Dublin: Call for release of imprisoned human rights defenders in Uzbekistan
on civil and political
24 April 2008
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE
17 March – 4 April 2008
Communication No. 1205/2003
Submitted by: Mrs. Zinaida Yakupova (not represented by
Alleged victim: The author’s husband, Mr. Zholmurza
State party: Uzbekistan
Date of communication: 8 October 2003 (initial submission)
Document references: Special Rapporteur’s rule 92/97 decision,
transmitted to the State party on 9 October 2003
(not issued in document form)
Date of adoption of Views: 3 April 2008
* Made public by decision of the Human Rights Committee.
Subject matter: Imposition of death penalty after unfair trial and on basis of confession
obtained under torture in another country.
Substantive issues: Torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; right to
life; right to seek pardon or commutation; right to be presumed innocent; right not to be
compelled to testify against oneself or to confess guilt.
Procedural issue: Lack of substantiation of claim.
Articles of the Covenant: 6; 7; 14, paragraphs 2 and 3(g)
Article of the Optional Protocol: 2
On 4 April 2008, the Human Rights Committee adopted the annexed text as the
Committee’s Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol in respect of
communication No. 1205/2003.
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE
Geneva, 5 – 23 November 2007
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES
UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONVENTION
Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture
1. The Committee considered the third periodic report of Uzbekistan (CAT/C/UZB/3) at its
789th and 792nd meetings (CAT/C/SR.789 and CAT/C/SR.792), held on 9 and 12 October 2007,
and adopted, at its 807th and 808th meetings, held on 22 November 2007 (CAT/C/SR.807 and
CAT/C/SR.808), the following conclusions and recommendations.
2. The Committee welcomes the submission of the third periodic report of Uzbekistan and
the extensive responses to the list of issues (CAT/C/UZB/Q/3/Add.1) by the State party and the
representatives who participated in the oral review.
B. Positive aspects
3. The Committee welcomes the following developments, including the following
administrative, legislative and other measures taken:
(a) Scheduled introduction of habeas corpus provisions beginning 1 January 2008;
(b) Adoption of the law to abolish the death penalty beginning 1 January 2008;
(c) Amendment to article 235 of the Criminal Code, addressing some of the elements
in the definition of torture;
(d) Transfer of the authority to issue arrests warrants from the prosecutor’s office to
the courts (8 August 2005);
(e) Order No. 40, which instructs prosecutors to apply the provisions under the
Convention and applicable national laws directly;
(f) The Supreme Court’s directives to prohibit the introduction of evidence, including
testimonies, obtained under torture, resulting in courts referring “numerous criminal cases back
for further investigation after evidence had been found inadmissible.”
Society of Human Rights of Uzbekistan
Once justice and legitimacy fade away
a state becomes a gang of bandits.
Source: Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan
11/13/2008 12:28:23 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.
“… 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.