The process by which law enforcement agents carry out the arrest, detention, and interrogation of independent Muslims involves a series of violations of due process and other basic rights. Save for exceptional cases, criminal suspects are kept in custody prior to trial. Uzbekistan’s legal system does not allow for habeas corpus, or judicial review of arrest.688 Police and security agents exploit this legal void by carrying out unsanctioned detentions, illegal searches, and planting or fabricating evidence to justify arrests. They also deny detainees the right to legal counsel, fail to notify their families of their detention, and then isolate them from their families.689 In addition, the torture of independent Muslim detainees has become an unmistakable element of the campaign against independent Islam. Police and security agents use torture to coerce confessions and testimony from detainees and witnesses, in violation of Uzbekistan’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.690 This chapter documents these abuses during the preliminary investigation phase, before suspects are formally charged, when the most severe abuse takes place. Due process violations that occur during investigation: unsanctioned arrests and searches, the planting of evidence, incommunicado detentions, and the denial of access to counsel are described in “Unsanctioned Arrests, Searches, and Planting of Evidence.” “Torture and Mistreatment in Pre-trial Detention” presents evidence of torture of independent Muslim detainees in pre-trial custody.
Agents from the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ Department for Combating Corruption, Racketeering, and Terrorism, and the ministry’s special forces (OMON), have taken the lead in searches, detentions, interrogations, and torture of independent Muslims.691 As the testimony of numerous witnesses indicates, the National Security Service is also involved in this campaign and in particular the torture of Muslim detainees.
The right to protection from unlawful and arbitrary interference in one’s privacy, family, and home is set out in international legal instruments. In particular, articles 9 and 16 of the ICCPR. The General Comment to article 16 states that, “Searches of a person's home should be restricted to a search for necessary evidence and should not be allowed to amount to harassment.”692
Domestic law in Uzbekistan similarly sets out guidelines for law enforcement in conducting detentions and searches.693 Uzbekistan’s Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that, except in cases of particular urgency, searches must be sanctioned by a warrant from an interrogator, investigator, or court prior to being carried out. The warrant must be presented to the subject and should declare specifically what is being sought and who is accused of possession of material relevant to a case. Persons presented with such an order are to be given the opportunity to voluntarily hand over the materials being sought. Uzbekistan’s law also provides that subjects of a search have the right to be present during all stages of the police investigation, to have any comments recorded in the search report, and to have witnesses present during the search. It states that law enforcement officials must also have due cause to carry out a detention. Uzbek police must identify themselves upon detaining someone, including by providing identification documents to the detainee upon request.
The reality of the police conduct of searches and detentions or arrests departs radically from the guidelines in the law books. Police have consistently violated due process in conducting arrests and searches of independent Muslims. Officers not only fail or refuse to identify themselves, but often take measures to disguise their identity, such as by wearing black ski masks during raids. Charges brought subsequent to a detention often have only a remote connection to the purpose used initially to justify searching a home or placing someone in custody. The laws on search and seizure are routinely undermined, as when police conduct searches without a warrant, without announcing themselves or giving any declaration regarding the materials being sought. In flagrant violation of due process is the regular police practice of planting evidence on a person or in his or her home in order to justify a detention. Measures meant to protect the subjects of a search, such as recourse to comment in the search report and the right to have witnesses present are often not complied with; and in many cases police simply force the subjects of a search to relinquish these rights.
Contrary to the spirit of Uzbekistan’s domestic law and the stipulations of international law, police and security forces also harass and intimidate the subjects of searches and detentions. The force deployed to conduct arrests and raids merits mention here. Uniformed officers and armed agents in civilian clothes typically work together; soldiers are used to block off entire neighborhoods during raids on private homes. The raids themselves have often been conducted at night. Masked armed officers in dark clothes scale the walls of domestic courtyards and invade family homes, often in the presence of small children. The operations have been conducted as though the suspects were heavily armed and militarily organized. In many cases, however, even after one or more thorough police searches, the suspects are found to “possess” perhaps a few bullets, a lone hand grenade, a religious magazine, or some leaflets.
Security agents carrying out arrests of independent Muslims have often lied about their purpose. They have stated, for instance, that a person was being taken in for “informal questioning” or was needed as a witness in a case. This obviates the need for an arrest warrant, quiets relatives’ protests, and buys time before the family starts making inquiries regarding the detainee’s status, whereabouts, and physical condition.
In some cases the arresting officers show a search or arrest warrant, but in many cases they do not. Identifying documents are sometimes shown, sometimes not. The officers often act with violence toward unarmed relatives of the person they have come to detain. Detainees and family members are forced, through threats, to sign search reports confirming what officers have done and what they have supposedly found. Relatives are seldom given a copy to keep for future reference or use in legal proceedings.
During earlier stages of the campaign against independent Muslims, the courts regularly convicted defendants based on the claims made by police that they had found narcotics, weapons, or ammunition in the defendants’ homes or on their person. In more recent years, such evidence continues to be produced and used to justify arrest, but has sometimes been discarded and excluded from the criminal case once police have secured a confession.702 In order to verify that evidence has been “found” at the suspect’s home, police sometimes bring their own witnesses for use in court.
Human Rights Watch received reports from rights activists in the Fergana Valley and Tashkent that men feared the planting of false evidence by police to such an extent that some resorted to sewing up the pockets of their pants. During its research into arrests of independent Muslims in the Fergana Valley in 1998, Human Rights Watch also found that, “…men in that area tried to wear clothing without pockets to help deter such commonly used set-ups.”709 One young man detained by police in Tashkent in 1998 kept his hands in his pockets during police interrogation to avoid having contraband planted on him.710
In August 1999 the Tashkent Province Court tried Shukhrat Abdurakhimov and two others on charges related to alleged membership in Hizb ut-Tahrir. Among the charges against Abdurakhimov were allegations of possessing marijuana and one bullet. The police held Abdurakhimov incommunicado for five months during which time he was interrogated and eventually signed a statement incriminating himself on the charges of illegal possession of narcotics and ammunition. He is currently serving a seventeen-year term in Jaslyk prison. In the court verdict against Abdurakhimov the judge noted that among other evidence of criminality police had found “eight notebooks with religious notes” in the young man’s home.720
The defendant’s wife described the incident and noted that the planting of evidence on her husband had been denounced by witnesses, in spite of police pressure. During the summer of 1998, she said, police had stopped her husband’s car, badly beaten him and some of his co-workers in the street, and then arrested them.723 Her husband, she said, felt police put something in his pants pocket. At the police station, he reportedly refused to take the planted evidence out of his pocket, stating that it did not belong to him. Eventually he removed the narcotics from his pocket, again insisting that the drugs were not his. Two strangers brought in off the street to serve as witnesses to the body search saw him remove the packet and heard his protests. They refused to sign the police report stating that drugs were found on the man.724 Police found their position unacceptable. The arrest had taken place at about 11:30 a.m. The witnesses were kept at the police station until 2:00 a.m. the next day, at which point they finally agreed to sign the police statement. In court, however, they testified that they had been threatened by police and frightened into signing the statement.725
Particularly after February 1999, police planted banned Islamic literature, often Hizb ut-Tahrir literature and the Al-Vai magazine, to incriminate independent Muslims, including those who were not affiliated with or sympathetic to the Hizb ut-Tahrir organization. This phenomenon seemed especially prevalent in the Namangan province of the Fergana Valley.
According to a rights activist in Fergana city, the majority of independent Muslims arrested in the Fergana province were charged with “Wahhabism” rather than membership in Hizb ut-Tahrir.733 He noted, however, that police officers and investigators often failed to distinguish between so-called Wahhabis and members of Hizb ut-Tahrir. For example, police planted Hizb ut-Tahrir leaflets on suspected “Wahhabis” to justify arrest. “Leaflets are more popular now than bullets or drugs,” the activist said, describing police tactics.734 In court, the accused were referred to as “Wahhabis” and not tried for Hizb ut-Tahrir membership.735
Police have also frequently confiscated sanctioned religious texts—such as the Koran and works of Islamic scholar Al-Bukhari—and called them prohibited or “extremist” literature. Such materials, if used in prosecutions, has not generally been cited as evidence of criminality but rather of a general fanaticism in religious matters. In the cases reviewed by Human Rights Watch, sanctioned literature was usually returned to the family of a detainee after he had signed a self-incriminating statement.
Many of those arrested on religion-related charges have been kept for days and even months in the basements of police stations, where conditions were particularly harsh. They were held incommunicado, isolated from family visitors, legal counsel, fellow detainees, and any possible impartial police authorities. This in turn facilitated torture. The three cases described below illustrate this pattern of detention in basement cells:
Police routinely fail to notify families of religious detainees as to their relatives’ whereabouts. And even when a family is notified of a detainee’s whereabouts in custody or is told the identity of the arresting officers and is therefore able to deduce a detainee’s whereabouts, police and procuracy authorities routinely deny anyone access to the detainee. In addition to being an abuse in itself, preventing relatives from seeing detainees in custody increases the risk of torture. It also impedes a family’s efforts to arrange for legal counsel to protect the detainee’s rights during the initial investigation period. In various cases described above in this report, detainees have endured weeks or months incommunicado: Shukhrat Abdurakhimov, five months; Mirzakarim Avazov, seven months; Imam Abdurakhim Abdurakhmonov, two months; Komoliddin Sattarov, three months; and Gairat Sabirov, five months.
The mother of one of Rasulov’s co-defendants related police obfuscation at the time of her son’s arrest. She said that when officers took him into custody on the night of February 20, 1999, they refused to show identification and said that they were simply taking him in for a few questions and would release him shortly. That night, his relatives went to their local police station and waited until 3:00 a.m., at which time officers said they would receive news at 5:00 a.m. At 5:00 a.m. the family was told that the young man had been taken to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. There, they were told to go to the Tashkent city police station. The officers at the Tashkent city police station told them to go back to Tashkent police headquarters. There, almost twenty-four hours after the young man’s arrest, at 11:00 p.m., the authorities told the family to come back the next day. Finally, on February 23, 1999, police investigator Ilias Umarzakov of Tashkent police headquarters acknowledged that he had the young man in custody, and that he was under arrest and would not be released.746
Sometimes police have refused to let relatives even provide food for the detainees in pre-trial custody, who otherwise are fed so little that their health is compromised.
The relative of another detainee told Human Rights Watch that courthouse guards demanded 5,000 som from family members to pass on food while defendants were on trial.758
Although Uzbek law provides for access to legal counsel from the moment of arrest, throughout investigations police frequently pressure detainees not to seek counsel. When detainees or their families attempt to engage an independent defense lawyer, police and investigators often simply refuse requests from the lawyer for access to his or her client, until the police have secured a confession from the accused. Police frequently pressure detainees or their families to accept the services of state-appointed lawyers who do not defend their client’s interests, and who are unlikely to lodge complaints against ill-treatment. Even when lawyers do gain access to clients, they do not have the right to freely arrange independent, objective forensic medical examinations that could provide evidence of torture.759
Police and procuracy officials are particularly wary of giving detainees time with their attorneys. Even when a detainee is permitted contact with relatives, police often deny access to his legal counsel of choice. In some cases, the investigator in charge denies a lawyer entry, or the family is told that the detainee has rejected legal counsel.760 Most often, access is simply delayed, through false statements about a detainee’s whereabouts in custody, health, or the stage of the investigation, until police have conducted all interrogation sessions and coerced a confession from the detainee. Police thereby prevent the attorney from being involved during the most crucial period in the investigation. These actions deprive the detainee of protection crucial to both his legal defense and his protection from torture. Police have threatened family members and used other methods to coerce detainees to accept state-appointed legal counsel that often amounts only to “shadow counsel,” that is, a signature on documents but no actual participation. Like all detainees in Uzbekistan, religious detainees are routinely denied their right to meet with legal counsel in private.
Kurbanova’s trial began on February 28, 2001, in the absence of any legal counsel. According to Kurbanova, she was questioned in court by the judge, who also failed to provide her with legal representation.768 At the second hearing, attended by Human Rights Watch as well as international media and diplomatic representatives, the judge began the trial again, as if the first hearing had never taken place. The judge read the charges against Kurbanova and repeatedly advised her of her right to an attorney, even announcing the delay of the proceeding until such time as a lawyer could be appointed and familiarized with the case.769 The judge later attended Kurbanova’s meeting with her state-appointed lawyer and instructed her to ask for forgiveness for her membership in Hizb ut-Tahrir.770
The attorney who represented Gafurjon Toirov and one other co-defendant in the same trial added:
The attorney’s words were remarkable given the pattern of intimidation against defense lawyers and general climate of fear generated by Uzbekistan’s criminal justice system.
The attorney for another defendant in that case, Otabek Makhmudbekov, stated in court, “He was detained on January 27, but I was allowed to start the case only on April 24. I wrote a letter to the ministry and got no reply. My complaints against the investigator remain without reply.”774 Meanwhile, the lawyer for yet another defendant, Gairat Sabirov, complained that his client was denied access to legal counsel for two full months during detention.775 According to a person close to Sabirov, “They only let our lawyer in to see him after [he] had signed [the confession].”776 Defendant Khamidullo Rakhmatullaev’s attorney told the judge: “On January 27, I took this case. I went to the pre-trial detention [facility] and couldn’t talk to him. I went there for ten days [in a row]...then I sent a complaint to the senior procurator. The complaint was sent to the procurator’s office. I received an answer that the defendant didn’t want a lawyer, and later I learned that he was forced to reject me.”777 Judge Sharipov did not respond to the attorneys’ complaints.
In some cases, the procuracy did not inform detainees of the charges against them, a crucial element in preparing an adequate defense. That the procuracy sends cases to trial based on a defendant’s self-incriminating statements even when the defendant is not aware of the charges further illustrates that confessions have been fabricated or coerced.
688 The lack of judicial oversight of detention is a glaring violation of the ICCPR’s article 9(3), which states: “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 the ICCPR’s article 9.
689 Denial of access to counsel violates principle 8 of the U.N. Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, which states that, “All arrested, detained or imprisoned persons shall be provided with adequate opportunities, time and facilities to be visited by and to communicate and consult with a lawyer, without delay, interception or censorship and in full confidentiality. Such consultations may be within sight, but not within the hearing, of law enforcement officials.” Abuse of these rights are common in all criminal investigations in Uzbekistan. The Uzbek criminal justice system lacks procedural safeguards for detainees and criminal defendants, which police and security agents exploit in the campaign against independent Islam. It grants the prosecution wide powers concerning pre-trial custody and access to lawyers, and access to forensic evidence. Detainees do not have the right to appeal the lawfulness of their detention or to protest ill-treatment before a judge until their case goes to court, an egregious violation of international law governing detainees’ rights. While the code of criminal procedure provides for release of accused persons on bail during the preliminary investigation phase, custody during investigation and prior to trial is the rule, rather than the exception. The domestic legal framework for due process is detailed in “‘And It Was Hell All Over Again…’: Torture in Uzbekistan,” A Human Rights Watch Report, Vol. 12, No. 12(D), December 2000.
690 The ICCPR’s article 7 states, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Uzbekistan became a party to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on August 31, 1995. Its failure to comply with many of the convention’s articles regarding the prevention of torture and accountability is detailed in Human Rights Watch, “And It Was Hell All Over Again.”
691 OMON is an acronym for Otriady Militsii Osobogo Naznachenia, Russian for Special Task Militia Unit.
692 Paragraph 8, Human Rights Committee, General Comment 16, (Twenty-third session, 1988), Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI\GEN\1\Rev.1 at 21 (1994).
693 Articles 157 to 161, 221 and 224 refer specifically to the rules regulating searches and detentions, Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, 1999.
694 Human Rights Watch interview with Muborak Abdurakhmonova, Tashkent, May 26, 2000; and open letter from Muborak Abdurakhmonova, 1998. This case is described in detail in “Imams, Their Followers, and ‘Wahhabis’” in Chapter III.
695 Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, Andijan, May 19, 2000.
696 Unofficial transcript, Iakasarai District Court, Tashkent, May 11, 1999, written by independent trial monitors, names withheld, June 1999. The Ministry of Internal Affairs building in Tashkent contains an investigative isolator and is the site of interrogations.
697 Human Rights Watch interview with Irina Mikulina, Iuldashev’s attorney, Tashkent, June 10, 1999; and Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, Tashkent, August 1, 2000.
698 Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, February 27, 2001.
700 Human Rights Watch unofficial transcript, Tashkent City Court hearing held in the Akmal Ikramov District Court building, Tashkent, November 3, 2000. The case of the fifteen accused “Wahhabis” is described above, in “Imams, Their Followers, and ‘Wahhabis’” in Chapter III.
701 Human Rights Watch interview with the mother of a man accused of membership in Hizb ut-Tahrir, name withheld at her request, Tashkent, March 1, 2000.
702 See “Threats of Torture” in Chapter IV.
703 Written complaint addressed to the Chairman of the Tashkent City Court, from attorney Hamid Zainutdinov, December 24, 1998; and Human Rights Watch interview with Sharifa Isakhojaeva, Tashkent, June 1, 2000. This case is described above, in “Imams, Their Followers, and ‘Wahhabis’” in Chapter III.
704 Human Rights Watch interview with Sharifa Isakhojaeva, Tashkent, June 1, 2000.
705 Human Rights Watch interview with persons close to Shukhrat Parpiev, names withheld, Andijan, May 18, 2000.
706 Ibid. The name of the officer is on file with Human Rights Watch.
708 Ibid. Parpiev was nonetheless convicted on unrelated charges and sent to Jaslyk prison, where he died from torture. See “Torture and Mistreatment in Pre-trial Detention” in Chapter IV.
709 Human Rights Watch, “Crackdown in The Farghona Valley: Arbitrary Arrests and Religious Discrimination,” A Human Rights Watch Report, Vol. 10, No. 4 (D) May 1998.
710 Human Rights Watch interview with Sharifa Isakhojaeva regarding the detention of her son, Abdurashid Isakhojaev, Tashkent, June 1, 2000.
711 Written statement delivered to Human Rights Watch, signed by a relative of Shukhrat Abdurakhimov, name withheld, October 31, 1999.
712 Tashkent Province Court verdict issued by Judge B.U. Ergashev, August 13, 1999.
713 Human Rights Watch interview with persons close to Shukhrat Abdurakhimov, names withheld, November 4, 1999.
714 Human Rights Watch interview with a person close to Shukhrat Abdurakhimov, name withheld, Tashkent, November 4, 1999; and Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, Tashkent, July 19, 2000.
715 Human Rights Watch interview with persons close to Shukhrat Abdurakhimov, names withheld, Tashkent, November 4, 1999; and Tashkent Province Court verdict, issued by Judge B.U. Ergashev, August 13, 1999. Court documents place the date of arrest as March 12, 1999, not April 12.
716 Human Rights Watch interview with persons close to Shukhrat Abdurakhimov, names withheld, Tashkent, November 4, 1999.
719 Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, Tashkent, July 19, 2000.
720 Tashkent Province Court verdict issued by Judge B. U. Ergashev, August 13, 1999.
721 This case is described in detail in “Hizb ut-Tahrir” in Chapter II.
722 Human Rights Watch interview with the wife of one defendant, interviewee asked not to be named, Tashkent, May 14, 1999.
726 Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, Tashkent, November 3, 1999.
727 Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, Tashkent, November, 3, 1999; and Human Rights Watch interview with rights defender Mahbuba Kosymova, Tashkent, June 22, 1999.
728 Urta-Chirchik District Court verdict, issued by Judge T. Sh. Zainutdinov, August 12, 1999.
729 Ibid. This case is described above, in “Hizb ut-Tahrir” in Chapter II.
730 Chirchik City Court verdict, issued by Judge A. A. Kamilov, August 15, 1999; and Human Rights Watch interview with Iakiaev’s mother, Bakhrid Iakiaeva, Tashkent, April 13, 2000.
732 Chirchik City Court verdict, issued by Judge A. A. Kamilov, August 15, 1999.
733 Human Rights Watch interview with a local rights defender, name withheld, Tashkent, February 27, 2001.
736 The man was also indicted and convicted on charges of crossing the Uzbek border without an exit visa.
737 Human Rights Watch interview with released prisoner, name withheld at his request, Namangan, July 11, 2001.
738 Human Rights Watch interview with a second released prisoner, name withheld at his request, Namangan, July 11, 2001.
739 Human Rights Watch interview with Sharifa Isakhojaeva, Tashkent, June 1, 2000.
740 Human Rights Watch unofficial transcript, Tashkent City Court hearing held in the Akmal Ikramov District Court bulding, Tashkent, February 7, 2001.
741 Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, Tashkent, July 12, 1999.
743 Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, Tashkent, June 21, 1999.
744 Human Rights Watch interview with a relative of Dilmurod Juraev, name withheld, Tashkent, November 18, 1999. Court documents indicate that police arrested Juraev on September 5, 1999. Verdict of the Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan, April 3, 2000.
745 Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, Tashkent, July 12, 1999.
746 Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, Tashkent, July 12, 1999.
747 Human Rights Watch interview with a person close to Hasanov, name withheld, place withheld, June 15, 2000.
748 Human Rights Watch interview with a person close to the case who spoke to neighbors who had seen police take Hasanov into custody on the day in question, name withheld, Tashkent, July 20, 2000. Hasanov’s elderly father, Munavar Hasanov, born 1930, was convicted by a Tashkent court on fabricated charges of possession of Hizb ut-Tahrir leaflets, after being tortured and forced to sign a self-incriminating statement, and was sentenced to three years in prison. In 2000 Hasanov’s younger brother Ismail was sentenced to twenty-four years in prison on terrorism charges. Human Rights Watch monitored his trial; no material evidence incriminating Ismail Hasanov was brought forth at trial or in the indictment. For details regarding the torture of Ismail and Munavar Hasanov, see below, “Torture and Mistreatment in Pre-trial Detention” in Chapter IV. See also, Human Rights Watch press release, “Uzbek Police ‘Disappear' Torture Victim,” July 20, 2000. It is believed Bahodir Hasanov was arrested as retribution for the independent religious activity of his family members.
749 Human Rights Watch interview with “F.F” (not the person’s true initials), Tashkent, July 2000. Human Rights Watch contacted several diplomatic missions to enlist their help in locating Bahodir Hasanov, but these efforts appear to have failed. In a telephone interview with a representative from the Alliance Francaise, a Human Rights Watch researcher was told that Hasanov’s employer could confirm that he was missing in custody, considered that he had been disappeared, that his relatives were unaware of his whereabouts, and that appeals to the government for information had gone unanswered. Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Gerard Barbare, head of the Alliance Francaise, May 21, 2001. Human Rights Watch considers Bahodir Hasanov to be disappeared.
750 Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, Andijan, May 19, 2000.
752 Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, Tashkent, November 3, 1999.
755 Human Rights Watch unofficial transcript, Tashkent City Court, Judge Sharipov presiding, August 4, 2000. This case is described above, in “Imams, Their Followers, and ‘Wahhabis’” in Chapter III.
756 Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, Tashkent, date withheld.
757 Human Rights Watch interview with Juvashev’s wife, Jizzakh, November 1, 2000.
758 Human Rights Watch interview with the wife of an accused “Wahhabi,” name withheld, Tashkent, August 14, 2000. At the time, 5,000 som was about the equivalent of the average monthly salary in Uzbekistan.
759 Uzbekistan law grants the police or procuracy investigator handling a case the authority to approve or reject a detainee’s or lawyer’s request for a forensic medical examination; these requests are often simply denied. Those attorneys who do attempt to request a forensic examination face grave consequences, as do their clients, of retribution by police.
760 See, for example, the case of Abdurashid Isakhojaev as described above, in “Imams, Their Followers, and ‘Wahhabis’” in Chapter III.
761 Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, Tashkent, August 1, 2000.
763 Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Irina Mikulina, August 9, 2000. The police investigator responsible for Iuldashev’s case was Nishan Bekmanov, working under the supervision of investigator Karshiev, head of the criminal investigative group.
764 Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Irina Mikulina, August 9, 2000.
765 Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Irina Mikulina, August 9, 2000; and Human Rights Watch telephone interview, name withheld, August 2000.
766 Human Rights Watch interview with Feruza Kurbanova, Tashkent, March 14, 2001.
769 Human Rights Watch unofficial transcript, Shaikantaur District Court, Tashkent, March 2, 2001.
770 Human Rights Watch interview with Feruza Kurbanova, Tashkent, March 14, 2001.
771 Human Rights Watch unofficial transcript, Tashkent City Court hearing held in the Akmal Ikramov District Court building, Tashkent, November 1, 2000.
772 Human Rights Watch unofficial transcript, Tashkent City Court, Judge Sharipov presiding, August 4, 2000.
776 Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, Tashkent, August 14, 2000.
777 Human Rights Watch unofficial transcript, Tashkent City Court, Judge Sharipov presiding, August 4, 2000.
778 Human Rights Watch interview with the mother of a religious prisoner, name withheld at her request, Tashkent, February 14, 2000.
779 Human Rights Watch interview with trial monitor Vasila Inoiatova, Tashkent, August 1, 2000.
781 Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, Tashkent, July 10, 1999.