Experts of the Committee against Torture Welcome Tajikistan’s Progress in Penitentiary Reform, Raise Questions on Training on the Convention and Prisoners Serving Life Sentences
The Committee against Torture this afternoon concluded its review of the fourth periodic report of Tajikistan on efforts made to implement the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Committee Experts welcomed Tajikistan’s progress in penitentiary reform, while raising questions on training on the Convention for law enforcement and judicial personnel, and the treatment of prisoners serving life sentences.
Huawen Liu, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Rapporteur for Tajikistan, said the Committee welcomed progress made in the areas of penitentiary reform, the protection of juveniles in the justice system, and international cooperation in criminal matters, including the advancement of the prison reform strategy, the strengthening of procedural safeguards for minors, and the further development of the framework governing extradition and mutual legal assistance. In addition, legislative initiatives aimed at establishing a unified crime registration system were positive.
Ana Racu, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Rapporteur for Tajikistan, said the Committee appreciated the efforts undertaken by the State party, including in cooperation with international organizations and civil society, to strengthen capacity in training on torture prevention. How was training on the prohibition of torture structured? Was it mandatory and systematically delivered to all relevant professional groups? How did the State assess whether these trainings were effective?
Mr. Liu said concerns persisted regarding prisoners serving life sentences, including confinement in environments with inadequate ventilation, heating and sanitation, as well as severe restrictions on contact with the outside world.
Did the conditions of detention for persons serving life sentences and arrangements for contact with the outside world comply with international standards?
Ms. Racu asked how many prisoners were serving life sentences? Could more information on the prison regime applied to them be provided, including solitary confinement and visits by family members? Most of them had been convicted of security offences and it was understood they had a prison regime which was quite restrictive.
Presenting the report, Muzaffar Ashuriyon, Minister of Justice of Tajikistan and head of the delegation, said a key milestone was the adoption of the national human rights strategy 2023–2038 and its action plan, which prioritised the prevention, investigation and prosecution of torture, as well as compensation and rehabilitation for victims. The prohibition of torture was enshrined in the Constitution, and significant legal reforms had strengthened accountability. Amendments to the Criminal Code had increased penalties for torture to between five to 15 years’ imprisonment, removed the possibility of fines or amnesty, and classified torture as a serious crime.
Responding to questions, the delegation said Tajikistan prioritised systemic training of all categories of officials, stemming from the principles of the Convention. The State had seen an increase in the level of professional communication among personnel, a drop in the number of situations linked to coercive methods, and had recorded a downtrend in cases of illegal detention, which pointed to an enhanced level of lawfulness, and highlighted success in the implementation of training. This training had a positive impact on law enforcement officials in countering torture and ill-treatment, without use of coercion.
The delegation said people who had been handed life sentences followed a special detention regime. They were provided with medical and social assistance and adequate food. All cells had a toilet unit, there was air conditioning, and they could communicate with close relatives without restrictions. It was not accurate that people serving life sentences had only committed crimes against the State. There were five major crimes which received this sentence, including homicide and murder under aggravating circumstances, terrorism, and biocide and genocide.
In concluding remarks, Claude Heller, Committee Chair, said the Committee would highlight several priority recommendations and aimed to ensure an ongoing dialogue with the State party. He thanked Tajikistan for the constructive dialogue.
In his closing remarks, Mr. Ashuriyon expressed gratitude to the Committee for the constructive dialogue, which Tajikistan was convinced would facilitate further implementation of its human rights obligations.
The delegation of Tajikistan consisted of representatives from the Ministry of Justice; the Executive Office of the President; the Prosecutor General’s Office; the Ministry of Interior; the Ministry of Health and Social Protection; the Human Rights Ombudsman; and the Permanent Mission of Tajikistan to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
Documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, will be available on the session’s webpage. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, and webcasts of the public meetings can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public on Thursday, 16 April at 10 a.m. for a meeting with the Chair of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture.
Report
The Committee has before it the fourth periodic report of Tajikistan (CAT/C/TJK/4).
Presentation of Report
MUZAFFAR ASHURIYON, Minister of Justice of Tajikistan and head of the delegation, said the Government of Tajikistan placed strong emphasis on fulfilling its international human rights obligations and was actively working to align national legislation and law enforcement practices with international standards. A key milestone was the adoption of the national human rights strategy 2023–2038 and its action plan, which incorporated recommendations from United Nations human rights bodies. The strategy prioritised the prevention, investigation and prosecution of torture, as well as compensation and rehabilitation for victims.
Tajikistan continued to cooperate closely with civil society and non-governmental organizations, particularly on torture prevention and the implementation of international recommendations. In 2026, the Government presented its fourth national report on the Convention against Torture. A high-level conference was also held in Dushanbe to explore the ratification of the Optional Protocol and the establishment of a national preventive mechanism. The country had expressed readiness to strengthen oversight of detention facilities and advance penitentiary reforms.
The prohibition of torture was enshrined in the Constitution, and significant legal reforms had strengthened accountability. Amendments to the Criminal Code had increased penalties for torture to between five to 15 years’ imprisonment, removed the possibility of fines or amnesty, and classified torture as a serious crime. Procedural safeguards had been enhanced: detainees were required to be informed of their rights at the moment of actual detention, have immediate access to a lawyer and medical examination, and could notify relatives of the detention and the place of detention. Evidence obtained through torture was inadmissible in court.
Institutional mechanisms for prevention and oversight included investigations, internal security units, and the Human Rights Ombudsman, who could independently investigate violations. A national monitoring group, comprised of State bodies and non-governmental organizations, had been broadened, conducting regular visits to places of detention, and had carried out over 180 inspections since 2014.
Access to justice had been expanded through a State legal aid system, supported by the 2020 law on legal assistance and a nationwide network of State lawyers. Efforts to combat domestic violence included the State programme for 2025–2030, the creation of an interdepartmental Coordination Council, and specialised support services for victims, including shelters and rehabilitation centres that provided assistance to 447 victims across the country. In 2022, the Criminal Code was amended to increase the punishment of rape from 12 to 25 years. The judiciary played an active role through guidelines, training, and case reviews related to torture. Prosecutorial authorities maintained regular reporting on allegations, with investigations and prosecutions undertaken where evidence was confirmed.
Penitentiary reforms, guided by a strategy through to 2030, aimed to humanise the system, improve detention conditions, and strengthen rehabilitation and healthcare. Measures included facility modernisation, increased funding, improved medical services, regular health screenings, and staff training on international standards such as the Istanbul Protocol. Monitoring systems, complaint mechanisms, and video surveillance had also been introduced to prevent abuse. More than 150 courses had been carried out between 2020 and 2025 for upskilling penitentiary staff, including on topics such as the Bangkok Rules and human rights.
Tajikistan looks forward to the dialogue with the Committee and would do its best to answer all questions.
Questions by Committee Experts
ANA RACU, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Rapporteur for Tajikistan, said Tajikistan’s willingness to engage in the dialogue was encouraging and set a positive tone. Ms. Racu positively noted the national human rights strategy, as well as efforts to reform the penitentiary system and legislative amendments aimed at preventing torture and ill-treatment.
The 2020 amendment of article 143-1 of the Criminal Code, including the extension of the definition to acts committed against third persons, was positive, but questions arose regarding its practical application. Did article 143-1 fully reflect all elements of article 1 of the Convention, in particular acts committed at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official? How was “mental suffering” interpreted in practice? What criteria was used by investigators and prosecutors to determine whether a case fell under article 143-1? Could information on investigations, prosecutions and convictions under this article be provided, including the types of acts involved and the sanctions?
The Committee positively noted that torture was now classified as a serious offence and that certain grounds for terminating proceedings had been removed.
Were acts of torture subject to statutes of limitations, and how was this reconciled with the obligation to investigate and prosecute such crimes? Could persons who were convicted of torture benefit from amnesty or pardon in practice, and were there plans to exclude such offences from future amnesty measures?
How was the right to a lawyer from the moment of apprehension implemented in practice? How was the exact moment of detention recorded, and how was it ensured that no questioning took place prior to access to a lawyer? Were judges required to inquire into the treatment of detainees and order medical examinations where there were signs or allegations of ill-treatment? What safeguards applied during administrative detention. Could the State provide clarification on the use of “witness” status, and how were individuals protected from being questioned without appropriate safeguards? How did the unified system for recording detention ensure the prompt and accurate registration of detention and prevent unrecorded or de facto detention? How did video recording operate in practice; was it mandatory during interrogations?
Were medical examinations conducted systematically in all places of detention from the moment of apprehension? What was the availability of qualified medical personnel? The Committee had received information that medical professionals could sometimes be reluctant to fully document injuries resulting from the use of force or violence or may lack the training and capacity to do so. How did the State ensure the independence of medical personnel, their protection from pressure, and their adequate training in line with international standards, including the Istanbul Protocol? Were there any plans to transfer responsibility for prison healthcare to the Ministry of Health, in line with international standards? How was the Istanbul Protocol applied in practice?
How was the right to an independent medical examination exercised?
Was screening for tuberculosis, HIV and other infectious diseases conducted systematically from the outset of detention? What measures were in place to ensure early detection, appropriate treatment, and continuity of care for these diseases? The Committee noted as a positive step the decision of the Supreme Court to decriminalise HIV exposure in 2023 and would appreciate an update on its practical impact.
The Committee was concerned that lawyers in Tajikistan could face obstacles in exercising their functions, including interference by law enforcement authorities, particularly in sensitive cases, such as concerning extremism or national security. How did the State ensure prompt and effective access to a lawyer, particularly at the earliest stages of detention? Could comments be provided on reports of interference or pressure on lawyers, especially in sensitive cases? The scope of such “sensitive cases” remained unclear, and included cases against journalists, lawyers and human rights defenders; could the delegation comment on this? What safeguards were in place to ensure that lawyers could act independently and without interference, including in cases involving allegations of torture? How did the State address reports of pressure or intimidation against lawyers, particularly those involved in politically sensitive or high-profile cases?
The Committee noted that the Ombudsman of Tajikistan was accredited with “B” status in 2012, with concerns raised about its legal framework, appointment process, independence, engagement with international human rights mechanisms, and the need for adequate funding. The adoption of the criminal justice reform strategy in 2020 was a positive step and, within that framework, the 2021–2025 action plan provided for independent monitoring of detention facilities, as well as the international conference held in Dushanbe and the establishment of a pilot monitoring group involving the Ombudsman’s Office and civil society representatives.
Could the delegation outline the Ombudsman’s mandate, working methods, and institutional capacity in this area, including available resources and the profiles of those involved in monitoring visits? Could the delegation indicate the number and types of places of detention visited annually, and whether visits were conducted on an unannounced basis? Did monitors have access to relevant documentation and the possibility to speak with detainees in full confidentiality?
How were monitoring groups composed and selected, and how were their independence, pluralism and the participation of civil society ensured?
It was positive that civil society organizations appeared to have some level of access to places of detention and could speak with detainees. How did this access function in practice? Could monitors meet all categories of detainees without restriction, including those held in sensitive or politically related cases? Were findings and recommendations from a visit made public? How did the Ombudsman follow up on its recommendations, and to what extent did they lead to concrete changes? How many complaints did the Ombudsman receive annually concerning allegations of violence, torture or abuse of power in places of detention? In 2025, no such complaints were registered; did this reflect the actual situation, or could it point to underreporting or a lack of confidence in existing mechanisms? During monitoring visits, how many allegations of torture or ill-treatment were identified, referred for investigation, and led to concrete outcomes?
What was the stage of the ratification of the Optional Protocol? How did the prosecutorial oversight function in practice? The Committee noted several positive measures taken in recent years in Tajikistan, including the 2024 amendments to the law on the prevention of domestic violence, the adoption of the 2025–2030 State programme, and the ongoing work on a new Criminal Code, which were important developments.
However, despite the 2013 law, domestic violence, including marital rape, was still not clearly criminalised, and there was a lack of training on the law as well as effective protection for victims. Could an update be provided on the draft Criminal Code and how it would ensure that all forms of domestic and gender-based violence, including psychological violence, marital rape, and sexual violence, were properly criminalised, in line with international standards?
How was it ensured that protection orders were effectively used and enforced?
How was access to shelters, medical care, and legal assistance being improved, especially for women in remote areas? How was it ensured that police responses to domestic violence were fully aligned with international standards? Could statistical information on domestic violence cases be provided?
The Committee noted that Tajikistan had taken steps to improve its legal and institutional framework to combat trafficking. At the same time, challenges remained, including the scale of labour migration from Tajikistan, as well as challenges in identifying returning victims and ensuring their protection.
How did the State ensure the proactive and timely identification of victims of trafficking, including at borders, in detention settings, and among returning migrants? What safeguards were in place to ensure that victims were not penalised and were referred to protection and assistance services? Could updated data be provided on trafficking cases?
Tajikistan operated in a complex regional environment, including a long and sensitive border with Afghanistan and broader migration dynamics in Central Asia. It hosted one of the largest populations of refugees and asylum seekers in the region, primarily from Afghanistan. There had been several positive developments, including that the principle of non-refoulement was reflected in domestic legislation; the removal of deportation as a sanction in certain cases; the 2019 amnesty law; and continued cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to improve refugee status determination procedures. These developments and should be congratulated.
However, several concerns persisted, including restrictive border management policies, and deportations and expulsions without an assessment of torture, including the return of a significant number of Afghan nationals between late 2024 and mid-2025. The Committee was also concerned about reports of returns, including cases involving individuals from the Pamiri minority.
How was protection against refoulement ensured in practice? How did the authorities identify individuals in need of international protection, and what safeguards were in place to ensure that they were not removed before having access to asylum procedures? How were individualised risk assessments conducted in extradition cases? How did the State ensure that no extradition was carried out where there was a risk of torture? In cases related to extremism or national security, what additional safeguards were in place to ensure that individuals were not exposed to a risk of torture following extradition?
The Committee appreciated the efforts undertaken by the State party, including in cooperation with international organizations and civil society, to strengthen capacity in training on torture prevention. How was training on the prohibition of torture structured? Was it mandatory and systematically delivered to all relevant professional groups? How did training address specific risk areas, such as gender-based violence, trafficking in persons, and violence against children? Was the Istanbul Protocol systematically included, and how was it ensured that medical staff were able to document injuries independently and effectively? How did the State assess whether these trainings were effective?
HUAWEN LIU, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Rapporteur for Tajikistan, noted the legislative and policy developments undertaken by Tajikistan since its review in 2018. The State party had adopted the national strategy for the protection of human rights up to 2038 and its implementation plan, and had amended the Criminal Code and related legislation to strengthen legal safeguards at the stage of detention and to align the system of compensation for moral damage with international standards. The Committee welcomed progress made in the areas of penitentiary reform, the protection of juveniles in the justice system, and international cooperation in criminal matters, including the advancement of the prison reform strategy, the strengthening of procedural safeguards for minors, and the further development of the framework governing extradition and mutual legal assistance. In addition, legislative initiatives aimed at establishing a unified crime registration system were positive.
The Committee appreciated that, over the past three years, Tajikistan had received three United Nations Special Rapporteurs and had been informed that an action plan was recently developed for the implementation of their recommendations.
However, the Committee noted that a gap remained between legislative developments and their implementation in practice. It had been reported that the authorities had begun equipping police stations, investigative detention facilities, and penitentiary institutions with video surveillance cameras to record investigative activities as a safeguard against torture.
However, according to human rights defenders, these cameras appeared to be frequently switched off or insufficiently maintained. How did the State party ensure that video surveillance cameras in interrogation rooms or places of detention were regularly maintained and remained fully operational, and how could the video record be utilised for human rights protection? Would the State party consider strengthening the construction of forensic evidence examination centres? Would Tajikistan consider using new technologies to enhance the capacities of police to help them rely less on confessions?
The Committee welcomed developments, including that civil society organizations had cooperated with the State Department for the implementation of punishment in promoting prisoner rehabilitation programmes, improving medical services in women’s prisons. However, information indicated that challenges persisted in the penitentiary system, including overcrowding, substandard conditions of detention, and poor conditions in women’s prisons. Could the delegation provide updated statistical data disaggregated by place of detention? In light of reports concerning severe overcrowding in certain facilities, had assessments been conducted of the relevant prisons, including Khujand prison, and what specific measures had been taken to improve conditions? Were there plans to establish a unified and regularly updated system for the publication of prison statistics?
The Committee noted reports indicating that conditions of detention in certain facilities in Tajikistan remained a matter of serious concern, including due to poor hygiene, lack of basic personal sanitation facilities, and insufficient food provision. Concerns further persisted regarding prisoners serving life sentences, including confinement in environments with inadequate ventilation, heating and sanitation, as well as severe restrictions on contact with the outside world.
What specific measures were being taken to improve basic conditions of detention, including hygiene, food provision, ventilation and heating in places of detention? Could information be provided on staffing levels, workload and access to psychological support? What measures were being taken to address excessive workload and related challenges? Did the conditions of detention for persons serving life sentences and arrangements for contact with the outside world comply with international standards?
What measures had been taken to improve conditions in women’s detention facilities, including infrastructure, living conditions, and access to medical services? What was the availability and gender responsiveness of healthcare services in places of detention, and what specific safeguards and services were provided for pregnant women, breastfeeding women, victims of domestic violence, and mothers detained with their children? Could updated statistics be provided on deaths in custody and investigations conducted into such cases?
The Committee welcomed that, under the penal reform strategy 2020–2030 and its 2021–2025 action plan, the State party was taking steps to promote the rehabilitation and social reintegration of persons deprived of their liberty. Could progress on the legislative and practical implementation of non-custodial measures be provided?
According to a report by the Ombudsman, 53 detainees died in 2023, attributed mostly to natural causes or illness by the State party. However, information also suggested that some deaths may be linked to torture, ill-treatment or inadequate access to medical care. What specific measures were being taken to strengthen medical safeguards in places of detention and to prevent such incidents?
In recent years, several prison riots had resulted in significant loss of life; these incidents reflected persistent structural deficiencies in the penitentiary system, including overcrowding, conditions of detention, transparency and oversight mechanisms. What was the current status of external independent oversight mechanisms in the penitentiary system? With regard to recent prison riots resulting in casualties, could information be provided on the findings of relevant investigations and subsequent accountability measures?
Would the State party consider speeding up the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?
How did the existing complaint mechanisms for torture and ill-treatment ensure confidentiality, and what specific safeguards were in place to enable persons deprived of their liberty to lodge complaints without interference from prison authorities or the risk of reprisals? Could information be provided on the
independence and effectiveness of complaints channels?
The Committee noted that, in recent years, the State party had undertaken legislative reforms in the field of juvenile justice, but remained concerned that, in practice, these safeguards may not be effectively implemented, and that minors continued to face a risk of ill-treatment in detention. With regard to the compulsory medical examination mechanism, how frequently was this procedure implemented? Was solitary confinement of minors still applied, particularly in pre-trial detention facilities? The Committee noted that the State party had not yet established specialised juvenile courts or a comprehensive system of alternative measures; how was it ensured that minors were not subject to excessive reliance on deprivation of liberty?
Did the State party plan to establish a fully independent body mandated to receive and investigate allegations of torture and ill-treatment? Within the current framework, how was the independence and impartiality of investigations ensured? What measures were being taken to protect victims, lawyers and witnesses from reprisals, and to encourage the filing of complaints of torture. What specific policies ensured that safeguards were in place to effectively address impunity? How did the State party ensure that allegations of torture and ill-treatment in cases involving religious beliefs or specific groups, including Pamiri people and the Ismaili community, were promptly, independently and effectively investigated? What measures were being taken to improve the situation of data relating to allegations of torture and ill-treatment?
The Committee was concerned about information which indicated that some judges were insufficiently trained and lacked experience, that corruption remained challenging, and that judicial activities continued to be subject to significant influence from the executive branch. How did the State party ensure the substantive independence of the judiciary in the face of administrative and political pressures? Were there independent judicial oversight mechanisms and safeguards governing the appointment, promotion and dismissal of judges?
Had the State party established a unified mechanism for the public dissemination of court information, including the systematic publication of hearing schedules?
What measures had been taken to ensure that victims of torture obtained adequate, effective and enforceable compensation? How were claims for compensation by victims of torture handled in practice? Were there plans to establish a comprehensive State-funded rehabilitation system providing medical, psychological and social support services to victims of torture? What specific measures were being taken to ensure the effective implementation of article 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code concerning the exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence?
Despite efforts, the Committee was concerned that issues of violence, hazing, and other forms of ill-treatment persisted within the military, including cases of abuse of recruits by fellow servicemen, the concealment of violations, and insufficient oversight and enforcement mechanisms. What measures were being taken to prevent the ill-treatment of conscripts within the armed forces? What mechanisms were in place to protect whistleblowers from reprisals or stigmatisation? Could the delegation clarify the alleged issue of intimidation of the parents of conscripts?
A Committee Expert asked how the State party understood the exercise of jurisdiction in cases of torture, particularly when acts were committed outside of its territory? Did domestic law allow for the exercise of jurisdiction over acts of torture committed outside the State party, when the alleged offender was present within its jurisdiction?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said if there were any violations of access to a lawyer, this was subject to meticulous verification, and measures were taken to address the situation. Over the last three years, there were 174 inmates who died from illnesses. All deaths had been carefully investigated, and verifications were carried out by the competent bodies, with a decision reached in all cases.
Effective measures were being taken to improve prison conditions, including through reconstruction. From 2022 until 2025, the authorities had taken necessary measures to ensure the stable functioning of all prison structures. Living conditions of inmates were brought into line with international standards. Multi-storey facilities were introduced into all penitentiary and remand centres. The equipment provided in the medical wing and in workshops was also expanded. Around 150 sanitary units were also expanded, and canteens and sports rooms were improved. There was one women’s prison in the country, which had all the necessary conditions for ensuring appropriate detention conditions for women.
People who had been handed life sentences followed a special detention regime. They were provided with medical and social assistance and adequate food. All cells had a toilet unit, there was air conditioning, and they could communicate with close relatives without restrictions. Land plots had been allocated for building new facilities specifically for people serving life sentences.
In all regions of Tajikistan, there was a public list of legal professionals who provided free legal services, including to women and migrants, among other vulnerable groups. Professional development for staff members was ensured on an ongoing basis and aimed to prevent torture and ill-treatment. Government agencies had a joint programme for training staff, which included topics such as criminology, law and psychology. More than 300 candidates recently underwent training.
The State party was continuing to work towards gaining A status for the Ombudsman, and a strategy was underway. There was also a strategy underway for ratification of the Optional Protocol. There was now an Ombudsman for children’s rights and one for entrepreneurship. The institution was being strengthened and it was expected it would eventually meet the Paris Principles and be granted A status.
The penalty for torture was introduced in Tajikistan in 2012 and had undergone major changes. The State party consistently implemented legislative reforms when it came to prohibiting torture. In aggravating circumstances, a 15-year prison term now applied. The Constitution enshrined an absolute ban on torture, and any evidence extracted using violence needed to be discounted. Around 105 complaints and reports had been registered in 2025, and in 14 cases the State had pressed charges for torture. Those convicted were given prison terms of three to 21 years.
All cases of deaths in detention centres were investigated efficiently, promptly and impartially, and independent forensic investigations in this regard were conducted, published and shared with relatives. In certain cases, compensation was paid for damages inflicted.
The main military prosecutor in Tajikistan carried out regular inspections of military barracks. All reports of hazing, violence or slander were considered within the legal timeframes. There was the possibility of confidential submission of complaints by servicemen to protect them from possible reprisals, including through hotlines in all facilities. Complaints were immediately transferred for investigations.
Interrogations of minors could only take place under special conditions with a psychologist present. Minors who were victims could not be brought face to face with their alleged perpetrator and there were mandatory video recordings of all minors across all facilities.
Between 2018 and 2023, there were 73 cases considered regarding human trafficking, and between 2023 and 2025, charges were pressed on 125 cases of human trafficking. Asylum seekers were provided with access to medical, psychological and legal assistance. Tajikistan had adopted a set of measures to finetune the laws which directly prohibited human trafficking. Medical campaigns were carried out with the population, including vulnerable groups, to increase awareness. Victims were given legal and medical care, as well as housing and rehabilitation, including through the labour market.
Since 2021, the Government had funded the operations of a shelter for victims, and resources for a hotline and system for early detection of victims. These included asylum seekers and migrants. Victims received psychological, medical and social assistance, and were provided with food and training courses. Victims were provided with legal aid for the crimes committed by human traffickers.
The new draft Criminal Code included marital rape as a form of sexual violence and qualified this crime as a standalone crime. Rape was based on the absence of free, voluntary consent, in line with international standards. A law had been adopted on preventing domestic violence. Around 20,100 complaints of domestic violence had been registered by the State party, with around 3,000 considered by inspectors specifically charged with investigating domestic violence, and the rest by police inspectors.
The delegation said crisis and information advisory centres had been established to combat domestic violence. Advisory cabinets providing medical assistance to victims of gender-based violence had also been launched. Meetings were held around the country and awareness raising work was carried out on human trafficking and domestic violence. In 2024, changes were made to the law on domestic violence, with State programmes being adopted to prevent domestic violence. An inspectorate comprised of 21 staff had been established to tackle this issue.
The position of Chief Inspector on domestic violence had also been created. Mandatory training programmes had been introduced for Government staff on domestic violence, incorporating the Convention. The effectiveness of these programmes was systematically assessed. From 2010, a new training course had been introduced on family violence, encompassing 36 academic hours and followed by an exam.
Upon arrest, a suspect was entitled immediately to legal counsel, and to have their rights read in a language they understood, among other safeguards. Law enforcement could not detain a person in remand without providing official status. Upon actual detention, a person had the right to have access to a lawyer of their choice immediately. A medical inspection was conducted by the prison’s medical staff and a report was produced, which the suspect was permitted to view at their request. Upon arrest, the duty-bound officer was required to notify family members of the suspect’s situation.
Based on legislation requirements, every suspect was immediately brought before a court, within 72 hours for adults and 48 hours for minors.
Forensic medical examiners were independent from the prosecutorial team, and examinations were carried out at the request of the detainee. The victim was permitted to choose the specialist. After the examination, the Expert drew up findings which were then kept on file. If evidence of torture was found, the case was transferred to the oversight bodies. All medical institutions in the penitentiary system had the latest diagnostic equipment to identity those suffering from tuberculosis or HIV; there were special hospitals for tuberculosis patients. In the last six years, tuberculosis testing had been given to more than 8,000 suspects, with around 500 identified as tuberculosis sufferers. More than 21 training workshops had been held in the last four years regarding HIV, and joint measures were developed and implemented annually on the prevention of transmission.
Professional training of staff took place on a systemic basis, including on the standards of the Istanbul Protocol, forensic investigations, and documenting cases of torture, among other topics. In 2025, there had been an increase by 36 per cent of persons covered by rehabilitative services, compared to 2022. If minors were taken into remand, the institution had responsibility in the absence of a parent or guardian. Children were considered as a vulnerable group. Forced treatment of psychiatric patients was carried out following a court decision, in accordance with the Criminal Code. Between 2022 and 2025, forced treatment was provided to 123 patients, mostly due to schizophrenia.
All female inmates had the right to medical assistance, including pregnant females and breast-feeding mothers. The law stipulated that pregnant women and those giving birth had access to specialised maternity wards and birth facilities. If any complications arose during pregnancy, they were transferred to State health facilities.
Tajikistan was actively preparing for ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and had adopted an action plan in this regard in 2025. In 2024, the law on the responsibility of the child was amended, allowing Tajikistan to become the sixty-seventh country in the world to have prohibited corporal punishment against children by law.
A measure had been approved in February on violence against women in Tajikistan. In 2024, a second programme had been adopted on the prevention of violence in the family. In 2025, a mass SMS campaign in Tajik and Russian had been organised informing citizens about the procedure for reporting violence. The law on the prevention of domestic violence had been amended, with the duration of restraining orders extended to up to 60 days.
The ratification of the Optional Protocol was being considered within the national human rights strategy. A working group comprised of government, academic and civil society stakeholders had been established in this regard. Some 118 monitoring visits had been carried out, including to military bases. In 2025, 10 visits were organised in just one month. There had been confidential one-on-one interviews with more than 1,000 detainees as well as military personnel. Reports were provided every three months in multiple languages and uploaded on the Ombudsman’s website. The current activities of the monitoring group provided for the basis of a national preventive mechanism.
The Ombudsperson coordinated with regional bodies and an interministerial group had been established to amend the law of the Ombudsperson and bring it in line with the Paris Principles.
Legislation enshrined a complete prohibition of torture against juveniles, and their parents and guardians were required to be informed immediately upon their detention. Minors who were suspects needed to be questioned within 12 hours of detention and could not be held for more than 48 hours from detention. Rehabilitation programmes for minors had been developed, and measures had been taken on non-custodial measures, introducing mediation as an option. The role of preventative and social services had been strengthened, and training was provided for judges and law enforcement staff on the intricacies of working with minors.
To address overcrowding in the prison system, fines were used instead of custodial sentences in some cases, along with suspended sentences, and restrictions on liberty without applying a prison sentence. Inmates or their relatives were able to pay for special phone calls, allowing inmates the right to be in touch with their relatives.
In 2025, there were eight deaths of inmates recorded which were not linked to any acts of torture or harm but rather diseases such as blood clots.
Those serving life sentences were provided with all necessary seasonal clothes and food. There were medical units in these establishments, as well as air-conditioning and clean drinking water. The necessary conditions of detention were therefore met for those serving life sentences.
From 2018 to 2025, 105 complaints on torture had been registered in the country.
Tajikistan had signed bilateral agreements with several United Nations Member States, including the United Arab Emirates, China, Afghanistan, Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and Georgia, among others. The crime of torture was covered in case of extradition in all these treaties. Tajikistan confirmed that no one accused of torture could receive asylum in the country. The State had established one case where evidence was obtained under torture during an investigation in 2017, with financial compensation provided to the victim as a result.
Five cases of unlawful, inappropriate relations in the army had been identified, which had caused three deaths. Five officers had been found guilty.
In the last three years, the salaries of judges and judicial officers had been raised and there was a training centre which provided courses on international human rights obligations for them, including the Convention. Other measures were also taken to uphold the independence of justice and the courts. Special rooms had been set aside to hold hearings for minors.
Under the law on refugees, non-extradition was enshrined as a safeguard guarantee. When those crossing into Tajikistan’s borders stated their intention to be recognised as a refugee, they were not detained. Asylum seekers and refugees could receive education and carry out contracting and entrepreneurial work and receive health care services. In recent years, the quantity of offences committed by asylum seekers was increasing. Many asylum seekers had provided false evidence to substantiate their petitions for refugee status. Offences included aiding and abetting terrorist organizations and carrying out terrorist activities.
Tajikistan prioritised systemic training of all categories of officials, stemming from the principles of the Convention. The State had seen an increase in the level of professional communication among personnel, a drop in the number of situations linked to coercive methods, and had recorded a downtrend in cases of illegal detention, which pointed to an enhanced level of lawfulness, and highlighted success in the implementation of training. This training had a positive impact on law enforcement officials in countering torture and ill-treatment, without use of coercion.
The authorities responded to any complaints regarding involuntary or forced treatment for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex persons, which were prosecuted by criminal legislation.
Tajikistan acknowledged that prison overcrowding was a problem. Facilities had been built at the time of the Soviet Union and now new establishments were being built, including a remand centre with 300 places.
Questions by Committee Experts
ANA RACU, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Rapporteur for Tajikistan, said the Committee had received information regarding allegations of excessive use of force, arbitrary detention and excessive use of violence in the Gorno-Badakhshan autonomous region, between 2021 and 2022. The Committee was mindful of the complex context in which these events took place and the historical realities of the region. According to the Committee’s information, there were only two active lawyers in this region. Could more information be provided by the State party, including the State conclusion following the events?
It was positive that despite the reality of Tajikistan’s old penitentiary system, a new one was being constructed. The vocational opportunities offered for prisons was also positive. How was correspondence regulated in detention facilities? What mechanisms were in place to ensure confidentiality in the letters sent by detainees? How many prisoners were serving life sentences? Could more information on the prison regime applied to them be provided, including solitary confinement and visits by family members? Most of them had been convicted of security offences and it was understood they had a prison regime which was quite restrictive.
What investigations had been carried out in regard to the prison riots which took place in some prisons? How was the State planning to prevent similar events in the future? What measures had been taken to prevent violent incidents in prisons across the country?
It was positive that a lot of training was provided to medical personnel, and the State party was encouraged to further continue such initiatives. Was specific training on the Minnesota Protocol and the Mendez Principles implemented in practice?
HUAWEN LIU, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Rapporteur for Tajikistan, said the Committee welcomed the amendments made in July 2019, which introduced free birth registration within three months of births, and commended the State party for its efforts to address statelessness. What specific obstacles persisted in the areas of birth registration? Had a legal framework to protect those who were stateless or at risk of becoming stateless been established?
The Committee was concerned at reports of widespread corruption, including the solicitation of bribes by public officials, and invited the State party to introduce measures against corruption in law enforcement and the judicial process.
The Committee noted positive steps taken by the State party in regard to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons, including the adoption of protective legislation, but noted that this group continued to face ill-treatment, including by police officers. It appeared that sexual orientation and gender identity as protective grounds were not clearly included in the legislation on hate crimes and hate speech. What measures were being taken to resolve these issues? It was reported that prisoners belonging to this group faced risk of violence and sexual assault either from other prisoners or staff. Transgender women were either sent to male penal colonies or separated in solitary confinement cells. What measures were being taken in places of detention to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex prisoners from violence and ill-treatment? How did the State party ensure their safety, dignity and non-discriminatory treatment while in detention facilities?
The Committee noted that the State party had faced challenges in counter terrorism in recent years. How did the State party ensure that laws on counter terrorism were not interpreted restrictively in practice?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said at the start of the unlawful meetings in Gorno-Badakhshan in 2021, law enforcement had held consultations and outreach. As a result of negotiations, heads of the meetings agreed to stop their unlawful acts and leave the assembly location, which was formalised. Not one person involved in the unlawful meetings was prosecuted. Law enforcement did not use any unlawful measures or arbitrary detentions. However, mass riots were organised and a massive amount of economic damage was undertaken, and close ties with terrorist groups in Afghanistan were established, with weapons obtained. A number of law enforcement personnel were killed, and members of counsel were taken hostage and subjected to physical violence.
Protests were launched in response to negotiations using elements such as tear gas and Molotov cocktails. The actions taken by law enforcement personnel in Gorno-Badakhshan following these events were aimed at the safety of civilians and destabilising the organised crime groups. This had stemmed from a civil war which occurred in the country decades earlier, in which 200,000 people were killed. Since 2022, life had changed for the better, with the region experiencing increased tourism and production capacity. The Committee should approach this issue carefully with an objective assessment.
Following a Government order, birth registration was issued free of charge, and awareness raising was carried out across the country on this topic.
According to legislation, inmates could regularly meet with their family members and their correspondence was fully confidential.
Tajikistan’s legislation did not allow for discrimination against lesbian, gay bisexual, transgender and intersex persons and all inmates from this group were protected on the same level as other citizens.
In the fight against terrorism, human rights law was strictly complied with.
Tajikistan had made significant progress on tackling statelessness. The national human rights strategy included measures to consider the accession to the Convention on statelessness. A new law had made it possible for more than 15,000 persons with an unclarified status to legalise their status, which had opened up access to their civil rights. Active work was being undertaken by civil society organizations to help people in remote areas obtain citizenship.
In all national plans, the recommendations of United Nations treaty bodies were considered, including providing training on human rights to the relevant experts.
In the case of some prisoners who had been convicted of extremist or terrorist crimes and had assaulted other prisoners and staff, they had been neutralised with firearms. A criminal investigation had been launched which was currently being examined by the courts.
It was not accurate that people serving life sentences had only committed crimes against the State. There were five major crimes which received this sentence, including homicide and murder under aggravating circumstances, terrorism, and biocide and genocide.
More than 9,000 protective orders had been allocated between 2018 and 2022, with a significant number of cases concerning domestic violence.
The main medical service under the penitentiary system currently had 500 patients under its competence. There were three units on substitution therapy and separate rehabilitation departments where all those in need received rehabilitation services.
Closing Remarks
CLAUDE HELLER, Committee Chair, said the Committee would highlight several priority recommendations and aimed to ensure an ongoing dialogue with the State party. He thanked Tajikistan for the constructive dialogue.
MUZAFFAR ASHURIYON, Minister of Justice of Tajikistan and head of the delegation, expressed gratitude to the Committee for the constructive dialogue, which Tajikistan was convinced would facilitate further implementation of its human rights obligations. The Government would continue to hold a dialogue with the Committee, enhance its legislation, and develop the training of law enforcement bodies and penitentiary staff.
___________
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.
CAT26.002E