Committee against Torture begins review of report of Uzbekistan

CAT
28th session
1 May 2002
Morning





Government Delegation Questioned on Independence of Judges,
Rights of Detainees, Numerous Complaints of Maltreatment


The Committee against Torture began its consideration this morning of a second periodic report of Uzbekistan, querying a two-member delegation from the country's National Human Rights Centre on what had been done to ensure the independence of the judiciary and what safeguards were available to detainees -- if they had access to medical assistance, to communication with their families, to lawyers, and to effective redress in case of ill-treatment. Committee members said they asked these questions because non-governmental organizations (NGOs) reported numerous cases of maltreatment of detainees by law-enforcement officials, including deaths in custody.

Committee members also sought information on how extensive legal reforms in the country to enhance protection of human rights and prevent maltreatment were applied practically, as NGOs reported that detainees filing complaints had suffered reprisals and Muslim detainees attempting to pray had been beaten.

Introducing the report was Akmal Saidov, Director of the Uzbek National Human Rights Centre, who said among other things that torture was now a specific crime under Uzbek law, to be punished severely; that a draft law had been tabled to allow citizens' complaints against Government bodies in matters of torture, so as to reduce impunity; and that a draft definition of torture had been drawn up consistent with the definition in the Convention against Torture, and would soon be considered by Parliament.

Also in the Uzbek delegation was Shavkat Galiakbarov, Deputy Director of the Centre.

The delegation will respond to the Committee's questions at 3 p.m. on Thursday, 2 May.

Uzbekistan, as one of the 129 States parties to the Convention against Torture, is obligated to submit periodic reports to the Committee summarizing efforts to put the Convention's terms into effect.

The Committee will reconvene at 3 p.m. to hear responses from a Swedish delegation to questions put by Committee members on Tuesday. Sweden's fourth periodic report was presented to the Committee Tuesday morning.


Report of Uzbekistan

The second periodic report (CAT/C/53/Add.1) reviews efforts to implement the Convention on an article-by-article basis. It notes among other things that the Uzbek Constitution provides everyone with "the right to freedom and personal inviolability" and states that "no one may be subjected to torture, violence or other cruel or degrading treatment". Special rules prohibit unlawful methods of conducting an investigation and the use of violence; and judicial bodies, the Procurator's Office, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the National Security Services make up the system of State bodies ensuring protection of human rights, including protection against torture.

The National Centre for Human Rights, established in 1996, operates two centres to receive citizens, monitor the effectiveness of national legislation relating to human rights, and explain citizen rights and obligations, according to the report. In 1999 the Ministry of Justice had been ordered to provide judicial bodies with practical documentation on bringing national legislation into line with international legal instruments, the report states; law-enforcement agencies were coordinating their work to ensure compliance with the country's international human rights obligations; and work sessions had been held to train social and political staff to bring them up to date on relevant international law.


Presentation of Report

AKMAL SAIDOV, Director of the National Human Rights Centre of Uzbekistan, said there had been many institutional changes in Uzbekistan since consideration by the Committee of the country's first report in November 1999. It was a difficult task he faced; the State was young and was in the course of establishing a genuinely democratic regime. A massive media campaign had been carried out to educate the public on the Committee, the Convention, and the Committee's consideration of Uzbekistan's first periodic report, and all the recommendations of the Committee in response to the first report were implemented through new legislation. There also had been considerable public education work to familiarize citizens and officials such as the police, judges , prosecutors and lawyers with international human rights standards in general. Many seminars had been held based on the practices of leading democratic States, and a decision had recently been made to extend the seminars to teachers.

Reform had been concentrated especially on establishing the legal basis for implementing the Convention, Mr. Saidov said. Torture was now a specific crime under Uzbek law, to be punished severely. A draft law had been tabled to allow citizens' complaints against Government bodies in matters of torture, so as to reduce to a minimum any possibility of impunity. A definition of torture had been drawn up that was consistent with the definition of the Convention, and the definition would soon be considered by Parliament. Steps had been taken to strengthen independence of the judiciary. A system had been set up to monitor compliance with national legislation on human rights and with international human rights commitments undertaken by Uzbekistan. Among other things, the monitoring system was intended to identify shortcomings in the human rights protection regime so that they could be corrected.

Amendments had been introduced into the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, Mr. Saidov said; among other things crimes had been categorized according to their seriousness so that lesser punishments were established for less-severe offenses; among some 80 crimes, roughly 60 had been categorized so that arrest or detention were not permitted. Alternative sentencing had been introduced to give judges flexibility in determining appropriate forms of punishment aside from incarceration; these changes reduced the possibility for occurrence of torture by reducing the occasions when persons were held in custody. Updating of legislation also had followed an Uzbek tradition of humane treatment of women, children and the elderly, and a law had reduced the number of offenses that could be subject to the death penalty to four: aggression, genocide, terrorism, and premeditated murder without any mitigating circumstances.


Discussion

Serving as rapporteur on the report of Uzbekistan was Committee Expert ALEXANDER YAKOVLEV, who said it was clear that Uzbekistan had made serious legal reforms, which was a good beginning; but what happened next would not be easy -- translating those laws into reality.

Mr. Yakovlev asked, among other things, what was being done, in specific terms, to reduce problems in the justice system; if judges now had a more independent status and could not be removed from office; if judges had life terms; if independent judges decided who could be detained under Uzbek law, and for how long; who received and investigated complaints of torture and ill-treatment; if detention times had been reduced; if medical assistance was available to those put in detention; if detainees had access to family members, or if controls were exercised on contacts with the outside world, as had been reported; if detainees were advised of their legal rights and of how to proceed if they wished to file complaints; if the specifics of the monitoring system could be described, including a description of how monitoring was carried out in places of detention; and if there was a specific ban on extradition of persons who were at risk of suffering torture if returned to their home countries.

Mr. Yakovlev also asked about the extent of the jurisdiction of military courts -- if there were situations where military justice applied to persons who were not in the military; and if the Supreme Court could examine cases where evidence allegedly had been obtained through torture or ill-treatment.

Serving as co-rapporteur on the report was Committee Expert FELICE GAER, who asked among other things what was done in practical terms to train law-enforcement personnel -- if they were taught things beyond theory, such as how to treat detainees and how to recognize signs of ill-treatment; if judges were trained to detect physical signs of torture and were free to report suspicions of torture; that if, as reported, most infringements of anti-torture standards were by internal affairs personnel, what was being done to prevent such offenses, as it had been reported by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that prevention measures were being applied only to judicial machinery; if complaints about detention conditions led to reprisals, as had been reported by NGOs; if Muslim detainees attempting to pray had been beaten, as NGOs reported; to what extent preventive measures applied to pre-trial detention; if such detainees had immediate access to lawyers; and if a register of detainees was kept noting their health and condition at the time they were detained and granting them, in practice, the opportunity to contact their families.

Ms. Gaer also asked if preventive detention was limited to 72 hours, as stated, and if, as indicated, it was a procurator and not a judge who decided on pre-trial detention; if habeas corpus applied; if, as reported, access of pre-trial detainees to lawyers often was denied or impeded in practice; how often prisons and detention centres were inspected, and who carried out the inspections; if, as reported, suspects were often beaten, even on court premises, and yet judges did not bring complaints; how many cases of coerced confessions had been detected and evidence excluded from court; and if defendants, as reported, were sometimes forced to write that they had voluntarily given up their right to a lawyer.

Ms. Gaer additionally asked how many law-enforcement officers had been punished for acts of torture or ill-treatment, as literally thousands of cases of torture of detainees and intimidation of family members had been reported by NGOs through the end of last year; how many investigations had resulted from these complaints; what was being done to end deaths in custody, as complaints had been received of many deaths in custody; and if human rights defenders had been harassed, as reported by NGOs, including women demonstrators protesting treatment of detained or imprisoned family members.

Other Committee members also put questions. They asked, among other things, if persons were routinely medically examined upon arrival at police holding centres to determine if maltreatment might have occurred, and what happened if lesions were discovered; if such examinations also were carried out at pre-trial detention centres; what was being done to reduce overcrowding in pre-trial detention centres and prisons; and if, as reported, judges were still appointed and dismissed by the President, in contravention of the principle of the independence of the judiciary.




* *** *