Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Recent Reports 
 Support HRW 
About HRW
Site Map

Human Rights Watch - Home Page

THE LACK OF PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS

The Uzbek criminal procedure code offers inadequate due process protections to curb abuse of detainees in custody, and law enforcement officers frequently violate existing standards. There is no judicial review of the legality of the detention, and hence no redress for those who have fallen victim to the frequent police practice of planting evidence. Law enforcement officials routinely hold detainees in incommunicado detention-denying them access to counsel and family and failing to notify their loved ones of their whereabouts-until they complete the preliminary investigation and secure a confession. Torture victims are routinely, with few exceptions, denied access to forensic medical examinations to record their injuries. The courts and other government agencies entrusted with oversight of investigative and judicial proceedings have failed to intervene to correct these procedural abuses.117

Arbitrary Arrest and the Lack of Judicial Review

The Uzbek code of criminal procedure does not provide for judicial review of detentions. This facilitates arbitrary arrest and limits available remedies for due process violations. Criminal suspects, save for exceptional cases, are kept in custody prior to trial.118

Police exploit this procedural void by routinely planting evidence on suspects to create grounds for arrest. Routine violations of the existing limitations on police power over the arrest process create multiple opportunities for abuses, including torture. The lack of judicial oversight of detention is a glaring violation of international law and standards, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).119

Article 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows police nearly limitless authority to detain a suspect "if there is information giving grounds for suspicion of involvement in a crime," before a criminal case has been opened. Police alone determine whether the grounds are justifiable.120 However, the code mandates that police immediately draw up a record [protokol] of arrest as soon as the suspect is brought into custody.121 The record must include information on the crime police suspect the detainee of having committed, as well as the date and time of arrest. Police duty-officers must record the arrest, and those records must be reviewed within twenty-four hours to ensure their legality.122 Within seventy-two hours, the detainee must either be charged with a crime and informed of the charges against him, or be released. If "exceptional circumstances" warrant, a prosecutor may sanction continued detention of up to ten days before charges are brought.123

In order to create grounds for arrest police during the detention process routinely plant on suspects small amounts of narcotics, ammunition weapons, or religious leaflets from banned groups. They may plant the materials in suspects' homes during searches, which they frequently conduct without court orders or prosecutorial sanction. The mother of "Karim Q.," arrested in late February 1999 for "illegal religious activity," recounted to Human Rights Watch that police detained her son after stopping him in his car. Karim Q. told her that he had heard police open and close his car's trunk as they put him in the police car and feared that they had planted something inside. Two young men, unknown to him, were called to witness the search of his car at the police station, during which police claimed they found a small amount of narcotics. According to Karim Q.'s mother, the witnesses initially refused to sign the search protocol, but after being held by police for six hours, and threatened with arrest and with beatings, they finally signed it.124

Suspects may be beaten in order to force them to admit to the possession of planted evidence. One man stated at his May 1999 trial on charges of membership in the banned Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir that the police themselves had planted packets of narcotics they pulled from his pockets in front of witnesses. When the witnesses to the search were led out of the room to write their testimony, three policemen beat and kicked the man until he agreed to sign aconfession that the narcotics were his own. When the judge asked him why he had signed the confession, the defendant is reported to have said, "They do things to you so that it is impossible not to sign."125

Courts ignore challenges to the authenticity of evidence defendants claim was planted, issuing convictions on drugs and weapons charges on the basis of police accounts and confessions extracted under torture alone. One lawyer, defending another young man charged with both membership in Hizb ut-Tahrir and drug offenses protested the court's intransigence to no avail: "I insist that the drug matter be requalified, because it was not done properly....Of course the judge will have to decide, but during the drug search, when the drug was taken from his pocket, articles of the criminal procedural code were violated. He was handcuffed and put over a table... Even in the USSR, you had to have something more than words."126

Unregistered Detentions

Police routinely detain persons from whom they hope to extract a confession without registering their detention, sometimes by summoning someone they wish to arrest to the station as a "witness." Because the person appeared voluntarily, Uzbek law does not place limits on the amount of time the person can stay at the station, nor does it oblige police to register the individual's appearance, or provide access to counsel. According to his lawyer, Abduhalil Gafurov appeared at his local police station in Tashkent on December 29, 1998, answering a summons to give testimony as a witness; after three days in custody, on December 31, he was arrested.127

In some cases, police do not register those detained as suspects until after the detainee has already been in custody for a day or more. This interferes with a prompt procuracy review of the detention. Mamadali Makhmudov testified that more than one month passed from the date of his 1999 arrest before police presented him with the procuracy sanction for his arrest.128 One lawyer related that one of her clients, charged with narcotics possession, "was arrested on March 6th at 2:30 p.m., but for a day and a half his arrest was not registered. "129

Failure to register arrests in a timely fashion allows police greater time in which to coerce a confession or other testimony while the detainee remains isolated. For example, police tortured Ruslan Mamin into a confession before his detention was even registered. Police in Tashkent's Hamza district invited him to give testimony as a "witness" to a murder on April 27, 1998, without issuing a summons; their beatings forced him to confess to the crime on May 2, when they transferred him to the city police headquarters. The procuracy sanctioned his arrest only on May 5.130

A similar fate befell Makhmudjon Topildiev. He said that after police "invited" him to his local station in Tashkent province, they planted narcotics on him, tortured him, and coerced him to confess to narcotics possession. The district procurator, who sanctioned the arrest a day later, was reportedly made aware of the torture and false grounds of arrest but did not investigate. On December 23, 1999, at approximately 5:30 p.m., police came to Topildiev's house in the village of Khalkobad and told him that they needed to speak with him for about an hour. Topildiev accompanied the officers to the Khalkobad station, where officers accused Topildiev-whose wife's family is from a region across the border in Kazakhstan-of traveling to the southern Kazakhstan village of Abai to undergo illegal military training. They then ordered him to take off his shirt to inspect his shoulders for signs of bruises left by firearms. He complied, and the police called in two witnesses to certify that his shoulder was unmarked. Topildiev surmised that while he was distracted talking to the witnesses, police placed opium in his shirt pocket:

As I went to put on my shirt, in the left pocket I found a small packet which wasn't there before. I grew cold. With tears in my eyes I appealed to all of them, [asking] what is it that you've planted on me, do you not fear God? I have three small children and old parents to support! I pleaded with the witnesses, appealing to them as brothers, because this is aprovocation which is taking place, and I begged them not to take part in it, for they also have children and families...The policemen started to write up a record of their search. The one named Namaz-aka wrote it, and he told me to sign it, but I refused. Then they brought me to the district police station in the town of Gulbahor. There were around ten men in the office of the head of criminal investigations there [nachal'nik ugolovnogo rozyska], including Makhkam-aka, chief investigator [nachal'nik sledstvennogo otdela]. Khusan-aka, lead criminal investigator [rukovoditel' ugolovnogo rozyska] said "You're going to prison, so you can confess like a good boy to having ten opium poppies, and you'll be charged with article 276 part 1, possession without intent to sell, which is punishable by up to three years, so you'll get around six months and then you'll be free. If you don't agree, not only will you lose your health, but we can go to your house and find the same thing we found in your pocket." That night they beat me very intensely, and then Namaz-aka took me to another office and they beat me there too, and tortured me. In the morning...I was forced to sign the statement that Namaz-aka and the investigator Bahtier Akbarov signed....

Then they brought me to the procuracy of the Iangi-Iul district in order to get a sanction for my arrest. I told the procurator everything as it had actually happened. He said, "OK, we'll get to the bottom of it, it's lunchtime now, so come again after lunch and we'll talk." But in fact he deceived me, because he signed the sanction for my arrest.131

Although article 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires police officials, prosecutors or courts to inform relatives or other persons named by the detainee, or his or her place of work or study, of the fact of detention within twenty-four hours, this provision is also routinely ignored. Family members of detained persons may search for days before receiving confirmation that their relatives are indeed in custody. The wilful failure by police to register detentions compounds the difficulties families face in locating their loved ones in police custody. In some cases, police may even deny that they are holding a suspect in order to throw fearful family members off the trail. Umida Khamidova (not the woman's true name) recounted that after her husband was arrested "... I went with another relative to the district police to get information about him. They didn't tell us where he was being held. Only three days later did the officers there tell us that he was being held in the [town] prison."132 Umida Khamidova related that when police arrested her youngest son at the home of relatives, she frantically rushed to the district police headquarters "...and they said he wasn't there. I went to the SNB and they told me to wait for information. Then a car...pulls up and I realized my son was inside. I ran to the police and said, this car is in front of the police station and he is in the car. I spoke to the [investigator] who said, `Your son is not here, your son went to Tajikistan, to Chechnya, he is a terrorist.' I said, my son never did such things. He said, `you should be shot too.' Eight months later, I still have not seen my son."133

Restrictions on the Right to Counsel of One's Own Choosing

Uzbek law guarantees the right to counsel, but the overwhelming power of the procurator to control access to the defendant vitiates this right and renders potential victims defenseless against abuse. Law enforcement agencies threaten torture victims who attempt to report the abuse they sustained and intimidate attorneys who actively seek redress for their tortured clients. Furthermore, when they do permit access to counsel, they often compel detainees to accept state-appointed attorneys who do not mount a vigorous defense of their clients.

Uzbek criminal procedure clearly lays out the right to counsel for criminal suspects and defendants.134 Articles 48 through 53 of the code outline the right to counsel from the time the detainee is informed that he is suspected of a crime, or from the moment he is detained. They should, in principle, represent the first line of defense against police abuse.135 Article 51 specifies that interrogation must take place in the presence of counsel in some circumstances, including cases in which those detained are minors, mentally or physically handicapped, if they do not understand the language in which the investigation is being conducted, or if they are suspected of a crime for which they may be punished by the death penalty.136 Furthermore, the code guarantees the right of the detainee to meet privately with counsel after interrogation.137 According to the Code of Criminal Procedure and to laws passed by the Olii Majlis-the legislature-in 1997 and 1999, the defender has a right to participate in the case from the moment he or she is contracted by the suspect.138

Most frequently, however, even in the circumstances enumerated above, police or procuracy investigators permit no meetings between a defendant and counsel (or anyone else) until the preliminary investigation phase is completed-which often means until a confession is secured. This allows investigators to conduct questioning unimpeded by observers, and means that any evidence of ill-treatment will have faded by the time defendants meet with their lawyers. Tavakkaljon Akhmedov, whose case is described above, was allowed to meet with his family only after police secured his confession. His wife recalled, "He was held in the basement of the SNB from May 15 to July 27. They tortured him for seventeen days, until around June 1...After seventeen days he confessed...Then on the eighteenth day of detention he was allowed to meet with me and with his mother...It was then that I saw how he was...[but] he nodded that all was well." Akhmedov's mother noted that they were strictly forbidden from discussing her son's case during the meeting, and that three guards were present in the room to enforce this condition.139

In order to avoid the interference of a defense lawyer during investigations, police may counsel detainees that they do not need an attorney, or that one will not be necessary until their case reaches the trial phase, or will pressure them to accept a state-appointed attorney. Most Uzbek citizens interviewed by Human Rights Watch had little understanding of their rights or of the domestic law governing criminal procedure, and so it is not surprising that they believed investigators' statements.

In the high-profile political case of the first twenty-two men accused of participation in the February 16, 1999 Tashkent bombings, none of the defendants' families were permitted by investigators from the General Procuracy to hire their own lawyers; the procuracy appointed all of the defendants' state lawyers, and then instructed those lawyers, reportedly, on what would be permissible to say in court.140 Often defendants have no lawyer at all until the trial phase has begun, or even at trial. Judge Rustamov, chairman of the Tashkent Provincial Court, remarked that a trial of eight defendants accused of terrorism, which was about to get under way, "cannot start today, because they don't have a lawyer yet."141 At times, defendants may be interrogated, tried, and convicted without ever having had access to a lawyer, as was the case with Azim Khojaev, (see Introduction above).142

Police may simply deny detainees' requests for access to counsel. Anonymous sources told the family of Imam Abdurahim Abdurahmonov, who was detained by police for the second time in April 2000, that when the imam refused to give testimony without a lawyer on the first day of his arrest, he was beaten.143

Ruslan Mamin recounted that in the first five days after his arrest on April 27, he repeatedly asked to see a lawyer, but was told by police investigators that "We ourselves will take the place of a lawyer."144 Before Mamin was allowed to meet with the lawyer his family had hired, police had already tortured him to extract his confession to the murder in which he previously and subsequently denied involvement (and of which he was later acquitted). When he was finally granted access to counsel, he attempted to recant his coerced confession, only to face further torture and threats.

They held me there...and continued to question me until 11:00 p.m. Then Dilshod [Mirzoev, then of Tashkent's Hamza district police station] came into the room. He told me what to write, to say that I took part in the murder and so on. I refused... [Dilshod] started to draw out a map of the murder scene and ordered me to sign. He began to beat me. He began with the nightstick, hitting me on the back and all over. For three hours this continued. Each time, he ordered me to sign...Dilshod beat me with the nightstick all over my body, but Rahimov hit me especially on the head. Dilshod hit me once in the nose with the nightsitck and I bled all over. On May 2, I signed what they brought and I didn't even read it. They said they would take a video [deposition]. When I signed, my head was spinning and I couldn't think, I hadn't slept in days and I didn't even realize what I was doing. When I refused to be videotaped, Dilshod beat me again so I had to be videotaped. They gave me a text of how to answer the questions during the filming. We went to a place and the investigator asked questions and I don't even remember what I said in front of the camera.145

When Mamin was finally granted access to his lawyer, he described how he had been tortured. The lawyer instructed him to recant his confession, but when Mamin attempted to do so,

[T]he investigator came, and yelled at us, me and my lawyer. He said I was ruining everything. He sent me to the basement and sent the lawyer away. Rahimov and Dilshod and Oganesian said, "If you deny your guilt to your lawyer, it will be worse for you. You will get the firing squad," they threatened. "We will add charges, so you better think about it," they said. I again refused, saying I would deny my confession, and Dilshod began to beat me again. When the lawyer came back I told him I would not recant my confession. He understood.146

Despite laws to the contrary, police may indefinitely delay or obstruct lawyers' efforts to meet with their clients. Zinaida Orlova, whose case is described above (see above, Rape and Other Sexual Violence) recounted her efforts to obtain defense counsel for her son, Aleksandr, arrested in mid-July. "In August I hired a lawyer for my son, who had one or two visits with him after the preliminary investigation was finished-this was in November. Since August he had been trying to see my son but was refused by the investigator...After this visit the lawyer said that my son had confessed, and I knew that he must have been very afraid."147 Umida Khamidova, whose husband and son were both arrested, recalled that though she hired a lawyer for her son, "the investigator does not give him any information on what the charges are."148

If lawyers choose to protest investigators' actions, they must do so in writing to the procuracy; there is no judicial review of due process complaints prior to trial. One lawyer told Human Rights Watch, "The way they handle our complaints is very simple. They take them knowing that the law allows them a month to reply to you. By the time you get a response, they have their confession in hand."149

Sometimes, police or security officials may simply forbid a lawyer who attempts to protest torture from taking part in the defense of the victim altogether. In April 1999, M. Togaev complained orally and in writing to the procurator of Jizzakh province about the torture of his client, Najmiddin Juvashev, who was in the custody of the provincial SNB. The case investigator, Shavkat Iakshiev, refused him permission to meet with his client for three days, but finally relented five days after Juvashev was arrested. During the meeting Togaev asked Juvashev to point out the people who had tortured him; afterwards, Togaev wrote a complaint to the provincial prosecutor, asking him to open a criminal investigation against those officers responsible for his client's injuries. Soon after, he was prevented by the local prosecutor from further participating in the case.150

In some instances, defendants who insist on making complaints about torture, having representation during the investigation, or who insist on having the lawyer of their choice may be tortured even more to force them to renounce their demands, as was the case with Ruslan Mamin. Sources close to Nakhmiddin Juvashev, whose case was described above, recount that after Juvashev himself and his first lawyer wrote complaints to the regional procuracy and SNB regarding torture, police officials

...just beat him [Juvashev] more and hung him naked to a horizontal bar and beat him more. They kept him hanging and beat him with a nightstick for three and a half hours. They beat him this time to make him say that no one had beaten him, that he had just fallen down the stairs and broken his ribs and legs. They kept him in the cold room and beat him like this for four days until finally he broke down and signed...The first complaint of torture was written on April 23. On April 27, he recanted the earlier statement and signed a new one, saying that no one had beaten him. This second statement also stated that he did not need a lawyer and would defend himself and that he is happy with the investigation.151

According to Mamura Khajimukhamedova, Farrukh Bakiev, the case investigator for her husband, Okoidin (see above, Rape and Other Sexual Violence), refused to allow the lawyer she had hired to be present during interrogation, and effectively prevented her from working on the case.152 The lawyer, a well-known Tashkent attorney, recounted:

On January 27 I tried to see Okoidin at the GUVD, but was not allowed. It became clear later that they were beating him to get him to refuse my services. They forced him to sign such a refusal. According to the law, I should have been allowed to be present during questioning. But when I asked to be admitted, several investigators told me that they had not yet begun the questioning. When I protested, the lead investigator gave me permission to see him briefly. The meeting lasted no more than ten minutes...He told me himself that he wanted me as his lawyer, and that he was waiting for me. I told him to refuse to give testimony. Okoidin's wife has stated that the document refusing my services was clearly written by someone else.153

Although Khajimukhamedova hired another lawyer to defend her husband at trial, the chairman of the Tashkent Provincial Court refused to admit him without citing any grounds, and so Khajimukhamedov was tried and sentenced to death without the benefit of counsel.154

Even if detainees contract the services of a lawyer during the preliminary investigation, and secure access to counsel, this may offer little protection against police abuse. In Uzbekistan, the great majority of lawyers are employed by state-run legal offices; the Ministry of Justice grants their licenses to practice. The state, therefore, has a myriad ofmeans by which to ensure lawyers' docility. In 2000, Dinara D., the mother of Kodir D., a young man convicted on religious extremism charges, saw her son's black eye and witnessed him limping when she was allowed a meeting with him in a Namangan police station after his third day in custody (after he had already confessed to crimes which he later denied). She recalled her conversation with her son's lawyer, after her son described in court how he had been tortured. "I told the lawyer, `you yourself know he was beaten.' She said, `yes, but we can't prove it.' She said she wouldn't say anything about it in court."155 In one case in which a state-appointed lawyer was present during questioning, the victim testified that police beat him in the lawyer's presence, "and he saw it, but he didn't say a word."156

In some extreme cases lawyers charged with defending detainees have acted in concert with the prosecution, and thereby facilitated torture. Dmitri Chikunov, who described his brutal torture in a letter to his mother cited above, was arrested on April 17, 1999. Investigators for the Tashkent provincial procuracy at first told his mother, Tamara, that she should not hire a lawyer, and then instructed her to hire a lawyer whom they had selected, Sevgi Rahmanberdieva, who was issued an order to be admitted to the case on April 19. Nonetheless, investigators interrogated Chikunov without his lawyer present on April 19, April 28, and May 6; Rahmanberdieva was present during questioning only on June 1. On June 6, Chikunov himself rejected her services, and Rahmanberdieva took no further part in the investigation. By June 17, Tamara Chikunova had hired a new lawyer, who was officially admitted to the case on that day. But investigators prevented this lawyer from seeing her client for nearly another two months.157 In order to hide the origins of Chikunov's confession, according to Tamara Chikunova's written complaints, Rahmanberdieva signed the interrogation records from the first days of his detention, attesting to her presence during those sessions when she was in fact not there, even before she had been introduced to her client. In addition, when the prosecution called her as a witness during Chikunov's trial, she stated her belief in his guilt. Tamara Chikunova wrote to the Tashkent Provincial Department of Justice to complain about Rahmanberdieva's conduct; the department responded to Chikunova's letter on January 28, 2000, and informed her that they had investigated her allegations, and finding them substantiated, revoked Rahmanberdieva's license to practice law.158

Lawyers who are prepared to fully discharge their duty to defend their clients must overcome overwhelming obstacles. Meetings, if authorized by the case investigator, are generally short and few in number. Human Rights Watch encountered few cases in routine criminal matters or in alleged religious-political crimes in which lawyers were allowed to be present during interrogation sessions. Although police make use of videotaped confessions, there are generally no records kept of the questioning of suspects aside from their signed confessions.159 In order to conceal their actions, police may also torture victims outside of formal interrogation sessions. Even when legal counsel requests to be present during interrogation, abuse may occur before questioning has begun. The practice of using prisoners as police surrogates to beat and abuse other prisoners in their cells has already been noted. A witness at the Tashkent Provincial Court trial of twelve men accused of illegal religious activity recalled the courtroom statements of several of the defendants:

The investigator would call the MVD and say he was coming to question one of the defendants. Then, for a period of two hours, three to four people would beat the defendant. You must confess to whatever the investigator asks for, and if not, we will continue the beating, they said. Then the investigator would come and the MVD men who beat the defendant would remain in the room. This is what the defendants said in court. The judge asked the defendants to name their abusers, but they didn't know their names. The procurator didn't pay attention to this.160

Despite the severe limitations on access to their clients, some lawyers make genuine efforts to protect their clients from abuse during the preliminary investigation, and to mount a robust defense at trial. When they do so, they are commonly subjected to threats, intimidation, and even more serious pressure by police, prosecutors, and judges. "If lawyers protest any actions by the investigators, they tell you that the SNB will begin a case against you," one well-known lawyer said.161

Medical Documentation of Torture

To prove torture, victims must obtain medical documentation that can be used as evidence in court. This medical documentation is critical both in order to show that the victim's testimony was obtained under torture and thus should be excluded from the state's case against him or her, and also in order to initiate criminal proceedings against those accused of torture. Despite the Code of Criminal Procedure provision for access to such expert examination and testimony, criminal defendants who are tortured face nearly insurmountable legal and practical barriers to obtaining this service. In practice, police and procuracy officials often obstruct or simply ignore defense requests for qualified medical examinations.

Detainees and their attorneys have the right to request an independent medical examination to substantiate allegations of ill-treatment. According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, only the official government forensic specialists may provide this evidence.162 The forensic testing organization called in to conduct such examinations is the Forensic Medical Specialist Service (in Russian, Sudebno-meditsinskaya ekspertiza), funded by the Health Ministry.163 Forensic medical experts from this agency questioned by Human Rights Watch about police abuse of suspects generally confirmed that the number of such cases presently coming to their attention is on the rise.164 However, no forensic doctor wished to go on record to discuss any specific cases.165

Detainee access to forensic medical specialists is highly circumscribed, since only the procuracy can grant permission, in the form of a referral, for such examinations. "In the two or three cases I have handled where there were beatings in detention, in two cases investigators would not provide a referral [ napravlenie] to the forensic medical specialist," one Tashkent lawyer recounted.166 Prosecutors ignored the request made by M. Togaev, lawyer for Nakhmiddin Juvashev (see Right to Counsel, above) for a forensic medical examination, even though emergency medical personnel had to treat his client several times for injuries he sustained in custody.167 Prosecutors ignored the requests for a forensic medical examination filed by Ruslan Mamin's mother and lawyer, after they both had witnessed signs of physical abuse.168

Many lawyers are reluctant even to attempt to obtain forensic medical assessments for their tortured clients. This reluctance is well-founded, as they or their clients may, if they insist, experience threats and other forms of intimidation from prosecutors and police officials. Even lawyers who manage to obtain medical evidence of their clients' torture may be reluctant to bring this evidence to court for fear of retribution, as in the case of one defendant (name withheld), accused and ultimately convicted of membership in an illegal religious organization.169 One lawyer declined to seekforensic medical evidence to document his client's injuries because, as he told the client's father, "They'll just cripple him, so let's not talk about it."170

In another case documented by Human Rights Watch, a lawyer was himself convicted of a crime and sentenced to a four-year prison term in a clear case of retribution for his courage in seeking and receiving a forensic examination to document the beatings to which his client was subjected. The lawyer, whom we will call "Aziz Khairullaev," supplied written testimony of his ordeal:

In January 1995...Klara Suvorova came to our legal offices and asked me to take on the case of her brother, Victor, who was being charged with murder.171 ...The procuracy investigator agreed to my request for a meeting with my client in the temporary holding cell. Victor told me that he was not guilty, that he did not kill Radjapova, but that since the day he was arrested the police interrogated him in a prejudicial manner and severely beat him, trying to force him to confess to the crime. To prove to me what he had said, he lifted his shirt and showed me the bruises and contusions on his body. He was totally black and blue. He also told me that after three days of such beatings, he was forced to write that he had killed the woman, in other words he had signed a confession. He added that the police forced him to repeat the confession orally, which they videotaped at the scene of the crime.172

Khairullaev then went to speak to the investigator; his client was brought in to the investigator's office. In Khairullaev's presence, his client denied taking part in the murder, stated that his previous confession had been extracted under torture, and showed the investigator the marks left by the beatings. Khairullaev then wrote an official request for a forensic examination of his client. Three days later, the head of the district criminal investigation department summoned Khairullaev to speak to him, claiming that his client, Victor Suvorov, would now recount the details of the murder he had confessed to committing. When Victor was brought into the room:

[H]e answered that he never killed anyone, and the police had made him give false testimony by beating him, and that he will not reaffirm what he had said. He requested that he be freed from detention....After he was led out of the room, Major [name withheld] said to me that I had written that request for a forensic exam for the bruises on Victor's body in vain, that there would come a time when I would deeply regret having done that, and that this meeting would not be our last. But he agreed to free Victor Suvorov.173

Khairullaev was in his offices two weeks later, when Klara Suvorova again came to him, bringing part of his lawyer's fee. When she left, seven or eight officers from the local district police anti-corruption department burst into Khairullaev's office and arrested him.174 A district court sentenced him to four years of imprisonment on charges of bribery. His judicial appeals were rejected. Khairullaev was released under an amnesty after serving eighteen months in a general-regime labor camp. Since his release he has re-qualified to practice law, but has been unsuccessful in attempts to have the offense removed from his record.175

Although the Code of Criminal Procedure does not foresee this, some lawyers maintain that standard medical records from any medical doctor or from a hospital can also serve as documentation for the purposes of establishing the fact of torture. However, police or other state officials may interfere in the creation of those records; police routinely deny abused detainees access to a physician, except when torture has led to life-threatening consequences. Even when medical personnel are granted access in such circumstances, there is no record of their having intervened to stop the torture or to document it.

One mother interviewed in Khiva on conditions of anonymity described her son's account of his medical treatment while in detention:

When they arrested him he was beaten so that he lost consciousness. A doctor was called in. Before he became unconscious he told them that he felt very bad, but they kept beating him, throwing him and pushing him around...The doctor gave him an injection and he came to, and that was all."176

Svetlana Avakian, whose son, Zhorik, was tortured in her presence (see above), described similar behavior by medical personnel. After being thrown out of the police station on December 26, 1996, Avakian returned with a lawyer, who demanded that the police call an ambulance:

They refused, and the investigator said, "I'm not going to call an ambulance, this is the way he came in." "What do you mean, he came in this way," I said. "When you arrested him on December 23 he was completely healthy, and now three days later you show him to me a cripple!" His skull was smashed, he was completely battered, all over his body and face. The lawyer asked him, "Zhorik, don't be afraid. Did they beat you?" and he said yes, and pointed at his head and his kidneys, he said he was chained to the radiator and beaten with nightsticks....The lawyer called an ambulance, and here is the record....The doctor said "Don't touch the boy, give him at least a week to come around. His heartbeat is hardly audible and there is no pulse. What are you doing?" He gave him an injection, put him in a chair, and then the investigator told us to leave, that he wasn't going to continue the interrogation that night. They threw him in the basement, and later, when I came to bring him food, they told me that five times that night they had to call an ambulance [to revive him]. "He had us running around, that Armenian, he really wore us out! He almost croaked!" And the investigator said, "What, am I going to have to spend New Year's Eve with him?" And so they sent him to the Tashkent prison hospital on December 30.177

Suspects may be harassed for even seeking medical assistance after being beaten by police or security agents.178 On August 5, 2000, SNB officials in Jizzakh province arrested Edgor Sadykov, and allegedly beat him in order to force him to give testimony against a relative, Najmiddin Juvashev (see above). According to Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan representatives who interviewed Sadykov, he gave the statement that the SNB sought under torture and was released. The following day he was brought to the provincial hospital in an ambulance, diagnosed with a concussion, and admitted. That same day SNB officials detained him again, taking him from his hospital bed for another interrogation session; Sadykov was released on the condition that he not return to the hospital.179

In practice there is little hope medical personnel will dare state that a patient has been tortured. One expert in the field says "a lawyer can ask for a specialist [medical] examination, but the conclusion will be that no physical injuries were found, because it's all interconnected: the expert is dishonest and afraid of the police."180 According to Mrs. Mamatkulova, her husband, Makhmudjon, was treated in an Andijan hospital after being beaten in police custody andthen released. The attending physician noted Makhmudjon Mamatkulov's head injuries and nausea on his hospital chart, but refused to record the welts and bruising that clearly indicated that he was beaten.181

Judicial Indifference to Torture

Given the length and isolation of pre-trial detention, and the high risk associated with attempts to protest ill-treatment while in pre-trial custody, detainees or their lawyers often decide to wait until the trial phase to bring forward allegations of torture. International law and Uzbek domestic legislation requires that allegations of torture be investigated to ensure that coerced testimony is not admitted as evidence and that perpetrators are prosecuted.182 In practice, though, judges flout their legal obligations by failing to call for such investigations, admitting as evidence testimony coerced under torture, and even preventing torture victims from making statements at trial about the torture they endured. In no case documented by Human Rights Watch did a judge in Uzbekistan refuse to admit as evidence a confession coerced under torture.

At times judges use the presence of defendants' family members in the courtroom to dissuade defendants from describing the acts of torture committed against them in detail. One witness to a trial of defendants accused of membership in an illegal religious organization recounted, "There was one young guy among the defendants, his mother and his father were there [in the courtroom], and the judge told him to take pity on his parents and not to talk about what was done to him."183

Defendants and witnesses nevertheless make detailed allegations of ill-treatment during trial, but often find that judges refuse to act on those allegations. Lawyer Sh. Jabrailov, speaking in defense of his client, Bakhtier Musaev, whose case is described above, excoriated the treatment of his client and denounced the Iunusabad District Court's refusal to act on Musaev's account of torture:

Article 26 [of the Constitution] says that no one may be subjected to torture, violence or other cruel and humiliating treatment. But what do we see in this case? Witnesses are threatened, and detainees are tortured, beaten, suffocated with gas masks, but no one is to blame for this and no one initiates criminal charges on article 230 of the Uzbek criminal code, for charging an innocent person with a criminal offense, or under article 234 for illegal arrest or detention, or under article 235 for coercion of testimony.184

When Zinaida Orlova testified at the murder trial of her son in Tashkent's Iunusabad District Court, she described in detail the beatings and humiliation investigators used to force her to testify against herself in the same criminalinvestigation. Her son, Aleksandr, stated clearly that he was beaten and that investigators threatened that his mother would answer for the crime if he did not take it on himself.185 Judge Gieziddin Najimov did not react at all to Aleksandr's claims, and to Orlova's statements he responded laconically that "if they used those methods against you, that's illegal."186

According to his father, Nosir Poshshokhujaev was hung from the ceiling and beaten, suffocated with a gas mask, and burned with cigarettes to induce him to confess to a series of criminal offenses. Though a forensic medical expert conducted an examination and established that his injuries resulted from torture, in September 1997 Judge Zukhirdin Ibragimov of the Namangan Provincial Court found him guilty on the basis of his confession and sentenced him to eighteen years in prison.187

Kodir D., who had been tortured in a Namangan police station (see above), described his ordeal at his trial on charges of participation in illegal religious activity. According to his father, who attended the trial, the judge initially seemed to take his son's claims seriously, but sentenced him to twelve years plus "two more years [beyond the procurator's initial request] at the request of the procurator."188 Kodir D.'s father told Human Rights Watch:

On April 14, the second day of the trial, the judge gave my son a chance to speak. He then said that he was not a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir...and that the police beat him; that they put him against the wall and beat him and took his money and watch and then planted the leaflets in his pocket...The judge asked my son, "Why didn't you complain? Why didn't you tell the investigator?" My son said, "If I didn't confess they would have beaten me worse, so I confessed. No one would listen to me if I complained, I was afraid to complain." My son described how they beat him, how they put the gas mask on him in the basement of the GUVD....The judge said, "The three men who arrested you, we will call them as witnesses." The judge did not summon those officers from the GUVD who beat him and put the gas mask on him, just the officers from the district police department [who also beat him].189

However, after five summonses, the officers from the district police department did not appear; one month later, the judge sentenced Kodir D.

Judges presiding over trials with foreign trial monitors have reacted angrily to allegations of torture and handed down severe sentences, including the death penalty. When one of the defendants in the May 2000 Tashkent Provincial Court trial of fourteen accused "terrorists" described the abuse suffered by his cellmate, Judge Rustamov, chairman of the court, interrupted him, and then forbade him to discuss it further, saying "you can speak only about what concerns you."190 When the lawyer for another defendant, Palvannazar Khojaev, stated outright that his client's confession was extracted under torture, Judge Rustamov contradicted him vehemently: "There was no pressure from investigators! There are journalists here, and so you must tell the truth!"191 Khojaev was sentenced to death.

Oibek and Uigun Ruzmetov were also sentenced to death in a July 1999 trial. Their mother, who was present during their last few court sessions, recounted that "in court, Oibek could hardly stand he was so weak. He said that he was beaten so hard that blood was coming from his nose and mouth for three days. The judge didn't listen, he just sat there.... `I'm not guilty,' he said, `they beat me and never gave me any medical help. I had a concussion,' he said. He could hardly stand. He said it was all a lie."192

One observer described the attitude of the presiding judge at a May 1999 Supreme Court trial upon hearing defendants, charged with illegal religious activity, detail their torture. "The judge really let this information in one ear and out the other. By his demeanor I understood that none of it surprised him. He reacted as though this was a normal and natural manner of behavior for the criminal justice personnel to treat arrestees."193

In rare cases, judges may formally acknowledge defendants' claims that they were tortured to coerce confessions; nonetheless, judges in these cases uphold these confessions as evidence in violation of Uzbek domestic law. A judge in the Chilonzar District Court acknowledged that three defendants in a July 1999 trial of thirteen accused members of Hizb ut-Tahrir stated that they were tortured during the investigation, but this was not apparently taken into account in the court's finding of guilt or the sentences handed down.194 Of the six witnesses called to testify against Makhmudjon Topildiev (see above, Unregistered Detentions), four of them were police officers whom Topildiev accused, in court, of beating him. When Judge Salohiddin Sahoddinov of the Iangi-Iul District Court asked Topildiev if the men who beat him were in the courtroom, he responded affirmatively and pointed them out. The judge then asked the officers if they had beaten him, and they answered that they had not. "Look, you said they beat you, and they say they didn't," Judge Sahoddinov is reported to have said. "What should I do? If they are lying, Allah will punish them, and if you are lying, may Allah punish you."195

In only one case documented by Human Rights Watch was evidence of torture associated with the acquittal of a tortured defendant. The first judge to try the murder case against Ruslan Mamin and his two co-defendants, Judge Kurbanov of the Tashkent Municipal Court, heard Mamin and the others recant their confessions and describe having been tortured. After listening to the testimony of the investigator and two policemen, Dilshod Mirzoev and Usmon Rahimov, accused of torturing the defendants, Judge Kurbanov told Mamin and the others that "we were making trouble and to shut up."196 In an extraordinary departure from regular practice, Tashkent's Iakkasarai district prosecutor dropped charges against Ruslan Mamin and his two co-defendants after their case had undergone two appeals, one re-trial, and had been again sent back by the Supreme Court for a new investigation. The prosecutor's decision did not directly cite the defendants' claims of torture as justification for the acquittal.

In some cases involving torture judges may find a defendant not guilty of some of the charges, or may levy a reduced sentence without directly citing torture as the cause of their actions. In 1996, the Syr Daria Provincial Court decided to drop drugs and weapons charges against Abdurashid Kutbitdinov, remarking that "the police seemed to have tried too hard."197 Nevertheless, the court sentenced Kubitdinov to a thirteen-year prison sentence for corruption. In cases where defendants are charged with religious and political crimes, courts often drop initial charges of drugs or weapons possession levied in order to secure the arrest of the accused. If the sentences produced after these charges are dropped or dismissed are too short, defendants may be re-arrested, charged with new crimes, and issued new, longer sentences, despite allegations of torture. The Jizzakh District Court initially handed down a reduced sentence to Nakhmiddin Juvashev (see above); however, a year after Juvashev was paroled, he was re-arrested by police on related charges of religious extremism.198

A similar case was that of Imam Abdurahim Abdurahmonov, who in 1998 was arrested and charged with drug possession and with carrying a false passport. According to his wife, "He told me that they beat him and tortured him. He said that on the first day of detention they beat him so badly on the head that he lost consciousness...they broke at least one of his ribs. After he was released, he was diagnosed with a concussion, a broken rib and contused kidneys. He suffered nerve damage to his spine from the beatings and could no longer sit or stand upright."199 At trial, ImamAbdurahmonov's lawyer presented a doctor's certificate attesting to his injuries. The judge agreed to drop the narcotics charge, but sentenced him to two years; shortly after his sentencing, at the end of 1998, he was released under an amnesty. Police, however, re-arrested him in April 2000; he was subsequently sentenced to seventeen years in prison for alleged anti-state activities, upheld on appeal.200

Police Intimidation During the Trial

Police, fearing the possibility that victims will recant their testimony during trial, are known to continue or even intensify ill-treatment of the accused once the case goes to court. This was the case during the trial of Abdurashid Kutbitdinov (see above).

After the investigation was over, when the trial had begun, they beat him then too. As I found out people were sent specially from Tashkent during the night....The trial was in the Syr Daria province, about one hundred kilometers from Tashkent....People came specially from Tashkent during the night to beat them up, and their guards also beat them. There was one time when I came into the courtroom and he had a huge bruise under his eye. I asked him, "What happened?" and he said that he had fallen from the prison bunk. Later I learned that policemen had come in during the night and beaten them all terribly, so that "the judicial process would function normally," as they say. 201

One young man who was tried and convicted of murder in 1999 described his fear of retribution if he dared tell how his confession was extracted under torture.

...even during the trial, the physical and psychological pressure did not cease. In the cell where I was held they sent me notes warning that I should not dare to deny my confession or tell how the investigation was conducted if I valued my life or the life of my family. These notes drove me out of my mind, especially since I wasn't allowed to meet with my family, and I didn't know where or how they were...Before they brought me to the courtroom they beat me with nightsticks, all the while warning against saying anything in court. And that's why I didn't talk about this during the trial....202

The Centrality of Confessions

In many cases, a confession or testimony coerced under torture may be the only evidence presented to support a conviction. However, domestic law provides few mechanisms to complain about ill-treatment by police or to incorporate such complaints into an appeal against a sentence. While courts are required to exclude evidence obtained under torture, in practice, the admission of such confessions is the norm. Section 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sets out the procedure for appealing a verdict, but does not include ill-treatment among the grounds on which a sentence can be overturned. This is despite the fact that the code bans torture, violence, and other cruel or degrading treatment, and outlaws inhuman treatment of detainees.203

Judges are extremely reluctant to allow defendants to retract confessions, and threaten them with charges of perjury if they try to do so. One lawyer told Human Rights Watch:

If you confess, you'll still be convicted even if there's no other evidence. So your confession may well be the only evidence that is brought. Even if you were beaten during the investigation, the judge will say "You admitted it then, but now you're retracting it so as to get out of it." The defendant says "But I was beaten and made to confess." They say, "Not at all. We'll summon the inspector." They summon him and say, "Well, did you beat him?" He says: "What are you saying? I never laid a finger on him. He wrote it [the confession] all down by himself." And that's that.204

The centrality of confessions to the prosecution is borne out by testimony from several witnesses. Zinaida Orlova (see above), who herself was a suspect in a murder to which her son confessed under torture, told Human Rights Watch, "Once I was in the hall when my son was being questioned by [name withheld]. Close to the end of the investigation, my son started to recant his confession. The procurator told the investigator to hurry up and close the case. `He'll really start talking now! Since he won't say that his mother killed them [you should close the case].'"205 In the case of Bahtier Musaev (see above), Tashkent's Iunusabad District Court ignored both the defendant's testimony about his torture during trial, as well as statements made in court by witnesses Sherov, Sabirov, and Abdullaev that their original statements against Musaev were coerced by police. Sherov stated in court that police in the GUVD tortured him, beating him, giving him electric shocks, and suffocating him with a gas mask, to give testimony against Musaev, with whom he was not even acquainted until his arrest in March 1999.206 Nevertheless, Judge Lola Murodova cited both this witness testimony and Musaev's own confession as the grounds for his conviction, stating that though one witness, Bekzod Sherov, "testified that the militia did wrong things and forced him to give false testimony against Musaev...he never complained to officials about the militia's actions."207

In political cases, brought with increasing frequency in 1999 and 2000, the state has used forced confessions in media campaigns against political and religious dissidents, in addition to using them as evidence in criminal trials. In October 1998, the Uzbek television news program Ahborot broadcast a news segment about the trial of several men accused of religious extremism as a result of their affiliation with Imam Obidkhon Nazarov, whom the government labeled as a political enemy for his criticism of government policies. Although the trial was only in its second day, and the judge had not yet finished reading through the indictment, the program described the men as guilty and stated that the defendants had confessed and begged forgiveness from the nation.208 Ukilohn Ziekhonov and his co-defendants in this trial were allegedly tortured by police in the Sabir Rakhimov District Police Department in Tashkent and in the GUVD and MVD headquarters.209 Mamadali Makhmudov described the videotaped statement SNB investigators forced him to make as the price for an end to his torture, and to the threats against his wife and daughters.210

Police reportedly coerced several of the defendants in the first trial of alleged perpetrators of the February 1999 bombings in Tashkent to make incriminating statements about others, which were broadcast on national television. Though the defendants later retracted these statements in court, they were later used to convict others, among themKodirjon Sohipov, who was found guilty of sixteen separate offenses, including murder and terrorism. Sohipov and his lawyer requested that these witnesses be called to testify during Sohipov's trial, but the judge would not allow it.211

117 Uzbekistan's highly authoritarian political system has limited the independence of the judiciary. Should the government of Uzbekistan reform criminal procedure to allow for habeas corpus, or to allow unfettered access to forensic medical testing, fundamental political change would be necessary to make such reform meaningful.

118 Article 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows for suspects to be released on bail, on their own recognizance, in exchange for promises to appear, or to be released to the supervision of their work collective or community. Human Rights Watch has learned of only a few cases in which police, prosecutors, or courts have allowed these alternatives to detention, even in cases of minors or retired persons accused of nonviolent crimes. Detention in so-called investigation prisons or SiZO (sledstvennye izoliatory) remains the rule in the pre-trial period. This practice contradicts ICCPR, article 9(3), "...It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial..."

119 This represents a serious diversion from the right to habeas corpus as outlined in article 9(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that "Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release." Because the procuracy exercises executive, not judicial power, procuracy review of arrest cannot be interpreted as the judicial review of detention envisaged in ICCPR's article 9.

120 Code of Criminal Procedure.

121 Code of Criminal Procedure, article 225.

122 Code of Criminal Procedure, article 225. This article does not specify who must review the record, only that "Review of the records must occur not more than twenty-four hours from the time that the detainee is brought to the police station or other law-enforcement body."

123 Code of Criminal Procedure, articles 226, 227.

124 Human Rights Watch interview with the mother of Karim Q. (true names withheld), May 14, 1999.

125 Human Rights Watch interview with trial monitor, human rights activist Hashimbek Irisbaev, May 23, 1999.

126 Human Rights Watch trial monitor unofficial court transcript, Chilonzar District Court, Tashkent, July 8, 1999.

127 A similar practice is found in other former Soviet states. See Confessions at Any Cost: Police Torture in Russia (New York: Human Rights Watch, 1999), p. 57.

128 Open letter from Mamadali Makhmudov, August 10, 1999.

129 Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, June 8, 2000.

130 Human Rights Watch interview with Rumia Mamina, December 16, 1998; appeal filed by lawyer L.V. Pinkhasova with the Supreme Court, October 1999.

131 Written statement of Makhmudjon Topildiev, January 10, 2000, on file with Human Rights Watch. Judge Salohiddin Sahoddinov of the Iangi-Iul District Court sentenced Topildiev to two years in prison on drug charges on April 10, 2000, although during his trial Topildiev recounted the story of his torture. Human Rights Watch interview with Hashimbek Irisbaev, a human rights activist who monitored the court proceedings, April 13, 2000.

132 Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, May 9, 2000.

133 Ibid.

134 Under article 49, defense counsel may be provided by an attorney, a representative of a public association, or in certain circumstances, a relative of the defendant.

135 Code of Criminal Procedure, article 48.

136 Code of Criminal Procedure, article 51.

137 Code of Criminal Procedure, article 53.

138 Code of Criminal Procedure, article 49. "V redaktsii Zakonov Respubliki Uzbekistan ot 30 avgusta 1997 g I ot 15 aprelia 1999g. Vedomosti Olii Majlisa Respubliki Uzbekistan, 1997 g., no 9, st. 241; 1999 g. No. 5, st. 124.

139 Human Rights Watch interview, Asaka, Andijan, May 22, 2000.

140 Human Rights Watch interviews with relatives of bombing suspects, June 2-8, 1999; Human Rights Watch interview with Mikhail Ardzinov, chairman, IHROU, June 11, 1999.

141 Human Rights Watch interview, Tashkent, July 6, 1999.

142 Human Rights Watch interview, name and place withheld, May 9, 2000.

143 Human Rights Watch interview with Muborak Abdurahmonova, wife of Imam Abdurahim Abdurahmonov, Tashkent, May 26, 2000.

144 Human Rights Watch interview with Ruslan Mamin, Tashkent, April 26, 2000.

145 Ibid., and Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, April 14, 2000.

146 Ibid. After several appeals and re-trials, charges against Mamin and his co-defendants were ultimately dropped.

147 Human Rights Watch interview with Zinaida Orlova, Tashkent, May 10 2000.

148 Human Rights Watch interview with Umida Khamidova (pseudonym), May 9, 2000.

149 Human Rights Watch interview, lawyer, name withheld, Tashkent, June 9, 2000.

150 Human Rights Watch interview with Tolib Iakubov, chairman of the HRSU, June 29, 1999; Human Rights Watch interview with relative of Nakhmidin Juvashev, name withheld, July 2, 1999.

151 Human Rights Watch interview with relative of Nakhmidin Juvashev, name withheld, July 7, 1999.

152 Open letter from Mamura Khajimukhamedova, May 18, 2000.

153 Human Rights Watch interview with Irina Mikulina, May 31 1999.

154 Human Rights Watch interview with Mamura Khajimukhamedova, May 11, 1999.

155 Human Rights Watch interview, name and place withheld, May 3, 2000.

156 Written testimony on file with Human Rights Watch, August 2000.

157 Appeal filed by lawyer G. Sukhacheva with the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court, November 1999.

158 Copy of the letter of Tamara Chikunova to the President of the Tashkent Provincial Lawyer's Collegium, November 17, 1999, on file with Human Rights Watch. Letter No. 1/124, January 28, 2000. Copy on file with Human Rights Watch.

159 This contradicts article 106 of the Criminal Procedural Code, which mandates that both the process and the results of interrogation sessions be recorded, and included in the materials of the case.

160 Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, Tashkent, April 9, 2000.

161 Human Rights Watch interview with lawyer, name withheld, May 30, 1999.

162 Code of Criminal Procedure, article 174. This article provides exceptional cases for specialists from other state institutions to provide this evidence, but allows only the agency authorizing the examination (in other words, the procuracy) to determine if the case is exceptional enough to warrant an outside expert.

163 A forensic medical examiner establishes the cause and nature of injuries sustained and prepares a report that may be used as evidence in court.

164 Human Rights Watch interview, name and place withheld, June 2000.

165 Dr. Zainiddin Giiasov, head of the Uzbek national Forensic-Medical Specialist Service, while forthcoming on other issues, would reveal only the following: "If I denied that there were such cases, that would be a lie, and it's not nice to lie." Human Rights Watch interview, Tashkent, June 9, 2000.

166 Human Rights Watch interview, Tashkent, June 8, 2000.

167 Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, July 2, 1999.

168 Human Rights Watch interview with Rumia Mamina, Tashkent, December 16, 1999.

169 Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, July 12, 1999. This witness is the relative of a defendant convicted of membership in an illegal religious group, and had spoken to the lawyer in question. In this case, a Tashkent prison physician had certified that the victim had been beaten.

170 Human Rights Watch interview with the client's father, Tashkent, May 3, 2000.

171 All the names related to this case have been changed throughout this account.

172 Written statement to Human Rights Watch, name withheld, October 1999, obtained through the courtesy of IHROU.

173 Ibid.

174 Ibid. In Uzbekistan, most lawyers work for state-run law offices, and are paid salaries by the state; clients pay a fee directly to the law office. As long as the fee is paid to the office, there are no laws criminalizing the payment of an extra fee to the attorney.

175 Human Rights Watch interview, June 2000.

176 Human Rights Watch Interview, name withheld, Khiva, July 1999.

177 Human Rights Watch interview with Svetlana Avakian, Tashkent, December 22, 1998.

178 Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, February 20, 2000.

179 HRSU, August 2000; Human Rights Watch interview with a relative of Nakhmiddin Juvashev, name withheld, Jizzakh, November 1, 2000.

180 Human Rights Watch interview, May 1997, place and name withheld.

181 Human Rights Watch interview with Mrs. Mamatkulova, May 18, 2000.

182 Article 15 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, reads: "Each party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made." Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that "interrogators, investigators, prosecutors or courts are obligated to initiate a criminal case concerning criminal acts in all cases, in which there are causes and sufficient grounds." (Emphasis added.) To investigate such allegations, judges, under article 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can order a forensic medical examination. Article 180 reads: "The investigating officer [doznavatel'] and the investigator may issue an order, and the court may issue a finding on the appointment of an expert; these must contain the grounds which are the basis for the appointment of the expert; the material evidence or any other items which are being sent for the expert analysis with information on where, how, and under what circumstances they were gathered, or in instances when the analysis is to be conducted regarding case materials, information which the expert should take into consideration when drawing conclusions; questions which the expert is to answer; the name of the expert organization and the last name of the person who is to conduct the analysis." Furthermore, article 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that "the appointment and the conduct of expert analysis is mandatory, if it is necessary to establish in a criminal case: 1. The cause of death or the nature and degree of seriousness of physical injuries..."

183 Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, Tashkent, May 14, 1999.

184 Written statement of defense counsel Sh. Jabrailov of the Tashkent provincial lawyer's collegium, May 1999, on file with Human Rights Watch, obtained through the courtesy of human rights activist Vasila Inoiatova. Bakhtier Musaev was initially sentenced to eight years in prison, lowered on appeal to five.

185 Human Rights Watch unofficial transcript, May 10, 2000.

186 Human Rights Watch unofficial transcript, May 12, 2000.

187 Text of the letter of Kosimkhoja Poshshokhojaev reprinted in the Namangan department of the Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan, "Fakty i argumenty o narusheniiakh prav cheloveka v Uzbekistane na primere Namanganskoi oblasti v period s sentiabria 1996 goda po avgust 1998."

188 Human Rights Watch interview with Kodir D.'s father, Tashkent, May 16, 2000.

189 Human Rights Watch interview with Kodir D., Tashkent, May 16, 2000.

190 Human Rights Watch unofficial transcript, May 11, 2000.

191 Human Rights Watch unofficial transcript, May 11, 2000.

192 Human Rights Watch interview with Darmon Sultanova, June 9, 2000.

193 Human Rights Watch interview with human rights activist Hashimbek Irisbaev, May 24, 1999.

194 Human Rights Watch unofficial transcript, July 20, 1999. Judge Rakhmonov did not register all of the defendants' accounts of torture. One defendant, Hikmat Rasulov, was reported during his final statement to have rebuked the judge, saying "No one has said anything here about the six months of torture, and now you are demanding that we apologize..." Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, July 12, 1999.

195 Human Rights Watch interview, Hashimbek Irisbaev, human rights activist, Tashkent, April 13, 2000.

196 Human Rights Watch interview with Ruslan Mamin, Tashkent, April 26, 2000.

197 Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, May 27, 1998. The source was present at the trial.

198 HRSU, August 2000.

199 Human Rights Watch interview with Muborak Abdurakhmonova, wife of Imam Abdurahim Abdurakhmonov, Tashkent, May 26, 2000.

200 It is not clear whether the charge was actually dropped due to the evidence of police abuse. Human Rights Watch unofficial transcript, Tashkent Municipal Court, August 8, 2000.

201 Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, May 27, 1998.

202 Written testimony of Arsen Artiunian on file with Human Rights Watch. Though Artiunian and his co-defendant were initially sentenced to death for the murder, the Supreme Court on appeal commuted the death sentences to imprisonment. Human Rights Watch interview with a relative of Artunian, March 2000; Amnesty International News Release EUR 62/71/00, 19 April 2000, "Uzbekistan-Death sentence reversed for pop star - a positive step forward."

203 Code of Criminal Procedure, articles 17 and 215, respectively.

204 Human Rights Watch interview, May 1997, place and name of interviewee withheld. This pattern was confirmed by other interviewees.

205 Human Rights Watch interview with Zinaida Orlova, May 10, 2000.

206 Written statement of lawyer Sh. M. Jabrailov, May 1999, on file with Human Rights Watch.

207 Human Rights Watch unofficial court transcript, June 21, 1999. Musaev was sentenced to nine years in prison, later reduced to five years. Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, October 1999.

208 Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, December 17, 1998.

209 Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, December 17, 1998. Witnesses present at the trial of the men recounted that videotaped confessions shown at trial clearly display bruises on their faces and necks. Ukilkhon Ziekhonov and co-defendant Alimjan Iusupov both described their torture during the trial, including beatings and threats to arrest and abuse their family members. Several witnesses called to give evidence against these two men also related how they were beaten, threatened, and hung by their wrists from prison bars for a twenty-four hour period to coerce their testimony.

210 Open letter of Mamadali Makhmudov, August 10, 1999.

211 Kodirjon Sohipov was himself beaten in custody and signed a confession, which he later recanted. He was sentenced to death. The Supreme Court rejected his appeal and indicated that the sentence has been carried out, but his family has been unable to receive a death certificate. Human Rights Watch interview with Hashimjon Sohipov, Andijan, May 19, 2000.

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page