At the moment, the authorities look for anybody who remained in Andijan or came back from Kyrgyzstan or Kazakhstan. I was always asked [during interrogations] whom do I know related to the events who is still in Andijan … [The refugees] who came back from the US are under strong surveillance, although not directly persecuted. I think this is just for the time being. The government just wants to get everybody back to Uzbekistan to save its secrets. Someone from the security service told me, “One day they [the returnees] will pay for it. One day they will make some mistake and we’ll imprison them—if not officially for Andijan, then for something else. I. SummaryIt has been three years since Uzbek government forces killed hundreds of unarmed protesters in the eastern city of Andijan on May 13, 2005, following an attack by armed men. Yet even today the government continues vigorously to seek out and persecute anyone it deems to have a connection to or information about the Andijan events. This is particularly true for many of the relatives of hundreds of persons who fled to Kyrgyzstan in the immediate aftermath of the massacre and were later resettled in third countries, as well as those who fled but later returned to Andijan. These groups remain under intense government pressure. They have been subjected to interrogations, constant surveillance, ostracism, and in at least one case an overt threat to life. As a result, three years after the massacre, government persecution continues to generate new refugees from Andijan. The Uzbek government has repeatedly stated that Andijan refugees are welcome to return to the country and that they have no reason to fear persecution or other repercussions. However, government surveillance in Andijan and the difficulties for independent monitors to work there without jeopardizing the safety of interviewees have made it difficult to verify returnees’ treatment. In 2007 Human Rights Watch interviews and other research revealed a growing number of Andijan refugees in Kyrgyzstan, including persons who had fled in the aftermath of the massacre, returned, and were fleeing a second time, as well as persons who were only then fleeing in response to growing pressure. Their accounts provide a window into the current level of persecution taking place in Andijan. Well over five hundred people fled Andijan on May 13 and made their way to Kyrgyzstan. The group received refuge in a camp set up along the Uzbek-Kyrgyz border. The danger of forced return from the refugee camp in Kyrgyzstan was so great that in late July 2005 international agencies evacuated the refugees in Kyrgyzstan to Romania, where they could be better protected. From there, they were gradually resettled mainly to Western Europe, the United States, and Australia. In the months after the 2005 massacre, the Uzbek government launched a campaign of harassment and coercion against individuals who had participated in or witnessed the demonstration on May 13 but had remained in Andijan after the massacre. These individuals were subjected to arrest, torture, forced confessions, and intense pressure to provide names of others who participated in the demonstration. Some of these individuals were prosecuted and sentenced to long prison terms. Others were held for interrogation and then released, but after their release they continued to be harassed, threatened with prosecution, and put under constant pressure to become informants for the government. The pressure increased during 2006 to the point that some of these individuals felt forced to flee, two or more years after the events. In the immediate aftermath of the massacre, the government also targeted many of the families of Andijan refugees in an effort to force their relatives to return. A number of refugees did ultimately return from Kyrgyzstan before they could be resettled in a third country. Initially these returnees appear to have been able to resume their lives without significant government harassment. However, beginning in mid-2006, the government launched a new wave of arrests and harassment that targeted returnees in particular. Returnees interviewed by Human Rights Watch report having been subjected to repeated interrogations, and forced to sign false confessions or statements supporting the government’s view of what had transpired on May 13. Some were also forced to confess publicly, “admit” their mistakes, and beg for forgiveness. Some groups returned after having been resettled in the United States. Refugee assistance organizations call the return of several dozen from the US between late 2006 and early 2008 almost unprecedented. It is not completely clear what motivated refugees’ decisions to return. Some may have returned because of the children and parents they had left behind in the haste of fleeing the massacre, or were concerned about their male relatives who were imprisoned after the Andijan events. Some may have found it exceedingly difficult to adapt to life abroad. But the interviews in this report reveal that others went back because they wanted to end the pressure being exerted on their families in Andijan. This was particularly true for those refugees who had relatives in prison; in some cases, the government promised to reduce the prison terms for their relatives. Unfortunately, their return to Andijan did not bring an end to the harassment. The large majority of Andijan refugees have not returned. Their families who stayed in Andijan, many of whom had nothing to do with the events on May 13, 2005, remain a target of intimidation and harassment even after the authorities learned that their relatives had been resettled. The vast majority of Andijan refugees were men—at the time of evacuation from Kyrgyzstan to Romania, there were 342 men out of 439 refugees—who left behind their wives and children. The wives of Andijan refugees Human Rights Watch spoke to reported humiliation and harassment by the authorities, being denied social services that would normally be available for single mothers, and being ostracized by the mahalla (neighborhood) committees. Similarly, interviewees told Human Rights Watch that some children of Andijan refugees have faced humiliation and the threat of disciplinary measures by the school administration, and in some cases have been prevented from continuing their education. Some report that teachers call the students whose fathers fled the country “children of enemies of the state.” Others, especially young men, have faced interrogation, detention, and threats of prosecution for the alleged conduct of their parents. Andijan refugees continue to be personally at great risk even once they have fled Uzbekistan. Most of those who flee Andijan go first to Kyrgyzstan, where they must register with the Kyrgyz Migration Service and seek a refugee status determination by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Most Uzbek refugees must wait six to eight months in Kyrgyzstan before being resettled to a third country. They are particularly vulnerable during this period because the Kyrgyz government has already returned a number of Uzbek asylum seekers to Uzbekistan, in violation of its obligations as a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 protocol. There have also been alleged kidnappings with the involvement of Uzbek security service personnel operating in Kyrgyzstan. However, other governments in the region—including Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Russia—have also forcibly returned dozens of refugees and asylum seekers to Uzbekistan, in violation of international law. As a result, many Uzbek refugees in the region live in fear for their security. * * * The government of Uzbekistan extensively investigated the armed uprising and the organization of the mass protest in Andijan. But in the past three years, it has denied responsibility for any of the deaths that occurred on May 13, 2005, despite the overwhelming evidence that government forces indiscriminately shot and killed hundreds of unarmed civilians, and it has rebuffed all calls for an independent, international inquiry. The government has instead sought to rewrite history and silence all within the country who might question its version of what happened in Andijan. It initiated an intense crackdown in Andijan itself, exerting pressure on all who knew the truth about the events—in particular, the participants in the demonstration and witnesses to the massacre. It imprisoned human rights defenders, independent journalists, and political activists for speaking out about the Andijan events and calling for accountability for the May 13 killings. Hundreds of individuals who were convicted and sentenced in closed trials in 2005 and 2006 continue to serve lengthy prison sentences. Those who attacked government buildings, released prisoners, killed officials, and took hostages committed serious crimes. The Uzbek government has a legitimate interest in investigating and prosecuting such crimes and an obligation to do so while upholding the rule of law. However, the Uzbek government also has an obligation to investigate and hold accountable those who used excessive force; against unarmed protestors. It is within this broader context of government efforts to silence independent voices that the government’s harassment and coercion of returnees and refugees’ families must be understood. Three years after the massacre, it is crucial not to allow Andijan to become a closed chapter in Uzbekistan’s history. Uzbekistan’s international partners, in particular the European Union and the United States government, should reverse the gradual shift of emphasis away from Andijan in their discourse on Uzbekistan. This entails, on the one hand, reminding Tashkent about its failure to ensure accountability for the massacre at Andijan and renewing calls for those responsible to be brought to justice, and on the other, recognizing that many of the ongoing abuses, as this report shows, are intrinsically linked to the legacy of Andijan. Ending the ongoing persecution and other abuses documented in this report should therefore become a core objective of the welcome, ongoing efforts by the EU and the US to advance concrete human rights improvements as part of their engagement with Tashkent. |