CAT/C/47/D/444/2010
The facts as presented by the complainants
2.1
The complainants are peaceful and devout practitioners of Islam. They fled
Uzbekistan for fear of persecution for practising their religion. Some of them had already
been detained in Uzbekistan and some fled Uzbekistan after being accused of religious
extremism. Twelve (12) complainants were recognized as mandate refugees by the Office
of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) between 2005 and
March 2010.3 In January 2010, a new Law on Refugees came into force in Kazakhstan,
requiring all asylum-seekers, as well as mandate refugees recognized by UNHCR, to
register with the Government of Kazakhstan and no longer with UNHCR. The
complainants duly registered with the Migration Police in May 2010.
2.2
Between 9 and 11 June 2010, the complainants were arrested by the Kazakh
migration police and by plainclothes agents believed to be from the Committee for National
Security (KNB). No arrest warrant was shown at the time of the arrest; some of the
complainants, however, saw it later. In May 2010, the Central Committee for
Determination of Refugee Status (CDRS) conducted interviews with the complainants
without the assistance of a lawyer or a translator. On 11 and 27 August 2010, CDRS
rejected their asylum applications, regardless of the previous status of UNHCR mandate
refugees of 12 complainants. The decisions merely stated that the cases did not satisfy the
criteria for refugee status, without providing any other explanations.
2.3
On 8 September 2010, the Office of the Prosecutor in Almaty announced that, upon
a request from the Uzbek authorities and in accordance with the 1993 Minsk Convention
and the 2001 Shanghai Convention, the complainants would be extradited to Uzbekistan, as
they were involved in “illegal organizations” (art. 159 of the Uzbek Criminal Code) and
accused of “attempts to overthrow the constitutional order” (art. 244-2, of the Uzbek
Criminal Code) in Uzbekistan. However, neither the order of extradition nor any other
written notification was given to them. Their relatives tried to hire lawyers, however most
of them refused to defend them, as it was considered to be a political case. Two lawyers
hired by UNHCR could access the detainees only three months after their arrest and could
meet their clients only twice for 15-20 minutes with each complainant.
2.4
In October 2010, the 12 complainants’ relatives, who had mandate refugee status,
were informed that, pursuant to article 1 (F)(c), of the 1951 Refugee Convention, UNHCR
decided to cancel their mandate refugee status. The relatives, however, did not obtain any
documents by UNHCR supporting this decision.
2.5
On 6 December 2010, the Almaty District Court No. 2 decided to deal jointly with
the complainant’s appeals against the CDRS decisions. At the time of the submission of the
initial complaint on 24 December 2010, the Court had rejected six appeals. On 14
December 2010, the court released a ruling with gross breaches of fair hearing. He read by
mistake the verdict of Mr. Holboev, whose hearing was ongoing, instead of Mr.
Hoshimov’s verdict. Despite interruption by the lawyer, the judge continued to read the
verdict using Mr. Hoshimov’s and Mr. Holboev’s names alternately and then rejecting the
appeal of Mr. Hoshimov.. Copies of the verdicts were not given to the lawyers.
Torjon Abdussamatov, he was awaiting resettlement to a third country; Faizullohon Akbarov;
Suhrob Bazarov; Ahmad Boltaev; Mukhitdin Gulamov, he was awaiting resettlement to a third
country; Saidakbar Jalolhonov, he was awaiting resettlement to a third country; Olimjon Kholturaev,
he was awaiting resettlement to a third country; Sarvar Khurramov; Bahriddin Nurillaev; Bahtiyor
Nurillaev; Ulugbek Ostonov; Otabek Sharipov, he was awaiting resettlement to a third country.
3
3