COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS REPORT OF UZBEKISTAN

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the third to fifth periodic reports of Uzbekistan on its implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Presenting the report, Akmal Saidov, Director of the National Centre for Human Rights of Uzbekistan, said that Uzbekistan was a country with many centuries of civilization that was characterized by inter-ethnic, inter-faith and inter-cultural harmony and it had many organizations and institutions to promote that situation. Uzbekistan had 136 different national and ethnic groups, most of which identified with one of the 17 official faiths. Not a single case of inter-ethnic violence had been committed during the reporting period.

There were six major avenues that Uzbekistan was pursuing to implement its obligations under the Convention: legislative guarantees, including over 300 laws to regulate human rights and fundamental freedoms; a streamlined institutional basis to implement the Convention; awareness-raising activities, such as dissemination of basic human rights literature to schools and non-governmental organizations and social surveys on inter-ethnic and inter-confessional relations; educational measures to increase implementation of the Convention, such as training programmes for judges and other legal offices to include human rights issues; State partnership with civil society institutions, including cultural centres for ethnic groups living in Uzbekistan; and participation in multilateral anti-discrimination activities at the international level, such as international human rights days. In that regard, over the past two years, Mr. Saidov observed, Uzbekistan had complied, on time, with its reporting obligations to over 10 international human rights treaty bodies.

In preliminary remarks, Luis Valencia Rodríguez, the Committee Expert serving as country Rapporteur for Uzbekistan, said that there was ample evidence of Uzbekistan's willingness to comply with its obligations under the Convention. He noted the establishment of the Ombudsman's Office and the National Centre for Human Rights to hear complaints. He also noted that the State party had said that the propiska registration system had been shown not to restrict the movement of individuals within the country, and requested details had been provided both on the situation of refugees in the country and the procedure for obtaining citizenship. There had been evidence of advances in the situation of women, and new protections against discrimination in the educational system. He said the State party had stated that the events in Andijan were currently under investigation. Uzbekistan had provided assurances that those events had been the result of terrorist acts and thus were a matter of purely domestic concern.

The Committee will present its final recommendations on the third to fifth periodic reports of Uzbekistan, which were presented in one document, at the end of its session, which concludes on 10 March.

When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it is scheduled to hold a discussion behind closed doors on the issue of double discrimination on the grounds of race and religion. It will then open its meeting to consider the situation in Mozambique under the review procedure for States parties whose reports were seriously overdue, and to continue with its discussion on the Committee’s follow-up procedure.

Report of Uzbekistan

Since acquiring national sovereignty, Uzbekistan has had considerable success in observing and protecting human rights and freedoms. In that regard, the third to fifth periodic reports of Uzbekistan, submitted in one document (CERD/C/463/Add.2), notes there were no instances of inter-ethnic conflict registered in Uzbekistan from 2000 to 2004. The 1992 Constitution is the primary legislative instrument ensuring that fundamental human rights and freedoms are upheld even-handedly in the political, economic, social, cultural and other spheres of public life in Uzbekistan, while other foundations include the international human rights and humanitarian law treaties that have been ratified by the Government, as well as Uzbekistan's tradition of ethnic and religious tolerance, developed over many centuries of coexistence among various national and religious communities. The Constitution bans political parties organized on racial or national principles and public associations that seek to propagate racial and religious division. Under the Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations Act, the use of religion to foment enmity, hatred or ethnic division is prohibited. The Mass Media Act prohibits the use of the media for the purpose of propagating national, racial or religious hatred. Preventing citizens from exercising their right to free choice of language in communication, the upbringing of children and education is also prohibited.

Article 7 of the Courts Act provides that legal proceedings shall be conducted in Uzbek, Karakalpak or the language of the majority population in a given area, and parties to the proceedings who are not proficient in the language in which the proceedings are being conducted have the right to be fully apprised of the case and participate in the court proceedings through an interpreter. Regarding rights protections in the political sphere, the report cites improvements in the most recent elections, including the 30 per cent quota for female candidates and the new funding rules on support for political parties. Judicial protection of citizens' suffrage, irrespective of their racial, ethnic or religious affiliation, is guaranteed by law. Secondary education in Uzbekistan is offered in seven different languages: Uzbek, Karakalpak, Russian, Kazakh, Turkmen, Tajik and Kyrgyz.

Presentation of Report

AKMAL SAIDOV, Director of the National Centre for Human Rights of Uzbekistan, presenting the report, said that efforts to implement the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination had been made first in addressing the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee to the previous report, which were conveyed to a wide range of State institutions, and also by observing the principles set out in the Durban Declaration and the United Nations Millennium Declaration.

Uzbekistan was a country with many centuries of civilization that was characterized by inter-ethnic, inter-faith and inter-cultural harmony and the country had many organizations and institutions to promote that situation. The principle of non-discrimination was a priority for Uzbekistan and the provisions of the Convention were systematically being implemented. Uzbekistan had 136 different national and ethnic groups, most of which identified with one of the 17 official faiths. Not a single case of inter-ethnic violence had been committed during the reporting period.

The Uzbek Constitution reflected the trend in international law to ensure individual rights over those of collective groups, including minority groups, and all citizens of the Republic, regardless of their ethnic or national origins, were protected by Constitutional provisions. Many laws regulated the situation of non-titular ethnic groups living in the State and their rights. State policy in the area sought to balance the interests of the individual, the State and society, Mr. Saidov said. Maintaining inter-ethnic harmony and ensuring that there was no discrimination was a major achievement of the social, economic and legislative reforms of Uzbekistan.

Multilateral cooperation to promote the Convention was a firm commitment of Uzbekistan, as provided in the Durban Declaration. Over the past two years, Uzbekistan had complied, on time, with its reporting obligations to over 10 human rights treaty bodies. Monitoring of implementation of its obligations under the Convention and other human rights treaties to which the State was a party was another major endeavour, he said.

There were six major avenues that Uzbekistan was pursuing to implement its obligations under the Convention. First, legislative guarantees, including over 300 laws to regulate human rights and fundamental freedoms. For example, discrimination was prohibited in labour relations and any such discrimination that was not linked to the capacities or skills of the employee in question or their work was forbidden.

Secondly, Uzbekistan was creating a streamlined institutional basis to implement the Convention, including in the judicial system. A fully functioning body of human rights machinery, including the Parliamentary Ombudsman on human rights, the Institute for Monitoring of Human Rights, and others, was now in place.

Thirdly, strides had been made in the sphere of awareness raising. Russian and Uzbek translations had been made of many documents in the human rights field and there were over 900 media present in the territory, including television and radio stations that broadcast in a variety of languages. Also in that regard, basic literature was disseminated to schools and non-governmental organizations and social surveys had been conducted on inter-ethnic and inter-confessional relations.

Fourthly, in the area of educational measures to increase implementation of the Convention, Mr. Saidov observed that Uzbekistan had a high level of literacy. The right to choose a language was provided in primary, secondary and higher education. National legislation provided that all educational decisions for children should be made by their parents, in consultation with the child's wishes. A number of universities had human rights chairs and there were training programmes for judges and other legal offices to include human rights issues.

Fifthly, with regard to State partnership with civil society institutions in implementing the Convention, Mr. Saidov said that there were more than 5,000 non-governmental organizations present in the country. Together with the United Nations Development Programme, an umbrella project had been created to extend partnership between State bodies and non-governmental organizations to promote human rights. Cultural centres had been established for ethnic groups living in Uzbekistan, and there were currently more than 140 such centres, which provided information and cultural activities.

Sixthly, Uzbekistan took numerous measures to ensure its participation in anti-discrimination activities at the international level, including participation in international human rights days, and other activities carried out within the framework of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the United Nations, including participation in numerous United Nations treaty bodies.

Uzbekistan's national report contained information both on what had been undertaken to implement the Convention, as well as an outline of what remained to be done, Mr. Saidov said. He wished to reaffirm the delegation's determination to continue in the future to implement the Convention on the basis of the Committee's observations and recommendations.

Oral Questions Raised by the Rapporteur and Experts

LUIS VALENCIA RODRÍGUEZ, the Committee Expert serving as Country Rapporteur for Uzbekistan, said that Uzbekistan was a multi-ethnic country with a population of 25.7 million, including 136 ethnic groups and many religious groups. More than 60 per cent of the population lived in densely populated rural areas. Uzbekistan was one of the world's largest producers of cotton, and it also produced oil and gold. Uzbeks made up the major ethnic group, but others included Karakalpaks, Tajiks, Kazakhs, Russians and Tatars, among others. In that regard, the 1989 census needed to be updated, in accordance with the Committee's principles.

There had been certain racial tensions in the country, Mr. Rodríguez said. Historically, Russians had been seen as colonizers and had refused to learn the local languages or adapt to Uzbek society. It was therefore of particular importance to note the social survey that was carried out to determine the beliefs of the various ethnic groups which said that most groups considered Uzbekistan as their homeland. That represented an improvement.

According to the Common Country Assessment, the level of poverty in Uzbekistan was 28 per cent, with 19 per cent of the population living on less that $1 a day. There had recently been an increase in poverty in the country, he said, particularly among minority groups. That would mean that those groups could not enjoy their right to education, housing or other social services, and he asked what the State party was doing to address that situation.

In 2005 there had been a number of cases of discrimination related to the exercise of religion and free association and an independent investigator had been appointed to investigate that situation. Mr. Rodríguez asked what had been the result of that investigation and what measures had been taken. Similarly, in another incident, on 13 May 2005, a popular demonstration had been put down by government forces, resulting in some 500 deaths. An impartial study had been requested by the Secretary-General, but had not been undertaken.

Regarding Constitutional and other legal provisions to prevent discrimination, had article 6 of the labour code ever been invoked and what had been the disposition of that case? Also, article 4 of the Constitution provided for freedom of conscience, and criminal law existed to implement that, but those laws were not strictly in line with the Convention, Mr. Rodríguez noted.

Concerning the use of one's native language in court proceedings, he wondered who paid for the interpreters in cases where the complainants’ native language was not the same as that in which was used in the proceedings? While the State party had outlined the legal protections in the political sphere, statistics on the level of involvement of the different minority groups in the various levels of government and administration would be appreciated and information on measures or laws that had been undertaken to ensure better representation of those groups.

The country Rapporteur suspected that differences remained in the State party's application of the provision that guaranteed the freedom of movement of the population. In that regard, he said, the "propiska" and exit visa system should be discontinued.

Noting that the over 90 per cent literacy rate in the country and the 11-year mandatory schooling that was required were positive, Mr. Rodriguez noted that the curricula, textbooks and infrastructure were outdated. Discrimination against Muslim children had been reported. There had also been complaints that Muslims, and especially Muslim women, had been denied their right to freedom of religion by being subject to charges of extremism.

Cases of excessive force in putting down demonstrations by refugees and asylum-seekers had also been reported. Sensitivity training was needed for law enforcement and judicial officials in that regard, Mr. Rodríguez commented.

In the ensuing discussion, other Committee Experts asked for further information on the work done by non-governmental organizations in Uzbekistan. Experts also expressed concern that the Parliamentary Ombudsman's mandate was limited to consideration of complaints and not to formulate policy; noted the absence of national legislation on asylum and expressed concern over the situation of asylum-seekers in that country, in particular the situation of Tajiks in Uzbekistan who may have become stateless under existing laws; expressed concern over reports of Tajik media being shut down by the Government; asked whether there existed a Roma population in the country; and requested information on the granting of citizenship and residence permits in Uzbekistan, disaggregated by nationality.

Response by the Delegation to Oral Questions

Uzbekistan was the first country in Central Asia and among the first of the former Soviet Republics to set up a comprehensive system of human rights machinery, the delegation said. The Ombudsman's office was set up in 1995 and there was also a commission to protect the human rights of citizens bringing complaints to the Ombudsman's Office. Originally, the Ombudsman reported directly to the Parliament, but since 2000 regional offices had been set up, with 14 regional representatives throughout the country. In 2004, a new version of the Ombudsman law was enacted, so that the Ombudsman was now to be elected by, and reported to, the two chambers of Parliament. Under the previous law, the Ombudsman reported to a single chamber and was also a Deputy, but under the current law the office enjoyed greater independence. Every year a greater number of complaints and proposals by citizens were handled by the Ombudsman's office.

The National Human Rights Centre also considered complaints, but not the same volume as was handled by the Ombudsman. It was a new practice for the Centre, and not a part of its original mandate, the delegation observed. The practice had been established to address an existing need.

A number of ILO Conventions had already been ratified, and more were under consideration. In 1996 a programme to raise public awareness on legal issues and mechanisms had been launched to increase the population's knowledge on legal issues.

No information had been included on Roma populations in the report because those peoples were no longer nomadic, but most had settled in different communities, specifically Tajik communities. There had also been a great deal of intermarriage between Roma and other ethnic groups in Uzbekistan. Evidence of the Roma included the presence of some 573 Roma children in one school alone. There were other Roma settlements, but sometimes it was very difficult to say which nationality people came from, the delegation observed. There existed other minorities that had not been included in the report. There was also a sizeable Arab population, concentrated in two regions of the country, which had immigrated to the country far in the past.

In response to requests for more information on the Korean minority, the delegation said that there were more than 300,000 Koreans in Uzbekistan, who had been deported to the country during Soviet times. Indeed, the greatest number of cultural centres was dedicated to that nationality. The Korean population had integrated very well into Uzbek society, and the delegation noted that not only did some Koreans speak Uzbek better than the Uzbeks themselves, some of the Korean minority did not even speak the Korean language at all. There was also a Uighar population, and Uighar cultural centres in the Uzbekistan. The Uighar population, however, was not as big as that in Kyrgyzstan.

The delegation said that the ethnic composition of the population, according to data from 2005, was as follows: 80 per cent of the population, or some 20 million people, were Uzbek; 4.5 per cent were Tajik; 3.8 per cent, or approximately 1 million, were Kazakh; 3.8 per cent were Russian; 2.5 per cent, or approximately 0.65 million, were Tatars; 1.9 per cent, or approximately 500,000 were Karakalpaks; 1.45 per cent were Kyrgyz; 1.2 per cent were Ukrainian; and 0.9 per cent were Korean. Currently there were approximately 20,000 foreigners and just over 80,000 stateless persons residing in the territory of Uzbekistan, the majority residing in Tashkent and the surrounding areas.

Under the Law on Citizenship, adopted in 1992, those persons who were permanently residing within the territory when that law came into force were considered citizens. Those who wished to apply for Uzbek citizenship needed to comply with four conditions, the delegation said: they had to give up their foreign citizenship; they had to have been residing permanently in Uzbekistan for the past five years, or be able to prove that one of their grandparents was an Uzbek citizen; they had to demonstrate that they were gainfully employed; and they had to promise to uphold the laws of the country. Those were preconditions, but the granting of citizenship still remained the prerogative of the President, it was observed. Persons could be denied citizenship for a number of reasons, including a criminal record. No unjustified rejection was permitted, however, and applicants had the right to appeal or to reapply for citizenship a year after the rejection of their previous application.

The system of compulsory registration of places of residence, known as the "propiska" system, did not have any impact on internal movements of individuals within the country, the delegation stressed. It was simply a legal record of permanent residence. If someone took up residence without a propiska, that action was seen an attempt to evade lawful registration. Stateless persons had to register their place of residence with the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Persons from the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) could obtain temporary propiskas for short stays on the basis of the visas issued to them. The right to a permanent propiska was open to Uzbek and foreign citizens, including citizens of CIS Member States, and to stateless persons with residence permits. The temporary propiska applied to Uzbek citizens who were staying temporarily in a different part of the country, citizens of CIS Member States, as well as individuals from CIS countries with former Soviet passports. Foreign citizens and stateless persons all had to go through the temporary propiska system.

Regarding the issue of forcible expulsions from the territory, the delegation said that Uzbekistan, in accordance with its international treaty obligations, could not extradite foreigners under risk of being subject to cruel treatment or the death penalty.

Uzbekistan recognized that the time was ripe for the Government to draw up a single act, and to establish a single body, to handle the question of citizenship and residence. In that regard, a unified database was also envisaged to keep track of exits and entries into the country, the delegation said.

Regarding refugees, the fact was that as a result of many years of armed struggle in Afghanistan and the civil war in Tajikistan in the 1990s, there had been a large influx of refugees from those two countries into Northern Afghanistan, near the border with Uzbekistan. The Government of Uzbekistan cooperated with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to repatriate those groups, the Tajik nationals, in particular, to their homeland. From 1993 to 1997 more than 17,000 Tajik refugees were repatriated from Afghanistan, through the territory of Uzbekistan.

According to figures received in January from UNHCR, there were currently 2,008 refugees in Uzbekistan, mainly residing in Tashkent, as well as a small minority on the border. Most had been in the territory for over 10 years. They were integrated in the labour force, many had families, but they had maintained their refugee status. The delegation emphasized that any repatriations of refugees had been made either in cooperation with UNHCR, or strictly on a voluntary basis, but that there had been no cases of forcible repatriation from the territory of Uzbekistan.

The delegation denied claims that there was a quota established for the Tajik minority in the country or that that population was the focus of any kind of attempts to assimilate it.

Numerous press surveys, undertaken both by governmental and non-governmental organizations, had all confirmed that there had been no cases of repression or suppression of those media sources in the country. Regarding the Committee's allegation of a Government closure of a Tajik language radio station, the delegation said that they could not confirm any such closure, and did not know of any such case.

On the issue of gender equality and women's issues, the delegation noted that in the most recent parliamentary elections, 21 women had been elected, and that women now made up 6 per cent of Parliament. Fifteen of the 100 senators were women. Article 46 of the Constitution addressed the issue of gender equality, and no cases of gender discrimination had been brought in the country. Women participated actively in elections, and were represented in the administrative and business sphere. The Committee on Women played a crucial role in considering many women's issues. The Vice President of the Senate, and former member of the Supreme Court was a woman, as was the Ombudsman for Human Rights. Uzbekistan, the delegation affirmed, was constantly carrying forward work on women's issues.

Commenting on questions of perceptions concerning the Russian minority in the country, the delegation felt that it was not helpful to take a negative attitude and that it was preferable to consider the many close ties that existed for a long time between the two countries. There were many Russian cultural centres in Uzbekistan that promoted Russian culture and language, and many programmes to do so, including joint programmes between Russian cultural centres and the Government to prepare Russian language textbooks to be used in the schools.

Regarding the issue of freedom of religion and conscience, claims that there had been acts of discrimination against Muslim groups were completely unfounded, the delegation said. Such acts were prohibited by law. There were numerous religious organizations in the country, including 2,035 Muslim organizations, and in 2005, 35 new mosques were established in the territory. Since 1990, indeed, the number of religious organizations had increased tenfold. There was a Committee on Religious Affairs to protect and promote religious freedom. In Uzbekistan, over 90 per cent of the population were Muslim, and the country boasted the only Muslim university in Central Asia, in Tashkent.

It was true that there had been an increase in the number of terrorist organizations and groups in the country recently, the delegation said, such as the Fighters of the Islamic Organization of Uzbekistan. By the end of 2000, the terrorist groups in the border regions had turned those areas into zones of insecurity and they had come in conflict with Uzbekistan army forces. The inhabitants of those regions were cut off from social services. To safeguard them, by special resolution of the Government, 1,333 individuals were moved and resettled in other areas of the country. Those settlements have been visited by UNHCR, the International Committee of the Red Cross and other international organizations, and the Government of Uzbekistan was also continuing to look after their situation. In 1999 the Government adopted a law against terrorism that provided a guarantee that all human rights of the population would be safeguarded in the context of the fight against terrorism.

Regarding the question of establishing a quota system for national minorities in electoral law, that option had been studied and considered by the Government, but it had been rejected as not being expedient for the needs of the country.

The Committee had asked why the number of non-governmental organizations had grown so rapidly in the country, and one of the reasons was the new legislation on non-governmental organizations that had been put in place. In 2001, there were 2,333 non-governmental organizations in the country, but in the past five year that number has doubled to approximately 5,000. Many of those new organizations focused on women's issues. Further laws were being drafted to guarantee the status of non-governmental, non-profit and charitable organizations, the delegation said.

Regarding the events that occurred in Andijan on 12 and 13 May 2005, the delegation said that they were terrorist acts, carried out by several armed individuals, which had resulting in the death of 187 people. Those events were not part of an uprising or national rebellion, as several international non-governmental organizations had claimed, nor had there been thousands killed. The criminals had taken 70 people hostage and had brutally killed 15 of them. The Government of Uzbekistan had immediately declared its commitment to undertake a transparent and objective investigation and an independent parliamentary commission and international task force on monitoring and investigation were set up. Western international observers had been invited to participate, but had declined. Those events were a purely domestic affair of Uzbekistan, the delegation observed, and had never represented a threat to regional peace and stability. The Government had also worked very closely with UNHCR on the question.

On the issue of poverty, it was true that 27.5 per cent of the population in the territory were living in poverty in 2005. The Government’s plan was to reduce that number to 14 per cent by 2015.

Preliminary Remarks

LUIS VALENCIA RODRÍGUEZ, the Committee Expert serving as Country Rapporteur for Uzbekistan, presenting his preliminary observations, thanked the delegation for the precise and extensive responses to the Committee's questions and said that there was ample evidence of the Uzbekistan's willingness to comply with its obligations under the Convention. He noted the establishment of the Ombudsman's Office and the National Centre for Human Rights to hear complaints. Statistics on the population had been provided, broken down by minority, the various procedures for obtaining citizenship had been outlined and the delegation had stated that the propiska system did not restrict the movement of individuals within the country. The delegation also gave details about the situation of refugees in the country and the question of repatriation, presented evidence of the presence of diverse mass media in the territory and freedom of expression, demonstrated advances in the situation of women, the educational system and protections for the right to education, and explained the scope of the criminal code in application to racial discrimination and other offences. Further, the delegation had fully responded to allegations of religious discrimination, and had given details on the increased terrorist activity in the territory. He also noted that affirmative action measures had been considered by the State party, but rejected on the grounds that they were not appropriate. Regarding the events in Andijan, the Country Rapporteur noted Uzbekistan's position that those had been the result of terrorist acts and as such constituted a purely internal affair of the country, but that investigation into those events was ongoing.

For use of the information media; not an official record

HR/CERD/06/9 E