DUSHANBE, September 21, 2011, Asia-Plus — Amnesty International has published a document giving details of torture experienced by detainees in order to extract from them confessions and information incriminating others.
The document is about Ilhom Ismonov and more than 50 other people who are charged with membership in the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. They are standing trial in the pretrial detention facility (SIZO) in Khujand.
According to the document, Ilhom Ismonov on September 16 told the judge about pressure put on him by officials to retract his earlier allegations of torture and ill-treatment. He did not dare speak about this before fearing retaliation from law enforcement agencies. Journalists were unable to monitor the trial which is being presided over by a judge of Sughd Regional Court as they were told it was being held in camera to prevent secret information from becoming public.
According to the statement, since the trial commenced on July 11, other defendants have also told the judge that they were tortured and ill-treated in pre-trial detention to extract confessions and information incriminating others. Many of Ilhom Ismonov’s co-defendants are accused of the September 3 2010 explosion at the Department for the Fight against Organized Crime of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (Sixth Department) in Khujand, which resulted in several deaths and injuries to over two dozen people.
In November 2010, Ilhom Ismonov was reportedly tortured by police at the Sixth Department in Khujand, including by having electric shocks and hot and cold water poured over his body. Ilhom Ismonov’s wife briefly saw her husband on November 6. She told Amnesty International that she saw signs of electric shocks and that he had several cuts on his neck. Before she was able to bend down and take a closer look at his legs, officers stopped the meeting and escorted her out.
Ilhom Ismonov’s lawyer was able to see him for the first time at the remand hearing on November 12, nine days after he had been deprived of his liberty.
On November 15, Amnesty International issued an Urgent Action on his case calling on the authorities to conduct a prompt, thorough and independent investigation.
The medical examination was conducted with a significant delay and the forensic expert concluded on November 27 that “no physical injury was found on Ismonov’s body”.
On September 16, 2011 Ilhom Ismonov’s lawyer gave the judge a letter her client had written stating that in December 2010 he had briefly been taken to the State Committee for National Security (SCNS) in Khujand and then returned to SIZO No. 2. At the SCNS a man, who introduced himself as a prosecutor, reportedly threatened him in the presence of the investigator and possibly others that unless he signed a document stating that no torture was applied to him at the Sixth Department he would face similar treatment again.
Ilhom Ismonov is charged with organization of a criminal group. According to the indictment, he joined the IMU while he was in Moscow in 2010. When he wanted to return to Tajikistan in September, Ismon Azimov, another man accused of IMU membership by the Tajikistani authorities, reportedly asked Ilhom Ismonov to pass on two mobile phones and a video disk to other IMU members in Tajikistan in order to improve communication within the organization. According to the indictment, Ismon Azimov also instructed Ilhom Ismonov to obtain information about an officer of the Sixth Department in the town of Isfara. On October 18, Ilhom Ismonov allegedly handed over the mobile phones and disk to a man whom the authorities regard as another IMU member.
Reportedly, Ilhom Ismonov signed false confessions without the presence of his lawyer following torture at the Sixth Department in November and threats of torture at the SCNS in December. However, he told his lawyer that he is not an IMU member and that he passed on the items Ismon Azimov gave him simply as a favor without any criminal intent.
According to Amnesty International, Zafar Karimov, one of Ilhom Ismonov’s co-defendants, also told the judge that he was tortured in pre-trial detention, in the temporary detention facility of the SCNS in Khujand. He has been detained since 11 September last year, on suspicion of IMU membership and involvement in the September 2010 explosion at the Sixth Department of Sughd region.
The document notes that Article 15 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, that Tajikistan is a party to, stipulates that “[e]ach State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.”
According to the document, law enforcement officers in Tajikistan have in many cases been accused of torturing or beating detainees to extract money, confessions or other information incriminating the victim or others. “This abuse has mostly taken place in the early stages of detention; in many cases victims are initially detained without contact with the outside world.”
Torture practices reported in Tajikistan include the use of electric shocks; attaching plastic bottles filled with water or sand to the detainee’s genitals; rape; and burning with cigarettes. Beating with batons, truncheons and sticks, kicking and punching are also believed to be common.
Amnesty International is concerned that safeguards against torture enshrined in domestic law are not always adhered to. There are no routine medical examinations when detainees are admitted to police stations and temporary detention facilities. Victims rarely lodge complaints when they are abused by law enforcement officers for fear of repercussions, and impunity for abusive officers is the norm. Often relatives and lawyers are reluctant to file complaints so as not to worsen the situation for the detainee.
Prosecutor’s offices are tasked with investigating allegations of torture. Sometimes close personal and structural links between prosecutors and police undermine the impartiality of prosecutors.
Judges regularly base verdicts on evidence allegedly extracted under torture or other ill-treatment.
