Corporate report

Human Rights Priority Country status report: January to June 2016

Updated 8 February 2017

This was published under the 2015 to 2016 Cameron Conservative government

The underlying human rights situation in Uzbekistan has not changed materially over the past 6 months. We continue to have significant concerns particularly about mistreatment in detention, freedom of expression and association, freedom of religion and forced adult labour.

The then FCO Minister for Central Asia, Tobias Ellwood, raised human rights concerns with a number of Uzbek ministerial and official interlocutors during a visit to Uzbekistan from 5 to 7 April. In a meeting with the Head of Uzbekistan’s National Human Rights Centre, Dr Akmal Saidov, Mr Ellwood raised the need for Uzbekistan to implement recommendations arising from the UN Universal Periodic Review it underwent in 2013. Mr Ellwood also raised the importance of applying international human rights standards in the context of counter-extremism operations.

In January, the Chairman of the Jizzakh branch of the Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan, Uktam Pardaev, was charged with fraud and bribery. He was given a 3-year conditional sentence preventing him from continuing human rights work. Human rights organisations have expressed concerns that the charges against Mr Pardaev were related to his work as a human rights defender, reporting cases of forced labour in Uzbekistan’s cotton harvest.

According to media reports in January, the imprisoned leader of the Akromiya movement, Akram Yuldashev, died in detention some years ago. Mr Yuldashev is understood to have founded the group that was held responsible by the Uzbek authorities for the events in Andijan in 2005. Although human rights organisations had issued calls regarding Mr Yuldashev’s whereabouts or welfare during his detention, the Uzbek authorities had not provided any public information about him. His case was included in a Human Rights Watch report which issued in 2014.

In February, an ethnic Armenian, Aramais Avakian, was sentenced with a number of others to 7 years’ imprisonment on charges of plotting anti-constitutional activities. Mr Avakian had been in detention since September 2015. The Uzbek authorities have not provided information about the circumstances leading to Mr Avakian’s detention. Human rights organisations have raised concerns about the evidence base for the charge against Mr Avakian, his subsequent treatment in detention, and his access to a fair trial. Mr Avakian’s defence lawyer, Odil Kobilov, was also detained in May on charges of extremism, but he was subsequently released on 13 June. The British Embassy has raised Mr Avakian’s case with the Uzbek authorities and, with other EU member states, issued a statement on 27 May before the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Permanent Council expressing concern about the treatment of both men and calling on Uzbekistan to abide by international human rights commitments and standards.

In April, Amnesty International published a report raising concerns about the treatment of a number of individuals who have been returned to Uzbekistan by the Russian authorities. The report alleges that these individuals have been deported on suspicion of having links to criminal or extremist organisations and then mistreated during detention on return. The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, assessing new amendments to the criminal code, called for a balance between security interests and the ability of the media to report on matters of public interest.

In May, the Open Society Foundation published a report, Tackling Corruption in Uzbekistan, which assesses the extent of high-level systemic corruption in Uzbekistan, with reference to the impact on governance, media and civil society. The report also highlights the efforts of international partners to support state reforms aimed at promoting accountability and transparency. The British Embassy continues to be active through project and programme work in helping to implement legislative changes designed to improve communication between civil society and government authorities. An example of this is a project being implemented through UNDP, designed to improve public service delivery by helping three regional administrations to develop open data and accountability in the public sector.

The Global Slavery Index, published in May, found that 58% of those living in slavery are in just 5 countries. These include Uzbekistan given the mobilisation of adult labour during Uzbekistan’s annual cotton harvest. In 2015, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the World Bank concluded that this annual mobilisation perpetuates the risk of forced labour. In the 2016 US State Department Trafficking in Persons Report, Uzbekistan is classified as Tier 3 (the lowest level) because it does not fully meet the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so. However, the report recognises that Uzbekistan continues to work with the ILO under the terms of the Decent Work Programme for 2014 to 2016 to reform labour practice in the cotton sector.

In June, according to media reports, an imprisoned human rights defender, Mr Ganikhon Mamatkhanov, received an additional sentence resulting in a three-year extension to his prison term. Mr Mamatkhanov, who worked for the International Society for the Protection of Human Rights, was sentenced in 2009 to five years in prison on fraud and bribery charges. He is now due for release in 2019. Human rights organisations reported that Mr Mamatkhanov’s additional sentence was imposed under Article 221 of Uzbekistan’s criminal code, for violation of prison rules. This was Mr Mamatkhanov’s second such additional sentence. Human rights organisations have frequently highlighted the arbitrary use of Article 221, which have resulted in lengthy additional sentences for allegedly minor infringements. The UK has also raised concerns with the government of Uzbekistan, both bilaterally and with EU partners, about the use of Article 221.

Between January and June, there continued to be reports in internet media and by NGOs of actions by law enforcement authorities against individuals engaged in religious activities outside state-sanctioned structures.