Human Rights Watch is pleased to have been given the opportunity to contribute to this roundtable on housing issues. We believe the roundtable is a valuable contribution towards looking for solutions to a serious human rights problem in today’s Tajikistan.
Human Rights Watch has been following housing issues in Tajikistan. In April 2008, we conducted research on allegations of forced displacements and violations of the right to property, protection of the home, and failure to provide adequate housing or compensation in Dushanbe. In the course of our research, a Human Rights Watch researcher interviewed evictees, residents at risk of eviction, and lawyers. We also held meetings with local and international organizations covering various aspects of the right to adequate housing.
Today, we would like to share some preliminary observations with the participants of this roundtable focusing on four issues: first, the lack of information and consultation about planned evictions; second, inadequate compensation for evictees’ property; third, intimidation and violence by police and marshals; and fourth, the lack of adequate and effective legal remedies.
These issues were of great importance to the people we interviewed. They also indicate the government’s failure to abide by both Tajikistan’s housing code and international standards. The main international standard is found in the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-Based Evictions and Displacement1 (UN Guidelines) – a document elaborated in 2007 by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on adequate housing2. These guidelines offer several new prescriptions that clarify the obligations of states in respect to compliance with human rights standards when forcibly removing populations due to large scale development projects. They reflect and detail the principles contained in General Comments 4 and 7 of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on the right to adequate housing, and reflect the experience of communities that have been subject to human rights violations as a result of forcible displacement. Although not yet formally adopted by states, the guidelines recommended by the Special Rapporteur constitute an important roadmap for the protection of their citizens against human rights violations arising from forced evictions.
Human Rights Watch plans to publish a more detailed briefing paper on housing issues in Tajikistan in late summer 2008.
Context of forced evictions and displacement in Dushanbe
People evicted from their homes in Dushanbe fall into three broad groups. First are those whose homes will be demolished to make way for planned urban renewal. Several years ago Tajikistan’s government started a number of construction and beautification projects in Dushanbe’s city center, such as the so-called Palace of the Nation, the Youth Palace, the City Administration, the Aqua-Park, and hotel construction sites and the like. Some of these construction projects are based on a Soviet-era city reconstruction plan, known as the “GenPlan,”3 that was never made public.
To implement these projects the government is first evicting people whose houses are in affected areas, and then planning to demolish these houses. In some cases the government has done so in violation of the housing code and international human rights standards.
The authorities have for some time forcibly and sometimes violently evicted hundreds of people living in areas in the city centre that the government has claimed for “public needs” or “governmental needs.” This gained momentum in late 2006 and during 2007, when the authorities began to forcibly resettle residents of some areas of central Dushanbe to the outskirts of the city without adequate compensation and to sometimes unsafe buildings.
Evictees from neighborhoods affected by these construction sites told Human Rights Watch that at the site of the Palace of the Nation at least 159 households were evicted and that many of them were offered small flats in high rise buildings near the Philharmonics. At the site of the Youth Palace, 14 households were evicted. At least five of the 14 were resettled to an 11-story apartment building on the outskirts of Dushanbe. International and local organizations compiled individual case information on other evictions that took place at other construction sites such as the City Administration where there are still unclear numbers of evictees. In general, little is known about the fate of all the evictees because many of them have not applied for redress or complained publicly about their situation.
In March 2007 the mayor’s office issued a statement that the demolition of houses would be postponed until 2009. Yet, during Human Rights Watch’s research mission in April 2008 the researcher eye-witnessed ongoing demolitions and spoke to evictees whose houses had been demolished since the mayor’s statement last spring.
The second group is comprised of residents evicted from their houses because authorities have declared their dwelling ownerships, sales agreements, building licenses or other documents illegal or falsified. For example, Human Rights Watch documented the case of 32 families living across the cement factory on the northern outskirts of Dushanbe. For all but six houses, residents received building licenses in 1992. In 2006 the municipal authorities declared the licenses falsified and started to demolish some of the houses. The authorities also cut off the neighborhood’s water supply. Since then the residents have lived in constant fear of eviction from their homes.
A third group of individuals affected by evictions are inhabitants of dormitories. They are an extremely vulnerable group often living on the margins of society. During the Soviet era, many ministries and state enterprises had dormitories for their employees. After the break-up of the Soviet Union, the economic crisis that attended it, and the civil war, many enterprises were closed and people lost their jobs. However, former employees often continued to live in the dormitories. The dormitories remained a profitable portion of an enterprise or ministry because they could be privatized, sold and turned into higher rent apartments. Therefore, in the last several years, enterprises have started to privatize dormitories.
Human Rights Watch received information about one case of violent eviction of 14 families from a dormitory despite the fact that the residents had rental contracts. In a second case Human Rights Watch was following, a family of eighteen was evicted from a dormitory and was attacked by police when they resisted leaving the building. One male family member was sentenced to three years imprisonment for civil disorder. Another 70 families from the same dormitory were forcibly evicted several months prior to that.
All three groups of evictees are affected by a broader movement of urban renewal in Tajikistan. Although the GenPlan was adopted in 1983, it was not before 1996 that Mayor Makhmadsaid Ubaidullaev began the first steps towards its implementation. At a press conference in April 2007 the press secretary of the municipal administration announced that the GenPlan will be implemented in three stages, the first stage to take place between 2007 and 2015. He said the first stage will focus on the city center, where approximately 4,000 people currently face eviction because their houses are located in the “settlement zone” or were built illegally.4 The cases Human Rights Watch documented for this paper are all part of this longer-term trend to rebuild large parts of Dushanbe. While the authorities underline that the population will benefit from the capital’s enhanced appearance, residents seem to be concerned about having decent housing. More than once Human Rights Watch heard statements such as “The city is full of palaces and residences but people have nowhere to live” or “The poor have nowhere to live but the president and the mayor are building palaces.”
Regardless of how one views the city’s renewal plans, the fact remains that in carrying out these plans the government has not observed international standards in some cases.
The lack of information and consultation
The UN Guidelines provide for a variety of measures states should consider prior to initiating evictions. These include “appropriate notice to all potentially affected persons that eviction is being considered,” and “opportunities and efforts to facilitate the provision of legal, technical and other advice to affected persons about their rights and options.”5
Furthermore, the Basic Principles state: “[P]rior to any decision to initiate an eviction, authorities must demonstrate that the eviction is unavoidable and consistent with international human rights commitments protective of the general welfare.”6
In the cases documented by Human Rights Watch, these principles were not observed. Residents complained about lack of access to information and consultation, inadequate notice of planned evictions, and lack of knowledge about their rights.
For example, Halima Jurakulova and her family of 15 lived in the area that is now the construction site of the Palace of the Nation. On December 14, 2007 residents in that neighborhood received an oral order that they must relocate within two weeks to a 16-story apartment building near the Philharmonic concert hall.
The order came as surprise to Halima and her neighbors: “In the beginning [the construction of the Palace started in 2002] they demolished just twenty houses to broaden the road to the construction site. Then it was quiet for several years. And then all of a sudden they told us we must leave our houses.”7
The authorities did not explain the specific use to which the cleared land would be put after the evictions. All Halima knew was that a park would be built on the area of her neighborhood.
In another neighborhood, which is now the construction site of the Youth Palace, residents heard for the first time in November 2006 that their houses would be demolished and that they should relocate to apartments in a high-rise building on the outskirts of Dushanbe. They were not involved in any discussions about the construction project, did not receive information about their rights, and had no opportunity to present any alternative proposal that might have resulted in avoiding eviction. The authorities did not prove that the eviction was unavoidable. 8
Guzel Maitdinova, a woman from one of the fourteen affected households said “Officially I learned about the demolition of my house only in summer 2007. On June 14, 2007 the Ismoil Somoni district court issued a decision to forcibly evict me and my daughter from our house. It was only during that court hearing that I was provided with the mayor of Dushanbe’s May 10, 2007 ruling to demolish my house.”9
Residents at risk of evictions with whom Human Rights Watch spoke are not provided with legal advice, nor do they understand the procedures related to the eviction process. For example, Halima Jurakulova remembers a commission of two judges and two representatives from the city administration coming to her house. They did not explain what their purpose was or what they were doing in a way that she could understand, and she did not have a lawyer or anyone else who could explain the proceedings to her. Her neighbor, Nilufar N., also remembers that a commission came to her house. When a Human Rights Watch representative asked Nilufar N. if she could explain what the commission was looking for or how it made its decisions she told the representative she did not know. 10
Madina M. lived in a dormitory near the Dusti Bazaar in Dushanbe that changed ownership in 2007. In August of that year, she first heard rumors that all residents would be evicted because the new owner wanted to convert the dormitory into an apartment building and sell the flats. Three days later she received a written order to move out from the new owner of the dormitory, despite the fact that she had a valid rental agreement. The same day the police put all her belongings 0n the street without giving her any opportunity to seek legal advice or challenge the eviction order.11
Inadequate compensation
Article 64 of Tajikistan’s Housing Code states: “the demolition of a dwelling to empty land for governmental or public needs can take place only after the evicted persons are provided with an equivalent dwelling.”12 According to article 37 of the Housing Code, the apartments or houses offered to evictees should be in the same residential area and have the same infrastructure and services as the previous tenancies. Relocation sites must comply with basic technical and sanitary standards. Article 36 of the Housing Code provides for a minimum of 12 square meters per person and separate rooms for family members of different sexes above age seven, except for spouses.
But in several cases Human Rights Watch documented, evictees complained about inadequate compensation, in violation of article 64. None of the interviewees understood or knew how the authorities assessed their real estate and other property they own or in which they have proprietary interests. They also did not know how the government calculated the amount of living space (be it in the number of rooms or in square meters) they would be allocated in the relocation site and what would account for any discrepancies between the new allocation and their original dwelling.
For example, Halima Jurakulova’s family of 15 was offered a two-room apartment on either the 11th or the 14th floor of a high-rise apartment building as compensation for their eight-room house. Halima was shocked by this offer; “How can we live with 15 people in two rooms? There are also my parents-in-law. How can we live with them so close? We would need at least 5 rooms.”13
Halima’s neighbor, Nilufar N., told Human Rights Watch that in the relocation apartment nine individuals from her family and a related family must now live in two rooms. Before, they lived in two buildings joined by a common yard.14
Guzel Maitdinova and her two daughters were offered a three-room apartment as compensation for a 97- square meter house although as an academician she has the right to an extra office room according to Tajik law.15
According to article 62 and 64 of Tajikistan’s Housing Code, renters also have rights to compensation and alternative housing.16 Residents of dormitories can be evicted only if they quit their job at the enterprise connected to the dormitory but not in cases where the enterprise that owns the dormitory is dissolved or reduces its staff.17 Sometimes and in violation of these articles residents do not receive any compensation at all but are simply kicked out of their apartments or houses. For example, in August 2007, Madina M. and her family were evicted from their dormitory rooms without any compensation, despite the fact that she had a valid rental agreement for her room. The police simply told her and another 14 families “to go back to where you came from.” After they had been sitting on the street next to the dormitory with their belongings for ten days, the police came again to force the families to leave the area. Some of them went to their parents or relatives’ houses, while Gulnora found shelter in the kitchen of a neighboring dormitory where she is tolerated to this date. Yet this makeshift housing leaves her extremely vulnerable under the law because she has no rental agreement and thus can not get a residence registration(propiska).18
The problem of inadequate compensation is acute in light of the Dushanbe reconstruction plan, but it is not new. This problem was addressed by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) in 2005.19 In its concluding observations the CESCR expressed concern about “reports that evicted persons generally do not obtain adequate compensation for lost housing or alternative accommodation” and expressed its regret over “the lack of information about forced evictions in the State party.”20
The Committee also urged the government of Tajikistan “to take effective measures to provide all evicted persons with adequate compensation for lost housing or with alternative accommodation, in accordance with the guidelines adopted by the Committee and its General Comment No. 7 on forced evictions.”21
The lack of adequate and effective legal remedies
The UN Guidelines state that urban and rural development processes should include “holding of public hearing(s) that provide(s) affected persons and their advocates with opportunities to challenge the eviction decision and/or to present alternative proposals and to articulate their demands and development priorities,” and “the provision of legal, technical and other advice to affected persons about their rights and options.”22
The Guidelines further state that “in the event that agreement cannot be reached on a proposed alternative among concerned parties, an independent body having constitutional authority, such as a court of law, tribunal or ombudsperson should mediate, arbitrate or adjudicate as appropriate.”23
Neither the Housing Code nor the Civil Code contains specific articles to prevent eviction and the demolition of houses. But the Civil Code provides that citizens may “complain about a decision, activity or non-activity of state institutions, local administration, official representatives and government officials. They can file a complaint within three months of learning about the violation of their right or freedom and the court has to schedule a hearing within a month and with the participation of the complainant(s) and the defendant.24
Due to the lack of information and legal advice described above, many residents at risk of eviction do not know where to turn for redress. Therefore, in reality, only a few people file complaints or use the courts to prevent the demolition of their houses and displacement or to enforce their claims for adequate compensation. Instead they commonly write letters to the president or the mayor of the city, hoping these leaders would somehow stop their evictions.
For example, following the oral eviction announcement in December 2007, a group of 42 neighbors from the Palace of the Nation construction site wrote a letter to the president complaining about their planned relocation and asked him to interfere on their behalf. The residents of that neighborhood also sent letters to the city administration and the mayor of Dushanbe. When they did not receive an answer many households voluntarily relocated to the apartment building allotted to them, while others did not.
Several women from that neighborhood also went together to the Ismoil Somoni district court to ask for three-room apartments instead of the two-room apartments they were offered, but they did not have any success; the court simply kicked them out without a hearing. Nilufar N., one of the affected women, remembers that “at the court they kicked us out and told us to get the hell out of the building. We did not have any hope any more.”25
Halima Jurakulova, from the same neighborhood, filed a complaint with the Ismoil Somoni district court for receiving inadequate compensation but never received response. “I sent my documents again and again but never got an answer.” Four days before the police attempted to forcibly evict her from her house in April 2008, two marshals told Halima that a court decided she has to leave her house. They did not show her any written decision confirming their statement. Because she was never notified of the court hearing, she could not participate in it.
In another case that came to the attention of Human Rights Watch, 32 households had been given land plots to build houses across the cement factory in the early 1990s. In 2006, however, the head of the Ismoil Somoni district administration in Dushanbe issued a decision that the houses are illegal because their appearance does not comply with regulations provided in decree No. 269 of the Dushanbe municipal administration from January 25, 1989 on “giving a proper appearance to private houses in Dushanbe city” and because they are located in an industrial zone.26 Four of the houses were destroyed immediately. Many families filed complaints against the decision and finally applied to the Commission of the Ismoil Somoni district on Legalization of Property to legalize their houses under a 2007 presidential amnesty. Yet, on April 11, 2008 the commission decided to uphold the decision of the head of the district administration.27
According to Tajikistan’s Housing Code and due to the fact that the houses were declared illegal, the residents from across the cement factory are not entitled to any compensation.28 The decision of the commission means homelessness for about 300 people, most of them children. Many of the families will lose all their possessions for the second time in their life. In 1992, they fled to Dushanbe from Kulob, a region in the South of Tajikistan where the civil war raged especially violently, abandoning their belongings then as well.
Other interviewees were also unsuccessful in filing complaints to receive adequate compensation. For example, Madina M. and a group of residents evicted from a dormitory hired a lawyer to file a complaint with the district court against the new owner of the dormitory who had kicked them out illegally. “Everybody paid 35 Somoni to hire the lawyer. A week after we hired him he died in a car accident. Then the case was closed [without any hearing].”29
A staff member of the Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law, a Tajik nongovernmental organization that has been researching housing rights, told Human Rights Watch that between February 15 and September 15, 2007 the Bureau monitored nine court hearings regarding evictions in Dushanbe. In none of these hearings was the complainant successful.30
Intimidation and violence
Paragraph 47 of the guidelines developed by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on housing issues’ reads: “Evictions shall not be carried out in a manner that violates the dignity and human rights to life and security of those affected. States must also take steps to ensure that women are not subject to gender-based violence and discrimination in the course of evictions, and that the human rights of children are protected.”
Yet all the cases Human Rights Watch researched in which residents refused to relocate voluntarily, mixed groups of police officers, representatives from the prosecutor’s office and the city administration would use force to remove them from their houses. Nilufar N., the woman from the Palace of the Nation construction site, told Human Rights Watch that when the authorities came to enforce the eviction order in April 2008 “The police came when my husband was not at home. There were about twenty police men. They broke the doors, loaded people and household items on trucks, and drove us away. They threw everything on a truck. Many things broke.”31
Nilufar N.’s neighbor, Halima, was harassed by police and government officials over the course of several months in early 2008 before she was finally evicted. The day before Human Rights Watch spoke with Halima, 20 policemen and officials from the city administration came once more to evict her and her family, but left after she threatened to set herself and the house on fire. Before, the police told her “You can’t do anything. You’re in our hands.” Human Rights Watch learned later that Halima and her family were forcibly evicted from their house a week after the interview. She was taken into custody because she had thrown garbage on the police to avoid the eviction but later was released.
In the case of Guzel Maitdinova, the forced eviction resulted in a criminal proceeding. On October 17, 2007 two police men, a marshal, a representative from the city administration, and several workers came to Guzel’s house and started to demolished the gate and fence and destroy the roof. At one point she opened the door and the marshal tried to enter the house. When she attempted to close the door again they both shoved into each other. This incident led to criminal allegations against Guzel in which she was accused of using violence against a state official (article 328 of the Criminal Code); insulting a state representative (article 330, part 1); and threatening violence in relation to the implementation of a court decision (article 356, part 3). On December 27, 2007 the Ibn-Sino district court of Dushanbe sentenced her to a three year suspended sentence. The municipal court later reduced the sentence to two years on parole.
Guzel explained to the Human Rights Watch representative that her case is used to scare others. “My neighbors [in the relocation apartments] would not even dare complaining about the elevator that does not work or about the heating. They think ‘Look what they have done to the professor’ and are calm.”32
While Human Rights Watch was conducting research in Dushanbe, a group of more than twenty women from households located across the cement factory decided to address the president of Tajikistan with their grievances about a decision evicting them from their houses. On Tuesday April 15, 2008, together with their children, they approached the building of the presidential administration. After some time, a group of policemen came in a bus and took the women to a temporary detention facility. As they were loaded onto the bus, the women were insulted, roughed up and beaten. One woman had to be taken to the hospital. The women were released the same day after lunch.
While they were being held in the detention facility, the women were put on trial. They were not informed about the allegations against them or their rights and were denied access to lawyers. All of them were convicted and ordered either to pay 60 Somoni (ca. 17 USD) - the equivalent of three minimal monthly wages - or to spend 15 days in administrative detention. None of the women received a written court decision after the hearing. Later, the women decided that with the help of a lawyer they should file a complaint with the court regarding the violence the police used against them.
Conclusion and recommendations
We hope that these preliminary observations provide roundtable participants and other key actors with additional information and analysis on the problems related to forced evictions and displacement in Dushanbe.
We hope this paper adds value to the efforts of other organizations and individuals promoting and protecting the rights of all Tajikistan’s citizens, including the right to be free from forced evictions. We also seek to raise awareness among key international actors and to urge the government of Tajikistan to observe its international human rights obligations as well as national laws.
Particular effort should be focused on urging the government of Tajikistan and the municipal government of Dushanbe to
- make the Dushanbe city reconstruction plan “GenPlan” available to the public and discuss it with the residents of affected neighborhoods;
- define the legal meanings of the terms “public need” and “governmental need;
- provide all residents possibly affected by eviction with information on where to find legal advice
- ensure that those affected by evictions have the opportunity to mount a court challenge to their eviction;
- publish state instructions on how real estate assessments are to be conducted and make this instruction available to the public;
- allow independent real estate companies to assess buildings and flats, and
- give individuals and families affected by displacement adequate alternatives for resettlement.
1 In 2007, the United Nation Special Rapporteur on adequate housing presented to the Human Rights Council a set of "Basic principles and guidelines on development-based evictions and displacement" (Guidelines). These guidelines aim to assist states in developing policies and legislations to prevent forced evictions at the domestic level.
2 Miloon Kothari, UN Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context, “Basic principles and guidelines on development-based evictions and displacement,” Report A/HRC/4/18, February 5, 2007, Annex I, http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G07/106/28/PDF/G0710628.pdf?OpenE... (accessed June 13, 2008).
3 The plan was adopted on December 30, 1983 and originally was envisioned to be in effect until the end of 2005. In January 2006 a governmental decree extended the plan until the year 2030.
4 “Ìýðèÿ Äóøàíáå ïðèçûâàåò ãîðîæàí íå áîÿòüñÿ ïðèíóäèòåëüíîãî ïåðåñåëåíèÿ,” Asia Plus, April 13, 2007, http://www.centrasia.ru/newsA.php?st=1176544800 (accessed June 13, 2008).
5 “Basic principles and guidelines on development-based evictions and displacement,” Paragraph 37.
6 “Basic principles and guidelines on development-based evictions and displacement,” Paragraph 40.
7 Human Rights Watch interview with Halima Jurakulova, Dushanbe, Tajikistan, April 11, 2008.
8 Basic principles and guidelines on development-based evictions and displacement, Paragraph 40.
9 Human Rights Watch interview with Guzel Maitdinova, Dushanbe, Tajikistan, April 9, 2008.
10 Human Rights Watch interviews with Halima Jurakulova and Nilufar N. [name changed], Dushanbe, Tajikistan, April 11, 2008.
11 Human Rights Watch interview with Madina M. [name changed], Dushanbe, Tajikistan, April 10, 2008.
12 Housing Code of the Republic of Tajikistan, Article 64, second paragraph.
13 Human Rights Watch interview with Halima Jurakulova, Dushanbe, Tajikistan, April 11, 2008.
14 Human Rights Watch interview with Nilufar N., Dushanbe, Tajikistan, April 11, 2008.
15Human Rights Watch interview with Guzel Maitdinova, Dushanbe, Tajikistan, April 9, 2008.
16Article 62 says that renters can be evicted in case of the termination of the rental contract and under several others circumstances mentioned in the housing code and only based on a court decision. Article 64 says that in these cases they must be provided with an equivalent relocation flat by the owner of the building or the local administration.
17Housing Code of the Republic of Tajikistan, Article 82 and 83.
18Human Rights Watch interview with Madina M., Dushanbe, Tajikistan, April 10, 2008.
19Tajikistan ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1999.
20CESCR concluding observations. In the suggestion and recommendation section of the concluding observation the CESCR requested “the State party to provide, in its next periodic report, detailed information on the number and nature of forced evictions and on the extent of homelessness in the State party.
21CESCR concluding observation. General Comment No. 7 deals with the definition of “forced evictions” and lists a variety of state party obligations. For more details see Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 7, Forced evictions, and the right to adequate housing (Sixteenth session, 1997), U.N. Doc. E/1998/22, annex IV at 113 (1997).
22Basic principles and guidelines on development-based evictions and displacement, Paragraph 37.
23Basic principles and guidelines on development-based evictions and displacement, Paragraph 38.
24Civil Code of the Republic of Tajikistan, Article 254-258.
25Human Rights Watch interview with Nilufar N., Dushanbe, Tajikistan, April 11, 2008.
26Decision No. 246 by the head of the Ismoil Somoni district administration in Dushanbe, September 18, 2006, Dushanbe. A copy of the decision is on file with Human Rights Watch.
27A copy of the decision is on file with Human Rights Watch.
28Housing Code of the Republic of Tajikistan, Article 71, “If the certificate for a dwelling is recognized invalid as a result of illegal activities of the individuals receiving the certificate, they will be resettled without compensation.
29Human Rights Watch interview with Madina M., Dushanbe, Tajikistan, April 10, 2008.
30Human Rights Watch interview with Sergei Romanov, Dushanbe, Tajikistan, April 9, 2008.
31Human Rights Watch interview with Nilufar N., Dushanbe, Tajikistan, April 11, 2008.
32Human Rights Watch interview with Guzel Maitdinova, Dushanbe, Tajikistan, April 8, 2008.
