Society of Human Rights of Uzbekistan
Once
justice and legitimacy fade away
a state becomes a gang of bandits.
Augustine
Aurelius.
Guest book Forum Chat Society Post Public relations Óçáåê÷a Ðóññêèé English France
MUST
READ: SPEECH OF MR. TALIB YAKUBOV, CHAIRMAN OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS SOCIETY OF
UZBEKISTAN ON JANUARY 7, 2004
Source: Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan
Uploaded/Updated:
07/17/2005 13:29:28
REPORT
OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS SOCIETY OF UZBEKISTAN
(According to the report of the
Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on the
question of torture, Theo van Boven, presented in accordance with Commission
Resolution 2002/38)
January 7, 2004
Once justice and
legitimacy fade away
a state becomes a gang of bandits.
Augustine
Aurelius.
PART I
"… This Great Eastern-Slavic
empire … created by Germans, Byzantines and Mongols, living last decades of
its life … But even after its collapse, for a long time a State that is going
to exist in Central Asia will combine communistic ideology, phraseology and
eastern despotism."
Andrei
Amalrik, Soviet dissident of 1960s
For many years now Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan (HRSU) has been
informing world democratic society, democratic institutes all over the world not
only about the fact that torture is used in penitentiary institutions of
Uzbekistan but that it has also become a part of state policy. To understand
this 'phenomenon' of modern history of Uzbekistan let us draw your attention to
the political situation of the last years of "Gorbachev's perestroika",
of the years of independence, and also to the persona of the Head of State, who
back then was one of the most atrocious communistic leaders.
No ideology other then the one recognized by the State was acceptable
during the rule of Soviets. Accordingly, its power institutes were opposed to
any display of personal opinion, not to mention belief. The Leaders of
reorganization of society, according to so-called communistic ideals, were
responsible for taking millions of innocent lives. Trying to convince the
civilized world that PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE was the underlying principle of
national jurisprudence, the society in fact, resided in a psycho-moral state of
Middle Ages inquisition in Europe. The syncretism of national proceedings and
legal ignorance of repeatedly conscripted officials had not allowed evidential
basis go beyond the ill-judged PRESUMPTION OF GUILT, on which the inquisition
used to build its accusations.
During the rule of the Soviets, especially during the last decades of it,
leaders of all ranks were attracted not to the communist idea or commitment to
it, but to the regime debugged by five-year plans. Strict hierarchy of party
nomenclature was based on enforced rank worshipping, subordinating cringing
before the authority. Pyramid of power and coordinated with it pyramid of
privileges, in reality presented the evidence of inconsumable bribery,
corruption, circular bail, and finally cult of personality.
Naturally, these defects of regime, although in more ugly form, were
immanently characteristic to Soviet republics such as Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan
etc. Not having any intellectual or power possibility to resist against "the
Kremlin rank-people" they started to protect themselves in a very Asian way
- by clans' insularity of national establishment, which people are used to
calling mafia. By using shadow economics they have been successfully lobbying
their local fellowship interests in central state organs. It is only
understandable that such double-dealing would not allow "civil servants"
to duly protect the independence of Soviet republics declared in the
Constitution of USSR. This heritage was succeeded by the newly independent
states, although the party nomenclature of yesterday, transformed in the power
of today imitates a very different image. That is why in the years of so-called
independence these defects rose to the rank of state politics.
This is why the new leaders of Central Asian states came up with an aim
TO REMAIN IN POWER FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES and not for the term as provided
in Constitution, which presented a paramount importance for each of them.
Filling the new political niche each and every one of them had sworn to build
democratic, rule of law state in their country that will respect human rights
and fundamentals common to all humanity. And even taking their oath they
publicly attested their duplicity by placing hands on both the Constitution and
the Koran. Faithful to their spiritual content they, it seems, have been
declaring their faithfulness to both secular and teleological state. However
those declarations were initially untruthful and contradicted the real designs
of power usurpation.
How can this contradiction be resolved? Turkmen-bashi was the
first one to attain the cherished aim. His solution of the problem appeared
straightforward and primitive. Somewhat different course was taken by the
experienced in communistic intrigues Uzbek Yurt-bashi. His plan was far
from new; it was based on the effect of a long-standing methodical persuasion of
Uzbek society, as well as world democratic society, and of a grave danger
reislamization of mentality may bring to Uzbekistan. This plan was supported by
Russia's and Western panic fear of mystical regeneration of Islam that started
to penetrate the territories historically professing other confessions.
"Gorbachev's perestroika" brought Central Asian republics some
ideological ease, in all spheres including confessions. At the end of 1980-s and
the beginning of 1990-s, for a short period of time people of Uzbekistan
reconstructed 5000 mosques with their own money. They became true believers.
Groups of new Islamic scholars (Imam-hatibs), scholars with independent
views, understanding the antisocial mimicry of the Soviets started to emerge.
Their sermons attracted large auditoria to the mosques.
Soviet democratic wing of opposition was represented at the time by
People's movement "Birlik", People's movement "Turkiston",
"Birlik" party and Democratic Party "Erk". Within "Birlik"
women movement "Tumaris" was created as well as youth and students
movement of "Free dehkans (farmers)", there emerged the first
social organization for Protection of Human Rights in Uzbekistan.
At that time political arena saw the emergence of half-Soviet
half-religious organizations like "Adolat" (Justice) (in Namangan),
"Odamiylik va insonparvarlik" (in Kokand), and pro-Islamic
organizations such as "Warriors of Islam" (in Namangan).
At the beginning of the 90-s it became obvious that new powers ripening
on the political arena, would be capable of suspending the turned "communists"
from power in the coming elections of December 1994. But the election was
antedated by a row of events that played cardinal role is Uzbekistan's becoming
a state with repressive political regime.
After coming to power in 1989, the present President of Republic of
Uzbekistan, who used to be communistic leader of Kashkadarya region, dashed
straight to the middle of events. The opposition was becoming stronger by day,
and was seriously undermining his political career. Obviously, like many party
leaders, he was never a convinced communist but was rather using the ideology to
promote his career. The only things he learned from Marxist ideology probably
were that the environment defined the conscience and that power was institute of
enforcement.
Current situation and environment was very unpredictable, accordingly he
decided to become a two-faced leader and bet on law-enforcement institutions, create
environment of total enforcement that would define despotism of power as a norm
for society. Psychology of referent communication states that to change
society's perception of ideology or for new ideologies to take root it needs at
least two decades. That is why states with strong democratic foundations,
opposing slipping to despotic individual rule, limit presidential terms in power
to 4 years not being able to be re-elected more then twice. So it seems that for
the attainment of the aim he needs life presidency.
Whichever it is, but being a worker of Ministry of Finance in the past he
sent a clear message to KGB and other law enforcement organs to rid of the
opposition. Not having any KGB experience, as for example Gaydar Aliev, using
these law enforcement organs he nevertheless managed to create "a State
within the State". None ever stopped proclaiming Uzbekistan being a rule of
law country, although this so called "State within the State" existed
according to corporative rules known only to the chosen ones. It actually took
him less then a year to change "Republic of Uzbekistan" parliamentary
republic with a future full of promising prospects to the republic with "strong"
presidency, and by 1995 to a repressive police state of Masonic type. We should
take into account that all this happened notwithstanding that only on 24 March
1991 the then Supreme Council of the Republic appointed communist leader to be
the President of Republic of Uzbekistan, which was contradicting the
Constitution. This was the reply of shadow establishment to the results of
national referendum that, as it appeared, upheld the preservation of USSR. In
his interview for "Izvestiya" daily newspaper on 5 May 1991, President
of the Republic states: "We have struggled for this Union and we shall stay
within it". However, in accordance to his own proposition in December later
that same year another referendum took place. This second referendum
surprisingly showed totally adverse results, for leaving the Union. Two public
plebiscites held within nine months gave completely radical views. And in both
cases the "pro" votes combined over 95% of the voters.
There is no social or psychological paradox in this. The Authorities let
it slip that the institute of the Elections system is totally under its control
and does not show the opinion of the nation as such, but rather a whim of
political elites who from time to time hold election campaigns to test the
loyalty of the masses.
The political change itself is undoubtedly connected to the events of 19
August 1991, when the current President of Uzbekistan upheld the fatally known
GKChP of USSR (State Committee on Force-Major Situations) Yanaev's group attempt
to overthrow state government. The events of "putsch" skyrocketed in
days and on 26 August; he was supporting Gorbachev and shamed Boris Yeltsin at
the Summit of Communistic Party of Uzbekistan.
At the beginning of September President of Uzbekistan did not go to
Moscow for extraordinary Summit of People's deputies of USSR because according
to proposition of a group of deputies its agenda included creation of Commission
to investigate the activity of higher officials that upheld state overturn. It
is easy to understand in what quality Karimov would have appeared before this
Summit, deputies and Gorbachev.
Demarche of President of Uzbekistan toward USSR Summit of People's
deputies resulted in preventive declaration of sovereignty of Republic of
Uzbekistan within the Union. The date for Presidential Election was set for 29
December 1991. Democratic party "Erk" was registered on 3 September
and People's movement "Birlik" was registered on 11 November.
It is important to note that there has been no abuse or infringement of
either secular or religious Human rights or freedoms before the Presidential
election. Prosecution started right after the election took place, and way
presented as testing for loyalty toward President. On the 16 January 1992 there
was shooting of peaceful student demonstration. Nobody was held responsible for
this action. There were mass arrests of the heads of "Adolat", "Warriors
of Islam", "Odamiylik va insonparvarlik" and other organizations.
This created a situation in which many were fledging the country and creating
armed Uzbek opposition abroad. According to some information it includes many
under-cover KGB agents.
At the same time in 1992 the authorities started systematic offensive on
the positions of secular opposition, and by the end of the year some of the
opposition leaders were forced to leave the country. By the end of 1993 "Birlik"
and "Erk" were illegally stripped of their registration and were
compelled to back-pedal their activity.
Starting from 1994 Uzbekistan authorities commenced realization of their
fundamental aim - far-reaching cleansing based on religious beliefs - obviously
intermeddling with the activity of religious confessions and contradicting the
Constitution that separated State from Religion. By 1998 this secretive work of
the authorities was done. Among its "accomplishments" let me note the
following:
A1) First article dedicated to "Wahhabism" appeared on the
pages of one of the journals in 1994 was written not by a historian or Islamic
scholar but by deputy prosecutor of one of Fergana valley regions. In this very
long article the deputy prosecutor has given "detailed analysis" of
Wahhabism and has "shown" how dangerous this Islamic movement is for
Central Asia, and particularly for Uzbekistan. It was not long before most of
Uzbekistan journals have reprinted this article on their pages. <>
The article was actually a signal to offensive on religious rights of the
citizens (Bolsheviks in 1917 used salvo from the "Aurora" cruiser as a
signal to armed overturn of the existing political regime in Russia).
A2) approximately at the same time a large campaign was started to ban
loud speakers in the mosques for the transmission of Adhan, the call for all
Muslims to join the prayer. It was announced that allegedly more then a million
of citizens have addressed the authorities with the request to ban the speakers;
A3) Contingent of militia was ten times enlarged. For comparison: 15
years age Uzbekistan's number of militia workers did not exceed 40.000, at the
present time only in the capital Tashkent 50.000 of militia workers are engaged;
A4) During a few years workers of SNB (Service of National Security) and
MVD (Ministry of Internal Affairs) have drawn up a list of "unreliable
citizens" that were being accused with various criminal charges. This list
was composed of more then 250.000 names of Uzbekistan citizens aged from 20 to
45 years. To create this list the authorities used under-cover informers in
local mosques, district militia inspectors, heads of local self-government
organs etc. The
following categories of citizens were considered as "unreliable":
A5) Judges, militia, prosecution and SNB workers have undergone special
training and promised their loyalty to President's policy of fighting "Islamic
extremism", "International terrorism" etc. Everybody who was
opposed to promoting repressive competence were dismissed or convicted. A
special group of militia workers with sadistic tendencies was created; their
responsibilities included obtaining confessions from accused by way of torture.
Same qualities were encouraged in workers of penitentiary institutions (prisons,
colonies etc);
A6) Legal Codes (Criminal, Code of Criminal Proceedings) have been
changed (from September 1994 and further) to introduce harsher sanctions for
religious beliefs; with more extensive use of repressions Uzbekistan Criminal
Code included new Articles that widened the sphere of crime qualification, in
particular based on religious beliefs.
A7) Special concentration camps have been created to detain "prisoners
of conscience", near the settlements Jaslyq (Karakalpakstan) and Zangi-ota
(Tashkent region);
A8) Special groups of special-services workers, investigators, lawyers,
historians, writers and representatives of clergy have been developing versions
of typical accusation reports, court verdicts and other unified documents;
A9) Most of the lawyers, except for very few, have undergone special
"adaptation" to be loyal to policy of "fight against Islamic
extremism", "against international terrorism" etc. Forensic
experts underwent same adaptation.
A10) Workers of law enforcement organs have been unofficially supplied
with versions of insinuations on the basis of which they could apply criminal
charges to any person, in particular practice of putting illegal drugs, bullets,
home-made and automatic guns into flats, houses, cars and pockets of the
detained to catch them red-handed;
A11) Press, television and radio were to be widely used to increase
anti-Islamic psychosis against extremism, fundamentalism and other "isms"
threatening social security and order;
A12) Since 1991 all public buildings (starting from Presidential
Apparatus to local militia filial) have been surrounded by "parapets"
- three-meter high fences, country's roads have been urgently equipped with
block posts equipped with fire points - DOTs. From the military point of view
these "means of defence" had no practical meaning.
In this way confession could have been obtained from the accused only by
means of torture, and this confession was further used as a basis to construct
judicial argument. This entire time criminal jurisdiction of Uzbekistan was
based on ill-judged PRESUMPTION OF GUILT, on which the inquisition used to build
its accusations.
The entire enforcement machine of enormous size, which comprised of
militia and SNB workers, prosecutors, judicial organs and mass media, has been
working to:
This is exactly what happened. Parliament of Uzbekistan has
unconstitutionally extended the term of President's competence till 2007 by
means of referendum that was in itself a first step toward him becoming a
lifetime President.
* * *
This is only a small portion of those years "achievements".
Maybe this is only the seen part of the iceberg, which usually amounts to one
hundredth of its size. But even the aforesaid shows how much capital was used to
achieve it. Where did this enormous amount of money come from considering our
outstanding internal and external debts? This information is still carefully
guarded.
History warns us with examples of distraction of large and small
political systems and large and small states that hoping to cheat history and
get out of political cloacae have been tempted by alleged workability of so
called "vespassianity". Examples of USSR and Yugoslavia are the most
vivid in this connection. Political agony of the authorities in the state of
Masonic type starts from unofficial merger of its branches into "inquisition"
i.e. inter-corporative cahoots to solve fiscal, economic, social and political
problems through using the institute of justice, this course usually leads to
the total collapse of the whole system. Collapse of the Soviet Union finished
the period of so-called "vespassianity" but only in relation to the
great Slavic-Asian Empire, as it was passed on and inherited by those
post-Soviet states formations that preferred unofficial war wit public opinion
to practical democratic transformations.
Uzbekistan, whose authorities unfortunately did not manage to rid of the
heritage of shadow political and economic epoch of "socialism" and
concentrated on mere "advertising" of democracy, calling it a special
way to market economy, at the present time entered a culmination stage of "vespassianity".
Snobbish lies in state politics that regulates total ABSENCE OF JUSTICE,
legitimised symbiosis of state and mafia structures, incredibly high level of
bribery, circular bail and corruption - here are the main characteristics of the
period Uzbekistan lives in now. Augustine Aurelius said about such times in
state's evolution: "Once justice and legitimacy fade away a State becomes a
gang of bandits".
We hope that we have given a fairly full answer to the question: "Why
torture - a great social evil - have been introduced as a part of state politics
and who was the man behind this 'phenomenon'?
PART II
As known, special rapporteur of the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights on the question of torture, Theo van Boven was visiting Uzbekistan from
24 November to 16 December 2002. He has inspected several penitentiary
institutions, talked to many of the torture victims and their relatives, higher
state officials. In February 2003 the Report based on results of his visit to
Uzbekistan was published for the first time. In it the Special Rapporteur has
laid down 22 recommendations for Uzbek government to banish torture from
practice of interrogating and other penitentiary organs of Uzbekistan.
Although it has been more then a year now the government of Uzbekistan
does not rush to acknowledge the fact that torture is used in state's
interrogation and other penitentiary institutions. And it is not going to
acknowledge it. This was eloquently noted by Akmal Saidov (Director of
Uzbekistan National Human Rights Centre) in his speech made on 2 September,
2003, in course of discussing "National plan of actions to realize the
recommendation given by the special rapporteur of the United Nations Commission
on Human Rights on the question of torture". Mr. Saidov who was also acting
as a Head of State Commission elaborating the mentioned plan said the following:
"We have no mass use of torture, there are only separate cases. How did Mr.
Theo van Boven establish that we have a wide use of torture, which criteria did
he use to establish this?"
Provision 70 of the Report enumerates each one of the 22 recommendations,
from "a" to "v". They are the following:
70 (a): "first of all and before anything else state authorities
should publicly condemn torture in all of its forms. Higher authorities and
particularly those responsible for law enforcement activities have to
unequivocally declare that they shall not tolerate the use of torture or any
equivalent treatment on the part of state officials, and that those who control
the infrastructure where misuse of power takes place, shall be personally
responsible for such misuse of power. The authorities have to take serious
actions to ensure that public believes such declarations and that it know that
lawlessness shall be put to an end."
The first part of this Special Rapporteur recommendation can not be
achieved because of the reasons described in Part I of the present Report.
President's speech at EBRD summit is a clear proof of that.
All the other parts of the first recommendation cannot be achieved as
well because higher state official responsible for law enforcement (Z. Almatov,
R. Inoyatov, R Kadirov and others) are quite aware of the criminal liability
they may incur, and shall not make any declarations about mass use of torture.
70(b): "the government should amend its internal Criminal
legislation to include crime of torture, the description of which should fully
coincide with Article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and reinforce it with an
appropriate punishment".
Internal Criminal Legislation contains Article 235 of the Criminal Code
of Republic of Uzbekistan (Compulsion to give testimony), which envisages
punishment for psychological as well as physical manipulation of the suspect,
accused, witness, or of the expert by means of threat, beating, torture, causing
suffering, causing minor or major corporal damage, or same actions that caused
leaden consequences, or punishment of any other activity taken by the
interrogator, inspector, or prosecutor with the aim of compulsion to give
testimony.
70 (c): " the government should also amend its internal Criminal
legislation to include habeas corpus right, by this giving any individual
imprisoned by arrest or apprehension the right to seek help from independent
judicial organs that would promptly take a decision on legality of imprisonment
and issue resolutions to release those who were imprisoned illegally".
Internal Criminal Legislation (Criminal Code of Republic of Uzbekistan)
contains Articles that give any person, imprisoned by arrest or apprehension,
the right to address independent judicial organs. However this recommendation is
also impracticable since there is no INDEPENDENT JUSTICE in Uzbekistan.
70 (d): "the government should take all appropriate measures for
the establishment of independent judicial system and observance by such system
of its responsibilities according to international standards, in particular UN's
Basic principles for judicial organs' independence. It is also important to take
appropriate measures to encourage principle of equality between prosecution and
defence in criminal proceedings."
This recommendation is also impracticable in the conditions of one of the
most authoritarian political regimes.
70(e): "the government should provide for all claims of torture
and equivalent cruel treatment to be investigated in due time and thoroughly by
an organ, outside the system of state prosecution and capable of prosecuting
those held responsible."
There is no such organ in Uzbekistan at present, and since the government
is not willing to recognize the fact of torture in the country no such organ is
going to be created.
70(f): "any state official accused of misusing his/her authority
or being responsible for torture should be dismissed from his/her position
immediately and until court hearing takes place".
This recommendation is impracticable. However compliance with this
recommendation will not change the present situation.
70(g): "Ministry for Internal Affairs and Service for National
Security should create effective procedures to control its workers' conduct,
particularly to rid of the practice of torture and any other equivalent cruel
treatment. Functioning of such procedures should not be dependent on existence
of a claim".
The aforementioned organs can elaborate "effective procedures to
control its workers' conduct" however this "document" shall
resemble the still-born National Plan.
70(h): "moreover independent non-governmental interrogators
should be allowed full and prompt access to the places of detention including
militia isolators, places for detention prior to court hearing, Security
Services isolators, places for administrative detention, places for medical and
psychiatric detention, and prisons, so that they are able to control treatment
towards individuals and conditions for their imprisonment. They should be
allowed to have confidential talks with any individual contained in those
institutions."
Uzbekistan does not have independent non-governmental interrogators.
There is no contingent from which to appoint them.
70(i): "forensic workers, judges and prosecution workers should
always enquire with the individuals brought from places of detention controlled
by Ministry for Internal Affairs or Service for National Security, about how
they have been treated and pay special attention to the state they are in, and
also, should there be reasons for this, even in the absence of official claim on
the part of the detained, require medical assessment of his/her physical state."
Forensic, prosecution workers and judges shall not do this. However they
can draw up documents in the evidence of the execution of the aforesaid
procedure.
70(j): "it is important to take all appropriate actions to
encourage total respect toward the principle of unacceptability of any testimony,
obtained under torture, according to international standards and International
Court decision of May 1997."
For the last 8-10 years the proof of guilt of the accused or detained
individual has only been based on his own confession that was beaten out of him
during the preliminary inquiry. This practice is still used today. The
interrogators working for law enforcement organs are not familiar with any other
practice; they don't have even relative respect toward the principle of
unacceptability of any testimony, given under torture.
70(k): "confessions made by individuals detained by Ministry for
Internal Affairs and Service for National Security organs not in the presence of
his/her lawyer/defence representative and not confirmed in court should not be
accepted as evidence against the individual who made those confessions. The
issue of video and audio recordings during questioning in cabinets of the
Ministry for Internal Affairs and Service for National Security should be
seriously considered."
Few years ago British Embassy upheld the project of equipping several
regional and city judicial organs (including Tashkent) with computers to promote
computer recording for judicial proceedings with a view to stop distortion of
information obtained in a course of proceedings. But not a single judicial
proceeding was ever recorded; computers were used for other purposes. Further
realization of the project was suspended.
70(l): "current legislation should be revised to give the
imprisoned individuals right to see their lawyer or relatives 24 hours a day.
Moreover, law enforcement organs should be directed to inform individuals
suspected of committing crimes about their right to defence."
Uzbekistan legislation envisages all of the above proceeding but they
have never been applied and probably never will be.
70(m): "taking into consideration numerous communications about
incompetence of state appointed lawyers, it is important to take measures to
improve quality of legal aid in accordance with the basic UN principles for
defence lawyers".
Incompetence of state appointed lawyers takes root in circumstances
described in point A9 above, this situation is impossible to correct.
70(n): "doctors who have been appointed to independent institute
of judicial expertise, which may be controlled by the Ministry of Health, and
have undergone specialist training to elicit vestigial signs of torture or other
illegal cruel treatment should be allowed access to see the imprisoned
individuals at the time of arrest and at times of transferring them to each new
place of detention."
Uzbekistan does not have independent institute of judicial expertise (see
point A9 above). To comply with the above recommendation authorities may create
such institute but it will exist to conceal physical torture and illegal cruel
treatment during preliminary hearing and in places of detention/imprisonment.
70(o): "high-priority attention should be paid to improvement and
consolidation of professional preparation for workers of law enforcement organs,
especially while dealing with the imprisoned individuals. The Government should
thenceforth address International organizations to seek help on this issue."
"Improvement and consolidation of professional preparation for
workers of law enforcement organs, while dealing with the imprisoned individuals",
in the conditions of cruel authoritarian regime can only bring more cruelty and
violence. Psychology of interrogators, heads of prisons and their subordinates
had become openly sadistic.
70(p): "it is important to seriously consider revising current
legislation to make penitentiary institutions (prisons and colonies) and other
places of detention accountable to the Ministry of Justice".
This recommendation of the Special Rapporteur is doable and the
government of Uzbekistan would most probably act in such a way. However such
action shall not contribute to extirpation of torture and other kinds of cruel
treatment from interrogation organs' practice.
70(q): "should there be strong evidence that the person have been
subjected to torture or any other kind of cruel treatment, such person should be
entitled to receive prompt and appropriate compensation; this calls for creation
of a system for compensations and rehabilitation."
The government of Uzbekistan shall not comply with this recommendation.
During last 8-10 years there was not a single case where an individual subjected
to torture of other cruel treatment had been paid any form of compensation. Not
even in those cases when the guilt of law enforcement organs was proved in court.
Workers of S. Rahimov District Department of internal affairs have arrested
brothers Rasul and Ravshan Haitov in October 2001. In twenty four hours one of
them, Rasul, have died in the Department premises after being tortured, the
other one, Ravshan, has been brutally mutilated. The court sentenced the four
workers of District Department held responsible to 20 years of imprisonment.
Neither family of Rasul Haitov, nor that of Ravshan Haitov has been given any
compensation.
70(r): "Ombudsman's office should be supplied with all the
necessary financial recourses and manpower to enable its efficacy. It should be
allowed discretion in cases of necessity and without prior notification to
inspect any penitentiary institution, regularly publicise its conclusions and
evidence of criminal practices in corresponding organs of prosecution and those
of administrative state officials".
In 1997 Uzbekistan received 3 million USD grant in accordance with United
Nations Development Program to develop its human rights organizations, both
state and non-governmental. Non-governmental organizations were not allowed to
participate in this Program, although Ombudsman had received substantial
financial aid. However this organ is fully accountable to Executive branch of
power.
70(s): "relatives of those sentenced to death should be treated
humanely to avoid excessive suffering that may be caused by secrecy and
uncertainty surrounding circumstances of sentencing. It is also recommended to
introduce moratorium for execution of death sentences and promptly seriously
consider abolishment of death penalty".
On the 4 January 1998 Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan addressed
President of Uzbekistan with appeal to abolish death penalty from national
justice system or introduce moratorium for execution of death sentences. It
caused no reaction. Currently death penalty is enshrined in two Articles of
Criminal Code of Uzbekistan.
70(t): "the government should urgently review the issue of Jaslyq
closed colony. Due to its very location the conditions for detention created
there amount to cruel, inhumane and humiliating dignity treatment and
punishments of the imprisoned as well as their relatives".
The information about existence and functioning of KIN UA 64/71 near
Jaslyq settlement (Karakalpakstan) was first publicized by Uzbekistan Human
Rights Society on 20 September 1999. We know that the bodies of the deceased who
died of torture and beating are taken out of there, but we are not aware of any
single case of anyone being released from this colony. UHRS announcement caught
authorities by surprise since the election to Parliament was scheduled for 5
December and Presidential election to 9 December 2000. On Karimov's command a
prison for 300-350 inmates had been urgently created on the nearby military base
(8 kilometres away from Jaslyq). Three-four storey building that belonged to the
base was fixed.
The main body of inmates is kept in Soviet-time ex-military barracks and
three huge underground bomb shelters. This concentration camp is situated 20-22
kilometres away from Jaslyq, journalists, representatives of international
organizations or relatives of the imprisoned are denied access.
By "complying" with the aforementioned recommendation the
authorities may temporarily close the prison situated on the military base, but
not the concentration camp. During his inspection Mr. Theo van Boven was denied
access not only to the concentration camp but to the prison as well.
70(u): "all competent authorities should pay close attention and
react to temporary measures proposed by the Human Rights Committee, and
insistent appeals from control mechanisms of the United Nations concerning
individuals that may incur irretrievable damage to their lives, health and
physical inviolability".
The competent authorities can not pay close attention and are even less
likely to react to the above propositions due to their misanthropic tendencies.
70(v): "the government is recommended to make a statement
envisaged in Article 22 of Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and recognise the right of the
Committee against torture to obtain and review statements by individuals that
claim that they have been victims to the breach of Convention, and also ratify
Faculty Protocol to the Convention, which shall result in creation of an organ
for regular visits to all penitentiary institutions in the country with the aim
to stop torture. It should also offer the Working Group on arbitrary
detention, Special Representative for the Secretary General on the issue of
human rights activists and Special Rapporteur on issues of judges and lawyers'
independence to visit the country." [Underlined by me - T.Y.]
The above recommendation of the Special Rapporteur according to its
parameters is the most difficult for the authorities of Uzbekistan to comply
with and amounts to that in point 70(a). It is most sure to be ignored.
PART III
As we have seen, the recommendations of UN Special Rapporteur on torture
in Uzbekistan are most likely to be ignored by all the representatives of state
authority, starting with sadistic interrogator and all the way to the head of
state. To admit mass and systematic use of torture in penitentiary institutions
of the country would amount to admitting committing Genocide against part of
country's own people and crimes against humanity (Article 6 and 7 of the Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court), since every use of torture is a
crime.
Article 6 and 7 of Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Article 6. Genocide
For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the
following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a
national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
[Underlined and dotted by me - T.Y.]
Article 7. Crimes against humanity
1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity"
means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or
systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of
the attack:
Footnote: ticked are the crimes that can be found in Uzbekistan
authority's actions
Historic
parallel or how to break the Uzbek knot?
German people, who have survived Hitler's totalitarian regime and the
cruellest war in the history of mankind, have chosen the way of democratic
development. Although the ringleaders of National Socialist party have been
convicted by Nuremberg tribunal, the society still had large number of Nazis,
who had been committing genocide and crimes against humanity.
Post-war Parliament of Germany ratified a law prohibiting members of
National Social party from becoming state officials. As the time showed the
decision had been the right one.
Present-time Uzbekistan can not match either pre-war or present-time
Germany. Today's Uzbekistan repeats the mistakes Germany had done 70 years ago.
Everybody knows what those mistakes led to. German people could not stop the
Nazi obscurantism and allowed them to come to power; they had made the right
choice only 25 years later.
As history shows Uzbekistan is 70 years behind Germany. It would be the
right decision if the Parliament of Uzbekistan ratified a law prohibiting people
who use illegal arrests, torture, unjust trials executions that have not been
sanctioned, from becoming state officials.
It has been almost a year now since the Report of UN Special Rapporteur
on human rights about torture in Uzbekistan was first publicized. But the
government of Uzbekistan does not rush to comply with its recommendations. Why?
The answer is quite simple. The authorities perfectly see a shadow of
International Criminal Court.
Talib Yakubov, Chairman of the Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan
Guest book Forum Chat Society Post Public relations Óçáåê÷a Ðóññêèé English France
