Submitted to the 98th Session of the…

Consideration of the third periodic report under Article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Uzbekistan
NGO Submission

Submitted to the 98th Session of the UN Committee on Human Rights
Date of Submission: January 2010

APPENDIX # 1
CASE DESCRIPTIONS

ARTICLE 7:  PROHIBITION OF TORTURE

Case ? 1 – Death in Custody
Nozim Mamadaliev – born in 1973, a citizen of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan, lived in Bozor-Korgon village of Bozor-Korgon district in Jalalabad region of Kyrgyzstan.
On April 13 2009 Nozim Mamadaliev was arrested on the Kyrgystan/Uzbekistan border.   It was later learned that since 2007 N. Mamadaliev  has been on the wanted list by Ferghana city Prosecutor’s Office (Uzbekistan) for allegedly committing crimes under articles 223  part 1 (Illegal exit out or entry into the Republic of Uzbekistan), art. 167 part 3 section “a” (Plunder by assignment or wastes).
After arrest he was put into police custody of Ferghana city internal affairs department. He was represented by a defense lawyer who came in only on April 20. An investigator of the Prosecutor’s Office contrary to the requirements of the Criminal Procedural Code failed to inform the Uzbek Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the arrest of a foreign citizen.
On April 29 2009 the investigator of the Prosecutor’s Office ordered to move N. Mamadaliev from police custody to the TB hospital of Ferghana city “because of sudden detection of cirrhosis of the liver and tuberculosis .” The same day, at about 2:30 p.m., N. Mamadaliev died. His body was given to his relatives on May 1 2009. Before giving out the body the police administration  in custody of N.Mamadaliev, a doctor of the TB hospital and head of the special operations section of the police  forced Tirkashbay Mamadaliev (N. Mamadaliev’s father) to sign a paper  stating that he doesn’t have any claims on the authorities for the death of his son. They then warned that if such paper was not  signed the relatives won’t be able to receive the body. N. Mamadaliev has allegedly been tortured to death. Four pictures of the dead body indicate  clear marks of torture. Medical  reports provided on the pictures by independent medical experts from Uzbekistan and international organizations which specialize on similar issues have confirmed the possibly that N. Mamadaliev had been severely beaten and there is a high probability of forced penetration into anus area. The criminal case opened on the death of N. Mamadaliev was stopped because according to the official forensic conclusion his death was recognized as “natural.” In May 2009 the Rapid Response Group – Uzbek and Kyrgyz NGO “Vozdukh” independently investigated this case and appealed to the Uzbek authorities requesting a new official investigation into death of N.M. and opening a criminal case against his perpetrators. The government has ignored those appeals.#

Case # 2 – Inadmissibility of Torture Evidence
Kayum Ortikov – born in 1969, resident of Chirchik town of Tashkent region; worked in  “Diplomatic service”  for the Uzbek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as a security guard for the Embassy of Great Britain in Tashkent.
On December 26 2008 he was arrested by Chilonzor district internal affairs department in Tashkent and charged with human trafficking (Art. 235 part 2 sections “B”, “E” and “Z” of the Criminal Code). On January 29, 2009, after only one month, he was found guilty by the court and sentenced to 6 years of imprisonment.
During pre-trial investigation the alleged victims were pressed to testify against K. Ortikov. On March,3 2009 when the case was heard at the appellate court the alleged victims reported to the court that their testimonies against K. Ortikov were extracted from them under pressure and threats by the investigators and court and K. Ortikov was not guilty. Despite such statements of the alleged victims the appellate court didn’t change the sentence of the first court. During pre-trial investigation the police officers of Chilonzor district internal affairs department tortured K. Ortikov in order to extract from him incriminating testimonies against his colleague Umid Ibodullaev, another security guard working for the Embassy of Great Britain in Tashkent. During the first trial  there were fresh marks of torture on K. Ortikov’s body. The court has rejected the defense’s petition on appointing forensic expertise for identifying the cause of injuries on K. Ortikov’s body. From the moment of his arrest, K. Ortikov has been kept in Tashkent Prison ? 64/1. In spite of numerous petitions to the prison administration the relatives haven’t seen K. Ortikov since January 29, 2009. On May 19, 2009 K. Ortikov wrote a letter from prison to his relatives where he refuses to see anybody, including his parents. His letter along with some personal clothes with stains of blood and some unknown substance were given to his relatives on May 22. Despite a number of appeals for an independent investigation into allegations of torture and similar ill-treatment by the family members of K.Ortikov and “Ezgulik” a Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan, the Uzbek authorities continue to ignore such appeals.

Case # 3: Torture/Impunity
Erkin Alimov – resident of Khovos district of Syrdarya region. He was arrested on March 27th,  2009 by police officers and charged with possession and distribution drugs. He was kept in Yangier police custody where he was subjected to torture. Anortoji Alimov, father of E. Alimov has reported about his son’s case to “Ezgulik” Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan in May. Erkin Alimov was taken to Yangier town hospital because his leg was broken after he was beaten up by police interrogators in pre-trial custody in Khovos. As of May 2009 Erkin Alimov was undergoing pre-trial investigation while his perpetrators remained unpunished.#

Case # 4:  Torture
The following young residents of Urgutsk region were arrested by the police of Samarkand oblast Department of Internal Affairs in April 29, 2006:
1. Akhadov Gafur; 2. Aliyev Dzhamshid; 3. Usupov Azam; 4. Ekubov Rofe; 5. Ibodullayev Azam; 6. Dadamirzayev Ibrokhim; 7. Batyrov Ilkhom; 8. Gaphurov Sobir.
Each person was charged with the following articles of the Criminal Code: article 159 (Encroachment on the constitutional status of the Republic of Uzbekistan), 244-1 (Production and distribution of materials against public security and public order), 242 (Organizing a criminal association), 165 (Extortion), 189 (Violation of trading and servicing rules), 190 (Practicing business without a license), 209 (Official forgery).
On April 29th, 2006 after warrantless searches were conducted in the house and the work place (trading posts) of the eight alleged victims and their families, about 20 people were taken to Samarkand Regional Police Department. The arrested victims were kept there during 3 days without registration. No arrest protocol was drawn.  The victims were not allowed to consult the attorneys who were hired by their parents. Three days later, on May 1st, 2006, state attorneys were appointed.
Employees of the Samarkand oblast Department of Internal Affairs tortured and used other illegal interrogation methods to extract false evidence and confessions from the eight victims and their families. Every detainee was subjected to torture; three examples demonstrate the nature and the extent of abuses.
G. Akhadov was arrested on April 29th, 2006 at 5 p.m, although the arrest was officially recorded on April 30. Policemen beat his heels with a baton, sent electric shocks through parts of his body and drove in needles under his nails. Mr. Akhadov fainted several times during his examination. A forensic medical examination recorded that the injuries and bruises throughout his body and under his eyes -still noticeable 6 months after the interrogation- resulted from “falling off a mulberry tree”. Policemen tortured Mr. Akhadov until he signed a criminal confession. One year later, Mr. Akhadov continues to demonstrate extreme anxiety when he is questioned about these events.
D. Aliyev was arrested at 4 p.m. on April 29th, 2006, at his work place. Policemen beat him with a baton on his heels and throughout his body. They also tortured him with electric shock. The forensic medical examination determined that the injuries and bruises on his body were “the results of falling from the roof”. When he refused to sign a confession, the detectives threatened to throw him out of the third floor window of the Department on Internal Affairs and register his death as suicide “during an effort to escape”. Finally, Mr. Aliyev signed the confession.
A. Usupov was arrested at 4 p.m. on April 29th, 2006 in his store. The police report  claims the arrest was made on May 1st, 2006. He was also tortured. His feet and his whole body were still covered with bruises six months after the interrogation. The Forensic medical examination indicated that “the bruises on the body of the defendant resulted from falling from a hill”. The trauma of this torture was such that Mr. Usupov urinated several times in his pants, during his trial.
Our interviews in and around Urgutsk pointed that 28 out of 40 witnesses claimed that they were tortured or subjected to other cruel, inhumane or humiliating methods during their interrogations.
A. Latipov, a 14-year-old witness, was arrested on April 29th, 2006, while he and his mother, Gulchekhra Aliyeva, were in the store of G. Akhadov. The police report dated his arrest on May 3rd, 2006. He was interrogated alone, without the presence of his attorney, his parents or his teachers. Latipov was beaten on his head and heals with a baton, causing contusions on his head and severe bruising on his body. He was pressured to confess that his uncle, D. Aliyev, taught him extremist prayers. As a result of his traumatic experience, A. Latipov does not remember when and under which circumstances he signed the false testimony against his uncle.
Witness Rakhilya Aliyeva was also victim of various humiliations and to torture. While she was completely naked, she was beaten with a baton until she fainted. She only came to after being doused with water. While she was in a semi-coma, she overheard the policemen wondering if she was still alive. R. Aliyeva does not remember when and under which circumstances she signed the testimony they wrote on her behalf. She was forced to sign a document in which she promised to keep “the secrecy of the investigation”. It also included a disposition forbidding official complaints.
Another witness, Gulchekhra Aliyeva, arrested on April 29th, 2006, was beaten with a baton on her heels, and forced to sit before 15 to 20 people, while she was only wearing underwear. She does not remember when and under which circumstances she signed a false testimony against G. Akhadov. Aliyeva claimed she was forced to take a pledge, on paper, to keep “secret the investigation”. She also had to sign a commitment not to file complaints with any organization. She was threatened with more severe punishment if she did not honor her pledges. #

Case # 5:   Torture/Impunity
Mr. Ismoilov, on March 27, 2007, around 8:00 pm, was approached at his computer store by Bahodir Abduzhabbov, an Inspector at the Ferghana city Internal Affairs Department (FCMI).  He asked Mr. Ismoilov to copy pornographic material onto a DVD disk. Upon Mr. Ismoilov’s refusal, Mr. Abduzhabbov struck his head, verbally insulted him and threatened to return later for retaliation.
At about 9:00 am the following day, on March 28th, Mr. Abduzhabbov and five local policemen came back to Mr. Ismoilov’s work place in a “Damas” vehicle. The group asked him to come with them to the FCMI. After he refused, the policemen began to assault him inside the store. Because the noise could have attracted the attention of the surrounding businesses – that is potential witnesses – the policemen twisted Mr. Ismoilov’s arm and lead him to their car. On the way to the FCMI, Mr. Ismoilov managed to yell, through the car window, the destination to an acquaintance, who later informed Mr. Ismoilov’s father. On route, the policemen continued to hit him in the head and the bust.
Upon arriving at FCMI, the policemen led him to a room on the fourth floor. They then completely stripped him, handcuffed him and beat him for almost one hour. The beating primarily consisted of punching his face and stomach as well as kicking his legs, head and stomach. They also bound him by the arms and legs and threw him to the floor. Because of the beatings, he suffered acute nausea. Finally, the policemen released him but threatened him with further reprisal.
Mr. Ismoilov had great difficulties to return to his computer store where his father and many of the witnesses were waiting. Mr. Ismoilov was severely injured and he crawled to his father who drove him to the Fergana regional Bureau of Forensics. There, he was refused entry on the basis of the lack of official directive (in Uzbekistan, forensic professionals only conduct examinations with the permission and upon official directive from a governmental agency).  Other relatives drove Mr. Ismoilov to the regional medical center, where he was immediately accepted for emergency treatment.
Mr. Ismoilov’s father filed an official complaint with the head of the FCMI laterthe same day. The official appeared to him as having little inclination to take remedial action against his subordinates. Therefore, on March 29th, Mr. Ismoilov’s father filed an official complaint, jointly with the report team member, with the Ferghana City Procurator’s Office (FCP). The complaint asserted that twelve Fergana City policemen violated articles 206 (Exceeding Statutory Authority) and 235 (Application of Torture and other Harsh, Inhumane, or Degrading Forms of Punishment) of the Uzbek Constitution through the detention and the beating of Mr.Ismoilov. The FCP officers accepted the complaint but opposed to recognize the alleged violation of Article 235; Article 206 only kept under consideration.
On the same day, the FCP asked for a forensic test to assess the causes and the severity of the bodily injuries. The concluding report, attached to the forensic analysis, showed that Mr.Ismoilov’s ill-treatments were directly responsible for the following health complications: brain contusions, concussion and tissue damage around the head, the face, the neck, the chest, the arms and the legs. The examination concluded that Mr. Ismoilov was in stable condition.

Case # 6:  Torture/Forced confession in criminal charges
Ikrom Yakubov was detained in January 2006. He was charged with aggravated murder (article 97 part 2 of the Criminal Code of Uzbekistan) by the Djomboy District Interior Department and District Procurator. The investigators alleged that Yakubov  murdered his former girl-friend’s husband, to take revenge. Yakubov was put in the district police pre-trial detention custody where he was severely beaten. The district police also charged five of his relatives, including his father M.Y. They were locked up in neighboring detention cells, within the district police premises. Moreover, the Procurator brought in Ikrom’s mother and threatened to detain her if he did not confess the murder. Finally, he was forced to confess the murder. To date, he remains in the investigation custody of Samarkand Regional Interior Department. Samarkand Regional Court on criminal cases is hearing his case. Djomboy District Interior Department, the District prosecutor and the Samarkand Regional prosecutor are actively pressing Ikrom’s lawyer and family to give up.#

Case # 7:  Torture in Prison
Ulugbek Haydarov , an outspoken Uzbek human rights activist and independent journalist from the Djizzakh region, was sentenced On October 5th, 2006 to six years of imprisonment for „extortion” (article 165 of the Criminal Code of Uzbekistan). Right after arriving to the Prison # 64/29 in the Navoi region of Uzbekistan, U.H. had to undergo a series of torture by a group of inmates called „gady”.# These inmates are known for cooperating with the prison administration and are given some official authority over other fellow inmates. The „gady” ordered him, and several other new inmates, to sit on knees during several hours with the hands behind the head. Inmates who could not bear such exercise were severely beaten, especially with fist and kick. Ulugbek  was forced to sit down on his back, with his shoes off, while both feet were pulled forward. The „gady” beat him on his feet with rubber clubs, almost twenty times. In addition to the immense pain, the bones of Ulugbek’s feet were also fractured. Ulugbek was forced to go up to the third floor and come back, moving exclusively in a sitting position (referred to as „gusiniy shag” in Russian or „goose-walking” ). Ulugbek and some other inmates were also forced to sit down and stand up, while the „gady” was counting, about one hundred times, without stopping. Their eyes had to be closed and their hands to be pulled forward. While counting, the „gady” continued to beat them on the head and the body with plastic bottles filled with sand or water.#

Case # 8:  Torture/Unacknowledged custody
Ablyamitov Server , on March 1st, 2007 at 9:30 pm was detained in his house  in the Yangiyul district of Tashkent region, by Rustam, an operative officer of Mirzo Ulugbek district of Tashkent city, followed by an unknown operative and a police driver. His relatives were told he would be taken to Tashkent for an interrogation as a witness on a criminal case. At about 10:30 pm, Ablyamitov was brought to one of the rooms of Mirzo Ulugbek district Interior department. He was hand-cuffed and asked to sit on the concrete floor, next to the heating system of the room and near an open window. He had to remain in this position until the following day (until 3:00 pm). Ablyamitov was denied access to bathroom facilities, food and warm clothes. He was interrogated for over 5 hours. The investigators pressed him and asked him to provide testimonies against two suspects he allegedly knew. He was threatened to be charged with complicity with these suspects. One of the suspects, who was not familiar with Ablyamitov, was brought to the room. Then, he was severely beaten in the face and body by the operative from Mirzo Ulugbek district Interior Department.  The investigator again demanded Ablyamitov to testify against the two suspects but with no results. All this time his exact whereabouts were not known to anyone.  He was not formally arrested or registered to enjoy any rights according the criminal procedure.
After having spent long hours on the concrete floor, near the open window, Ablaymov had developed symptoms of kidney disfunction.  At the of this report,  Ablyamov’s public defender and lawyer appealed to Mirzo Ulugbek District Procurator to open a criminal case against unlawful actions of the inquiry officers from the Mirzo Ulugbek District Interior Department.#

ARTICLE 8 (ARTICLE 24)  – PROHIBTION OF SLAVERY  AND RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

Case # 1:
In September 2006 two school children from Djomboy district of Samarkand region F. and I. were hit by a train near the cotton field. The boys were among the school children. Early in the morning they woke up and went to the railway near the camp where they were based. They wanted to watch the approaching locomotive. They were standing on the railway and were hit by the locomotive. One of them died at the place, another one was hospitalized at the district hospital with serious traumas . The complaints of the parents and some Uzbek human rights defenders were studied by the Djomboy prosecutor’s office and the office of the Prosecutor  General. At the time of the writing there were no results of the investigation of this case.#
Case # 2:
In September 2006 all students of Jizzakh city pedagogical college were taken to the fields for cotton picking. Before taking the students to the cotton fields the college administration forced the students to sign a statement which said each student is going to the fields for cotton picking on his / her own free will, were not forced to do this by anybody and that they want to help their Motherland. This was reported to the shadow report team by a human rights activist in Jizzakh city.
Case # 3:
In September 2006 M. Djalilova, born in 1993, a student of Bukhara Tourism College, threatened with expulsion from the college by the college administration has to check out from the hospital earlier that usual after she had a surgery for an  appendicitis. She could not finish a post-surgery medical treatment and fainted in the cotton field. M. Djalilova was again hospitalized after this.#
Case # 4:
In October 2006 Sh. Bakhramova, born in 1992, a student of Economics College of Bukhara city, after an attack of gastritis in the cotton field was allowed to go home to receive medical treatment. Soon after this under the pressure of the college administration she had to return to the cotton field.#
Case # 5:
Kudrat Khodjaev, born in 1992, a student of Economics College of Bukhara city, under the threat of expulsion from the college had to go to the cotton field soon after he had hepatitis in the summer of 2006. He fainted in the cotton field and was hospitalized. The doctor’s examination of K. Khodjaev showed that he had caught toxic poisoning from the  farmingchemicals in the cotton field. In the last three cases the complaints of the parents to the governmental structures (regional departments of public education) were left without results.#

ARTICLE 9 –  LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON

Case # 1:
On May 07th, 2008 approximately at 13.00hrs S. was taken to Yakkasaray district department of internal affairs (DDIA) of Tashkent city under the formal reason of checking his permanent place of residence. After he was brought to Yakkasaray DDIA he was placed in one of the offices of the criminal investigation unit. He was not informed that he was under arrest,  did not have any of his rights explained to him, and  did not have a lawyer present.  He was forced to write a statement (explanation) on the circumstances of the crime.
He was held in the premises of the criminal investigation unit for 20 hours without registration, without charges, without arrest warrant, without a lawyer or a right to inform his relatives.   He was given access to the lawyer only in the morning of May 8th.  He was taken to the court for sanctioning of arrest only on May 10th at 12.00hrs, i.e. 83 hours later than the time he was factually taken into police custody.  The police post factum dated the protocol of arrest as 22.00hrs on May 07th, i.e. making it comply with the 72 hours on paper.
The judge hearing the pre-trial detention did not address the issue of legality of initial arrest, as the 72 hour period was upheld according to the protocol.   The hearing was held without a lawyer and resulted in a decision on detention. The judge did not take into consideration the personal circumstance of the detained S, such as that he had no criminal record in the past; he was a third-year student with positive references from the school and neighbors and had not previously posed any threat to investigation activities.  The prosecution did not present any reasonable explanation to conclude that he would like to escape from prosecution.
The same judge was appointed to hear the case on the main trial on criminal charges.  Not surprisingly, the judge did not address the issue of legality of arrest or detention.

Case # 2:
The investigator D. from the Investigation unit of Kibray District Department of Internal Affairs of Tashkent region officer was investigating a criminal case against an individual, named I. On June 04th, 2009 at 24 hrs I. was arrested on the suspicion of large scale fraud (Article 168, 3a of CC).
On June 06th, 2009 at 14.40 hrs the judge of Kibray district court of Tashkent region passed a decision on complying the petition of the prosecutor’s office of Kibray district of Tashkent region on applying the pre-trial arrest as a pre-trial preventive measure against I.
The defense attorney has appealed against the decision of the court on applying the pre-trial arrest on his client. In his appeal complained the defense attorney drew attention to the invalidity of the decision on applying the pre-trial arrest on his client because there was no legitimate ground for applying such preventive measure. The defense attorney also stressed that his client I. was experiencing serious health problems and his relatives are ready to guarantee bail and ensure that I. will appear before the investigation and hearings.
The appeal was heard by Tashkent regional court on criminal cases on June 11th, 2009. The decision of the district court on applying the pre-trial arrest on I. was upheld although neither on June 04th nor on June 11th had the investigator enough grounds to present formal charges against I. Sound arguments of the defense party were ignored.
Formal charges against him were brought only on June 17th 2009 at 11.00hrs i.e. in 13 days after the arrest.  According to the law, the suspect can only be held without charge up to 10 days.
The defense attorney has submitted a written appeal to the head of the Pre-trial Detention Center No. 64/1 with a petition to release detainee I.  because the term of his detention expired as the investigator failed to bring formal charges against suspect I. in 10 day period.  The defense attorney has repeated the same petition during a meeting with the first deputy head of PTD Center64/1,  but no measures were taken and suspect I. remained in detention.
When the defense attorney’s petitions reached the General Prosecutor’s office, Tashkent regional Prosecutor’s office, Tashkent city prosecutor’s and the Administration of the President of Uzbekistan, the head of the PTD Center N. 64/1,  the investigator on the case, officer D. took the suspect I. from detention center back to the police station. There in the corridor of the detention center the investigator started beating one of the male detainees  in the presence of I. knowing the psychological pressure such beating could inflict on I. Then the investigator told I. to sign a new protocol, whereby he was announced as suspect as of June 8th instead of June 6th. Thus the investigator wanted to conceal his responsibility for violations of the criminal procedure and the fact of unlawful detention of I.

ARTICLE 10 – RIGHT OF THE DETAINEES TO BE TREATED WITH HUMANITY AND DIGNITY

Case # 1:
According to a recent report published by the Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan, a penitentiary officer reported a massive violation of the rights of religious prisoners in Prison 64/33 of Karshi city, southern Uzbekistan. In his letter the informer indicates that there are more than 120 religious prisoners in this penitentiary facility who were imprisoned to lengthy prison terms under article 159 of the Uzbek Criminal code (Committing anti-constitutional activity). The prison administration regularly subjects those prisoners to torture and similar ill-treatment. Some of the torture types include rape of prisoners with the police clubs, giving prisoners enemas mixed with water and red pepper, and beating on the heels of the prisoners with police clubs until they can’t stay on their feet. The letter of the penitentiary officer has also indicated that the prison authorities raped religious prisoners with police clubs used to rape the HIV-positive prisoners. The report also mentions that the prison hospital forcedly treats the religious prisoners with the syringes which had already been used on the HIV-positive prisoners.#

Case # 2:
On December 30th, 2008, prison officials tried to force Alisher Karamatov to sign a statement confessing to a disciplinary violation of prison rules that he says he did not commit, according to his wife, who visited him in January. He refused, and instead told the officials he would complain to the prosecutor’s office. In response, the officials ordered Karamatov, 40, to remove his hat and outer clothing and stand outside wearing only his prison uniform, a coverall made of thin fabric. The temperature was below freezing and it was snowing. After enduring the cold for three hours, Karamatov agreed to sign.
Karamatov was accused of saying Muslim prayers and having too long a beard, the sign of an observant Muslim. Karamatov’s wife said that he does not wear a beard and has not prayed aloud while in prison. Praying, especially in groups, is often prohibited for prisoners in Uzbekistan.
Karamatov, an active member of the Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan in Gulistan, in Syrdaryo province, was arrested on April 29th, 2006. He was sentenced to nine years of imprisonment on politically motivated charges of extortion after a trial in June 2006 which independent observers documented as unfair. According to his public defender, Karamatov confessed to the charges after being tortured. The defender said that investigators beat Karamatov on the soles of his feet, threw him to the ground, and suffocated him with a gas mask to coerce him to confess. Karamatov developed severe tuberculosis in prison and was transferred to the prison hospital in October 2008. Human Rights Watch has called on Uzbekistan to free him on health grounds, and Karamatov’s lawyer also filed a request for Karamatov’s release on health grounds. On January 27th, 2009, the authorities denied the request, claiming that his condition had improved.
Human Rights Watch has expressed its serious concern over the health of several imprisoned human rights defenders in Uzbekistan, and has documented cases in which the authorities not only have failed to provide adequate medical care to such prisoners, but have actively undermined their health through torture, ill-treatment and the use of psychotropic drugs. Human Rights Watch also submitted a report about human rights violations in Uzbekistan on December 3rd, in connection with the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review. Human Rights Watch believes that at least 11 human rights defenders remain in prison, as well as dozens of other political prisoners and thousands of “religious prisoners” (whom the Uzbek government portrays as “extremists”).# The 11 imprisoned Uzbek activists include: Solijon Abdurakhmanov, Azam Formonov, Nosim Isakov, Gaibullo Jalilov, Alisher Karamatov, Jamshid Karimov, Norboi Kholjigitov, Abdurasul Khudainasarov, Ganihon Mamatkhanov, Farkhad Mukhtarov, Habibulla Okpulatov, Yuldash Rasulov, Dilmurod Saidov, and Akzam Turgunov.
Case # 3:
Muqaddas Shohidova, Umida Jumaeva and Mamura Qodirova – mothers of religious prisoners, currently serving terms in Prison No.64/51 in the Kosonsoy district of the Kashkadarya region (southern Uzbekistan), complained about the ill-treatment and inhuman conditions of their imprisoned sons:
(1) Dilshod Shohidov: born in 1974, married, two children. He was sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment. The sentence was finally reconsidered and his prison term was lowered to 8 years by the Mirabad district court of Tashkent city. He was charged for theft (article 169 of the CC) and distribution of materials containing threat to public safety and public order (article 244-1).  According to his mother, the material evidence against him was planted when the road police stopped his car for search, the religious leaflets were put in the vehicle.
(2) Murod Jumaev: born in 1978, single. In 2000, he was charged with the commission of crimes, in breach of articles 159 – encroachment to the constitutional order of the Republic of Uzbekistan, and the same article 244-1 of the Criminal Code. He was sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment by the Yunusabad District Court of Tashkent city;
(3) Surat Qodirov: born in 1975, single. He was charged with the commission of the same crimes as Murod Jumaev and sentenced to 7 and a half years of imprisonment by District Court of Tashkent city.
The mothers visited several times their sons at the prison. According to them, their sons, as well as other religious detainees, are regularly subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatments.
For example, Dilshod Shohidov was severely punished for the letter he wrote to his mother, in which he told her about the detention conditions. The operative officer of the prison, Abror Pardaev, found this letter while searching in the D. Shohidov’s cell. He got furious and, together with the prison warden, removed D. Shohidov to another cell where there were several prisoners D. Shohidov did not know. A. Pardaev ordered these prisoners to “Pack him!”. In the prison slang, it means “to severely beat or cripple a person”. As these prisoners refused to meet A. Pardaev’s orders, the latter removed D.Shohidov to another cell where he ordered him to undress. Under A. Pardaev’s order, three unidentified prisoners then violently beat him. They used their fists to beat and kickhim in the head,  the face and on various parts of the body. Shortly after this, on August 2nd, 2007, he was wrongly charged with the violation of prison rules and put into an isolation cell. The case of D. Shohidov confirms that prisons in Uzbekistan still, informally, maintain the so called “pressing cells” (known in Russian as “press-khata”  ).
Jumaev M. was harshly punished for having filled a complaint on the absence of adequate drinking water in the prison. According the victim’s reports, in Prison 64\51, all religious prisoners are held in Unit # 8.   Jumaev, in the written complaint he addressed to the prison chief, drew attention to the fact the prison administration purposefully deprived prisoners of Unit # 8 of access to normal drinking water. As a consequence, many of them become sick, suffer from dysentery and are physically exhausted because of this health condition. Jumaev’s complaint was transferred by the administration of the prison to the operative officer of the prison, Shomurod Rajabov. He, with another operative officer, A.Pardaev, summoned  Jumaev and threatened him.
According to M. Jumaev, on August 1st, 2007 at night, 12 prisoners from Unit  # 8, including him, were taken from their Prison 64/51, to the Pre-trial Detention center # 3 of Bukhara city, in the Bukhara region. All these religious prisoners were held in these detention facilities during ten days and were harshly beaten by the officers’ detention center. One of the prisoners, named “Bakhrom”, suffered from serious trauma and was in a critical condition. On August 11, 2007 all 12 prisoners were returned back to the Prison 64/51.
Qodirov’s mother, Mamura Qodirova, visited the prison 64/51 on September 15, 2007. However, she was informed that, since September 12th 2007, Qodirov has been placed in the isolation cell for infringement to internal prison rules. M. Qodirova finally managed to meet his son during a couple of minutes. Qodirov only had time to inform his mother that the operative officers of the prison tried to convince him to give an interview for a special TV program, in which religious prisoners bring official apologies to the President and people of Uzbekistan and express regret from what they did. He told his mother he refused to do so. M. Qodirova was told that her son would be released from the isolation cell on September 27. On October 1st, 2007, she came, once again, from Tashkent to prison 64/51 to meet her son. She was informed that S. Qodirov was again put into isolation cell for repeatedly having violated the internal prison rules and would be released from there, only on October 11th. M. Qodirova is convinced that the prison administration purposefully put her son into isolation cell in order to prolong his prison term.

ARTICLE 12 – FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT

Case # 1:
In May 2007 the Department of Visas and Registrations of the Yakkasarai district of Tashkent denied an exit visa to Alo Hojayev, former chief editor of the newspaper Tashkentskaya Pravda who was then associated with the independent web site Tribune-uz. Hojayev was first denied the exit visa in April 2006 when the authorities proclaimed it “inexpedient”. The journalist’s immediate family found themselves under pressure. Hojayev received a warning in June 2006 that he should close the web site if he knew what was good for him. The journalist was compelled to suspend Tribune-uz when his wife became a victim of a hit-and-run accident on July 1st 2006. The Uzbek authorities still deny Hojayev the permission to leave the country for whatever reason – business, pleasure, medical treatment, and so on.#
Case # 2:
The International group of Forum 18 # reported in March 2009 that Natalya Kadyrova, a resident of Tashkent and a practicing Protestant Christian, lodged her application at the Department of Entry, Exit and Legalization of Citizenship in the city’s Chilanzar District on  December 19th 2009. Although officials are required to respond within fifteen days they failed to do so. In a subsequent complaint to Sayora Rashidova, the Uzbek Parliament’s Human Rights Ombudsperson, Kadyrova insisted there is “no legal basis” for denying the exit visa and said no reason had been given. She pointed out that she has no criminal record and is not registered as a psychiatric patient or drug addict, or as suffering from tuberculosis or a venereal disease. As of  March 5th the officials have still refused to grant her an exit visa.
Muslims and Jehovah’s Witnesses have complained that their adherents have faced similar problems in the recent past. Various Protestant communities in different parts of Uzbekistan have told Forum 18 of several other cases at present time where their members have been denied exit visas. However, they asked that the names of individuals not be made public in the hope that the denial of exit visas can be overturned quietly. In some cases officials have told citizens that the National Security Service (NSS) secret police has informed the Department of Entry, Exit and Legalization of Citizenship not to issue exit visas because of their religious activities. In other cases officials gave no reasons.#

Case # 3:
In June 2008 the Frontline Defenders # voiced its concern following reports that a number of Uzbek human rights defenders from the Djizak region have been denied exit visas or have had exit visa applications delayed for a number of months. Ihtiyor Hamraev, a member of the Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan (HRSU) and son of prominent human rights defender Bakhtiyor Hamraev; Saida Kurbonova, Chair of the HRSU in Pakhtakor district; Ziyadullo Razakov, Chairperson of the International Human Rights Society in Djizak district; Mamir Azimov, Chairperson of the HRSU in Djizak district; and Uktam Pardaev, Chairperson of Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan in the Djizak district, have all applied to the OVIR – Department of Visa and Registration for exit visas as per State requirements for all citizens of Uzbekistan who request to leave the country.
According to the visa application system, requests will take 21 days to process. Ihtiyor Hamraev applied for an exit visa onMarch 16th 2008 and paid 9,700 sums (approximately $8). He approached the head of the OVIR, Batir Satarov, on 6 occasions but was told that his application had been denied. Batir Satarov told Bakhtiyor Hamraev that the application has been refused on orders of the Uzbekistan National Security Service due to the fact that Ihtiyor Hamraev was recently released from prison.
On September 25th 2006, Ihtiyor Hamraev was arrested and charged under Article 277(2)g of the Penal Code with hooliganism, and sentenced to three years in prison. He was released on amnesty on February 2nd 2008.
Saida Kurbonova applied for an exit visa on April 12th 2008. She has since approached head of the OVIR, Batir Satarov, on 8 occasions and each time has been informed that permission to grant the visa has not yet been received from Tashkent. Saida Kurbanova was reportedly under threat of eviction from her home in February 2008 as a result of her organizing  and participation in, a series of peaceful protests  against the lack of domestic heating and electricity in the Djizak region. She has previously been under surveillance by unidentified persons, has been attacked in the street and family members have been threatened. Ziyadullo Razakov applied for an exit visa four months ago in April 2008. As of June 2008 he had not received a response. Mamir Azimov applied for an extension to his exit visa on  March 4th 2008. He has approached the Department on 4 occasions to inquire into the progress of the application and each time has been informed that no response has been received from Tashkent.
Uktam Pardaev applied for a visa onFebruary 6th 2008 but as of yet has not received a response. He submitted a written complaint to the head of OVIR, without response, and then a written complaint to the office of the Djizak Municipal Prosecutor, T.H. Sagatov. It is believed that the refusal to grant exit visas to the above-mentioned human rights defenders is directly related to their work defending human rights and democracy in Uzbekistan and constitutes an attempt by the authorities to silence their critics and deny them the right to travel to discuss human rights violations in the country. #

ARTICLE 21 – FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY

Case # 1:
On  June 21st 2005, a demonstration to commemorate the victims of the “tragedy of Andijan” was organized in Tashkent. Security forces attempted to confiscate the posters of the participants and arrested about twenty people who were kept in custody the whole day without charge. On June 27th  2005 in Tashkent, plain clothes police officers prevented the holding of a demonstration against smear campaigns in the State media, in which the defenders were described as “national traitors” and “enemies,” and the disinformation surrounding the events of May 13th 2005 was spread.
Case # 2:
On October 14th – 15th 2009, the activists and protesters from the Human Rights Alliance group of Uzbekistan stood in protest in front of the local governor’s office in Djizzakh region demanding that the Uzbek government stop  the use of forced child labor in cotton picking. Many activists of the Human Rights Alliance of Uzbekistan were prevented from travelling to Nishon district and participating in a peaceful protest. Those who made it to the destination were harassed and beaten by the security forces.
The situation of many Uzbek human rights groups who started covering the issue of forced child labor during cotton harvest season has deteriorated because of the enhanced government surveillance, arbitrary detention in order to prevent human rights activists from travelling to the cotton fields, and verbal threats.
Case # 3:
In November 2009, several Uzbek activists have been subjected to persecutions for a brief meeting with the opposition leader in the caf? of city Jizak.
Bakhodir Choriev  the leader of Birdamlik (Solidarity) movement had returned from a five-year political  exile in the US.   On November 11th, 2009 he and his colleague Dilarom Iskhakova briefly met with the human rights activists of Jizak region:  Mamir Azimov (of Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan),  Bahtiyor Hamrayev, Said Kurbanov and Uktam Pardayev.
After the meeting,  Mamir Azimov was apprehended and taken into police custody in Jizak. The officers – deputy chief of the police department, Nurillo Usanov, and criminal investigator Jahongir Islamov, – took the activist to the department and beat him up for an hour.
Officer Islamov threatened Azimov with a needle, saying that he would gouge his eyes if he complained to the UN. “I am not going to have problems with my bosses because of you,” he said. Officer Usanov threatened Azimov’s life if the latter would seek medical treatment in hospital.  “I will issue orders that you will die there from an injection,” Usanov told Azimov. After  beating up Azimov, they forced him to lift a chair over his head and hold it for an hour.
Two days after he was beaten up, Azimov felt a sharp pain in his heart and went to hospital. After examination, doctors reported to police that they had admitted a person with traces of violence, as they are obligated according to the law.
Azimov complained to the Police chief of Jizak Department of International Affairs, the supervisor of the police officers who beat him, and the Jizak Regional Prosecutor.  To date, no official answers were received from any of the law enforcement offices.

ARTICLE 22 – FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION

Case # 1: In April 2008 Andijan regional department of justice refused to register the regional branch of “Ezgulik” Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan stating that the group had not presented all necessary registration documents. The department claimed that the group did not present written confirmation from an owner of a future office of the organization agreeing to rent the place for the group after its state registration.  The Ministry considered the agreement was as given only for period of application procedure.
This decision was in violation of the national rules which simply require written consent of the owner to rent the building for an office.
Andijan branch of Ezgulik was closed by the Uzbek authorities right after Andijan events in May 2005 when the government security forces have shot to death hundreds of peaceful protesters.#
Case # 2:
In February “Najot” Human Rights Group from Khorezm region reported that the group has been postponed the state registration from the regional department of justice for the ninth time.#
Case # 3:
In February 2008 the Ministry of Justice of the autonomous Republic of Karakalpakstan (part of Uzbekistan) denied a state registration to “Imkaniyat” (Chance) Public Foundation. In 2008 the same government agency denied a state re-registration to NGO “Daulet” (Wealth) which has been actively supporting more than 6 thousand women in Karakalpakstan through micro-credits.
Case # 4:
In January 2008 Tashkent city department of justice denied a state registration to the human rights group “Mothers against death penalty and torture”.
Case # 5:
Through the reporting period dozens of NGOs have declared that they are stopping their activities and dissolving as NGOs. Confidential interviews with leaders of those NGOs indicated that they have been pressed by the Ministry of Justice to do so. Among those NGOs were the following: the Association of psychiatrists and experts on narcology of Uzbekistan, Fencing Federation, International Charity Fund “Semurg”, Center for supporting less protected children’s groups “Child Vision”, International Creative Organization, the US NGO “Population Services International”, National Association “Bunyodkor Ayol”, Federation of Aikibudo, etc.