COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE BEGINS REVIEW OF REPORT OF UZBEKISTAN
The Committee against Torture this morning began its consideration of the third periodic report of Uzbekistan on the efforts of that country to give effect to the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Esemurat Kanyazov, Deputy Minister of Justice of Uzbekistan, introducing the report, said that since the last report, several steps had been undertaken in order to improve the human rights situation in Uzbekistan. Recent steps made over the last few years included the reduction of detentions by a factor of more than two. A lessening of the criminalization of crimes considered least serious had also happened. Broader punishments other than imprisonment were being proposed in several cases.
Since Uzbekistan’s independence, several steps had been undertaken to abolish the death penalty, underscored Mr. Kanyazov. Life imprisonment had replaced the death penalty in serious circumstances like terrorism. Also, no one could be subjected to imprisonment without a judicial decision.
Serving as Rapporteur for the report of Uzbekistan, Committee Expert Felice Gaer said that the Committee had received reports that several non-governmental organisations and more that 200 groups present in the country had been forced to close their offices and leave Uzbekistan, including the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. It was hard to understand the reasons given by the Government for these closures. It was highly incredible that all theses groups had committed grave acts in order to be expelled from a country that knew so many humanitarian and human rights problems. Several of these international bodies would be a highly needed added value to Uzbekistan.
Alexander Kovalev, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Uzbekistan, asked further questions, including whether medical personnel received human rights education? What was being done to improve medical care and food in penitentiary institutions? Concerning evidence obtained under torture, how many cases had been dismissed because of this? To what extent had the provisions of several international human rights instruments been included into the Constitution of Uzbekistan and which had precedence over the other?
Other Committee Experts asked questions related to what was the status of clandestine immigrants and if they had they any protections; was there any reform planned on the selection process of judges, and if it was the executive authority which was carrying it out; were acts of torture considered as crimes against humanity; were crimes against humanity covered in the national criminal code; what was the authority and legislative status of the National Security Service; and what were the measures set to prevent human trafficking?
Also representing the delegation of Uzbekistan were representatives from the Ministries of Internal Affairs and of Justice, the Department on Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms of the Office of the Prosecutor General, the Permanent Mission of Uzbekistan in Geneva and the National Center for Human Rights.
The delegation will return to the Committee at 3 p.m. on Monday, 12 November to provide its responses to the questions raised today.
Uzbekistan is among the 145 States parties to the Convention and as such it must present periodic reports to the Committee on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it will hear the answers of Latvia to the questions posed by Experts on Tuesday, 8 November 2007.
Report of Uzbekistan
According to the third periodic report of Uzbekistan (CAT/C/UZB/3), as distinct from the first few years after independence, the opening of the twenty-first century in Uzbekistan were marked by turbulent developments in domestic politics and moves to bring legislation into line with international legal norms and generally accepted standards, not least where human rights and liberties are concerned. The democratic changes that have taken place since then have brought with them fundamental alterations to the judicial system: independent courts and new types of legal proceedings and rules governing them that are in keeping with the spirit and requirements of the times. Much has been accomplished. The changes made to the law governing criminal procedure are designed to reduce the amount of time spent in custody, i.e. to reduce the number and duration of the occasions when citizens come into contact with the law-enforcement system. One milestone has been the establishment in law of a maximum duration for pretrial investigations; this is an important safeguard of the civic right to protection against interminably protracted investigations and red tape.
In November 2002, the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Mr. Theo van Boven, visited Uzbekistan at the invitation of the Government. During his visit, the Special Rapporteur held a series of meetings with high-ranking government officials, representatives of civil society, international organizations and foreign embassies. Mr. van Boven also visited places of detention. One step towards execution of the Government’s Programme for compliance with the Convention against Torture was the addition of language to the Criminal Code to establish a definition of “torture” fully in conformity with article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. A parliamentary sitting in August 2003 amended article 235 of the Criminal Code to make torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment at any stage of criminal proceedings a punishable criminal act which can be prosecuted by law.
Presentation of Report
ESEMURAT KANYAZOV, Deputy Minister of Justice of Uzbekistan, introducing the report, said that since the last report, several steps had been undertaken in order to improve the human rights situation in Uzbekistan. Recent steps made over the last few years included the reduction of detentions by a factor of more than two. A lessening of the criminalization of crimes considered least serious had also happened. Broader punishments other than imprisonment were being proposed in several cases.
Since Uzbekistan’s independence, several steps had been undertaken to abolish the death penalty, underscored Mr. Kanyazov. Life imprisonment had replaced the death penalty for serious crimes like terrorism. Also, no one could be subjected to imprisonment without a judicial decision. In November 2002, the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Mr. Theo van Boven, visited Uzbekistan at the invitation of the Government. He had visited places of detentions and several of his propositions had been implemented. Also, in 2003, the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan had provided a definition of torture.
Mr. Latif Huseynov, the Independent Expert of the United Nations Commission on
Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Uzbekistan, had also visited Uzbekistan in 2004 in accordance with a decision taken by the Commission, said Mr. Kanyazov. During his visit, he had had a number of official meetings with heads of ministries and government departments and visited places of custody and detention.
Mr. Kanyazov noted that a system of education for human rights had been created. This programme was running in all schools and universities. As of 2003, several workshops had taken place to introduce the Convention to several parties. All of these measures were accompanied with several publications. Uzbekistan had for a long time been collaborating with several human rights bodies and the members of the delegation were looking forward to the upcoming discussion.
Response by Delegation to Written Questions by Experts Submitted in Advance
The delegation noted that 15 recommendations of the Committee had been implemented and that a special body had been formed for this. Special instructions had been implemented to consider any information of torture and unlawful acts happening in agencies. Evidence obtained under violence or with the use of torture or other illegal methods could no more be used in criminal procedures. Further measures to ensure the independence of judges were being adopted. Medical care of detainees had also been improved. Every five years all places of detentions were being visited. Detention conditions had improved in several places.
On the question of torture, the delegation said that the purpose of the reforms was to build a democratic country. Since independence, several steps had been undertaken to prevent any application of torture. Considerable results had been attained to achieve a public condemnation of torture. Still a great work was necessary to achieve all recommendations that had been made by the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and ensuring that human rights were fully respected and enjoyed and to meet all the obligations Uzbekistan had agreed to in the international agreements it had acceded to.
Also, the delegation noted that new drafted laws had made it possible to improve the activities of the Ombudsman and to allow it to cooperate with several agencies in its inquiries. A new Act provided full legal justification for independent investigations into incidents of torture by persons in authority. The Ombudsman was entitled to conduct his own investigations into complaints about unlawful action by organizations or officials that had violated citizens’ rights.
Questions Raised by Committee Experts
FELICE GAER, the Committee Chairperson serving as Rapporteur for the report of Uzbekistan, asked a number of questions, including that the Committee had received reports that several non-governmental organisations and more that 200 groups present in the country had been forced to close their offices and leave Uzbekistan, including the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. It was hard to understand the reasons given by the Government for these closures. It was highly incredible that all theses groups had committed grave acts in order to be expelled from a country that knew so many humanitarian and human rights problems. Several of these international bodies would be a highly needed added value to Uzbekistan.
Other questions asked by Ms. Gear included whether it was true that suspects of Islamic terrorism were dealt with harder in prisons than other suspects? She also noted that the Independent Expert had disagreed with the stated fact that several recommendations of his predecessor had been implemented.
At what times could an individual in custody be allowed to contact his family, a lawyer and a doctor of his choice? Could they complain to the Human Rights Commissioner? It was noted that many families did not know in what prison their relatives were being detained. Also, what was the length of time of in-communicado detentions?
Information indicated that witnesses had been detained in certain cases. Did these persons have the same rights to make complaints? The fact that prison inspections did only take place every five years was seen as weak. It should happen irregularly, without notice and with the inclusion of independent non-governmental organizations.
A lot of the statistics in the report showed that many deaths in prisons had been reported to be suicides. How could one be sure that the investigations had been conducted carefully, especially with such high rates of suicides?
Ms. Gaer also asked questions about the large number of allegations of torture and violations of other rights protected in the Convention by Uzbekistan; reported impunity for acts of torture; the situation of human rights defenders in Uzbekistan; and whether the State party would accept a visit by the new Special Rapporteur against torture to the Zhaslyk prison.
Recalling the case of five Uzbek nationals who had been sent back to the country from Kyrgyzstan in August 2006, Ms. Gaer said that according to her information, four of those five persons had had refugee status.
ALEXANDER KOVALEV, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Uzbekistan, asked further questions, including, whether medical personnel received human rights education? What was being done to improve medical care and food in penitentiary institutions? It was also again underscored that a planned visit of prisons every five years was clearly not sufficient and was not efficient, as prisons could be cleaned up just before the visit. Who had the main role in the investigation of complaints of torture? Had there been any punishments of law-enforcement personnel? Concerning evidence obtained under torture, how many cases had been dismissed because of this? To what extent had the provisions of several international human rights instruments been included into the Constitution and which had precedence over the other?
Other Committee Experts asked questions and made comments, including what was the status of clandestine immigrants and if they had any protections? It was noted that the free circulation of Uzbeks seemed to be limited and this could lead to issues with the right to work. Was there any reform planned on the selection process of judges? Who was doing it? Was it the executive authority? Were acts of torture considered as crimes against humanity? Were crimes against humanity covered in the national criminal code? What was the authority and legislative status of the National Security Service? What were the measures set to prevent human trafficking? It was also noted that it was extremely important that judges were appointed independently. The longer it would take, the longer a culture of impunity would persist in the country. The fact that religious extremism was considered a crime, without presence of a crime, was also seen as requiring some re-consideration.
For use of the information media; not an official record
CAT07026E