Human Rights Committee

Seventy-first Session

1910^th Meeting (AM)

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE HEARS QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON RIGHTS IN UZBEKISTAN

Experts members of the Human Rights Committee this morning asked the delegation of Uzbekistan questions about procedures for detention, legal representation, allegations of torture by law enforcement officers, religious freedom, and the application of the death penalty, as the Committee continued its consideration of Uzbekistan’s initial report on compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Other issues raised by Committee members included derogation from the Covenant in times of emergency, and the role and jurisdiction of military courts in Uzbekistan.  Experts noted a discrepancy between the report and presentation of the delegation, and materials they had received from other sources, such as non-governmental organizations.  One expert noted that the description of conditions in detention centres given by the delegation was different from that in other materials before the Committee.

Akmal Saidov, head of delegation and Chief of the National Centre on Human Rights, Chairman of the Committee for Democratic Institutions, Non-Governmental Organizations and Citizen Self-Governance Bodies of the Parliament of Uzbekistan, responded to questions and comments made during the meeting and presented to the delegation in writing.

Regarding the question of discrepancies, he noted that the information about the human rights situation in Uzbekistan received by the Committee from different sources had not been confirmed.  He noted that Uzbekistan worked closely with the United States State Department, which prepared yearly reports on the human rights situation in Uzbekistan.  His Government responded to those reports and also had a candid dialogue with Human Rights Watch.

Mr. Saidov also provided clarification on, among other things, the issue of the alleged forced resettlement of citizens to other areas of Uzbekistan, and questions related to the relationship between Uzbekistan and Karakalpakstan, State secrets, freedom of, and access to, information, the training of government officials on human rights, registration of religious organizations, the Government’s stance on religious extremism and the jurisdiction of military courts.

The Committee will meet again today at 3 p.m. to continue its consideration of Uzbekistan’s report.

Background

The Human Rights Committee met this morning to continue its consideration of the initial report of Uzbekistan on its compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

(For more background information and a summary of the report, see Press Release HR/CT/598, issued 26 March.)

Questions Asked by Experts

A Human Rights Committee expert wanted more information about Uzbekistan’s concept of independence and impartiality of justice and the institutions offering legal remedies to its people.  In particular, he wanted to know if there was a legal profession that did not need the approval or admission from the State to appear for an individual and if fees for legal representation were reasonable.  He asked if appointed defenders had a free hand in the way they represented their clients, and whether legal representation was available from the time of charge, or from the time of arrest.  He wanted more information on steps taken to educate Sate officials in the country’s new, democratic venture. He also asked if a suspected person was brought under judiciary control, independent from the investigated process, after 48 hours.

Another expert said investigations of serious allegations of torture were lax, and he was alarmed that there were pronouncements and proclamations seemingly contributing to an environment tolerant of serious violations of human rights by State agents.  Institutions lodging complaints against violations were subject to threats, according to allegations, and so-called confessions extracted by torture were admitted by courts as evidence, leading to convictions.  He wondered if there was judicial review of the legality of law enforcement decisions to deprive people of their liberty.  He also asked what measures were being taken to remedy the horrible circumstances of detention.

Regarding religious freedom, he asked how far religious groups were permitted to be active without State interference, and what was meant by the phrase “the need to seek a dialogue with various religious organizations” in the report.

One expert brought up the matter of death penalty statistics and wanted to know the reason for secrecy about them.  As women were exempt from the death penalty, he wondered if that fact did not constitute a discrimination against men. He also wanted clarification of procedures for detention, in particular, for what periods people were detained, who ordered it and where detainees were kept.  He also asked who could authorize isolated remand of detainees.

An expert sought further clarification on the subject of state of emergency in Uzbekistan.  How were emergency situations defined in domestic law? he asked.  How were rights which could be subjected to derogation protected?

He said that in an earlier report to the Committee against Torture, Uzbekistan had given detailed information on allegations of the use of force by police.  Did the delegation have any fresh statistics?  There were reports by various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) on methods of torture used in Uzbekistan.  Did the Government check that law enforcement officials did not have gas masks or electric batons in their possession, which were allegedly used to torture detainees?  He also asked about torture methods that did not use specific instruments, but left marks on the body.

The period of detention –- 72 hours -– before detainees were informed of charges was too long and not in compliance with the Covenant, the expert said.  It was in the early stages of detention that torture happened in many countries, he noted.  Reports had been received that some judges had refused to look at marks of torture on detainees –- he asked what the current practice in that regard was.

The reaction of the State party to the threat of religious extremism had reached alarming proportions, he said.  The licensing procedure for religious organizations was said to be so difficult that it was difficult for such organizations to practice their religion in accordance with the law, he noted.  Was there not a need to amend that licensing regime?

Another expert associated himself with the previous questions and with the dismay expressed at the fact that there was such a discrepancy between the report and opening presentation of Uzbekistan, and the materials received from NGOs.  He asked for statistics on the number of people who had been released on bail pending trial.  He also noted a discrepancy between the description in the report of the places of detention and that set out in other materials.  He asked what monitoring mechanisms for places of detention existed.  Were the authorities willing to allow outside observers to visit places of detention? 

Uzbekistan’s delegation had said that, in the year 2000, there had been no complaints of torture; however, the Committee had information before it alleging the use of torture in the country, the expert added.  He noted that the delegation had given no information on what mechanisms existed in Uzbekistan to investigate allegations of torture.  He asked if family members of wanted individuals had  been detained and put under pressure.  There seemed to be a number of cases of “unregistered” detention -– what kind of mechanism was in place to assure that did not happen?  He then asked for information on the jurisdiction of military courts in Uzbekistan. 

An expert, addressing the absence of the right of asylum in Uzbekistan, asked whether asylum seekers were sent back and whether there was an investigation into the circumstances and dangers they were sent back to.  He was also troubled by a case of somebody, sentenced to nine years of imprisonment, from whom forms for complaining to the Human Rights Committee were confiscated, and asked for a full report.  He asked if the Government had invited dialogue with reputable non-governmental organizations, and if it had considered inviting other kinds of dialogue with members of the Committee by, for instance, inviting members to visit.

Answers by Delegation

Akmal Saidov, head of delegation and Chief of the National Centre on Human Rights, Chairman of the Committee for Democratic Institutions, Non-Governmental Organizations and Citizen Self-Governance Bodies of the Parliament of Uzbekistan, assured the Committee that its opinion was of the utmost importance to his Government and that his delegation was prepared for an open dialogue with the Committee.

He said his Government was prepared for a dialogue with NGOs.  Such a dialogue had been going on with Helsinki Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other organizations, as well as with the ambassadors of democratic States to Uzbekistan.  The Government was also thinking about how to ensure open dialogue with appropriate organizations from the United Nations.

There was, indeed, a lag in applying laws because the State was still in the initial state of democratization.  Priority had been given to creating laws in the field of civil and political rights, and numerous acts had been adopted in that regard.  In the present stage of democratic reforms, priority was given to creating institutional mechanisms for monitoring human rights and for applying laws.  Non-governmental organizations were broadly involved in the area of monitoring.

Regarding information about the human rights situation from different sources, he noted, without commenting on the veracity of certain information, that independent sources had provided information which had not been confirmed.  The Government was aware of information from other sources such as NGOs and foreign embassies.  Uzbekistan worked closely with the State Department of the United States, for example, which prepared yearly reports on the human rights situation in Uzbekistan.  His Government responded to those reports and it also had a candid dialogue with Human Rights Watch.  Sometimes, however, representatives of Human Rights Watch declined to discuss matters.  Dialogue must be a two-way street, he said.

He said there was a national mechanism for the protection of human rights in the country.  Law enforcement bodies and the courts were the traditional instruments in place for such protection.  There was also a system of national institutions for the protection of the rights -– an ombudsman, a parliamentary monitoring mechanism, and a national human rights centre were in place. 

Each institution had its own purview, and there was no duplication of work, he noted.  The Ombudsman’s Office and the monitoring mechanism were part of Parliament.  The national human rights centre was part of the executive branch of the Government.  Those were the principle measures undertaken by the Government to serve the further consolidation of human rights in the country.

The training of government officials in international human rights standards was one of the country’s weakest areas, he said.  Many officials were not sufficiently familiar with international standards.  There had been a proposal to set up an academy for training such officials, with a curriculum that would include subjects on human rights and international standards.  There was also an institution for the training of individuals in the judicial branches of Government. 

Under national legislation, he said, legal defence was provided to detainees from the moment of arrest.  In the last three years, there had been 200 complaints of forced disappearances.  Such complaints were carefully investigated and specific measures were taken.  Improper actions by members of militia were reported, and the most stringent actions were taken in response. 

He said the Government had been extremely surprised to hear the idea that there had been forced resettlements of citizens to other areas of Uzbekistan.  The inhabitants of some small villages had been resettled to other areas of the Republic, he clarified.  A committee had been set up to organize their safe settlement.  Specific measures had been elaborated to improve the general living conditions of the citizens in their new surroundings and to secure jobs for them.  More than 2 billion Uzbek soums had been allocated to the project, he noted.

The people in question had been helped in transporting their possessions, and they had been given compensation for the move, he said.  More than 900 new houses had been built, along with cultural, medical and educational facilities.  The overall land granted for the building of municipal housing and infrastructure was more than 47.5 hectares.

The citizens in question had been far from major centres and transportation and communication lines, he said.  In some of the villages, there had been a complete lack of jobs.  The resettlement of the villages had been decided on to ensure their personal safety from, among other things, bandits and drug-trafficking lines.  The Government had dealt carefully with the problem and a representative of the Ombudsman had met with the resettled citizens and had seen the conditions for himself.  The information given by the media had not been accurate.

Answering a question relating to the Uzbek Constitution -- interests and rights of the State -– he said article 2 stated that the State expressed and served the interests of the people.  This was something new for his country.  Articles in the Constitution could not be seen as an infringement of human rights. The rights of all citizens were guaranteed, and citizens could criticize the President, Parliament and government institutions.

Regarding interactions between the Republic of Uzbekistan and the Republic of Karakalpakstan, he said the components of Uzbekistan were all sovereign, including Karakalpakstan.  Uzbekistan was a single State with separate federal components in it.  Any dispute between the two republics was settled on the basis of established procedures.  Article 74 of the Constitution stated that Karakalpakstan had the right to withdraw from Uzbekistan as a result of a general referendum.  Matters of education and other matters in Karakalpakstan were decided by the Supreme Council of Karakalpakstan, which had its own constitution and laws.

The economic court could not be overruled by the Supreme Court, nor the legislature, he said in answer to another question.  The court’s activities were regulated by an economic procedural codex.

The Aral Sea was an open sore in Uzbekistan, he said, and the right to life of citizens in that area had to be ensured.  It was, however, also a problem of other States in that area and of the international community.  His Government had raised that matter several times in the United Nations.  It had set up a fund for recovery of the Aral Sea, carried out regular medical screening in the area, and took measures to ensure the safety of drinking water, among measures to address the problem.

He said there had been a number of questions about State secrets.  He referred the Committee to the law of 7 May 1993 on the protection of State secrets, by which a State secret was defined as anything of particular military, political, scientific or technical importance, and was the property of the Republic.  There were three categories of secrets -- State, military and service (issues related to, among other areas, science, banking and the commercial sector which were deemed of importance to the State). 

In the report, a list of the country’s mass media could be found, he said.  Three quarters of the publications in the country were State publications, which was a natural consequence of the old Soviet period during which there had been no private media at all.  It was only recently that non-governmental mass media had begun to emerge.  With the increasing construction of civil society, that trend would continue. 

Under the law on the mass media, foreign journalists were allowed to operate in the country, he said.  The Government had also adopted some basic rules in 1992 governing the professional activity of foreign correspondents.  Under the law, foreign correspondents were permitted to carry on their business.  For the period of their accreditation, they were issued a visa and had the right to move freely throughout the country.  Reuters, Radio Liberty and the BBC were among the agencies accredited in the country, he noted.

A recent law regulated the operation of NGOs in the country, he said.  National and international non-governmental organizations were regulated in accordance with the law, and no special requirements were made of them.

He then drew the Committee’s attention to the country’s Act on guarantees and freedom of access to information.  By its terms, every citizen was guaranteed the right to access to information.  Government officials were required to allow everyone to acquaint themselves with documents concerning their rights and lawful interests, he added.

He said there was an assumption that the information provided by the media was accurate –- the media was, therefore, responsible for the reliability of its information.  Individuals could appeal to the courts in the event that they were accused of providing inaccurate information.

The law on citizenship provided for specific cases where citizenship could be lost, he said.  Citizenship could be lost if individuals sought to join the military forces of another State.  It could also be lost if it had been acquired through information known to be false, and also by a decree of the President of the Republic.  There was a special commission in the President’s office to address citizenship issues.

He said there was a committee on religious affairs devoted to the constitutional separation of church and State.  Registrations of religious organizations were within the purview of the Ministry of Justice.  When the Ministry received an application from a new organization, it could send the relevant documents to various different agencies for the purpose of determining the aims and purposes of the organization.  A final decision was then taken on the application by the Ministry.  The committee on religious affairs, among other things, provided assistance to various religions, such as in the case of the annual Haj.

Regarding independence of the judiciary, he said a process of judicial reform was under way.  Last year, a new version of the law on the courts had been adopted in order to consolidate the independence of the courts, based on the European model in which the judiciary was one of the three branches of government.  Unfortunately, for historic reasons, the public was not aware yet of the separation of powers and the judiciary’s ability to protect citizens.  Legislative, organizational and financial matters were directed towards ensuring the courts’ independence.

The reform of the judiciary was taking place in different areas.  The first area was the strengthening of the legislative basis for the courts’ independence.  This year, separate courts would be set up to consider criminal and civil cases.  Economic courts were confined to economic cases.  In the Ministry of Justice, a special department had been set up which was responsible for the organizational, technical and financial support of the courts.  That department was supposed to: design proposals on their organization; prepare nominations of judges, systematically work to ensure that judicial decisions were carried out; and summarize court practice and keep records of court statistics.

The military courts were regulated by chapter 4 of the Courts Act.  Military courts considered cases involving crimes committed by military personnel and personnel of the national security service and the Ministry on Emergencies, and Interior Ministry troops.  It also looked at civil cases regarding suits brought by military personnel against the State.  It considered all civil and criminal cases in places where there were no courts of general jurisdiction and also considered cases pertaining to State secrets.

Answering a question about the “Machala”, he said that was a specific national, democratic institution, peculiar to Uzbekistan.  Last year, the Government had started to transfer some functions of local organs to the Machala, which constituted an important link to the construction of civil society in Uzbekistan. 

The legal profession was very similar to that in other States, he said in answer to another question.  There were over 20 institutions where legal instruction was carried out.  The status of lawyers was regulated by two acts on obligations and duties of lawyers.  There was also a national programme for training of State officials.  In addition to carrying out judicial reforms, attention was being paid to giving equal footing to lawyers and prosecutors.

He said that the country had contributed to the great heritage of Islam, and he had been glad to hear one of the experts’ comments on that.

The Government was aware of the need to increase the democratization of issues related to human rights, he said.  It had asked the United Nations for help in that regard.  A programme had been set up in collaboration with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to address the question.  The project had spanned two and a half years.  The Government was aware that further efforts were required in the area of political, State, economic, spiritual, judicial and external affairs, among others. 

One of the main challenges at the present time was terrorism and extremism, he said.  Any form of extremism was dangerous for society, and there was a particular danger to be associated with religious extremism.  His Government had been trying to draw the attention of the international community to the issue for many years.  The importance of addressing the issue should not, however, be a basis for carrying out illegal operations, as members of the Committee had said. 

He agreed that the Ombudsman needed to broadly examine complaints related to torture and other illegal measures undertaken by officials.  Court mistakes were reviewed, he added.  There was a legislative basis for the examination of such errors and an institution for appeals was in place. 

He said that for over 70 years the country had lived in an atheistic State with no religious freedom of any sort.  The country was, therefore, keen to recover its religious values.  Uzbekistan was very proud to belong to the Islamic religion.  The country worked very closely with people of all religious persuasions.

Religion was the personal business of all citizens, he continued.  Any private citizens could become an adherent to any faith –- it was a personal prerogative. 

He said he could not add anything at the present time on death penalty statistics.  The penalty was carried out in accordance with Uzbek legislation, and statistics were not open to the general public.  Regarding the fact that it only applied to men, and the related allegations of discrimination in that regard, he noted that Uzbekistan had often been criticized for the situation of Uzbek women.  It seemed a contradiction to consider it discrimination against men that women were excluded from the death penalty.  He did not see the logic in considering it discrimination.

As a newly independent State, setting up a new system of governance had been extremely important, he said.  Ten years had passed since the inception of the new system, and there had been great reforms.  It was a gradual process, however, and great changes could not be made instantly. 

The law on emergencies covered many aspects and was based on studies of the Covenant.  He would make the text of the law, adopted in 1999, available to the Committee as soon as possible.

His Government was trying to uproot any form of torture, he said, and asked the Committee for actual evidence it might have of prisoners subjected to electrical shocks in order for him to transmit it to the relevant bodies.  If prisoners brought allegations of torture, the courts examined every case on the basis of evidence available from both sides.  If a judge ignored such complaints, he wondered if he should remain a judge.  He was shocked to hear about such cases. If a defendant stated that torture had been used, the courts had to stop procedures and call for an investigation.

The number of people required to register a religious organization had been set at 100 people.  However, non-Islamic religions sometimes did not have 100 members, and the Government had, therefore, decided that religious organizations with less than 100 members would also be registered.  Today, virtually all religious organization had been registered.  He saw no need, at this time, to

change the system.  He agreed with the Committee that fighting against religious extremism should not be used as a cover for human rights violations.

He said one of his answers regarding torture had been misunderstood.  When he had said that no complaints regarding torture had been received, he had been speaking about one institution.  Complaints, however, had been received by the Office of the Prosecutor and of the Ombudsman.  Examination of complaints was addressed, among other laws, by the law for appeal, by the code of criminal procedure, and by the law enforcement code.

* *** *