Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination reviews the report of Uzbekistan, Experts ask about the definition of racial discrimination and the situation of ethnic minorities

Committee on the Elimination
  of Racial Discrimination

04 December 2019

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination today concluded its consideration of the combined tenth to twelfth periodic report of Uzbekistan on its implementation of the provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.  Committee Experts asked questions about the definition of racial discrimination and the situation of ethnic minorities.

Yanduan Li, Committee Rapporteur for Uzbekistan, took note of the positive impacts of the political, economic and social reforms taken since 2016 and welcomed the country’s re-engagement with international organizations such as the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the International Organization for Migration.

Seeking to better understand the situation of ethnic minorities, Ms. Li requested data and statistics on the socioeconomic status of minorities – Luli/Roma, Karakalpak people and Meskhetian Turks. 

The definition of racial discrimination in the law continued to be out of step with the Convention - colour and descent were still missing from the list of prohibited grounds, noted the Rapporteur.  Each of the five grounds of racial discrimination had their own meaning and application and they complimented each other. 

Other Experts noted that minorities in Uzbekistan, Roma and Romani people in particular, seemed to enjoy a lower standard of living than others.  This indicated that there was, to a certain degree, structural discrimination.  Most of the racially or ethnically motivated crimes were prosecuted under the Criminal Code articles 156 and 2441, which related to the protection of the State and in which the sentences for the crime were stiffer.  Was the justice in Uzbekistan more protective of human rights or the security of the State, they asked?

Of the 9,000 registered civil society organizations, only 20 had participated in the preparation of the periodic report to the Committee, the Experts remarked.  There was a concern that the draft law on non-governmental organizations, combined with the law of public oversight, would limit the civic space and the full functioning of the very diverse civil society organizations.

The delegation reiterated that the designation “ethnic minority” was discriminatory and thus not used in Uzbekistan.  The Constitution instead referred to the “people of Uzbekistan” – the 130 ethnic groups who lived in peace and unity.

Incitement to national, ethnic or racial hatred was criminalized.  In the 2016-2017 period, 48 people had been tried for 26 such offences.  In 2018, no such crimes had been registered. 

While the official language was Uzbek, the Government had created an environment in which ethnic groups could develop and maintain their own cultures and languages.  The delegation said 138 Cultural and Ethnic Centres – which represented 28 ethnicities living in Uzbekistan - were free to operate and to maintain the links with countries of origin. 

Education was provided in seven languages and everyone was free to choose the language of instruction for their children.  More than 100,000 Karakalpak students attended 365 schools in their language, there were over 500,000 pupils in Russian speaking schools, and there were also schools in Tajik, Kazakh and Turkmen.

Luli Roma numbered over 50,000; they were no longer nomads, but were settled in the society and possessed identification documents, the delegation said.  There were over 350 representatives of ethnic groups at the highest level of authority in the country.

Of the 133,000 temporary residents, more than 97,000 were stateless.  The draft law on citizenship, which was currently in Parliament, would allow 40,000 stateless persons to obtain the Uzbek nationality.  Political asylum was provided by the Presidential edict of 2016 to individuals and their families fleeing political, religious or ethnic persecution or human rights violations.

The civil society in Uzbekistan was covered by more than 200 legislative acts and the country was working on streamlining them into one law on civil society.  The basic principles were that they had to be registered and had to report on their activities.  A seminar on the preparation of alternative reports to human rights treaty bodies had been organized in partnership with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.  The Government worked together with civil society organizations on the monitoring of the implementation of the treaty bodies’ concluding observations.

Ms. Li, the Rapporteur, said in her concluding remarks that the constructive and informative dialogue would serve as a good basis for the Committee’s concluding observations on the report of Uzbekistan.

Akmal Saidov, Director of the National Human Right Centre of Uzbekistan, in his concluding remarks, said that Uzbekistan was in a new stage in its history, in which the interests of the population, their rights and freedoms, were a priority.

The delegation of Uzbekistan included the Director of the National Human Right Centre, the First Deputy Minister of Interior, the Chairperson of the Committee on Interethnic relations and Friendly Ties with Foreign Countries, members of the Legislative Chamber of Oliy Majlis (Parliament) and representatives of the Permanent Mission of Uzbekistan to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The Committee will issue the concluding observations on the report of Uzbekistan at the end of the session on 13 December.  Those, and other documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s webpage. 

The Committee’s public meetings are webcast live at http://webtv.un.org/ while the meeting summaries in English and French can be accessed at the United Nations Office at Geneva News and Media page.

The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m.  today, 4 December, to review the combined seventeenth to nineteenth periodic report of Israel (CERD/C/ISR/17-19).

Report

The Committee has before it the combined tenth to twelfth periodic report of Uzbekistan (CERD/C/UZB/10-12).

Opening Remarks

NOUREDDINE AMIR, Committee Chairperson, in his opening remarks, said that Uzbekistan had been, for a long time, an economic and cultural crossroads between countries, a place where the caravans congregated, not only to trade and barter but to establish ties of friendship.  Uzbekistan was renowned for facilitating negotiations between countries in the region – Pakistan for example, found its help indispensable in the efforts to resolve the issue of Kashmir.  Uzbekistan had always been at the vanguard of the peaceful settlement of disputes.

Presentation of the Report of Uzbekistan

AKMAL SAIDOV, Director of the National Human Right Centre of Uzbekistan, said that Uzbekistan’s periodic report had been prepared with the participation of more than 30 State bodies and 20 non-governmental organizations.  Uzbekistan always took into account the opinions of civil society organizations, not only in the State reports but in the society as a whole.  In keeping with the Committee’s General Comments, the report had been discussed in the two chambers of Parliament.  Parliament had also adopted a national action plan for the implementation of the Committee’s previous concluding observations, which attested to the important role it played in the promotion and protection of human rights in the country.

In 2018, Uzbekistan – for the first time in Asia – had organized the Asian Forum for Human Rights, which was akin to a Davos Forum for human rights in Asia.  The outcome document of the Forum had been the Samarkand Declaration of Human Rights.  The next edition of this biennial event would be held in 2020.

In Uzbekistan, a country with a long history, people of different ethnic groups and different religions lived side-by-side in peace and harmony.  Today, there were 130 different ethnic groups and 2,300 religious organizations belonging to 16 different faiths in the country, including Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam.  Uzbekistan was also a multilingual and multicultural country.  The history of tolerance among nations, religions, languages and cultures was at the heart of the present-day Uzbekistan.  Historically located at the crossroads of the Silk Road, it was a place where peace and understanding between different peoples had been forged.

The election of the new President three years ago had ushered in a new era in Uzbekistan and had opened the door to a new image of the country.  The foreign policy priority was good relations with neighbouring and other Central Asian countries.  Central Asia needed to work as one and Uzbekistan would continue to strengthen friendly ties with the counters in the region.  The priorities were mutually beneficial foreign policy, security and stability, and resolving water issues.

Since the last review, Uzbekistan had achieved great progress in strengthening its legal framework to provide legal guarantees and promote and protect human rights and freedoms, ensure interethnic and interreligious harmony, and prevent extremism.  This included the adoption of 15 laws and a series of legislative acts, including on preventing human rights violations, on state youth, on combatting corruption, on the constitutional court, on business ombudsmen, and others.

Judicial and legal reforms were underway to strengthen the judicial independence, without which the implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination would not be possible.  The Supreme Judicial Council had been created as a fully independent body.  The Supreme Court had been set up, as had administrative and economic courts, while the remit of the Constitutional Court had been extended to allow the Ombudsman to directly apply to the Court.  The reform of the Criminal Code had strengthened the repression of ethnically or racially motivated crimes by declaring racism an aggravating circumstance. 

Public help desks had been set up throughout the country to enable direct contact between the President and the population; these enabled citizens to lodge complaints directly with the Head of State.  To date, more than 3.5 million communications had been received from citizens and of those, 3.3 million had been dealt with.  The Committee on Interethnic Ties and Friendly Relations with Foreign Countries had been created within the Government.  The legal status of the national human rights institution had been strengthened, the position of a business ombudsmen had been established, while the child ombudsmen was being created.  A committee for the fight against human trafficking had been set up and a national rapporteur on human rights and forced labour had been designated.  Uzbekistan now had a fully functioning institutional system to eradicate racial discrimination, said Mr. Saidov.

Five electoral codes had been unified in a new, single electoral code, which was being applied in the ongoing parliamentary elections.  Broad social measures to tackle racial discrimination had been implemented, including the setting up of the Consultative Council for the Development of Civil Society, the adoption of the law on public oversight, and the drafting of a new law for non-governmental organizations.

Against the backdrop of the growing tensions in the world, maintaining good interethnic and interreligious relations in Uzbekistan and fostering a culture of tolerance and understanding must be the priority.

ALIYA YUNUSOVA, Member of the Legislative Chamber of Oliy Majlis (Parliament) of Uzbekistan, stressed that Uzbekistan was a secular State: everyone had the right to freedom of religion or thought, while the State did not interfere in the work of religious organizations.  The legislative framework prohibited the stirring up of discord between different faiths and ethnicities.  Uzbekistan had adopted a roadmap for the realization of the right to freedom of thought and religion.  It had also adopted a law on extremism, and had simplified the registration and reporting procedures for religious organizations.

RUSTAM KURBANOV, Chairperson of the Committee on Interethnic Relations and Friendly Ties with Foreign Countries of Uzbekistan, said that the Committee had been created in 2017 and was attached to the Cabinet of Ministers.  In November 2019, it had developed the national interethnic relations policy and a roadmap for its implementation.

AZIZ TASHPULATOV, First Deputy Minister of Interior of Uzbekistan, said that the National Commission to Combat Trafficking in Persons and Forced Labour had been set up.  It was composed of representatives of 26 ministries, agencies and non-governmental organizations and was chaired by the head of the Senate.   New laws on nationality and on human trafficking were being drafted. 

AKMAL SAIDOV, Director of the National Human Right Centre of Uzbekistan, stressed that the Constitution of Uzbekistan did not contain a concept of national minority, because it was deemed to be discriminatory towards those groups.  Instead, the Constitution referred to the people of Uzbekistan, which included all nations and nationalities living in the country, who were all equal in their rights.

Questions by the Country Rapporteur

YANDUAN LI, Committee Rapporteur for Uzbekistan, noted with pleasure the positive impacts of the political, economic and social reforms that Uzbekistan had been taking since 2016.  She welcomed the country’s re-engagement with international organizations such as the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the International Organization for Migration. 

The Committee further welcomed the adoption in May 2017 of the presidential decree on the granting of political asylum which incorporated elements of the refugee definition in the 1951 Convention Relating to the States of Refugees.  The adoption of the Law on Civil Acts Registration in July 2018 ensured that children born to undocumented parents were registered at birth and so contributed to achieving universal birth registration and reducing the risk of childhood statelessness.

The definition of racial discrimination in the legislation continued to be out of step with the Convention as colour and descent were still missing from the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.  The Rapporteur underscored that each of the five grounds of racial discrimination in the Convention’s definition had their own meaning and application and complimented each other.  Uzbekistan had stated that a separate law devoted to racial discrimination ran counter to the logic behind the organization of its legal system – what did this mean?  The new Criminal Code was being drafted – would it include race motives as an aggravating circumstance for all crimes?

The Rapporteur asked the delegation to explain steps being taken to raise awareness about the Convention in Uzbekistan and to review remedies available to victims of racial discrimination.  Were there any tangible results from the national action plan for the implementation of the Committee’s concluding observations?

How many complaints of racial discrimination had been filed and what were the decisions awarded to complainants in penal, civil or administrative courts, or by non-judicial mechanisms such as the Ombudsman?  Uzbekistan held the view that there was no need for a legislative framework on the rights of ethnic minorities because not a single complaint of racial discrimination had been received.  However, the Rapporteur stressed, the lack of complaints of racial discrimination did not mean the absence of racial discrimination.

Seeking to better understand the situation of ethnic minorities, Ms. Li requested data and statistics on the socioeconomic status of minorities – Luli/Roma, Karakalpak people and Meskhetian Turks.  The Rapporteur requested information about housing, education, education in minority languages, social protection and the enjoyment of cultural rights.  What measures had been taken to guarantee that ethnic minorities had full access to high-level positions as public service officials and to the Aral Sea development programme?

Uzbekistan was gradually opening its doors to the outside world and it was unlikely that it would remain untouched by the global refugee crisis, remarked Ms. Li and inquired about measures to establish a national asylum system.

Finally, the Rapporteur welcomed the steps to strengthen the legal status of the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner (Ombudsman) and bring it in line with the Paris Principles, and urged Uzbekistan to increase the support to this body, including financial.

Questions by Committee Experts

GUN KUT, Committee Rapporteur for Follow-up to Concluding Observations, recalled that the Committee had adopted concluding observations on Uzbekistan in February 2014 and had received the interim report on time.  In 2014, the Committee had asked Uzbekistan to, inter alia, investigate the allegations of forced sterilization of Roma women, provide remedies and prevent future occurrences; take measures to increase the political participation of persons belonging to ethnic minorities; and expedite naturalization procedures for stateless persons. 

Referencing two public survey results, another Expert asked the delegation to explain how it succeeded to reduce the incidence of racial discrimination by 8 per cent from 2015 to 2016, which – if true – was remarkable.

Taking positive note of the multilingual character of the country, Experts commended Uzbekistan for guaranteeing access to justice to its citizens in their own language, communicated through an interpreter, and also took good note of the fact that seven languages had been chosen as languages of education and instruction.  Did this mean that only those languages were taught in schools and if so, what could one do to ensure that their children received education in their mother tongue?

The delegation was asked to explain how the public help desks functioned, how the citizens’ complaints were received and processed, and what they pertained to.

Minorities in Uzbekistan seemed to enjoy a lower standard of living than others, which might indicate that there was, to a certain degree, structural discrimination.  Was there any national policy that took into account the diversity of Roma and Romani people, Experts asked.

The delegation was also asked to explain its position on the International Decade of People of African Descent and whether there had been any surveys to collect the experiences of groups that were historically discriminated against.  Uzbekistan required that all its citizens had to obtain an exit visa in order to leave the country, which was contrary to the right to freedom of movement. 

Experts were concerned that the applicants for the Uzbek citizenship had to renounce their existing citizenship, which left them at risk of statelessness should the Uzbek authorities refuse their citizenship application.  Uzbekistan was one of the countries that used algorithms – in which areas and how were those applied and what was being done to avoid racial profiling and racial discrimination?

The Experts were interested in the prosecution of racially or ethnically motivated crimes and asked the delegation to inform on the cases and the sentences.  Most cases, however, seemed to be prosecuted under the Criminal Code articles 156 and 2441 which related to the protection of the State.  In those prosecutions, the sentences seemed to be stiffer, Experts remarked, and asked whether the justice in Uzbekistan was more protective of human rights or of the security of the State.  

There were over 9,000 registered non-governmental organizations in Uzbekistan, but only 20 had participated in the consultations on the periodic report to the Committee.  How were those organizations selected and which criteria had been used?  The new law on civil society organizations was being drafted, an Expert noted, and wondered whether only one text – instead of the previous 10 - would be sufficient to enable very diverse civil society organizations to fully function.  A concern was that such a law might limit the civic space in the country.

Replies by the Delegation

The delegation reiterated that the designation “ethnic minority” was discriminatory and thus not used.  Koreans in Uzbekistan were valued members of the society and a very respected ethnic group.  They could learn their language, for example through the Korean Cultural Centres, while Korean was studied at the Tashkent Pedagogical University.  It was true that the number of Koreans in the country had decreased; there were many reasons that explained this trend, including the fact that some had left the country and returned to Korea.

More than 9,000 non-governmental organizations worked in various fields and each and every one had to register.  Depending on their field of expertise, they were invited to submit information on different articles in the periodic report to the Committee.

More than 50 non-governmental organizations had taken part in the preparation of the report to the Committee.  Uzbekistan had also included information obtained from the Cultural and Ethnic Centres – there were 138 such centres in the country which represented 28 ethnicities.  In cooperation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, a seminar had been organized for non-governmental organizations on the preparation of alternative reports to human rights treaty bodies.  Additionally, the Government worked together with civil society organizations on monitoring the implementation of the treaty bodies’ concluding observations.

Uzbekistan had adopted a decree on national goals in the field of sustainable development up to 2030 and had developed national indicators for the implementation and attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals.  Uzbekistan was a party to the Paris Climate Agreement, said the delegate. 

Following the visit to Uzbekistan by Ahmed Shaheed, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Uzbekistan had developed a roadmap for the development of a new law on religious freedoms and religious organizations as recommended by the Special Rapporteur.  Many provisions of that roadmap had already been implemented.  The law was being prepared taking into account the opinion poll on the religiosity of the people of Uzbekistan, religious tolerance, international obligations of Uzbekistan, and international experience in the regulation of activities of religious organizations.  A bill on freedom of conscience was currently being examined with a view to its enactment.

A draft law on citizenship was currently in Parliament.  It would streamline the procedure for acquiring citizenship, including for children based on their parentage.  The delegation stressed that Uzbek legislation allowed for only one citizenship, thus people in Uzbekistan were either Uzbeks or citizens of another country. 

There were over 133,000 temporary residents in Uzbekistan, of whom 97,000 were stateless.  Temporary registration implied registration of a person whose residence in Uzbekistan was not permanent.  In 2019, the Uzbek citizenship had been granted to almost 10,000 individuals, while another 40,000 stateless individuals would be able to obtain the citizenship once the draft citizenship law was passed.

After a long road, Uzbekistan had adopted the law on equality between women and men and the law on the protection of women from violence, and it was working hard on their implementation.  At the latest parliamentary elections, of the 150 members of Parliament who had been elected, 24 were women.  Uzbekistan was today one of the 56 countries where a woman led Parliament.  The elections for Oliy Majlis (Parliament) would take place on 22 December.  A total of 750 candidates had been registered, including 310 women.

An act on education had been recently adopted and it included preschool aged children in the education system.  It provided for preschools in all State languages.  The right to education was guaranteed to all, irrespective of their race, language, ethnicity, nationality, and other grounds, and people were free to choose the language of education for their children.  People living in Uzbekistan had the right to communicate with the State in whichever State language they chose. 

There were no complaints to law enforcement agencies or medical establishments about forced sterilizations.  In April 2018, Uzbekistan had adopted the law on reproductive health and reproductive rights, which provided adequate protection to citizens.  Women could not be forced into pregnancy or abortion, unless there were strong medical reasons.  If there were medical indications for sterilization, a written consent of the woman or her close relative was needed.  This was a provision that intended to protect women’s reproductive health.

There were over 50,000 Luli Roma in Uzbekistan who were no longer nomads but were settled in the society and possessed identification documents.  They elected their own representatives to the local authorities.  There were over 350 representatives of ethnic groups at the highest level of authority in the country. 

The Aral Sea disaster was a global problem.  This enormous sea had been lost in a span of one human life, with huge consequences for the populations, which Uzbekistan sought to alleviate through the Aral Sea development programme up to 2025.  The dry sea bed allowed for many economic activities and programmes were in place to generate jobs and improve the socioeconomic situation of all ethnic groups living in the Karakalpakstan region.  More than 500,000 trees had been planted and another 700,000 hectares would be forested in the near future.  The Government was building flats, schools, kindergartens and health centres for the population living in the region.

The 138 Cultural and Ethnic Centres were free to operate and to maintain links with countries of origin.  They represented 28 ethnicities living in Uzbekistan.  Under the Shanghai Declaration on Cultural Cooperation, Uzbekistan had set up nearly 40 friendship societies, which were good examples of public diplomacy. 

Incitement to national, ethnic or racial hatred was criminalized.  In the 2016-2017 period, 48 people had been tried for 26 such offences.  In 2018, no such crimes had been registered.  Uzbekistan was updating its Criminal Code and would include the Committee’s recommendations on incitement to hatred.

The National Commission to Combat Human Trafficking and Forced Labour had been set up in 2016.  The number of cases of trafficking in persons had considerably decreased since then: in 2017, there had been 440 victims and 305 people had been charged, in 2018, 205 victims and 123 people had been charged with the crime, and in 2019, 109 victims and 77 people had been charged.  Human trafficking offences usually happened abroad, said the delegation.  There were 50 private employment agencies that assisted Uzbeks with employment abroad.  Their operations were regulated by the law on private employment agencies.

The biometric passport system allowed citizens to better exit the country and stamped exit visas had been cancelled.

The fight against corruption was a State priority.  Uzbekistan had zero tolerance to this crime and in 2018, it had become a party to the United Nations Convention against Corruption.  It was also a signatory of the Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.  An anti-corruption law had been adopted and a comprehensive system for detecting corruption offences had been put in place, while all Government programmes had to have an anti-corruption component. 

The Office of the Procurator General coordinated all efforts to fight corruption in the country, in cooperation with civil society.  The ongoing second national programme to combat corruption to 2020 aimed to enhance Parliamentary oversight.  Parliament had established a committee on combatting corruption, while a strategy on administrative reform and the law on public oversight had been adopted to oversee the work of civil society organizations and other civil society mechanisms.

Uzbekistan had eradicated child labour in a very short span of time.  The work of children in the cotton fields was prohibited and sanctioned.  The Government was combatting forced labour hand in glove with civil society organizations.  The national programme for decent work was being implemented in cooperation with the International Labour Organization, the World Bank and national organizations such as the Cotton Campaign.

The liberalization of the criminal and administrative legislation and the use of non-custodial measures had significantly reduced the prison population.  A greater application of habeas corpus resulted in more acquittals, while more than 4,000 individuals had received a Presidential pardon on humanitarian grounds.  Today, there was not a single political prisoner in the country.  The mahalas, local units of governments, were true democratic institutions with a long history in Uzbekistan.  They contributed significantly to reducing the incidence of crimes and to rehabilitating prisoners.

In the last few years, cooperation with international organizations had been significantly improved.  The progress was especially evident in the relationship with the International Labour Organization and Uzbekistan had ratified eight of its conventions.  Uzbekistan was examining the ratification of several international human rights treaties, including on the status of refugees and on statelessness.  There was a systematic follow up on the implementation of all ratified instruments, not only by the executive, but by Parliament as well. 

Political asylum was provided by the Presidential edict of 2016 to individuals and their families fleeing political, religious or ethnic persecution or human rights violations.  The applicant whose application for political asylum was refused could reapply after a year.

The system of national human rights institutions in Uzbekistan included three ombudsmen – Parliamentary, Business and Children.  The Parliamentary Ombudsmen had applied for a membership of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions and Uzbekistan very much hoped the application would be approved.  The National Human Rights Centre was a State-coordinated body responsible for the preparation of reports to the treaty bodies and the Universal Periodic Review and the implementation of their recommendations. 

Uzbekistan had appeared in the Universal Periodic Review in May 2017, when it had accepted 94 per cent of the recommendations received.  Fourteen recommendations had been noted, including recommendations related to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex rights and the ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. 

The law on the population census had been recently adopted to enable the collection of disaggregated data on ethnic groups and on persons with disabilities. 

The official language of the State was Uzbek.  The Government created an environment in which ethnic groups could develop and maintain their cultures and languages.  Everyone had equal access to all levels of education, including stateless persons.  In the Karakalpakstan region, more than 100,000 students attended 365 schools in their language, there were over 500,000 pupils in Russian speaking schools, and there were also schools in Tajik, Kazakh and Turkmen.

The youth were one of the most problematic population groups in the world.  There were over 2 billion people aged under 30 and there was no international convention protecting their rights.  Uzbekistan was working with like-minded countries on promoting such a treaty.

Torture was prohibited and Uzbekistan had a national prevention mechanism in the Ombudsmen+ formula.  While not yet a signatory to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, all the elements of that treaty were in place.  

With regard to the codification of legislation on non-governmental organizations, the delegation said that civil society was covered by more than 200 legislative acts.  Uzbekistan was working on streamlining all those laws into one law on civil society.  The basic principles were that they had to be registered and had to report on their activities. 

Concluding Remarks

YANDUAN LI, Committee Rapporteur for Uzbekistan, said in her concluding remarks that the dialogue was very constructive and informative.  It would serve as a good basis for the Committee’s concluding observations on the report of Uzbekistan.

AKMAL SAIDOV, Director of the National Human Right Centre of Uzbekistan, in his concluding remarks, said that during the dialogue, Uzbekistan tried to show it was in a new stage in its history, in which the interests of the population, their rights and freedoms, were a priority.  Uzbekistan highly valued the Committee’s comments and stood ready to work constructively with the entire human rights system.

NOUREDDINE AMIR, Committee Chairperson, thanked the delegation for the quality of the dialogue.

___________

For use of the information media; not an official record

Follow UNIS Geneva on:Website | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube |Flickr