1. AUTHOR OF COMMUNICATION
Name: Indira Adkhamovna Umarova
Nationality: Uzbek
Profession: Homemaker
Date of Birth: 18/05/1960
Place of Birth: Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Present Address: 8995 Clairborne Farm Drive
Germantown, Tennessee 38138, U.S.A.
Capacity of Author: I act on behalf of the victim as his wife. The victim himself is presently in detention, and would file a complaint on his own behalf if this were permitted by the Uzbek authorities who are detaining him.
Legal Counsel: Indira Umarova will be assisted by legal counsel, Professor Bartram Brown and Attorney Geoffrey Baker.
Address for Exchange of Confidential Correspondence:
Geoffrey Baker
Dowell Baker
229 Randolph Street
Oak Park, Illinois 60302
Phone: 708-660-1413
Bartram Brown
565 West Adams
Chicago, Illinois 60661
Phone: 312-953-5046
2. VICTIM INFORMATION
Name: Sanjar Giyasovich Umarov
Nationality: Uzbek
Profession: Businessman
Date of Birth: 07/04/1956
Place of Birth: Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Present Address: Last known to be detained at the Tashkent Prison Facility in Tashkent, Uzbekistan.
3. STATE CONCERNED: Uzbekistan
4. ARTICLES VIOLATED
Article 2
Uzbekistan has violated the following provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), namely, Articles 7, 9.1, 9.3, 9.4, 10.1, 17, 19.2 and 26, and, therefore, has violated Article 2.
Article 7
Uzbekistan has subjected Mr. Umarov to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. After a formal arrest warrant had been issued, Mr. Umarov was held in a temporary detention cell isolated in the basement of the Tashkent City Police Department for nineteen days rather than in pre-trial detention in violation of Uzbek criminal procedure. Mr. Umarov was held naked without provision of elementary personal hygiene items. During this time, Mr. Umarov displayed effects of having been administered psychotropic drugs.
Article 9.1
Uzbekistan subjected Mr. Umarov to arbitrary detention by holding him in a temporary holding cell for nineteen days in violation of Uzbek criminal procedure. This detention also deviated from Uzbek Criminal Rules of Procedure which require transfer from a temporary holding cell within a period of 72 hours. This detention violated standards of international law as well as Uzbek legal standards.
Article 9.3
Uzbekistan violated Mr. Umarov’s right as a detained person to be brought promptly before a judge or judicial authority. The right of a detained person to be brought promptly before a judge or judicial authority is instrumental in ensuring freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention.
Mr. Umarov has been held in detention in excess of two months since October 23, 2005 and has yet to be brought before a judge. In Abdumalik Nazarov v. Uzbekistan, Communication No. 911/2000, UN Doc CCPR/C/81/D/911/2000, this Committee found that a holding for a period as short as five days without being presented before a judge is a violation of Article 9.3. A fortiori, the ongoing detention of Mr. Umarov violates Article 9.3.
Furthermore, Mr. Umarov has not been given the option of release with guarantee of appearance at trial in accordance with the general rule of Article 9.3. Uzbekistan has not taken documented steps to move Mr. Umarov's case towards trial, aside from formally charging him.
Mr. Umarov was held without a real opportunity to speak with his lawyer for eleven days, from October 23, 2005 until November 2, 2005. While his lawyer was allowed a visit on October 25, Mr. Umarov was physically unable to communicate with him at that time due to the ill treatment he received during his detention. The HRC has held that a ten day incommunicado detention, without access to a lawyer, adversely affected the defendant’s right to be brought before a judge. (Rafael Marques de Morais v Angola, Communication Number 1128/2002, Paragraph 6.3 (2005)). The denial of communication between Mr. Umarov and his lawyer during a critical time adversely affected Mr. Umarov’s right to be brought before a judge.
Article 9.4
The government of Uzbekistan denied Mr. Umarov, as a person deprived of his liberty, the right to take proceedings before a court challenging the lawfulness of his detention.
Mr. Umarov was prevented from challenging the lawfulness of his detention while being detained without the ability to communicate with his lawyer until November 2, 2005. While his lawyer was permitted to visit him once before November 2, 2005, Mr. Umarov was physically unable to communicate with him due to his ill treatment while being detained by the Uzbek government. Mr. Umarov is entitled to take proceedings before a court without delay on the lawfulness of his detention but he was unable to exercise this right without access to his attorney. In Rafael Marques de Morais v Angola, the HRC found the incommunicado detention of Morais violated Article 9.4 in that he was unable to exercise his right to judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention. (Rafael Marques de Morais v Angola, Communication Number 1128/2002, Paragraph 6.3 (2005)).
Article 10.1
The government of Uzbekistan denied Mr. Umarov, as a person deprived of his liberty, the right to be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.
Uzbekistan held Mr. Umarov in a holding cell with no clothing, no personal hygiene items and no bed for several days. Mr. Umarov was held for eleven days without effective access to his attorney. At the time of the attorney’s first visit, Mr. Umarov was naked and incoherent on the floor of his cell. Consequently, the attorney was unable to sustain any form of communication with him. Mr. Umarov’s poor condition, the result of ill treatment received during his detention, rendered him unable to effectively communicate with the attorney.
Upon witnessing Mr. Umarov’s condition in the holding cell, his attorney immediately requested medical attention. The fulfillment of this request was unnecessarily delayed for many days by the Uzbek authorities.
Article 17
The government of Uzbekistan violated Mr. Umarov’s right not to be subjected to unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
Uzbekistan has unlawfully attacked Mr. Umarov's reputation in an article in The Zerkalo XXI, an Uzbek state owned news media source.
Article 19.2
The government of Uzbekistan has violated Mr. Umarov’s right to freedom of expression, in particular, his freedom to seek, receive, and impart ideas and information of all kinds.
Mr. Umarov was targeted for arrest after exercising his right to freedom of expression. The Uzbekistan government has engaged in a pattern of targeted arrests and persecution of political dissidents as noted in statements issued by the European Union and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Article 26
The government of Uzbekistan violated Mr. Umarov’s right to be free from discrimination on the grounds of political opinion.
The government discriminated against Mr. Umarov by arresting him due to his leadership position in the Sunshine Coalition social and political movement.
5. EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES
Attempts have been made to remedy the abovementioned violations through domestic remedies; nevertheless, the violations persist.
Two months after his arrest, Mr. Umarov has still not been brought before a judge. This continues to cause unreasonable delay and irreparable harm and eliminates the possibility for Mr. Umarov to exhaust any domestic remedies.
Prior case law indicates that domestic remedies in Uzbekistan do not offer a real possibility of remedying the infringement of Article 9.3. Mr. Umarov's arrest occurred on October 23, 2005, and he has still not been brought before a judge.
In Abdumalik Nazarov v. Uzbekistan, Communication No. 911/2000, UN Doc CCPR/C/81/D/911/2000, this Committee found that a holding for a period as short as five days without being presented before a judge discloses a violation of Article 9.3. In that case, Mr. Nazarov attempted to exhaust all domestic remedies, but found no remedy available for this violation. Similarly, Mr. Umarov is unable to find a domestic remedy for a violation of Article 9.3. Requiring Mr. Umarov to exhaust all domestic remedies before proceeding would impose upon him a futile and impossible burden.
Krasilovskij, acting as Mr. Umarov's lawyer, filed an official petition on October 25, 2005; the date on which he first visited Mr. Umarov. The petition requested a court-ordered medical examination of Mr. Umarov and notification of the examination results. Krasilovskij was not contacted about Mr. Umarov's condition for many days. On each occasion the lawyer called, either the Investigator did not answer or the person answering stated that the Investigator was unavailable.
On October 28, 2005 Krasilovskij filed a complaint with the Tashkent City Department of Internal Affairs demanding fair treatment for Mr. Umarov. The complaint also contained a request for a meeting with Mr. Umarov, access to related documents and notification of the results of a psychiatric examination.
Furthermore, even if exhaustion of domestic remedies in Uzbekistan were a viable option, attempting to do so would cause unreasonable delay and irreparable harm to Mr. Umarov. Uzbek authorities have consistently delayed each step in the progression of Mr. Umarov's case. From the beginning, Tashkent authorities delayed the transfer of Mr. Umarov from the basement cell of the police department, where he was held naked, without a bed and without any personal hygiene items for several days. This delay occurred in violation of Uzbek criminal procedures which require transfer to a detention cell within seventy-two hours. Tashkent authorities further delayed the criminal process by keeping Mr. Umarov in unstable mental and physical health conditions that caused him to be unable to consult with his attorney or participate in an interrogation. On October 25, 2005, three days after his arrest, Mr. Umarov's attorney, Mr. Krasilovskij filed an official petition requesting a court-ordered medical exam. More than two weeks passed before he received any response. During this entire time, Mr. Umarov was held in the basement cell of the prison without access to his attorney. On October 28, 2005, Mr. Krasilovskij filed a complaint with the Tashkent City Department of Internal Affairs demanding fair treatment and requesting a meeting with Mr. Umarov, access to related documents, and notification of results of a psychiatric examination. Five days passed before Mr. Krasilovskij was allowed to meet with Mr. Umarov. Considering Uzbekistan's pattern of delay in dealing with Mr. Umarov, exhaustion of remedies will only cause further unreasonable delay and will result in irreparable harm to the mental and physical health of Mr. Umarov.
Uzbekistan’s history before this Committee presents further evidence that exhaustion of remedies will cause undue delay and irreparable harm to Mr. Umarov. In the four complaints brought before this Committee against Uzbekistan, Arutyuniantz v. Uzbekistan, Communication No. 971/2001 (2005); Hudoyberganova v. Uzbekistan, Communication No. 931/2000 (2004); Nazarov v. Uzbekistan, Communication No. 911/2000 (2004); Arutyunyan v. Uzbekistan, Communication No. 797/1998 (2004), Uzbekistan did not respond to requests by the Committee. Moreover, the government of Uzbekistan subsequently has not undertaken to ensure to individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the ICCPR and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy in case of a violation. In each of these four cases, Uzbekistan was found to have violated the ICCPR. To ask Mr. Umarov to exhaust all domestic remedies will cause him similar irreparable damage as occurred in each of the prior complaints: loss of years of his life, loss of time with his family, loss of freedom and loss of health.
6. OTHER INTERNATIONAL PROCEDURES
The same matter has not been submitted for examination under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.
7. FACTS OF THE CLAIM
1. Sanjar Giyasovich Umarov (“Mr. Umarov”), age 49, is a successful businessman with residence in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. Mr. Umarov is also a part-time resident of the United States, where he and his family have a home in the State of Tennessee. Mr. Umarov has been married to the Complainant, Indira Adkhamovna Umarova, for over thirty (30) years, and is the father of five (5) children, the youngest of which are seven (7) and three (3) years of age.
2. In March and April of 2005, Mr. Umarov, along with other concerned citizens and leaders of various social, democracy and human rights organizations of Uzbekistan, formed the Sunshine Coalition of Uzbekistan, an organization dedicated to promoting democracy and economic reform in the Republic of Uzbekistan. Members of the Sunshine Coalition vary in social, economic and academic background, and include many civic and social organizations such as the Free Peasants Party, the Agrarian Entrepreneur’s Party and the Association of Women Entrepreneurs.
3. The purpose of the Sunshine Coalition of Uzbekistan was to assist and work towards the development of peaceful and democratic reform programs to resolve a series of crises within the Republic of Uzbekistan caused by years of ruinous economic and social policies.
4. On May 13, 2005, the Government of Uzbekistan and the Uzbekistan Army opened fire on hundreds of unarmed citizens who had gathered in an Andijian square for what many believed was to hear President Karimov address their concerns over the dire economic conditions of the country, (hereinafter ‘the Andijian Tragedy”).
5. As a result of this event, the leaders of the Sunshine Coalition realized that the political order in Uzbekistan was rapidly deteriorating, and that steps needed to be taken to prevent the deterioration of the economic, political and social order of the country. (See IRIN Interview dated June 22, 2005 attached as Exhibit __).
6. On May 24, 2005, Mr. Umarov was elected Chairman of the Sunshine Coalition. Mr. Umarov went public with various interviews in an effort to promote the Sunshine Coalition as a peaceful means whereby average Uzbek citizens could express their hopes and desires for reform and not be viewed as a revolutionaries or extremists. (See IRIN Interview dated June 22, 2005 attached as Exhibit __).
7. Concerned with the Karimov regimes disfavor of political opposition, Mr. Umarov stressed in interviews and public statements that the Sunshine Coalition was a peaceful organization that respected and supported the Uzbekistan Constitution. (See IRIN Interview dated June 22, 2005 attached as Exhibit __).
8. Following the Andijian Tragedy, the Government of Uzbekistan arrested human rights activists and human rights defenders, political opponents, and other representatives of farmers groups and organizations. (See ReliefWeb; Anvar Karimov dated June 16, 2005 as Exhibit __).
9. During the months of June and July, 2005, Umarov held meetings with several governmental officials visiting Uzbekistan from the United States and the European Union to discuss the programs of economic development and objectives of the Sunshine Coalition.