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.25-03428 (E) 100325 100325
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 101st session, 11–15 November 2024
Opinion No. 62/2024 concerning Dauletmurat Tazhimuratov
(Uzbekistan)*
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and
clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251
and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the
Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a
three-year period in its resolution 51/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work, 1 on 24 July 2024 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Uzbekistan a communication concerning Dauletmurat
Tazhimuratov. The Government has not replied to the communication. The State is a party
to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
3.
The Working Group considers that deprivation of liberty is 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);
(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
* Mumba Malila did not participate in the discussion of the case.
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/62
General Assembly
Distr.: General
10 March 2025
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/62
2
GE.25-03428
or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Dauletmurat Tazhimuratov is a citizen of Uzbekistan born on 27 March 1979. He is a
lawyer, journalist and human rights defender and usually resides in the city of Nukus,
Karakalpakstan.
(i)
Context
5.
The source notes that Karakalpakstan is an autonomous republic within Uzbekistan,
positioned around the diminishing Aral Sea. Its population consists mainly of individuals of
Karakalpak, Uzbek and Kazakh ethnicity. The Karakalpaks, an ethnic group native to
Karakalpakstan, share close ties with the Kazakhs and other Turkic peoples but have a
distinct history and culture and have reportedly faced near-constant discrimination by the
authorities of Uzbekistan.
6.
The source further mentions that allegedly, under the guise of concerns about
separatism, the Uzbek authorities have contributed to a decline in the Karakalpak language
and Karakalpak cultural practices. The source recalls that the Committee on the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination has expressed concern over the absence of comprehensive
anti-discrimination legislation in Uzbekistan.2 The source asserts that discrimination against
Karakalpakstan and Karakalpaks was reportedly exemplified by the Government’s
crackdown on protesters following the proposed constitutional amendments in the summer
of 2022. The police reportedly used excessive and lethal force, including firearms and
grenades, against protesters in Nukus and nearby areas. Hundreds of protesters, including
Mr. Tazhimuratov, were allegedly arbitrarily arrested, and many faced incommunicado
detention, torture and other abuses.
(ii)
Arrest and detention
7.
The source reports that on 1 July 2022, Mr. Tazhimuratov gave a speech in front of a
mosque in Nukus stating his opposition to the proposed amendment to the Constitution
proposed by the Government of Uzbekistan which would strip Karakalpakstan of its
autonomous status. Protests broke out that day in Karakalpakstan, where the authorities
reportedly used excessive and lethal force to dispel the protesters, killing 20 and injuring
nearly 300 persons.
8.
According to the source, on 1 July 2022 Mr. Tazhimuratov’s home was broken into
by armed and masked individuals who took him to the police department in Nukus,
Karakalpakstan. He was not presented with any warrants, nor was he informed about the
reason for his arrest. At the police station, Mr. Tazhimuratov had a bag placed over his head
and was then transported to the Ministry of External Affairs, where he reportedly was beaten
and had a stun gun used on him.
9.
After the beating, officials reportedly took Mr. Tazhimuratov to speak to the growing
crowd at the request of the leader of the Joqarǵı Keńesi (Supreme Council), Karakalpakstan’s
legislature, in an attempt to stop the protests. However, the protests continued even after his
speech. He was released the same evening and went into hiding.
10.
The source submits that on 4 July 2022, officials uncovered Mr. Tazhimuratov’s
whereabouts and arrested him again. It has been reported that officials from the Ministry of
Internal Affairs tied Mr. Tazhimuratov’s hands behind his back, placed a bag over his head
and beat him. Reportedly, Mr. Tazhimuratov was not informed of the reason for his arrest
and was not presented with an arrest warrant.
11.
According to the source, Mr. Tazhimuratov was forced onto a helicopter which
transported him to Urgench, located approximately 160 kilometres away, without
2 See CERD/C/UZB/CO/10-12.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/62
GE.25-03428
3
explanation of his arrest or charges. He was forced to lie on the floor of the helicopter while
officials walked over him, stomping on his head at one point. In Urgench, he was transferred
to a detention facility run by the State Security Service.
12.
The source submits that on 5 July 2022, Mr. Tazhimuratov appeared before a judge,
who presented him with charges of conspiracy to seize power or overthrow the constitutional
order, under article 159 (4) of the Criminal Code, and ordered him to immediately be placed
in pretrial detention. It has been reported that additional charges under article 167, part 3
(embezzlement on a large scale), article 243 (legalization of proceeds from criminal
activities), article 244, part 3 (organization of mass riots) and article 244-1 (manufacture,
storage, distribution or display of materials threatening public security) were added later,
although the source asserts that it is not clear exactly when or by which court these were
added.
13.
The source reports that Mr. Tazhimuratov was kept at the State Security Service
pretrial detention centre in Urgench until he was transferred to a centre in Bukhara two weeks
before his trial, which commenced in November 2022. It reports that in total,
Mr. Tazhimuratov remained in pretrial detention for more than four months. Reportedly,
while in pretrial detention, Mr. Tazhimuratov’s head was shaved, and he was subjected to
harassment and intimidation from other detainees on the instructions of officials. In addition,
the prosecutor and other officials allegedly pressured other detainees to testify against
Mr. Tazhimuratov during their criminal investigations.
14.
The source reports that on 28 November 2022, Mr. Tazhimuratov’s trial began before
the Bukhara Regional Criminal Court. Mr. Tazhimuratov was tried along with 21 other
defendants charged with crimes related to the July protests. Allegedly, the court relied
primarily on evidence from State-appointed experts, who stated that Mr. Tazhimuratov had
promoted “separatism”. None of the experts spoke the Karakalpak language, so they were
unable to assess evidence in its original language.
15.
The source reports that neither Mr. Tazhimuratov nor his lawyer were able to examine
the competency of the interpreters who translated the documents from the original
Karakalpak language. In addition, Mr. Tazhimuratov reportedly was not permitted to call his
own experts, and his request to use audio recordings of his conversation with government
officials as evidence was denied because the authorities had deleted the recordings.
16.
The source affirms that during the trial, Mr. Tazhimuratov was kept in a glass box in
the courtroom. Furthermore, even though the trial was open to the public, the live streaming
during the testimony when Mr. Tazhimuratov reported abuse in detention was turned off.
17.
The source reports that on 31 January 2023, Mr. Tazhimuratov was convicted by the
Bukhara Regional Criminal Court for conspiring to overthrow the constitutional order,
embezzlement, legalization of proceeds from criminal activities, organizing mass riots, and
manufacturing, storing or distributing materials that threaten public security. He was
sentenced to 16 years in prison and ordered to pay the equivalent of US$ 20,000 in damages.
18.
The source states that on 5 June 2023, the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan upheld
Mr. Tazhimuratov’s conviction and sentence, but the other defendants who were convicted
with him had their sentences reduced.
19.
Currently, Mr. Tazhimuratov is serving his sentence at Prison Colony No. 11 in Navoi.
He receives poor-quality food and medical care, with prison officials reportedly prescribing
the same medicine for multiple illnesses. Reportedly, prison officials require him to express
gratitude for anything he receives, including food and basic necessities.
20.
According to the source, Mr. Tazhimuratov has reportedly been denied basic
information, such as the time of day, newspapers, radio, television or educational material,
while also being prevented from interacting with other people. He has also been asked to sing
the national anthem of Uzbekistan and has been punished for refusing to do so.
21.
The source reports that Mr. Tazhimuratov’s lawyer has initiated a new appeal.
However, it reports that the State Security Service has threatened to imprison anyone who
speaks to the press regarding Mr. Tazhimuratov’s imprisonment.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/62
4
GE.25-03428
(iii)
Legal analysis
22.
The source argues that the arrest and detention of Mr. Tazhimuratov are arbitrary,
falling under categories I, II, III and V of the Working Group.
a.
Category I
Violence upon arrest and arrest without a warrant
23.
According to the source, article 9 (2) of the Covenant and principle 10 of the Body of
Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment
establish that an arrested person must be informed of the reason for the arrest at the time of
arrest and must be promptly informed of the charges against them. In order for the arrest to
have a legal basis, it is not enough for the legal basis to exist, but rather, the authorities must
affirmatively invoke it at the time of arrest.3
24.
The source recalls that article 9 (1) of the Covenant and principle 2 of the Body of
Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment
require detention to be carried out only in accordance with the law. Principle 4 of the Body
of Principles requires detention to be ordered by or subject to the control of a judicial
authority. Article 25 of the Constitution of Uzbekistan also provides that no one may be
arrested except on lawful grounds. Furthermore, the source highlights the Working Group’s
discussion on the use of violence upon arrest in finding that an arrest violated article 9 (1) of
the Covenant.4
25.
The source alleges that Mr. Tazhimuratov was not presented with an arrest warrant,
nor was he informed of the reason for his arrest, at the time of arrest on 1 July 2022. His
captors never identified themselves as police officers or officials with authority to arrest him
and so had no legal basis to make the arrest.5 When Mr. Tazhimuratov was arrested again on
4 July 2022, he was reportedly not presented with an arrest warrant or informed of the reason
for his arrest at the time of arrest. He was presented before a judge who charged him and
placed him in pretrial detention more than 24 hours after he had been arrested and after he
had been transferred to Urgench. It was reported that he was beaten during both arrests.
26.
The source submits that since officials failed to present an arrest warrant and inform
Mr. Tazhimuratov of the reason for his arrest at the time of arrest for both arrests and because
both arrests were violent, both arrests lacked a legal basis and were not conducted in
accordance with the law.
27.
Therefore, the source concludes that Mr. Tazhimuratov’s arrest violates articles 3 and
9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant,
principles 2, 4 and 10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any
Form of Detention or Imprisonment and article 25 of the Constitution of Uzbekistan,
rendering his arrest and detention legally baseless and arbitrary under category I.
Detention under a vague law and violation of the principle of legality
28.
According to the source, article 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and article 15 (1) of the Covenant establish the basis of what is known as the “principle of
legality”, which requires that laws be formulated with enough precision that an individual
can access and understand the law and adapt their behaviour to comply. The source argues
that Mr. Tazhimuratov was convicted under multiple vague and overbroad statutes and as
such, there is no legal basis to justify his detention.
29.
The source further argues that article 159 of the Criminal Code of Uzbekistan
criminalizes public statements made to change the existing State order, to assume power, to
remove a legally elected authority or to impair the integrity of the republic. The broad
3 Opinion No. 46/2018, para. 48.
4 Opinion No. 68/2020, para. 64.
5 The Working Group has found that conducting an arrest without authority to do so exceeds the legal
mandate of officials; see opinion No. 25/2015, para. 27.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/62
GE.25-03428
5
language of the statute captures permissible public statements intended to express a political
belief.
30.
The source recalls that article 159 has been identified as a tool for overly broad
prosecution of “extremism”, by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of
human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism 6 and the Special
Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.7 The Special Rapporteur on the promotion and
protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism
recommended that Uzbekistan review all cases brought under article 159. The source reports
that article 159 threatens the peaceful exercise of freedom of expression and thought.
31.
In addition, the source reiterates the findings of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of
religion or belief, who stated that an estimated 5,000 to 15,000 individuals had been detained
in Uzbekistan on vague charges related to religious extremism, including charges of
“anti-constitutional” activity, and that many of those individuals had been targeted through
the use of article 159.8
32.
The source further recalls article 244 of the Criminal Code, which criminalizes “riots”
– including both organization and participation. Article 244-1 makes the production and
dissemination of materials containing “a threat to public security and public order”, including
“separatism”, punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment. The source reports that both
articles 244 and 244-1 use broad language that may criminalize fundamental rights, such as
freedom of expression and of peaceful assembly. The Special Rapporteur on freedom of
religion or belief has found that both laws have been applied too broadly and have been
common tools for suppressing dissent under “extremism” charges.9
33.
The source reiterates the observations of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and
protection of human rights while countering terrorism, who stated that article 244-1 could
“easily be misconstrued” and could criminalize “the mere fact of keeping materials
considered to be radical, thereby impinging on the fundamental rights to privacy and freedom
of thought”.10
34.
The source claims that Mr. Tazhimuratov was convicted under three vague and overly
broad legal provisions that violate the principle of legality, because citizens cannot
understand them and therefore cannot conform to their requirements. The laws are used to
target “extremism”, which includes an array of permissible activities and has been used to
prosecute activists, journalists and dissidents based on their thoughts or belief.11
35.
The source concludes that through the application of the above-mentioned vague and
overly broad provisions, the authorities of Uzbekistan have violated the principle of legality
enshrined in article 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 15 (1)
of the Covenant, thus rendering Mr. Tazhimuratov’s arrest and detention legally baseless and
arbitrary under category I.
6 Opinion No. 37/2020, para. 60.
7 Preliminary findings of the country visit to Uzbekistan by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of
religion or belief, 12 October 2017, available at
https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2017/10/preliminary-findings-country-visit-republic-uzbekistan-
special-rapporteur.
8 A/HRC/37/49/Add.2, para. 67.
9 Preliminary findings of the country visit to Uzbekistan by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of
religion or belief, 12 October 2017, available at
https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2017/10/preliminary-findings-country-visit-republic-uzbekistan-
special-rapporteur.
10 A/HRC/49/45/Add.1, para. 22.
11 Preliminary findings of the country visit to Uzbekistan by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of
religion or belief, 12 October 2017, available at
https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2017/10/preliminary-findings-country-visit-republic-uzbekistan-
special-rapporteur.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/62
6
GE.25-03428
Violation of the general rule against pretrial detention
36.
The source recalls article 9 (3) of the Covenant and principle 39 of the Body of
Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment,
which provide that pretrial detention should not be the general rule but an exception. A court
must conduct an individualized determination to justify pretrial detention, including the
consideration of restrictive means.12 Pretrial detention must be reasonable and necessary and
be based on factors such as potential flight risk, potential tampering with evidence, or
recurrence of the crime, but it cannot be based on vague and expansive standards such as
“public security”. Detainees are also entitled to periodic re-examination of their pretrial
detention by a court or other authority to determine whether the detention is reasonable.13
37.
The source submits that on 5 July 2022, Mr. Tazhimuratov was presented before a
judge in Urgench. After a short hearing, the court placed him in pretrial detention, without a
thorough individualized investigation. The court determined that he should be held in pretrial
detention because his charge was classified as “a very serious offence” and reasoned that if
he were released, he could destroy evidence or influence witnesses. The source adds that the
court did not provide further evidence or consideration for his pretrial detention.
Mr. Tazhimuratov was held in pretrial detention for four months leading up to his trial, and
the court has never re-examined its decision to keep him detained, thereby violating the
general rule against pretrial detention.
38.
The source concludes that by violating the general rule against pretrial detention,
Uzbekistan violated article 9 (3) of the Covenant and principle 39 of the Body of Principles
for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, thus
rendering his arrest and detention legally baseless and arbitrary under category I.
b.
Category II
39.
According to the source, deprivation of liberty is arbitrary under category II when it
results from a violation of the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms. These include
the right to freedom of opinion and expression, guaranteed under article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, article 19 (1) and (2) of the Covenant and article 29 of the
Constitution of Uzbekistan; the right to freedom of assembly and association, guaranteed
under article 20 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articles 21 and 22 (1) of
the Covenant and article 33 of the Constitution of Uzbekistan; the right to take part in public
affairs, guaranteed under article 21 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article
25 (a) of the Covenant and article 32 of the Constitution of Uzbekistan; and the right of
minority cultures to enjoy their culture, guaranteed under article 7 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, article 27 of the Covenant and article 18 of the Constitution of
Uzbekistan. The source alleges that Uzbekistan violated several norms of international
human rights law relating to the aforementioned rights, such that Mr. Tazhimuratov’s
deprivation of liberty is arbitrary under category II.
40.
The source recalls that freedom of opinion and expression include political discourse,
commentary on public affairs and discussion of human rights.14 Peaceful assembly covers
assemblies while they are taking place, and associated activities such as the mobilization of
resources, planning, the dissemination of information about an upcoming event, and
communication between participants leading up to and during the assembly.15 Article 25 (a)
of the Covenant guarantees citizens the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs and
to exert influence “through public debate and dialogue” or by organizing.16
41.
The source reiterates the Working Group’s findings that freedom of expression
includes the right to criticize and publicly evaluate the government without fear of
interference or punishment.17 The right enables political opposition groups and human rights
12 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38.
13 Ibid.
14 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011), para. 11.
15 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 37 (2020), para. 33.
16 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 25 (1996), para. 8.
17 Opinion No. 24/2019, para. 40.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/62
GE.25-03428
7
activists to protest, criticize, and expose illegal government practices. 18 The source also
reiterates the Working Group’s findings that detaining minority individuals who were
lawfully protesting against the suppression of those rights violates their rights under article 7
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 27 of the Covenant.19
42.
The source notes that article 18 of the Constitution of Uzbekistan guarantees equality
before the law, explicitly prohibiting discrimination based on nationality and convictions,
while article 29 of the Constitution grants freedom of expression but restricts speech directed
against the constitutional order. Article 32 of the Constitution grants citizens the right to
participate in public and State affairs and article 33 ensures the right to partake in
demonstrations, subject only to limitations as provided by law.
43.
The source recalls article 19 (3) of the Covenant, which provides that restrictions on
freedom of opinion and expression must be provided by law and be necessary for respect of
the rights or reputations of others, the protection of national security or of public order, or for
public health or morals. Restrictions must not be used to stifle the expression of political
opposition, challenges to authority, calls for democratic changes, or human rights advocacy.20
In addition, articles 21 and 22 (2) of the Covenant similarly provide that restrictions on
freedom of assembly and of association must be provided by law and be “necessary in a
democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre
public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms
of others”.
44.
The source argues that Mr. Tazhimuratov’s detention resulted from his exercise of his
rights to freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and association,
and participation in public affairs, and the right of minority cultures to enjoy their culture. It
also asserts that Mr. Tazhimuratov delivered a speech against constitutional amendments that
threatened the autonomy of Karakalpakstan. He encouraged participation in peaceful protests
aimed at safeguarding the cultural and administrative autonomy of Karakalpakstan.
45.
As a result, the source alleges that Mr. Tazhimuratov was charged and sentenced to
16 years in prison under articles 159, 244 and 244-1 of the Criminal Code, provisions that
have been criticized for their use in the suppression of fundamental freedoms. The restriction
of his fundamental rights does not fall into any of the narrow exceptions identified in the
Covenant.
46.
The source concludes that Uzbekistan has violated articles 7, 19, 20 (1) and 21 (1) of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articles 19 (1) and (2), 21, 22 (1), 25 (a) and 27
of the Covenant and articles 18, 29, 32 and 33 of the Constitution of Uzbekistan. Therefore,
the source argues that Mr. Tazhimuratov’s deprivation of liberty is arbitrary in character
pursuant to category II.
c.
Category III
47.
The source argues that Uzbekistan has violated several norms of international human
rights law relating to the right to a fair trial, such that Mr. Tazhimuratov’s deprivation of
liberty is arbitrary under category III.
48.
The source reiterates several of the arguments previously presented in category I.
These arguments pertain to the alleged use of violence during Mr. Tazhimuratov’s arrest, the
execution of the arrest without a warrant and the violation of the general principle against
pretrial detention. The source contends that these factors collectively demonstrate
infringement by Uzbekistan of Mr. Tazhimuratov’s right to a fair trial.
49.
The source further recalls that article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, article 14 (2) of the Covenant and principle 36 (1) of the Body of Principles for the
Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment provide for the right
to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law. According to article 26 of the
18 Opinion No. 22/2013, para. 11.
19 Opinion 28/2018, para. 74.
20 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011), para. 23, and general comment No. 37
(2020), para. 49.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/62
8
GE.25-03428
Constitution of Uzbekistan, those accused of a crime should not be considered guilty except
by the sentence of a court in conformity with the law.
50.
The source highlights the Working Group’s findings of violations of the right to be
presumed innocent when the accused was held in pretrial detention based on an assumption
of guilt and when the accused was shackled or caged during trial.
51.
The source argues that throughout Mr. Tazhimuratov’s trial, he was kept in a glass
box, creating a perception that he may be a dangerous criminal. In addition, the source reports
that Mr. Tazhimuratov was kept in pretrial detention without an individualized determination,
which contributed to the presumption that he was guilty.
52.
The source submits that these violations show that the authorities have violated
Mr. Tazhimuratov’s right to be presumed innocent, in violation of article 11 (1) of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 14 (2) of the Covenant, principle 36 (1) of
the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment and article 26 of the Constitution of Uzbekistan. Therefore, the source
concludes that Mr. Tazhimuratov’s right to a fair trial was violated, rendering his detention
arbitrary under category III.
53.
The source recalls that cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is prohibited under
article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 7 of the Covenant and
principle 6 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment and under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Specifically, articles 2 and 16 of the
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment place a burden on States to prevent torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment in any territory under their jurisdiction. Article 13 of the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment requires States to
investigate allegations of torture or cruel and inhuman treatment.
54.
The source argues that detainees must be treated with humanity and respect for the
inherent dignity of the human person, under article 10 (1) of the Covenant, principle 1 of the
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment and rule 1 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment
of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules). Accused individuals must be treated in a manner
that is consistent with their unconvicted status under principle 8 of the Body of Principles.
Article 26 of the Constitution of Uzbekistan prohibits torture, violence and other cruel or
humiliating treatment.
55.
The source further recalls the Nelson Mandela Rules, which set out requirements for
prison conditions and the treatment of detainees. Prison accommodation must meet all health
requirements,21 and detainees should have nutritious and wholesome food,22 be provided with
healthcare services23 and have access to news and other publications.24
56.
The source submits that from the moment of his first arrest on 1 July 2022,
Mr. Tazhimuratov was subjected to violence at the hands of officials. His captors placed a
bag over his head and beat him, including with a stun gun, at the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
Again, on 4 July 2022, he was reportedly beaten by officials, before being placed on the floor
of a helicopter where he was walked over by the officials.
57.
The source reports that Mr. Tazhimuratov has been denied basic and necessary
medical services and that the quality of the food in prison is so poor that it has started to
affect his health. He reportedly has no access to news, through newspapers, television, radio
or any other source of information. The source also reports that he has no access to a library
or to educational materials.
21 United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules),
rule 13.
22 Ibid., rule 22.
23 Ibid., rules 24, 25, 26 and 27.
24 Ibid., rule 63.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/62
GE.25-03428
9
58.
According to the source, because the officials subjected Mr. Tazhimuratov to abuse
and denied basic requirements for prison accommodation, the State has violated article 5 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articles 7 and 10 (1) of the Covenant, principles
1, 6 and 8 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment, articles 2, 13 and 16 of the Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, rules 1, 13, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27 and
63 of the Nelson Mandela Rules and article 26 of the Constitution of Uzbekistan. Therefore,
Mr. Tazhimuratov’s right to a fair trial has been violated, rendering his detention arbitrary
under category III.
d.
Category V
59.
The source recalls that article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
article 2 (1) of the Covenant grant all people fundamental rights and freedoms without any
distinction, including on the basis of national origin or political opinion. Article 7 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 26 of the Covenant provide for equality
before the law and equal protection of the law. Article 18 of the Constitution of Uzbekistan
provides for equality before the law and prohibits discrimination based on nationality or
convictions.
60.
The source further recalls the Working Group’s finding that deprivation of liberty
constitutes a breach of international law when it results from discrimination based on
nationality, particularly in cases with a documented pattern of such discrimination and when
other persons with similar characteristics have also been persecuted.25
61.
In addition, the source reiterates the jurisprudence established by the Working Group
that politically motivated charges intended to suppress dissenting political views can
independently constitute an arbitrary detention under category V.26
62.
The source also recalls that the Working Group will infer discrimination on the basis
of political opinion in cases of widespread political imprisonment or historical tensions
between the Government and a detainee’s community.27
63.
The source argues that Mr. Tazhimuratov’s nationality and political opinions are
central to his case. Officials have allegedly disproportionately targeted Karakalpaks and
opponents of the proposed constitutional amendments with mass detentions and excessive
force, reflecting a broader pattern of discrimination based on nationality and political opinion.
According to the source, the widespread targeting of Karakalpak political activists, including
non-governmental organizations and activists living abroad, demonstrates the discrimination
against Karakalpaks such as Mr. Tazhimuratov based on nationality and political opinion.
64.
In addition, the source reports that Mr. Tazhimuratov was further discriminated
against during his trial, where the experts who provided evidence against him were not
familiar with the Karakalpak language and were therefore unable to examine the evidence in
the original.
65.
In conclusion, the source states that by detaining Mr. Tazhimuratov for his political
opinions and national identity, the Government of Uzbekistan violated articles 2 and 7 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant and
article 18 of the Constitution of Uzbekistan, rendering his detention arbitrary under
category V.
(b)
Response from the Government
66.
On 14 July 2024, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source to
the Government under its regular communications procedure, requesting a reply by
23 September 2024. The Working Group regrets that the Government did not submit a reply
25 A/HRC/36/37, para. 48; and opinion 28/2018, paras. 95–97.
26 Opinion No. 33/2015, paras. 84 and 85.
27 Opinion No. 4/2017, para. 25.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/62
10
GE.25-03428
within the established time frame, nor did it seek an extension in accordance with paragraph
16 of the Working Group’s methods of work.
2.
Discussion
67.
In the absence of a response from the Government, the Working Group has decided
to render the present opinion, in conformity with paragraph 15 of its methods of work.
68.
In determining whether Mr. Tazhimuratov’s detention is arbitrary, the Working Group
has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with evidentiary issues. If
the source has established a prima facie case for breach of international law constituting
arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon the Government if
it wishes to refute the allegations.28
(a)
Category I
69.
As the Working Group has stated, in order for a deprivation of liberty to have a legal
basis, it is not sufficient that there is a law that may authorize the arrest. The authorities must
invoke that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case.29 This is typically done
by means of an arrest warrant or arrest order, or an equivalent document.30 Furthermore,
article 9 (2) of the Covenant provides that every arrested individual must be informed at the
time of arrest of the reasons for the arrest and be notified, as soon as possible, of any charges
brought against them. Respect for these rights is essential to the exercise of the other rights
set out in article 9 of the Covenant and article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Every individual must know the reasons for their arrest in order to be able to contest it
effectively, and be brought before a court or a magistrate to be able to formulate an appeal.
70.
The Working Group notes the source’s unrefuted allegations that Mr. Tazhimuratov
was not informed of the reasons for his arrest at the time of the arrest, in violation of
article 9 (2) of the Covenant and article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
71.
The Working Group further notes the source’s submissions that Mr. Tazhimuratov’s
pretrial detention was not based on individual assessment of alleged risks. In this respect, the
Working Group recalls that it is a well-established norm of international law that pretrial
detention is to be the exception and not the rule and that it should be ordered for as short a
time as possible.31 Article 9 (3) of the Covenant provides that it shall not be the general rule
that persons awaiting trial are detained, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear
for trial and at any other stage of the judicial proceedings. It follows that liberty is recognized
as a principle and detention as an exception in the interests of justice. In the present case, the
Working Group considers that by failing to address specific facts or to consider alternative
“preventive measures”, the authorities failed to properly justify Mr. Tazhimuratov’s pretrial
detention. In the absence of any argument to the contrary, the Working Group finds his
detention to be in violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant.
72.
In view of its findings above, the Working Group considers that Mr. Tazhimuratov’s
detention has no legal basis, in violation of article 9 of the Covenant and articles 3 and 9 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. His detention is therefore arbitrary under
category I.
(b)
Category II
73.
The source states that the detention of Mr. Tazhimuratov is arbitrary under category II
since it resulted from his exercise of his rights to freedom of opinion and expression and of
peaceful assembly and association, and participation in public affairs, and the right of
28 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
29 Opinions No. 9/2019, para. 29; No. 46/2019, para. 51; and No. 59/2019, para. 46.
30 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 23; and opinions No. 88/2017, para.
27; No. 3/2018, para. 43; and No. 30/2018, para. 39. In cases of arrests made in flagrante delicto, the
opportunity to obtain a warrant will typically not be available.
31 Opinions No. 8/2020, para. 54; No. 1/2020, para. 53; No. 57/2014, para. 26; No. 49/2014, para. 23;
and No. 28/2014, para. 43. See also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014),
para. 38; and A/HRC/19/57, paras. 48–58.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/62
GE.25-03428
11
minority cultures to enjoy their culture. According to the source, Mr. Tazhimuratov delivered
a speech against constitutional amendments that threatened Karakalpakstan’s autonomy, and
further encouraged participation in peaceful protests aimed at safeguarding the autonomy of
Karakalpakstan.
74.
The Government has chosen not to contest these allegations, although it had the
opportunity to do so.
75.
The Working Group recalls Human Rights Committee general comment No. 34
(2011), in which the Committee states that freedom of expression includes the right to seek,
receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, and that that
right includes the expression and receipt of communications of every form of idea and
opinion capable of transmission to others, including political opinions. 32 The permitted
restrictions to that right may relate either to respect for the rights or reputations of others, or
to the protection of national security, of public order (ordre public) or of public health or
morals. The Committee has also stipulated that restrictions are not allowed on grounds not
specified in article 19 (3) of the Covenant, even if such grounds would justify restrictions to
other rights protected therein. Restrictions must be applied only for those purposes for which
they were prescribed and must be directly related to the specific need on which they are
predicated.33 Article 19 (3) “may never be invoked as a justification for the muzzling of any
advocacy of multi-party democracy, democratic tenets and human rights”.34 Moreover, the
Human Rights Committee has mentioned, in relation to article 25 of the Covenant, that
“citizens also take part in the conduct of public affairs by exerting influence through public
debate and dialogue with their representatives or through their capacity to organize
themselves. This participation is supported by ensuring freedom of expression ... ”35
76.
In the absence of any explanation from the Government, the Working Group considers
that the source has demonstrated that the charges against Mr. Tazhimuratov were linked to
his exercise of his political rights and freedoms – protected under article 19 of the Covenant
and article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which guarantee freedom of
speech, and under article 25 of the Covenant and article 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights which guarantee the right to participate in the conduct of public affairs.
Consequently, the Working Group considers that his detention is arbitrary under category II.
(c)
Category III
77.
Having concluded that the detention of Mr. Tazhimuratov is arbitrary under
category II, the Working Group emphasizes that no trial should have taken place.
Nevertheless, as the trial took place, Mr. Tazhimuratov was convicted and handed down a
long prison sentence, and his conviction was upheld by three court instances, the Working
Group will proceed to examine the source’s submissions concerning the denial of fair trial
rights to him.
78.
The Working Group firstly notes the source’s allegation that during the trial,
Mr. Tazhimuratov was held in a glass cabin, in violation of the presumption of innocence.
The Working Group recalls the Human Rights Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007),
according to which “it is a duty for all public authorities to refrain from prejudging the
outcome of a trial … Defendants should normally not be shackled or kept in cages during
trials or otherwise presented to the court in a manner indicating that they may be dangerous
criminals”,36 as this may result in a violation of article 14 (1). However, glass cabins do not
have the harsh appearance of metal cages, the very exposure of which to the public eye is
capable of undermining the image of defendants and arousing in them feelings of humiliation,
helplessness, fear, anguish and inferiority. Generally speaking, the placement of defendants
behind glass partitions or in glass cabins does not in itself involve an element of humiliation
32 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011), para. 11.
33 Ibid., para. 22.
34 Ibid., para. 23.
35 See the Committee’s general comment No. 25 (1996), para. 8.
36 See para. 30.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/62
12
GE.25-03428
sufficient to reach the minimum level of severity, as is the case with metal cages.37 However,
if the manner and method of executing the measure subjects defendants to distress or hardship
of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, or if the
glass partition reduces visibility and audibility in a way that affects participation in the
proceedings and makes confidential exchanges with legal counsel impossible, that may affect
the principles of equality of arms and the presumption of innocence. The Working Group
notes that the source has not specified that the glass cabin was set up in a way that restricted
the defendant’s participation in the proceedings or imposed limitations on his communication
with lawyers, and has not specified that the physical conditions in the glass cabin were poor
enough to fail to meet the requirements for a fair trial. In the absence of any detailed
submission in this respect, the Working Group is unable to conclude that the source has made
a prima facia case of violation of article 14.
79.
The Working Group further expresses its concern at the allegation of ill-treatment of
Mr. Tazhimuratov, as submitted by the source and not contested by the Government. Not
only do ill-treatment and torture constitute a grave violation of human rights per se in
violation of articles 5 and 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 16 (1)
of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, as well as principle 6 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons
under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment and rule 1 of the Nelson Mandela Rules, it
also seriously undermines the ability of persons to defend themselves and hinders their
exercise of the right to a fair trial, especially in light of the right not to be compelled to testify
against oneself or to confess guilt. The Working Group is particularly disturbed at the
uncontested submissions that the allegations of ill-treatment were brought to the attention of
the trial court, which apparently took no action and turned off the live stream of the trial when
Mr. Tazhimuratov was testifying about the abuse he had allegedly endured while in detention.
80.
The Working Group considers that the failure of the court to take action when
allegations of ill-treatment and torture were brought to its attention is a violation of the right
of Mr. Tazhimuratov to an independent and impartial tribunal as required by article 10 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 of the Covenant.
81.
The source also implicitly complains about a violation of the principle of equality of
arms, as none of the experts called to assess Mr. Tazhimuratov’s speech spoke the Karakalpak
language – the original language – and Mr. Tazhimuratov could not call witnesses and experts
on his behalf. The Government did not comment on these allegations. The Working Group
recalls that the Human Rights Committee has argued that the requirement of competence,
independence and impartiality of a tribunal in the sense of article 14 (1) is an absolute right
that is not subject to any exception.38 The Committee has further observed the following:
The requirement of impartiality has two aspects. First, judges must not allow their
judgment to be influenced by personal bias or prejudice, nor harbour preconceptions
about the particular case before them, nor act in ways that improperly promote the
interests of one of the parties to the detriment of the other. Second, the tribunal must
also appear to a reasonable observer to be impartial.39
82.
In the present case, the source has alleged, and the Government has not rebutted the
allegation, that the court refused to examine experts proposed by Mr. Tazhimuratov, and the
experts proposed by the prosecution did not speak the language to understand the speech they
had to assess. There is no doubt that this point was central to the allegations against
Mr. Tazhimuratov. The Working Group therefore finds that the court acted in a manner that
disregarded the interests of the defence, and that the court thus failed to act in an impartial
manner, in breach of the principle of equality of arms and of article 14 (1) of the Covenant.
83.
Given the above, the Working Group concludes that the violations of the right to a
fair trial and due process are of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty of
Mr. Tazhimuratov an arbitrary character that falls within category III.
37 See, for example, European Court of Human Rights, Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia (applications
No. 2653/13 and No. 60980/14), paras. 124 and 125, judgment of 4 October 2016.
38 See the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 19.
39 Ibid., para. 21.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/62
GE.25-03428
13
(d)
Category V
84.
Finally, the source contends that Mr. Tazhimuratov’s detention is arbitrary under
category V, asserting that it stems from discrimination based on his ethnic origin as a
Karakalpak and on his political opinions; the case reflects the broader targeting of Karakalpak
political activists, including non-governmental organizations and activists residing abroad,
as part of a pattern of systemic discrimination. The Government has failed to address or refute
those statements. The Working Group notes with grave concern the unrebutted allegations
that Karakalpaks and opponents of the proposed constitutional amendments have reportedly
been subjected to mass detentions and excessive use of force, underscoring the discriminatory
treatment based on nationality and political opinion.
85.
The Working Group recalls that when detention results from the exercise of civil and
political rights, there is a strong presumption of discrimination contrary to international law.
This presumption is reinforced in Mr. Tazhimuratov’s case by credible reports of harassment,
physical assault and inhuman treatment during his detention, as stressed by United Nations
experts who highlighted the use of excessive force during peaceful protests in Nukus, where
Karakalpak protesters, including Mr. Tazhimuratov, were met with violence involving water
cannons, rubber bullets, stun grenades and tear gas.40 Noting these findings, and in the
absence of any explanation from the Government, the Working Group finds that
Mr. Tazhimuratov’s detention was discriminatory on the grounds of his political opinions
and his Karakalpak ethnicity, violating the principle of equality enshrined in articles 2 (1)
and 26 of the Covenant. This alleged pattern, unchallenged by the Government, of targeting
Karakalpaks for their political activism and ethnic identity reflects a broader violation of the
prohibition against discrimination. The Working Group concludes that the facts of the case
disclose a violation under category V.
3.
Disposition
86.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Dauletmurat Tazhimuratov, being in contravention of
articles 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 19 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
articles 2 (1), 9, 14, 19, 25 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, is arbitrary and falls under categories I, II, III and V.
87.
The Working Group requests the Government of Uzbekistan to take the steps
necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Tazhimuratov without delay and bring it into
conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
88.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Tazhimuratov immediately and accord
him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with
international law.
89.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Mr. Tazhimuratov and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the
violation of his rights.
90.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
40 See https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/11/uzbekistan-must-refrain-persecuting-defenders-
minority-rights-un-experts.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/62
14
GE.25-03428
4.
Follow-up procedure
91.
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 Mr. Tazhimuratov has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to
Mr. Tazhimuratov;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of
Mr. Tazhimuratov’s rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of Uzbekistan with its international obligations in line with
the present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
92.
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.
93.
The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the
above-mentioned information within six months of the date of 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 of any failure to take action.
94.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States
to cooperate with the Working Group and has 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.41
[Adopted on 11 November 2024]
41 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.