Kyrgyzstan: Do Not Trade Refugees for Empty Promises
Uzbek Government Assurances No Safeguard Against Torture
(New York, January 12, 2006) – Kyrgyzstan should reject the Uzbekistan government’s proposal that the Kyrgyz return four
refugees in exchange for Uzbek government assurances not to torture the men, Human Rights Watch said today.
The Uzbek government has offered diplomatic assurances and vague promises of access by international organizations to
the four if they are returned, Human Rights Watch has learned. The Kyrgyz Supreme Court was scheduled to hear the men’s
extradition case this week.
“The Uzbek government’s promises not to torture these men are not worth the paper they’re written on,” said Holly
Cartner, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Diplomatic assurances of this type from Uzbekistan do
not provide a reliable safeguard against torture and ill-treatment.”
If returned to Uzbekistan, Yakub Tashbaev, Rasul Pirmatov, Jahongir Maksudov and Odiljan Rahimov will face the risk of
torture and possible death in custody. They were part of a group of more than 400 refugees who fled to Kyrgyzstan
immediately following the government massacre of hundreds of civilians in Andijan, Uzbekistan on May 13, 2005. The four
men were detained by Kyrgyz authorities in June following an extradition request filed by Uzbekistan; the others were
evacuated to safety outside Kyrgyzstan. The four have been officially recognized as refugees by the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The Uzbek government has accused three of involvement in acts of violence during the
Andijan events, and charges that the fourth man has not served his full prison term on an outstanding narcotics-related
conviction.
Torture in Uzbekistan is an endemic and long-standing problem. Despite extensive documentation of torture by rights
defenders and international organizations, the government has failed to stop it or to hold accountable those who commit
torture. Following a mission to Uzbekistan, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture announced in 2003 that torture in
Uzbekistan was “systematic.” The methods of torture documented in his report continue to be used by Uzbek law
enforcement agents today. These include the use of electric shock, beatings with truncheons, rape and other sexual
abuse, asphyxiation, and psychological abuse including threats to harm a detainee’s relatives. People detained on
charges related to religion or national security are routinely subjected to particularly harsh treatment in custody.
“Torture of detainees is routine in Uzbekistan. The government of Kyrgyzstan should not pretend that these four would be
treated any differently,” said Cartner. “The latest promises of access to detainees are also not credible.”
The Uzbek government did not spell out which organizations would have access to the four men and under what
circumstances. In the past, the Uzbek government has failed to keep similar promises. Kyrgyzstan forcibly returned four
asylum seekers to Uzbekistan in June 2005 with the understanding that their treatment in custody would be monitored. But
no international organization, not even the International Committee of the Red Cross, has been given access to them and
their condition remains unknown.
Sending the four refugees back to Uzbekistan would violate Kyrgyzstan’s obligations under international law, regardless
of promises of access to them, Human Rights Watch said. Forcible return of the four men would constitute a breach of the
nonrefoulement obligation of the Convention against Torture. And the 1951 refugee convention prohibits the forced
return, or refoulement, of refugees to the country they fled. In a January 9 press release UNHCR called on the Kyrgyz
government to refrain from any action aimed at forcibly returning the four refugees to Uzbekistan.
Human Rights Watch also cautioned that the government of Kyrgyzstan should not rely on diplomatic assurances as a way to
circumvent its obligation not to return people to a place where they will be at risk of torture. Human Rights Watch has
found that suspects returned to countries with records of torturing detainees—including Egypt and Syria—based on
diplomatic assurances have, in fact, been tortured and ill-treated.
In reports published in 2004 and 2005, Human Rights Watch concluded that diplomatic assurances were ineffective in
preventing torture and other ill-treatment, because these abuses are practiced in secret and their perpetrators are
generally expert at keeping them from being detected. People who have suffered torture and other ill-treatment are often
reluctant to speak out for fear of retaliation. Even if people do reveal their abuse, diplomatic assurances are not
legally binding and provide no accountability mechanism if they are breached. Moreover, the sending government has no
incentive to find that torture and other ill-treatment has occurred following the return of an individual, since doing
so would amount to an admission that it had violated its own nonrefoulement obligation.