CCPR/C/123/D/2371/2014
24 February 2014. The authors claim that the State party’s decision to expel Mr. Maalem
permanently from Uzbekistan constitutes a breach of his rights under articles 14, 23 and 24 of
the Covenant and of Ms. Maalem’s and their children’s rights under articles 23 and 24 of the
Covenant. Mr. Maalem also raises claims under article 7 of the Covenant. The Optional
Protocol entered into force for Uzbekistan on 28 December 1995. The authors are not
represented by counsel.
1.2
On 31 March 2014, pursuant to rule 92 of its rules of procedure, the Committee, acting
through its Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures, requested the
State party not to deport Mr. Maalem to Algeria while his case was under consideration by the
Committee.
1.3
On 4 June 2017, the Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteur on new
communications and interim measures, reminded the State party that the request for interim
measures remained in effect.
Factual background
2.1
Mr. Maalem is a national of Algeria who arrived in Uzbekistan in 1983 as a student and
has been living there ever since. He graduated from university, and in 1992 married a citizen of
Uzbekistan, Ms. Maalem, with whom he has five children, all born in Tashkent and citizens of
Uzbekistan. In 1993, he was issued a residence permit, which was renewed in 2002. However,
he never obtained Uzbek citizenship. In early 2009, he was accused of committing a crime
under article 135 of the Criminal Code (human trafficking). Mr. Maalem explains that he was
unemployed at the material time. In order to earn some money, he was working as a taxi driver,
using his own car to take passengers from Tashkent to the official border-crossing checkpoint
with Kazakhstan, which is situated 10 km from Tashkent. The police suspected him of being a
member of a criminal group trafficking low-skilled workers and sex workers to Kazakhstan.
Mr. Maalem claims that he tried to prove his innocence, but was imprisoned and sentenced as
the investigators and judges ignored his evidence and arguments. On 19 May 2009, the
Yunusabad District Court of the City of Tashkent sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment
for human trafficking. On 11 June 2010, the Tashkent City Court upheld the trial court verdict
on cassation. Mr. Maalem’s subsequent requests for supervisory review were rejected by the
Tashkent City Court on 16 August and 12 October 2010. He claims that he was convicted
solely on the basis of the testimony of the co-accused, who were influenced by the police to
inculpate him. Later, in prison, they confessed to him that they had been told by the police to
accuse him. His numerous subsequent requests to the national authorities (the President and
Deputy President of the Supreme Court and the Prosecutor General) were rejected or ignored.
2.2
On 24 February 2014, after having served five years of his sentence, Mr. Maalem was
granted amnesty by the Tashkent Region Bekabad City Court on the occasion of the twentyfirst anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution. He was released, but had no identification
documents as the police had taken his passport, without explanation. Moreover, while he was in
prison, in 2011 his passport expired. On an unspecified date, he complained to the police
authorities in charge of visa and residence matters, only to find that, together with the decision
to grant amnesty, the court had also ordered him expelled from Uzbekistan. Mr. Maalem
submits that he was not informed about his expulsion during the court hearing. According to
government decree No. 409 of 1996 regulating matters relating to aliens residing in Uzbekistan,
persons who commit a crime are expelled after serving their sentence. The decree refers to
aliens in general terms, such as tourists or short-term visitors, without specific consideration of
particular cases such as that of Mr. Maalem, who had been living in Uzbekistan for 31 years,
was married to an Uzbek citizen and had five children, all Uzbek citizens.
2.3
On an unspecified date, Mr. Maalem appealed on cassation against the court decision,
arguing that the circumstances of his case should be considered as exceptional and that the
administrative regulations contradicted the constitutional provisions on supporting the family
unit, the Family Code, the Covenant and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. However,
2