DUSHANBE, October 6, 2012, Asia-Plus — Amnesty International (AI) has urged Tajik President Emomali Rahmon to take measures against widespread torture and other ill-treatment in Tajikistan”s pretrial detention facilities.
In a statement issued on October 5, AI said it sought to remind people about the plight of many victims of torture, “some of whom did not survive to celebrate their 30th birthday or who spend their birthdays behind bars following unfair trails.”
The group said it had compiled substantive and credible information about over dozens of people who suffered torture and other ill-treatment in the hands of government officials which deeply affected on their lives and lives of their families.
“Some of them died as a result of torture or ill-treatment and their families still wait for the truth about what has to be made public and for the perpetrators to be brought to justice. Others were imprisoned following unfair trials where their confessions obtained under torture were used in court. Some have been subjected to intimidation and harassment and effectively silenced by officials for speaking out about the treatment they or their loved ones received at the hands of security.
“According to Amnesty International’s research, torture and other ill-treatment in pre-trial detention is widespread in Tajikistan. Recently, the Tajikistani authorities have implemented some measures intended to tackle the practice of torture. On 12 September 2012 a police officer was sentenced to a seven year prison term for the torture of a 17-year-old child. This was the first time an official was found guilty and sentenced under the new article in the Criminal Code criminalizing torture introduced in March 2012.
Amnesty International is particularly concerned at recent reports that in the case of Safarali Sangov the police men convicted for “exceeding official authority” and “negligence” benefited from an amnesty. The practice of applying amnesties in such cases could foster a climate of impunity. According to reports the Prosecutor’ Office ruled on amnesty in summer 2012, but the lawyer working on the case was not informed despite the fact that she contacted the Prosecutor’s Office regularly in connection with appeals relating to ongoing investigations into the case. Safarali Sangov’s widow only recently learnt of the amnesty decision despite having spoken to the investigator on the case of cause of death as recently as the end of August. There is some speculation that this amnesty may have been granted due to possible relation of one of the police officials to the President. Commentators fear that the prosecutor’s decision to grant amnesty was kept quiet to prevent the defense lawyer from appealing it.
