Experts of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Welcome Uzbekistan’s Draft Equality and Non-Discrimination Bill, Raise Questions on Statelessness and Education for Roma/Lyuli Children
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination today concluded its consideration of the combined thirteenth and fourteenth periodic reports of Uzbekistan on its implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Committee Experts welcomed the State party’s draft equality and non-discrimination bill, while raising questions on restrictive Uzbek citizenship laws leading to statelessness and efforts to ensure equal education for Roma/Lyuli children.
Stamatia Stavrinaki, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Uzbekistan, said the Committee welcomed the information provided on the draft equality and non-discrimination bill, including its definitions of different forms of discrimination and its broad coverage of areas such as education, employment, health care, and access to services. Ms. Stavrinaki raised questions as to how the bill was applied in practice.
Mazalo Tebie, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur for Uzbekistan, said the citizenship act of 13 March 2020 was restrictive. It prohibited dual citizenship and required foreigners to renounce their original nationality without any guarantee of acquiring Uzbek citizenship, among other provisions. How did the State party ensure that these provisions did not lead to new cases of statelessness, particularly among children? What was the exact number of stateless persons currently residing in the national territory? What measures did the State party intend to adopt to bring its domestic system into line with international standards on statelessness?
Ms. Tebie also said that statistics showed that more than half of the members of the Lyuli/Roma community (58.9 per cent) had never been to school and that 10,856 children remained outside the education system. To what extent did Lyuli/Roma and Mugat children have effective and non-discriminatory access to quality education? How did authorities respond to persistent barriers to school attendance and reduce the high out-of-school rate? How could the State expand the access of young Lyuli/Roma to higher education and specialised vocational training?
Introducing the report, Dilnoza Muratova, Deputy Director of the National Centre of the Republic of Uzbekistan for Human Rights and head of the delegation, said Uzbekistan was a multi-ethnic State with a population of 38.4 million people, representing more than 130 nations and nationalities. The constitutional reform of 2023 significantly expanded the provisions on human rights, particularly the obligation of the State to respect the languages, customs and traditions of all peoples, and the compliance of human rights with international standards. The prohibition of racial discrimination was enshrined in criminal and administrative legislation.
Responding to questions, the delegation said a large-scale reform had developed a new act on citizenship. A campaign set out a simplified procedure for applying for citizenship. People who arrived in Uzbekistan and registered up to 1995 could become Uzbek citizens if they had the desire. People who were stateless who had resided in the country for 15 years could also receive citizenship. Since the adoption of the law, more than 15,000 stateless persons had been granted Uzbek citizenship. To prevent the loss of citizenship for those living abroad, the new addition to the citizenship act had extended the duration of the deadline for registration at a consulate for people living abroad to seven years; previously it was three years. There were around 3,000 stateless persons in Uzbekistan, and the State was working to address this.
The delegation said a recent act guaranteed that all children, including Lyuli children, were protected from any barriers which would prevent them from attending school. Children of school age from the Lyuli community were taken in from the first year of education, and were given a gift from the President, as well as textbooks in the language of tuition. More than 16,000 pupils from the Lyuli were fully covered by the compulsory education system. To increase attendance, a roadmap was adopted, aimed at ensuring appropriate enrolment and attendance, and strengthening monitoring.
In concluding remarks, Ms. Stavrinaki said the Committee welcomed the partial implementation of recommendations, including improved statistical data and efforts to improve statelessness. However, concerns remained regarding the reluctance to adopt a comprehensive equality framework.
Ms. Muratova, in her concluding remarks, thanked the Committee for the sincere, open and robust dialogue and the expert assessment by the Committee members. Uzbekistan would consider the concluding observations of the Committee and adopt a plan of action to implement them.
The delegation of Uzbekistan consisted of representatives of the National Centre of the Republic of Uzbekistan for Human Rights; the Senate Committee on Science, Education and Healthcare; the Supreme Court; the Ministry of Internal Affairs; the Ministry of Preschool and School Education; the Committee on Interethnic Relations and Relations with Compatriots Abroad; and the Permanent Mission of Uzbekistan to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will issue its concluding observations on the report of Uzbekistan after the conclusion of its one hundred and seventeenth session on 1 May. The programme of work and other documents related to the session can be found here. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the meetings can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public on Wednesday, 22 April at 3 p.m. to consider the combined twentieth to twenty-fourth periodic reports of Burkina Faso (CERD/C/BFA/20-24).
Report
The Committee has before it the combined thirteenth and fourteenth periodic reports of Uzbekistan (CERD/C/UZB/13-14).
Presentation of Report
DILNOZA MURATOVA, Deputy Director of the National Centre of the Republic of Uzbekistan for Human Rights and head of the delegation, said in 2020, the Parliament of Uzbekistan approved the national action plan to implement the Committee's concluding observations. Uzbekistan was a multi-ethnic State with a population of 38.4 million people, representing more than 130 nations and nationalities. The main ethnic groups were Uzbeks (85.1 per cent); Tajiks (4.5 per cent); Kazakhs (2.2 per cent); Karakalpaks (2.1 per cent); Russians (1.9 per cent); as well as Koreans, Tatars, Armenians and representatives of the Lyuli/Roma community. At the beginning of 2026, for the first time in 37 years, a digital population census was carried out in seven languages. Disaggregated data on the ethnic composition of the population would be presented to the Committee after its publication.
The constitutional reform of 2023 significantly expanded the provisions on human rights, particularly the obligation of the State to respect the languages, customs and traditions of all peoples, and the compliance of human rights with international standards. More than 40 laws, decrees and resolutions had been adopted to strengthen legal guarantees. The prohibition of racial discrimination was enshrined in criminal and administrative legislation. The first national human rights strategy had been implemented, and the second strategy was being developed until 2030, while work continued on the draft law on equality and non-discrimination, which provided for the prohibition of direct, indirect and other forms of discrimination. In honour of the sixtieth anniversary of the Convention, a national roadmap was approved, which provided for a set of measures aimed at raising awareness of the provisions of the Convention.
In 2025, the Committee on Interethnic Relations and Citizens Abroad and the Vatandoshlar Social Fund were established. In 2024, the Migration Agency was created, which regulated labour migration, the protection of citizens' rights, and the activities of private employment agencies. The Parliamentary Ombudsman received constitutional ranking and the right to put forward legislation, while the 2024 law strengthened its mandate and guarantees of independence. As part of the judicial reform, the appointment of judges for an indefinite term was introduced, as well as the audio-video recording of meetings. Procedural legislation guaranteed access to justice for persons who did not speak the State language.
In Uzbekistan, there were 157 national cultural centres; television and radio broadcasting was conducted in 12 languages; education was conducted in seven languages; and the provision of textbooks in the languages of national minorities exceeded the need. Measures were being taken to ensure access to education for vulnerable groups. More than 16,000 Lyuli/Roma children were enrolled in compulsory education, while 157 displaced Afghans persons received vocational training and 42 Palestinian children were integrated into the education system.
About 5,000 representatives of 35 nationalities were employed in the civil service. In 2025, more than 700,000 people took part in activities to strengthen intercultural dialogue, including the friendship festival and the week of tolerance. Training modules on the Convention had been introduced into the curricula of specialised academies, with 160 trainees and 119 acting judges being trained. More than 85,000 persons had been granted Uzbek citizenship as part of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ global campaign #IBelong. The law on citizenship introduced safeguards to prevent statelessness among children.
Several challenges remained, including the situation in Afghanistan which continued to have an impact on regional stability, including forced migration and the integration of displaced persons; the environmental situation in the Aral Sea region which impacted ethnic groups in the region; and awareness raising of the Convention’s provisions amongst civil servants. Uzbekistan reaffirmed its commitment to fulfilling its obligations under the Convention and looked forward to an open and constructive dialogue with the Committee.
Questions by Committee Experts
STAMATIA STAVRINAKI, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Uzbekistan, welcomed the timely submission of the State party’s report and appreciated efforts to comply with reporting obligations. The State party report provided useful information on the legal and institutional framework for data collection, including the population census act and preparations for the population census. It was hoped these results would be promptly published.
Could the State party indicate when the full census results would be made available and whether they would include comprehensive, disaggregated data on all population groups? What categories were used to define the population under its jurisdiction, including who was statistically included, particularly Karakalpaks, Lyuli/Roma, and migrants, refugees, asylum seekers and stateless persons? How were ethnic groups involved in designing data collection methodologies? Could the State party provide comprehensive, updated and disaggregated data on the ethnic composition of the prison population? What measures were taken to monitor and address any disproportionate representation of ethnic minority groups in the criminal justice system?
The Committee welcomed the information provided on the draft equality and non-discrimination bill, including its definitions of different forms of discrimination and its broad coverage of areas such as education, employment, health care, and access to services. What was the current status of the bill? How was the prohibition of discrimination enforced in practice, including available remedies, complaint procedures, oversight mechanisms, and any examples of implementation? Could the State party elaborate on the meaning of positive discrimination in the draft bill, how was this concept understood in line with the Convention, and what measures were being taken to ensure substantive equality for ethnic minorities in practice?
Could the State party clarify whether its legislation explicitly defined and criminalised hate speech, including online? Reports submitted to the Committee indicated cases of prosecution of human rights defenders, journalists and representatives of civil society organizations working on the rights of ethnic groups based on the provisions of the Criminal Code on extremism. What safeguards were in place to prevent unlawful restrictions on the enjoyment of the rights of expression and association? Could information be provided on specific measures taken to prevent and combat racial discrimination by law enforcement officials, including racial profiling, as well as statistical data on complaints, investigations, prosecutions and sanctions in such cases, disaggregated by the ethnic origin of victims?
Based on the information before the Committee, there were 63 complaints regarding discrimination on the grounds of social origin, religion and gender. All complaints were investigated in coordination with law enforcement agencies, and the findings did not confirm any instances of racial discrimination. What measures were being taken to address the low number of complaints received, which could be related to the lack of trust or awareness about remedies? How did the State ensure in practice that judicial appointments remained fully insulated from executive influence, particularly given the simultaneous expansion of presidential and governmental decrees in the justice sector?
It was reported that between 2023 and 2025, the Ombudsman received no complaints from Lyuli/Roma, while from the Republic of Karakalpakstan regarding various socio-economic issues: 380 complaints were received in 2023, 765 in 2024, and 681 in 2025. What concrete budgetary and staffing guarantees had been established to ensure that the Ombudsperson’s expanded monitoring and legal powers could be exercised independently and effectively, particularly in relation to detention monitoring and access to legal remedies? How had the Ombudsperson exercised its mandate under the revised law, particularly in ensuring independence, public trust and accessibility for all groups? Could the State party also explain the low level or absence of complaints from certain marginalised communities, such as Lyuli/Roma, and what measures were being taken to strengthen outreach, reporting, follow-up on recommendations, and overall institutional effectiveness in line with the Paris Principles?
Follow-up questions were asked on whether the law prohibited the dissemination of information based on racist ideology, and specific organizations which promoted incitement to racial propaganda and superiorities; how the State party assessed the disadvantages of specific ethnic groups; the situation of human rights defenders and if the State was adopting a law to protect them; and on specific reports on the country and their accuracy.
FAITH DIKELEDI PANSY TLAKULA, Committee Expert and Follow-up Rapporteur, thanked the State party for submitting the follow-up report with detailed statistics and further statistical information.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the survey held from 15 January until 28 February 2026 involved the collection of information in line with the principle of self-identification. Selective surveys of certain households were also carried out to gain information about specific minority groups. Measures were carried out to ensure the accuracy of statistical data relating to ethnic groups.
When individuals were placed in prison and preliminary prison facilities, racial discrimination was strictly prohibited. The ethnic composition of prisoners was included in all different systems, meaning the State could assess if there was racial discrimination in the penitentiary system. Each complaint received through online portals or through the Ombudsman was assessed, aiming to identify prejudice. The State had not identified any systematic complaints related to these issues. Visits by the Ombudsman and other organizations were carried out to places of detention, where individual conversations were held with inmates. There were no examples of racial profiling.
Everyone in prison received relevant accommodation, food and medical support on an equal footing. If necessary, specialists from the Ministry of Health could provide additional health assistance. Each individual was guaranteed equal access to unimpeded legal assistance.
The survey carried out in January had an initial online phase, followed by in-person visits. The result would be detailed information on the ethnic population which would be published before July 2027. Characteristics of mother tongue and self-identification were the main markers. When collecting data during surveys, Uzbekistan strictly followed international guidelines.
The development of the judiciary in Uzbekistan was in keeping with international standards and was viewed as a matter of strategic significance. Between 2023 and 2026, a set of measures had been carried out following the independence of the courts and the enhancement of the judiciary system. Courts were independent and guaranteed the safety of the judiciary and their family members. Individual judges were considered “untouchable”. Judges could not be held in custody without an order from the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan. Any interference in the work of judges was punishable by law. Judges were funded only by the State budget, and the independence of the judiciary was guaranteed.
The examination of a case by a prosecutor where the decision could be changed could only occur when there was an appeal by one of the parties. The rights of the administrative courts to examine offences was clearly set out. Judicial inspections were undertaken regarding the independence of judges and the prevalence of corruption. Each year, information was provided decreeing the importance of judicial independence and on actions aimed at preventing corruption in the judiciary.
There were around 10,000 mahalla committees, which, in conjunction with the peoples centres, received complaints from the people. There were currently around 1,500 judges, representing different ethnic compositions.
In Uzbekistan, legal guarantees were ensured for human rights defenders. The legislation guaranteed freedom of expression and participation in public life. Measures had been taken to review the legal framework and bring it in line with article four of the Convention on crimes linked to hate speech. Key measures included Constitutional guarantees. Punishment of a crime needed to be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence.
There were certain regions where there were enclaves of Tajiks; 30 mahallas existed in these regions. If there was a need to build a school or a kindergarten, these topics were discussed together with the community.
Questions by Committee Experts
MAZALO TEBIE, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur for Uzbekistan, asked whether it was true that there were no refugees on the national territory of Uzbekistan? How did the State protect persons with refugee status in accordance with international standards? What mechanisms did the State party intend to put in place to structure migration management in a sustainable manner? How did the State party ensure, in the absence of specific legislation, preventing the risks of human rights violations and guaranteeing access to essential services? On 26 August 2025, Tashkent inaugurated its first Migrant Resource Centre to strengthen migration management and protection in Central Asia. What measures would ensure the accessibility of the Centre to vulnerable populations?
How did the State party justify the imposition of compulsory HIV testing for all foreigners as a condition of entry, stay and employment? Did this requirement also apply to Uzbek citizens? What guarantees could the State party offer to ensure that this testing obligation did not result in social and economic exclusion, depriving migrants and stateless persons of access to work, housing and essential services?
The State party had not yet ratified the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees or the 1967 Protocol; were ratifications envisaged? What policies were planned to promote the social and cultural integration of refugees, even if their numbers were limited? What was the updated number of refugees and asylum seekers in Uzbekistan?
How did the State party explain that, according to the report, no applications for political asylum had been registered, despite reports received by the Committee of refusals of such asylum? What measures had been taken to establish an asylum procedure for persons in need of international protection, and to make it accessible at border crossings and the airport?
The citizenship act of 13 March 2020 was restrictive. It prohibited dual citizenship and required foreigners to renounce their original nationality without any guarantee of acquiring Uzbek citizenship. It provided for the loss of citizenship for Uzbek nationals residing abroad who had not registered with a consulate for seven years. It also did not grant any automatic acquisition of citizenship to children born in the territory.
How did the State party ensure that these provisions did not lead to new cases of statelessness, particularly among children? What was the exact number of stateless persons currently residing in the national territory? What was the legal framework that governed this procedure? Were applicants protected from deportation or detention while their applications were being considered? Could data be provided on applications for statelessness? What measures did the State party intend to adopt to bring its domestic system into line with international standards on statelessness?
A draft law on "undesirable foreigners" was passed introducing amendments to the 2021 law on the legal status of foreign citizens and stateless persons. How did the draft law legally define an “undesirable foreigner”? What appeal mechanisms were provided for persons who had been expelled? What measures were envisaged to ensure that non-governmental organizations, journalists and foreign workers were not arbitrarily affected by the application of this 2021 law?
To what extent did the State party’s initiatives to promote legal culture and tolerance and prevent extremism, form part of a coherent and systematic human rights education strategy that explicitly addressed racial discrimination? How did the 2021–2026 national strategy to combat extremism and terrorism incorporate human rights education? What teaching modules, tools, or curricula had been developed under the strategy to promote tolerance, ethnic diversity, and combat racial discrimination? What was the State party’s assessment of the implementation and impact of the strategy?
How was training on inter-ethnic relations, legal culture, and non-discrimination integrated into programmes for teachers, civil servants, law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and judges? Were human rights modules at Tashkent Law University compulsory for all students, and were similar modules being expanded to other educational and training institutions? What data existed on the number of students and professionals trained?
Had the State party developed a national action plan to implement the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, and what results had been achieved?
How were awareness-raising campaigns designed and validated, which groups were targeted, and how was their effectiveness measured? Did the State party plan to adopt a comprehensive national strategy on human rights education beyond the focus on extremism?
Did the State party envisage a specific strategy for those who were displaced within the State party? How did Uzbekistan ensure access to housing, employment and health care for displaced persons in the country? How was the resilience of vulnerable communities being considered within the State party?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said human rights training was systematically provided in all school curricula. Attention was paid to the fact that every person had independence from the moment of their birth, regardless of their social status.
A large-scale reform had developed a new act on citizenship. A campaign set out a simplified procedure for applying for citizenship. People who arrived in Uzbekistan and registered up to 1995 could become Uzbek citizens if they had the desire. People who were stateless who had resided in the country for 15 years could also receive citizenship. Since the adoption of the law, more than 15,000 stateless persons had been granted Uzbek citizenship. To prevent the loss of citizenship for those living abroad, the new addition to the citizenship act had extended the duration of the deadline for registration at a consulate for people living abroad to seven years; previously it was three years. There were around 3,000 stateless persons in Uzbekistan, and the State was working to address this.
The Constitution guaranteed foreign citizens freedoms in accordance with international law. Steps had been taken to ratify the Convention on Refugees. An analysis was being undertaken, and steps were being taken to harmonise it with domestic legislation. Work was underway to look at international best practices with experts.
To provide individual support to every pupil, contacts were held with interpreters to ensure Palestinian school children could be involved in school activities. Uzbek and Arabic language circles had been organised, and teachers worked three times per week with the pupils.
The principle of the equality of all citizens regardless of their nationality was enshrined. Every induvial had the right to preserve and manage their ethnic identity. To ensure inter-ethnic harmony, several legislative and regulatory decisions had been adopted, including on article 4 of the Constitution which guaranteed that the State ensured respect for languages and customs of people in the territory. The law on freedom of conscious and the law on State language enshrined the right of law for people to use their native language.
Television campaigns on the national human rights system had been launched and were broadcast throughout the State party. Information on all international human rights treaties which Uzbekistan had ratified had also been published online.
Follow-up Questions by Committee Experts.
Follow-up questions were asked on reluctance toward the asylum system; issues with accession to the Convention on Refugees; mandatory HIV testing for migrants; and clarification on so-called “undesirable foreigners.”
An Expert congratulated the State party on the steps to improve the situation of statelessness which could be model for the region.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said Uzbekistan had adopted and acceded to many international agreements. Currently, an interagency working group had been created to work on the preparation of a law on refugees. If a child born in Uzbekistan had at least one stateless parent, the child automatically obtained Uzbek citizenship by birth. National and local levels provided support services, and at the levels of the mahallas, social workers were deployed. The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action was being systematically implemented and had been translated into Uzbek. In 2025, human rights modules covered more than 750 students and 82 officials of law enforcement agencies.
In 2025, medical support was provided to HIV-infected individuals. The concerns raised by the Committee had been noted. Although the document had been adopted, it had been declined by the President and was currently not in force.
The law on education enshrined the equal right for education for all; all children in the country had access to education and the curriculum was provided in all seven languages.
The judiciary education programme included training on international standards of human rights, including the provisions of the Convention. Roundtables on human rights, including relating to the Convention’s sixtieth anniversary, were being held.
In 2023, the code for law and discipline for members of law enforcement agencies was established, prohibiting any cases of racial discrimination. Between 2023 and 2025, more than 700 officials received refresher training. Officials were banned from using torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment and were obliged to prevent any actions which led to physical or moral harm of individuals.
In 2024, more than five million HIV tests were carried out, and four million were administered in 2025. More than 3,000 individuals had been declared HIV positive. More than 12,000 foreigners had voluntarily taken testes and only 21 were found to be positive. There were no mechanisms for mandatory tests for infectious diseases of persons arriving in Uzbekistan to carry out work.
Questions by Committee Experts
STAMATIA STAVRINAKI, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Uzbekistan, said the Committee remained concerned, as had been raised in other dialogues, about the absence of a dedicated legislative framework on the rights of ethnic minorities. How did Uzbekistan ensure that the existing anti-discrimination framework effectively responded to the evolving and structural challenges faced by these groups? What steps were being taken to progressively move towards a more tailored normative framework?
Data indicated that Karakalpakstan had the lowest per capita income in the country. What targeted policies were in place to address this disparity? How did the State respond to reports of wage disparities between Karakalpaks and ethnic Uzbeks performing similar work? Uzbekistan recognised the Sovereign Republic of Karakalpakstan as having self-governing status. How did the State ensure that this status translated into effective decision-making power for Karakalpak institutions in practice? What mechanisms were in place to ensure that governance structures in Karakalpakstan were representative of the local Karakalpak population, given reported disparities in local councils? Could examples be provided where Karakalpakstan authorities had exercised autonomous policy-making powers without central interference?
State data indicated limited Karakalpak representation in parliament, the Senate, and the judiciary (around 4 per cent). What concrete steps were being taken to address this underrepresentation? Why were there no registered political parties representing Karakalpak interests, and what legal or administrative barriers prevented their formation?
Concerns had been raised about the broad application of “extremism” legislation and its potential impact on non-violent expression, including for minority groups. On what grounds was the movement Alga Karakalpakstan designated “extremist,” and how did the State ensure that such measures did not unduly restrict political pluralism and minority participation?
The Committee was concerned about reports regarding the renaming of streets and public spaces, as well as the potential impact of such practices on the visibility and preservation of Karakalpak cultural heritage. What were the criteria and processes guiding these decisions, and how did the State ensure that they did not result in the marginalisation of minority identities? Could the State comment on reported instances where Karakalpak cultural elements had been presented under Uzbek names, including in relation to cultural sites or symbols? What measures were being taken to revitalise and promote the Karakalpak language, particularly in light of concerns about its decline?
What steps were being taken to guarantee that Karakalpak speakers had equal access to public services, employment, and the justice system in their own language? Were there plans to expand bilingual or Karakalpak-language administration, particularly within Karakalpakstan, to strengthen linguistic rights in practice? How did the State ensure that Karakalpak communities were meaningfully consulted and able to participate in decision-making processes related to environmental restoration and development initiatives in the Aral Sea region? What targeted measures ensured equal access to the right to a healthy environment for Karakalpaks?
The Committee noted that the State report highlighted formal support for mother-tongue education through a multilingual system offering instruction in several languages, including Karakalpak, Russian, Tajik, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, and Turkmen. However, the Committee had received reports indicating that some minority-language schools had been closed or faced challenges in practice. What measures were in place to ensure equal quality of education across all language streams, compared to Uzbek-medium schools? Could data be provided on the number of institutions offering education in minority language?
The Committee had received information on coercive practices affecting ethnic minority women, in particular Karakalpaks, including allegations that nurses had conducted household visits to enforce an unwritten two-child policy. Could the delegation clarify these reports? What safeguards were in place to ensure that no woman was subjected to forced or non-consensual medical procedures, including measures that may limit the number of children she may have?
Regarding the events of July 2022 in Karakalpakstan, the Committee had received deeply concerning information regarding the handling and return of the bodies of deceased protesters. Could the delegation provide clarification on the procedures in place in such cases, and the measures taken to ensure that these were conducted in a manner consistent with human dignity, transparency, and applicable human rights standards? Could the Committee receive an update on the situation of the Karakalpak human rights defender, Dauletmurat Tazhimuratov, and his alleged physical and psychological abuse? What progress had been made toward conducting an independent, impartial investigation into the July 2022 events in Karakalpakstan? How many individuals remained detained or imprisoned in connection with these events, and what safeguards ensured fair trial rights? Were there plans to make relevant investigative findings public and ensure transparency and reparations for victims?
Even when policies had changed or were abolished sometimes, they remained in practice. It was important to take this into consideration.
An Expert said the Committee had received information that infant mortality was higher in the Karakalpak region due to the environmental situation with the Aral Sea. What had been done to address this situation?
Another Expert said any steps taken to organise political parties in Karakalpakstan were met with swift crackdowns. What efforts were being taken by the Government to ensure freedom of speech and freedom to advocate for political parties for Karakalpak peoples?
Follow-up questions were asked regarding the investigations of July 2022; remedies provided for cases of forced sterilisation; consultations held with the people of Karakalpakstan in regard to the situation of the Aral Sea and how their free, prior and informed consent was assured; what percentage of revenues from mining exploitation went back to the local populations; and measures to enable Karakalpak peoples to communicate in their own languages.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the Government attached priority attention to the development of Karakalpakstan and was focused on improving the living conditions of the population. In Uzbekistan, Karakalpaks were not considered to be an ethnic minority, but rather an important component of Uzbekistan’s statehood. Karakalpak and Uzbek were both considered to be State languages. In Karakalpakstan, geographic names could be found that were not Karakalpak or Uzbek. The naming of districts, cities and villages was all decided by the Karakalpakstan parliament.
The Constitution of Uzbekistan stated that all citizens had equal access to civil service, regardless of their ethnic origin. This applied to all State institutions, including the judiciary. Karakalpak peoples made up only a small per cent of the population, around three per cent, whereas around four per cent of judges in the court system were Karakalpaks. There were also 120 persons of Karakalpak ethnicity working as court officers. The State felt the representation of Karakalpaks within the judiciary reflected their proportion of the total population and even exceeded it.
A parliamentary commission had been established to investigate the events of July 2022, comprised of parliament members as well as non-governmental organizations, also collaborating with international organizations and the media. In 2024, the Commission provided a report to the parliament. In 2026, during a meeting online with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, a statement was provided on the events of July 2022. In this statement, it was stipulated that the rights and interests of the accused were fully provided.
Media representatives had also held interviews where they were able to hear what had happened. An independent parliamentary investigation was also carried out on these events. A call centre was established with a hotline, where more than 600 calls were received. At the request of the parliamentary commission, more than 30 people had been released. The report of the Commission had been published publicly online at the end of 2024.
In recent years, there had been a positive trend of economic development in Karakalpakstan, in the context of a broad State policy carried out by Uzbekistan. The poverty rate had dropped from 10 to six per cent and economically it was sometimes ahead of other regions. There had been an increase in employment rates and entrepreneurship. The tax burden in the region had been reduced, with many people receiving significant benefits such as loans on preferential terms. Measures had been adopted to improve the living situation of the Karakalpakstan population, with new buildings and housing units constructed.
The Karakalpak language was a State language on par with Uzbek and was used within official work, Government services, and in the media. Cultural events were held regularly supporting traditional crafts and skills. A large-scale environmental programme was being carried out, including a “green shield” of 1.8 million hectares; deforestation had been decreased, while access to clean water had doubled.
Alga Karakalpakstan was recognised as an extremist unit, due to organising unrest and posting provocative images on social media. The actions organised in July 2022 were not peaceful but illegal, with more than 217 members of the law enforcement agencies receiving injuries. Thanks to the actions of law enforcement agents, these illegal steps were supressed. An investigation was carried out by the law enforcement office, and three members of law enforcement agencies were accused of violating the law with all cases sent to court.
Dauletmurat Tazhimuratov was serving a sentence, and his rights were guaranteed by the Criminal Procedural Code. After being moved to the penal colony, he had access to all necessary services. There was no information regarding any problems related to his stay in prison. He had not registered any complaints and had exchanged correspondence with his family members, around 15 times in 2025. Claims of torture by the inmate had been investigated and no violations of the law had been found. Uzbekistan was communicating with the United Nations on this issue and had provided information to multiple Special Procedures experts.
There was a law on reproductive health within the State party and no practices were carried out by nurses to disrupt pregnancies. The only concern was to ensure the health of the mother and the child.
There were no restrictions for any ethnic group to access the judiciary in Uzbekistan; everyone had full rights to receive information in their own language and participate in judicial proceedings, and they could utilise the services of interpreters free of charge.
Regarding the events of July 2022, of the 61 individuals convicted in light of the unrest, 24 individuals were now in prison. The legal proceedings were reflected broadly in local and international media and on the internet.
The State recognised the existence of ethnic minorities and carried out policies aimed at preserving their culture. In Uzbekistan there was a policy aimed at preserving maternal and child health. A transition was being made to planned birth control and management, which had helped to reduce the number of illegal abortions. Uzbekistan denied speculation that sterilisation was fully carried out in practice.
Over 300 courses were provided on human rights, the rights of the child, and issues of non-discrimination. Uzbekistan was a multiethnic State, where all citizens were guaranteed their Constitutional rights.
In Karakalpakstan, the State languages were Karakalpak and Uzbek, and State documents were available in both languages. All State bodies had linguistic consultants who worked to preserve the Karakalpak language.
Textbooks were being published in other languages, including the Karakalpak language. There were 735 schools in Karakalpakstan, catering to 360,000 students.
Television and radio channels were broadcast in 12 languages while print media was available in 14 languages, giving the opportunity for individuals to receive information in their own language.
Thanks to a fund, there had been systemic transformations in the field of health care. Many women and adolescents were covered by healthcare programmes and work was carried out on maternal and infant health. Access to healthcare had been expanded to vulnerable groups, including through digital platforms, to overcome geographic obstacles. Fourteen new national standards had been institutionalised, and thanks to the introduction of audits, the cases of neonatal deaths were monitored in all establishments. Around 10.2 million people had received information about their reproductive rights and maternal health.
Questions by Committee Experts
MAZALO TEBIE, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur for Uzbekistan, said the Committee noted that the State party had undertaken several reforms and established mechanisms such as the Committee on Inter-Ethnic Relations, the National Cultural Centres, and the mahallas, to promote consultation and dialogue with ethnic minorities. However, several land decisions taken in rural areas, whether agricultural projects, infrastructure or tourism developments, had reportedly been implemented without proper consultation with the minorities concerned, including the Karakalpaks, rural Tajiks, and north-western Kazakhs.
How did local and national authorities justify unilateral land decisions? What consequences did the lack of consultative power of minorities have on the legitimacy of the policies in place? How could economic development, infrastructure projects and respect for the rights of minorities be reconciled? To what extent did the Committee on Inter-Ethnic Relations and the National Cultural Centres have a real role in public policies and an effective influence on decisions concerning the minorities they were supposed to represent?
What concrete measures were being put in place to increase the representation of national minorities, including women, in elected bodies, senior administration, the judiciary and local kengashs [councils]? What mechanisms made it possible to monitor the ethnic and gender composition of public institutions? Was the State considering temporary special measures to correct the persistent under-representation of minorities in decision-making positions?
The State party's report highlighted several sociological surveys to better understand the difficulties faced by the Lyuli/Roma/Mugat community, which were conducted in 2021, both in the capital and in various regions of the country. The results of this work highlighted a set of major concerns, including the quality of housing. What structural policies and measures was the State implementing to improve the housing conditions of this ethnic community in the long term? Many Lyuli/Roma and Mugat were also reported to be at risk of forced evictions and demolition of their homes, often as part of urban redevelopment projects.
To what extent did urban redevelopment projects integrate the rights, needs and consultation of these minority communities? What alternatives to forced evictions and demolitions could be found to ensure dignified and stable resettlement for affected families? Had the State considered undertaking a social housing policy? Did existing compensation mechanisms make it possible to compensate for the material and social losses suffered by this community beyond the one-off aid or regional projects?
Statistics showed that more than half of the members of the Lyuli/Roma community (58.9 per cent) had never been to school and that 10,856 children remained outside the education system. To what extent did Lyuli/Roma and Mugat children have effective and non-discriminatory access to quality education? How did authorities respond to persistent barriers to school attendance and reduce the high out-of-school rate? How could the State expand the access of young Lyuli/Roma to higher education and specialised vocational training?
What measures were in place to ensure access to health services for Roma, especially for those who did not have identity documents? What actions were being taken to reduce child mortality and improve the reproductive health of Roma women? Were there any prevention campaigns, such as vaccinations and sexual and reproductive health screening, adapted to the needs of Roma communities?
FAITH DIKELEDI PANSY TLAKULA, Committee Expert and Follow-up Rapporteur, asked why a certain number of Lyuli/Roma had not been issued documents by the State? What measures were envisaged to solve this problem? What specific measures were envisaged to improve the education achievements of this group? There were only 53 Lyuli/Roma students studying at specialised secondary vocational institutions, which was a very low figure. What was being done to improve this situation? Could the State party provide updated statistics?
An Expert acknowledged the State’s efforts to address the situation faced by the Lyuli Roma community. Regarding concerns expressed on the demolitions faced in certain regions by this group; what response had been given by the State?
Follow-up questions were asked relating to quotas and special measures to bring the national human rights institution fully in line with the Paris Principles.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the Committee on Inter-Ethnic Relations played a very important role, coordinating policy and ensuring systemic dialogue with national and cultural centres. A mechanism of regular meetings and roundtables had been established with representatives of ethnic communities, which prepared practical recommendations. At the regional level, public councils ensured true dialogue with local representatives on the ground, promoting open and inclusive interaction. In Uzbekistan there was a multi-level system of consultation and dialogue with ethnic minorities, ensuring their full participation in public and political life.
Practical measures had been undertaken to adopt the views of ethnic minorities in decision-making processes. Institutions, including national cultural centres, represented an opportunity to receive, process and collect communications of different ethnic minorities and transfer them to relevant State institutions. Consultation councils at different levels, including expert groups comprised of ethnic minority representatives, ensured that the direct views of these groups were taken into account in different bills and legislative acts.
In 2025, the court of civil affairs had completed consideration of 24 cases of compensation for Roma. Seventeen claims had been approved and around 1.5 million dollars in compensation had been provided.
No quota had been established for ethnic minorities in State institutions, as there were no limitations on any person from an ethnic group to join the public service. Participation was based on expert qualifications.
In May 2021, a survey was carried out of the Manghit ethnic group, which found that most of them held passports and were considered as Uzbek citizens.
The State guaranteed free, general education, which was accessible for all, regardless of their social status or origin. A recent act for the protection of all children from violence guaranteed that all children, including Lyuli children, were protected from any barriers which would prevent them from attending school. Children of school age from the Lyuli community were taken in from the first year of education, and were given a gift from the President, as well as textbooks in the language of tuition. More than 16,000 pupils from the Lyuli were fully covered by the compulsory education system. To increase attendance, a roadmap was adopted, aimed at ensuring appropriate enrolment and attendance, and strengthening monitoring.
Between 2023 to 2026, there were no applications for citizenship by Lyuli/Roma. More than 30,000 of this group were registered in Uzbekistan and received identification documents.
Regarding development projects, all procedures of demolition and relocation had been carried out according to the law and all the necessary procedural steps were followed. All 217 buildings in the zone were not included in the register of cultural heritage buildings. Monitoring visits had been carried out to survey the population, and cases pertaining to land plots had been re-examined, with advice for compensation to be paid to the population.
In 2024, the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing visited Uzbekistan and a draft national plan was created for the recommendations made. It was currently being discussed by the relevant agencies, and the Government was making efforts to implement the recommendations received. Subsidies for mortgages had been provided, with priority given to young people, women in difficult situations, and persons with disabilities.
In July 2024, a presidential decree was issued to create an environment without obstacles, including accessible housing. The process related to compensation was based on the principles of transparency and objectiveness. Some 110 orders for compensation had been paid out in full to citizens. According to State data, there had been no complaints related to intimidation of the Roma/Lyuli in this context. A special commission was created to study the conclusions of the Special Rapporteur in the context of the planned demolitions in certain regions.
There were more than 38,000 kindergartens covering two million children. This coverage had improved significantly since 2017. Quotas for female representation were issued on an annual basis.
The functioning of the National Human Rights Commission was an issue of Government priority. Gender equality was also an issue of priority for the State. Measures were adopted to carry out amendments to legislation in parliament, including a 30 per cent quota. This was amended in 2023 to be 40 per cent. There were 38 per cent of women in the Lower Chamber of Parliament, 38 per cent in the Senate, and 32 per cent in local authorities. Persons from ethnic minorities were also represented.
The heads of the 157 national cultural centres received salaries and the necessary resources to carry out relevant activities. Different cultures enriched one another and there had been tangible results, including the development of national culture. The creation of a pavilion on ethnic cultures took place last year, which included 22 homes built in the traditional architecture of different groups. The pavilion was opened with the participation of government officials, diplomats and representatives of international organizations.
Closing Remarks
FAITH DIKELEDI PANSY TLAKULA, Committee Expert and Follow-up Rapporteur, said concluding observations would include recommendations to be implemented within one year, with a report to be submitted to the Committee.
STAMATIA STAVRINAKI, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Uzbekistan, said the Committee welcomed the partial implementation of recommendations, including improved statistical data and efforts to improve statelessness. However, concerns remained regarding the reluctance to adopt a comprehensive equality framework. The Convention required authorities to proactively recognise, acknowledge and accept inequalities with special measures specifically for ethnic groups. The events of July 2022 underscored this need. Ms. Stavrinaki thanked the members of the delegation for their responses and all those who had made the dialogue possible.
DILNOZA MURATOVA, Deputy Director of the National Centre of the Republic of Uzbekistan for Human Rights and head of the delegation, thanked the Committee for the sincere, open and robust dialogue and the expert assessment by the Committee members. This dialogue was an important tool in improving State policies and legislation. Uzbekistan would consider the concluding observations of the Committee and adopt a plan of action to implement them. The State remained ready to continue constructive interactions with the Committee.
GUN KUT, Committee Chairperson, thanked the State party for the dialogue. The Committee would work on a set of concluding observations which would be sent to Uzbekistan after adoption.
___________
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CERD26.004E