Safeguards against torture enshrined in domestic law were not always adhered to. Freedom
of expression remained restricted. The authorities failed to effectively prevent and
prosecute violence against women and to protect survivors.
Police and security forces continued to use torture and other ill-treatment with almost
total impunity, despite changes to the law in 2010. The European Court of Human Rights
issued emergency measures to prevent the extradition of a man to Tajikistan, due to
the prevalence of torture in the country. At the end of the year the government announced
its intention to amend the Criminal Code with a definition of torture, in line with
international law.
Safarali Sangov died on 5 March, four days after being arrested by police officers
of the Sino District in Dushanbe. During the arrest, police reportedly beat him and
other family members, including children and a woman who was four months pregnant.
Following a public outcry and allegations that Safarali Sangov died as a result of
torture at the police station, two policemen were charged in March with “negligence”
and one with “exceeding authority”. However, the prosecution subsequently dropped
the latter charge, stating that testimonies of Safarali Sangov’s relatives were not
acceptable as evidence. After a legal battle, the case was transferred to the General
Prosecutor’s office for review.
The trial against Ilhom Ismonov and 52 co-defendants began on 11 July at Soghd Regional
Court in northern Tajikistan. All were accused of membership of the Islamic Movement
of Uzbekistan and of participating in organized crime. On 19 July, he and several
others told the judge that they had been tortured in pre-trial detention. On 16 September,
Ilhom Ismonov told the judge that he had been pressurized by officials to retract
his earlier allegations of torture and other ill-treatment. He had not dared speak
out earlier, fearing retaliation from law enforcement agencies. The judge ignored
his statement. His confession, allegedly obtained under torture, was used as evidence
against him. The Prosecutor requested a 12-year prison sentence. The case was ongoing
at the end of the year.
Tajikistani and international human rights groups reported that independent media
outlets and journalists continued to face criminal and civil law suits for criticizing
the government or government officials.
On 14 October, a court in Khujand in northern Tajikistan found BBC journalist Urunboy
Usmonov guilty of complicity in the activities of a banned religious organization.
He was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment but released immediately under an amnesty.
The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal on 30 November. Amnesty International believes
that Urunboy Usmonov was targeted for his legitimate work as a journalist investigating
the banned Islamic organization Hizb-ut-Tahrir. He had no access to a lawyer for a
week after his arrest and there were allegations that he was tortured or ill-treated.
Also on 14 October, another court in Khujand found journalist Makhmadyusuf Ismoilov
guilty of libel, insult and inciting hatred. A writer for Nuri Zindagi (Ray of Starlight), he was arrested on 23 November 2010 in the Soghd region. Fellow
journalists believed that the charges related to an article he wrote about the local
authorities in Asht district, which accused some officials of corruption and criticized
local law enforcement agencies. Makhmadyusuf Ismoilov was fined approximately US$7,000
and banned from journalistic work for three years. In December, the conviction was
upheld on appeal but the penalties were lifted.
Violence against women remained a serious problem. A major factor contributing to
the high rate of domestic violence was the failure of the state to take adequate measures
to prevent illegal, early marriages. On 1 January, the minimum marriageable age was
raised from 17 to 18 years by presidential decree. However, services to protect the
survivors of domestic violence, such as shelters and adequate and safe alternative
housing, remained insufficient. A draft law, “Social and Legal Protection against
Domestic Violence” – which had been in preparation for several years – was presented
to parliament in the autumn. It had not been discussed or voted on by the end of
the year.
