CAT/C/UZB/CO/5
State party is not presently collecting data on the implementation of these measures to
determine whether they are having an impact in practice. It further regrets reports that
prosecutors and judges tend to disregard and decline to investigate allegations that
confessions and other material presented as evidence in court were obtained through torture,
and that medical personnel and defence lawyers, and including State-appointed counsel, are
reluctant to corroborate such allegations. The Committee is also concerned that the State
party has not provided data on the number of persons acquitted of all charges following
confirmation of torture allegations that they raised in court.
9.
The Committee also regrets that a number of criminal trials during which defendants
allegedly raised torture allegations during the reporting period, such as those of retired
diplomat Kadyr Yusupov, as well as several trials of persons charged with committing
torture under article 235 of the criminal code, including the 2018 trial of six National
Security Service officers and others charged with torturing Ilhom and Rahim Ibodov, were
closed to the public, and that court decisions in those cases are not publicly available (arts.
2, 4, 12, 13, 15 and 16).
10.
The State party should:
(a)
Adopt further measures to ensure that prosecutors and judges ask all
defendants in criminal cases whether they were tortured or ill-treated, that all
allegations of torture and ill-treatment raised in judicial proceedings in the State
party are promptly and effectively investigated and alleged perpetrators prosecuted
and punished, and that no statement made as a result of torture or ill-treatment is
invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against the person accused of torture
or ill-treatment as evidence that the statement was made under duress;
(b)
As a matter of urgency, take effective measures to gather and publish
data on cases in which defendants and witnesses in criminal trials have alleged that
they were subjected to torture or ill-treatment to compel them to confess or provide
information for use in criminal proceedings, whether judges subsequently excluded
such evidence in those proceedings, whether the claims made in court were
investigated and alleged perpetrators prosecuted, and whether defendants whose
torture claims were substantiated were subsequently acquitted on all charges against
them;
(c)
Ensure that criminal trials, including but not limited to trials involving
charges of torture, are open to the public, and that decisions in criminal cases
involving torture allegations are made public, including those relating to cases in
which defendants have been charged with violations of article 235 of the criminal code;
(d)
Enhance efforts to promote the use of non-coercive criminal
investigation techniques by its authorities;
(e)
Ensure that the officials responsible for conducting forensic medical
evaluations into allegations of torture and ill-treatment are independent from any
authorities accused of committing these offences and from prosecution authorities;
that all such officials are protected from retaliation in cases where they confirm
evidence of torture or ill-treatment; and that all such officials receive training on the
Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol).
Investigations and prosecution of acts of torture
11.
The Committee is concerned that complaints of torture received by the Prosecutor’s
Office increased tenfold from 2017 to 2018, while the number of cases in which officials
were prosecuted for torture did not increase at a commensurate rate. The Committee also
regrets the lack of information from the State party regarding the precise disciplinary and
criminal punishments handed down against officials suspected or convicted of engaging in
torture and ill-treatment. The Committee notes efforts by the State party which led to the
establishment of an investigations department in the Ministry of Internal Affairs with direct
chain of command to the Minister of the Interior. However, the Committee remains
concerned that these measures have not ensured that effective investigations are conducted,
as evidenced by the low number of prosecutions. The Committee is also concerned that
3