

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

The Uzbek authorities should quash the conviction for criminal defamation and insult of the veteran journalist Vladimir Berezovskii and allow him to exercise his right to freedom of speech, Human Rights Watch said today. On October 13, 2010, a Tashkent court convicted Berezovskii, editor of the Russian-language news website Vesti.uz, on the bogus charges.
The charges were brought in July after the State Press and Information Agency's Mass Media Monitoring Center (UzASI) reviewed articles on the Vesti.uz website. In court, Berezovskii was granted an amnesty, which means he will not be subject to any punishment. But his conviction will stand, and he will have a criminal record. He plans to appeal.
"Berezovskii was convicted on allegations of insult and libel that should have never made their way to the courtroom in the first place," said Allison Gill, a Europe and Central Asia adviser at Human Rights Watch. "The Uzbek authorities should immediately stop their relentless campaign against free speech and independent expression."
Restrictive laws allow the authorities to prosecute any journalist whose work the government considers hostile to Uzbekistan. Amendments passed in 2004 to the Criminal Code effectively criminalize the sharing of information critical of human rights in Uzbekistan. Journalists working for foreign media agencies are required by law to be accredited by the Foreign Affairs Ministry.
Berezovskii is one of several journalists who have been targeted for their work in 2010. At least 10 other independent journalists are detained or serving prison sentences.
The indictment against Berezovskii said that the media monitoring center's expert had concluded that 16 articles published on Vesti.uz between August 2009 and January 2010 were defamatory and introduced "to the Uzbek population defamatory, misleading and misinformed information, the distribution of which could incite interethnic and inter-state hostility and create panic among the population." The conclusions did not identify any individual as the injured party.
The articles address issues including labor migration and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. Berezovskii told Human Rights Watch that he did not write any of the 16 articles but that the articles, previously published on Russian news websites, were simply re-posted on Vesti.uz. Several news agencies on whose sites the articles first appeared issued statements that were submitted to the court attesting to the fact that the articles were theirs, not Berezovskii's.
Berezovskii told Human Rights Watch that his lawyer submitted several motions to bolster his defense, including a request for further specialist review of the material and requests to call witnesses, but that the judge did not allow them.
On September 28, a Russian Embassy representative was barred from attending the trial. The judge claimed that the diplomat needed permission from the Supreme Court, though all trials in Uzbekistan are open by law unless declared closed for reasons of national security or other compelling interests as defined by law. Several human rights activists who had come to monitor the trial were also initially refused entry, but later allowed in.
Another Tashkent-based journalist, Abdumalik Boboev, who has worked as Voice of America's Uzbekistan correspondent since 2006, is also facing defamation charges and charges of preparing or distributing materials that threaten public security and order. Another charge, "illegal entry into the country," apparently stems from a minor incident involving a missing stamp in Boboev's passport. If convicted, Boboev faces up to eight years in prison.
Boboev's trial began on October 7 at the Mirzo-Ulugbek District Criminal Court. Representatives from the US and UK Embassies who tried to monitor the trial were denied entry.
The defamation charges against Boboev are based on a review of his print and radio materials, also by the media monitoring center. Boboev told Human Rights Watch that he has written articles about the lack of freedom of speech and highlighting the number of imprisoned journalists in Uzbekistan. He has also written about unemployment and the financial crisis, the cotton industry, and foreign relations.
The agency concluded that Boboev's publications insulted the judiciary and law enforcement structures. On October 7, Boboev's lawyer requested an opportunity to question the press agency's experts, but the judge denied the motion.
Boboev worked for Voice of America in Uzbekistan for over five years, and in 2009, received an award from the US Embassy in Tashkent for his writing about Uzbekistan-US relations.
He repeatedly tried to register with the authorities, as required, but received no response to his numerous applications for accreditation, leaving him vulnerable to being targeted by the government as unregistered. In January, several journalists including Boboev were summoned to the prosecutor's office for questioning about their journalistic activities.
"The charges against Boboev are clearly to punish him for expressing opinions critical of the government," Gill said. "The Uzbek authorities should drop the charges against him immediately and stop using the law to curtail the public's access to information."
The threat of spurious conviction, through the use and abuse of criminal defamation and insult laws, prevents journalists and human rights defenders from carrying out their important work, Human Rights Watch said. Uzbekistan's criminal defamation and insult laws are a disproportionate and unnecessary response to the aim of protecting reputations. The laws create a chilling effect on freedom of expression and are liable to be misused solely to silence those who wish to speak out on matters displeasing to the government or others wielding power. Such laws are incompatible with full respect for and proper protection of freedom of expression as provided for in international human rights law, and should be repealed, Human Rights Watch said.
Human Rights Watch called on Uzbekistan's international partners, especially the United States and European Union, to urge the Uzbek government to uphold the rule of law, end persecution of civil society and the media, reform its defamation and insult laws, and release wrongfully imprisoned human rights defenders and journalists.
At its upcoming Foreign Affairs Council meeting, on October 25 and 26, the EU is scheduled to assess Uzbekistan's progress in meeting human rights benchmarks imposed by the EU following the massacre of largely peaceful protesters in Andijan in 2005. The benchmarks require Uzbekistan to, among other things, "guarantee freedom of speech and the media."
"The EU needs to press the Uzbek government to stop criminal prosecution of journalists like Boboev and Berezovskii," Gill said. "The EU's review is a critical moment for sober, objective scrutiny of Uzbekistan's human rights record and for the EU to take a stand against the Uzbek authorities' crackdown on media freedoms."
Background
The Uzbek government has a long and well documented track record of persecuting individuals perceived to be government critics and of sending them to prison on trumped-up charges. At least two human rights activists have been prosecuted on criminal charges in the last three months alone.
On August 6, Gaibullo Jalilov, a Karshi-based member of the Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan who had been serving a nine-year sentence on religious extremism charges after he was convicted in an unfair trial on January 18, was sentenced to four more years on additional counts of anti-constitutional activity. On September 16, Anatolii Volkov, a member of the Human Rights Alliance of Uzbekistan, was convicted on fraud charges after an investigation and trial marred by due process violations. He was granted an amnesty.
On February 10, a photographer and videographer, Umida Ahmedova, was convicted by the Mirobad District Criminal Court on charges of defamation and insulting the Uzbek people. The charges were brought in January on the basis of an expert analysis by the State Press and Information Agency of a book of photographs published in 2007 and a documentary film released in 2008. These works reflect everyday life and traditions in Uzbekistan, with a focus on gender inequality, but were found by the court to "discredit the foundations and customs of the people of Uzbekistan" and "offend [their] traditions."
At least 14 human rights defenders are being held by the Uzbek authorities on politically motivated charges. They are: Solijon Abdurakhmanov, Azam Formonov, Nosim Isakov, Gaibullo Jalilov, Alisher Karamatov, Jamshid Karimov, Norboi Kholjigitov, Rasul Khudainasarov, Ganihon Mamatkhanov, Farkhat Mukhtarov, Habibulla Okpulatov, Yuldash Rasulov, Dilmurod Saidov and Akzam Turgunov. One other activist, Tatyana Dovlatova, a member of the Human Rights Alliance of Uzbekistan, is currently on trial on trumped-up charges of hooliganism.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
"These types of abusive subpoenas are designed to intimidate and sow fear of government retaliation," said a lawyer for the ACLU.
The Department of Homeland Security is using a little-known legal power to surveil and intimidate critics of the Trump administration, according to a harrowing report published Tuesday by the Washington Post.
Experts told the Post that DHS annually issues thousands of "administrative subpoenas," which allow federal agencies to request massive amounts of personal information from third parties—like technology companies and banks—without an order from a judge or a grand jury, and completely unbeknownst to the people whose privacy is being invaded.
As the Post found, even sending a politely critical email to a government official can be enough to have someone's entire life brought under the microscope.
That is what Jon, a 67-year-old retiree living in Philadelphia, who has been a US citizen for nearly three decades, found out after he sent a short email urging a DHS prosecutor, Joseph Dernbach, to reconsider an attempt to deport an Afghan asylum seeker who faced the threat of being killed by the Taliban if he was forced to return to his home country.
In the email, Jon warned Dernbach not to "play Russian roulette" with the man's life and implored him to “apply principles of common sense and decency.”
Just five hours after he sent the email, Jon received a message from Google stating that DHS had used a "subpoena" to request information about his account. Google gave him seven days to respond to the subpoena, but did not provide him with a copy of the document; instead, it told him to request one from DHS.
From there, he was sent on “a maddening, hourslong circuit of answering machines, dead numbers, and uninterested attendants,” which yielded no answers.
Within weeks of sending the email, a pair of DHS agents visited Jon's home and asked him to explain it. They told Jon that his email had not clearly broken any law, but that the DHS prosecutor may have felt threatened by his use of the phrase "Russian Roulette" and his mention of the Taliban.
Days later, after weeks of hitting a wall, Google finally sent Jon a copy of the subpoena only after the company was contacted by a Post reporter. It was then that Jon learned the breadth of what DHS had requested:
Among their demands, which they wanted dating back to Sept. 1: the day, time, and duration of all his online sessions; every associated IP and physical address; a list of each service he used; any alternate usernames and email addresses; the date he opened his account; his credit card, driver’s license, and Social Security numbers.
Google also informed him that it had not yet responded to the subpoena, though the company did not explain why.
But this is unusual. Google and other companies, including Meta, Microsoft, and Amazon, told the Post that they nearly always comply with administrative subpoenas unless they are barred from doing so.
With the ACLU's help, Jon filed a motion in court on Monday to challenge the subpoena issued to Google.
"In a democracy, contacting your government about things you feel strongly about is a fundamental right," Jon said. "I exercised that right to urge my government to take this man's life seriously. For that, I am being investigated, intimidated, and targeted. I hope that by standing up for my rights and sharing my story, others will know what to do when these abusive subpoenas and investigations come knocking on their door."
As the Trump administration uses DHS and other agencies to compile secret watchlists and databases of protesters for surveillance, targets people for deportation based solely on political speech, and asserts its authority to raid residences without a judicial warrant, administrative subpoenas appear to be another weapon in its arsenal against free speech and civil rights.
According to “transparency reports” reviewed by the Post, Google and Meta both received a record number of administrative subpoenas during the first six months of the second Trump administration. In several instances, they have been used to target protesters or other dissidents for First Amendment-protected activity:
In March, Homeland Security issued two administrative subpoenas to Columbia University for information on a student it sought to deport after she took part in pro-Palestinian protests. In July, the agency demanded broad employment records from Harvard University with what the school’s attorneys described as “unprecedented administrative subpoenas.” In September, Homeland Security used one to try to identify Instagram users who posted about [US Immigration and Customs Enforcement] raids in Los Angeles. Last month, the agency used another to demand detailed personal information about some 7,000 workers in a Minnesota health system whose staff had protested Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s intrusion into one of its hospitals.
“These types of abusive subpoenas are designed to intimidate and sow fear of government retaliation," said Stephen A. Loney, a senior supervising attorney for the ACLU of Pennsylvania. "If you can’t criticize a government official without the worry of having your private records gathered and agents knocking on your door, then your First Amendment rights start to feel less guaranteed. They want to bully companies into handing over our data and to chill users’ speech. This is unacceptable in a democratic society.”
"You don’t see evidence of gang association," said one legal expert. "It just feels like a dirtying up of the defendant."
After a US Border Patrol Agent shot two Venezuelan immigrants in Portland, Oregon in January, the Department of Homeland Security claimed that the two victims were "vicious Tren de Aragua gang members" who "weaponized their vehicle" against federal agents, who had no choice but to open fire in self-defense.
However, court records obtained by the Guardian reveal that a Department of Justice prosecutor subsequently told a judge the government was "not suggesting" that one of the victims, Luis Niño-Moncada, was a gang member.
The Guardian also obtained an FBI affidavit contradicting DHS claims about the second victim, Yorlenys Zambrano-Contreras, being "involved" in a shooting in Portland last year, when in reality she was a "reported victim of sexual assault and robbery."
Attorneys representing Niño-Moncada and Zambrano-Contreras, who both survived the shooting and were subsequently hospitalized, told the Guardian that neither of them have any prior criminal convictions.
Legal experts who spoke with the Guardian about the shooting said it appeared that DHS was waging a "smear campaign" against the victims.
Sergio Perez, a civil rights lawyer and former US prosecutor, noted in an interview that prosecutors filed criminal charges against Niño-Moncada and Zambrano-Contreras just two days after they were shot, even before it had obtained crucial video evidence of the incident.
"This government needs to go back to the practice of slow and thorough investigations," he told the Guardian, "rather than what we consistently see in immigration enforcement activities—which is a rush to smear individuals."
Carley Palmer, a former federal prosecutor, told the Guardian that the court records obtained by the paper don't show DOJ presenting any of the usual evidence that prosecutors use to establish defendants' alleged gang membership.
"What’s interesting about the filings is that you don’t see evidence of gang association," said Palmer. "It just feels like a dirtying up of the defendant."
DHS in recent months has made a number of claims about people who have been shot or killed by federal immigration officers that have not held up to scrutiny.
Most recently, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem claimed that slain Minneapolis intensive care nurse Alex Pretti was a "domestic terrorist" intent on inflicting "maximum damage" on federal agents, when video clearly showed that Pretti was swarmed by multiple federal agents and was disarmed before two agents opened fire and killed him.
Noem also openly lied about the circumstances and actions that resulted in the shooting death of Renee Nicole Good by a federal agent weeks earlier.
In November, federal prosecutors abruptly dropped charges against Marimar Martinez, a woman who was shot multiple times by a US Border Patrol agent in October in Chicago’s Brighton Park neighborhood.
In the indictment filed against Martinez, prosecutors said that the Border Patrol agent who shot her had been acting in self-defense, and that he had only opened fire after Martinez’s car collided with his vehicle.
However, uncovered text messages showed the Border Patrol agent apparently bragging about shooting Martinez, as he boasted that he “fired five rounds and she had seven holes” in a message sent to fellow agents.
An attorney representing Martinez also claimed that he had seen body camera footage that directly undermined DHS claims about how the shooting unfolded.
No explanation was provided for why charges against Martinez were dropped.
"For Haitian TPS holders and their families, this decision provides immediate relief from the fear of family separation, job loss, and forced return to life-threatening conditions in Haiti."
Haitian refugees living in the United States with temporary protected status were given a reprieve Monday night when a federal judge blocked an order by the Trump administration to strip them of their TPS—an effort that many feared would lead to an immediate intensification of efforts to target such communities with the same heavy-handed tactics seen by federal agents in Minnesota, Maine, and elsewhere.
US District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington granted a request to pause the TPS termination for Haitians while a lawsuit challenging the order issued by Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem in November proceeds.
The termination of TPS for Haitian nationals was set for Tuesday, but Reyes's 83-page order stated that it "shall be null, void, and of no legal effect."
Rose-Thamar Joseph, the operations director of the Haitian Support Center in Springfield, Ohio—which has a large Haitian community that has been the target of racist and xenophobic attacks from President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and their allies—said the judge's ruling means "we can breathe for a little bit."
The residents of Springfield and surrounding areas have been anxious that their community would be the next target for Trump's aggressive deportation tactics. The legal challenge to the termination of TPS for Haitians alleges that the secretary acted with "animus," as evidenced by repeated public remarks from Noem and other administration officials.
Reyes, in her ruling, determined that the suit stands a good chance of winning on the merits, writing: “The mismatch between what the secretary said in the termination and what the evidence shows confirms that the termination of Haiti’s TPS designation was not the product of reasoned decision-making, but of a preordained outcome justified by pretextual reasons."
Jerome Bazard, a member of the First Haitian Evangelical Church of Springfield, told NPR that life in Haiti remains too dangerous for many in his community to return.
"They can't go to Haiti because it's not safe," Bazard said. "Without the TPS, they can't work. And if they can't work, they can't eat, they can't pay bills. You're killing the people."
The sense of relief was felt beyond Ohio, as people from Haiti living with TPS status live in communities across the US.
Tessa Petit, executive director of the Florida Immigrant Coalition and a native of Haiti, said the ruling is a welcome development for the approximately 330,000-350,000 people living in the country with TPS, which allows them to work and pay taxes. In her ruling, Reyes noted that Haitians with TPS generate $5.2 billion annually in tax revenue.
"For Haitian TPS holders and their families, this decision provides immediate relief from the fear of family separation, job loss, and forced return to life-threatening conditions in Haiti," said Petit, "where political instability, gang violence, and humanitarian collapse remain acute. No one should be deported into crisis, and today’s ruling affirms that the law cannot be twisted to justify cruelty.”
“Today’s ruling is a victory for the roughly 350,000 Haitian TPS holders whose status was set to expire tomorrow,” said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass). “By providing a safe haven to those who cannot return home safely, TPS embodies the American promise as a land of freedom and refuge. Haitian TPS holders are deeply rooted in our Massachusetts communities—from Mattapan to Brockton. They are our friends, our family members, our neighbors, our colleagues. I will keep fighting to protect the Haitian community.”
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said that even though Monday's ruling is sure to be appealed by the Trump administration, it arrives as a "huge" win.
With the order, he said, "350,000 people can breathe a sigh of relief and go to work or school tomorrow without suddenly having been rendered 'illegal' and forced to either go back into danger or risk being rounded up by ICE agents on the street."