Commission to investigate the atrocities committed by law enforcement officers of Uzbekistan and their involvement in torture and murder of prisoners, institute criminal proceedings against them and ensure a public trial.

Only ensuring the inevitability of punishment for crimes against humanity, such as torture, cruel and other degrading treatment, can inspire confidence in this decision and attract responsible and professional people into the law enforcement agencies.

The world history already has such a precedent, when US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, openly admitted on behalf of his country that American soldiers tortured prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison. And indeed, an investigation took place in the United States, the perpetrators were brought to justice and public still has faith in justice.

Is Shavkat Mirziyoyev capable of taking a similar step and consistently leading to complete liquidation of Jasliq?

It is extremely difficult for the government of Uzbekistan to take such a step as long as Rustam Inoyatov, Zakirjon Almatov and other political criminals of our times retain their presence in power. They must be stripped of their status of immunity, which would be the beginning of the eradication of torture and despotism. Without such a step, real justice will not come about in the country.

Nadejda Ataeva,

President of the Association for Human Rights in Central Asia, France

Appeal for justice in the return of Gulnara Karimova’s ill-gotten assets

Switzerland:

Federal Council

The Office of Public Prosecutor

The Federal Criminal Court

Gibraltar:

HM Government

HM Government of Law Offices

France:

Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs

United States of America:

US Department of Justice

Uzbekistan:

Ministry of Justice

The Office of Prosecutor General 

CIVIL SOCIETY ACTIVISTS OF UZBEKISTAN CALL FOR JUSTICE IN THE RETURN OF GULNARA KARIMOVA’S ILL-GOTTEN ASSETS 

   

Key points:

• Responsible repatriation of Gulnara Karimova’s assets requires a retrial of Karimova and her accomplices in Uzbekistan that would meet standards of due process and fair trial.

• The governments of Switzerland, France and other countries where Karimova’s assets are frozen should be guided not only by anticorruption law but by international human rights law when repatriating them.

• Asset return to the government of Uzbekistan should occur only after anti-corruption reforms are implemented in practice and the rule of law is established.

• US Department of Justice should block any attempts to return to Gulnara Karimova and her associates any portion of her ill-gotten assets.

   

Since our statement in August 2018, where we proposed principles for the responsible repatriation of assets to the people of Uzbekistan, a number of events have occurred that require our attention and merit a new statement.

   

The assets we discuss here are assets Gulnara Karimova acquired by extorting multi-million-dollar bribes from companies providing mobile communication services in Uzbekistan,  MTS, Telia (formerly Teliasonera), and Vimpelcom. The fact that bribes were extorted has been confirmed by the companies themselves in Deferred Prosecution Agreements with various jurisdictions including the United States and The Netherlands. These three companies have subsequently agreed to pay fines totaling $2.6 billion. Karimova's banking assets are located primarily in a number of European countries, namely Switzerland, Ireland, Belgium, Luxembourg and Sweden, and real estate assets in France and the United Kingdom.  In France, three real estate properties were arrested, estimated approximately at 60 million euros. The amount of Gulnara’s assets in Europe totals more than one billion U.S. dollars.

   

Currently, the fate of assets still frozen in Switzerland (which amounted to 800 million Swiss francs in 2012) is being decided. CHF130 million of this amount is held by companies formally owned by Rustam Madumarov, one of Gulnara Karimova’s accomplices. An additional CHF555 million is held by companies formally owned by another Karimova accomplice, Gayane Avakyan. In addition, insider information suggests several deposit boxes are held in a Swiss bank and contains a substantial amount of valuable jewelry.

   

What recent developments have prompted this call for justice?

  

Our main concern is there are secret negotiations taking place  in Uzbekistan between two parties: Gulnara Karimova, represented by her Swiss lawyer and daughter, and the Uzbek authorities.

  

It is our understanding that Karimova was placed under house arrest in February 2014, then transferred to the Zangiata women’s prison colony No 21 (Tashkent region) in 2017. In late June 2018, she was transferred again to the Tashkent apartment of her daughter, after which she was returned to the Zangiata colony in early March 2019. It is our understanding that, in exchange for Karimova’s consent to repatriating the assets in Switzerland to Uzbekistan, her representatives are demanding her release from prison and the freedom to leave Uzbekistan, allegedly for adequate medical treatment. Those representing Gulnara are also counting on receiving a portion of the frozen assets, presumably to ensure that she maintains a comfortable future after release and perhaps to generously compensate them for their work representing her.

   

In the latest statement made on behalf of Gulnara Karimova, on June 23, 2019, she claims  to have agreed to permit  the return of CHF131 million in bribes she took now frozen in Switzerland and is prepared to do the same for the CHF555 million. The statement hints that she is ready to take these steps in exchange for her release from prison and the right to leave Uzbekistan.

  

We do not yet know whether the Uzbek government will accept these conditions, but we do expect that Karimova will  again be  detained under  house arrest conditions – a situation  significantly more comfortable than the Zangiata prison colony.

  

Any such deal should be recognized as a large-scale bribe to the government of Uzbekistan, with Karimova simply shifting roles from the party extorting bribes to the party offering bribes. Moreover, such an outcome will in no way reflect international norms and standards of justice, or the interests of the victims of the original corruption – the people of Uzbekistan.

  

The 2014, 2015, and 2017 court decisions that led to Karimova’s conviction and that of her accomplices in Uzbekistan − as well as the resulting  claims for her assets based on those convictions −  do not  meet the requirements of fair trail and basic due process. The trials were held behind closed doors, with no court filings or documents published and therefore failed to earn any public trust around the process or results. They highlight the fact that the standards of Uzbekistan’s system of justice are deplorably low.

   

We are concerned that the government of Switzerland, by accepting Karimova’s apparent consent to repatriate her ill-gotten assets to Uzbekistan, may either knowingly or unwittingly become an accomplice to the aforementioned bribery scheme: Karimova bribing the government of Uzbekistan in exchange for her release, favorable treatment, and a personal payout from assets she stole from the people of Uzbekistan. We propose that the Swiss Office of Public Prosecutor and the Federal Council of Switzerland consider the reputational consequences and potential precedent of such a decision made on the basis of such a parody of justice.

   

We are quite surprised that the consent of a person who has stolen assets is required to finalize the confiscation and repatriation of those assets. In this case, bribery has already been proven by the confessions of the telecommunications companies and the materials associated with the lawsuit against Telia’s managers in Sweden. Given this clear evidence that the asset “owner” engaged in criminal activities, why do the Swiss judicial authorities need the consent of the criminal to confiscate the assets?

   

We are also extremely concerned about the fact that on July 1, 2019, the Swiss Federal Criminal Court granted Gulnara Karimova an opportunity to regain control over CHF350 million in assets that are held through Takilant Ltd., a Gibraltar company whose registration has lapsed.

   

In addition to the assets frozen in Switzerland, we are concerned about the fate of the assets of Gulnara Karimova confiscated this year in France. According to press reports, the French authorities have decided to transfer these assets directly to the government of Uzbekistan (approximately 60 million euros). In Spring 2019, the French Senate passed legislation on responsible repatriation of stolen assets, a model all countries should follow and which Uzbek civil society activists welcomed. Under its provision, the Karimova case could become the first case when French authorities would repatriate assets in interests of victims of corruption, with safeguards against a mismanagement of these assets.

   

However, according to available information, unlike Switzerland, it appears that French authorities intend to return corrupt assets directly to the government of Uzbekistan – an authoritarian, repressive and still very corrupt regime - without any preconditions or a comprehensive framework for return. We perceive this as an equivalent to returning jewelry to a thief who had stolen them. That would conflict with France's commitments to promoting human rights as well as fighting against corruption and money laundering. The unconditional return of assets would undermine France’s commitment to responsible international asset return, which would cause reputational damage to France.

   

What do we suggest?

   

1.  We believe the entire process of recovery of the assets stolen from the people of Uzbekistan cannot be completed without a fair trial held in the country, one that would hold all those responsible for the corruption scandal in Uzbekistan’s telecom industry, and complicit in that crime, to account. Since all previous court decisions in Uzbekistan against Gulnara Karimova, her accomplices, and her assets have been clear parodies of justice, we demand a retrial consistent with internationally recognized standards of fair trial and due process rights. Only on the basis of the proposed second legal process should the Swiss government then make a decision on the responsible repatriation of Uzbek assets. We note that it will not be possible to undertake such an endeavor without a series of proper reforms to the entire judicial system of Uzbekistan, an outcome that aligns with the principles of fair repatriation of assets that we put forward in August 2018.

   

2. Gulnara Karimova's representatives argues that she is mistreated in the prison colony and needs medical examination and treatment. While we are not in the position to judge whether these allegations are valid, we believe the conditions of Gulnara’s detention should not be reviewed or addressed distinct from a review of the conditions for all prisoners in that colony and all the other prison facilities in the country. Rather than create exceptional conditions for this one prisoner, the Government of Uzbekistan and colony administrators should recognize the current allegations as a call to raise the standards of detention for all prisoners in accordance with international human rights standards. Reform of the penitentiary system, long overdue, should be certified by international observers representing, at a minimum, the relevant UN human rights mechanisms and the International Red Cross.

   

As a first step, the government should ensure unimpeded access to all prisons in the country, including the Zangiata prison colony, for Red Cross representatives and UN special rapporteurs on torture and independence of judges and lawyers. Such access could provide a reliable picture of the conditions of detention being experienced by Gulnara Karimova and the wider prisoner population.

    

To be clear, we are categorically against Karimova’s release prior to an open retrial to observers which would meet the standards and norms of a fair trial.  Uzbekistan is a party to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, article 14 of which demands that it provide a fair trial to all citizens.  Switzerland should not condone a violation.

    

3. We also call on the governments of Switzerland, France and other countries where Uzbek assets are frozen to be guided by the norms of international law, including provisions of the UN Convention against Corruption, as well as international human rights norms including (but not limited to) such as the rights to development and fair trial. The fate of Karimova’s stolen assets should be addressed in light of the entire body of international law related to the areas of anti-corruption and human rights.

  

4. We call on the Swiss Office of Public Prosecutor and relevant judicial authorities of Switzerland to review the case of Gulnara Karimova and honestly consider whether they are capable of completing, effectively and without delay, a protracted case of confiscation related to assets stolen from the people of Uzbekistan.

   

5. We call on the French authorities to suspend the transfer of Gulnara Karimova's assets to the government of Uzbekistan until it meets the above-mentioned conditions - the re-trial of Gulnara Karimova and her accomplices in a proceeding that meets the standards of article 14, and the implementation of the program of anti-corruption reforms. The French authorities should also take seriously the call of the two leading French anti-corruption NGOs, Sherpa and Transparency International France for guaranteeing full transparency and integrity of the asset return process and making sure the assets are used exclusively for public interest and not do not fall back into corrupt channels.

    

6. We call on the US Department of Justice to take their own measures to block possible steps towards returning any portion of the assets to Gulnara Karimova or the repatriation of these assets without adopting safeguards against a mismanagement of the returned assets.

    

7. We call upon the Gibraltar authorities to refuse the requests from lawyers representing Gulnara Karimova to reinstate Takilant and Swisdorn in order to reclaim assets frozen in Switzerland. Every stakeholder should bear in mind that these companies were created for the purpose of taking bribes and did so on behalf of Gulnara Karimova. It has been proven that the source of these assets are bribes from telecommunications companies in exchange for Gulnara’s illegal, secret assistance in obtaining licenses and frequencies for mobile business. It is also clear that the Government of Uzbekistan has not yet adopted adequate safeguards guaranteeing the integrity of the returned assets management.

   

8. We call on the countries holding Gulnara Karimova's assets to ensure full transparency in the process of preparation, acceptance, and implementation of asset repatriation. We are concerned about the amounts being considered for repatriation. Gulnara Karimova, in her aforementioned statement, identifies only two amounts frozen in Switzerland as subject to repatriation (CHF131 million and CHF555 million, totaling CHF686 million). This is much less than the CHF800 million announced by the Swiss government in 2012. We also note that Karimova remains silent about the contents of her deposit boxes in Swiss banks.

   

In a communication dated 24 June 2019, the Swiss Attorney General's Office said CHF130 million had been confiscated and was being prepared for transfer to Uzbekistan. The same report says the fate of another CHF650 million related to the case of five suspects is still under consideration for confiscation. In total, this amounts to CHF780 million.

   

However, taking into account bank interest, the total amount of Gulnara Karimova’s CHF800 million in assets should now be at least CHF912 million (assuming 2% per annum over a 7-year period). The difference, likely at least CHF130 million, has not been accounted for or reported to the public.

    

9. We categorically oppose returning any amount of stolen assets to Gulnara Karimova and other applicants. All frozen assets should be transferred to Uzbekistan after confiscation, but only under appropriate conditions (which means not immediately).

   

10. We remain committed to the principles of repatriation of Uzbek assets that we put forward in August 2018. The main principle is that before the government gains control over Gulnara Karimova's assets, specific reforms must be implemented to establish anti-corruption mechanisms and practices, namely:

            

• create an independent judiciary; 

• implement administrative reform; as a part of this reform, adopt and implement a provision on conflict of interest; 

• require all civil servants, judges, and members of parliament to submit annual declarations showing their income and assets those of their family members and make these declarations available to the public; 

• ensure transparency of public finance and the beneficial ownership of all companies and investors operating in the country; and

• provide adequate conditions for the freedom of association and freedom of the press.

    

Progress in implementation of these reforms can be assessed against international benchmark indicators proposed in our statement in August 2018.

  

Last, but not least, these crucial reforms should be implemented not at the end of the repatriation process, but before repatriation begins, to guarantee that these assets will not be stolen again but will serve the interests of the people of Uzbekistan, the main victims of corruption. We cannot rely on promises of reform or even the early adoption of anti-corruption laws. In Uzbekistan, many progressive laws have been adopted and are simply not implemented in practice. Structural changes in norms and practices, not progress on paper, must rightly be a key condition for repatriation.

   

Nadejda Atayeva, President, Association for Human Rights in Central Asia, Le Mans, France, n.atayeva@gmail.com (contact person)

Umida Niyazova, Director, Uzbek-German Forum for Human Rights, Berlin, Germany, umida.niyazova@gmail.com (contact person)

Jodgor Obid, former prisoner of conscience, Uzbek political refugee, resident of Austria

Agzam Turgunov, former prisoner of conscience (2008-2017), Uzbekistan

Muhammad Bekjanov, journalist, former prisoner of conscience (1999-2017), US resident

Alisher Taksanov, journalist, Uzbek political emigrant, resident of Switzerland

Dilya Erkinzoda, Uzbek political refugee, resident of Sweden

Alisher Abidov, Uzbek political refugee, resident of Norway

Sergey Naumov, journalist and human rights activist, Uzbekistan

      

Daniel Anderson, Uzbek political refugee, resident of Norway

Mirrahmat Muminov, Uzbek political refugee, US resident

Torture in Central Asia: time to break the vicious circle!

One night in July 2018 police officers drove up to Shahboz Ahmadov’s house in the southern Yavan district of Tajikistan and instructed the young man to accompany them to the local police station to help them solve a crime. But when they arrived they reportedly took him to an office, closed the door, accused him of injuring a person with a knife, kicked and beat him and gave him electric shocks until he confessed. After holding Shahboz Ahmadov in police detention for several days the victim of the stabbing told the officers that Shaboz was not the perpetrator. The officers let him go but warned him to keep silent about the torture. But Shahboz went for a forensic medical examination and filed a complaint with the Prosecutor General’s Office. Initially, an investigation was opened and two of the alleged perpetrators were charged. But the investigation was flawed and prosecutors closed the case. The perpetrators have not been punished and Shahboz has not obtained justice for his suffering.

Sadly, cases like Shahboz Ahmadov‘s are common in all Central Asian states, although, unlike him, many innocent individuals are charged and convicted based on confessions extracted under duress; and numerous victims of torture and their relatives do not lodge complaints for fear of reprisals by the perpetrators and give up all hope of obtaining justice through the criminal justice system. Often, only when a person dies as a result of torture do the relatives speak out.

In 2018 Central Asian NGO coalitions against torture recorded 143 new cases involving allegations of torture and other forms of ill-treatment in Kazakhstan, 377 in Kyrgyzstan and 44 in Tajikistan. Both in Uzbekistan and in Turkmenistan no independent NGOs working on torture have been able to register and due to the repressive nature of the regimes it has been impossible for activists to compile reliable nationwide statistics.

Today is the United Nations (UN) International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. And on this day we renew our call to Central Asian governments to live up to the principles and the spirit of the UN Convention against Torture. All five Central Asian countries have now been parties to the Convention against Torture since the late 1990s. Over two decades later, why are the brutal practices of torture and ill-treatment still widespread?

For many years local and international human rights groups have regularly drawn attention to torture and much has been achieved. Civil society groups have supported hundreds of victims in their struggle for justice, formulated policy recommendations, tried to engage in dialogue with domestic policy makers and advocated for change in international human rights fora. It is largely thanks to these efforts that several dozen victims have attained justice and the perpetrators have been punished; and that there have been precedents in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan when victims of torture or families of deceased victims have received some compensation for moral damages. Central Asian NGOs have also provided much needed rehabilitation services for victims of torture and their relatives, particularly in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

Important progress has been achieved in strengthening legislation against torture in all five countries, but all too often legal safeguards are not implemented and officials who fail to adhere to them are not held to account. Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan have made some progress by allowing public oversight over detention facilities and setting up National Preventative Mechanisms (NPMs), although problems remain such as insufficient financial resources of the NPM in both countries. Tajikistan has allowed limited monitoring of detention facilities through the Ombudsman’s Office. In Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan significant efforts have been made to integrate the standards of the Istanbul protocol into the work of medical doctors examining victims of torture.

But in order to put a definitive end to torture and ill-treatment the authorities have to publicly acknowledge the true extent of the problem, publish comprehensive statistics on cases and investigations, allow independent monitors full access to detention facilities, and address entrenched systemic problems. The judiciary in all five countries is not independent and both in law and practice, the defendant’s position is notoriously weak compared to that of the prosecution. Law enforcement and prison officials often prevent lawyers from visting their clients and speaking with them in confidence. Victims, lawyers and human rights defenders risk reprisals by law enforcement agencies when raising allegations of torture and are left vulnerable, with no functioning mechanisms of protection.  Not one of the countries has put independent mechanisms in place to investigate allegations of torture; conflicts of interest prevent investigations being effectively carried out, cause major delays and lead to cases being closed, often in spite of glaring evidence of abuse. Medical doctors who examine victims of torture frequently come under pressure by law enforcement agencies for recording injuries inflicted through torture and other evidence, and not one of the Central Asian countries accepts or gives due consideration to the conclusions of independent forensic medical or psychiatric experts in court. Police officers lack the skills to professionally investigate crimes and typically get away with extracting confessions and fabricating evidence under duress. Successfully combating torture also requires tackling corruption in the criminal justice system as officials frequently exploit the vulnerability of suspects and detainees for their personal gain.

For further information on concerns, recommendations and individual cases of victims of torture, please refer to the following documents:

Kazakhstan: Commentaries of the Kazakhstani NGOs Coalition on UPR with respect to the Implementation of Recommendations by Kazakhstan based on the Results of the Consideration of the Second Periodic Report of Kazakhstan within the Framework of the UPR, April 2019;

Kyrgyzstan: Protection of fundamental rights in Kyrgyzstan. Briefing paper ahead of EU-Kyrgyzstan human rights dialogue, May 2019;

Tajikistan: Joint NGO submission to the United Nations Human Rights Committee ahead of the consideration of Tajikistan’s Third Periodic Report at the 126th session in July 2019, NGO Coalition against Torture and Impunity in Tajikistan, International Partnership for Human Rights, Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, June 2019;

Turkmenistan: Submission for the UN Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Tajikistan, Turkmen Initiative for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, International Partnership for Human Rights, October 2017;

Uzbekistan: Committee against Torture. Written information prior to the 66th session - adoption of the List of Issues, Association for Human Rights in Central Asia and International Partnership for Human Rights, January 2019.