Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Recent Reports 
 Support HRW 
About HRW
Site Map

Human Rights Watch - Home Page

IMPUNITY FOR TORTURE

As a party to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Republic of Uzbekistan is obliged to monitor and prevent ill-treatment of those held in custody.212 Articles 12 and 13 of the convention likewise require states promptly and impartially to investigate reasonable allegations of torture, and to ensure that any individual who alleges he or she has been tortured is not further harmed as a result of their complaints to the authorities. But the various branches of government in Uzbekistan are not accountable to the public or the media; agencies in the criminal justice system have no interest in investigating allegations against themselves, nor do political authorities have any interest in pursuing them. As a result, very few police or state security officers are ever held accountable for acts of torture they have committed.

In theory there are four potential domestic remedies available to those seeking redress for acts of torture. First, victims may appeal to the police themselves, who in principle are obliged to investigate any report of a criminal act; second, victims may appeal to the procuracy, which is bound by the same obligation. Third, victims facing criminal prosecution may appeal to the judge hearing their case. Fourth, victims can apply in writing or in person to either of the two government human rights bodies established with financial support from the United Nations, the Ombudsman or the National Center for Human Rights. The staff of these institutions may, after gathering more information about the case, issue recommendations to the courts or the procuracy. In practice, however, none of these avenues are effective in either preventing further acts of torture, in obtaining redress for the victim, or in punishing the perpetrators of torture.

According to figures provided by the government of Uzbekistan to the United Nations Committee against Torture, in 1998 nineteen law-enforcement officers were convicted of violating articles 235 and 236 of the Uzbek criminal code, respectively punishing the use of coercion in taking testimony and unlawful arrest, although the breakdown of this figure is unclear.213 This statistic stands in sharp contrast to the 533 complaints received by the Ombudsman's office, most of which, according to the same source, were against the unlawful action of police, especially "the use of physical and mental violence by investigators during the investigation phase."214 The National Center for Human Rights' citizens complaint office also received numerous protests of illegalities committed by law enforcement bodies: 161 in 1998, and 184 in 1999.215 Because their functions are purely advisory, relatively few citizens choose to appeal to the National Center or to the Ombudsman's office, compared to the 155,965 complaints of police abuse received by the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) in 1996.216 According to the MVD, the total number of criminal cases initiated against law enforcement officers has risen in recent years, but was still remarkably low: five in 1991, two in 1992, seven in 1993, twelve in 1994, twenty-six in 1995, fifty-four in 1996, and seventeen in 1997.217 The nature of the crimes of which these officers were accused is unknown. No figures are available on the total number of cases resulting in convictions, although the MVD notes that two officers were convicted of using physically coercive methods againstdetainees in 1997.218 Human Rights Watch has learned of one more recent case in which in June 2000 the Almalyk City Court sentenced a prison guard, Batirjon Karimov, to six years of imprisonment for beating a prisoner to death.219

Only very rarely does the heavily censored state-controlled media report cases of police abuse. The report on one case in 1997 in one of the main official daily newspapers, Khalq Sozi (Word of the People), must have been authorized by the government and thus may have indicated a desire to highlight such abuses. However, because it was an isolated report, and because it dealt with an instance of simple brutality, not torture, it served only as an exception to prove the rule that police are almost never portrayed in a negative light. Nevertheless, we cite it here in the interests of fairness and also because it demonstrates a fairly typical pattern of cases in which police violently abuse law-abiding citizens who are not even suspected of criminal activity.

The case arose out of a traffic incident in which police tried to extort bribes to allow commercial truck drivers to pass a checkpoint. The newspaper reported that a senior officer, Major Donoboi Dustmuhammedov, "hit Hasanov [one of the truck drivers] in the face. Hasanov keeled over from the serious blow. The major struck a second blow to his head and yelled at him....Hasanov wanted to drive away in his truck but was too badly injured to do so. His partner drove him away. Hasanov vomited along the road and reached his home only with difficulty. He could not bear the pain and was sent to Iangier hospital."220

In a rare departure from practice, this case was brought to trial. "Initially [during the pre-trial investigation] Major Dustmuhammedov denied everything, but he later changed his testimony. His explanation was that when he moved between the driver and the [police] captain the back of his hand accidentally touched Hasanov's lips and his foot slipped against Hasanov's stomach. The major's colleagues said they were looking the other way and did not see anything." Despite the major's protestations-and Hasanov's retraction of his accusation-the major and sergeant were sentenced to three and six years in prison, respectively.221

The enormous number of complaints about police abuse lodged with the authorities in comparison to the small numbers of actual convictions attests to the difficulty of pursuing criminal sanctions against torturers and those responsible for police brutality. Indeed, remarks by government officials who are themselves responsible for the oversight of police suggest that they are less than willing to investigate such allegations, for fear of jeopardizing the criminal case against the detainee. "By law, the use of ill-treatment by law enforcement officials carries a criminal penalty and a person would be fired," explained Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs Sadulla Asadov, "but the investigation of a criminal case is a battle between two parties: the criminal and the investigator. If the investigator loses, the criminal wins."222

Attempts to achieve redress against abusers are most often doomed by the policy of entrusting police to investigate themselves. Two days after arresting Dmitri Chikunov, police came to his mother asking for clean clothes, in order that he appear in good condition when his confession was videotaped. The clothes they returned to her were covered in blood; the officer who delivered them returned the next day demanding them back, to no avail.223 Tamara Chikunovathen appealed to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which directed her complaint for review to the very office (the Tashkent provincial prosecutor's office) whose officials are alleged to have directed the torture of her son.224

Police officials may threaten and intimidate witnesses to acts of torture in order to prevent them from pressing their claims. The mother of one young man accused, but then acquitted, of murder, was granted a meeting with her son during the preliminary investigation; he pleaded with her, "Mama, they will kill me here if I don't take the crime on myself. They beat me every day. Please get me out!" She was told by a police interrogator who was present during the meeting that "If you go anywhere to complain, then you'll never see your son again and it will be worse for you too."225 After Makhmudjon Mamatkulov (see above, Medical Evidence of Torture) received severe injuries at the hands of the Andijan police in 1997, he and his wife filed a complaint with the city procurator's office. Soon after, police contacted Mamatkulov again and demanded that he take back his complaint, or else face new violence. Mamatkulov was forced to write another letter to the procuracy rescinding his initial complaint.226 In some instances, police may pin the deaths of suspects in detention on a scapegoat. According to the Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan, in 1999 bus driver Sherali Jumaev died from torture in the Shakhrisiabz district police headquarters. Three days after his arrest, his mother had gone to the police station and had seen that he was covered with bruises and had been beaten. Police allowed her to take him, and he died after two days in hospital. Police blocked public access to the funeral, and followed those who attended. Several days after Jumaev's death, the provincial prosecutor called in all of his relatives, including his son, and asked them if Jumaev had any enemies. His son reportedly identified one Ne'mat Azimov, with whom his father had been in a fight a month before his death; Azimov was reportedly arrested.227

The case of Malika Abdullaeva illustrates the obstacles to achieving redress against police abuses. On February 23, 2000, Abdullaeva, who wears hijab, was walking with her friend along a street in her home town of Kibrai when two police officers forced them into a car and took them to the district police department where they were threatened with terrorism charges, fined, and released.228 Abdullaeva was fined again the next day for refusing to participate in a public denunciation of a "religious extremist" in her mahalla. On May 25, Abdullaeva accepted a ride from a private taxi, but found once she had sat down in the car that the driver was a police officer. The driver began to hit her and verbally abuse her, and instead of taking her to her destination, brought her into the district police station. When she refused to get out of the car he hit her, twisted her arm, and pulled her out of the car by her hair. The officer wrote a citation to fine her once more but grew angry when she refused to sign it, saying, "I'm going to beat you now so that you never forget it!" He ran toward her with hands outstretched as if to grab her by the throat, when another officer came into the room and stopped him.

When the first officer instructed Abdullaeva to write a note explaining her allegedly illegal behavior, she instead composed a letter to the head of the district police, describing the officers' abusive conduct toward her. Hearing that she intended to file a complaint, the officer first began to speak to her more politely, and then objected, "You are the one making us beat you on the street...If you had uncovered your face, we would not have to do this. It's your fault!" The officer took the letter from her, and after reading it, threatened Abdullaeva. "Forget everything that happened," he reportedly warned her. "If you go to the authorities to complain, it will only be worse for you, and not me." The following day, Abdullaeva consulted her local general practitioner for treatment and to document her injuries. He too warned her not to attempt to file a complaint against the police, although he created a record of her injuries and their origin.229 As of this writing, the local prosecutor's office has yet to reply to Abdullaeva's complaint, months after it was submitted.

Others' attempts to hold abusers accountable for police abuse or acts of torture have also been blocked by the immovability of law enforcement institutions when faced with their own misdeeds. In August 1999, farmer Gulom Baikabulov was supervising the transport of a load of bricks from a local factory back to the Khudaierov collectivefarm, in the Iakkob district of Kashkadaria province. When traffic police impounded the tractor carrying the bricks, Baikabulov went to investigate; the traffic police told him that the tractor had not passed its inspection. When Baikabulov argued that they had no right to impound the tractor, two officers detained him in the station and began to smash his head against a wall and beat him; ultimately six officers were involved in the beating, including two who continued to hit and kick him on the floor after he had lost consciousness. Notified by the tractor driver, Baikabulov's mother, Zukhro Juraeva, went to the traffic police station and was told that her son "got what he wanted to have, and will be further `rewarded' in the [main] police station." She spent approximately six hours on the street outside of the local MVD before being allowed to see her son at 2:00 a.m.230

When Juraeva and her son went to the chief of police the next day, according to Juraeva, he said that the pair were lying and that no one had beaten Baikabulov. Another officer read her written complaint and told her that she can "do whatever she will, go anywhere, to the prosecutor or to God himself," but he would never take any action against those she accused of beating her son. He cursed and insulted her and sent her out. Juraeva then went to the district prosecutor, who listened to her story and gave her a certificate [napravlenie] authorizing a forensic medical examination and treatment for her son, but did not open an investigation or inquiry against the police. Baikabulov was examined and hospitalized for ten days, but according to Juraeva, did not receive the complete treatment indicated because of interference by the chief of police.231

Even in cases where law enforcement authorities tacitly acknowledge the fact of police torture there is seldom any effort to investigate the perpetrators. In some instances, the perpetrators may even be rewarded. Hamza district police officer Dilshod Mirzoev was reportedly promoted to a job in the central MVD after Ruslan Mamin and his co-defendants were initially convicted. The first investigator on the case, who also allegedly witnessed the torture of Mamin, has been promoted to deputy procurator of the Chilonzar district of Tashkent.232 When the Supreme Court heard Mamin's case on appeal, his lawyer asked the court to bring criminal charges against the investigator in the case for "knowingly accusing an innocent person of a particularly heinous and socially dangerous crime" (article 230 of the Criminal Code); no investigation was ever opened.233

Victims may in theory appeal to other bodies to pursue legal or administrative sanctions against their torturers if they receive no relief from the procuracy or the courts. The office of parliamentary Ombudsman, which was created in 1997 and which has received significant funding from the United Nations, is meant to monitor the observation of domestic and international and human rights law and standards by government officials. In practice, however, the Ombudsman's office has little ability to act independently on behalf of the victims of human rights abuses. Furthermore, claimants who report cases of ill-treatment by the police find that the Ombudsman simply passes on the documentation to the Ministry of Internal Affairs or other government offices responsible for oversight of the agency which allegedly committed the abuse. The ministry then forwards the file to the police precinct where the abuse was alleged to have been committed in the first place, entrusting the local police themselves to decide whether the abuse took place, and then report back to the ministry, which in turn informs the Ombudsman of the results of this "investigation." At most, if the Ombudsman's office finds, after reviewing a citizen's application, evidence that rights have been violated, it writes to the court or other agency involved recommending that the case be reviewed. The procedure shows little consideration for the physical safety of those who submit complaints. The Ombudsman's office routinely reveals the identity of a complainant, who may or may not remain in police custody, yet takes no serious measures to protect him or her. This may in fact elicit further abuses by police or prison authorities in retribution for the complaint.234

Attempts to obtain justice through appeals to international human rights bodies are also unlikely to be fruitful. Uzbekistan's status as a signatory to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights allows its citizens to submit information on human rights abuses to the Human Rights Committee, the body that monitors states' compliance with the provisions of the covenant, once they have exhausted all domestic remedies.235 However, Uzbek government officials have acted to close this avenue of potential redress, and to intimidate and punish citizens for making applications to this body. On June 9, 2000, the Andijan District Court sentenced a young man to nine years in prison on charges of religious extremism in which a complaint form filled out for submission to the U.N. Human Rights Committee on behalf of his imprisoned brother was considered incriminating evidence. Police arrested the young man, Komoliddin Sattarov, on February 2, 2000, in Andijan, and allegedly planted in his pockets leaflets printed by a banned Islamic organization. During a subsequent police search of his home, officers found a completed complaint form addressed to the UNHRC on behalf of Murodjon Sattarov-Komoliddin's brother, who was earlier imprisoned on charges of religious extremism and who had been tortured in pre-trial detention. Police confiscated the Human Rights Committee forms as evidence against Komoliddin Sattarov. Sattarov's father reported that the investigator from the Andijan prosecutor's office informed him that the confiscated Human Rights Committee complaint forms amounted to the most serious and incriminating evidence against the young man.236

At trial, Sattarov recounted the gruesome torture inflicted on him during detention. He alleged that officers in the Andijan city police department tortured him by jabbing a metal spike under his fingernails; that they beat him repeatedly with nightsticks; and that they used electrodes on his wrists, ankles, and neck, jolting him with electricity until he lost consciousness. Sattarov testified that after two days of physical abuse he agreed to sign the confession drafted by police. The judge did not respond to Komoliddin Sattarov's allegations of torture, did not initiate an investigation into police conduct, and allowed the coerced confession to be submitted as evidence against Sattarov. In the verdict against Sattarov, the ruling judge refers to the Human Rights Committee complaint forms as "appeals to a global human rights organization" and lists the discovery of these forms along with the Islamic leaflets as material evidence that Sattarov was involved in "anti-state activity;" the forms were ordered destroyed following the trial, along with all other material evidence brought forward in the case.237 Following intense international attention to the appeals case of Komoliddin Sattarov, the Andijan Provincial Court sent the matter to a lower court for retrial. The district court ruled the forms inadmissable, but upheld the conviction against Sattarov, adding an additional year to his original nine-year sentence. A case has reportedly been initiated against the arresting officers regarding their misconduct in the search of the Sattarov home.

Compensation

Although the Convention against Torture mandates that signatories provide compensation and rehabilitation to the victims of torture, there are no known cases in Uzbekistan of victims or their families receiving such compensation.238 Uzbek law provides no mechanism for victims to appeal for this compensation, although article 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that "injury caused to an individual by unlawful detention shall be compensated in full if a judgment of acquittal is subsequently rendered, or if the case is closed under article 83 of the current code."239 Although Ruslan Mamin and his codefendants were acquitted under article 83, and although they all continue to suffer lasting ill-effects as a result of their torture in custody, none have received compensation in any form.240

212 Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, article 11: "Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture." 213 Uzbek Committee against Torture Report, p. 10. 214 Uzbek Committee against Torture Report, p. 12. 215 Ibid., p. 12; "Uzbek Human Rights Center Critical of Working of Courts," July 6, 2000, BBC Monitoring, source Hurriyat, 27 June 2000. 216 Uzbek Committee against Torture Report, p. 11. 217 Ibid., p. 11. 218 Letter no. 6/983 dated December 17, 1997, from the Ministry of Interior [sic], Republic of Uzbekistan to Human Rights Watch. This letter further specifies that at the time of writing, thirteen more cases were under investigation, and two had gone to court. 219 Verdict on file with Human Rights Watch, obtained through the courtesy of human rights activists Vasila Inoiatova and Polina Braunerg. The court convicted Karimov of articles 103 and 104 of the Uzbek Criminal Code: driving someone to suicide, and intentionally causing severe bodily harm, respectively. The victim, Akmal Latipov, who had just been brought into the labor colony, allegedly slashed his wrist with a razor when Karimov began to beat him, in order to escape the beating. A forensic medical examination established the cause of Latipov's death to be blows to the head inflicted by Karimov. Indictment in criminal case no. 55/37 against Botirjon Toshpulatovich Karimov, on file with Human Rights Watch, was also obtained through the courtesy of Ms. Inoiatova and Ms. Braunerg. 220 Khalq Sozi, Tashkent, February 8, 1997. 221 Ibid. 222 Human Rights Watch interview, Tashkent, October 1999. 223 Court appeal in the decision of the Tashkent provincial criminal court from November 11, 1999, on file with Human Rights Watch. 224 Ministry of Internal Affairs, Investigative Department, Letter no. 18-C-4, May 24, 1999, on file with Human Rights Watch. 225 Human Rights Watch interview, name, date, and place withheld. 226 Human Rights Watch interview with Mrs. Mamatkulova, Andijan, May 18, 2000. 227 Human Rights Watch interview with Tolib Iakubov, chairman of the HRSU, May 1, 2000. 228 "Hijab" is modest dress worn by women as an expression of Islamic piety. In Uzbekistan it usually includes a long loose robe and a scarf tied to cover the head and neck (and sometimes the face). 229 Medical report on file with Human Rights Watch. 230 Letter from Zukhro Juraeva to Tolib Iakubov, December 15, 1999. 231 Ibid. 232 Human Rights Watch interview, Ruslan Mamin, April 26, 2000. 233 Appeal filed October 1999; Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, June 2000. 234 It is unclear whether or not the attention of the Ombudsman's office has any effect on the courts or agencies responsible for addressing the claims of torture victims. Several of the victims interviewed for this report have submitted their torture complaints to the Ombudsman. In one case, that of Ruslan Mamin and his two co-defendants, the victims were ultimately acquitted of the crimes to which they confessed under torture; in another, that of Dmitri Chikunov, the complainant was sentenced to death and executed despite his allegations. 235 Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, articles 1, 2. 236 Human Rights Watch interview with family of Komoliddin and Murodjon Sattarov, Andijan, May 17, 2000. 237 Human Rights Watch telephone interview with human rights activist Rustam Iskhakov, June 16, 2000.

238 Convention against Torture, article 14.

239 Code of Criminal Procedure, p. 366. Article 83 outlines grounds for acquittal as "1. The lack of an act constituting a crime, in regards to which the criminal case was initiated and investigation and trial were conducted; 2. The absence of criminality in the actions of the accused; 3. The lack of involvement of the accused in the crime." Code of Criminal Procedure, p. 303.

240 Human Rights Watch interview with human rights activist Hashimbek Irisbaev, April 14, 2000.

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page