Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
Default title
17 November 1999
Share
MORNING
HR/CAT/99/39
17 November 1999
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE RECEIVES INITIAL REPORT
FROM UZBEKISTAN
Government Admits Mistreatment by Ministry of Internal Affairs Staff
The Committee against Torture this morning took up the first initial report of the Government of Uzbekistan as it considered how that country implemented the provisions of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Alisher Vahidov, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Uzbekistan to the United Nations, said the Republic faced entirely news tasks. In spite of a number of legal measures, the instances of torture continued. There were also a number of cases of other violations, including those concerning inadequate prison conditions. He said most offenses were observed within the Ministry of Internal Affairs, where there was gross mistreatment of citizens. Staff members were under-qualified and insufficiently trained; old values and prejudices persisted. As a result, there had been dismissals, stepped-up criteria for hiring, and performance appraisals for those already on the job. The input of a number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other agencies was called upon. One of the most difficult tasks of the new republic was lining up legislation and international human rights standards, he said.
Members of the Committee praised the delegation for its frank, open-minded and sincere report. The Committee also recognized the very difficult hurdles the Government had to overcome as it went through an economic and institutional transition to a democratic society. However, one expert noted, in the transformation of a system, it was ultimately human beings - their values and attitudes about human rights - that count.
Guibril Camara, the Committee’s rapporteur for the report, posed a hypothetical example of an individual who had committed torture at the instigation of a government official. How would the individual be punished, he asked, and would the official also be punished? Mr. Camara spoke about reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and said that, after reading them, he had the impression that the legal system seemed to be making an effort to be in line with international standards, but there still appeared to be impunity for torturers. He said this called into question the real worth of the legal efforts. Was this an accurate representation? If so, what was being done to rectify the situation?
Antonio Silva Henriques Gaspar, co-rapporteur for the report, asked about the charge that half the persons currently detained in Uzbekistan were being held for religious reasons. He also asked for additional information about staff training and about the treatment of prisoners. Mr. Gaspar then spoke of examples where testimony obtained under conditions of coercion were admissible in an Uzbek court of law and asked what measures were being taken to change that. He also asked if persons deprived of their freedom were aware of their right to complain.
The Committee will reconvene this afternoon at 3 p.m. to present its recommendations and conclusions to Azerbaijan.
Report of Uzbekistan
The initial report of Uzbekistan (CAT/C/32/Add.3) reviewed the promotion and protection of human rights in Uzbekistan, particularly as they applied to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Uzbekistan acceded to the Convention in August 1995.
The initial report states that torture was expressly prohibited by a number of Uzbek legislative instruments and a system of institutions had been created to protect rights during criminal proceedings. In spite of this, violations still occurred, the report states, and then takes note of the number of offenses committed, as well as the number of written complaints. Punishment under the law is specified in the report, as are legal safeguards to prevent torture and civil rights violations in the justice system. Other items discussed in the report include: administrative measures to suppress torture; rules governing expulsion and extradition; the characterization of torture as an offense under the law; jurisdiction of the state over torture; preventive measures against persons suspected of having committed torture and other unlawful acts; human rights training and education; and the right to file a complaint and have it examined.
Introduction to the report
ALISHER VAHIDOV, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Uzbekistan to the United Nations, said the Republic faced entirely news tasks. In terms of assuring human rights, Uzbekistan had ratified over 40 international instruments regarding human rights. However, in spite of a number of legal measures, torture continued. There were also other violations, including inadequate prison conditions.
Torture was specifically prohibited under the law, he said, and there was criminal punishment for such an offense. Most offenses were observed within the Ministry of Internal Affairs, where there was gross mistreatment of citizens. Staff were under-qualified and insufficiently trained. As a result, staff had been dismissed, the criteria for hiring had been stepped-up, and performance appraisals for those already on the job had been conducted. The input of a number of NGOs and other agencies was called upon to help make these improvements.
Ambassador Vahidov concluded his remarks by saying one of the Government's most difficult tasks was lining up its legislation with human rights standards.
Other members of the delegation of Uzbekistan were: Mr. A. Pulatov, Deputy Director of the National Centre of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Human Rights; Mr. M. Usmanov, Head of the Secretariat of the Commissioner of the Oily Majils (Parliament) of the Republic of Uzbekistan for Human Rights (Ombudsman) and Mr. A. Karimov, Senior Consultant of the International Legal Department of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
Discussion
GUIBRIL CAMARA, rapporteur for the report, said he was impressed by the report, which was thorough and frank. Asking about the role of international conventions in the legal system, he wondered if the ratified conventions had the same weight as other laws. He then pointed to the hypothetical example of an individual who had committed torture at the instigation of a government official. He asked how would the individual be punished, and would the official be also be subject to punishment?
Mr. Camara also asked if a person kept in custody could be assisted by legal counsel and, if so, at what point in his detention? Were there provisions for medical assistance? What were the provisions and consequences under a state of emergency, and would there be an exception for acts of torture? What were the terms of extradition for a citizen if he or she were going to be persecuted? Was Uzbek law in compliance with the Convention in this respect?
He then spoke to reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, stating that he had the impression the legal system seemed to be making an effort to be in line with international standards, but there still seemed to be impunity for torturers. This called into question the real worth of the legal efforts, he said. Was this an accurate representation? If so, what was being done to rectify the situation?
ANTONIO SILVA HENRIQUES GASPAR, co-rapporteur for the report, said he was impressed by the open-mindedness and sincerity of the delegation's introduction. The report stated staff did not know the law and their attitudes needed changing, and it was necessary to do much training and education -- even at the mid- and upper-levels. Mr. Gaspar then asked for additional information about staff training, including: what was the training curriculum for police, in particular practical training about the rights of detainees? What continuous training was there, and what opportunities were there for refresher courses to overcome the stereotypes of staff? For doctors, particularly forensic doctors and those working with prisoners, what training requirements were there? Was there continuous training and refresher courses for members of the judiciary?
Regarding the treatment of prisoners, he continued, credible information was received that stated suspects were not allowed to consult with a lawyer. He also cited specific examples of maltreatment. What efforts were there to narrow the gap between Supreme Court guidelines concerning treatment of prisoners and the actual actions of those dealing with prisoners?
Mr. Gaspar then spoke of allegations in which testimony obtained under conditions of coercion was admissible in a court of law. He asked what measures were being taken to correct this. He asked if persons deprived of their freedom were aware of their right to complain. And he asked about the number of detainees in the country -- one report said that half had been sentenced for religious reasons. Another NGO report spoke about conditions in certain prisons where there were reported deaths, forced labour and lack of drinking water. What was the cause of deaths for these prisoners, and was there cause for further investigation?
Finally he asked, did the death penalty still apply? If so, what was the method used and how many people were put to death?
Other experts asked questions regarding tenure in the judiciary, the rate of maltreatment among female detainees, and charges about cruel and degrading confinement.
HR/CAT/99/39
17 November 1999
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE RECEIVES INITIAL REPORT
FROM UZBEKISTAN
Government Admits Mistreatment by Ministry of Internal Affairs Staff
The Committee against Torture this morning took up the first initial report of the Government of Uzbekistan as it considered how that country implemented the provisions of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Alisher Vahidov, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Uzbekistan to the United Nations, said the Republic faced entirely news tasks. In spite of a number of legal measures, the instances of torture continued. There were also a number of cases of other violations, including those concerning inadequate prison conditions. He said most offenses were observed within the Ministry of Internal Affairs, where there was gross mistreatment of citizens. Staff members were under-qualified and insufficiently trained; old values and prejudices persisted. As a result, there had been dismissals, stepped-up criteria for hiring, and performance appraisals for those already on the job. The input of a number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other agencies was called upon. One of the most difficult tasks of the new republic was lining up legislation and international human rights standards, he said.
Members of the Committee praised the delegation for its frank, open-minded and sincere report. The Committee also recognized the very difficult hurdles the Government had to overcome as it went through an economic and institutional transition to a democratic society. However, one expert noted, in the transformation of a system, it was ultimately human beings - their values and attitudes about human rights - that count.
Guibril Camara, the Committee’s rapporteur for the report, posed a hypothetical example of an individual who had committed torture at the instigation of a government official. How would the individual be punished, he asked, and would the official also be punished? Mr. Camara spoke about reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and said that, after reading them, he had the impression that the legal system seemed to be making an effort to be in line with international standards, but there still appeared to be impunity for torturers. He said this called into question the real worth of the legal efforts. Was this an accurate representation? If so, what was being done to rectify the situation?
Antonio Silva Henriques Gaspar, co-rapporteur for the report, asked about the charge that half the persons currently detained in Uzbekistan were being held for religious reasons. He also asked for additional information about staff training and about the treatment of prisoners. Mr. Gaspar then spoke of examples where testimony obtained under conditions of coercion were admissible in an Uzbek court of law and asked what measures were being taken to change that. He also asked if persons deprived of their freedom were aware of their right to complain.
The Committee will reconvene this afternoon at 3 p.m. to present its recommendations and conclusions to Azerbaijan.
Report of Uzbekistan
The initial report of Uzbekistan (CAT/C/32/Add.3) reviewed the promotion and protection of human rights in Uzbekistan, particularly as they applied to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Uzbekistan acceded to the Convention in August 1995.
The initial report states that torture was expressly prohibited by a number of Uzbek legislative instruments and a system of institutions had been created to protect rights during criminal proceedings. In spite of this, violations still occurred, the report states, and then takes note of the number of offenses committed, as well as the number of written complaints. Punishment under the law is specified in the report, as are legal safeguards to prevent torture and civil rights violations in the justice system. Other items discussed in the report include: administrative measures to suppress torture; rules governing expulsion and extradition; the characterization of torture as an offense under the law; jurisdiction of the state over torture; preventive measures against persons suspected of having committed torture and other unlawful acts; human rights training and education; and the right to file a complaint and have it examined.
Introduction to the report
ALISHER VAHIDOV, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Uzbekistan to the United Nations, said the Republic faced entirely news tasks. In terms of assuring human rights, Uzbekistan had ratified over 40 international instruments regarding human rights. However, in spite of a number of legal measures, torture continued. There were also other violations, including inadequate prison conditions.
Torture was specifically prohibited under the law, he said, and there was criminal punishment for such an offense. Most offenses were observed within the Ministry of Internal Affairs, where there was gross mistreatment of citizens. Staff were under-qualified and insufficiently trained. As a result, staff had been dismissed, the criteria for hiring had been stepped-up, and performance appraisals for those already on the job had been conducted. The input of a number of NGOs and other agencies was called upon to help make these improvements.
Ambassador Vahidov concluded his remarks by saying one of the Government's most difficult tasks was lining up its legislation with human rights standards.
Other members of the delegation of Uzbekistan were: Mr. A. Pulatov, Deputy Director of the National Centre of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Human Rights; Mr. M. Usmanov, Head of the Secretariat of the Commissioner of the Oily Majils (Parliament) of the Republic of Uzbekistan for Human Rights (Ombudsman) and Mr. A. Karimov, Senior Consultant of the International Legal Department of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
Discussion
GUIBRIL CAMARA, rapporteur for the report, said he was impressed by the report, which was thorough and frank. Asking about the role of international conventions in the legal system, he wondered if the ratified conventions had the same weight as other laws. He then pointed to the hypothetical example of an individual who had committed torture at the instigation of a government official. He asked how would the individual be punished, and would the official be also be subject to punishment?
Mr. Camara also asked if a person kept in custody could be assisted by legal counsel and, if so, at what point in his detention? Were there provisions for medical assistance? What were the provisions and consequences under a state of emergency, and would there be an exception for acts of torture? What were the terms of extradition for a citizen if he or she were going to be persecuted? Was Uzbek law in compliance with the Convention in this respect?
He then spoke to reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, stating that he had the impression the legal system seemed to be making an effort to be in line with international standards, but there still seemed to be impunity for torturers. This called into question the real worth of the legal efforts, he said. Was this an accurate representation? If so, what was being done to rectify the situation?
ANTONIO SILVA HENRIQUES GASPAR, co-rapporteur for the report, said he was impressed by the open-mindedness and sincerity of the delegation's introduction. The report stated staff did not know the law and their attitudes needed changing, and it was necessary to do much training and education -- even at the mid- and upper-levels. Mr. Gaspar then asked for additional information about staff training, including: what was the training curriculum for police, in particular practical training about the rights of detainees? What continuous training was there, and what opportunities were there for refresher courses to overcome the stereotypes of staff? For doctors, particularly forensic doctors and those working with prisoners, what training requirements were there? Was there continuous training and refresher courses for members of the judiciary?
Regarding the treatment of prisoners, he continued, credible information was received that stated suspects were not allowed to consult with a lawyer. He also cited specific examples of maltreatment. What efforts were there to narrow the gap between Supreme Court guidelines concerning treatment of prisoners and the actual actions of those dealing with prisoners?
Mr. Gaspar then spoke of allegations in which testimony obtained under conditions of coercion was admissible in a court of law. He asked what measures were being taken to correct this. He asked if persons deprived of their freedom were aware of their right to complain. And he asked about the number of detainees in the country -- one report said that half had been sentenced for religious reasons. Another NGO report spoke about conditions in certain prisons where there were reported deaths, forced labour and lack of drinking water. What was the cause of deaths for these prisoners, and was there cause for further investigation?
Finally he asked, did the death penalty still apply? If so, what was the method used and how many people were put to death?
Other experts asked questions regarding tenure in the judiciary, the rate of maltreatment among female detainees, and charges about cruel and degrading confinement.