Skip to main content

This memorandum summarizes Human Rights Watch’s concerns about the forthcoming EU-Uzbekistan Experts’ Meeting on the Andijan Events and outlines issues that we hope EU representatives will raise at this forum.

I. Ensuring that the meeting is not allowed to serve as a substitute for the independent, international inquiry that the EU has called for

The Andijan massacre—the excessive, indiscriminate, and disproportionate use of force against unarmed people—and the Uzbek government’s refusal to allow an independent, international inquiry into it caused the EU to adopt sanctions against Uzbekistan in October 2005. The EU Council decision outlining the sanctions noted that the sanctions would be reviewed in a year in light of, among other things, the outcome of an independent, international inquiry and the Uzbek government’s cooperation with such an inquiry. In the lead-up to the one-year review of the sanctions, the Uzbek government proposed a meeting of EU and Uzbek experts to discuss the Andijan events.

The Uzbek government’s report on the Andijan events, taken together with the government’s actions in the past 18 months, strongly indicate its intention to treat the experts’ meeting as a forum to reiterate, to an EU audience, its version of the Andijan events as a foreign-led conspiracy to exploit religious “extremists” and terrorism in order to effect a “colored revolution,” with the knowing assistance of the international media, international NGOs, local human rights defenders, and the like. (The government report at page 3 and other government statements strongly suggest that it views the US as sponsoring the events to undermine the Uzbek government) The government report makes scant mention of the killings of May 13, blaming them, as it has in the past, on “terrorists,” despite numerous eyewitness testimonies that they were perpetrated by government forces. For these reasons, the government can be relied on to use the meeting to either avoid the topic of the killings altogether or to repeat its allegations that government forces were not responsible; the EU should be prepared to respond accordingly.

We hope that there is clear understanding among all involved that this experts’ meeting is not a substitute, or even a watered-down iteration, of the inquiry that the EU, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe have all called for and upon which Uzbek human rights defenders and Human Rights Watch as well as other international NGOs have been insisting. We ask that at the meeting the EU make this difference clear and state its profound regret that the Uzbek government rejected categorically the idea of an independent, international inquiry.

As the meeting is billed as a gathering of experts, we hope that the EU will insist that experts from both the OHCHR and OSCE will be included as participants.

II. Ensuring adequate civil society input

Many people—Uzbek human rights defenders, victims, witnesses, defense lawyers and the like—have been waiting for too long for a truly open hearing on the Andijan events at which they could tell their stories in a safe environment and have the opportunity to challenge their government directly about what happened. The government’s proposal for the expert meeting was never intended to be such a forum. Nevertheless the EU should:

  • insist on the inclusion of NGOs in Uzbekistan in the discussion so that they may present their views and engage their government directly. If this is not possible given the proximity of the meeting the EU should insist on a subsequent discussion on the Andijan massacre and its aftermath that draws together high-level EU representatives and Uzbek government officials.
  • meet with Uzbek NGOs in advance of the experts meeting to solicit their views and show support for the courageous and important work they are doing, and overall to maintain a continuous dialogue with them going forward, actively seeking their input on EU policy toward Uzbekistan.
  • insist that the meeting be transparent and its discussions and outcome be made publicly available to the Uzbek people, NGOs, media and the international community.
  • III. Anticipating Uzbek government attempts to deflect attention from the massacre

    As noted above, the Uzbek government’s report on Andijan focuses primarily on the armed uprising itself, detailing how the seizure of government buildings, the Andijan prison, the taking of hostages, and the like were planned and carried out. It also describes how insurgents were recruited and trained to carry out these attacks. Reports by the OHCHR, OSCE, and Human Rights Watch also described these crimes, albeit in less detail. It is beyond Human Rights Watch’s competency and mandate to comment on these details. However, we remain deeply concerned by several key aspects of the report, detailed below.

    1. The indiscriminate killings of mostly unarmed people on a massive scale, after all, was the main focus of concern of Uzbek human rights groups, Human Rights Watch, and intergovernmental organizations. As noted above, it was these killings and the Uzbek government’s unacceptable response that prompted the EU to take the extraordinary measure of adopting sanctions. The government report at page 13 repeats statements it has made in the past 18 months that the killings on Cholpon Prospekt were perpetrated by “terrorists;” it mentions the deaths of 12 hostages and 38 unarmed civilians. By contrast, detailed interviews by the OHCHR, the OSCE, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch overwhelmingly show that government forces opened fire, causing the deaths of untold numbers of people.

    In Human Rights Watch’s June 2005 report, Bullets Falling Like Rain, (and in other testimony received by Human Rights Watch) we note at page 32 that some in the crowd fleeing down Cholpon Prospekt were in fact armed and fired shots at government forces. But many people interviewed in great detail and for the most part separately testified to government forces opening heavy, overwhelming fire on mostly unarmed people.

    The EU should ensure that the primary focus of the expert meeting is devoted to these killings, for which there has been no government investigation or justice. None of the eleven investigation teams established by the Uzbek authorities was tasked to inquire about the use of lethal forces by government troops (page 5-6 of the government report). The EU should come to the table with expertise on international standards for legitimate use of force, in particular lethal force, by law enforcement officials and standards for investigation of excessive use of force and lethal use of force. It should make clear that in situations of political violence and even in situations of armed conflict, the presence of armed people cannot be used to justify opening fire on unarmed people, and that all efforts must be taken to preserve civilian life.

    The government report at page 12 states that human rights and media organizations were silent on the “crimes of terrorists, such as military attacks on government buildings . . .” While most major publications in fact reported on such crimes, it is not worth belaboring the point in a media analysis of who said what. Rather, the EU should underscore that there is a presumption among human rights organizations that governments investigate such crimes as armed uprisings, as is their obligation. However, measures that a government takes in response that violate human rights are legitimately the concerns of human rights bodies and NGOs.

    2. Much of the report repeats public statements and documents by the Uzbek government in the 18 months since the Andijan events, providing more detail and court testimony to support these statements. The one trial that was open for public monitoring was found by the OSCE to have had numerous fair trial rights violations, leading it to recommend that the trial verdicts be set aside and a re-trial be held. All other trials were closed. This, in addition to long-standing fair trial and due process problems in Uzbekistan and systematic nature of torture in Uzbekistan, raises serious concern about the methods by which these court testimonies were obtained and their accuracy. The EU should reiterate the OSCE’s recommendation that the trial verdicts be set aside and a re-trial be held, extending this recommendation to cover all Andijan-related trials. The EU should also express strong concern about the closed nature of all but one of the trials, and the Uzbek authorities’ refusal to allow the OHCHR to monitor the Supreme Court trial by failing to meet the basic conditions for trial monitoring that the OHCHR had set.

    3. Several parts of the report, as well as prior statements by the Uzbek government, aim to discredit those who gave testimony about the killings and the organizations that purveyed this information, criticized the Uzbek government for the killings, and called for an international investigation. It implies that the refugees in Kyrgyzstan, who provided the vast majority of this testimony, were the useful tools of the insurgents. Regarding these testimonies, independent fact-finders, using investigative techniques that have been tested over time, conducted interviews with great numbers of witnesses to the killings and found their testimony to be detailed, consistent, and highly credible. The EU should stress to the Uzbek government that in order to evaluate whether its version of the killings is indeed accurate and its criticisms are valid would be to co-operate with an independent international inquiry along the lines recommended by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and outlined on page 21 of its July 2005 report.

    Similarly, the government report states that in order to discredit the government, the organizers of the uprising planned to use the Akramia trials in order to falsely portray the Andijan events as a popular rebellion that the government quashed by using force. It also alleges that Western diplomats, journalists, and NGOs facilitated the uprising by maintaining contacts with people it says were terrorists. In the weeks prior to the May 13 uprising and massacre, the Akramia trials and the protests that attended them drew the attention of many journalists, NGOs and the like. Leaving aside the merits of these claims, it is important to note that whether these protests were cynically planned by insurgents as a pretext for later disturbances is utterly immaterial for explaining why they were of legitimate interest. It also does not detract from the legitimate interest that the human rights, media and diplomatic communities had in monitoring these trials. Finally, it has no bearing at all on the issue of government use of excessive and lethal force, which again should be the focus of the discussion. We count on the EU to make these points.

    IV. Using the meeting to request the release of imprisoned human rights defenders and an end to the crackdown

    We remain profoundly concerned about the fate of Uzbek human rights defenders who were imprisoned since the Andijan events and about the deeply repressive environment for human rights defenders who continue to carry out their work. The experts meeting is a crucial forum at which the EU can and should express concern about the plight of human rights defenders and secure concrete commitments from the Uzbek government about the release of those imprisoned, and about their treatment in the interim. Of particular concern is Saidjahon Zainabitdinov, whose testimony, as we understand it, has been used in an internal government report. The EU should demand his release, and in the interim to know his whereabouts, the whereabouts of his son, and a copy of the verdict against him.

    Similarly, the EU should express concern about the fate of Makhbuba Zokirova – the only witness who challenged the government version of the events at the Supreme Court trial. According to unconfirmed rumors she was sent to three months’ forced psychiatric treatment – a common tactic of the authorities in Uzbekistan to silence dissent.

    We also count on the EU to use the meeting to call for an end to the crackdown on human rights defenders, independent journalists and members of the political opposition; and to urge in particular the release of human rights defenders Saidjahon Zainabitdinov, Mutabar Tojibaeva, Nosim Isakov, Norboi Holjigitov, Azam Farmonov, Alisher Karamatov, Yadgar Turlibekov, Mamarajab Nazarov, Dilmurod Mukhiddinov, Abdurasul Khudainasarov, Jamal Kutliev, as well as the relatives of human rights defenders who have been imprisoned in apparent retaliation for their family members’ activism and the release of all others detained on politically-motivated charges.

    V. Promoting transparency

    The government report includes some useful government statistics, for example on the numbers of Andijan-related defendants and of extradition requests. Particularly since all but one of the Andijan trials were closed, the EU should at the meeting request that the Uzbek government make its report publicly available and provide and make public a comprehensive list of defendants tried in relation to the Andijan events between September 2005 and through the present, including surname, name, start of trial, end of trial, location of trial, sentences, and current place of detention. It should also be requested to make available all of the verdicts.

    The EU should also request the Uzbek government for a comprehensive list of individuals whom the government has said were involved in the Andijan events and were extradited or deported to Uzbekistan from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, Russia, or any other country, including surname, name, date of extradition, start of trial, end of trial, location of trial, sentences, and current place of detention. Of particular concern is the fate of Rustam Muminov, deported from Russia on October 24 despite an interim measure by the European Court of Human Rights to halt the deportation.

    The EU should request information about the whereabouts of individuals kidnapped or gone missing in Kyrgyzstan, including Isroil Holdarov, Valim Babajanov, Saidullo Shakirov, Ilhom Abdunabiev and Bakhtiar Ahmedov, all of whom were asylum seekers who went missing from southern Kyrgyzstan in the summer months.

    Finally, the EU should call on the authorities to secure immediate access for independent monitors to all those detained.

    Your tax deductible gift can help stop human rights violations and save lives around the world.

    Region / Country