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.25-07738 (E) 180625 190625
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 102nd session, 1–10 April 2025
Opinion No. 17/2025 concerning Gulnara Karimova (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 working methods,1 on 24 December 2024 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Uzbekistan a communication concerning Gulnara
Karimova. The Government submitted a late response on 18 March 2025. 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);
(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).
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/17
General Assembly
Distr.: General
19 June 2025
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/17
2
GE.25-07738
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Gulnara Karimova, born on 8 July 1972, is a national of Uzbekistan. She is a
businesswoman and the daughter of the former President of Uzbekistan.
(i)
Context
5.
According to the source, Ms. Karimova was considered a potential candidate to
succeed her father as President of Uzbekistan.
6.
Reportedly, in February 2014, shortly before the end of her father’s term as President,
Ms. Karimova was arrested by the authorities of Uzbekistan.
7.
Since her arrest, she has been detained under varying conditions, including house
arrest. It is claimed that she has been sentenced three times in Uzbekistan. At the same time,
legal proceedings started in a third country following a denunciation from banks in that
country to the Money Laundering Reporting Office of that third country. According to the
source, several individuals were initially co-accused alongside Ms. Karimova in criminal
proceedings by the Office of the Attorney General in the third country. In 2018, the Office
of the Attorney General in the third country reportedly decided to separate the proceedings
conducted against two of the co-accused individuals from the main proceedings and to issue
two criminal orders against them: (a) convicting them of money laundering and
(b) confiscating more than $600 million belonging to Ms. Karimova, but held in the name of
companies of which the two co-accused individuals were the legal representatives. As a result,
Ms. Karimova’s legal counsel in the third country filed two opposing motions against these
two orders before the Federal Criminal Court of the third country. When the legal counsel
from the third country was eventually authorized to visit Ms. Karimova in Uzbekistan, she
was under extreme pressure from the Uzbek authorities to withdraw the opposing motions,
so that the $600 million could be “returned” to the Uzbek authorities.
(ii)
Arrest and detention
8.
The source submits that Ms. Karimova was arrested on 14 February 2014 by officers
of the secret services of Uzbekistan. She was not presented with any document, arrest warrant
or other decision to justify her arrest.
9.
Immediately after her arrest, she was placed under house arrest, alongside her child,
who was 15 years old at the time, in complete isolation, without permission to contact the
outside world or leave their house. Ms. Karimova’s child was kept under house arrest with
her for 18 months, until her alleged trial, which took place in her kitchen on 21 August 2015.
10.
According to the source, Ms. Karimova was not able to challenge her detention before
any judicial authority and she did not have access to a lawyer. She was never notified of the
charges against her and she was never given access to her case file, nor was she able to
question witnesses.
11.
On 19 May 2014 – when legal proceedings began in the third country following the
denunciation by the third country’s banks to its Money Laundering Reporting Office – the
Office of the Attorney General of the third country appointed a duty defence lawyer for
Ms. Karimova. However, the Uzbek authorities refused to disclose her location and thus, for
more than two years, Ms. Karimova’s legal counsel from the third country tried to find her
without success. Her third country legal counsel was finally able to meet with Ms. Karimova
in November 2016, two and a half years after his appointment as duty defence lawyer.
12.
On 21 August 2015, more than a year after her arrest, Ms. Karimova appeared before
a judge for the first time. The hearing, according to the source, took place in Ms. Karimova’s
kitchen before the Tashkent Regional Criminal Court and with men in combat gear present.
That was the first time Ms. Karimova was allowed to meet the two defence lawyers who had
been appointed by the Uzbek authorities. However, she was not permitted to communicate
with them beforehand, nor was she provided with the basic resources necessary to prepare
her defence. In addition, both Ms. Karimova and her lawyers were denied the opportunity to
speak during the trial.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/17
GE.25-07738
3
13.
The source submits that the judgment itself made no attempt to disguise the fact that
the trial had occurred in an entirely inappropriate setting. It explicitly stated that the hearing
was held “outside the court” and gave as the location an address that, a few lines later in the
judgment, was revealed to be Ms. Karimova’s own home address.
14.
The judgment of the Tashkent Regional Criminal Court, issued following the trial in
Ms. Karimova’s kitchen, found Ms. Karimova guilty of a range of offences as outlined in the
Criminal Code, including crimes related to the preparation of and participation in unlawful
activities (art. 28), the unlawful obtaining and disclosure of personal information (art. 137 (2)
(b) and (c)), the illegal possession, distribution or use of other people’s property (art. 165 (3)
(a) and (c)), fraud and embezzlement (art. 167 (3) (a) and (c)), violations of economic
regulations, including illegal business activities and other financial crimes (arts. 179 and 184
(3)) and the illegal acquisition and distribution of assets (art. 227 (2) (a)).
15.
As a result, Ms. Karimova was sentenced to house arrest for a period of five years,
with a particularly strict regime of detention: “restriction of liberty for a period of 5 (five)
years with the establishment of a complete ban on leaving one’s home and the following
additional restrictions: not to deal with public activity …; not to change residence without
the agreement of the body carrying out surveillance of the convicted person; … not to
establish contact with other people, except family members; not to use means of
communication, including the Internet”.
16.
The source submits that the decision of 21 August 2015 of the Tashkent Regional
Criminal Court, was taken in order to compensate for a potential conviction that could be
issued against Ms. Karimova by the third country’s judicial authorities. Allegedly, according
to an unknown agreement, after serving her detention in Uzbekistan, Ms. Karimova would
no longer be prosecuted in the third country. However, the source reports that such an
agreement does not exist.
17.
No opportunity to appeal or challenge the judgment was concretely offered to
Ms. Karimova.
18.
In August 2015, Ms. Karimova was separated from her child, who was moved to
another location, where she remained under house arrest for another year, alone, until
27 August 2016. During this time, Ms. Karimova’s child was unable to attend school.
19.
The source submits that on two occasions, Ms. Karimova was heard in Uzbekistan at
the request of the authorities from the third country. They highlighted the alleged serious
violations of defence rights and exposed the practices of prosecutors in Uzbekistan.
20.
In November 2016, even before her first hearing with the authorities from the third
country scheduled for 9 and 10 December 2016, Ms. Karimova was taken at least five times
to the prosecutor’s office, outside any official procedure and solely for the purpose of
“preparing for the arrival of the [authorities from the third country]”. Reportedly, the day
before the hearing with the authorities from the third country, the prosecutor violently
grabbed Ms. Karimova’s arm, telling her she knew what she would have to say the following
day. That incident left her with a large purple bruise about 8 cm in diameter on her arm.
21.
During the first hearing, Ms. Karimova was reportedly prohibited by the Uzbek
authorities from speaking with her legal counsel from the third country.
22.
On 3 July 2017, members of the intelligence services reportedly came to take
Ms. Karimova from her apartment, where she was being held under house arrest, to bring her
before a prosecutor before placing her in pretrial detention at the Tashkent city jail.
23.
Reportedly, on 18 December 2017, Ms. Karimova was taken to the Tashkent Regional
Criminal Court to stand trial, where she was found guilty of another series of offences under
the Criminal Code of Uzbekistan, namely illegal business activities or the abuse of power for
personal gain (art. 168 (3) (a) and (b)); fraudulent activities in business transactions or
embezzlement (art. 178 (3)); money-laundering or concealment of illegally obtained funds
(art. 182 (2) (a) and (b)); illegal transactions (art. 189 (1)); illegal acquisition or use of State
property (art. 228 (2) (a) (6)); illegal transportation or trafficking of goods (art. 228 (3)); and
violation of tax regulations or the evasion of duties (art. 243). As a result, Ms. Karimova was
reportedly sentenced to 10 years in prison.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/17
4
GE.25-07738
24.
The source submits that it is unknown whether any minutes were taken during the
second trial. Ms. Karimova was reportedly assisted by a lawyer who she had never met before.
It is noted that Ms. Karimova did not participate in any preliminary hearings before the trial.
Allegedly, no appeal or legal recourse could be exercised by Ms. Karimova, as it either did
not exist or she had no access to it. Further, as indicated in the judgment, the procedure took
place behind closed doors, although no specific charge or circumstance justified it.
25.
In January 2018, Ms. Karimova was reportedly transferred to Zangiota penal colony,
in the Tashkent region.
26.
On 21 June 2018, during a visit to Uzbekistan, Ms. Karimova’s legal counsel from the
third country asked her to sign several documents attesting to their powers of representation.
She reportedly informed her counsel that she had to show these documents to the prosecutors,
who reportedly made copies of them. It is submitted that Ms. Karimova was coerced by the
authorities into writing a letter to the third country’s Federal Criminal Court requesting the
withdrawal of the two objections raised against the decisions made by the Office of the
Attorney General of the third country.
27.
The next day, Ms. Karimova’s legal counsel from the third country prepared an
instruction letter. Upon reading the document, Ms. Karimova signed it, confirming that it
reflected the content of their discussions, and added a few handwritten words. Once again,
the prosecutors made a copy of the letter, in what, according to the source, was flagrant
disregard for the rules concerning the confidentiality of communication between clients and
counsel. The prosecutors of Uzbekistan reportedly forced Ms. Karimova’s third country legal
counsel to return the signed instruction letter, otherwise they would not be able to leave the
country.
28.
During a later visit to Tashkent on 11 and 12 October 2018 by Ms. Karimova’s third
country legal counsel, their meetings were again obstructed by the Uzbek authorities. The
authorities systematically delayed the start of the meetings, interrupted them several times
and forcefully ended them before the scheduled time. Due to these multiple obstructions, the
total meeting time over two days did not exceed three hours and 15 minutes. In addition,
Ms. Karimova and her third country legal counsel were not able to speak freely during these
meetings for fear that they were being recorded or overheard.
29.
From 26 June 2018 to 5 March 2019, Ms. Karimova was held under house arrest. On
5 March 2019, she was transferred to the Tashkent city jail, as the authorities considered she
had violated the terms of her house arrest by communicating with her third country legal
counsel. Later in March 2019, Ms. Karimova was transferred to Zangiota penal colony.
30.
On 3 August 2019, Ms. Karimova was transferred again to the Tashkent city jail until
June 2020.
31.
A third hearing took place on the evening of 16 September 2019, of which
Ms. Karimova and her legal counsel were notified only a few hours in advance. The source
submits that Ms. Karimova was placed in pretrial detention and a new procedure was initiated.
32.
According to the source, during the new criminal investigation, Ms. Karimova’s
defence rights were again not respected. For that trial specifically, Ms. Karimova was allowed
to have two defence lawyers of her choice. However, even though she was a priori able to
choose them, those lawyers have been and still are under extreme pressure from the
authorities of Uzbekistan and thus are not able to defend her properly. For instance, one of
Ms. Karimova’s lawyers was interrogated multiple times by the secret services in order to
intimidate him.
33.
At the end of the criminal investigation, on 18 March 2020, Ms. Karimova was found
guilty of “criminal association, fraud, embezzlement of public funds and the concealment of
foreign currency” and sentenced to 13 years and four months in prison. The source submits
that to date, neither Ms. Karimova nor her lawyers have had access to the contents of that
decision and do not know whether it is final.
34.
Due to the successive sentences imposed against Ms. Karimova in Uzbekistan, the
actual length of her sentence is no longer clear.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/17
GE.25-07738
5
35.
It is difficult to determine precisely the different locations and conditions of detention
of Ms. Karimova over the years since her arrest. However, it is reported that these conditions
have been extremely difficult, as she has been in isolation and with no contact with the outside
world.
36.
In June 2020, Ms. Karimova was again transferred to the Zangiota penal colony,
which has been described as a prison colony by civil society, in which detainees are deprived
of contact with the outside world, are unable to send letters to their families and are subjected
to beatings by guards.
37.
Ms. Karimova has never been able to establish telephone or written contact with her
third country legal counsel. Only a few rare meetings were held in Tashkent, under conditions
that did not allow for the basic rights to legal counsel to be respected.
38.
According to the source, since 12 June 2019, no further contact has been allowed
between Ms. Karimova and her third country legal counsel. In December 2019, the Uzbek
authorities issued a decision banning her third country legal counsel from entering
Uzbekistan until 31 December 2024, after he published a few statements on social media
criticizing, in particular, the systematic violation of Ms. Karimova’s rights by the Uzbek
authorities. The Uzbek authorities labelled these statements as “destructive actions” and
“dissemination of false information” and informed the Office of the Attorney General in the
third country that they would no longer allow the Ms. Karimova’s legal counsel to visit her.
39.
Ms. Karimova’s third country legal counsel was reportedly thus replaced by two
lawyers from his legal firm. The ban on Ms. Karimova’s third country legal counsel is
supposed to expire by the end of 2024, but so far, the Uzbek authorities have refused to
confirm whether the ban will be lifted or extended, despite requests from the Federal Criminal
Court in the third country.
40.
Ms. Karimova’s newly appointed third country legal counsels have been able to visit
her, but under strict conditions:
(a)
They are not allowed to be alone with Ms. Karimova and must always be
accompanied by her Uzbek lawyers;
(b)
They are not allowed to take their personal computers with them. Since the
third country’s criminal file consists of hundreds of physical binders that they cannot bring
with them to Uzbekistan, Ms. Karimova is de facto deprived of the right to access her third
country file;
(c)
When Ms. Karimova’s third country counsels tried to take physical documents
with them to prepare her defence, the authorities reportedly searched those documents when
they entered or left the prison. Multiple explanations were given for the searches. For instance,
they were told that it was the Government’s responsibility to search for notes potentially
written by Ms. Karimova, or to look for information she might have given to her lawyers.
41.
The source reports that Ms. Karimova is currently being held at Zangiota penal colony.
She remains incommunicado and is not allowed to send or receive mail, or make or receive
phone calls, including to or from her family.
(iii)
Legal analysis
42.
The source argues that Ms. Karimova’s arrest and detention are arbitrary under
categories I, III and V of the working methods of the Working Group.
a.
Category I
43.
The source submits that Ms. Karimova was first held under house arrest for 18 months
from the moment of her arrest on 14 February 2014. During that time, Ms. Karimova was
held in complete isolation, not allowed to leave her home or even contact anyone, including
her family and legal counsel.
44.
Even though Ms. Karimova’s third country legal counsel was appointed as a public
defender in 2014 and despite numerous efforts, it was only two years later, in 2016, that she
was able to speak with her counsel for the first time.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/17
6
GE.25-07738
45.
The source recalls that the Working Group has stated that “without prejudging the
arbitrary character or otherwise of the measure, house arrest may be compared to deprivation
of liberty provided that it is carried out in closed premises which the person is not allowed to
leave”.2
46.
Thus, it argues that the particularly strict conditions under which she was held make
it possible to establish that Ms. Karimova was deprived of her liberty from her arrest in
February 2014. The judgment of 21 August 2015, sentencing Ms. Karimova to five years of
house arrest, describes the particularly strict regime of detention:
(a)
Restriction of liberty for a period of five years with the establishment of a
complete ban on leaving one’s home;
(b)
No public activity to be undertaken;
(c)
No change of residence without the agreement of the body carrying out
surveillance of the convicted person;
(d)
No contact with other people, except family members, and no use of means of
communication, including the Internet.
47.
The source recalls that article 9 of the Covenant provides that everyone has the right
to liberty and security of person.
48.
It further recalls anyone who is arrested has the right to be promptly informed of any
charges against them.3 The Human Rights Committee has stated that this obligation allows a
decision to be requested to determine whether pretrial detention is appropriate.4
49.
The source notes that the Working Group has found deprivation of liberty to be
arbitrary in a similar case to the present one.5 The source argues that Ms. Karimova has
suffered from a far more serious violation, since she was detained for 18 months before being
brought before a judge. It is therefore in the absence of any legal basis that she was detained
for many months, so that it is appropriate to characterize her detention as arbitrary and falling
within category I.
b.
Category III
50.
The source argues that Ms. Karimova’s detention is arbitrary under category III as she
has been denied the right to due process.
51.
The source recalls that under article 14 (1) of the Covenant, “everyone shall be entitled
to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established
by law”. Under article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “no one shall be
subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile”.
52.
The source submits that Ms. Karimova, has been subjected to arbitrary detention since
2014; her right to be informed of the charges against her, her right to be assisted by a lawyer,
the right to a public trial and the right to an effective remedy have all been violated.
53.
It was only after 18 months of detention, without access to the outside world, that
Ms. Karimova was presented to a court for the first time.
54.
However, the source asserts that the court, competent to judge the merits of the case,
was not competent to rule on the detention imposed during the long period in question.
Ms. Karimova was never brought to a judge to contest her detention, even though this should
have occurred “without delay”. The same applies to the charges brought against her, as it was
only after one year of detention, during the trial hearing, that she learned, for the first time,
of what she was actually accused.
2 E/CN.4/1993/24, para. 20.
3 Opinion No. 29/2017, para. 56.
4 General comment No. 35 (2014), para. 29.
5 See opinion No. 79/2017.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/17
GE.25-07738
7
55.
The source recalls that under article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant, any person accused of
a criminal offence has the right to “have adequate time and facilities necessary for the
preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing”.
56.
It further recalls that the Working Group found in a previous case “that depriving the
person of the right to communicate with a lawyer for more than 10 days following his arrest
constituted a violation of his right as provided for under article 14 of the Covenant”,6 and also
that: “Authorities shall respect the privacy and confidentiality of legal counsel-detainee
communications.”7
57.
Reportedly, since her arrest Ms. Karimova has been sentenced three times. The source
argues that each of those judgments violate her most basic rights. In particular, she has never
had any access to any document in the case file and the first trial was held in her kitchen.
58.
The source argues that at the first trial, held in her kitchen, was the first time she
learned of the existence of a procedure against her. The intrusion into her kitchen, outside of
any legal framework, to deliver a pre-written judgment without hearing a single witness made
the very idea of preparing her defence illusory.
59.
Further, it was on the very first day of her so-called trial, 18 months after her arrest,
that she had access, for the first time, to legal counsel, in violation of the Covenant.
60.
Although lawyers were appointed by the authorities on the day of the first trial, they
were of no practical use. In addition to the conditions imposed by the Government that
prevented any prior meetings and thus any preparation of her defence, her lawyers did not
speak a word during the hearing. Ms. Karimova only saw these lawyers again one year later,
during her questioning by the third country authorities. Again, they did not speak a word.
When later contacted by her third country lawyer, the Uzbek lawyers stated that they could
not make any comments on the proceedings, as they had signed a confidentiality agreement
with the Government.
61.
The source asserts that just as the possibility of challenging her detention is
notoriously illusory, the subjugation of lawyers to the authorities in Uzbekistan is also widely
known. According to the source, Ms. Karimova’s case is an example of many cases in which
the authorities have denied the most fundamental rights of other public figures, human rights
defenders or members of minorities.
62.
The source notes that the Committee against Torture has echoed this.8 Sometimes, the
lawyers themselves are threatened with physical violence by law enforcement agents.
63.
That is in line with the findings of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of
judges and lawyers, expressing concern about government interference with the legal
profession, noting that lawyers often did not have access to their clients, criminal case file,
and even essential documents, such as the indictment or the judgment.9
64.
During her second trial, which she again learned of on the day itself, Ms. Karimova
had a different State-appointed lawyer, whom she also first met at the hearing. At this new
trial, similarly to the previous one, she had no access to any documents in the case file and
was not able to consult a lawyer beforehand, meaning she was once again unable to assert
any of her most basic rights.
65.
During her final trial, although Ms. Karimova had slightly less restricted access to her
lawyers, it was still impossible for her to prepare her defence properly. Due to their justified
fear of reprisals by the authorities, her lawyers, reportedly did not carry out their duties in
Ms. Karimova’s best interests, which forced her to change lawyers several times. Such fears
were indeed justified, as one of her lawyers was questioned multiple times by the secret
services. Moreover, Ms. Karimova’s lawyer was forced to sign a confidentiality clause
prohibiting him from disclosing the case file and the charges to the public, her family, or
even Ms. Karimova herself. The source argues that it is hard to see how lawyers could carry
6 Opinion No. 4/2013, para. 79.
7 A/HRC/30/37, para. 15.
8 CAT/C/UZB/CO/5, para. 30.
9 A/HRC/44/47/Add.1, para. 81.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/17
8
GE.25-07738
out their duties with the necessary diligence without being able to discuss the charges and the
elements of the case with their client.
66.
The source notes that the Working Group has already addressed the issue of
intimidation of defence lawyers by the authorities in Uzbekistan.10
67.
Further, the source recalls that the Human Rights Committee has urged the
Government of Uzbekistan to: “Ensure that the independence of the Chamber of Lawyers
from the executive branch is guaranteed in law and in practice.”11 The source asserts that
these recommendations have not been followed.
68.
The source argues that the authorities took extensive measures to obstruct the ability
of Ms. Karimova’s international lawyers to represent her effectively.
69.
Since the appointment of Ms. Karimova’s international legal counsel, the authorities
of Uzbekistan have attempted to make the exercise of his mandate more difficult. Firstly, it
was more than two years after being appointed as her lawyer that the first meeting with
Ms. Karimova took place.
70.
Reportedly, once the meeting between Ms. Karimova and her international legal
counsel was accepted by the authorities, restrictions were put in place with the apparent
objective of limiting ability of her counsel to assist her. The source provides a few examples:
(a)
Work sessions in Tashkent were regularly postponed, curtailed and interrupted
by long, unexplained breaks;
(b)
During meetings with Ms. Karimova, a surveillance camera was present in the
room designated for the interviews;
(c)
Every document signed or written by Ms. Karimova was systematically read
and/or copied by the authorities, without any respect for the principle of confidentiality
between lawyers and clients;
(d)
During hearings conducted under the international letter of request for mutual
cooperation, the lawyers were not allowed to ask any questions during the hearing of
Ms. Karimova that took place in 2016. In 2018, the lawyers were prohibited from asking any
questions regarding her detention conditions or the procedures being conducted in
Uzbekistan;
(e)
A ban on entering Uzbekistan was imposed on Ms. Karimova’s third country
legal counsel from December 2019 to December 2024.
71.
It is submitted that through unjustified requests, the authorities of Uzbekistan even
attempted to influence the position and strategy of Ms. Karimova’s criminal defence in the
third country. Failing in that regard, the ban on entering Uzbekistan was imposed on her
international legal counsel.
72.
The source asserts that although Ms. Karimova has been in detention since 2014, she
has still not been able to consult her criminal file, despite the very numerous requests filed
through international criminal assistance.
73.
In accordance with article 14 (3) of the Covenant, any person accused of a criminal
offence has the right to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain
the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as
witnesses against him.
74.
Regarding the first trial, the source asserts that no witness was heard. The judgment
was pronounced on the same day she was informed of the existence of the proceedings,
making it de facto completely impossible for her to request the hearing of any witness or to
ask questions of the prosecution witnesses. As a result, Ms. Karimova was deprived of her
right to hear any witnesses.
75.
The source submits that Ms. Karimova’s second trial was of the same nature.
Although the limited information available does not clarify whether witnesses were heard or
10 Opinion No. 29/2017, paras. 60 and 61.
11 CCPR/C/UZB/CO/5, para. 39 (c).
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/17
GE.25-07738
9
not during that trial, the right to question prosecution and defence witnesses could not be
respected because the judgment hearing was again announced on the same day it was held,
effectively preventing any preparation of the defence and, consequently, any witness hearings.
76.
Regarding the third trial, the source asserts that the opacity of the proceedings makes
it impossible to know the circumstances in which the trial was held and whether
Ms. Karimova was able to question any witnesses. However, the source argues that as the
two previous proceedings were in violation of Ms. Karimova’s defence rights, the third one
might have been similar.
77.
The source recalls that under article 14 (1) of the Covenant, “The press and the public
may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public)
or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the
parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special
circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgment
rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest
of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or
the guardianship of children.”
78.
The first two trials, including the one held in Ms. Karimova’s kitchen, were closed to
the public.
79.
The charges brought against Ms. Karimova fall within the realm of financial crimes.
Therefore, the source argues, it is not clear what superior public interest or national security
reason could be invoked by the authorities to prevent the press, her family, the public, or even
her international lawyers from accessing the trials. The source submits that the ban on public
access allowed the authorities to conceal serious and repeated procedural violations, thus
preventing Ms. Karimova from challenging the decisions and the conditions under which
they were rendered, and from making these violations known.
80.
The source recalls that under article 14 (5) of the Covenant: “Everyone convicted of
a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal
according to law.”
81.
Neither the first nor the second decision rendered against Ms. Karimova could be
contested. The source argues that, deprived of a lawyer and external contact, she could not
challenge the judgments rendered against her before higher courts – if such avenues even
exist.
82.
The source asserts that the lack of information regarding the final decision prevents a
clear determination of whether an appeal could have been introduced against this decision.
However, given the total absence of rights granted to Ms. Karimova during the three
proceedings, and in light of the modus operandi of the authorities, who have reportedly often
deprived citizens of their rights, it is highly probable that this right was also denied to her
following the final judgment.
83.
The source argues that Ms. Karimova’s multiple convictions and the accumulated
sentences handed down as a result of those convictions make it impossible to determine the
total duration of the detention ordered. According to the source, the decisions taken had one
ultimate goal: to force Ms. Karimova to renounce her claims in the proceedings conducted in
the third country, so that the funds seized could be returned to Uzbekistan.
84.
The source asserts that the Uzbek authorities’ intent to force Ms. Karimova to
renounce her claims was particularly evident during her hearing on mutual legal assistance.
On several occasions, Ms. Karimova was taken out of the room to meet privately with Uzbek
prosecutors. After these discussions, she made “spontaneous statements” in the presence of
the prosecutors from the third country. Without any regard for the rule of law, the Uzbek
prosecutors reportedly directly attempted to influence Ms. Karimova’s testimony and, by
extension, a foreign procedure, for purely financial purposes.
85.
According to the source, the authorities coerced other detainees, held in Uzbekistan,
to testify against Ms. Karimova, in order to facilitate the return of the funds seized. This
practice became evident during the questioning of defendants in Uzbekistan at the request of
the authorities from the third country. Reportedly, all those detainees stated that
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/17
10
GE.25-07738
Ms. Karimova had committed crimes. They also indicated that their release from prison
depended directly on the return to Uzbekistan of the sums seized.
86.
Thus, the source asserts that it is in this purely economic context that Ms. Karimova
has been arbitrarily detained for 10 years.
87.
In the light of all the reasons above, the source concludes that Ms. Karimova was
deprived of almost all her most basic rights and her case falls under category III.
c.
Category V
88.
The source argues that Ms. Karimova’s deprivation of liberty is based on political
reasons and is therefore discriminatory.
89.
The source recalls that under article 2 (1) of the Covenant: “Each State Party to the
present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and
subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction
of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national
or social origin, property, birth or other status.” The source further recalls that the Working
Group has stated that deprivation of liberty due to discrimination based on political opinions
and which aims or may have the effect of disregarding the equality of human rights is also
considered arbitrary detention under category V.12
90.
The source argues that Ms. Karimova’s economic and political success made her a
natural candidate for the highest office, while her father, who was President of Uzbekistan at
the time, was at the end of his career, as reported by the media. Her arrest by the secret
services thus interrupted any presidential aspirations she may have had. According to the
source, the authorities’ intention to do this was evident in the judgment of 21 August 2015,
which prohibited Ms. Karimova from “engaging in public affairs”.
91.
The source concludes that by arresting Ms. Karimova and keeping her in detention to
prevent any electoral intent she may have had, the Uzbek authorities violated her rights and
her case therefore falls under category V.
(b)
Response from the Government
92.
On 24 December 2024, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source
to the Government of Uzbekistan under its regular communications procedure. The Working
Group requested the Government to provide, by 24 February 2025, detailed information
about the current situation of Ms. Karimova and to clarify the legal provisions justifying her
detention, as well as its compatibility with the country’s obligations under international
human rights law, and in particular with regard to the treaties ratified by the State. The
Working Group also called upon the Government of Uzbekistan to ensure the physical and
mental integrity of Ms. Karimova.
93.
On 19 February 2025 the Government requested an extension, which was granted until
17 March 2025. The Government submitted its reply on 18 March 2025, after the deadline.
The Working Group cannot accept this response as if it were provided within the time limit.
In accordance with paragraph 16 of its methods of work, the Working Group will render its
opinion on the basis of all the information it has obtained.
2.
Discussion
94.
In the absence of a timely response from the Government, the Working Group has
decided to render the present opinion, in conformity with paragraph 15 of its methods of
work.
95.
In determining whether the deprivation of liberty of Ms. Karimova is arbitrary, the
Working Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with
evidentiary issues. If the source has presented a prima facie case for breach of international
law constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon
12 Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, fact sheet No. 26, Rev. 1, p. 18.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/17
GE.25-07738
11
the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations. Mere assertions by the Government that
lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s allegations.13
96.
The Working Group wishes to clarify at the outset that it does not function as a
substitute for national judicial authorities, nor does it pronounce on the guilt or innocence of
Ms. Karimova. The mandate of the Working Group is strictly confined to examining the legal
questions pertaining to the arbitrary nature of her detention, assessing whether the procedural
guarantees were respected and determining compliance with relevant international human
rights standards, rather than evaluating the substantive merits of the criminal allegations
against her.
97.
The source has argued that the detention of Ms. Karimova is arbitrary and falls under
categories I, III and V. The Working Group will examine these in turn.
(a)
Category I
98.
The source submits that Ms. Karimova’s detention is arbitrary under category I
because she was arrested on 14 February 2014 without being presented with any warrant,
arrest order or other decision to justify her arrest and because she was held under house arrest
for 18 months before being brought before a judge for the first time. In its reply, the
Government argues that house arrest does not constitute deprivation of liberty.
99.
The Working Group recalls its deliberation No. 1, in which it established that:
“Without prejudging the arbitrary character or otherwise of the measure, house arrest may be
compared to deprivation of liberty provided that it is carried out in closed premises which the
person is not allowed to leave.”14 In the present case, according to the source, Ms. Karimova
was placed under house arrest in complete isolation, without permission to contact the outside
world or leave her house. The Government in its late reply confirms that Ms. Karimova was
under house arrest, with restrictions prohibiting her from engaging in public activity,
changing residence without permission, establishing contact with people other than family
members and using means of communication, including the Internet. These conditions clearly
amount to deprivation of liberty within the meaning established by the Working Group’s
jurisprudence.
100.
The Working Group notes that Ms. Karimova was arrested on 14 February 2014
without being presented with any arrest warrant or other decision to justify her arrest. The
Government does not disprove these allegations, since they argue that house arrest does not
amount to a deprivation of liberty (see above). The Working Group recalls that article 9 (2)
of the Covenant provides that anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest,
of the reasons for the arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges. The Working
Group has previously stated that, for a deprivation of liberty to have a legal basis, it is not
sufficient that there is a law which may authorize the arrest. The authorities must invoke that
legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case.15 That is typically done through an
arrest warrant or arrest order (or equivalent document).16 The reasons for arrest must be
provided immediately upon arrest and must include not only the general legal basis of the
arrest, but also enough factual details to indicate the substance of the complaint, such as the
wrongful act and the identity of an alleged victim.17 In the absence of any information to the
contrary, the Working Group finds that articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, article 9 of the Covenant and principles 2, 4 and 10 of the Body of Principles
for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment were
breached in this case.
101.
Furthermore, article 9 (3) of the Covenant establishes that anyone arrested or detained
on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge. As the Human Rights
Committee has observed in its general comment No. 35 (2014), 48 hours is ordinarily
sufficient time to satisfy this obligation and any delay longer than that must remain absolutely
13 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
14 E/CN.4/1993/24, sect. II, para. 20.
15 Opinions No. 9/2019, para. 29; No. 46/2019, para. 51; and No. 59/2019, para. 46.
16 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.
17 Opinions No. 85/2021, para. 69; and No. 54/2023, para. 91.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/17
12
GE.25-07738
exceptional and be justified under the circumstances. Although in its late reply the
Government agrees that Ms. Karimova was not brought before a judge until 21 August 2015,
as it argues she was not detained while under house arrest, the Working Group finds that the
period of approximately 18 months after her initial detention greatly exceeds any reasonable
interpretation of “promptly” under international human rights standards, and thus violates
article 9 (3) of the Covenant.
102.
In addition, throughout the 18-month period following her initial detention,
Ms. Karimova was reportedly denied any meaningful opportunity to challenge the lawfulness
of her detention before a judicial authority. The Government asserts in its belated response
that “all procedural guarantees were observed” and that her lawyers “had the right to appeal
against the decisions taken” but “did not exercise their rights” and, without providing any
specific information, contradicts the source’s claim that a lawyer appointed in May 2014 was
unable even to locate Ms. Karimova until November 2016, well after the first judicial
proceeding. The Working Group has consistently emphasized that when an individual is held
for an extended period without access to prompt and effective judicial review, this constitutes
a violation of the right to an effective remedy as guaranteed under article 8 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and article 2 (3) of the Covenant. In the absence of any
substantive information showing that Ms. Karimova had genuine access to judicial review
during her 18-month period of house arrest, the Working Group finds that her right to
challenge the lawfulness of her detention was violated.
103.
Based on the foregoing, the Working Group finds that Ms. Karimova’s deprivation of
liberty was arbitrary, falling within category I.
(b)
Category III
104.
The source submits that Ms. Karimova’s detention is arbitrary under category III
because she was denied due process rights, including the right to have the time and facilities
necessary for the preparation of her defence; the right to communicate with counsel of her
choosing; the right to examine witnesses; the right to have her case heard in public; and the
right to appeal her conviction. The source further submits that detention was used as a means
of coercion.
105.
Concerning the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of a
defence and to communicate with counsel, the Working Group notes that according to the
source, Ms. Karimova was effectively denied access to meaningful legal representation from
her initial detention in February 2014 until at least November 2016, when a lawyer from a
third country – who had been appointed in May 2014 – was finally able to meet with her. The
Government of Uzbekistan, in its belated response, contends that domestic lawyers were
present at the various proceedings and had familiarized themselves with the case materials.
However, these assertions must be examined in the light of the details provided by the source
regarding significant restrictions placed on those legal representatives.
106.
While States maintain a legitimate interest in regulating legal practice within their
jurisdictions, including establishing requirements for foreign legal counsel, such regulations
must not compromise the fundamental right to effective legal representation. In the present
case, the source alleges that the Uzbek lawyers assigned to Ms. Karimova were required to
sign confidentiality agreements that severely constrained their ability to discuss the case even
with their client. That arrangement fundamentally undermines the lawyer–client relationship
and renders legal representation essentially nominal rather than substantive. In its late
response, the Government of Uzbekistan asserted that the local defence lawyers were
provided with appropriate undertakings not to disclose the facts that had come to their
attention during investigations and court proceedings, and noted that the signing of
confidentiality agreements was a standard practice to protect the interests of the client and
could not be regarded as an obstacle to an effective defence. In that respect, the Human Rights
Committee has stressed that lawyers should be able to advise persons charged with a criminal
offence “without restrictions, influence, pressure or undue interference from any quarter”.18
In addition, according to principle 8 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, all
arrested, detained or imprisoned persons are to be provided with adequate opportunities, time
18 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 34.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/17
GE.25-07738
13
and facilities to be visited by and to communicate and consult with a lawyer, “without delay,
interception or censorship and in full confidentiality”.
107.
The imposition of confidentiality requirements that prevent lawyers from fully
discussing case materials with their own client cannot be reconciled with these international
standards. Although the Government noted in its late reply that Ms. Karimova and her
lawyers were allocated a separate room for meetings during the hearings in which no audio
or video recordings were made, in compliance with international standards, it acknowledged
that the lawyer from a third country was only permitted to meet with Ms. Karimova after a
protracted period and then reportedly under conditions of surveillance that, according to the
Government, included adjustments to the schedule of meetings and the use of technical means
of control. In the Working Group’s view, that raises serious concerns about the effectiveness
of legal representation. The Working Group therefore finds that the conditions under which
Ms. Karimova’s legal representation was provided fell substantially short of international
standards, constituted a violation of her right to legal assistance guaranteed under article 14
(3) (d) of the Covenant and her right to prepare her defence without constraints under article
14 (3) (b), as well as a violation of article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
108.
Regarding the right to examine witnesses and prepare the defence, the Working Group
notes the source’s submission that no witnesses were heard during Ms. Karimova’s first trial
and the judgment was pronounced on the same day that she was informed of the proceedings.
In its late reply, the Government acknowledges the source’s allegations, as it notes that the
format of the first session was conditioned by the need to respond promptly to the
circumstances of the case and to comply with the security measures provided for in the Code
of Criminal Procedure. It asserts, however, that despite the prompt nature of the notice, all
procedural rights, including the possibility of later requesting the hearing of witnesses, were
guaranteed.
109.
While the Government asserts that all procedural rights were guaranteed in
Ms. Karimova’s case, it has not explained how her right to examine witnesses and prepare a
defence was in fact protected. The procedure effectively denied her the right to call and
question witnesses, in violation of article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant. The Working Group
also recalls that the right to an adversarial trial under article 14 of the Covenant means that
both prosecution and defence must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and
comment on the observations filed and the evidence adduced by the other party. Article 14
(3) (b) of the Covenant stipulates that individuals facing charges have the right to adequately
prepare their defence without constraints, ensuring that they can present all necessary
arguments to affect the trial’s result. It mandates that individuals accused of criminal
activities should have access that allows them to familiarize themselves with the investigation
findings in order to prepare their defence effectively.
110.
The abrupt conclusion of Ms. Karimova’s trial within a single day – the very same
day she was first informed of the proceedings – fundamentally undermined her ability to
engage with the evidence against her, rendering any meaningful defence preparation a
practical impossibility. Such an expedited proceeding, devoid of witness testimony and
conducted without affording the accused adequate time to comprehend the charges and
evidence, let alone formulate a response, represents not merely a procedural irregularity but
a profound subversion of the adversarial process that lies at the heart of fair trial guarantees
under international law, in violation of article 14 of the Covenant and article 11 (1) of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
111.
Concerning the right to a public hearing, the Working Group notes that both the first
two trials were reportedly closed to the public. The Government explains that this
arrangement, which it characterizes as a “mobile court session”, was necessitated by
Ms. Karimova’s status as the daughter of the former President, subject to the provisions of
the Presidential Guarantees Act, and because the criminal case contained information
constituting State secrets. While article 14 (1) of the Covenant indeed allows for limited
restrictions on public access in specific circumstances, such as national security concerns,
the Working Group observes that less intrusive measures could have been implemented,
rather than complete exclusion of public scrutiny. For instance, partial closure only during
discussion of sensitive information, redacted transcripts or other measures that balanced
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/17
14
GE.25-07738
security concerns with the fundamental right to a public hearing could have been considered.
Even accepting the Government’s explanation regarding State secrets and Ms. Karimova’s
status, the complete absence of public access to these proceedings, combined with their
unusual venue, significantly undermined transparency and external oversight, raising serious
concerns about compliance with the fair trial guarantees under article 14 (1) of the Covenant.
112.
With respect to the right to appeal, the Working Group observes that the source
initially claimed that Ms. Karimova was not able to challenge the judgments rendered against
her. However, in its late submission, which does not contradict the source’s account on this
point, the Government indicates that Ms. Karimova effectively appealed the verdict in her
second trial, resulting in a mitigation of her sentence from deprivation of liberty to restriction
of liberty at her place of residence. As concerns the third trial, the source acknowledged
uncertainty about whether the 2020 verdict was final, while the Government maintained that
Ms. Karimova and the lawyers chosen by her family were explicitly informed of their right
to appeal but chose not to exercise it. Given these incomplete accounts and absent more
conclusive submissions from the source regarding the practical accessibility and
effectiveness of appellate procedures across all proceedings, the Working Group cannot make
a definitive determination on whether Ms. Karimova’s right to appeal under article 14 (5) of
the Covenant was systematically violated throughout all stages of her case.
113.
Based on the foregoing, the Working Group concludes that the violations of her fair
trial rights when it comes to her first and second trials, were of such gravity as to render her
deprivation of liberty arbitrary under category III. While the Working Group acknowledges
the more limited information available regarding the third trial in 2020, the documented
violations in the earlier proceedings are sufficiently severe to establish the arbitrary character
of Ms. Karimova’s detention under the standards of category III.
(c)
Category V
114.
The source submits that Ms. Karimova’s deprivation of liberty is discriminatory,
being based on political reasons, particularly her potential candidacy to succeed her father as
President of Uzbekistan. The source argues that her economic and political success made her
a natural candidate for the highest office and her arrest by the secret services interrupted any
presidential aspirations she may have had. The source further contends that the intention of
the authorities to prevent her political career was evident in the judgment of 21 August 2015,
which prohibited Ms. Karimova from “engaging in public affairs”. In its belated reply, the
Government refutes these claims, maintaining that all judgments rendered against
Ms. Karimova were based on objective evidence of criminal conduct, including the theft of
State property and tax evasion, allegedly causing damage exceeding $1.3 billion.
115.
The Working Group recalls that a detention is arbitrary under category V when it
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. In the present case, the
Working Group observes that there is insufficient evidence demonstrating that
Ms. Karimova’s political status or opinions, rather than the allegations of criminal conduct,
were the determining factor in her detention. Having regard to the materials available, the
Working Group is unable to conclude that Ms. Karimova’s detention was arbitrary under
category V.
3.
Disposition
116.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Gulnara Karimova, being in contravention of articles 3,
8, 9 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2, 9 and 14 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within
categories I and III.
117.
The Working Group requests the Government of Uzbekistan to take the steps
necessary to remedy the situation of Ms. Karimova 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.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/17
GE.25-07738
15
118.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to accord Ms. Karimova an enforceable right to
compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law.
119.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Ms. Karimova and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of
her rights.
120.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
121.
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 Ms. Karimova;
(b)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of
Ms. Karimova’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 Uzbekistan with its international obligations in line with
the present opinion;
(d)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
122.
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.
123.
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 any failure to take action.
124.
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.19
[Adopted on 3 April 2025]
19 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.