<<previous  | index  |  next>>

Forced Resettlement

Another example of the close cooperation between law enforcement agencies and mahalla committees leading to human rights abuse arose in the forced displacement from their homes of the nearly 4,000 people in Surkhandaria province, near the Tajik border, and their forced resettlement to an open desert area some 250 kilometers away in 2000 and 2001.¹⁶⁶ This report does not address the validity of the government’s justification for the forced displacement. Rather, it documents the manner in which these resettlements occurred and in which the arrests of numerous villagers were conducted breached international human rights standards. This treatment shows again how the Uzbek authorities use mahalla committees to play a role in the implementation of a range of abusive policies at the local level. Although the information about the exact role played by the mahalla committees in the following cases of forced resettlement is limited, the descriptions below show another aspect to the cooperation between abusive authorities and mahalla committees.

Background

In August 2000, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) militants launched armed incursions into the mountainous regions of Uzbekistan’s southern Surkhandaria and northeastern Bostanlyk regions, and into Kyrgyzstan’s southern Batken region. The incursions followed those initially conducted by the IMU into Kyrgyzstan in August 1999, and constituted a second bid to oust the Karimov government and establish Islamic rule in Uzbekistan.

The Uzbek government responded with an operation to remove alleged civilian support and potential support for the insurgents and exercise closer political control over suspected collaborators. The forced displacement of just over 4,000¹⁶⁷ villagers from the mountainous regions of Surkhandaria region, located on the Tajik-Uzbek border, took place in three phases. The first was in August 2000, when the military activities erupted, the second, in February 2001, and the third, a full year after the official end of military activities, in late September 2001. Official reasons for the displacement were the security threat posed by IMU insurgents and the risk of natural disaster including landslides and floods. The villagers were taken to resettlement villages in open desert up to 250 kilometers away from their homes, effectively evacuating a significant part of the Uzbek-Tajik border region. At first the authorities promised that the villagers would be able to return home, however, they later told the villagers that the move was permanent. The forced displacement facilitated the arrest of close to 120 villagers between September 2000 and April 2001; seventy-three of them were brought to trial on charges of aiding and abetting the IMU fighters.¹⁶⁸ In line with the government’s ongoing campaign against independent Muslims and alleged terrorists, the villagers were arrested for what appeared to be politically motivated reasons—to eradicate support for the IMU and lessen resistance to the forced resettlement program. After torture, ill-treatment, and grossly unfair trials, they were convicted and sentenced to three to eighteen-year prison terms in June 2001.¹⁶⁹

During the forced displacement, villagers were ordered at gunpoint by army representatives, accompanied by local authorities and mahalla representatives, to leave their homes in great haste, obliging many to leave the majority of their personal possessions, food supplies, and livestock behind. The authorities threatened and beat the villagers when they voiced opposition to the move, and soldiers fired into the air, and pillaged and torched houses. Most of the displaced were told at the time of the move that it was to be temporary, although all have since been told that it is permanent, and have been uniformly denied permission even to visit their homes.

Carrying out forced displacement in this manner, including the use of physical force, looting and burning of villagers’ houses by Uzbek authorities breaches internationally accepted human rights standards and international humanitarian law.¹⁷⁰ The arrests of the seventy-three villagers breached internationally accepted due process human rights standards.

Involvement of the Mahalla Committees

In August 2000, the villages of Angorikozi, Kishtut, Sarinovo, Hamidarcha, Tamarkhut, Registon, Khovat, Zambek, Kunkurmas, and Tamshush were evacuated immediately after the clashes between insurgents and the Uzbek armed forces near Kishtut. Residents of all these villages recounted that local officials, including representatives of mahalla committees, police, and heavily armed soldiers arrived en masse to inform villagers that they must be moved due to the threat posed by the presence of the insurgents in the area.¹⁷¹ They were told that the move was to be a temporary one, ranging from three days to a month, and they would be able to return once the security situation returned to normal. Many villagers stated that when they protested, they were threatened and beaten by authorities, including mahalla committee representatives.¹⁷²

Zumrat Otomurodova of Khovat related:

Local officials including . . [the] chairman of the mahalla, informed us early in the morning of August 25 that we were to be moved because the rebels might come to our village. They told us that we would be able to return in about a month. But when people protested, we got beaten. [Name omitted] beat several women, for example, my sister, on her arm, and my neighbor on the legs.”¹⁷³

Ruziguli Alieva, also of Khovat, corroborated the involvement of the mahalla committee chairman:

On the morning of August 25, soldiers and the chairman of the mahalla arrived, there were helicopters too. They told us that there was going to be war, and that we must be protected. Nobody wanted to leave, but we were beaten by the officials and forced to go, everybody was crying. The chairman of the mahalla women’s committee, Bahrinnova, cried “All the men will go to prison, you’ll be without husbands, if you don’t leave!” We weren’t given time to gather our things, and we had to leave behind anything we couldn’t gather by hand. We were told that we would be able to return when the situation calmed down.¹⁷⁴

In an effort to control access to information, residents who were moved to resettlement villages were warned by police and local authorities not to talk to visitors or only to make positive statements about their conditions. While gathering information in June 2001 and June 2002, mahalla committee officials prevented Human Rights Watch from freely accessing information in the resettlement villages. In Bandikhan resettlement village, for example, mahalla committee secretary Ishmurzo Rezev, and Bobokul Misorov, chairman of the district mahalla committee, insisted on accompanying Human Rights Watch at all times. The chairman of the Shurchi resettlement village mahalla committee likewise insisted on accompanying Human Rights Watch, thus preventing private interviews from taking place. In Kizirik in June 2002, male members of the village forbade female residents to speak with a Human Rights Watch representative, stating that there were no complaints to be made, and a mahalla representative insisted on attending all interviews; as a result, residents delivered only positive reviews of current conditions.¹⁷⁵

The arrests of the Surkhandaria villagers—seventy-three people accused of aiding and abetting the IMU—were conducted between September 2000 and April 2001, with a large proportion of the arrests taking place in December 2000 in Istiklol village in Sherobod district.¹⁷⁶ Mahalla committee members also participated in the arrests and the due process violations that occurred at the time of arrest. In many of these cases, police— with the aid of mahalla committee members—led the individual to think they were needed for informal questioning, and promised concerned relatives that he would return the same day. In others, the authorities lured suspects into coming for questioning by claiming they were needed for compensation review. In no case documented by Human Rights Watch did police produce an arrest warrant. Given the close cooperation between mahalla and law enforcement agencies, it is unlikely that the mahalla representatives accompanying the police were unaware of the intent to arrest.

Khudoinazar Alimakhmadov was arrested from the Istiklol resettlement village in December 2000. According to his father, Mingbobo Alimakhmadov:

…three policemen in uniform arrived at our house from Sherobod, together with the chairman of the Sherobod mahalla, Kh. Roziev. I was at home with Khudoinazar, his wife, and his children. The police didn’t ask for any documents, but said, “we have to talk, then you’ll be released.” He left his passport and money with his wife.¹⁷⁷

Alimakhmadov was unable to locate his son in custody until February 2001, when he learned that Khudoinazar was held in pretrial detention in Tashkent prison.

Three days after the arrest of Khudoinazar, another of Alimakhmadov’s sons, Sultonazar, was also arrested. Alimakhmadov gave the following account:

…the chairman of the mahalla and some policemen came to our house, and once again they said, “we need to talk, you’ll be back home this evening.” They didn’t explain where they were taking him. For five days or so I visited the police, and eventually, I found him in [the Tashkent prison].¹⁷⁸

Khudoinazar and Sultonazar Alimakhmadov were sentenced in June 2001 to thirteen and seven years, respectively, in a strict regime prison.¹⁷⁹

In another incident, Arbob Sherkholov and Shakhizinda Rajabov, from Uzun district, were arrested from the Istiklol resettlement village. Oista Sherkholova, Sherkholov’s wife and Rajabov’s sister, told Human Rights Watch:

On December 13, 2000, at 4:00 p.m., a policeman named Kamiljob and the chairman of the Sherobod mahalla, Khudoirod Ruziev, arrived at our house in a police car. They said to Arbob and Shakhizinda, “we would like to give you land and compensation money, come to Sherobod for discussions now, then you can come home in three days.” …. I waited for fifteen days, then I went with twelve other women to Termez, and along with the other women I found my husband’s name on the list of prisoners in Termez prison.¹⁸⁰

In the round-up of others also later tried in Tashkent, the authorities with the aid of mahalla officials used the tactic of promising compensation to secure the cooperation of those arrested more than once. Such tactics breach the right to be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for arrest and also interfere in the right to communicate with counsel of his own choosing, since in practice it is relatives who will usually organize such counsel.¹⁸¹