Reports of ill-treatment of detainees, pressure during interrogations, and ineffective investigations into torture allegations have become routine across Central Asia. Despite legal bans, torture is still used in the region, human rights defenders say, as a tool for extracting “quick” confessions, humiliating detainees, and intimidating society.
Complaints of abuse behind bars are rarely investigated, and even fewer cases reach court. Observers note recurring patterns: opaque investigations, pressure on victims and their families, limited access to independent forensic expertise, and only sporadic convictions — even in high-profile cases. Azattyk Asia examines why torture remains a region-wide problem.
Tajikistan: “taken alive — returned as a body”
On January 8, police officers from Dushanbe detained 36-year-old Maqsoudjon Saidov at a hotel in Kulob and transported him to the capital. Four days later, his relatives were handed his body.
The Dushanbe prosecutor’s office opened a criminal case against two officers from the Sino-2 police department, suspected of using torture and exceeding their authority.
A source told Radio Ozodi that burns were found on Saidov’s toes, likely from an electric shock device. A friend of the deceased said that before the body was released, Dushanbe police officials assured the family that those responsible had been detained and would be punished. The same source claims the family was asked not to publicize Saidov’s death and not to file complaints.
Saidov’s case comes two years after another widely publicized incident in Kulob. In January 2023, Abduqahhor Roziqov died inside a police building, sparking mass protests. Authorities urged relatives not to take to the streets and promised accountability. Later, a court found three police officers guilty of torture and sentenced each to 14 years in prison. Human rights defenders say such convictions remain the exception rather than the rule.
International organizations have long criticized Tajik authorities over reports of torture and ill-treatment. UN bodies have repeatedly stated that torture is used to obtain confessions and that courts accept such statements despite Tajikistan’s laws and international obligations.
“Code of silence” and a lack of public data
Human rights groups say there is little publicly available official data on torture in Tajikistan. The ombudsman’s website has not posted figures for 2025; its 2024 report mentions only one complaint, stating that the “likelihood of torture was not confirmed.”
According to Gulchehra Kholmatova of Tajikistan’s Civil Society Coalition Against Torture and Impunity, the coalition received 21 complaints in 2025 — all involving the interior ministry. The reports described unlawful detention, beatings, electric shocks, psychological pressure and threats, coercion into confessions, denial of access to lawyers, and denial of medical care.
Kholmatova argues the issue is systemic: “The legal framework is relatively progressive, yet torture and ill-treatment persist, especially during detention and interrogations.” She says many complaints never reach court due to difficulties obtaining evidence, lack of independence in forensic examinations, pressure on victims, and a “code of silence” within some law enforcement structures. Rights defenders also point to the absence of an independent preventive mechanism, an independent forensic service, and a comprehensive rehabilitation system for victims.
Kyrgyzstan: accounts of a “torture room” in a security service basement
In 2025, Kyrgyzstan was increasingly cited in reports of torture and ill-treatment. Freedom for Eurasia documented testimonies from people detained for critical online speech. They alleged torture in a basement area of the new State Committee for National Security (GKNB) building in Bishkek, describing a large windowless room with soundproofing.
Victims reported the use of electric shock devices, plastic batons, suffocation bags, and large containers of water used for partial drowning. They said detainees were later forced, while in severe physical and psychological condition, to record “apology” videos.
Rights defenders link rising risks to weakened preventive oversight, noting that the National Center for the Prevention of Torture reportedly lost its independent role after functions were transferred to the ombudsman.
Officials present a different picture. Kyrgyzstan’s Interior Ministry said it had recorded no torture cases in 2023–2025. Deputy Prosecutor General Umutkan Konkubayeva told parliament that 43 torture complaints were filed in 2025, but only one criminal case was opened. Some lawmakers, citing UN data, questioned the reliability of those figures.
Kazakhstan: a verdict “disappears,” cases are reheard
Torture also remains a concern in Kazakhstan. In summer 2025, the Ulytau regional court reported the conviction of three police officers for torturing Kairat Makhatov from Zhanaarka district. Case materials said he was beaten in a police station; an expert examination found fractures to five ribs. A jury sentenced the officers to five years in prison.
Soon after, the court’s announcement reportedly disappeared from its website. It later emerged that the decision had been overturned and the case sent for retrial. In December 2025, a different court panel acquitted all three “due to the absence of a crime event,” released them, and recognized their right to rehabilitation and compensation.
The issue of impunity is further underscored by the aftermath of “Bloody January.” Officially, six of the 238 people who died during the January events were tortured to death after detention. While about 50 security officers were convicted for torture and other abuses, rights defenders argue the number is disproportionately low compared to the scale of alleged violations.
Uzbekistan: convictions exist, but accountability is selective
Uzbek authorities periodically report convictions in torture cases, but rights defenders argue accountability is selective. In May 2025, a court found three officers in Tashkent’s Yangihayot district guilty of forcing confessions in a drug case, including by suffocation with plastic bags, the use of an electric shock device, and threats.
At the same time, rights defenders say there has been no adequate response to allegations of torture involving Karakalpak activist Dauletmurat Tazhimuratov, convicted over the 2022 protests. His lawyer reported severe ill-treatment in prison, but, according to the article, authorities have not issued a public response.
Another widely discussed case involved Gulirano Kosimova, a school principal in Ferghana region who said she was beaten and humiliated by police officers. In December 2025, the article says, only two district police leaders received real prison terms, while other alleged participants avoided responsibility.
Why torture continues
Leila Nazgul Seyitbek, head of the Vienna-based Freedom for Eurasia, says torture across Central Asia is systemic. She cites closed institutions, high risks of reprisals against complainants and lawyers, insufficient independence of investigators and courts, and internal incentives such as clearance-rate targets, pressure from superiors, and politically motivated cases.
She also points to practical factors: lack of guaranteed timely access to lawyers and doctors, weak injury documentation, dependence of forensic services, and restricted independent monitoring of temporary detention facilities and pretrial jails.
“Publicity as a way to save lives”
All Central Asian states legally prohibit torture and declare adherence to international obligations. Yet rights defenders stress that bans are ineffective without inevitable punishment, independent investigations, and effective protection mechanisms.
Seyitbek argues that international attention and public scrutiny can sometimes reduce violence and help protect detainees in specific cases. However, she warns that cosmetic reforms, closed institutions, pressure on civil society, and the lack of an independent judiciary severely limit meaningful change.
“Laws banning torture exist across Central Asia. But without enforcement and independent oversight, they remain formalities and do not protect victims,” the human rights defender concludes.
