Opinion; Subjects: UZBEKISTAN, ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.17-01891(E)
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its seventy-seventh session,
21-25 November 2016
Opinion No. 47/2016 concerning Bobomurod Razzakov (Uzbekistan)
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights, which extended and clarified the Working Group’s
mandate in its resolution 1997/50. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251 and
Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the
Commission. The mandate of the Working Group was most recently extended for a three-
year period in Council resolution 33/30 of 30 September 2016.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work (A/HRC/30/69), on 1 April 2016 the
Working Group transmitted a communication to the Government of Uzbekistan concerning
Bobomurod Razzakov. The Government replied to the communication on 20 May 2016 and
provided additional information on 26 May 2016. The State is a party to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
3.
The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following
cases:
(a)
When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or
her sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);
(b)
When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22,
25, 26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);
(c)
When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating
to the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in
the relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity
as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/47
General Assembly
Distr.: General
8 February 2017
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/47
2
(d)
When asylum seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged
administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or
remedy (category IV);
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on
the grounds of discrimination based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation,
disability, or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of
human beings (category V).
Submissions
Communication from the source
4.
Mr. Razzakov, 60 years old, is a human rights activist and local farmer in Bukhara,
Uzbekistan. Prior to his arrest, he had been Chairman of the Bukhara region branch of the
human rights non-governmental organization “Ezgulik”. Mr. Razzakov had also been a
member of a peaceful political opposition party “Erk”, which is banned in Uzbekistan. In
his human rights work, he had focused on farmers’ rights and government corruption and
had helped local individuals with human rights issues. Mr. Razzakov had also
communicated with international media such as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the
British Broadcasting Corporation.
5.
On 12 July 2013, Mr. Razzakov was summoned to the police department in Bukhara
and arrested. After his arrest, the Bukhara City Criminal Court issued an order to place him
in pretrial detention. He was charged with human trafficking, which is an offence under
article 135 of the Penal Code of Uzbekistan.
6.
On 24 September 2013, Mr. Razzakov was found guilty of human trafficking and
sentenced to four years in prison. On 27 December 2013, following Mr. Razzakov’s appeal,
the court of cassation upheld the guilty verdict. He is currently being detained in
penitentiary colony 64/3 in Tavaksay, Tashkent Region.
7.
The source claims that Mr. Razzakov’s deprivation of liberty was based on
“trumped-up charges” and constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of liberty under categories II
and III.
8.
According to the information received, prior to his arrest, in early spring 2013,
Bukhara security services had begun threatening and harassing Mr. Razzakov. The police in
Bukhara had summoned him on several occasions and he had been exhorted by the counter-
terrorism criminal investigation unit to cease his human rights work. In March 2013, Uzbek
officials had threatened Mr. Razzakov openly that he would spend the rest of his life in
prison if he continued his human rights work and his collaboration with international media
sources.
9.
Mr. Razzakov continued his human rights activities and, on 6 June 2013, he was
interrogated for two hours by the head of Bukhara’s counter-terrorism criminal
investigation unit at the Department of Internal Affairs. During the interrogation, the head
of the unit accused him of collaborating with international media and damaging the
reputation of Uzbekistan, and requested that he resign from “Ezgulik” and stop talking to
the media. He threatened that, if Mr. Razzakov did not cease those activities, he would get
into trouble and his children might be harmed.
10.
Despite the threats, Mr. Razzakov continued to assist victims of human rights
violations through legal advice. He advised them about their rights, how to seek remedies
when aggrieved and drafted complaints to government bodies on their behalf.
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/47
3
11.
On 5 July 2013, a woman visited Mr. Razzakov’s house to seek his advice
concerning the possibility of appealing against her recent criminal conviction for slander.
Mr. Razzakov advised her to collect additional information and documentation and to come
back so that he could look into the case. The woman went back to see him again on 7 and 8
July 2013 and brought copies of the court decision and indictment.
12.
On 8 July 2013, while she was consulting with Mr. Razzakov for his advice, the
woman complained that it was difficult for her to find a job. Mr. Razzakov called a former
client of his and asked if she could help to get the woman a job. The former client agreed to
help and invited her to stay overnight in her apartment.
13.
On 9 July 2013, officers from the National Security Service knocked at the door of
the former client’s apartment. When she refused to open, they broke into the apartment. She
escaped and sought refuge in Mr. Razzakov’s house, where she was found and arrested by
the same officers.
14.
On 9 July 2013, the woman wrote a complaint to the police in Bukhara accusing Mr.
Razzakov and his former client of having forced her into prostitution. She also accused Mr.
Razzakov of having attempted to force her to have sex with him at his house when she
came to him for advice.
15.
On 10 and 11 July 2013, Mr. Razzakov was summoned by the police to the Internal
Affairs Department, where he was questioned about the allegations. Mr. Razzakov denied
the accusations, gave a written statement about the events of 8 July and was allowed to
return home. Later on 11 July, the investigator issued an indictment against Mr. Razzakov
for human trafficking.
16.
On 12 July 2013, Mr. Razzakov was again summoned by the police and arrested on
the charge of human trafficking. On 13 July, the Bukhara City Criminal Court ordered that
he be placed in pretrial detention. The same day, police officials searched his house and
confiscated materials related to his human rights work and his personal computer. Also on
that same day, Mr. Razzakov hired a defence lawyer.
17.
On 23 August 2013, Mr. Razzakov’s trial began before the Bukhara Provincial
Criminal Court. The trial consisted of four hearings in total, each lasting approximately 45
minutes. The source claims that the trial was plagued with inconsistencies and procedural
violations. The public was largely denied access to the trial and Mr. Razzakov’s son faced
retaliation from public authorities for organizing support for his father.
18.
On 24 September 2013, the Court found Mr. Razzakov guilty of human trafficking
under articles 135 (2) (a) and 135 (2) (e) of the Penal Code and sentenced him to four years
in prison, starting from 12 July 2013. After an appeal was made, the cassation court ruled
on 27 December 2013 that it upheld the finding of the trial court.
19.
Based on the aforementioned circumstances, the source claims that the present case
meets the requirements of category II because Mr. Razzakov’s detention is politically
motivated and is a result of his human rights work and his exercise of his fundamental right
to the freedoms of expression and of association guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the Covenant. The source argues that, in paragraph 39 of its opinion No.
65/2012, the Working Group stated that it “subjects cases to heightened scrutiny when
article 19 rights and work as human rights defenders are involved”.
20.
The source claims that the human trafficking charge against Mr. Razzakov is false
and was fabricated as a means to detain him and punish him for refusing to cease his
legitimate human rights activities. It also claims that his conviction is politically motivated
and aimed at silencing him and bringing an end to his human rights work. The source
further states that this could have been done with a view to teaching other human rights
activists in Uzbekistan a lesson. In support of that argument, the source refers to the human
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/47
4
rights record of Uzbekistan, in particular, that the Government has never allowed free and
independent civil society and human rights non-governmental organizations.
21.
The source claims that Mr. Razzakov was a member of both “Ezgulik”, the human
rights organization, and “Erk”, a political opposition party. The Government of Uzbekistan
has repeatedly targeted members of both “Ezgulik” and “Erk”. Before his arrest, officials
from the police department in Bukhara had threatened Mr. Razzakov on several occasions
in connection with his human rights work.
22.
After he was convicted, government officials continued to threaten Mr. Razzakov
and his family with consequences if his son did not stop communicating with international
human rights organizations and media outlets. Those threats, the source claims,
demonstrate that the Government was concerned about Mr. Razzakov’s human rights work.
Furthermore, when the police searched Mr. Razzakov’s house, they took printed materials
related to his human rights work.
23.
The source asserts that Mr. Razzakov had been very active in his human rights work
and had written numerous letters and petitions to government authorities complaining about
regional officials and human rights issues. Before his arrest, Mr. Razzakov had told other
“Ezgulik” members that he had been facing growing pressure from the police to stop his
human rights work since the start of 2013. The source considers that the repeated threats of
retaliation which Mr. Razzakov had been subjected to prior to his arrest and since he was
detained can constitute cruel and inhuman treatment.
24.
Also, the source claims that the present case meets the requirements of category III
because, in addition to the violation of the due process requirement established by the
Covenant and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the source asserts that the
arbitrary nature of Mr. Razzakov’s detention can be determined based on the violations of
the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment. In that regard, the source claims that Uzbekistan failed to observe the
minimum international standards of due process by denying Mr. Razzakov his right to
prepare a defence, a public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, and to be free
from torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
25.
When the trial began on 23 August 2013, 80 people went to the courthouse to show
solidarity with Mr. Razzakov and express discontent with his unjust detention, but only his
relatives and his lawyer were permitted to attend the hearing. Mr. Razzakov’s son was
threatened by Uzbek law enforcement on multiple occasions for organizing demonstrations
at the courthouse on behalf of his father during the trial. In one instance, Mr. Razzakov’s
son took the threats seriously and asked supporters to cancel a planned demonstration in
front of the Regional Governor’s Office.
26.
The courts failed to ensure that the defence had access to all documents and
evidence used against Mr. Razzakov. In convicting and sentencing him to four years in
prison, the court relied on a medical report that allegedly showed that Mr. Razzakov had
abused the victim. That report, however, was not shared with the defence. The court
referred in its judgment to the report as part of the evidence against Mr. Razzakov but did
not explain how it established his guilt.
27.
Also, the court relied on alleged transcripts of telephone conversations between Mr.
Razzakov and his former client. Again, the prosecution failed to provide the defence with a
copy of the transcripts and failed to explain how the transcripts established or contributed to
establishing Mr. Razzakov’s guilt. Like the medical report, the court accepted the
transcripts as evidence of Mr. Razzakov’s guilt.
28.
Under Uzbek law, in order to demonstrate that human trafficking has been
committed, the court must be given proof that the victim of human trafficking was
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/47
5
subjected to kidnapping, violence, threats of violence or other coercion. The source claims
that such proof was never produced before the court and it relied solely on conflicting
evidence and testimony to reach its conviction.
29.
The source submits that seven people only were permitted to testify during the trial,
including three witnesses on behalf of Mr. Razzakov. The prosecution witnesses made
contradictory statements and the court gave insufficient weight to the evidence produced by
the defence. Furthermore, the trial court did not give Mr. Razzakov’s defence an
opportunity to review and question the evidence that it had relied upon in reaching its
verdict. For example, the court relied on a medical report provided by the prosecution that
supposedly established that Mr. Razzakov had abused the woman who had filed the
complaint against him. The prosecutor, however, neither provided the defence with a copy
of the medical report nor explained the relevance of the report to the case.
30.
The court also failed to consider significant exculpatory evidence adduced by the
defence during the cross-examination of the prosecution’s main witnesses. It also failed to
compel prosecution witnesses to testify when apparent contradictions were raised during
cross-examination, including, for example, when the prosecution’s witness completely
changed testimony between hearings. The source points out that the prosecution’s main
witness was Mr. Razzakov’s former client, who was also the co-defendant of Mr. Razzakov
at the trial. She testified against him, despite the fact that her involvement in the alleged
human trafficking scheme was more direct than Mr. Razzakov’s, but Mr. Razzakov was the
only alleged member of the scheme being sentenced to imprisonment.
31.
The defence witnesses corroborated Mr. Razzakov’s account of the facts and
pleaded for his innocence. In particular, Mr. Razzakov’s wife testified that, on the day
when the purported victim came to their house, she had been at home and saw her husband
treat her with respect. Mr. Razzakov’s wife did not hear and or see any indications of the
alleged conduct and noted that the purported victim had been in a good mood when she
departed from their home. Mr. Razzakov’s daughter-in-law provided a similar testimony.
Mr. Razzakov rejected the allegations made and repeated that he had only attempted to
assist the woman who had visited him for assistance.
32.
The source claims that the court did not consider any exculpatory testimonies raised
in defence of Mr. Razzakov or explain why the exculpatory evidence was not persuasive in
the light of the contradictions present in the prosecution’s case. In the light of the above, the
source submits that Mr. Razzakov’s trial was conducted in contravention of his rights
guaranteed in articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article
14 of the Covenant.
33.
Furthermore the source claims that Mr. Razzakov was subjected to torture or cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment. In that regard, the source reports that, on
10 and 16 October 2013, two police officers visited Mr. Razzakov in prison and threatened
to retaliate against him and his family if his son did not stop communicating with
international human rights organizations. On 28 November 2013, prison authorities accused
Mr. Razzakov of violating the internal prison code and placed him in a punishment cell for
one day, without explaining what rules he had violated. On 29 November 2013, the same
two police officers visited him again in prison and threatened him again. On 3 December
2013, Mr. Razzakov was placed in a punishment cell for 15 days allegedly for not keeping
his hands in place during line-up. The source further alleges that, in October 2014, Mr.
Razzakov was beaten for writing a letter from prison. He suffered a broken jaw and injuries
to the skull as a result. In connection with the injuries to his skull, Mr. Razzakov had to
undergo surgery in the prison hospital in Tashkent in late November 2014.
34.
Mr. Razzakov’s family and legal counsel were denied visitation rights both at the
penitentiary colony in Tavaksay and the prison hospital in Tashkent for three months after
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/47
6
the incident in which he suffered a broken jaw and head injuries. During that time, Mr.
Razzakov’s lawyer filed several complaints with the Main Directorate of the Penitentiary of
Uzbekistan regarding his client’s improper medical treatment and denial of visits by family
and lawyers. On 7 January 2015, Mr. Razzakov’s lawyer waited at the prison hospital in
Tashkent for a full day before being denied access to his client. Mr. Razzakov’s lawyer then
filed a complaint with the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
35.
In late January 2015, three months after Mr. Razzakov suffered the severe injury to
his head, his family was finally permitted to visit him. During the visit, it was visible that
Mr. Razzakov was suffering from memory loss and did not recognize his son and wife for
over half an hour. Mr. Razzakov could not recall much of what had happened during that
visit. He also displayed signs of severe neglect and his body was covered with flea bites,
which were bleeding from scratches.
36.
Although Mr. Razzakov is transferred from Tavaksay to a prison hospital in
Tashkent when he suffers from a health issue, the source claims that he is not getting
adequate medical care or access to medicine for conditions pre-existing his incarceration,
because his list of health complications has grown through privation and abuse in prison.
Mr. Razzakov had problems with ulcers, which have worsened in prison because he has not
received proper medical treatment.
37.
Doctors at the prison hospital in Tashkent have refused to provide any medical
documentation to his family. To date, according to the source, Mr. Razzakov’s family
estimates that it has spent the equivalent of $7,200 to provide medical care to Mr.
Razzakov. The family is not sure whether Mr. Razzakov has been receiving the medicines
that they have provided. The limited information provided by the doctors indicates that Mr.
Razzakov’s health problems and injuries sustained in prison require frequent
hospitalization.
Response from the Government
38.
In its response of 20 May 2016, the Government informed the Working Group that,
on 24 September 2013, the Bukhara Provincial Criminal Court sentenced Mr. Razzakov to
four years’ deprivation of liberty under articles 135 (2) (a) (c) and (e) (Trafficking in
persons) and 57 (Imposition of a lighter sentence) of the Criminal Code.
39.
Currently, Mr. Razzakov is serving his sentence in a confinement institution.
40.
According to the Government, the competent authorities of Uzbekistan do not
possess any information about any unlawful actions of the law enforcement authorities
regarding this person.
Further information from the Government
41.
On 26 May 2016, the Government provided further information with regard to the
case of Mr. Razzakov, particularly with regard to the alleged abuse and access to medical
care and family visits during his custody.
42.
According to the Government, it should be noted that some convicted persons,
primarily those who do not want to embark on rehabilitation, refuse to meet the lawful
demands of the administration of institutions and systematically violate the prison code,
which leads to the imposition of disciplinary sanctions on them. In order to express their
disagreement with such disciplinary sanctions, they deliberately distort information about
the institution and its administration. Ensuring compliance with the prison regime under
national law is not an infringement of the rights and lawful interests of convicted persons.
43.
The Government notes that Mr. Razzakov, born in 1955, an Uzbek, citizen of
Uzbekistan and native of Bukhara Province, was sentenced on 24 September 2013 by the
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/47
7
Bukhara Provincial Court to four years of deprivation of liberty under a normal prison
regime, under article 135 (2) (a) and (e) (Trafficking in persons) and article 57 (Imposition
of a lighter sentence).
44.
The Government submits that his sentence began on 12 July 2013 and will end on
12 July 2017. He is serving his sentence in correctional institution UY 64/3 (Tashkent
Province).
45.
The Government submits that, on arrival at the pretrial detention centre and when he
was transferred to the correctional institution, Mr. Razzakov underwent a complete medical
examination, including all the necessary clinical laboratory and biochemical tests and X-
rays. His medical history shows the following chronic diseases: (a) chronic
gastroduodenitis at the stage of incomplete remission; (b) atherosclerosis of cardiac and
cerebral vessels; (c) chronic hepatitis; and (d) chronic pyelonephritis.
46.
The Government submits that, as appropriate for his diseases, Mr. Razzakov is
registered for outpatient treatment and is under general observation by medical staff of the
institution. As recommended by medical specialists, he has received professional medical
care both as an outpatient and as an inpatient at institution UY 64/3, and as necessary as an
inpatient in the National Prison Hospital at correctional institution UY 64/18 (Tashkent).
47.
The Government refers to the substance of the issues raised in the communication
transmitted by the Working Group, and specifically concerning the Directorate for Penal
Correction.
48.
The Government submits that, according to the Working Group, on 28 November
2013, prison authorities accused Mr. Razzakov of violating the internal prison code and
placed him in a punishment cell for one day, without explaining what rules he had violated.
Then, on 3 December 2013, Mr. Razzakov was placed in a punishment cell for 15 days
allegedly for not keeping his hands in place during line-up. The source of the
communication claims that, in October 2014, Mr. Razzakov was beaten for writing a letter
from prison, as a result of which he suffered a broken jaw and injuries to the skull. In
connection with the injuries to his skull, Mr. Razzakov had to undergo surgery in the prison
hospital in Tashkent in late November 2014.
49.
The Government underlines that the allegations in the communication regarding the
placement of Mr. Razzakov in a punishment cell are not true because, during the whole
term of his imprisonment, the administration of the institution has never imposed a
disciplinary sanction in the form of incarceration on Mr. Razzakov.
50.
In its response, the Government submits that, in serving his sentence, Mr. Razzakov
has repeatedly violated prison rules, is a malicious violator of the rules of custody and has
received five disciplinary sanctions, including two reprimands, one placement in the
disciplinary unit for five days and two warnings.
51.
The Government submits that, with regard to the allegations in the communication
that Mr. Razzakov was beaten for writing a letter from prison, the Government notes that,
on 25 October 2014, Mr. Razzakov did not write any letters or submit any applications to
the administration of institution UY 64/3.
52.
The Government submits that, in the evening of 25 October 2014, Mr. Razzakov, in
an unstable mental state, of his own volition jumped out of a window on the second floor of
the unit premises. As a result of the fall, Mr. Razzakov sustained injuries to his head and
extremities. He was urgently taken to the medical unit of the institution, where he received
first aid and, on the same day, he was sent to the National Prison Hospital at correctional
institution UY 64/18 (Tashkent).
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/47
8
53.
On admission to the National Prison Hospital at correctional institution UY 64/18,
the Government submits that Mr. Razzakov underwent all the necessary clinical, laboratory
and biochemical tests and an X-ray examination, was examined by the duty physician, the
traumatologist and surgeon of the National Prison Hospital, and by the neurosurgeon of the
Ministry of Health’s National Neurosurgery Centre. In accordance with the specialists’
recommendations, he received professional medical care and underwent the relevant
inpatient treatment in the National Prison Hospital between 25 October and 26 November
2014.
54.
In the light of what had occurred, an investigation was carried out in order to
discover the cause of the event, including a forensic medical examination in accordance
with articles 172, 173, 174 and 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The conclusion of
forensic medical examination No. 582, carried out in Bustonlyk District, Tashkent Province
on 2 November 2014, was that the injuries received were caused by the impact of falling
from a height. No evidence was found of the use of physical force or infliction of bodily
harm on Mr. Razzakov.
55.
Based on the foregoing, the Directorate for Penal Correction firmly denies the
unsubstantiated and unproven statements in the communication transmitted by the Working
Group about alleged violations in the treatment of Mr. Razzakov. The Government submits
that, during the period of his sentence, there has been no unlawful treatment and no
unlawful actions have been or are being taken against Mr. Razzakov by the administration
of the institution.
56.
The Government continues that, according to the communication, Mr. Razzakov’s
relatives and legal counsel were denied visitation rights at the penitentiary colony in
Tavaksay and the prison hospital in Tashkent for three months after he suffered his broken
jaw and head injuries. During that time, Mr. Razzakov’s lawyer filed several claims with
the Main Directorate of Penal Corrections regarding his client’s improper medical treatment
and denial of family and lawyers visits. On 7 January 2015, Mr. Razzakov’s lawyer waited
at the prison hospital in Tashkent for a full day before being denied access to his client. Mr.
Razzakov’s lawyer then filed a complaint with Uzbekistan’s Ministry of Internal Affairs.
57.
According to the response from the Government, Mr. Razzakov is serving his
sentence in a penitentiary colony with a normal prison regime. Pursuant to article 117 of the
Correctional Code, convicts serving sentences in penitentiary colonies with a normal prison
regime are entitled to four short and four long visits per year (i.e. one long and one short
visit every three months).
58.
In the course of his sentence, Mr. Razzakov — upon the arrival of his relatives and
his lawyer at the institution following their application, in due order, to the administration
of the institution — has been granted a number of visits by his family members and lawyer.
The Government submits a list to that effect.
59.
The Government submits that the Directorate for Penal Correction has received no
complaints from the prisoner, his relatives or his lawyer regarding unlawful actions by
officers of correction institutions. In total, since 2013, the Directorate for Penal Correction
has received the following applications:
(a)
On 25 October 2013, an application from a lawyer, Z. Shapsanov from the
law firm Himoya Nur Media, with a request for the removal of Mr. Razzakov to serve his
sentence in an institution in Tashkent Province;
(b)
On 11 November 2013, an application from Mr. Shapsanov with an inquiry
regarding Mr. Razzakov’s location and his health condition;
(c)
On 19 November 2014, an application from Mr. Razzakov’s son, S.B.
Razzakov, regarding his father’s health condition;
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/47
9
(d)
On 24 November 2014, an application from Mr. Shapsanov regarding Mr.
Razzakov’s health condition;
(e)
On 10 February 2015, an application from Mr. Razzakov’s wife, G.
Razzakova, with a request for her husband’s pardon.
60.
As to the alleged instance when Mr. Razzakov was denied a meeting with his
lawyer, the Government submits that, according to the archives of the register of visits to
prisoners, on 7 January 2015 no relatives or lawyer of Mr. Razzakov applied to the National
Prison Hospital at institution UY 64/18.
61.
The Government refers to the information contained in the communication that, late
in January 2015, three months after he had suffered the severe injury to his head, his family
was finally permitted to visit Mr. Rassakov. During the visit, Mr. Razzakov was visibly
suffering from memory loss and did not recognize his son and wife for over a half hour. Mr.
Razzakov could not recall much of what happened during that visit. He displayed signs of
serious neglect and his body was covered with flea bites, which were bleeding from
scratches.
62.
The Government notes that, while serving his sentence, on 25 October 2014, Mr.
Razzakov of his own volition jumped out of a second floor window of the unit premises
and sustained injuries to his head and extremities. He was registered for outpatient
treatment by a psychiatrist, who diagnosed that he suffered from “consequences of a
craniocerebral injury”. From 27 December 2014 to 9 January 2015, Mr. Razzakov
underwent an examination and inpatient treatment at the National Prison Hospital at
institution UY 64/18 (Tashkent), which led to his diagnosis of “astheno-subdepressive
syndrome with suicidal ideas”.
63.
The Government submits that there were not and could not be any cases as described
in the communication of Mr. Razzakov’s body being covered with flea bites, which were
bleeding from scratches.
64.
The correctional institutions comply strictly with regulations governing public
health and epidemic control, and the medical staff of the institutions carry out the relevant
preventive measures, including inspection of the sanitary condition of all the institution’s
facilities, disinfection and vector and rodent control. Persons arriving at the institution
undergo a comprehensive health check. At least once a week, baths are organized for
inmates, who are also required to change their underwear and bedclothes, which are then
subject to mandatory sterilization. Epidemic control units attached to the Ministry of
Health’s Sanitary and Epidemic Surveillance Centres carry out anti-parasitic treatment of
institutions’ buildings and accommodation facilities on a regular basis.
65.
The Government refers to the information contained in the communication that,
although Mr. Razzakov is transferred from Tavaksay to a prison hospital in Tashkent when
he suffers from a health issue, the source claims that he is not getting adequate medical aid
or access to medicine for conditions pre-existing his incarceration, because his list of health
complications has grown through privation and abuse in prison. Mr. Razzakov had
problems with ulcers and those problems have worsened in prison because he has not
received proper medical treatment.
66.
In its response, the Government notes that, on arrival at the pretrial detention centre
and when he was transferred to the correctional institution, Mr. Razzakov underwent a
complete medical examination. His medical history showed the following chronic diseases:
(a) chronic gastroduodenitis at the stage of incomplete remission; (b) atherosclerosis of
cardiac and cerebral vessels; (c) chronic hepatitis; and (d) chronic pyelonephritis. In the
evening of 25 October 2014, Mr. Razzakov, in an unstable mental state, and of his own
volition, jumped out of a window on the second floor of the unit premises and sustained
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/47
10
injuries to his head and extremities. As appropriate for someone suffering from those
diseases, Mr. Razzakov was registered for outpatient treatment and put under general
observation by the medical staff of the institution.
67.
Whenever necessary, and pursuant to the recommendations of medical specialists,
Mr. Razzakov has received professional medical treatment for his chronic diseases. In total,
the Government submits that he has been treated 11 times at the medical unit of institution
UY 64/3. The Government submits a list to that effect.
68.
The Government submits that the medical professionals of the institution currently
consider Mr. Razzakov’s health condition to be satisfactory; that he is registered for
outpatient treatment for the above-mentioned diseases and for the consequences of a
craniocerebral injury; and that no additional medical treatment is needed.
69.
The Government refers to the information contained in the communication that
doctors at the prison hospital in Tashkent refused to provide any medical documentation to
his family. To date, according to the source, Mr. Razzakov’s family has spent the
equivalent of $7,200 to provide medical care to Mr. Razzakov. The family is not sure
whether Mr. Razzakov took the medicines they provided. What little information is
provided by the doctors indicates that Mr. Razzakov’s health problems and injuries
sustained in prison require frequent hospitalization.
70.
In its response, the Government submits that medical and health services for inmates
in correctional institutions are organized by medical units with inpatient facilities, while
highly qualified medical treatment is delivered at specialized prison hospitals. Medical and
health services for persons sentenced to deprivation of liberty are rendered at the expense of
the State budget, and there has not been any shortage of funding.
71.
The Government reiterates its submission that Mr. Razzakov suffered from a
number of chronic diseases, that in the evening of 25 October 2014 he jumped out of a
window on the second floor of the unit premises and sustained injuries, and that he received
professional medical care.
72.
In response to the information contained in the communication that doctors at the
prison hospital in Tashkent refused to provide any medical documentation to his family, the
Government submits that, according to the archives of the register of visits to convicts and
the register of requests and applications regarding convicts, during his treatment at the
National Prison Hospital at institution UY 64/18 (from 16 to 23 November 2013; from 6 to
16 September 2014; from 25 October to 26 November 2014; from 27 December 2014 to 9
January 2015; and from 27 June to 8 July 2015), neither Mr. Rassakov’s family nor his
lawyer or legal representatives submitted any requests or applications to the institution’s
administration, including requests for the provision of any medical documentation.
73.
In response to the information contained in the communication that, to date,
according to the source, Mr. Razzakov’s family estimates that it has spent the equivalent of
$7,200 to provide medical care to Mr. Razzakov, the Government submits that the
administration of the institution has received no applications or requests from relatives or
other persons to provide Mr. Razzakov with any additional medical care or to involve
medical specialists in his treatment.
74.
In response to the information contained in the communication that the family is not
sure whether Mr. Razzakov has been receiving the medicines they provided, the
Government submits that, during his sentence, Mr. Razzakov has received from his
relatives additional medicines, and provides a list to that effect. All the additional medicines
provided by relatives were handed over in due order and were fully used for Mr.
Razzakov’s treatment, as evidenced by his personal signature on the prescription chart.
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/47
11
75.
In response to the information contained in the communication that Mr. Razzakov’s
health problems and injuries sustained in prison require frequent hospitalization, the
Government submits that, during his sentence, as required, Mr. Razzakov received inpatient
treatment five times in the National Prison Hospital at institution UY 64/18 (Tashkent).
76.
The Government reiterates its submission that the medical professionals of the
institution currently consider Mr. Razzakov’s health condition to be satisfactory; that he is
registered for outpatient treatment for the above-mentioned diseases and for the
consequences of a craniocerebral injury; and that no additional medical treatment is needed.
Further comments from the source
77.
On 6 July 2016, the source provided its comments on the response from the
Government. According to the source, the response only disputes the allegations relating to
the abuse and the denial of medical care and family visits to Mr. Razzakov since he has
been incarcerated, but fails to address the central allegations in the petition to the Working
Group regarding the politically motivated arrest, defective trial and subsequent arbitrary
detention of Mr. Razzakov.1 The failure of the Government to address those issues in its
response amounts to a tacit admission of the arbitrary nature of Mr. Razzakov’s detention
under article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 (1) of the
Covenant.
78.
The source submits that Mr. Razzakov’s conviction was based on politically
motivated, trumped-up charges. The Government targeted Mr. Razzakov because of his
human rights advocacy, which included advocating for local farmers and labourers and
exposing human rights violations in Uzbekistan through Radio Free Europe and BBC
Uzbek. The Government violated the rights guaranteed to Mr. Razzakov under international
law, including, but not limited to, his right to freedoms of expression2 and association,3 to
prepare a defence,4 to a public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal5 and to be
free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.6 The Government has failed to
respond to those allegations and has therefore tacitly admitted that Mr. Razzakov’s
detention is arbitrary under both category II and category III. According to the source, even
if the response from the Government regarding Mr. Razzakov’s condition and treatment in
prison are assumed to be true, the Government concedes that Mr. Razzakov should not have
been detained in the first place.
79.
On 31 October 2016, the source informed the Working Group that Mr. Razzakov
had been released on 25 October 2016.
Discussion
80.
The Working Group has in its jurisprudence established the ways in which it deals
with evidentiary issues. If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of
1 According to article 9 (1) of the Covenant, arbitrary deprivation of liberty is defined as any
deprivation of liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are
established by law. Such deprivation of liberty is specifically prohibited under international law. See
also the petition to Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in the matter of Bobomurod Razzakov,
available from www.freedom-now.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/10-March-2015-Bobomurod-
Razzakov-UNWGAD-Petition-and-Urgent-Action-Request1.pdf.
2 See art. 19 (2) of the Covenant and art. 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
3 See art. 11 of the Covenant and art. 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
4 See art. 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant.
5 See art. 14 (1) and art. 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
6 See art. 7 and art. 2 (1) of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment.
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/47
12
international requirements constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be
understood to rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations (see
A/HRC/19/57, para. 68). In the present case, the Government has chosen not to challenge
the prima facie credible allegations made by the source with regard to the motivation
behind the detention, judgment and sentencing of Mr. Razzakov. In its response, the
Government merely claimed that the competent authorities of Uzbekistan did not possess
any information about the unlawful actions of the law enforcement authorities regarding
this person.
81.
Although Mr. Razzakov has been released, the Working Group, in accordance with
paragraph 17 (a) of its methods of work, reserves the right to render an opinion as to
whether or not the deprivation of liberty was arbitrary.
82.
The Working Group understands that Mr. Razzakov had been Chairman of the
Bukhara region branch of the human rights non-governmental organization “Ezgulik” and a
member of the peaceful political opposition party “Erk”. Mr. Razzakov had also
communicated with international media such as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the
British Broadcasting Corporation.
83.
The Working Group received credible information from the source, that was not
refuted by the Government, that, early in the second quarter of 2013, Bukhara security
services had threatened and harassed Mr. Razzakov. The police in Bukhara had summoned
him on several occasions and he had been exhorted by the counter-terrorism criminal
investigation unit to cease his human rights work. In March 2013, Uzbek officials had
threatened Mr. Razzakov openly that he would spend the rest of his life in prison if he
continued his human rights work and his collaboration with international media sources.
84.
Mr. Razzakov was interrogated for two hours by the head of Bukhara’s counter-
terrorism criminal investigation unit at the Department of Internal Affairs on 6 June 2013.
During the interrogation, the head of the unit accused him of collaborating with
international media and damaging Uzbekistan’s reputation.
85.
On 9 July 2013, a complaint was made to the police in Bukhara by a woman,
accusing Mr. Razzakov and another person of having forced her into prostitution. She also
accused Mr. Razzakov of having attempted to force her to have sex with him at his house
when she came to him for advice. On 12 July 2013, he was charged with human trafficking
and the court found him guilty of that charge on 24 September of the same year. Such
judgment was confirmed by the cassation court on appeal on 27 December 2013.
86.
The Working Group considers that the human trafficking charge against Mr.
Razzakov is questionable and brought as an attempt to silence him and bring an end to his
legitimate human rights work and activities. To that end, the Working Group finds that the
deprivation of liberty of Mr. Razzakov was a result of the exercise of the rights and
guarantees enshrined in articles 18, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration on Human
Rights and articles 18, 19 and 22 of the Covenant, and that it was thus arbitrary, falling
within category II.
87.
The Working Group has received credible information confirming that Mr.
Razzakov was subjected to a trial consisting of four hearings in total, each lasting
approximately 45 minutes. The conduct of the trial violated the right to a fair trial, as
established in international instruments accepted by the State, in particular article 10 of the
Universal Declaration on Human Rights and article 14 of the Covenant. The Working
Group finds that the violations of the due process guarantees were of such gravity as to
make the deprivation of liberty arbitrary. Examples of such violations include the fact that
the public was largely denied access to the trial; the accused was subjected to torture and
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and the accused was not given
the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence. In that
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/47
13
regard, for instance, the court established the guilt of the accused without sharing with the
defence either a medical report that allegedly showed that Mr. Razzakov had abused the
victim or other relevant pieces of evidence like the transcript of conversations between the
accused and the co-accused.
88.
In view of the above, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention considers that the
deprivation of liberty of Mr. Razzakov was arbitrary, falling within category III.
89.
The Working Group is also aware that the Committee against Torture, in its
concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Uzbekistan in 2013, expressed its
deep concern about the “numerous and consistent reports of the arbitrary imprisonment of
human rights defenders and journalists in retaliation for their work” and the “allegations
that numerous human rights defenders that have been deprived of their liberty have been
subjected to torture and other ill-treatment”. The Committee also expressed its concern
about the failure of the authorities to investigate effectively such allegation of arbitrary
detention and harassment of Mr. Bobomurod Razzakov, amongst others, as a form of
retaliation for his work as a human rights defender.7
90.
The source reported allegations of torture and harassment of a human rights
defender that seem credible to the Working Group on the basis of specific circumstances of
the present case. It therefore considers it appropriate to refer those allegations to the Special
Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and
to the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, for appropriate action.
Disposition
91.
Although Mr. Razzakov has been released, the Working Group, in accordance with
paragraph 17 (a) of its methods of work, reserves the right to render an opinion as to
whether or not the deprivation of liberty was arbitrary. In the light of the foregoing, the
Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Mr. Bobomurod Razzakov, being in contravention of
articles 9, 10, 18, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
articles 9, 14, 18, 19 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, was arbitrary and falls within categories II and III.
92.
Consequent upon the opinion rendered, the Working Group requests the
Government of Uzbekistan to take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Mr.
Razzakov and to bring it into conformity with the standards and principles set forth in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant.
93.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the adequate remedy would be to accord Mr. Razzakov an enforceable right to full
reparation, in accordance with international law.
94.
The Working Group considers it appropriate to refer the specific allegations of
torture and harassment of Mr. Razzakov, as a human rights defender, to the Special
Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and
to the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, for appropriate action, in accordance
to paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work.
7 See CAT/C/UZB/CO/4, para. 8.
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/47
14
Follow-up procedure
95.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group
requests the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in
follow-up to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr.
Razzakov;
(b)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr.
Razzakov’s rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(c)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made
to harmonize the laws and practices of the Government with its international obligations in
line with the present opinion;
(d)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
96.
The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may
have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and
whether further technical assistance is required, for example, through a visit by the
Working Group.
97.
The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the above
information within six months of the date of the transmission of the present opinion.
However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up to the
opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action
would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in
implementing its recommendations, as well as any failure to take action.
98.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all
States to cooperate with the Working Group and requested them to take account of its views
and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily
deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken. 8
[Adopted on 22 November 2016]
8 See Human Rights Council resolution 33/30, paras. 3 and 7.