UZBEKISTAN NEEDS BRITISH-STYLE DEMOCRACY, SAYS PRESIDENT
Faruk Turaev: 9/21/03
A EurasiaNet Partner Post from Transitions Online

If Uzbekistan’s president succeeds in turning his vision into reality, Uzbeks could eventually see public figures be given the type of grilling that British Prime Minister Tony Blair received at the inquiry into the apparent suicide of leading UN weapons inspector David Kelly.

President Islam Karimov told reporters on 29 August that "I would like to have a system that people living in Uzbekistan would trust, that is a system in which there are three branches of power that meet democratic requirements, and in which each branch of power of the government implements its own tasks. Only then, if a branch of power has too high an opinion of itself, can the relevant judicial body bring it down to earth with a bump."

He said the judiciary "must not care whether it is a president or anyone else," pointing to Watergate and British inquiry into Kelly’s death as "the system that must suit us."

But the gap between the authorities’ words and deeds has, arguably, been thrown into clear relief in recent weeks by the specific issues of torture and human rights.

Long-standing concerns about torture in police cells and prisons reached a new level late last year when the United Nations sent its first delegation to Uzbekistan to look at the issue of torture. Theo Van Boven, the UN’s special rapporteur, who visited Uzbekistan in December and wrote up his findings in a report in March, talked of the "systematic" use of torture in law enforcement and judicial processes and the "considerable" number of people tortured to death. He said the UN was "concerned about many confessions obtained through torture, which has been used systematically by the Uzbek law enforcement and then used as evidence in trials."

Van Boven also pinpointed other forms of police abuse, saying that "religious leaflets, weapons, and bullets are planted as evidence to connect a person with banned groups, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir."

The Uzbek authorities put up a partial defense, saying that torture was "not systematic." But an official response also said that "the Uzbek authorities make no secret of the gross violations of human rights committed in prisons and are working to put an end to this practice."

Six months after the UN report, Uzbekistan received some faint praise for its work. Speaking on 1 September, to mark the 12th anniversary of Uzbekistan’s independence, the German ambassador in Tashkent, Kurt Stokl Stiffruet, thanked the Uzbek government for letting international observers and visitors visit prisons.

Uzbekistan has taken a number of other steps. On 27 August, the Uzbek cabinet decided to create a special human-rights committee. The watchdog would not be independent, however, and would answer to the Justice Ministry.

The government-backed National Human Rights Center is also drawing up a national plan on how to implement the UN’s recommendations to stop the use of torture, working with the Tashkent office of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).

On 3 September, the center held a public meeting attended by independent human-rights organizations and international officials, as well as the parliamentary commissioner for human rights, officials from the interior ministry and secret services, members of the Constitutional and Supreme Courts, and other lawyers.

While the meetings held by the National Human Rights Center represent an effort to increase debate, most participants criticized the plan for setting the implementation date at the end of 2005.

Some also questioned the need for a national plan, saying that the law-enforcement bodies could deal with the problem in its own ranks unilaterally, and that the president could immediately issue a decree banning torture.

International assessments of progress remain largely negative. Speaking in early September to the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, an independent U.S. government agency created to monitor human rights, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Lorne Craner said there had been signs of progress over the past year but not in recent months. He specifically mentioned the death of two prisoners by torture, saying that the authorities had failed to produce a credible account of their deaths.

On the specific issue of torture, the British and French ambassadors have called on the authorities to apologize to the nation. The British ambassador, Craig Murray, said that the Interior Ministry and the National Security Service should criticize themselves in public for using torture, while the French envoy said that it was important for the Uzbek government to issue a statement on torture.

The United Nations had earlier demanded a similar step, advising the Uzbek authorities to publicly condemn torture in all its forms and to make torture a crime. Uzbek law does not explicitly call police torture a crime.

There has been no sign that the international community is ready to act on earlier threats to cut aid. Van Boven had warned that the United Nations might reduce humanitarian and other kinds of aid unless Uzbekistan improved its record. But Craner issued another warning at the hearing of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. "I’ve been telling the Central Asians that time is not on their side, that they need to show the U.S. and show the Congress that they are serious about reform, if they wish our relations to grow stronger and our assistance to continue," Craner said in remarks picked up by Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty (RFE/RL).

TORTURE CONTINUING

Groups have questioned how seriously the Uzbek authorities take international concerns and threats. In December, Human Rights Watch said that the Uzbek authorities appeared indifferent to international opinion and threats. Shortly before Van Boven visited, prisoner Iskandar Khudoiberganov was sentenced to death on charges of terrorism, murder, and propagating religious extremism. The judge said his verdict was based exclusively on Khudoiberganov’s written testimony and confessions. Khudoiberganov’s family said he confessed to the charges, only after he was subjected to beatings and electric shocks.

"The failure to investigate these torture claims, even while the UN special rapporteur on torture is in the country, shows that the authorities remain indifferent," Elizabeth Andersen, executive director of Human Rights Watch’s Europe and Central Asia Division, said at the time.

Similar doubts were fed in recent weeks by the abduction of a leader of the Independent Group for Human Rights Defenders, Surat Ikromov. He was stopped on the street on 28 August by three men, beaten up, and bundled into a car with a sack over his head. The men threatened to kill him if he did not pay $10,000.

Ikromov was eventually left on the side of the road, still trussed up and nursing two broken ribs.

The International League for Human Rights, an international nongovernmental organization that has special consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (UN ECOSOC), issued a statement saying that "given the history of persecution and unfair treatment of human rights activists and journalists in Uzbekistan, the attack on Ikromov appears to be politically motivated."

The Independent Group for Human Rights Defenders is a local partner of the International League for Human Rights.

Ikromov defended Ruslan Sharipov, an Uzbek journalist recently jailed for five and a half years for sodomy. He also has been active in monitoring trials of alleged members of the banned Hizb ut-Tahrir movement, an Islamist group that calls for the creation of a caliphate, or Islamist government, that would rule Central Asia. The movement does not espouse violence, though Kyrygz authorities allege that the group is forging closer ties with militant groups and Uighurs seeking independence from China.

The International League for Human Rights said it believes Ikromov’s abduction is directly connected to his defense of Sharipov. The attack came as Ikromov was returning from a meeting to set a court date for an appeal against Sharipov’s conviction.

In a statement, Rachel Denber, a senior figure at New York-based Human Rights Watch, said that "we suspect that there may be more to this incident than mere criminal thuggery." And U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Craner said the case raised further questions about Uzbekistan’s commitment to human rights.

Allegations of torture also continue to surface, most recently from the head of a regional branch of the Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan (HRSU). Jora Murodov, who heads the Nishon branch of the HRSU emerged from prison to tell the media that, in his 12 months in prison, he had come across many cases of torture. In comments reported by RFE/RL on 8 September, Murodov also reported that prison conditions are "inhuman" and that bribery is rife among prison officials.

Muradov and two colleagues were jailed in September 2002. HRSU said the sentences were handed down because of the group’s efforts to fight bribery and corruption among local authorities.

Their release brings the number to eight of HRSU members to have been freed since October 2002. One member remains in custody, Tursunboy Otamurodov from Karakalpakstan, a near-desert region close to the Aral Sea.

The chairman of the HRSU, Tolib Yoqubov, believes that torture remains systematic.

In related news, the United Nations human-rights committee said on 4 September that it currently is looking into reports that "six individuals under sentence of death in Uzbekistan, whose cases are currently pending before the Human Rights Committee, and who alleged that they had not received a fair trial, had been executed, despite the fact that requests for interim measures of protection had been issued by the Committee."

Email this article | Printer-Friendly Version
Posted September 21, 2003 © Eurasianet
http://www.eurasianet.org

	The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.