E Economic and Social Council - acnudh

More documents

Recommendations

Info

E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 74 between the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Tashkent City Bar, was not approved by the Ministry of Justice, and therefore is not binding on institutions. The resolution was adopted for the reason that the procedures regulating meetings between defence lawyers and their clients in Tashkent Prison were revoked and advocates were practically deprived of the possibility to meet with the their clients without the permission of the investigator or the judge. According to a survey conducted by the Association of Advocates, 353 persons, 85% of those surveyed, stated that meetings of defence lawyers with their clients can only be carried out after numerous complaints to various bodies (as legislation does not provide for the issuance of the permission for lawyers to meet with their clients). Moreover, 95 lawyers, 23% of those surveyed, reported that the judges are not acquainted with the resolution. Lawyers’ experience shows that paragraph 11 of the resolution considerably limits the right to legal defense as guaranteed by the Constitution (i.e. which provides for as many meetings as needed without time limits). Despite this constitutional provision, law enforcement officials frequently hinder the enjoyment of the right to legal defence. 349. The Government informed that on 8 August 2005 the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan issued a Decree “On Transferring the Right to Sanction Preliminary Detention”, which provides, “In order to further liberalise the judicial system […], starting from 1 January 2008, the right to sanction the preliminary detention of suspects or accused persons should be transferred to the authority of courts. Preliminary detention should be used in exceptional cases, when other measures of restriction foreseen by the law are not effective, and only after a decision of a criminal court or a military court in accordance with their competencies.” 350. Recommendation (d) stated: The Government should take the necessary measures to establish and ensure the independence of the judiciary in the performance of their duties in conformity with international standards, notably the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. Measures should also be taken to ensure respect for the principle of the equality of arms between the prosecution and the defence in criminal proceedings. 351. According to NGOs, no such measures were taken. 352. The Government informed that in order to guarantee real independence of the judiciary, the further democratisation of the principles relating to the selection and placement of judges, and to process proposals about the promotional system, the President, on 30 July 1999, established a Commission under the President for dealing with questions related to the appointment and dismissal of judges. With the aim of further improvements, this Commission was transformed into the “Main Qualification Commission on the Selection and Recommendation of Judges under the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan” by Presidential Decree of 4 May 2000. The Commission is composed of representatives of the judiciary, Parliament, qualification collegiums, NGOs, and highly qualified legal specialists. The selection and management of judicial issues was transferred from the Ministry of Justice to the judges. The question about the tenure of judges is under consideration. 353. Recommendation (e) stated: The Government should ensure that all allegations of torture and similar ill-treatment are promptly, independently and thoroughly investigated by a body, outside the procuracy, capable of prosecuting perpetrators.
E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 75 354. Recommendation (f) stated: Any public official indicted for abuse or torture should be immediately suspended from duty pending trial. 355. According to NGOs, the inter-departmental working group established by Resolution No. 112-F of the Cabinet of Ministers of 24 February 2004, concerning the monitoring of human rights by law enforcement bodies, does not include representatives of independent NGOs, and its reports were not published in the mass media. With regard to the question of dismissing law enforcement officials from their posts, there is no information on how investigations of cases on the use of torture are conducted. 356. According to the Government, the NGO representative in the inter-departmental working group is from the “Izhimoiy Fikr”. The press reports on all meetings of the working group. In March 2004 the text of the Programme of Measures taken in response to the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur was published in the journal “Khaet va konun” and distributed during the high-level segment discussions of the 60 th Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights. 357. Recommendation (g) stated: The Ministry of Internal Affairs and the National Security Service should establish effective procedures for internal monitoring of the behaviour and discipline of their agents, in particular with a view to eliminating practices of torture and similar ill-treatment. The activities of such procedures should not be dependent on the existence of a formal complaint. 358. According to NGOs, no high-level state officials were brought to justice or punished in connection with torture. At the same time, there is reliable information about the continuation of massive practice of torture by law-enforcement bodies. It would be a crucial improvement if the investigation of every single violation of human rights by law-enforcement bodies were carried out and widely reported in the mass media. This would help to put an end to the impunity among law enforcement bodies. 359. The Government informed that the Ministry of Interior makes an assessment of every violation of the law, usually followed by the dismissal of the guilty person. For disciplinary incidents connected with the topic under consideration, in 2004/2005, two staff members of the Interior Ministry were found guilty of having violated article 235 of the Criminal Code (e.g. in 2004, an inspector from Kokand, Abduzhali Yusupov, and in 2005, Ikbol Nadzhimov from Andijan). These trials were public. The superiors, in whose teams such violations happen, bear the disciplinary responsibility, which can lead to demotion and dismissal. Materials related to the internal investigation of torture allegations are being discussed at all meetings of lawenforcement organs. The reasons and enabling conditions are analysed and eliminated. Special plans on organisational and educational measures are elaborated in order to prevent similar incidents in the future. To improve the populations’ legal awareness and guarantee access to legal defence in order to counter illegal methods of investigation and interrogation, on 30 September 2005, the Minister of Interior created a new unit for the protection of human rights, relations with international organisations and the public. The staff of the unit has the right to examine complaints about illegal actions by staff members of the Interior Ministry, including about torture. The Government is prepared to cooperate in the area of conducting independent investigations of torture allegations. For example, in 2004, independent investigations were conducted of the cases of Shelkovenko and Umarov. The results of both investigations showed that the allegations of several international human rights NGOs about the involvement of law-
Page 1 and 2:
UNITED NATIONS GE.06-11912 Economic
Page 3 and 4:
Introduction E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 pa
Page 5 and 6:
E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 5 14. Reco
Page 7 and 8:
E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 7 26. Reco
Page 9 and 10:
E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 9 Datafolh
Page 11 and 12:
E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 11 2005, 2
Page 13 and 14:
E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 13 soit de
Page 15 and 16:
Moutombi à l'Etat Major du Groupem
Page 17 and 18:
E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 17 11/04/0
Page 19 and 20:
violence sur un détenu » E/CN.4/2
Page 21 and 22:
Le Tribunal de première instance d
Page 23 and 24: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 23 indépe
Page 25 and 26: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 25 90. Rec
Page 27 and 28: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 27 102. Se
Page 29 and 30: Déc 3087 1948 16 - - - E/CN.4/2006
Page 31 and 32: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 31 saisi p
Page 33 and 34: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 33 modifiq
Page 35 and 36: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 35 147. La
Page 37 and 38: Mexico E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 37
Page 39 and 40: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 39 173. La
Page 41 and 42: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 41 189. Se
Page 43 and 44: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 43 -Los cu
Page 45 and 46: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 45 accused
Page 47 and 48: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 47 l'Admin
Page 49 and 50: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 49 232. Re
Page 51 and 52: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 51 légale
Page 53 and 54: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 53 transfe
Page 55 and 56: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 55 ‘meas
Page 57 and 58: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 57 places
Page 59 and 60: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 59 pressur
Page 61 and 62: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 61 to prev
Page 63 and 64: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 63 los pre
Page 67 and 68: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 67 equival
Page 69 and 70: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 69 319. Th
Page 71 and 72: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 71 organiz
Page 73: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 73 courts,
Page 77 and 78: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 77 detenti
Page 81 and 82: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 81 and leg
Page 83 and 84: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 83 Protoco
Page 85 and 86: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 85 420. El
Page 87 and 88: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 87 interme
Page 89 and 90: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 89 de las
Page 91 and 92: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 91 los der
Page 93: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 93 Country
show all

E Economic and Social Council - acnudh

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?