COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE CONCLUDES CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF UZBEKISTAN

CAT
28th session
2 May 2002
Afternoon



Government Delegation, Responding to Questions,
Describes Problems Related to Police Abuse,
Judicial Independence



The Committee against Torture concluded this afternoon its review of a second periodic report of Uzbekistan, hearing descriptions by a two-member Government delegation of national efforts to end maltreatment of detainees by law-enforcement officials and of steps to ensure independence of the judiciary.
Akmal Saidov, Director of the Uzbek National Human Rights Centre, said among other things that a study carried out of complaints filed with the country's Ombudsman's office had found that judicial convictions were questionable in a number of cases; that fiscal or law-enforcement agencies had interfered in the judicial process; and that torture or ill-treatment had been committed by law-enforcement officers. The study also remarked that there was no sufficient supervision of law-enforcement agencies and of their application of human rights norms. Responses to the study were being developed, Mr. Saidov said.
Mr. Saidov added, however, that the Uzbek delegation was concerned that the Committee appeared to give higher priority to information received from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) than to that offered by the Government. Committee members had remarked during presentation of the Uzbek report on Wednesday that NGOs had cited numerous cases of maltreatment by law-enforcement officials, including deaths in custody.
Responding to other questions put by Committee members on Wednesday, Mr. Saidov said that while judges were appointed by the President to five-year terms, laws prohibited any outside interference in their work; Constitutional reforms were being considered, he said, and he would inform the Government of the Committee's concern that judicial independence was better ensured by appointing judges to life terms. He also summarized standards for pre-trial detention and described efforts to carry out education on human rights and to improve prison conditions.
Formal conclusions and recommendations on the Uzbek report will be issued at the Committee's afternoon session of Wednesday, 8 May.
Uzbekistan, as one of the 129 States parties to the Convention against Torture, must provide periodic reports on efforts to put the treaty into effect.
The Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Friday, 3 May, to begin its consideration of a second periodic report of Venezuela.

Discussion
AKMAL SAIDOV, Director of the National Human Rights Centre of Uzbekistan, responding to questions put by Committee members on Wednesday, said among other things that two of the "alternative reports" submitted by NGOs on the situation in Uzbekistan had been written by a woman who had participated in Government training workshops on enhancing human rights. Replies to some questions would have to be submitted later in writing, as gathering details on short notice was difficult and Uzbekistan was a long way away.
The President of the country had repeatedly declared that the State was determined to establish an independent judiciary, Mr. Saidov said; the court system was founded on the principle of specialization, with separate systems for civil and criminal proceedings, allowing judges to act more professionally and effectively. The independence of judges was an important Constitutional principle; they were to resolve the cases before them without any pressure exerted upon them from other parties; according to article 12 of the Constitution, any such pressure was prohibited, and it was punishable under article 236 of the Penal Code, which dealt with interference in judicial proceedings. The term of judges' appointments was five years, to be renewed by the President, it was true; but the President made such appointments not as President but as Head of State. As part of Constitutional reforms resulting from a referendum carried out in January of this year, a number of judicial and legislative matters would be reviewed, and the delegation would report to the Government the Committee's urging that judges be appointed for life.
It was true that the current Criminal Code did not contain a precise definition of torture, Mr. Saidov said; but acts of torture, physical or psychological, were covered by various articles of the Code, and in a sense they amounted to a definition of torture as contained in the Convention and they ensured compliance with the Convention.
An appeals system for court sentences had been instituted last year, Mr. Saidov said; sentences could be appealed through an appellate court. Defendants or their lawyers and State prosecutors could use the procedure.
Those sentenced to death were under very strict guard and were isolated from other inmates, Mr. Saidov said, and did not enjoy the same prison conditions as other prisoners; but they could receive legal aid and have unlimited access to their lawyers, could receive and send letters without limit, and were allowed short visits with families members and religious representatives. They could appeal their sentences and seek amnesties. Executions were not public and usually were carried out by firing squads. The body was not released and the place of burial was not disclosed.
Legal aid was a Constitutional responsibility of Government bodies and was provided by consultants or advisors in established offices or through various Governmental or non-governmental bodies operating in the human rights sphere, Mr. Saidov said.
Considerable attempts had been made to reduce the time a person could be held in pre-trial custody, Mr. Saidov said; the maximum had been reduced from two years to one year; prosecutors were no longer allowed to extend detention periods; pre-trial detention now could only be extended to nine months, with 12 months as a maximum in rare cases upon approval of a judge. A register of detainees was kept, but he had not been able to obtain details about the system and would provide them later in writing.
Monitoring and inspections of detention centres were carried out by the Prosecutor's office, a Parliamentary Committee, the country's Ombudsman, and NGOs, Mr. Saidov said. In 2000, the Ombudsman and the Parliamentary Committee had inspected the application of the penal system; under the new Penal Code, there had been some improvements in prison conditions in terms of diet, communication with the outside world, and medical services. But it was also found that there remained considerable room for improvement. There was extensive overcrowding in some prisons; libraries were insufficient; staff qualifications and training needed improvement; and food needed to be further improved.
The Supreme Court had declared the need for alternatives to prison sentences, especially for less-serious offenses, and the cases of persons convicted of such crimes had been reviewed, Mr. Saidov said; in some 7,000 situations sentences had been commuted or suspended, or persons had been released on bail in the form of money, valuables or property.
A study carried out of complaints filed with the Ombudsman's office had found that convictions were questionable in a number of cases; that fiscal or law-enforcement agencies had interfered in the judicial process; that torture or ill-treatment had been committed by law-enforcement officers; and that citizens, especially in rural areas, had been denied their rights and in fact had not been aware of their rights. The study also had remarked that there was no sufficient supervision of law-enforcement agencies and their application of human rights norms. Responses to the study were being developed. In one recent case, three staff members of the Home Ministry had been tried after two brothers held in detention had been tortured, with one dying under torture and the other suffering serious injury. Among the charges were forced illegal detention. Those convicted had been given 20-year prison sentences. It was hoped that the case would help to end inadmissible forms of interrogation and investigation. In another case, six-year prison sentences had been handed out to three persons after a finding that they had carried out an illegal detention. It was agreed that provision of medical staff was needed for prisons, especially where it had been made clear that there had been cases of maltreatment. Uzbekistan was willing to work with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in improving the situation in the country.
The delegation, however, failed to understand why the Committee gave a priority preference to information offered in NGO reports, Mr. Saidov said; it appeared only fair to give equal credence to information provided by the Government. A relocation programme referred to had involved only 1,300 people, yet the NGOs had called the relocation programme "massive" and said it had involved tens of thousands of people. It also had not been made clear why the relocation had occurred, which was that it was for people's safety -- among other things, these residents were in danger from Islamic fundamentalists. Furthermore the area from which they were moved had no services, such as schools or health centres; there was nothing there, really, and military hostilities were under way in the region. It was hoped that the Committee would check its information scrupulously.
SHAVKAT GALIAKBOROV, Deputy Director of the Uzbek National Human Rights Centre, said a series of human rights training seminars had been held for law-enforcement personnel in four regions and the capital of Tashkent; the entire country was covered; the three-day seminars were held over a period of two years and trained about 450 people, including judges and lawyers. More practical training would be provided this year for law-enforcement personnel, and in-house training systems had been put in place in the Internal Affairs Department and other law-enforcement agencies.
Training of medical personnel in recognizing and preventing torture was being considered and such a programme could be in place by the time Uzbekistan submitted its next report to the Committee, Mr. Galiakborov said.



* *** *