Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
Default title
26 March 2001
Share
Human Rights Committee
Seventy-first Session
26 March 2001
1908th Meeting (AM)
The Human Rights Committee this morning began its consideration of the initial report of Uzbekistan on its compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Presenting the report and responding to questions posed in writing by the Committee, Akmal Saidov (Uzbekistan), Chief of the National Centre on Human Rights and Chairman of the Committee for Democratic Institutions, Non-Governmental Organizations and Citizen Self-Governance Bodies of the Parliament of Uzbekistan, said that since its independence, Uzbekistan had set about elaborating a democratic State based on the rule of law.
The Republic had ratified the Covenant in 1995, he said. Great importance had been placed by the Government on bringing the norms of constitutional and national legislation into line with the Covenant. All Uzbekistan’s national laws were in keeping with the Covenant’s basic provisions. Since acceding to the Covenant, Uzbekistan had created national machinery for the protection and encouragement of human rights. A constitutional court and a parliamentary institution for monitoring, as well as an Ombudsman’s office, had been set up.
He said that there were still problems in the area of human rights in Uzbekistan. The transition from totalitarianism to democracy had been difficult and painful. Catastrophic environmental conditions had also been an obstacle to implementation of human rights principles. He asked the Committee for understanding of the situation.
Following Mr. Saidov’s presentation, Committee members made comments and posed questions to the delegation. Further clarification was sought with regard to the death penalty, the definition of religious extremism, prison conditions, the composition and procedures of the country’s economic courts, freedom of expression and environmental issues, among other things.
The Committee will meet again this afternoon at 3 p.m. to commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the entry into force of the Covenant.
Background
The Human Rights Committee met this morning to begin its consideration of the initial report of Uzbekistan on its compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Under article 40 of the Covenant, all States parties agree to submit periodic reports on the implementation of the agreement.
According to the report, Uzbekistan, which became independent in 1991, is a sovereign democratic State which has proclaimed its commitment to human rights and the principles of State sovereignty. Legislative power is exercised by the popularly elected Oliy Majlis (Parliament). The popularly elected President is the head of State and chief executive of the Republic. Uzbekistan’s judiciary is independent of the legislature and the executive. Judicial authority is exercised by the courts. Local authorities, such as the councils of people’s deputies and regional chief administrators (khokims), address social problems at the regional, district and city levels.
The Constitution provides the general legal foundation for the protection of civil and political rights. It guarantees and enshrines the equality of citizens before the law and their equal rights and freedoms and recognizes the priority of generally accepted standards of international law over national legislation. The judiciary performs a fundamental role in the protection of human rights and freedoms. The court may make use of legal and legislative analogy and take decisions on the basis not only of the letter of the law, but also of its spirit and of legal axioms and principles.
The Constitutional Court is the key specialized institution concerned with issues relating to the protection of human rights. Others are the Commission for the Observance of Citizens’ Constitutional Rights and Freedoms, reporting to the Human Rights Commissioner (Ombudsman) of the Oliy Majlis, the Institute for Monitoring Current Legislation, the Ministry of Justice and the National Centre for Human Rights.
The Ombudsman’s competence encompasses parliamentary monitoring of the implementation of human rights laws, both on his own initiative and on the basis of complaints. The 1997 Ombudsman Act was drafted with the assistance of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The National Centre for Human Rights coordinates activities of all governmental and non-governmental organizations working for the protection of human rights. It also carries out research and disseminates information.
The report states that the fundamental directions of Uzbekistan’s development are the transition from a command system of administration and government to free market conditions, the construction of a democratic State and a just society, integration into the world community and entry to the international market. The sovereign Republic of Karakalpakstan forms part of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
According to the report, Uzbekistan has adhered to a number of international instruments governing issues of the individual’s citizenship, welfare and political rights, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Convention on Women’s Political Rights and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.
Regarding article 3 of the Covenant (equality of the civil and political rights of men and women), the report states that under the country's Constitution, discrimination on grounds of sex, as on any other grounds, is prohibited. Women account for 4.6 per cent of those elected to Parliament and 44 per cent of those employed in the national economy. Unfortunately, women are still discriminated against in employment in leading positions and highly paid work. A number of laws and presidential decrees have been adopted to promote greater activity among women in Uzbekistan’s political, economic and social life.
Individual cases of religious extremism violating freedom of conscience and leading to discrimination against women in the family have occurred in Uzbekistan, according to the report. A Committee for Religious Affairs has been established within the Cabinet of Ministers which publicizes the importance of respect for women and the proper organization of the family. The year 1999 was designated as the Year of the Woman. The Cabinet has adopted a resolution aiming at, among other things, enhancing the status and role of women in the family and creating a favourable spiritual and moral atmosphere in the family.
Addressing the right to life (article 6 of the Covenant), the report states that the right to life is the inalienable human right of every citizen. For particularly heinous premeditated crimes such as premeditated murder, rape and terrorism, and unlawful sale of narcotics, the Penal Code prescribes the death penalty. The 1998 Amendments and Addenda to Selected Statutes Act removed gratification of unnatural sexual desires by force, breach of the laws and customs of war, attempts on the life of the President, organization of a criminal association and smuggling from the list of crimes punishable by death.
Regarding article 7 of the Covenant on torture, the report notes that any act related to the use of torture, violence or other cruel or degrading treatment is regarded as a heinous crime in the criminal legislation. Law-enforcement officers shall be liable for committing those acts. It is also a criminal offence to prosecute a person known to be innocent, to bring in an unjust verdict, to fail to enforce a judicial decision and to unlawfully detain a person. Procuratorial checks have revealed breaches of the law with regard to the custody of convicted persons.
Since the greatest number of infringements are to be observed in the activities of the internal affairs authorities, often because of the low standard of legal and general knowledge, the country’s leadership is working to make sure that unqualified staff committing unlawful acts against people are removed. Notwithstanding progress achieved, the report continues, some shortcomings remain. A system for vocational retraining of staff in penitentiary institutions, devoting special attention to ensuring human rights, is being established to overcome existing problems.
Article 9 of the Covenant covers the right to freedom and inviolability of the person. In that regard, the report states that the Penal Enforcement Code provides legal regulation of detention procedures and other restrictions of liberty. Detention means short-term deprivation of the liberty of a person suspected of having committed a crime. A member of the militia or other investigative authority, and any competent person, may detain and hand over to the nearest militia institution or other law-enforcement authority a person whom he suspects of having committed a crime. Detention may not last longer than 72 hours. In exceptional cases, if authorized by the procurator, the detainee may be remanded in custody as a preventive measure. The Code also addresses treatment of detainees.
Generally speaking, questions of extradition, expulsion or return of persons for whom there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to torture are regulated by bilateral agreements, the report states regarding article 13 (grounds for expelling aliens) of the Covenant.
As far as article 14 of the Covenant (equality of citizens before the law) is concerned, justice, according to the report, is administered solely by the court. Judges are independent and subordinate only to the law. Any interference in the work performed by judges to administer the law is prohibited and carries legal liability. Citizens have the right to make a complaint against a judge’s verdict through either appeal or supervision.
Articles 18 and 19 of the Covenant cover freedom of conscience and freedom of thought and opinion. Freedom of conscience is guaranteed to all under the Constitution and the compulsory imposition of religion is not permitted. Religious organizations and associations must be separate from the State and equal before the law, and the State shall not interfere in the activities of religious associations.
Because of the complexity of the social and political situation in the region, the law prohibits any activity by religion-based political parties or by branches and units of religious parties created outside Uzbekistan. The activities of religious organizations, sects and other groups promoting terrorism, drug dealing and organized crime, or pursuing other fundamentalist aims, are prohibited by law.
The Constitution guarantees the mass media free activity without censorship. The country has 451 newspapers. Of those, 348 are published by the State, 62 are public and 41 are religious or commercial. The freedom of speech for every citizen is also enshrined in the Constitution.
As far as freedom of association is concerned (covered under article 22 of the Covenant), the report states that the Constitution proclaims the right to form trade unions, political parties and other public associations, and to take part in authorized mass movement. Those rights are given specific form in the Public Associations Act of 1991 and the Trade Unions, Their Rights and Guarantees of the Activities Act of 1992.
According to the report, the Justice Ministry has registered 210 national and international public associations. About 1,500 local public associations and departments of national public associations have been registered by regional judicial authorities. The membership of trade unions currently stands at 7.3 million. There are 66,000 primary union organizations. Special attention is being devoted to enhancing the role of women in trade unions, and a great number of women occupy leading positions in those organizations.
The Government helps in the establishment of the national offices of international non-governmental organizations. Lack of awareness among the people of their rights remains a major problem in human rights in the country. The non-governmental organization movement is assuming some of the functions of educating and consulting the people in human rights matters. A draft act on non-governmental non-commercial organizations is in preparation. Most public and non-governmental organizations in Uzbekistan are set up by women.
Prohibition of discrimination in the exercise of civil and political rights (article 25 of the Covenant) is also addressed by the report, which states that the Political Parties Act of 1996 secures the right of citizens to exercise their political rights. Uzbekistan has five major political parties. The law prohibits the establishment and activities of political parties that seek a violent change in the constitutional order; that oppose the sovereignty, integrity and security of Uzbekistan or citizens' constitutional rights and freedoms; that advocate war or social, national, racial or religious hatred; that infringe on the people's health and morality; and on national or religious grounds. The minimum age to acquire the active and passive right to vote is 18, the legal age of majority.
Presentation of Report by Delegation
AKMAL SAIDOV (Uzbekistan), Chief of the National Centre on Human Rights, Chairman of the Committee for Democratic Institutions, Non-Governmental Organizations and Citizen Self-Governance Bodies of the Parliament of Uzbekistan, said non-governmental organizations had played an active role in the report’s preparation. The Government would continue to maintain an open dialogue with such organizations in monitoring human rights in his country.
Today’s Uzbekistan, with its almost 25 million inhabitants, constituted the basis of central Asia, he said. The country’s roots went back almost 3 millenniums and had contributed to the development of world civilization. Since its independence, Uzbekistan had set about elaborating a democratic State based on the rule of law. There was a great diversity of cultures and religions in the country. Since independence, there had not been a single instance of ethnic or religious conflict, he noted. Racism and genocide were absolutely rejected.
He then noted five basic principles for carrying out reforms in the country: economics over politics; the key role of the State in carrying out reform; the primacy of the law; the establishment of a strong social policy; and a gradual approach to the transition. He stressed the importance, in the context of reform, of State stability and security. Uzbekistan was seriously concerned about religious extremism and international terrorism, which went hand in hand, and had taken measures to address the issue.
The Republic had ratified the Covenant and first Optional Protocol in 1995, he said. All six basic United Nations treaties on human rights had been ratified and reports on their implementation had been filed. In all, Uzbekistan had ratified 57 international human rights instruments.
Importance had been placed by the Government on bringing the norms of constitutional and national legislation into line with the Covenant. All Uzbekistan’s national laws were in keeping with the Covenant’s basic provisions. The national legal system gave an important place to the international treaties on human rights. In the event of a conflict between the Covenant and national legislation, he noted, the Covenant prevailed.
Since acceding to the Covenant, Uzbekistan had created national machinery for the protection and encouragement of human rights, he said. A constitutional court and a parliamentary institution for monitoring, as well as an Ombudsman’s office, had been set up.
In implementing the United Nations resolutions on education on human rights, he said measures had been taken in the field of education and culture. A special course on human rights had been introduced in schools and universities. There was also a coordinated council on matters of education on human rights.
Regarding the monitoring of human rights, he said adoption of laws was only half the story. The next step was creating conditions for the protection of human rights. There was a national programme of action for implementing the Covenant, as well as parliamentary monitoring and training courses for non-governmental organizations. There had been a rapid development of the non-governmental movement in Uzbekistan, as there were now more than 2,500 non-governmental organizations playing an active role in the human rights area. Non-governmental organizations had also helped to prepare the current report.
Principal partners helping Uzbekistan in the area of human rights included the United Nations, the European Union and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), as well as other organizations. Uzbekistan worked with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) under a joint programme, he added. The reform of the judiciary and law-enforcement system had been an important area of international cooperation. There was now an agreement with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) regarding penitential institutions, including visits of that organization to those institutions.
However, there were problems, he said. The transition from totalitarianism to democracy was difficult and painful. The catastrophic environmental conditions were also an obstacle to implementation of human rights. He asked for understanding of the situation.
Answers to Written Questions from Committee
Mr. SAIDOV (Uzbekistan) said a detailed written reply had been prepared in answer to questions put by the Committee.
Experts noted that the written response in question was not before the Committee and stressed the oral nature of the current exercise.
Mr. SAIDOV (Uzbekistan) said that written replies had been prepared in one of the official working languages of the United Nations, and his delegation had not thought it necessary to present it in English. Additional material had been handed to the Chairman in English. He would make relatively brief oral replies to the questions, as a detailed written response had been made available.
An expert thanked the delegation for its efforts but reminded the ambassador that today’s exercise was an oral one.
The CHAIRMAN asked that full and detailed answers to the questions be given.
Mr. SAIDOV (Uzbekistan) said that under the Constitution the status of the Covenant, as an international treaty, took priority over national legislation. Although it had not yet happened, in instances of non-conformity between national legislation and the Covenant, standards in the Covenant would prevail. The parliamentary Ombudsman had been making references to the articles of the Covenant in his annual reports, he added.
The Ombudsman was an official vested with certain powers for effecting parliamentary control to ensure the compliance of Government authorities with the provisions of the Covenant. The Ombudsman was independent of other Government officials and was answerable to Parliament. He reviewed appeals from citizens, as well as foreign nationals and stateless persons, and had a right to investigate them. He did not look into matters that fell within the jurisdiction of the courts.
An annual report was made by the Ombudsman to Parliament, he said. Complaints received related to, among others, the breach of legal standards in the fulfillment of official duties and the use of procedures forbidden by the law.
He said that in 2000, the Ombudsman had received more than 5,000 communications from citizens, including 2,500 that had arrived through the mail. In some 900 cases, oral explanations had been provided. The Ombudsman office now had a confidential line. One in eight of the appeals concerned obvious breaches of human rights, and more than 100 of those had been positively resolved.
They concerned, among other things, impermissible actions during investigations, violations of presumption of innocence, people detained without charges and violations of human rights, mainly in rural areas where knowledge of human rights was weak. The Ombudsman, in his 2000 report to the Government, had noted impermissible methods of investigation.
At the time of the report’s submission, a law on emergency situations had not yet been adopted. In 1999 a law was adopted, defining and regulating emergency situations. The law did not allow for derogations of several provisions of the Covenant. It provided for protection of the population and prevention of emergencies, as well as liquidation of states of emergency. The law also described duties and rights of citizens. Uzbekistan would consistently fulfil its obligations under the Covenant, despite emergency situations, he said.
Regarding a question about harassment by authorities, he said prosecution officers were forbidden to harass citizens or their families for anything done in pursuing their rights. Those who had been sentenced to loss of liberty had a guaranteed right of personal safety, and other persons had a right to appeal to bodies responsible for carrying out punishment if detainees were threatened. Recently, a 24-hour confidential telephone line had been established, which had been publicized in the mass media, through which any citizen could report improper actions by officials.
He said Parliament had ratified the Optional Protocol to the Covenant, through which Uzbekistan recognized the Committee’s competence to accept communications. Uzbekistan had no specific proposals for amendments to the Protocol. It was important to strengthen the coordination role of the Committee, and that States parties were be provided with assistance. The influence of the Committee was becoming universal, he said, and Uzbekistan was ready to open a constructive dialogue with the Committee on Human Rights.
He said Uzbekistan was reducing the number of Penal Code articles subject to the imposition of the death penalty. It could only be applied under eight articles of the Penal Code, whereas under the former Soviet Union there had been 35 articles that provided for the death penalty. In the case of women and minors, the death penalty was not applied. Pardons could be made in which the sentence was commuted to imprisonment.
There had been no complaints to the Ombudsman regarding forced or involuntary disappearances in the past three years, he said. Turning to the question of torture, he noted that on 5 December 2000, the country’s Prosecutor’s Office had received a communication on the use of torture on a detainee. Investigation had revealed that the detainee in question was suffering from various ailments, including internal hemorrhaging. Subsequently, however, the detainee had claimed that there had been no torture and an examination had confirmed this. Other cases were under review and strict investigation was being carried out.
The legal status and competence of law enforcement officers were set out in the Constitution, he said. Under the existing Criminal Code, the national security authorities had the right to initiate investigations and to arrest suspects. The appropriate prosecutor’s office carried out reviews of the justification for those arrests.
He then gave an overview of the various bodies comprising the State security system. Those bodies had the right to carry out investigations within their respective mandates.
Article 121 of the Penal Code corresponded to article 9 of the Covenant on liberty and security of persons, he said. To be arrested, a person must have been suspected of committing a crime. Suspicion applied if a person was: caught in the act or immediately afterwards; if there were witnesses; if there were traces on the person or clothing indicating that the person had committed the crime; or if substantiating data was available. Article 222 of the Penal Code established the persons who could make arrests. In Article 224, reference was made to the modalities of arrest prior to legal proceedings. Decisions concerning people who had been arrested were immediately provided to the suspect, he noted.
Competent officials must be notified within 24 hours of charges. In case of a search, the Prosecutor could arrest persons for a period of time not exceeding 10 days from the moment of arrest. Under Chapter 28 of the Penal Code, measures dealing with notification and guarantees in connection with custody had been established. To determine the necessity of any measure, the prosecutor or court must take into consideration the gravity of accusation and character, health and other circumstances of the accused. If conditions set out in the law were absent, explanations must be provided, which could influence measures to be taken.
Access to a lawyer was guaranteed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The independence of lawyers had been strengthened by two recently adopted laws. Defence counsel had access to the accused from the moment charges were brought. The court and prosecutors were, in certain cases, entitled to order participation of defence council. If defence council was waived, the accused had the right to future petition for defence counsel.
There were no unofficial places of detention in the system of the Interior Ministry, he said. In the Ministry’s territorial organs, there were facilities for temporary detention of suspects, which were used to prevent flight, among other reasons. People could be held in custody in various kinds of facilities in compliance with the standards set by the United Nations on the treatment of prisoners. There was no discrimination against prisoners on grounds of sex, race or nationality. All persons were held in detention in accordance with the law. Women, men and minors were held in separate facilities, he noted.
Everyone had blankets and sheets, and medical services were provided, he said. In the medical sections, there were in-patient departments, which came under the general supervision of the Health Ministry. In women’s prisons, there were facilities for childbirth. And in the system at large there, provision had been made for the treatment of alcoholism and drug addiction. Everyone held in detention had the right to apply for medical assistance.
Problems in the system included the obsolescence of medical equipment and inadequate funding for medicines, he said. All were made acquainted with the rules of conduct and discipline in the system upon arrival. Detained persons could at any time submit complaints, and regular meetings were held with prisoners, who were regularly allowed to meet with their relatives and other persons.
Depending on the conditions of detention, phone conversations and the receipt of parcels were permitted. Also, there were shops where detainees could buy items they might need. To ensure access of detainees to the mass media, there was a radio network in place and television sets were available. Convicted persons could subscribe to any newspaper or magazine available in Uzbekistan. There were also libraries.
The freedom of conscience in prisons was guaranteed. Prisoners had the right to perform religious duties not encroaching on the rights of others. In case of death of a prisoner, there was an investigation by the prosecution’s office, which referred the conclusions to the Ministry of Health. To encourage better behaviour, a system of benefits and incentives had been created, ranging from expressions of gratitude to early release. Prisoners could also be switched to milder regimes. By a degree of amnesty, 12,200 detainees had been freed or their prison terms shortened.
When imprisonment was completed, prisoners were placed on a register for keeping track of their rehabilitation. The social rehabilitation centre would help prisoners find work and shelter.
Regarding a question about the Jasluk prison, he said that prison was intended for prisoners with a strict regime. It had also an isolated section for general regime prisoners. There were more than 300 prisoners, of which 103 were under a general regime. Detention was not different from other prisons and close to international standards. In 2000, pursuant to changes in the Criminal Code, major changes had been introduced. People had been released or had their punishment shortened. Prison facilities had been modernized and completed, among which were specialized facilities for prisoners with tuberculosis. In addition, the joint commissions of the Ombudsman had carried out a study of prison conditions of people arrested in Jasluk, the results of which had been discussed. The ICRC had visited the Jasluk prison in 2001.
During the last three years, only one death had occurred in the Jasluk facility. On the basis of the autopsy report, the cause of death was arteriosclerosis and other medical complications of tuberculosis. A study by the Internal Affairs Ministry had indicated that there was no sign that force had been used on the prisoner.
Religious organizations could carry out their activities after being registered at the Ministry of Justice, he said. The Penal Code envisaged criminal liability in cases of illegal religious activities, and there were a number of organizations which had carried out illegal activities. In 1999, he said, certain leaders of certain organizations, such as the union of Evangelical Baptist churches, had been called before the relevant authorities to justify their activities, but no sentences had been handed down.
Missionary activities in the country were banned and no political parties with a religious basis could be formed. Organizations that were involved in terrorism or organized crime were also banned.
He said certain limits on freedom of thought and expression were in place in Uzbekistan, for example, the honour and dignity of others must be protected. Article 6 of the law on the media prohibited the use of the media for the purpose of calling for the forceful change of the Constitution or national order, or to promote cruelty or war.
Questions and Comments by Experts
An expert thanked the delegation for its informative and precise answers, which would provide a good basis for discussion. The report had been submitted late, but this could be understood when the situation of the State party -- which was in transition -- was considered. Despite numerous legal reforms, practice did not keep pace. The report was frank, he said. Nevertheless, it did not seem that a realistic picture had been provided. The report could have been improved if the voices of human rights non-governmental organizations had been heard.
He said that the situation with regard to respect for most articles of the Covenant seemed to be seriously deteriorating in Uzbekistan. It was not encouraging, for example, that the OSCE had found that the December 1999 elections in the country had fallen short of basic democratic standards. He noted that, as stated in the report, one third of the population -- some 8 million -- felt that human rights in Uzbekistan were respected very little or not at all. Should the State not draw consequences from this? he asked.
He sought further clarification on the procedures and mechanisms in place for the implementation of the Committee’s views concerning the first Optional Protocol to the Covenant. What national mechanisms were in place? he asked. What did the Government do when it received the Committee’s views? He also asked for further information on the topic of the death penalty. How many executions had there been during the last three years and how were the executions carried out? What were the conditions on death row? He then asked about where those executed were buried.
The delegation had made it sound as if the places of detention were quite nice places to live -- this was in contrast to the materials before the Committee. Corpses received by family members, for example, often showed bruises, broken ribs, and so on -– this was out of line with United Nations standards. How many cases of violations had been investigated and how many had been punished? he asked. What was the State party doing on a more general basis to prevent the huge numbers of allegations of human rights violations in that regard?
The Committee had been informed that very often the right of access to a lawyer was not respected -- trials had been held without access to counsel.
Alarming information was available that he Government had forcibly resettled thousands of mountainous ethnic Tajiks, he said. In a sudden military action, the material stated, they had been forced to leave their homes without any belongings and had been taken to new surroundings with no provision for their well-being. They were now in deplorable conditions. If that action had taken place, it involved numerous violations of the Covenant, he said. He asked what the delegation had to say about the matter.
Another expert emphasized that the purpose of the oral dialogue was a constructive one, not meant to accuse or criticize, but to find out the real situation of human rights and to find out what measures were available to overcome difficulties. Concerning article 16 of the Uzbek Constitution, he asked what constituted rights and interests of the State; whether citizens could criticize a policy of the Government or even the President; and what provisions there were to determine what actions violated the article.
He also had several questions regarding the relationship between Uzbekistan and the Republic of Karakalpakstan and was concerned about the internal right of self-determination of the people of the Republic of Karakalpakstan. Who decided the boundaries between the two republics? Had treaties between the two republics been registered with the United Nations? What was the procedure for reconciliation of conflicts between the two republics? Were there detailed procedures in place for a national referendum on secession of Karakalpakstan?
Regarding the economic courts mentioned in the report, he asked about composition and procedures of those courts and whether there was an appeals procedure. Also, what concrete measures was the Government taking to prevent drying up of the Aral Sea, a situation that was of direct concern to the right of life of people in that area.
Regarding freedom of expression, he asked what constituted “other secrets”, mentioned in an article of the Constitution, that constricted that right. Were foreign newspapers or magazines available for ordinary citizens, and did foreign journalists have freedom of movement? He also wanted to know if international non-governmental organizations were allowed to be active in Uzbekistan and what their relationship was with domestic non-governmental organizations. He also asked about regulations regarding access to State documents.
An expert said he had read the report with great interest, despite the paradoxes that had emerged. He had noted, for example, that at times there were very frank responses, but that rather abstract answers were also given. On the one hand, there seemed to be a determination to break with the past, but at the same time the weight of the past seemed to distort the situation. The society seemed to be relatively open but in other ways it seemed to be becoming more closed. Further, frank and complete explanation was needed so that the Committee could understand how the Covenant was being implemented.
It was important to understand how Uzbekistan understood the notion of religious extremism, he said. Reference had been made to fanaticism – what exactly was meant? he asked. Was religious extremism a domestic phenomenon or something that had come to Uzbekistan from elsewhere?
What was the Committee on Religious Affairs? he asked. Who were the members and what were its functions? Was it given too much discretionary power?
He also sought further information on the question of loss of nationality – how was that process carried out? Turning to the media, he asked if there a presumption of accuracy of media statements that the State had to disprove, or if there a presumption of inaccuracy. He also asked for further clarification on the issue of State secrecy. The whole political and religious background of the situation in the country should be further explained, he added.
An expert said he had read the report with great interest, despite the paradoxes that had emerged. He had noted, for example, that at times there were very frank responses, but that rather abstract answers were also given. On the one hand, there seemed to be a determination to break with the past, but at the same time, the weight of the past seemed to distort the situation. The society seemed to be relatively open, but in other ways it seemed to be becoming more closed. Further, frank and complete explanation was needed so that the Committee could understand how the Covenant was being implemented.
It was important to understand how Uzbekistan understood the notion of religious extremism, he said. Reference had been made to fanaticism -- what exactly was meant? he asked. Was religious extremism a domestic phenomenon or something that had come to Uzbekistan from elsewhere?
What was the Committee on Religious Affairs? he asked. Who were the members and what were its functions? Was it given too much discretionary power?
He also sought further information on the question of loss of nationality -- how was that process carried out? Turning to the media, he asked if there was a presumption of accuracy of media statements that the State had to disprove, or if there was a presumption of inaccuracy. He also asked for further clarification on the issue of State secrecy. The whole political and religious background of the situation in the country should be further explained, he added.
Mr. SAIDOV expressed his thanks for the warm words about Uzbekistan’s initial report and said he appreciated the Committee’s desire to understand the situation in his country. Discussion of the situation was important for Uzbekistan, and with that intention he had come for an open and unprejudiced discussion. He realized there were problems in Uzbekistan and those problems would be resolved. He asked the Committee for its understanding, support and recommendations.
Sometimes it was easier for an outsider to see problems an insider was not paying attention to, he pointed out. He was, therefore, also thankful for the Committee’s criticism, which he would take in the right spirit. In its 25 years of existence, he said, the Covenant had demonstrated its significance in the international community.
* *** *
Seventy-first Session
26 March 2001
1908th Meeting (AM)
The Human Rights Committee this morning began its consideration of the initial report of Uzbekistan on its compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Presenting the report and responding to questions posed in writing by the Committee, Akmal Saidov (Uzbekistan), Chief of the National Centre on Human Rights and Chairman of the Committee for Democratic Institutions, Non-Governmental Organizations and Citizen Self-Governance Bodies of the Parliament of Uzbekistan, said that since its independence, Uzbekistan had set about elaborating a democratic State based on the rule of law.
The Republic had ratified the Covenant in 1995, he said. Great importance had been placed by the Government on bringing the norms of constitutional and national legislation into line with the Covenant. All Uzbekistan’s national laws were in keeping with the Covenant’s basic provisions. Since acceding to the Covenant, Uzbekistan had created national machinery for the protection and encouragement of human rights. A constitutional court and a parliamentary institution for monitoring, as well as an Ombudsman’s office, had been set up.
He said that there were still problems in the area of human rights in Uzbekistan. The transition from totalitarianism to democracy had been difficult and painful. Catastrophic environmental conditions had also been an obstacle to implementation of human rights principles. He asked the Committee for understanding of the situation.
Following Mr. Saidov’s presentation, Committee members made comments and posed questions to the delegation. Further clarification was sought with regard to the death penalty, the definition of religious extremism, prison conditions, the composition and procedures of the country’s economic courts, freedom of expression and environmental issues, among other things.
The Committee will meet again this afternoon at 3 p.m. to commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the entry into force of the Covenant.
Background
The Human Rights Committee met this morning to begin its consideration of the initial report of Uzbekistan on its compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Under article 40 of the Covenant, all States parties agree to submit periodic reports on the implementation of the agreement.
According to the report, Uzbekistan, which became independent in 1991, is a sovereign democratic State which has proclaimed its commitment to human rights and the principles of State sovereignty. Legislative power is exercised by the popularly elected Oliy Majlis (Parliament). The popularly elected President is the head of State and chief executive of the Republic. Uzbekistan’s judiciary is independent of the legislature and the executive. Judicial authority is exercised by the courts. Local authorities, such as the councils of people’s deputies and regional chief administrators (khokims), address social problems at the regional, district and city levels.
The Constitution provides the general legal foundation for the protection of civil and political rights. It guarantees and enshrines the equality of citizens before the law and their equal rights and freedoms and recognizes the priority of generally accepted standards of international law over national legislation. The judiciary performs a fundamental role in the protection of human rights and freedoms. The court may make use of legal and legislative analogy and take decisions on the basis not only of the letter of the law, but also of its spirit and of legal axioms and principles.
The Constitutional Court is the key specialized institution concerned with issues relating to the protection of human rights. Others are the Commission for the Observance of Citizens’ Constitutional Rights and Freedoms, reporting to the Human Rights Commissioner (Ombudsman) of the Oliy Majlis, the Institute for Monitoring Current Legislation, the Ministry of Justice and the National Centre for Human Rights.
The Ombudsman’s competence encompasses parliamentary monitoring of the implementation of human rights laws, both on his own initiative and on the basis of complaints. The 1997 Ombudsman Act was drafted with the assistance of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The National Centre for Human Rights coordinates activities of all governmental and non-governmental organizations working for the protection of human rights. It also carries out research and disseminates information.
The report states that the fundamental directions of Uzbekistan’s development are the transition from a command system of administration and government to free market conditions, the construction of a democratic State and a just society, integration into the world community and entry to the international market. The sovereign Republic of Karakalpakstan forms part of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
According to the report, Uzbekistan has adhered to a number of international instruments governing issues of the individual’s citizenship, welfare and political rights, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Convention on Women’s Political Rights and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.
Regarding article 3 of the Covenant (equality of the civil and political rights of men and women), the report states that under the country's Constitution, discrimination on grounds of sex, as on any other grounds, is prohibited. Women account for 4.6 per cent of those elected to Parliament and 44 per cent of those employed in the national economy. Unfortunately, women are still discriminated against in employment in leading positions and highly paid work. A number of laws and presidential decrees have been adopted to promote greater activity among women in Uzbekistan’s political, economic and social life.
Individual cases of religious extremism violating freedom of conscience and leading to discrimination against women in the family have occurred in Uzbekistan, according to the report. A Committee for Religious Affairs has been established within the Cabinet of Ministers which publicizes the importance of respect for women and the proper organization of the family. The year 1999 was designated as the Year of the Woman. The Cabinet has adopted a resolution aiming at, among other things, enhancing the status and role of women in the family and creating a favourable spiritual and moral atmosphere in the family.
Addressing the right to life (article 6 of the Covenant), the report states that the right to life is the inalienable human right of every citizen. For particularly heinous premeditated crimes such as premeditated murder, rape and terrorism, and unlawful sale of narcotics, the Penal Code prescribes the death penalty. The 1998 Amendments and Addenda to Selected Statutes Act removed gratification of unnatural sexual desires by force, breach of the laws and customs of war, attempts on the life of the President, organization of a criminal association and smuggling from the list of crimes punishable by death.
Regarding article 7 of the Covenant on torture, the report notes that any act related to the use of torture, violence or other cruel or degrading treatment is regarded as a heinous crime in the criminal legislation. Law-enforcement officers shall be liable for committing those acts. It is also a criminal offence to prosecute a person known to be innocent, to bring in an unjust verdict, to fail to enforce a judicial decision and to unlawfully detain a person. Procuratorial checks have revealed breaches of the law with regard to the custody of convicted persons.
Since the greatest number of infringements are to be observed in the activities of the internal affairs authorities, often because of the low standard of legal and general knowledge, the country’s leadership is working to make sure that unqualified staff committing unlawful acts against people are removed. Notwithstanding progress achieved, the report continues, some shortcomings remain. A system for vocational retraining of staff in penitentiary institutions, devoting special attention to ensuring human rights, is being established to overcome existing problems.
Article 9 of the Covenant covers the right to freedom and inviolability of the person. In that regard, the report states that the Penal Enforcement Code provides legal regulation of detention procedures and other restrictions of liberty. Detention means short-term deprivation of the liberty of a person suspected of having committed a crime. A member of the militia or other investigative authority, and any competent person, may detain and hand over to the nearest militia institution or other law-enforcement authority a person whom he suspects of having committed a crime. Detention may not last longer than 72 hours. In exceptional cases, if authorized by the procurator, the detainee may be remanded in custody as a preventive measure. The Code also addresses treatment of detainees.
Generally speaking, questions of extradition, expulsion or return of persons for whom there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to torture are regulated by bilateral agreements, the report states regarding article 13 (grounds for expelling aliens) of the Covenant.
As far as article 14 of the Covenant (equality of citizens before the law) is concerned, justice, according to the report, is administered solely by the court. Judges are independent and subordinate only to the law. Any interference in the work performed by judges to administer the law is prohibited and carries legal liability. Citizens have the right to make a complaint against a judge’s verdict through either appeal or supervision.
Articles 18 and 19 of the Covenant cover freedom of conscience and freedom of thought and opinion. Freedom of conscience is guaranteed to all under the Constitution and the compulsory imposition of religion is not permitted. Religious organizations and associations must be separate from the State and equal before the law, and the State shall not interfere in the activities of religious associations.
Because of the complexity of the social and political situation in the region, the law prohibits any activity by religion-based political parties or by branches and units of religious parties created outside Uzbekistan. The activities of religious organizations, sects and other groups promoting terrorism, drug dealing and organized crime, or pursuing other fundamentalist aims, are prohibited by law.
The Constitution guarantees the mass media free activity without censorship. The country has 451 newspapers. Of those, 348 are published by the State, 62 are public and 41 are religious or commercial. The freedom of speech for every citizen is also enshrined in the Constitution.
As far as freedom of association is concerned (covered under article 22 of the Covenant), the report states that the Constitution proclaims the right to form trade unions, political parties and other public associations, and to take part in authorized mass movement. Those rights are given specific form in the Public Associations Act of 1991 and the Trade Unions, Their Rights and Guarantees of the Activities Act of 1992.
According to the report, the Justice Ministry has registered 210 national and international public associations. About 1,500 local public associations and departments of national public associations have been registered by regional judicial authorities. The membership of trade unions currently stands at 7.3 million. There are 66,000 primary union organizations. Special attention is being devoted to enhancing the role of women in trade unions, and a great number of women occupy leading positions in those organizations.
The Government helps in the establishment of the national offices of international non-governmental organizations. Lack of awareness among the people of their rights remains a major problem in human rights in the country. The non-governmental organization movement is assuming some of the functions of educating and consulting the people in human rights matters. A draft act on non-governmental non-commercial organizations is in preparation. Most public and non-governmental organizations in Uzbekistan are set up by women.
Prohibition of discrimination in the exercise of civil and political rights (article 25 of the Covenant) is also addressed by the report, which states that the Political Parties Act of 1996 secures the right of citizens to exercise their political rights. Uzbekistan has five major political parties. The law prohibits the establishment and activities of political parties that seek a violent change in the constitutional order; that oppose the sovereignty, integrity and security of Uzbekistan or citizens' constitutional rights and freedoms; that advocate war or social, national, racial or religious hatred; that infringe on the people's health and morality; and on national or religious grounds. The minimum age to acquire the active and passive right to vote is 18, the legal age of majority.
Presentation of Report by Delegation
AKMAL SAIDOV (Uzbekistan), Chief of the National Centre on Human Rights, Chairman of the Committee for Democratic Institutions, Non-Governmental Organizations and Citizen Self-Governance Bodies of the Parliament of Uzbekistan, said non-governmental organizations had played an active role in the report’s preparation. The Government would continue to maintain an open dialogue with such organizations in monitoring human rights in his country.
Today’s Uzbekistan, with its almost 25 million inhabitants, constituted the basis of central Asia, he said. The country’s roots went back almost 3 millenniums and had contributed to the development of world civilization. Since its independence, Uzbekistan had set about elaborating a democratic State based on the rule of law. There was a great diversity of cultures and religions in the country. Since independence, there had not been a single instance of ethnic or religious conflict, he noted. Racism and genocide were absolutely rejected.
He then noted five basic principles for carrying out reforms in the country: economics over politics; the key role of the State in carrying out reform; the primacy of the law; the establishment of a strong social policy; and a gradual approach to the transition. He stressed the importance, in the context of reform, of State stability and security. Uzbekistan was seriously concerned about religious extremism and international terrorism, which went hand in hand, and had taken measures to address the issue.
The Republic had ratified the Covenant and first Optional Protocol in 1995, he said. All six basic United Nations treaties on human rights had been ratified and reports on their implementation had been filed. In all, Uzbekistan had ratified 57 international human rights instruments.
Importance had been placed by the Government on bringing the norms of constitutional and national legislation into line with the Covenant. All Uzbekistan’s national laws were in keeping with the Covenant’s basic provisions. The national legal system gave an important place to the international treaties on human rights. In the event of a conflict between the Covenant and national legislation, he noted, the Covenant prevailed.
Since acceding to the Covenant, Uzbekistan had created national machinery for the protection and encouragement of human rights, he said. A constitutional court and a parliamentary institution for monitoring, as well as an Ombudsman’s office, had been set up.
In implementing the United Nations resolutions on education on human rights, he said measures had been taken in the field of education and culture. A special course on human rights had been introduced in schools and universities. There was also a coordinated council on matters of education on human rights.
Regarding the monitoring of human rights, he said adoption of laws was only half the story. The next step was creating conditions for the protection of human rights. There was a national programme of action for implementing the Covenant, as well as parliamentary monitoring and training courses for non-governmental organizations. There had been a rapid development of the non-governmental movement in Uzbekistan, as there were now more than 2,500 non-governmental organizations playing an active role in the human rights area. Non-governmental organizations had also helped to prepare the current report.
Principal partners helping Uzbekistan in the area of human rights included the United Nations, the European Union and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), as well as other organizations. Uzbekistan worked with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) under a joint programme, he added. The reform of the judiciary and law-enforcement system had been an important area of international cooperation. There was now an agreement with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) regarding penitential institutions, including visits of that organization to those institutions.
However, there were problems, he said. The transition from totalitarianism to democracy was difficult and painful. The catastrophic environmental conditions were also an obstacle to implementation of human rights. He asked for understanding of the situation.
Answers to Written Questions from Committee
Mr. SAIDOV (Uzbekistan) said a detailed written reply had been prepared in answer to questions put by the Committee.
Experts noted that the written response in question was not before the Committee and stressed the oral nature of the current exercise.
Mr. SAIDOV (Uzbekistan) said that written replies had been prepared in one of the official working languages of the United Nations, and his delegation had not thought it necessary to present it in English. Additional material had been handed to the Chairman in English. He would make relatively brief oral replies to the questions, as a detailed written response had been made available.
An expert thanked the delegation for its efforts but reminded the ambassador that today’s exercise was an oral one.
The CHAIRMAN asked that full and detailed answers to the questions be given.
Mr. SAIDOV (Uzbekistan) said that under the Constitution the status of the Covenant, as an international treaty, took priority over national legislation. Although it had not yet happened, in instances of non-conformity between national legislation and the Covenant, standards in the Covenant would prevail. The parliamentary Ombudsman had been making references to the articles of the Covenant in his annual reports, he added.
The Ombudsman was an official vested with certain powers for effecting parliamentary control to ensure the compliance of Government authorities with the provisions of the Covenant. The Ombudsman was independent of other Government officials and was answerable to Parliament. He reviewed appeals from citizens, as well as foreign nationals and stateless persons, and had a right to investigate them. He did not look into matters that fell within the jurisdiction of the courts.
An annual report was made by the Ombudsman to Parliament, he said. Complaints received related to, among others, the breach of legal standards in the fulfillment of official duties and the use of procedures forbidden by the law.
He said that in 2000, the Ombudsman had received more than 5,000 communications from citizens, including 2,500 that had arrived through the mail. In some 900 cases, oral explanations had been provided. The Ombudsman office now had a confidential line. One in eight of the appeals concerned obvious breaches of human rights, and more than 100 of those had been positively resolved.
They concerned, among other things, impermissible actions during investigations, violations of presumption of innocence, people detained without charges and violations of human rights, mainly in rural areas where knowledge of human rights was weak. The Ombudsman, in his 2000 report to the Government, had noted impermissible methods of investigation.
At the time of the report’s submission, a law on emergency situations had not yet been adopted. In 1999 a law was adopted, defining and regulating emergency situations. The law did not allow for derogations of several provisions of the Covenant. It provided for protection of the population and prevention of emergencies, as well as liquidation of states of emergency. The law also described duties and rights of citizens. Uzbekistan would consistently fulfil its obligations under the Covenant, despite emergency situations, he said.
Regarding a question about harassment by authorities, he said prosecution officers were forbidden to harass citizens or their families for anything done in pursuing their rights. Those who had been sentenced to loss of liberty had a guaranteed right of personal safety, and other persons had a right to appeal to bodies responsible for carrying out punishment if detainees were threatened. Recently, a 24-hour confidential telephone line had been established, which had been publicized in the mass media, through which any citizen could report improper actions by officials.
He said Parliament had ratified the Optional Protocol to the Covenant, through which Uzbekistan recognized the Committee’s competence to accept communications. Uzbekistan had no specific proposals for amendments to the Protocol. It was important to strengthen the coordination role of the Committee, and that States parties were be provided with assistance. The influence of the Committee was becoming universal, he said, and Uzbekistan was ready to open a constructive dialogue with the Committee on Human Rights.
He said Uzbekistan was reducing the number of Penal Code articles subject to the imposition of the death penalty. It could only be applied under eight articles of the Penal Code, whereas under the former Soviet Union there had been 35 articles that provided for the death penalty. In the case of women and minors, the death penalty was not applied. Pardons could be made in which the sentence was commuted to imprisonment.
There had been no complaints to the Ombudsman regarding forced or involuntary disappearances in the past three years, he said. Turning to the question of torture, he noted that on 5 December 2000, the country’s Prosecutor’s Office had received a communication on the use of torture on a detainee. Investigation had revealed that the detainee in question was suffering from various ailments, including internal hemorrhaging. Subsequently, however, the detainee had claimed that there had been no torture and an examination had confirmed this. Other cases were under review and strict investigation was being carried out.
The legal status and competence of law enforcement officers were set out in the Constitution, he said. Under the existing Criminal Code, the national security authorities had the right to initiate investigations and to arrest suspects. The appropriate prosecutor’s office carried out reviews of the justification for those arrests.
He then gave an overview of the various bodies comprising the State security system. Those bodies had the right to carry out investigations within their respective mandates.
Article 121 of the Penal Code corresponded to article 9 of the Covenant on liberty and security of persons, he said. To be arrested, a person must have been suspected of committing a crime. Suspicion applied if a person was: caught in the act or immediately afterwards; if there were witnesses; if there were traces on the person or clothing indicating that the person had committed the crime; or if substantiating data was available. Article 222 of the Penal Code established the persons who could make arrests. In Article 224, reference was made to the modalities of arrest prior to legal proceedings. Decisions concerning people who had been arrested were immediately provided to the suspect, he noted.
Competent officials must be notified within 24 hours of charges. In case of a search, the Prosecutor could arrest persons for a period of time not exceeding 10 days from the moment of arrest. Under Chapter 28 of the Penal Code, measures dealing with notification and guarantees in connection with custody had been established. To determine the necessity of any measure, the prosecutor or court must take into consideration the gravity of accusation and character, health and other circumstances of the accused. If conditions set out in the law were absent, explanations must be provided, which could influence measures to be taken.
Access to a lawyer was guaranteed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The independence of lawyers had been strengthened by two recently adopted laws. Defence counsel had access to the accused from the moment charges were brought. The court and prosecutors were, in certain cases, entitled to order participation of defence council. If defence council was waived, the accused had the right to future petition for defence counsel.
There were no unofficial places of detention in the system of the Interior Ministry, he said. In the Ministry’s territorial organs, there were facilities for temporary detention of suspects, which were used to prevent flight, among other reasons. People could be held in custody in various kinds of facilities in compliance with the standards set by the United Nations on the treatment of prisoners. There was no discrimination against prisoners on grounds of sex, race or nationality. All persons were held in detention in accordance with the law. Women, men and minors were held in separate facilities, he noted.
Everyone had blankets and sheets, and medical services were provided, he said. In the medical sections, there were in-patient departments, which came under the general supervision of the Health Ministry. In women’s prisons, there were facilities for childbirth. And in the system at large there, provision had been made for the treatment of alcoholism and drug addiction. Everyone held in detention had the right to apply for medical assistance.
Problems in the system included the obsolescence of medical equipment and inadequate funding for medicines, he said. All were made acquainted with the rules of conduct and discipline in the system upon arrival. Detained persons could at any time submit complaints, and regular meetings were held with prisoners, who were regularly allowed to meet with their relatives and other persons.
Depending on the conditions of detention, phone conversations and the receipt of parcels were permitted. Also, there were shops where detainees could buy items they might need. To ensure access of detainees to the mass media, there was a radio network in place and television sets were available. Convicted persons could subscribe to any newspaper or magazine available in Uzbekistan. There were also libraries.
The freedom of conscience in prisons was guaranteed. Prisoners had the right to perform religious duties not encroaching on the rights of others. In case of death of a prisoner, there was an investigation by the prosecution’s office, which referred the conclusions to the Ministry of Health. To encourage better behaviour, a system of benefits and incentives had been created, ranging from expressions of gratitude to early release. Prisoners could also be switched to milder regimes. By a degree of amnesty, 12,200 detainees had been freed or their prison terms shortened.
When imprisonment was completed, prisoners were placed on a register for keeping track of their rehabilitation. The social rehabilitation centre would help prisoners find work and shelter.
Regarding a question about the Jasluk prison, he said that prison was intended for prisoners with a strict regime. It had also an isolated section for general regime prisoners. There were more than 300 prisoners, of which 103 were under a general regime. Detention was not different from other prisons and close to international standards. In 2000, pursuant to changes in the Criminal Code, major changes had been introduced. People had been released or had their punishment shortened. Prison facilities had been modernized and completed, among which were specialized facilities for prisoners with tuberculosis. In addition, the joint commissions of the Ombudsman had carried out a study of prison conditions of people arrested in Jasluk, the results of which had been discussed. The ICRC had visited the Jasluk prison in 2001.
During the last three years, only one death had occurred in the Jasluk facility. On the basis of the autopsy report, the cause of death was arteriosclerosis and other medical complications of tuberculosis. A study by the Internal Affairs Ministry had indicated that there was no sign that force had been used on the prisoner.
Religious organizations could carry out their activities after being registered at the Ministry of Justice, he said. The Penal Code envisaged criminal liability in cases of illegal religious activities, and there were a number of organizations which had carried out illegal activities. In 1999, he said, certain leaders of certain organizations, such as the union of Evangelical Baptist churches, had been called before the relevant authorities to justify their activities, but no sentences had been handed down.
Missionary activities in the country were banned and no political parties with a religious basis could be formed. Organizations that were involved in terrorism or organized crime were also banned.
He said certain limits on freedom of thought and expression were in place in Uzbekistan, for example, the honour and dignity of others must be protected. Article 6 of the law on the media prohibited the use of the media for the purpose of calling for the forceful change of the Constitution or national order, or to promote cruelty or war.
Questions and Comments by Experts
An expert thanked the delegation for its informative and precise answers, which would provide a good basis for discussion. The report had been submitted late, but this could be understood when the situation of the State party -- which was in transition -- was considered. Despite numerous legal reforms, practice did not keep pace. The report was frank, he said. Nevertheless, it did not seem that a realistic picture had been provided. The report could have been improved if the voices of human rights non-governmental organizations had been heard.
He said that the situation with regard to respect for most articles of the Covenant seemed to be seriously deteriorating in Uzbekistan. It was not encouraging, for example, that the OSCE had found that the December 1999 elections in the country had fallen short of basic democratic standards. He noted that, as stated in the report, one third of the population -- some 8 million -- felt that human rights in Uzbekistan were respected very little or not at all. Should the State not draw consequences from this? he asked.
He sought further clarification on the procedures and mechanisms in place for the implementation of the Committee’s views concerning the first Optional Protocol to the Covenant. What national mechanisms were in place? he asked. What did the Government do when it received the Committee’s views? He also asked for further information on the topic of the death penalty. How many executions had there been during the last three years and how were the executions carried out? What were the conditions on death row? He then asked about where those executed were buried.
The delegation had made it sound as if the places of detention were quite nice places to live -- this was in contrast to the materials before the Committee. Corpses received by family members, for example, often showed bruises, broken ribs, and so on -– this was out of line with United Nations standards. How many cases of violations had been investigated and how many had been punished? he asked. What was the State party doing on a more general basis to prevent the huge numbers of allegations of human rights violations in that regard?
The Committee had been informed that very often the right of access to a lawyer was not respected -- trials had been held without access to counsel.
Alarming information was available that he Government had forcibly resettled thousands of mountainous ethnic Tajiks, he said. In a sudden military action, the material stated, they had been forced to leave their homes without any belongings and had been taken to new surroundings with no provision for their well-being. They were now in deplorable conditions. If that action had taken place, it involved numerous violations of the Covenant, he said. He asked what the delegation had to say about the matter.
Another expert emphasized that the purpose of the oral dialogue was a constructive one, not meant to accuse or criticize, but to find out the real situation of human rights and to find out what measures were available to overcome difficulties. Concerning article 16 of the Uzbek Constitution, he asked what constituted rights and interests of the State; whether citizens could criticize a policy of the Government or even the President; and what provisions there were to determine what actions violated the article.
He also had several questions regarding the relationship between Uzbekistan and the Republic of Karakalpakstan and was concerned about the internal right of self-determination of the people of the Republic of Karakalpakstan. Who decided the boundaries between the two republics? Had treaties between the two republics been registered with the United Nations? What was the procedure for reconciliation of conflicts between the two republics? Were there detailed procedures in place for a national referendum on secession of Karakalpakstan?
Regarding the economic courts mentioned in the report, he asked about composition and procedures of those courts and whether there was an appeals procedure. Also, what concrete measures was the Government taking to prevent drying up of the Aral Sea, a situation that was of direct concern to the right of life of people in that area.
Regarding freedom of expression, he asked what constituted “other secrets”, mentioned in an article of the Constitution, that constricted that right. Were foreign newspapers or magazines available for ordinary citizens, and did foreign journalists have freedom of movement? He also wanted to know if international non-governmental organizations were allowed to be active in Uzbekistan and what their relationship was with domestic non-governmental organizations. He also asked about regulations regarding access to State documents.
An expert said he had read the report with great interest, despite the paradoxes that had emerged. He had noted, for example, that at times there were very frank responses, but that rather abstract answers were also given. On the one hand, there seemed to be a determination to break with the past, but at the same time the weight of the past seemed to distort the situation. The society seemed to be relatively open but in other ways it seemed to be becoming more closed. Further, frank and complete explanation was needed so that the Committee could understand how the Covenant was being implemented.
It was important to understand how Uzbekistan understood the notion of religious extremism, he said. Reference had been made to fanaticism – what exactly was meant? he asked. Was religious extremism a domestic phenomenon or something that had come to Uzbekistan from elsewhere?
What was the Committee on Religious Affairs? he asked. Who were the members and what were its functions? Was it given too much discretionary power?
He also sought further information on the question of loss of nationality – how was that process carried out? Turning to the media, he asked if there a presumption of accuracy of media statements that the State had to disprove, or if there a presumption of inaccuracy. He also asked for further clarification on the issue of State secrecy. The whole political and religious background of the situation in the country should be further explained, he added.
An expert said he had read the report with great interest, despite the paradoxes that had emerged. He had noted, for example, that at times there were very frank responses, but that rather abstract answers were also given. On the one hand, there seemed to be a determination to break with the past, but at the same time, the weight of the past seemed to distort the situation. The society seemed to be relatively open, but in other ways it seemed to be becoming more closed. Further, frank and complete explanation was needed so that the Committee could understand how the Covenant was being implemented.
It was important to understand how Uzbekistan understood the notion of religious extremism, he said. Reference had been made to fanaticism -- what exactly was meant? he asked. Was religious extremism a domestic phenomenon or something that had come to Uzbekistan from elsewhere?
What was the Committee on Religious Affairs? he asked. Who were the members and what were its functions? Was it given too much discretionary power?
He also sought further information on the question of loss of nationality -- how was that process carried out? Turning to the media, he asked if there was a presumption of accuracy of media statements that the State had to disprove, or if there was a presumption of inaccuracy. He also asked for further clarification on the issue of State secrecy. The whole political and religious background of the situation in the country should be further explained, he added.
Mr. SAIDOV expressed his thanks for the warm words about Uzbekistan’s initial report and said he appreciated the Committee’s desire to understand the situation in his country. Discussion of the situation was important for Uzbekistan, and with that intention he had come for an open and unprejudiced discussion. He realized there were problems in Uzbekistan and those problems would be resolved. He asked the Committee for its understanding, support and recommendations.
Sometimes it was easier for an outsider to see problems an insider was not paying attention to, he pointed out. He was, therefore, also thankful for the Committee’s criticism, which he would take in the right spirit. In its 25 years of existence, he said, the Covenant had demonstrated its significance in the international community.
* *** *