publications

<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

Coercive Pressure for Testimony

When a Human Rights Watch researcher was in Andijan in mid-July, two months after the massacre, scores of uniformed and plain clothed security officers and police were patrolling the streets—especially near the sites where heavy shooting took place on May 13— where a few bullet marks were still visible on the buildings. People were cautiously casting glances around for mahalla committee members who, according to Andijan residents, have stepped up their unrelenting surveillance of neighborhoods throughout the city. Mahalla committee members also went house to house, searching for relatives of those who had fled to Kyrgyzstan on May 13, in order to pressure them to convince their relatives to return.24

People in Andijan were explicitly and repeatedly warned by local police and mahalla committee members not to talk to outsiders, and were exposed to an incessant propaganda campaign in the mass media. Andijan residents were less inclined than ever to acknowledge that they had witnessed the May 13 massacre, let alone speak about the ongoing crackdown in the city.25

It was in this atmosphere of fear that the authorities detained hundreds—and perhaps thousands—of people in Andijan, with the purported aim of obtaining testimony about the crimes committed on May 13, as the government has defined them. Referred to by the authorities and detainees alike as “filtration,”26 the process involved detaining people who might have direct or even remote knowledge of the events of May 13, bringing fabricated  misdemeanor charges against them, and using their time in detention to coerce testimony from them. Police and security agents threatened or severely beat many of those detained in order to coerce them to confess to belonging to extremist religious organizations and bearing arms while participating in the May 13 protest; to name others at the protest; or to incriminate others in violence during the protest. Most detainees were released after they served out ten-to-fifteen-day administrative sentences and signed coerced confessions or testimony against third parties.

At the same time, local authorities also threatened and exerted other extraordinary pressure on family members of those who had fled to Kyrgyzstan to convince their relatives to return to Uzbekistan, likely so that they too could be detained and questioned. Some of the confessions and testimonies coerced from the Andijan detainees were apparently used by the Uzbek government to fabricate cases against those who fled. The Uzbek prosecutor general’s office also compiled more than two hundred extradition requests for the refugees. Based on these requests four refugees seeking asylum were forcibly returned to Uzbekistan in early June (see below), and Kyrgyz law enforcement authorities were already interrogating dozens of other refugees before  sustained international pressure allowed the evacuation of all but fifteen of the refugees to a safer third country, Romania, on July 29. Eleven of the fifteen were evacuated on September 15, 2005.

Detention and Abuse in Andijan

As noted above, the Uzbek government has a legitimate interest in prosecuting the crimes committed on May 13 and in securing as much information and testimony about them as is necessary for this purpose. But the torture and ill-treatment in custody documented below, as well as the arbitrary nature of the detentions, are not legitimate methods of law enforcement; they blatantly violate the Uzbek government’s obligations under both customary and conventional international law, including the Convention against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,27 as well as the standards set out by the U.N. Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention and Imprisonment.28

In July 2005, Human Rights Watch interviewed more than a dozen people who were detained in the “filtration” process in June and July. Many other former detainees whom Human Rights Watch tried to meet refused to speak with us, fearing further persecution. For example, one of the witnesses who had been through “filtration” located five of his cell mates and wanted to introduce Human Rights Watch to these people, since they initially agreed to provide testimony. However, when we contacted each one individually, all five said they would not talk about their experience. According to one witness, one of the men told him, “It was a nightmare and I don’t want to go through it again. Please, do not contact me ever again with these questions.”29

According to witnesses, hundreds if not thousands of people have been through the “filtration” process. “Fatima F.” (not her real name), told Human Rights Watch that when she went to the Andijan City Police Department to inquire about her two sons who had been detained, policemen there told her that “over 4,200 people have undergone filtration,” mostly in the city police department but also in detention facilities in other towns, such as Pakhtabad and Balakhchi.30

Targets of filtration include those who were seen or reported to be seen on the square during the protest; their relatives, friends and acquaintances; relatives of those who sought refuge in Kyrgyzstan, as well as of those who were killed or arrested; those who live near the sites where the May 13 killings took place; and those who used to work at the enterprises belonging to the twenty-three businessmen whom the government had charged with religious extremism. In some cases, those detained appeared to have no connection whatsoever to the May 13 events.

Initial Detention

Initial detentions were carried out by local police patrolmen, at times accompanied by police investigators. Some of the witnesses said they were explicitly told that they were being arrested. For example, “Rovshan R.” (not his real name) said that at the time of his arrest two police investigators told him that he was a suspect in a criminal case but did  not produce a warrant or explain the charges or the alleged criminal act.31

Other detainees were initially told they would be questioned for a few hours and then released. For example, Fatima F. said that on June 26, four armed policemen came to her house. They did not identify themselves, but said they were from the Andijan Province Department of Internal Affairs. They wanted to take her son, twenty-year-old “Kabyl K.” (not his real name) away, but Fatima F.resisted. The policemen then ordered her to bring her son to the police station the same night. When she did so, at 7:00 that evening, the authorities took Kabyl K. into custody, telling Fatima F.. they would release him later that day or possibly the next morning and suggesting she should go home and wait. Starting that evening, Fatima F.. regularly inquired about her son’s whereabouts; each time the authorities told her he would be released in a few days, providing the mother with no explanation for his prolonged detention. Kabyl K. was released only on July 6, after being physically abused as part of the filtration process. Meanwhile, Fatima F.’s other son, twenty-eight-year-old “Uktam U.” was detained in early July and at the time of the interview he was still in detention (see below).32 

In other cases, authorities questioned a person and his relatives several times before finally putting them through the filtration procedure. “Rasul R.” (not his real name) believed he and his wife were detained on June 18 because one of his sons had been arrested immediately after the May 13 protest and another one was among the refugees who fled to Kyrgyzstan. He told Human Rights Watch:

Shortly after May 13 a local policeman and two investigators from Tashkent came to my house. They took me and my wife for an interrogation at the [Andijan Province Department of Internal Affairs]. I asked them not to interrogate my wife, because she was very sick. They asked me where my son was and why I was not bringing him up [properly]. It lasted for several hours, and then they let us go. In the following month, they brought me in for questioning twice more, and then detained me on June 18 saying they would “filter” me.33

Interrogations

According to witnesses’ accounts, most detainees were initially brought to the Andijan Province Department of Internal Affairs, where they were subjected to preliminary interrogations, and then transferred to the Andijan City Police Department. “Rovshan R.” (not his real name) believed he was detained because a local mahalla committee reported his participation in the May 13 protest to the authorities. He told Human Rights Watch:

When we arrived at the UVD [Andijan Province Department of Internal Affairs], they brought me into a room with very little air. There were about ten people sitting on the benches in front of me and about five on each side. We were all handcuffed. I sat for a long time, and then they took me up into a room on the second or third floor. A man in civilian clothes who did not identify himself started asking where I was on May 13. I told him I was at the protest, and stayed there till approximately 5:00 p.m. when the shooting started.

He started beating me and yelling, ‘You are lying! You are hiding the truth! We have information that you were on the square with an automatic gun. Confess!’ And [he] punched me in the chest. I was insisting I was innocent and never possessed arms… Then they brought me back to the room where others were sitting and some time later they told me and some others to get into their police car and escorted us to the GUVD [Andijan City Police Department].34

Another witness, “Bakhrom B.” (not his real name), was detained on July 4 because he lived near the prison which had been taken over on the night of May 12, and the investigators believed “he had seen a lot.” He too was questioned and beaten at the Andijan Province Department of Internal Affairs before being transferred to the city police department. He mentioned that some detainees were held overnight and beaten at the province department. He said:

I got lucky—a guy who works in the . . . UVD recognized me and apparently said something to the investigators who then transferred me to the city police department. But some were staying there for several days—they told me it was especially hard at night, when the interrogators were beating them mercilessly. One of the guys sitting next to me had a large bruise on his right cheek-bone.35

While at the Andijan City Police Department the detainees were held in a large auditorium. Those interviewed by Human Rights Watch said that there were about fifty to seventy people in the auditorium, and each day the police took some people away and brought in new people. Each of the witnesses spent two to five days in the auditorium. They said they slept on chairs and on the floor, and were given nothing to eat but bread and water. One by one, the detainees were taken out for questioning.

Interviewees said that the interrogators, judging by their accents, were from Tashkent, Jizzakh, Samarkand and other areas of Uzbekistan. Two witnesses said their interrogators were drunk. All said that during the interrogations they were subjected to prolonged beatings and threats as the interrogators were forcing them to confess or provide incriminating testimony against others. Rovshan R. described one of these interrogations to Human Rights Watch:

The interrogators were drunk and weren’t wearing shirts; they took us into a room one by one and were asking, ‘Where did you hide the weapon that you had? While you were here we inquired with your neighbors and they said you had arms.’ They put me against the wall into a spread-eagle position, and started beating—on the arms, on the legs, and on the genitals.

It did not matter whether you said anything or not—the beatings continued. They did not pay attention to any pleas for mercy, they were just repeating, ‘Find the weapon that you hid.’ Then they forced me onto the floor and told me to do push-ups. When I could not do any more and fell they started beating me in my stomach with their feet… They took me back to the auditorium, but the next day a new group of interrogators called me up and it started all over again.36

Fatima F.., who came to the city police department to look for her detained older son, Uktam U.., said that at one point one of the guards got tired of her screaming and yelling and decided to show her son to her. Fatima F. said:

Uktam ran to the bars [separating us] and started crying, ‘Mama, they are beating me! They handcuff me and beat me!’ and then he showed me bruises on his shoulders. The guard immediately grabbed him on the neck and took him away, and then pushed me hard and told me to get the hell out of there.37

Bakhrom B. said that he was holding out during the beatings, but on the fifth day of the interrogations one of the investigators broke him. He said:

They were questioning me every day—one investigator, then another. They tied my hands behind my back and beat me in the chest and on the back; then with a club on my feet… I knew nothing—on May 13 I went out, saw the broken gates of the prison and some bodies and went back home. But they did not believe me. On the last day another investigator, from Kokand, came. He pretended to be “soft,” started talking to me, and then said, ‘You have a choice. If you don’t talk I can give you a razor to cut your veins; you’ll die and nobody would care. Nobody can help you anyway.’ And then I signed a statement [about my participation in the May 13 events] myself.38

Misdemeanor Hearings and Detention

The interrogations at the Andijan Province Department of Internal Affairs were just the beginning of the detainees’ ordeal. In order to “legalize” the detention, the authorities fabricated administrative charges against the detainees. Several witnesses explained to Human Rights Watch that while they were being held in the auditorium, investigators prepared papers charging them with petty crimes, such as hooliganism, unrelated to the events of May 13. All of them were then brought without counsel before a local court, which sentenced them to ten to fifteen days of detention. Most detainees admitted to the charges, hoping this would get them released quickly.

“Khatanjon Kh.” (not his real name) was first detained and questioned on May 20 together with his nephew and elderly father. In the following month, investigators repeatedly came to his house, asking about his two sons, who had fled to Kyrgyzstan. On June 20, he was detained again and brought to the Andijan City Police Department. He told Human Rights Watch:

After I spent two days in the auditorium, they showed me the papers—that I allegedly got into a fight. They [the investigators] introduced me to another man with whom we were supposed to appear in court. They told us to describe our “fight” in court, and we did. It took no more than five minutes and the judge sentenced us to ten days of detention. They fabricated similar cases against everyone who was in the auditorium.39

Another witness, “Rasul R.” (not his real name), interviewed separately, provided Human Rights Watch with an almost identical account, adding that he had no choice but to admit to the administrative charges and the sentence. He said, “They told us that otherwise they would not let us out; I saw a man in the auditorium who refused to play along with their scenario and he spent fifteen days there, and they weren’t going to release him. I thought I would be better off if I agreed to the charges.”40

Rovshan R. said that the fabricated scenarios were detailed, that every participant was given clear instructions about what to say in court, and that even the judges seemed to be reading from a script:

In the court we entered the hearing [room] and all gave the testimony as the investigators instructed us. The judge was also acting, he was scolding us, ‘Why did you do that?! It’s shameful for grown-ups to behave like that, to get into a scuffle!’ And we had to apologize to each other in front of the judge. The judge . . . was just reading from a statement prepared by the investigators. Of course, there were no lawyers, just the judge and the police.41 

After the hearing, the detainees were brought back to the basement holding cells of the Andijan City Police Department to serve their misdemeanor sentences. Some were later moved to other detention facilities, such as Balakhchi police department, as there was apparently no room left in the Andijan City Police Department. The interrogators used the time during the administrative detention to produce more detailed confessions from the detainees and also to collect additional incriminating information about other participants of the May 13 protest and especially about the refugees who at the time were still in Kyrgyzstan.

Khatanjon Kh. said that while serving his misdemeanor sentence, he was interrogated daily by different investigators, and each time subjected to prolonged beatings and other methods of coercion.

They put me against the wall, and were beating me in the chest with their fists. Then they forced me down to the floor, my legs stretched, and started beating me on the soles of my feet with their clubs. They demanded that I confess I was an ‘Akramist,’ kept asking about my sons and other relatives, about other ‘Akramists’ whom they said I should have seen on the square. It went on and on…

The next day, there was another group of interrogators, from Jizzakh. They said they would bring my wife and daughter-in-law—‘we’ll see how you’ll talk then.’

I am an old man, and for my young cell mates it was even worse—they were crying and could hardly walk when they returned to the cell after the interrogations, they were all badly beaten—on the chest, on the back, in the kidneys.42

Khatanjon Kh. said that the investigators showed him photographs of refugees who were in the camp in Kyrgyzstan and asked for detailed information about them, trying to force him to state that they were members of “Akramia” and that he had seen them on Bobur Square participating in violent acts.43

Rasul R. also said that interrogators showed him photographs of those who participated in the protest—about one hundred photographs of those who were killed and some three or four hundred of those in the camp. He identified one of his sons among the refugees, and the interrogators started beating and questioning him again. He found out that another son, who also participated in the protest, had been arrested, but his interrogators told him not to even attempt to look for him. He said:

Two investigators, both from Tashkent, were beating me and cursing. I am fifty-five years old, and they were yelling and kicking me because I did not want to sign any statements. It was terrible. [While in the cell] I could constantly hear people screaming—it was impossible to sleep.44

Detainees interviewed by Human Rights Watch were released at the end of their administrative terms and forced to sign statements saying that they had no complaints about the police treatment. Each was also required to pay 1,200 som (about U.S. $1.10) for each day of detention. Some said the authorities explicitly warned them not to talk to anybody about their detention.

The Pursuit of Victims and Eyewitnesses Who Fled to Kyrgyzstan

Roughly five hundred people fled Andijan on May 13 and received refuge in tent camps set up along the Uzbek-Kyrgyz border by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and administered by the Kyrgyz Department of Migration Services. Beginning in early June, the Uzbek government organized a campaign of harassment and coercion in order to pressure families of refugees who had fled the Andijan violence and crossed the border into Kyrgyzstan to persuade their relatives to return to Uzbekistan.

In the media the government repeatedly emphasized the poor conditions of the Kyrgyz refugee camp and alleged that those living in the camp were either the willing or coerced perpetrators of the violence in Andijan on May 13, forced to walk to Kyrgyzstan, and held against their will in the camp.45 The government claimed that it simply wanted its citizens to return to their homeland and families who were waiting for them.46 Uzbek authorities set up a tent camp near the border to receive returnees.47 The family of one refugee interviewed by Human Rights Watch told her that the local mahalla committee had posted the names of all of the refugees along with statements saying, “These people are not guilty—let them return to their home!”48 However, other government statements made the contradictory assertion that those who fled were terrorists and criminals.49

However, three accounts by family members and by refugees themselves indicated that the government detained and interrogated refugees upon return, subjected some to ill-treatment, and forced them to make public confessions or false statements about their participation in the Andijan events and their experience in the refugee camp. In one case, a source told Human Rights Watch that two women who returned to Andijan had been imprisoned and then forced to make public statements on national television.50 These women appeared in a May 25 national broadcast stating that gunmen forced people to go to Kyrgyzstan and had tried to prevent the women from returning.51 

For three weeks in June, Human Rights Watch researchers witnessed hundreds of people coming to meet with their relatives in the refugee camp in Kyrgyzstan.52 Andijan government authorities pressured relatives of the refugees into traveling to the camp for family visits in buses and cars organized by the government. 53 

The Uzbek authorities used threats, coercion, and unscrupulous propaganda to pressure families to bring their relatives back to Andijan. Officials often threatened serious repercussions for family members if they failed to convince their relatives in Kyrgyzstan to return. In some cases, Uzbek agents themselves entered the camp and attempted to remove refugees or interfered with the family meetings.

Meanwhile, Uzbek authorities attempted to convince refugees and their relatives that the situation in Kyrgyzstan was dangerous for the refugees, that refugees had been taken to Kyrgyzstan by force, and that “leaders” in the camp were preventing them from going back, while in Andijan the conditions were completely safe for refugees to return.54

Coercive pressure on refugees’ relatives

Uzbek authorities harassed many of the families of refugees who had fled to Kyrgyzstan, subjecting them to arbitrary detention, illegal searches, threats and, in some cases, ill-treatment in detention, in order to pressure them into bringing their relatives back to Andijan.

“Rustam R.” (not his real name), a twenty-four-year-old refugee in the camp in Kyrgyzstan, said that police and security agents threatened to arrest his brother if Rustam did not return:

My father really tried to convince me to go back. At the same time, he told me that the police and SNB come to our house and search it. My twenty-year-old brother and my father are being called into the procuracy [prosecutor’s office] frequently. My father said, “If you don’t come back, they’ll put me or your brother in jail instead.” They had threatened my father saying, “If you don’t get your son, then you will have to walk home to Andjian.” My father was pressured into coming. He said, “I absolutely had to come. They just don’t leave us alone. They come from the hokimiat almost every day and pressure us to get you back.”55

Another refugee, “Marat M.” (not his real name) told Human Rights Watch that his mother had visited him several times and had described the dire situation of their family:

My mother has come two or three times to visit me. She told me that my father is in prison now. He also participated in the [May 13] meeting. …  They detained my brother, questioned him and released him. They told him that they would continue to work that way until I came home. …  My mother said that [members] from the mahalla committee are also asking people to sign documents saying, “My son or daughter was detained by terrorists.”56

During a visit from her mother, “Galima G.” (not her real name) learned about the detentions of her father and father-in-law and the possible risks that she could face should she go back to Uzbekistan:

[During the visit] my mother said to me, “You shouldn’t go back. Your father and father-in-law are in prison. If you come you will be arrested and tortured and made to make statements that the people here are terrorists. But when I leave I will try to pull you out but you must resist. You must stay here.” … My father-in-law was in his old age. He could not walk and thus didn’t go to the square. My father had an accident and was home sick. I don’t know why they were taken.57

According to “Gulnara G.” (not her real name), her mother and stepfather visited on or around June 14, traveling to Kyrgyzstan on a bus full of other relatives with Andijan government and SNB officials accompanying them. Her relatives told her that the situation in Andijan remained dangerous: her brother-in-law had been detained, questioned about Gulanara G., and then beaten. Police had searched their home without a warrant. However, her mother needed to put on a show for the Uzbek authorities observing her. Gulnara G. told Human Rights Watch:

During the visit, the SNB and local government officials were watching, so when my mother was leaving, she felt forced to shout at me and say, “Come! You must come back with us!” One of the local government officials also talked to me. She was crying and saying, “Come back. I’ll protect you. We know that you are a good person.” The Uzbek officials wouldn’t let my mother give me any clothes, only some cucumbers. They told her, “You’re giving her things so that she can stay?” They also said, “If you try to stay in the camp, then you will have even bigger problems than you have now.”58

One young man described to Human Rights Watch how authorities successfully blackmailed his relatives around June 11 by exploiting his mother’s desperate need for an operation:

My father came to visit me and my younger brother . . . One person from the local government participated in the conversation with my father. . . .My father was trying to convince us to come home . . . but we consistently refused. Then he told us that our mother was in desperate need of an emergency operation. She had liver problems … and … after May 13, it got worse . . . My father said that the hokimiat and SNB officials had told him, “If you don’t bring your children, then your wife will not get an operation.” My brother decided to go back, in order to save our mother. I have no news about what’s happened to my brother, to my family since then.59

Human Rights Watch has no information as to whether the man’s mother received the needed operation.

In at least two instances, Uzbek authorities attempted to convince refugees to return to Uzbekistan by encouraging them to admit their “guilt” in exchange for guarantees of safety. “Marat M.” described a conversation with his mother:

My mother came for a family visit. She had with her a document that was already prepared for me to sign. It was a request for amnesty. The text read:  “I indeed participated in the meeting, but I ask for forgiveness. I admit my guilt.” My mother said if I just sign this, then no one will touch me. She really believed this. “Sign it, son, sign it,” she said. I didn’t agree to sign it because I am afraid of what will happen to me when I go back.60

On June 13, an elderly official who was accompanying a group of relatives arriving from Andijan sought a Human Rights Watch researcher’s assistance to help him get into the camp and “release” the refugees. As he was arguing that the refugees have nothing to fear if they return, several women standing behind him—making sure that the man could not see them—started shaking their heads desperately in disagreement. When the official stepped away for several minutes to make a phone call, one of the women started crying and quickly whispered:

Don’t believe him. We don’t want [our relatives] to come back; it is dangerous for them to return—we know they’ll take them to prison… We have no choice, we had to come, otherwise we would be in trouble ourselves and other family members who stayed home as well. But I will tell my husband not to come back—I am so scared for him, but I don’t know what to do… And now you should go—we mustn’t talk to you, we can’t; if they see we’ll all be in trouble.61 

Attempts to Remove Refugees by Force

In at least two instances, undercover Uzbek authorities or family members of refugees attempted to forcibly remove asylum-seekers from the camp.

On the afternoon of June 14, while many people were coming to meet with their relatives, an elderly woman came into the camp saying she wanted to see her son, “Khasan Kh.” (not his real name). The woman appeared to be sick and hardly able to walk. The Kyrgyz authorities guarding the camp allowed her to be accompanied by two robust men who appeared to be helping her to walk to the meeting tent. Minutes later, as witnessed by a Human Rights Watch researcher, the two men dragged Khasan Kh. out of the tent, through the barrier at the camp entrance and towards their car parked near the camp, with his mother running behind. Initially the Kyrgyz migration authorities who witnessed the incident and soldiers guarding the camp did nothing to stop the men. A Human Rights Watch researcher brought the incident to the attention of Kyrgyz guards, who finally fought the two men off the refugee, forcing them to release Khasan Kh. just as they were shoving him into the car.62

Khasan Kh. later said that during the meeting with his mother, after he rejected her attempts to convince him to return with her, “The two men just jumped on me, twisted my arms, and dragged me out.”63  His mother explained to Khasan Kh. that she could no longer stand the pressure from neighborhood officials to bring her son back, and that she had to agree when they suggested bringing him back by force.64

A week later, the sixty-five-year-old mother of one of the twenty-three Andijan businessmen charged with participation in “Akramia” described the visit of her relatives on June 20 and the Uzbek authorities’ attempts to remove her from the camp by force:

My two daughters-in-law came to visit. I left my tent and walked out to [the meeting area]. As soon as I got close to the camp’s perimeter, a woman from the mahalla committee grabbed me and started pulling me out of the camp. She was saying, “Come back, come take care of your children. Everything will be fine with you. We will protect you.” Some UN[HCR] people and another person heard me yelling and pulled me away from the woman and freed me. I was very afraid.65

Consequences of Return

Little is known about people who returned to Andijan after fleeing to Kyrgyzstan. The government has repeatedly claimed they faced neither persecution nor pressure, though   accounts from refugees who heard from visitors about the treatment of those who went back suggest that there is a basis for fearing persecution.

One young man told Human Rights Watch about his mentally ill brother who needed medical treatment that he believed would be unavailable to him in the initial refugee camp and so chose to return to Andijan. He was ill-treated and forced to confess and ask for forgiveness simply for participating in the demonstration on Bobur Square in Andijan. Tolib T. told Human Rights Watch:

My father came on June 10 or 11 and told me that my brother came straight home from the camp. On the next day soldiers with guns came to the house and detained him. He was detained in jail for twenty-one days. He was beaten and not given any food in prison. They released him and he is home now. People from the television station came to our house and forced him to give a statement about his participation in the May 13 meeting and to ask for forgiveness. They then showed that the president forgives him. They also forced my mother to give a presentation on television. She was forced to send a message to me, saying, “Why don’t you think of us, come back. Nothing will happen to you.”66

Various refugees told Human Rights Watch how visiting family members related to them stories about the abuse of returned refugees. Their accounts could not be corroborated by Human Rights Watch or other independent observers. During his relatives’ visit to the camp, “Adham A.” (not his real name) heard of the abuse of a fellow refugee whom he had known in the camp and who had returned to Andijan with his family:

There was a guy [called “B”]. He left with his family when they came to visit. After that we read an article in the newspaper about him saying he had been forgiven and showing him with his family [the paper, dated June 22, 2005, was seen by a Human Rights Watch researcher.] Shortly after that he was taken to prison. Then I learned from my parents who came to visit that he is now in bed and they are waiting for him to die. He was tortured. They want us to believe that we will be forgiven and that we will be safe, but they will arrest us and torture us.67

“Hamdam H.” (not his real name) also recounted to Human Rights Watch the information his relatives had given him about some of the other refugees who had returned to Andjian,

One man’s relatives came and insisted he return—they said that the hokimiat had given them assurances. He was free for ten days. Then he suddenly disappeared for three or four days. Then the soldiers brought him back [home]. I heard that he cannot move and that his condition is very bad.…

Six young men returned voluntarily. One of them was my neighbor’s son. My family was told that all of them disappeared for some time. My neighbor’s son was taken into prison for twenty-one days and tortured. They also showed him on TV and made him say that we were being taken care of like pigs [in the refugee camp].68

The Drive for Extraditions of Refugees and Asylum Seekers

Uzbek authorities sought the extradition from Kyrgyzstan of numerous refugees and asylum seekers on charges of terrorism, attempting to overthrow the government, and organizing mass disturbances. Throughout June and July, the numbers of those sought for extradition steadily rose.69 By July 16, Kyrgyz authorities had detained a total of thirty-three asylum seekers following Uzbek extradition requests.70 Four of the detained asylum seekers were returned involuntarily (see below). On June 20, the Uzbek government stated that 131 people in the refugee camp had been “identified as direct participants in acts of terrorism,” that “charges had been launched against them in absentia,” and that the prosecutor general’s office had requested the extradition of 133 people who at that time were in Kyrgyzstan. 71 Several weeks later, more than two hundred refugees were believed to be on an extradition list.72 On July 19 the Kyrgyz prosecutor’s office, jointly with the Kyrgyz National Security Service, began interrogating refugees in the camp, with a view to their possible extradition.73

Uzbek authorities thus launched criminal charges against roughly half of the Uzbek asylum-seekers in Kyrgyzstan, exposing as hollow the claims by relatives that people who returned of their own accord would be “forgiven” and safe. The Uzbek government also filed requests with Russian and Kazakh authorities for the extradition of others, including refugees, whom the government alleged were involved in the Andijan events.74

On July 27, Kyrgyz authorities released fourteen of the twenty-nine detained refugees and asylum seekers and allowed them to leave by airlift along with the 439 refugees, nearly the entire population of the refugee camp, to Romania. The remaining fifteen in detention included twelve individuals who had escaped from Andijan prison on the night of May 12; five of these twelve are the businessmen who had been on trial in Uzbekistan for alleged membership in the Akramia movement75; six of the twelve men had been in pre-trial detention in Andijan prison on what are believed to be politically-motivated charges.76 On September 15, 2005, as this report went to press, these eleven men were released and airlifted to the United Kingdom. As of this writing, four of the group of fifteen remain in custody in Osh: a man who had been in the Andijan prison serving the remainder of a fourteen-year sentence on drug trafficking charges and three men who were requested for extradition by the Uzbek authorities for their alleged participation in hostage-taking and killings on May 13.

The Uzbek government stated that the guilt of the latter three “had been proven,” and has severely criticized the UNHCR for seeking to prevent their extradition77 and misrepresented international pressure on Kyrgyzstan to abide by its obligations under both customary and conventional international law.78  Among those obligations are the duty of nonrefoulement, or the prohibition on returning people to a place where their life or freedom may be at serious risk, or where they may be at risk of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.79

Deportation and “Disappearance” of Four Asylum Seekers

On June 9, 2005 the government of Kyrgyzstan forcibly returned to Uzbekistan four asylum seekers. The men subsequently disappeared in Uzbek custody. For two months there was no information regarding the men’s whereabouts, until Uzbek authorities in August stated privately that the men were being held incommunicado in Tashkent prison and were facing charges that carried the death penalty. However, no international agency was able to confirm this information and nothing is known about the men’s condition in detention.

The lack of information about these men raised fears that they may have been ill-treated in custody and substantiated fears that other people returned to Uzbekistan through extradition, deportation, or even voluntary return might also “disappear” or face incommunicado detention.

The four men were among sixteen asylum seekers whom Kyrgyz authorities had taken into custody on June 9 from the refugee camp in Sasyk, pursuant to an extradition request issued by the government of Uzbekistan. They are Dilshod Khajiev, Tavakal Khajiev, Hasan Shakirov, and Mukhammad Kadirov.

UNHCR officials were aware of the transfer of the sixteen men to Kyrgyz police custody, accompanied the convoy to the Jalal Abad City Police Department, and remained on site to monitor the treatment of the detainees. However, at one point during the evening of June 9, when all UNHCR staff left the police station, Kyrgyz authorities handed over the above-mentioned four men—to Uzbek SNB officers. Kyrgyz and Uzbek SNB officers signed a document confirming the transfer of the four to Uzbek SNB custody.80 

The action sparked an outcry about the Kyrgyz authorities’ violation of international law. The return of the men, all registered with UNHCR as asylum seekers, was a blatant violation of the prohibition of refoulement. 81The action also contravened the right to seek and enjoy asylum82 and may have violated the right to freedom from torture,83 as well as the rights to life, liberty, and security.84  

To stave off criticism, officials from the Department of Migration Services, which is under the authority of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, produced four identical handwritten documents that they initially claimed had been written and signed by the four asylum seekers free of duress and that expressed the men’s consent to be returned to Uzbekistan.85 No independent evaluation of the documents was permitted and no independent access to the men prior to the handover was allowed, creating significant concern among the international community that the statements had been coerced. UNHCR and OHCHR (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) deemed the returns to have been forcible and a violation of international law.86  The Kyrgyz government announced it would undertake an investigation into the incident and vowed that the officials responsible would be punished.87 However, subsequent to this announcement, Kyrgyz officials made reference to the men’s written statements in an attempt to justify the illegal return of the four men.88

After their transfer to Uzbekistan on June 9, the four men disappeared in Uzbek custody. Kyrgyz officials and international organizations based in Uzbekistan told us they were unable to establish the men’s whereabouts or well-being. As late as July, family members of two of the men had not been informed even that the men had been returned to Uzbekistan; they had no information about the men’s location in custody.89 

Finally in early August, the government of Uzbekistan revealed, though not publicly, that the men were being held in Tashkent prison (UYa 64/IZ-1) and were charged with serious offenses, including terrorism and aggravated premeditated murder (Criminal Code articles 155 and 97, respectively); 90 these charges carry the death penalty, which remains in place in Uzbekistan.91 Three of the men were also accused of spreading misinformation about the Andijan events in the mass media and discrediting the Uzbek government. According to the government of Uzbekistan, once returned to Uzbek detention all four men signed self-incriminating statements confessing to the charges against them.92

In July there were rumors and unconfirmed reports that one of the men, Hasan Shakirov, had died in Uzbek custody due to torture. There were also unconfirmed reports as of late July that Tavakal Khajiev had been hospitalized due to severe injuries inflicted as a result of torture;93 Human Rights Watch was unable to independently confirm these reports. In August, the prosecutor general’s office denied this allegation.94 

There were concerns also that the four men’s relatives living in Uzbekistan were harassed by law enforcement authorities and coerced into giving incriminating testimony. A relative of one of the four men told Human Rights Watch that a person close to that man had been summoned by police in mid-May, detained for two days, and forced to say that the man had “taken up arms.”95 



[24]Human Rights Watch interview, Kyrgyzstan, June 2005.

[25] This atmosphere of fear and the detention and abuse of people in Andijan was described in Anvar Makhkamov, “Uzbekistan: Andijan Residents ‘Tortured,’” Institute for War and Peace Reporting, Reporting Central Asia No. 389, June 21, 2005; and Daniel Kimmage, “Uzbekistan: Climate of Fear Grips Andijan,” RFE/RL features article August 16, 2005, [online] http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/8/29A428FD-F72B-451F-B955-AD2D0D3D7FD7.html (retrieved August 16, 2005).

[26] Some interviewees also called the process "profilaktika" (preventative measures). The term "filtration" was also used in the Chechnya conflicts, to signify the process by which Russian forces weeded out Chechen rebels from civilians and obtained information about Chechen rebel activities.

[27] The right to freedom from torture is a fundamental principle of international law (jus cogens) and as such is binding on all states. It may not be abridged (derogated) under any circumstances whatsoever. The right is also protected in Article 5 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, in the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), to which Uzbekistan acceded in 1995, and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by Uzbekistan in 1996. Article 10 of the latter also states that “[a]ll persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.” The right to liberty, including freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, is also firmly established in international law, including in Article 5 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and Article 9 of the ICCPR, which states that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are established by law.”

[28] U.N. GA Res., 43/173, U.N. Doc. a/43/49 (1988). U.N. Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention and Imprisonment is not a treaty but provides authoritative guidance in interpreting the principles laid out in documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

[29] Human Rights Watch interview with “Rovshan R.” (not his real name), Andijan, July 15, 2005.

[30] Human Rights Watch interview with “Fatima F.” (not her real name), Kyrgyzstan, July 7, 2005. As of this writing Human Rights Watch had not yet received a response to our letter to the government requesting information on the number of people detained in the “filtration” process. Given the relatively short periods of stay in detention, the relatively rapid turnover of detainees, and the fact that the campaign lasted nearly two months, it is reasonable to assume that the total number of detainees may have reached into the thousands.

[31] Human Rights Watch interview with “Rovshan R.” (not his real name), Kyrgyzstan, July 2, 2005.

[32] Human Rights Watch interview with “Fatima F.” (not her real name), Kyrgyzstan July 7, 2005.

[33] Human Rights Watch interview with “Rasul R.” (not his real name), Andijan, July 13, 2005.

[33] Human Rights Watch interview with “Bakhrom B.” (not his real name), Andijan, July 14, 2005.

[34] Human Rights Watch interview with “Rovshan R.” (not his real name), Andijan, July 2, 2005.

[35] Human Rights Watch interview with “Bakhrom B.” (not his real name), Andijan July 14, 2005.

[36] Human Rights Watch interview with “Rovshan R.” (not his real name), Kyrgyzstan, July 2, 2005.

[37] Human Rights Watch interview with “Fatima F..” (not her real name), Kyrgyzstan, July 7, 2005.

[38] Human Rights Watch interview with “Bakhrom B.” (not his real name), Andijan, July 14, 2005.

[39] Human Rights Watch interview with “Khatanjon Kh.” (not his real name), Andijan, July 13, 2005.

[40] Human Rights Watch interview with “Rasul R.” (not his real name), Andijan, July 13, 2005.

[41] Human Rights Watch interview with “Rovshan R.” (not his real name), Kyrgyzstan, July 2, 2005.

[42] Human Rights Watch interview with “Khatanjon Kh.” (not his real name), Andijan, July 13, 2005.

[43] Ibid.

[44] Human Rights Watch interview with “Rasul R.” (not his real name), Andijan, July 13, 2005.

[45] According to a May 28 statement by the press secretary of the Prosecutor General’s office, “Measures [were] being taken to return to their homeland, civilians forcibly taken by terrorists onto the territory of a neighboring state.”  Uzbekistan Television and Radio Company broadcast, “Regarding the Events in Andijan,” May 28, 2005.

[46] Narodnoe Slovo, (People’s Word) July 19, 2005, in Russian, English translation of excerpts reproduced in BBC monitoring July 19, 2005. This article claimed that due to the government efforts, refugees were “voluntarily returning to their families and neighborhoods … [because] their relatives and loved ones are waiting for them. … Punishment for those returning has changed—they are released under the guardianship of local neighborhoods.”

[47] Uzbekistan Television and Radio Company broadcast, “Briefing at the General Procuracy,” May 28, 2005.

[48] Human Rights Watch interview with “Gulnara G.” (not her real name), Sasyk Refugee Camp, June 21, 2005.

[49] The Uzbek authorities continued to characterize the refugees as criminals even after the refugees had been relocated to Romania. The Prosecutor General’s office suggested that the refugees might still possess weapons seized during the Andijan uprising, and there was no guarantee that these ‘civilian refugees’ would not undertake new terrorist acts not only in Central Asia but in other parts of the world. Press Service of the Prosecutor General of Uzbekistan, “What the Armed ‘Civilian Refugees’ Can Undertake,” National Information Agency of Uzbekistan, August 25, 2005 [online] http://www.uza.uz/politics/?id1=4870&print (retrieved August 25, 2005). See also, Uzbekistan Television and Radio Company broadcasts, “Regarding the Events in Andijan,” May 25, 2005, and “Briefing at the General Procuracy,” May 28, 2005; Uzbek Television first channel documentary, “Utter Brutality,” aired on July 27, in Uzbek, English translation of excerpts reproduced in BBC Monitoring, July 28, 2005; and Uzbek Television First Channel broadcast, July 29, 2005 in Russian, English translation of excerpts reproduced in “Uzbek TV Raps Kyrgyz Media for ‘Distorting’ Facts on Refugees,” BBC monitoring, July 29, 2005.

[50] Human Rights Watch interview with individual who asked not to be named, June 8, 2005.

[51] Uzbekistan Television and Radio Company, “Regarding the Events in Andijan,” May 25, 2005.

[52] The refugees were initially held in Barash camp located in Jalal Abad province near Sasyk, at the Uzbek border. On June 4, 2005 they were transferred to a camp in Sasyk, also in Jalal Abad province. Four hundred and thirty-nine refugees were moved to Romania for the final stages of the third-country resettlement procedure on July 29, 2005. As of September 13, 2005, fifteen refugees still remain in detention in Osh, Kyrgyzstan. Estimated hundreds of other Uzbeks who fled into Kyrgyzstan after the May 13 violence but who did not end up in the camp may still be in Kyrgyzstan.

[53] For example, during a single day, on June 8, 2005, Human Rights Watch researchers at the camp saw five buses holding approximately thirty people each as well as several cars, all with Andijan license plates. Andijan government officials and men presented to be members of the Uzbek National Security Service (SNB) accompanied the relatives to the camp.

[54] For example, a Human Rights Watch researcher observed a plain clothes SNB officer telling a group of relatives gathered around him that Kyrgyz authorities and international organizations would “sell the refugees to Afghanistan,” where they would be recruited into extremist organizations. The encounter took place in Sasyk Refugee Camp, Kyrgyzstan, on June 13, 2004.

[55] Human Rights Watch interview with “Rustam R.” (not his real name), Sasyk Refugee Camp, Kyrgyzstan, June 21, 2005.

[56] Human Rights Watch interview with “Murat M.” (not his real name), Sasyk Refugee Camp, Kyrgyzstan, June 21, 2005.

[57] Human Rights Watch interview with “Galima G.,” (not her real name), Sasyk Refugee Camp, Kyrgyzstan, July 10, 2005.

[58] Human Rights Watch interview with “Gulnara G.” (not her real name), Sasyk Refugee Camp, Kyrgyzstan,  June 21, 2005.

[59] Human Rights Watch interview with “Muhamed M.” (not his real name), Sasyk Refugee Camp, Kyrgyzstan, June 24, 2005.

[60] Human Rights Watch interview with “Marat M.” (not his real name), Sasyk Refugee Camp, Kyrgyzstan, June 21, 2005. The other instance documented by Human Rights Watch was the case of “Khalida Kh.,” whom Human Rights Watch interviewed in Sasyk Refugee camp on June 14, 2005.

[61] Human Rights Watch conversation with the wife of one of the refugees, Sasyk Refugee Camp, Kyrgyzstan, June 13, 2005.

[62] The incident was filmed by a Human Rights Watch cameraman, Sasyk Refugee Camp, Kyrgyzstan, June 14, 2005.

[63] Human Rights Watch interview with “Khasan Kh.” (not his real name), Sasyk Refugee Camp, Kyrgyzstan, June 14, 2005.

[64] Ibid.

[65] Human Rights Watch interview with “Dilarom D.” (not her real name), Sasyk Refugee Camp, Kyrgyzstan, June 21, 2005.

[66] Human Rights Watch interview with “Tolib T.” (not his real name), Sasyk Refugee Camp, Kyrgyzstan, June 24, 2005.

[67] Human Rights Watch interview with “Adham A.” (not his real name), Sasyk Refugee Camp, Kyrgyzstan, July 9, 2005.

[68] Human Rights Watch interview with “Hamdam H.” (not his real name), Sasyk Refugee Camp, Kyrgyzstan, July 9, 2005.

[69] For an excellent summary of the trajectory of Uzbek extradition requests, see Amnesty International, “Uzbekistan in Pursuit of Refugees in Kyrgyzstan: A Follow-up Report,” EUR 58/016/2005, September 2, 2005.

[70] Sixteen men were detained on June 9, 2005 and seventeen more were detained on June 16. Twelve of the sixteen men detained on June 9 had escaped on May 13 from Andijan prison, where eleven of them had been held in pre-trial detention awaiting the outcome of trials on politically-motivated charges; one man was serving a fourteen-year sentence on charges of fraud and drug trafficking. Human Rights Watch has few details regarding the basis for the extradition requests issued for the other twenty-one men detained.

[71] Press Release of General Consulate of the Republic of Uzbekistan, “Information about the Andijan Events and the Investigation,” (original in Russian), June 20 2005. According to the press release, one hundred of those facing charges by the Uzbek government were Uzbek citizens and thirty-one were Kyrgyz citizens.

[72] On July 7 the Kyrgyz prosecutor general said that Uzbekistan had requested the extradition of 231 people. Agence France Presse, “Andijan refugees to be deported to Uzbekistan: Kyrgyz official,” July 7, 2005. A Human Rights Watch researcher learned on July 19 from authoritative sources who requested anonymity that the Uzbeks had submitted a list of 217 refugees to be interrogated.

[73] Human Rights Watch witnessed the interrogations. Questions asked of refugees included: 1) Where were you during the May 13 incident? 2) What did you see? 3) How did you happen to get into the refugee group? 4) Did you participate in the demonstration in Andijan? 5) What is your opinion on the goals of the demonstration? 6) What is your education, profession, etc.? 7) Why did you choose to come to Kyrgyzstan?

[74] On July 4, Kazakh authorities detained Lutfullo Shamsuddinov on an Uzbek extradition request; see below, section entitled, “Arrest and detention of human rights defenders and political activists in Andijan.” On June 18, law enforcement agents in the Russian city of Ivanovo detained fourteen men pursuant to an Uzbek extradition request, claiming they were involved in the Andijan events.

[75] These five men are Shamduddin Atamatov, Musajon Mirzaboev, Odil Maskhadaliev, Tursun Nazarov and Oktiboi Akbarov. They were among the group of twenty-three businessmen whose trial in Andijan sparked the protests leading up to May 13.

[76] The charges included infringement of the constitutional order of Uzbekistan; organizing a criminal group; support of, membership in, or leadership of a banned group; and preparation or distribution of materials in support of a threat to public safety and order (Criminal Code articles 159, 242, and 244-1 and 244-2).

[77] Uzbek National News Agency, “Who does the UNHCR protect?” August 23, 2005. www.uza.uz/eng/news/?id1=4827&print. Accessed August 25, 2005.

[78] In a public statement issued on August 1, 2005, the Uzbek Ministry of Affairs said that the evacuation was unjustified because “the number of citizens on the territory of Kyrgyzstan did not present a threat to the safety or of destabilizing the situation in the border regions of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan.” The ministry dismissed concerns about the possible torture or persecution of returnees, saying that that those who had returned to Uzbekistan faced “no persecution or pressure” and cha racterized the evacuation as violative of the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 protocol. Significantly, the statement accused “outside forces” of pressuring the Kyrgyz government on the refugees as part of these forces’ “effort to play the card of the so-called ‘Uzbek refugees’ and prolong the undeclared informational attack, the implementation of which, like that of the ‘Andijan operation,’ was planned even before the tragic events of May 13 took place in Andijan.” See, “Zaiavlenie MID Respubliki Uzbekistana” [Declaration of the Ministry of Forei gn Affairs of Uzbekistan], Uzbek National News Agency, August 1, 2005. [online] http://www.uza.uz/politics/?id1=4524&print. Accessed August 1, 2005.

[79] The prohibition on refoulement is found in customary international law and in international treaty law on human rights and refugees. International refugee law prohibits states from expelling or returning an asylum-seeker or refugee “in any manner whatsoever” to a territory where his life or freedom would be threatened. Article 33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees). International human rights law, most notably Article 3 of the 1984 Convention Against Torture, states that no state “shall expel, return (‘refouler’) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” Kyrgyzstan acceded to the Refugee Convention and its Protocol on October 8, 1996, and to the Convention Against Torture on September 5, 1997. The ban on refoulement is implicit in the prohibition on torture and ill-treatment in Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 5 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The U.N. Human Rights Committee, which oversees implementation by national governments of the ICCPR, has interpreted the Convention’s torture prohibition to include the nonrefoulement obligation: “In the view of the Committee, State parties must not expose individuals to the danger of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return to another country by way of their extradition, expulsion or refoulement. U.N. Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 20 (1992). Finally, but most importantly, the ban on returns to torture enjoys the status of a peremptory norm, from which no derogation is permitted and which is binding on all states. See, Human Rights Watch, “Still at Risk: Diplomatic Assurances No Safeguard Against Torture,” April 2005, Vol. 17, No. 4(D), pp. 7-14. Uzbekistan became a party to the Convention Against Torture on September 28, 1995.

[80]On June 10, 2005 Human Rights Watch researchers viewed the document, which stated clearly that the Kyrgyz SNB was undertaking the transfer of the four men to Uzbek SNB custody; an official from the Kyrgyz Ministry of Internal Affairs in Jalal Abad also signed as a witness to the transfer. A video image of the document is on file with Human Rights Watch. According to the government of Uzbekistan, the Kyrgyz prosecutor’s office approved the transfer of the four men. Confidential source, names withheld, dates withheld. According to the Kyrgyz prosecutor general’s office, “four citizens of Uzbekistan were sent back to their homeland on the decision of staff members of Jalal Abad department of the Interior Ministry. Office of the Prosecutor General is conducting an investigation into the case.” See, http://pr.kg/news2005/050803allinformationfromprkginformationfrompgk.php. See also ITAR-TASS-CIS, August 3, 2005.

[81] See footnote 79 on the ban on refoulement in international law.

[82] The right to seek and enjoy asylum is protected in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as in the U.N. Declaration on Territorial Asylum (UNGA Res. 2312 (XXII) of 14 Dec 1967.

[83] The right to freedom from torture also carries a non-refoulement obligation under international law. See footnote 79.

[84] The right to life forms part of customary international law and together with the right to liberty and security is also protected by Article 3 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and Articles 6, 7 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

[85] Human Rights Watch researchers viewed the four letters on June 10, 2005, but were not permitted to retain copies. A video image of one of the four letters is on file with Human Rights Watch. Each letter stated that the signatory voluntarily elected to return to Uzbekistan. The relevant section of the statement reads, “On 09.06.05 I voluntarily leave the camp to return to Uzbekistan to my residence. I lay claim neither against the camp’s employees nor against the Kyrgyz Republic authorities. This statement was recorded correctly and read to me.”

[86] United Nations Press Release, “U.N. High Commissioners for Refugees and Human Rights Urge Kyrgyzstan not to Forcibly Return More Uzbek Asylum-Seekers,” Geneva, June 22, 2005. This press release states, “The High Commissioners reiterated their concern over the fate of four asylum seekers who were forcibly returned to Uzbekistan on 9 June before their claims had been examined.”

[87] AKIpress, “Acting Kyrgyz FM: Those Who Deported Uzbeks Will be Severely Punished,” June 15, 2005; and Interfax, “Bishkek extradites 4 Uzbek refugees,” June 16, 2005.

[88] As late as August 3, an official from the Kyrgyz prosecutor’s office claimed the men had returned to Uzbekistan “on their own accord.”  AKIpress as carried in BBC Monitoring, August 3, 2005. The statement undermined confidence in that agency’s commitment to hold law enforcement officials accountable for the transfer or to accept responsibility for the procuracy’s own possible role in the return of the men. For its part, the Uzbek prosecutor’s office has said that the handover was not in response to an extradition request by that office. “Uzbek Prosecutor: Suspect Did Not Die under Torture, Return of Four was Voluntary,” Interfax, August 20, 2005.

[89] Human Rights Watch interview with a relative of two of the men, names withheld, Andijan, July 13, 2005.

[90] On August 20, the spokeswoman for the prosecutor general’s office said that the four were accused of “direct participation in the attacks on the buildings of the regional administration and law and order [agencies] and on a military base, with killing hostages and civilians, and with hijacking cars.” “Uzbek Prosecutor: Suspect Did Not Die under Torture, Return of Four was Voluntary,” Interfax, August 20, 2005.

[91] The death penalty is carried out by firing squad in Uzbekistan. On August 1, 2005, President Karimov announced that the death penalty would be abolished in 2008, however, his government did not institute a moratorium on the death penalty in the years leading up to its abolition. Executions were expected to continue. Aggravated charges under Criminal Code articles 97 and 155 carry the death penalty as the maximum punishment. Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan.

[92] Confidential source, names withheld, dates withheld.

[93] Amnesty International, urgent action, “KYRGYZSTAN:  541 refugees from Andijan, Uzbekistan (men, women and children),” AI Index: EUR 58/011/2005, 27 July 2005; and Letter to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan from thirty-four asylum seekers from Uzbekistan (names withheld), undated, copy on file with Human Rights Watch. This letter stated, “One person out of the four handed over to the Uzbek authorities is in dire situation;” and June 28 interview with Kabul Parpiev in which he states that Tavakal Khajiev had been hospitalized and was in critical condition following torture in Uzbek detention, Fergana.ru, June 28, 2005 [online] http://news.ferghana.ru/detail.php?id=3841&mode=none.

[94] “Uzbek Prosecutor: Suspect Did Not Die under Torture, Return of Four was Voluntary,” Interfax, August 20, 2005.

[95] Human Rights Watch interview with a relative of one of the four men, all names withheld, place withheld, June 2005.


<<previous  |  index  |  next>>September 2005