December, 13 2011, 07:07am EDT
Uzbekistan: Detainees Tortured, Lawyers Silenced
New Evidence Rebuts Claims of Safeguards
BERLIN
Uzbekistan has not kept its promises to stop torture in its criminal justice system, including electric shocks and asphyxiation, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Safeguards to halt the practice that were announced with fanfare have not been put into effect. Western governments seeking closer ties with the authoritarian Central Asian government for strategic reasons have all but ignored the abuses.
The 104-page report "'No One Left to Witness': Torture, the Failure of Habeas Corpus, and the Silencing of Lawyers in Uzbekistan," provides rare first-hand evidence of wide-scale human rights abuses in the isolated country, from which United Nations human rights experts have been banned for almost a decade. In Uzbekistan, human rights activists are languishing in prison and independent civil society is ruthlessly suppressed.
"The West has to wake up to the fact that Uzbekistan is a pariah state with one of the worst human rights records," said Steve Swerdlow, Uzbekistan researcher at Human Rights Watch. "Being located next to Afghanistan should not give Uzbekistan a pass on its horrendous record of torture and repression."
The report is based on more than 100 interviews conducted in Uzbekistan between 2009 and 2011.
Torture is a chronic problem in Uzbekistan, as highlighted by the international outrage in 2002 over the case of a man imprisoned for religious "extremism" who experts concluded died as a result of immersion in boiling water in a notorious prison and findings by United Nations bodies that torture is both "widespread" and "systematic."
But torture in Uzbekistan is not a thing of the past. Human Rights Watch documented cases in which authorities poured boiling water on an activist during an interrogation, beat detainees with rubber truncheons and water-filled bottles, hung detainees by their wrists and ankles, subjected them to rape and sexual humiliation, and asphyxiated them with plastic bags and gas masks.
The government has effectively destroyed the independent legal profession, disbarring some of Uzbekistan's most outspoken lawyers, Human Rights Watch found. The government routinely denies detainees access to legal counsel.
Despite this record of abuse and repression, the United States, the European Union, and individual leading European governments have in recent years dramatically weakened their stance on human rights toward Tashkent, due to Uzbekistan's strategic importance to neighboring Afghanistan as a land route for NATO troops and supplies.
The EU dropped sanctions on Uzbekistan in 2009, while the US moved in September 2011 to waive Congressional human rights restrictions on assistance, including on military aid, to the Uzbek government. Germany, which is leasing a military base in Termez in southern Uzbekistan, has rejected taking a public stand on human rights abuses in Uzbekistan. In November, the United Kingdom also held negotiations with the Uzbek government about the possibility of using Uzbek territory to move troop supplies out of Afghanistan.
The United States, European Union, and other key international actors should support the creation of a special UN mechanism on the human rights situation in Uzbekistan and consider imposing targeted punitive measures, such as asset freezes and visa bans, on Uzbek government officials responsible for torture and other grave human rights violations, Human Rights Watch said.
In one torture case described in the report, the wife of "Abdumannob A.," whose name has been changed to protect him, spoke of the beatings her husband endured in a Tashkent pretrial facility at the end of 2008 and much of 2009, when he was held by security services and accused of espionage. She told Human Rights Watch:
Officers would hang him from the ceiling by his wrists, and eight or nine people one after the other would beat him. When I saw him, it was obvious he had been hanged by the wrists. I could see the marks. He told me that several times guards and detainees were brought into the interrogations and were given needles to poke under his nails. Guards handcuffed him to his cell once and burned his penis with newspapers that they had lit on fire, giving him a second-degree burn.
Human Rights Watch also met with the mother of an 18-year-old boy who was detained as a "witness" in 2010 for allegedly participating in a street fight. She described how, according to her son, police had used a gas mask on him to simulate asphyxiation, and forced him to sign a confession stating that another boy was also present at the fight.
Amid much fanfare, the Uzbek government in 2008 adopted habeas corpus - the judicial review of detention - and later other legal reforms, in apparent moves to combat such cases of torture. European governments and the EU cited these moves as signs of "progress" when they decided to drop sanctions.
In reality, Uzbekistan's record on torture and other serious rights abuses has not improved since the adoption of habeas corpus and in several respects has worsened, Human Rights Watch said.
"Talking about reforms while the police and prison officials go right on torturing people is no improvement," Swerdlow said. "This problem won't stop until Uzbekistan's leaders, starting with President Islam Karimov, publicly acknowledge the scale of this problem and urgently begin fulfilling Uzbekistan's international commitments."
Habeas corpus has done little to protect detainees from arbitrary detention, torture, or ill-treatment. Lawyers told Human Rights Watch that Uzbek courts approve prosecutors' applications for detention in almost all cases, without conducting an independent review of the merits of the request. The lawyers said that the courts often adopt government-proposed sentences verbatim in decisions authorizing arrest.
Under Uzbek law, police and investigators can hold suspects up to 72 hours before bringing them before a judge for a habeas corpus hearing, a period incompatible with human rights norms. Habeas corpus hearings themselves are closed to the public, undermining a key safeguard designed to promote fairness in hearings.
Human Rights Watch found that police and security agents use torture to coerce detainees to implicate themselves or others, viewing it as an effective instrument for securing convictions and meeting internal quotas.
Since the May 2005 government massacre of hundreds of people, most of them unarmed, in the eastern city of Andijan, Uzbek authorities have made it increasingly difficult to investigate torture. The authorities have imprisoned and harassed activists who attempt to document torture and have refused to let international monitors or international human rights groups work in the country.
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.
LATEST NEWS
Budget Proposal Shows GOP 'Is the Party of Cutting Social Security and Medicare'
"Trump has tried to walk back his support for Social Security and Medicare cuts," said the head of Social Security Works. "This budget is one of many reasons why no one should believe him."
Mar 20, 2024
Defenders of Social Security and Medicare on Wednesday swiftly criticized the biggest caucus of Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives for putting out a budget proposal for fiscal year 2025 that takes aim at the crucial programs.
The 180-page "Fiscal Sanity to Save America" plan from the Republican Study Committee (RSC) follows the release of proposals from Democratic President Joe Biden and U.S. House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas)—who is leading the fight to create a fiscal commission for the programs that critics call a "death panel" designed to force through cuts.
The RSC document features full sections on "Saving Medicare" and "Preventing Biden's Cuts to Social Security," which both push back on the president's recent comments calling out Republican attacks on the programs that serve seniors.
The caucus plan promotes premium support for Medicare Advantage plans administered by private health insurance providers as well as changes to payments made to teaching hospitals. For Social Security, the proposal calls for tying retirement age to rising life expectancy and cutting benefits for younger workers over certain income levels, including phasing out auxiliary benefits.
The document also claims that the caucus budget "would promote trust fund solvency by increasing payroll tax revenues through pro-growth tax reform, pro-growth energy policy that lifts wages, work requirements that move Americans from welfare to work, and regulatory reforms that increase economic growth."
In a lengthy Wednesday statement blasting the RSC budget, Social Security Works president Nancy Altman pointed out that last week, former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee to face Biden in the November election, "toldCNBC that 'there's a lot you can do' to cut Social Security."
"Everyone who cares about the future of these vital earned benefits should vote accordingly in November."
"Now, congressional Republicans are confirming the party's support for cuts—to the tune of $1.5 trillion. They are also laying out some of those cuts," Altman said. "This budget would raise the retirement age, in line with prominent Republican influencer Ben Shapiro's recent comments that 'retirement itself is a stupid idea.' It would make annual cost-of-living increases stingier, so that benefits erode over time. It would slash middle-class benefits."
"Perhaps most insultingly, given the Republicans' claim to be the party of 'family values,' this budget would eliminate Social Security spousal benefits, as well as children's benefits, for middle-class families. That would punish women who take time out of the workforce to care for children and other loved ones," she continued. "This coming from a party that wants to take away women's reproductive rights!"
The caucus, chaired by Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), included 285 bills and initiatives from 192 members in its budget plan—among them are various proposals threatening abortion care, birth control, and in vitro fertilization (IVF) nationwide.
"The RSC budget would also take away Medicare's new power to negotiate lower prices on prescription drugs, putting more money into the pockets of the GOP's Big Pharma donors," Altman warned. "And it accelerates the privatization of Medicare, handing it over to private insurance companies who have a long history of ripping off the government and delaying and denying care to those who need it."
"In recent days, Trump has tried to walk back his support for Social Security and Medicare cuts," she noted. "This budget is one of many reasons why no one should believe him. The Republican Party is the party of cutting Social Security and Medicare, while giving tax handouts to billionaires."
"The Democratic Party is the party of expanding Social Security and Medicare, paid for by requiring the ultrawealthy to contribute their fair share," Altman added. "Everyone who cares about the future of these vital earned benefits should vote accordingly in November."
Biden campaign communications director Michael Tyler also targeted the Republican presidential candidate while slamming the RSC plan, saying that "Donald Trump's MAGA allies in Congress made it clear today: A vote for Trump is a vote to make the MAGA 2025 agenda of cutting Social Security, ripping away access to IVF, and banning abortion nationwide a hellish reality."
"While Trump and his allies push forward their extreme agenda, the American people are watching," Tyler added, suggesting that the RSC proposal will help motivate voters to give Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris four more years in the White House.
Keep ReadingShow Less
While Mulling Israel Claims, Biden Urged to 'Stop Weapons Sales Now'
"After over half a million uncommitted votes and counting, it's time Biden administration officials finally listen," said one campaigner. "We need concrete action to stop weapons aid immediately."
Mar 20, 2024
As the Biden administration wrestles with whether to certify that Israel is complying with a presidential directive requiring human rights assurances from governments receiving American weapons, Palestine defenders on Wednesday renewed calls for a suspension of U.S. arms sales to Israel's genocidal government and military.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has until March 25 to certify to Congress that Israel is adhering to President Joe Biden's February 2023 memo stating that "no arms transfer will be authorized where the United States assesses that it is more likely than not that the arms to be transferred will be used by the recipient to commit... genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949... or other serious violations of international humanitarian or human rights law."
If Israel fails to provide written assurance that it is using U.S.-supplied weapons in accordance with international law, arms sales would automatically be suspended. According toHuffPost, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Jack Lew on Tuesday privately claimed to the State Department that Israel is in compliance with domestic and international law.
However, the Israeli daily Haartezreported Wednesday that officials from three State Department bureaus—Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; Population, Refugees, and Migration; and the Office of Global Criminal Justice—as well as the United States Agency for International Development are deeply skepitcal of Lew's claim.
"America should follow in Canada's steps and stop weapons sales now."
The Uncommitted National Movement—a coalition of pro-Palestine, peace, and progressive groups urging people to vote "uncommitted" in U.S. Democratic primaries in a bid to pressure Biden to push Israel for a Gaza cease-fire—led demands for a suspension of arms transfers to Israel.
"After over half a million uncommitted votes and counting, it's time Biden administration officials finally listen," Uncommitted National Movement co-chair Layla Elabedsaid in a statement Wednesday. "We need concrete action to stop weapons aid immediately. America should follow in Canada's steps and stop weapons sales now."
The Canadian Parliament on Monday approved a nonbinding resolution calling on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to cut off arms exports to Israel. Canadian Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly subsequently said that the government would cease future weapons sales to the country.
Other countries including Japan, Spain, the Netherlands, and Belgium have suspended or restricted weapons sales to Israel, whose military forces have killed or wounded more than 113,000 Palestinians since the October 7 attacks while forcibly displacing around 90% of Gaza's 2.3 million people and fueling famine and disease by besieging the embattled strip. Most of those killed have been women and children.
On January 26, the
International Criminal Court ordered Israel to prevent genocidal acts. Both the ICJ and a U.S. federal judge have found that Israel is "plausibly" committing genocide in Gaza. Palestinians, human rights groups, and legal experts have accused Israel of ignoring the World Court's directive.
Common Dreamsreported Tuesday that Human Rights Watch and Oxfam called Israeli assurances that U.S.-supplied weapons are not being used in violation of international law "not credible." The groups also dismissed false Israeli claims that the country is not blocking humanitarian aid from reaching starving Gazans.
The U.S. gives Israel approximately $4 billion in annual military aid. Since October 7, the Biden administration has requested an additional $14.3 billion in armed assistance for Israel, while repeatedly circumventing Congress to fast-track emergency weapons transfers.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Despite WSJ Reporting, Julian Assange Lawyer Says 'No Indication' of Plea Deal
"The United States is continuing with as much determination as ever to seek his extradition," said an attorney for the jailed WikiLeaks journalist.
Mar 20, 2024
As the world awaits a U.K. court ruling on Julian Assange's potential extradition to the United States, The Wall Street Journalreported Wednesday that the WikiLeaks founder's attorneys and U.S. Department of Justice officials "have had preliminary discussions" about allowing him to plead guilty to a reduced charge to end the lengthy legal battle.
"If prosecutors allow Assange to plead to a U.S. charge of mishandling classified documents—something his lawyers have floated as a possibility—it would be a misdemeanor offense," the Journal detailed, citing unnamed sources. "Under such a deal, Assange potentially could enter that plea remotely, without setting foot in the U.S."
"The time he has spent behind bars in London would count toward any U.S. sentence, and he would likely be free to leave prison shortly after any deal was concluded," according to the report—on which a Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment.
The 52-year-old Australian has been imprisoned at London's Belmarsh Prison since British authorities dragged him out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in 2019, after the South American nation's president terminated the diplomatic asylum granted to him in 2012. In the United States, he faces Espionage Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act charges for publishing material that includes the "Collateral Murder" video, the Afghan War Diary, and the Iraq War Logs.
Assange attorney Barry Pollack said in a statement Wednesday that "it is inappropriate for Mr. Assange's lawyers to comment while his case is before the U.K. High Court other than to say we have been given no indication that the Department of Justice intends to resolve the case and the United States is continuing with as much determination as ever to seek his extradition on all 18 charges, exposing him to 175 years in prison."
Human rights and press freedom advocates worldwide and even some U.S. lawmakers have warned of the broader impacts of a conviction. Kathleen McClellan and Jesselyn Radack wrote Saturday in Salon that the precedent set by the cases of Assange, Timothy Burke, and Catherine Herridge "will apply in future to anyone engaging in such entirely normative journalistic activities as cultivating sources while protecting their anonymity, and seeking to publish information in the public interest that governments or other powerful forces seek to control."
Focusing specifically on Assange's case, Croatian philosopher and Belmarsh Tribunal co-founder Srećko Horvat similarly said in December that "more than one man's life is at stake, but the First Amendment and freedom of the press itself. As long as the Espionage Act is deployed to imprison those who expose war crimes, no publisher and no journalist will be safe."
Ahead of a U.K. High Court hearing on extradition last month, Stella Assange, Julian's wife and the mother of two of his two children, pointed to her husband's physical and mental health problems, and warned that "this case will determine if he lives or dies, essentially."
The Journal noted Wednesday that the court "is expected to decide within weeks whether to grant Assange a further right to appeal his extradition" and the United States has pledged that "he could be transferred to his native Australia to serve any sentence."
Australia's government "could shorten any sentence once he landed on Australian soil," the paper added. Nick Vamos, a partner at London law firm Peters & Peters and a former head of extradition for England and Wales' Crown Prosecution Service, said that "I honestly think as soon as he arrived in Australia he would be released."
Shortly before the February hearing, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese joined 85 members of Australia's Parliament in voting for a motion demanding that the U.S. and U.K. drop the extradition effort and allow Assange to return to his home country.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular