COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS REPORT OF UZBEKISTAN

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the combined sixth and seventh 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 Human Rights Centre of Uzbekistan, said that between 2007 and 2010 Uzbekistan had undertaken systemic efforts to improve the work of both state and non-governmental organizations in the elimination of racial discrimination. For example, with a view to implementing the concluding observations from their last periodic review, the Uzbek Cabinet of Ministers had adopted a decision entitled “The Complex Measures on the State Support of National Human Rights Institutions”. This decision aimed to support the institute of the Ombudsman and the National Human Rights Centre in order to strengthen their financial, personnel, and material resources. The activities of these bodies fully met the Paris Principles. The Uzbek parliament had also extended the power of the ombudsman’s office to meet and talk to people in custody and to visit detainees freely in prisons and it prohibited the censorship of communications sent from detainees to the ombudsman.

Outlining challenges Uzbekistan faced in the elimination of racial discrimination, Mr. Saidov said they included: economic and social problems that had a disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups; the transition to a democratic system that posed challenges to legislative, executive, and judicial bodies; the need to change the mentality of the population to establish a human rights culture in the country; awareness raising among citizens and state bodies about human rights law; the ecological situation in the Aral Sea which affected food safety and access to safe drinking water; the unstable situation in neighbouring Afghanistan which led to drug production and trafficking; and threats of international terrorism.

In preliminary concluding observations, Anastacia Crickley, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of Uzbekistan, said she had listened with care to the delegation’s responses regarding the primacy of international treaties over domestic laws, and the Committee would reflect very carefully on the responses made in this regard as well as answers on legislation addressing racial discrimination specifically. The Committee would also take into account the number of action plans formulated with regard to the Durbin process, but the Committee would also look at the progress made in the third stage of these action plans, which was the actual implementation of such plans. Ms. Crickley noted that a number of her colleagues had commented positively on the State party’s engagement with refugees and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, but they would also be looking at the institutional framework in place for dealing with refugees and this required the accession to several treaties; she was happy to hear this would receive consideration in Uzbekistan. Ms. Crickley expressed her disappointment at the lack of engagement by non-governmental organizations with the Committee as they were an important part of this process. This lack of engagement would not be taken as a sign that there were no complaints regarding racial discrimination in the country.

Other Committee Experts raised questions regarding the status of the Roma community and their access to education and economic and employment opportunities, disaggregated demographic data that would further enhance State party efforts to combat racial discrimination and avenues available for gaining citizenship in the country. Committee Experts also raised concerns about the independence of judges, the functions of the Office of the Ombudsman and the National Human Rights Centre as well as the status of women from minority groups who may face double discrimination based on gender and race or ethnicity. The delegation was also asked about the participation of minority groups in the public and political life of the country as well as education offered in minority languages.

The delegation of Uzbekistan included representatives from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, the National Human Rights Centre, the Supreme Court, and the Republican International Cultural Centre.

The Committee will present its written observations and recommendations on the report of Uzbekistan at the end of its session, which concludes on 27 August.

When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. on Monday, 9 August, it is scheduled to take up the combined sixteenth through nineteenth periodic reports of Romania (CERD/C/ROU/16-19).

Report of Uzbekistan

The combined sixth and seventh periodic reports of Uzbekistan, submitted in one document (CERD/C/UZB/6-7), notes that the 1992 constitution is the primary legislative instrument providing for the equal enjoyment of fundamental human rights and freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural and other spheres of public life. Article 8 of the constitution states that the Uzbek nation is made up of the citizens of Uzbekistan irrespective of their ethnic background. When Uzbekistan embarked on the path towards independent development, it sought to achieve an adequate standard of living for its entire multi-ethnic population. The course of its democratic and political reforms shows a steady trend towards sustained harmony between the different ethnic communities in Uzbek society. This has been made possible to a large extent by the establishment of a proper legal framework and targeted State policies to promote equality between Uzbek citizens regardless of their ethnic backgrounds. There were no instances of inter-ethnic conflict registered in Uzbekistan between 2006 and 2008.

The Gypsies living in Uzbekistan are referred to as “Lyuli” by the local population. They still speak both Tajik and Uzbek. Their everyday language is Tajik, peppered with a few Roma words. Some Gypsy groups speak mainly in Uzbek. The main faith of the Gypsies living in Uzbekistan is Islam. There are no precise census figures on the number of Gypsies in Central Asia. Indeed, it is not possible to calculate their numbers, as many claim to belong to other ethnic groups. According to a 1926 census, Uzbekistan had 3,710 Gypsies; in 1989, they numbered about 20,000. According to demographers, their true numbers have always been at least twice as large as the official figures suggest. The majority of the Gypsies polled (84 per cent) are Uzbek citizens. The 16 per cent who are not, enjoy resident status. Gypsies residing in Uzbekistan did not encounter discrimination with regard to access to health facilities.

The right of everyone resident in Uzbekistan to equal protection from the courts, irrespective of their national, racial and ethnic origin, is guaranteed by article 44 of the constitution and article 5 of the Courts Act as amended in 2001. To ensure the fullest exercise of their right to equality before the courts, persons from ethnic or linguistic minorities who are not proficient in the State language or language of the majority where legal proceedings are being conducted are provided with an interpreter. Interpretation services were provided free of charge in civil litigation from 2006 to 2008.

Presentation of Report

AKMAL SAIDOV, Director of the National Human Rights Centre of Uzbekistan, presenting the report of Uzbekistan, was pleased to note that this periodic report had been prepared with the broad participation of state bodies, non-governmental organizations, civil society groups and mass media, with 32 state bodies and 23 non-governmental organizations taking part.

Mr. Saidov went on to say that from the first days of its independence, Uzbekistan had defined protection of human rights and provisions for inter-ethnic and inter-religious peace as priorities in State policy. The basic provisions of the policy on the protection of human rights and the fight against discrimination included the following: the implementation of adopted laws for the protection of human rights as well as the adoption of measures to further improve this legal base; monitoring the state of affairs with regard to the protection of human rights and freedoms; the preparation and implementation of measures aimed at assisting the active participation of non-governmental organizations and other civil society instruments and mass media in the public and political life of the country; and the further strengthening of cooperation with United Nations human rights bodies and structures.

According to Mr. Saidov, Uzbekistan continued to make progress in education, gender equality, health services and other areas directly related to the citizens’ well-being, despite the worldwide economic downturn. State policy was also aimed at preventing a decrease in the standard of living, protection from the negative effects of the economic downturn and encouraging normal life as the basis for human rights. Uzbekistan attached particular importance to the well-being of its citizens and an example of how it was helping people cope with the economic downturn was the “Anti-Crisis Programme on Prevention and Neutralization of Consequences of the World Economic Crisis for 2009 to 2012”. This measure adopted by the Government included special provisions for the protection of the rights of entrepreneurs and medium and small businesses, the growth of employment, and a reduction in the prices of basic consumer goods. Uzbekistan was also gradually realizing the Millennium Development Goals, aimed at the reduction of poverty and the improvement of living standards, inclusion of the human factor in sustainable development, and the promotion of equality among ethnic and religious groups.

Mr. Saidov said the Government had also adopted legislative, administrative, economic and other measures for the elimination of racial discrimination, which included five priority areas: the improvement of the legislative base for the elimination of racial discrimination; the development of institutional bases for the elimination of racial discrimination; the deepening of judicial and legal reforms; conducting informational and educational activities on the elimination of racial discrimination; and the development of international cooperation on human rights.

Between 2007 and 2010 Uzbekistan had undertaken systemic efforts to improve the work of both state and non-governmental organizations in the elimination of racial discrimination. For example, with a view to implementing the concluding observations from their last periodic review, the Uzbek Cabinet of Ministers had adopted a decision entitled “The Complex Measures on the State Support of National Human Rights Institutions”. This decision aimed to support the institute of the Ombudsman and the National Human Rights Centre in order to strengthen their financial, personnel and material resources. The activities of these bodies fully met the Paris Principles. The Uzbek parliament had also extended the power of the Ombudsman’s office to meet and talk to people in custody and to visit detainees freely in prisons and it prohibited the censorship of communications sent from detainees to the Ombudsman.

Uzbekistan was also increasing civilian oversight over the observance of human rights and the fight against racial discrimination. In the second half of 2008, the Republican International Cultural Centre monitored the activities of the national cultural centres and the observation of rights of ethnic minorities in provinces and Tashkent.

Mr. Saidov said that considerable measures aimed at deepening judicial reforms and the promotion of the independence of the judiciary had been adopted. In the last five years 58 laws had been adopted for the reformation of the judiciary. The system of criminal punishment had been liberalized, measures had been adopted to ensure the legality in the activities of law enforcement and additional measures had been taken to strengthen the role of independent courts in the building of a democratic legal state and a strong civil society.

Uzbekistan had also been working on increasing education in the realm of human rights and raising awareness of these issues among the population. Curriculum teaching the provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and national human rights legislation had been included in pre-school, secondary, high school, special and professional education. This information was also included in the system for improving the qualifications of pedagogical, medical and social workers, journalists, advocates, law enforcement personnel and court workers.

Mr. Saidov went on to outline the challenges Uzbekistan faced in the elimination of racial discrimination. These challenges included: economic and social problems that had a disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups; the transition to a democratic system that posed challenges to legislative, executive, and judicial bodies; the need to change the mentality of the population to establish a human rights culture in the country; awareness raising among citizens and state bodies about human rights law; the ecological situation in the Aral Sea which affected food safety and access to safe drinking water; the unstable situation in neighbouring Afghanistan which led to drug production and trafficking; and threats of international terrorism.

Mr. Saidov then turned to the Uzbek delegation in order that it may continue the presentation by addressing other topics from the list of issues. The delegation began by saying that there was no history of inter-ethnic or inter-religious conflict in the country and there were over 100 national cultural centres that enjoyed great respect in the country. Everyone was equal under the law and protected under the constitution. Freedom of religion was enshrined in the constitution and there was a law criminalizing racial discrimination. Uzbekistan had over 500 laws regulating basic human rights and freedoms and the provisions of the Convention were reflected in the criminal code, the labour code and electoral laws. There were also laws criminalizing the violation of equal rights, genocide, the violation of freedom of conscience and the incitement to ethnic, racial or religious hatred.

In terms of the participation of ethnic minorities in public life, the delegation said ethnic minorities were represented in the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government.

With regards to the judicial system, defence counsellors and interpreters were available free of charge for those who needed translation during court proceedings; failure to provide such interpreters was a gross violation of a defendant’s human rights under the laws of the State.

Permanent residency was available to Uzbekistan citizens, foreign citizens who had been resident in the State for a period of time and stateless persons. Temporary residency was available to citizens with passports from the former USSR whose passports did not indicate a state and foreign nationals. People enjoyed freedom of movement within the territory of Uzbekistan. Currently, Uzbekistan only offered a civil passport and a diplomatic passport and next year they would offer a biometric passport. With regards to Uzbek citizenship, the delegation said it could be obtained by birth, by application, and via provisions in international treaties and other provisions under the law governing citizenship. Foreign citizens and stateless persons may be granted citizenship regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, language, political convictions or other considerations. Due to its geographic location, Uzbekistan received immigrants from Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Kyrgyzstan so the Government was thinking about modifying its immigration and asylum laws.

The delegation said that criminal extradition was carried out in compliance with international treaty norms and domestic legislation. Uzbekistan currently had 27 bilateral treaties on extradition and legal assistance with, among other nations, India, China, Iran, Tajikistan, Pakistan, the Republic of Korea, Bulgaria, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Ukraine. Extradition was not allowed if the person was a Uzbek citizen, the crime was committed in Uzbekistan or if there was a serious reason to believe the person would be subjected to torture upon extradition.

Turning to the question of the Roma living in Uzbekistan, the delegation said their community was bilingual speaking both Tajik and Uzbek. They were largely of the Muslim faith, and it was hard to determine their numbers because they often claimed to be of other nationalities. Demographers’ estimates however, calculated the population was at least 50,000. Since they were not landholders, the Roma moved from place to place, although some Roma camps had led to more permanent Roma quarters in some cities. Their material situation was not that good, and many who participated in a survey said that they had money for only the most basic food, shelter and medicine.

The delegation said education spending equalled 12 per cent of gross domestic product and instruction was offered in seven languages. There were also seven higher education institutions for national minorities. Education was compulsory through twelfth grade and textbooks were provided to all school children at the expense of the State.

Questions Raised by the Rapporteur and Experts

ANASTACIA CRICKLEY, the Committee Expert serving as country Rapporteur for the report of Uzbekistan, noted that Uzbekistan had a very young and multi-ethnic population, had just gained independence in 1991, and was in a challenging geographical position which meant its transition to democracy faced even more challenges. She commended the progress that had been made in areas such as human rights education and the abolishment of the death penalty. She also acknowledged the Uzbek Government’s receipt of over 100,000 refugees fleeing the violence in Kyrgyzstan. In this light, Ms, Crickley wanted to know what mechanisms for reception and protection of refugees were in place. With regard to citizenship, people were asked to renounce their citizenship, but did they have to do this before they were granted Uzbek citizenship? If so, what happened if the citizenship application was denied? Did people run the risk of becoming stateless by seeking citizenship in Uzbekistan?

Ms. Crickley reminded the delegation that the absence of claims of racial discrimination did not mean that it did not exist and she also lamented the fact that the Committee had not received direct responses from non-governmental organizations, despite the fact that they were consulted in the preparation of this report.

Roma were not included in the demographic data that was provided in the report. In the report the term Gypsy was used to refer to Roma. Was this a translation mistake, or did they really refer to them as Gypsies because many Roma communities in Eastern Europe had rejected this term. What sorts of programmes or initiatives were taken to ensure that hidden discrimination was not carried out?

There was a continuing absence of a definition of racial discrimination in the domestic legislation so how did the State party comply fully with the Convention without a definition and legislation outlining racial discrimination?

Was the State party confident that the judiciary operated free of racial discrimination?

The delegation spoke at length about the promotion of an atmosphere of ethnic harmony, but Ms. Crickley asked what concrete actions were taken to foster this inclusion and how minority groups were actively involved in the generation of policies and procedures. What was the mandate of the national cultural centres and how did they contribute to this atmosphere of ethnic harmony besides days of celebration?

In terms of youth organizations, Ms. Crickley asked for details on the involvement of young members of minorities in the public life of the State. She also asked about the involvement of minority women in the public life of the State because the information in the report seemed to show that there was not as much progress in this area.

One Committee Member then asked about the Republic of Karakalpakstan and wanted to know more about this area and whether it was an autonomous region or some sort of other domain. It was also noted that disaggregated demographic data was not provided in the report and this information would be greatly appreciated. The Committee Member also noted that there was proportional representation in politics, but there also needed to be proportional representation in the economic, cultural and social realms. The Committee Member was also concerned that domestic law trumped the Convention and other international agreements. Did minority associations exist in the country? The report of Uzbekistan said the deliberate intention of incitement to hatred was a crime, but Article 4 of the Convention did not pre-condition the incitement to hatred on intention; this incitement did not have to be deliberate to be criminal.

Another Committee Expert asked the delegation about the number of stateless people in the State party and what other languages were used besides Russian, which was an official language.

The next Committee Member to speak began by noting that several regional instruments to which Uzbekistan was party promoted the provisions of the Convention, which was to be applauded. In terms of the Roma population, the Committee Expert noted that 99 per cent of Roma who participated in a poll in Uzbekistan said they faced no discrimination in the practice of their traditions, and yet many chose to identify as other nationalities. Was this because they faced discrimination, which did not have to be intentional or promulgated by the State; it could be carried out in everyday life by people in society. Had any research been done into this? Also, what was being done to help them obtain citizenship and to increase their educational attainment?

A Committee Member inquired about the rates of political participation in country and asked about the survey conducted in the Roma community. Did they participate in the survey in any other way besides being respondents? The survey gave a very sunny outlook on their condition, considering their low level of educational attainment and lack of economic and employment opportunities.

The delegation was asked to elaborate on the role of the judiciary in combating racism, with examples of complaints and prosecutions of complaints of racial discrimination. The delegation was reminded that the absence of such complaints did not mean that racism did not exist. A Committee Member also asked for clarification on the Uzbek Government’s position on the declaration regarding communications to the Committee.

In terms of the demographic data provided, a Committee Member asked about the category listed as “other” with a membership of 421,000 people. Could this be broken down into ethnic groups? What did the report mean when it said that most inter-ethnic disputes were domestic disputes?

Regarding the decision making mechanism of the State party, there were decrees made by the President and a Committee Member wanted to know whether the President consulted with anyone in formulating these decrees. The delegation was asked to provide more information on the workings of the National human Rights Centre; what was the role of the centre in combating racism; did it have the right to receive complaints and process them; what was done with its rulings or recommendations; and how were its members selected?

Response by Delegation

The delegation began by saying that it agreed with many of the constructive proposals offered by the Committee, and it gave examples of how these recommendations had been implemented back in Uzbekistan, including a sociological study on the Roma in Uzbek territory that enabled the State to formulate policies and outreach. So these recommendations were taken very seriously and implemented.

The delegation noted that there were not any nomadic people in the country as the Uzbek people were traditionally settled. In terms of the many questions raised about Roma, many Committee members wanted to know how they were referred to in Uzbekistan. In Uzbekistan, Roma were referred to as Lyuli, which was not pejorative at all, but the report was issued in Russian and the term used in that language was different so when the report was translated the English the word gypsy was used. On the question of why Roma identified as another nationality, the delegation said that many of them spoke Tajik or Uzbek and so identified as those nationalities.

The delegation felt it was important to note that the situation of the Roma in Uzbekistan was fundamentally different from what the Committee would find in Europe. Historically, racial discrimination against the Roma was not a problem in Uzbekistan. The delegation was not sure why this was the case, but posited that it may be because the majority of Roma in Uzbekistan had a settled life and land plots, but observed their traditional practices. Also many of them had assumed citizenship and there were also many cases of mixed marriages. The delegation said the State would continue to study this issue to ensure that policies were formulated to meet the needs of this community.

Turning to the national cultural centres and their activities, the delegation responded by saying these were non-governmental, non-profit organizations that carried out cultural activities such as festivals, concerts, exhibitions, seminars and conferences as well as political activities led by social activists, businessmen, scientists etc. These centres also undertook educational activities in the form of the monitoring of text books in national minority languages and offering language and culture classes. They also worked as information providers by publishing journals and papers. The range of activities was broad indeed.

Regarding the participation of women in parliament, 15 per cent of parliamentarians were women and ethnic minorities also made up significant numbers in the legislature, with 22 per cent of the representatives in the lower house being national minorities. The delegation noted that the number of women in political life was growing because the Government had instituted a quota for political parties that fielded candidates for parliament, and at least 30 per cent of their candidates had to be women.

In terms of data collection and statistics, Uzbekistan had improved its gathering of data on information regarding social and economic development. The State had also organized the State Committee for Statistics and designed a uniform system of statistical information gathering. They had also undertaken improved training for people operating in this area and a presidential decree passed in 2008 had required further measures to improve technical equipment and professional training as well. There was also the law on state statistics that established a programme of state statistical work focused mainly on the gathering of demographic information on the population.

In Uzbekistan according to the constitution and election laws, elections were voluntary and there was no penalty for failing to participate in elections. Having said that, the delegation noted that absenteeism was very low among citizens.

Many Committee Members had asked about the place of the Convention in the national legal system of Uzbekistan. According to the delegation, the Uzbek constitution proclaimed the supremacy of international laws over national laws and there was a separate law that reaffirmed that constitutional rule. The Convention and other international laws could also be invoked by the courts of Uzbekistan and judges could reference international norms in their decisions. The delegation noted that there was one major practical problem and this was the extent to which judges knew to apply the international norms. They had been working on this practical and educational problem by educating jurists on international law and human rights and they had translated more than 20 international agreements in order to make judges aware of their contents. This educational programme had been undertaken with international assistance, namely from the European Union.

With regards to ratification of the amendment to article 8 of the Convention, the issues had been studied and it was noted that many States could not fulfil their financial obligations to support the Committee and the amendment looked at funding the Committee through regular United Nations funds. This issue was still being considered in Uzbekistan. In the last two years, Uzbekistan had ratified eight international instruments on human rights, including several optional protocols and an International Labour Organization treaty.

Turning to the question on the area known as the Republic of Karakalpakstan, it was a sovereign republic and traditionally had always had status as an autonomous area, even when Uzbekistan was part of the USSR. It had its own constitution, citizenship, and legislative, administrative and legal agencies and its right to secede from Uzbekistan was enshrined in the Uzbekistan constitution. It was a unique legal situation and status as far the delegation knew.

Several Committee Members asked about presidential powers and the role of the President in relation to the parliament and judiciary. In 1992 the President was considered the head of state, the head of executive authority and chairman of the Government. However, over the last seven years there had been a reduction in the President’s powers including the renunciation of the executive authority and the position as head of the cabinet of ministers. In 2008, a number of presidential authorities were transferred to the senate such as the appointment of ambassadors and the granting of amnesty, which was now granted by the senate. The presidency of Uzbekistan was a mixture of models, but it was closer to the French model in which the President was more of a coordinator between the branches of government. In terms of presidential decrees, the President enjoyed the right to legislative initiatives, and they were considered sublegal acts which meant that in the hierarchy of laws the constitution came first, then international treaties, then laws, and then sublegal acts such as presidential decrees and decisions by cabinet of ministers.

Turning to citizenship in Uzbekistan, the delegation said citizenship was acquired through birth or international agreements and citizenship was equal for all. Uzbekistan did not acknowledge dual citizenship, in part because of compulsory military service in the country; people would lose their citizenship if they acquired citizenship in another State. The 2002 law on citizenship had been drafted after looking at a number of international examples and studying the advantages and challenges of each.

Regarding the concern that Uzbek tolerance and racial and ethnic harmony were temporary things, the delegation said it was not only out of good will that this situation prevailed, but also because it was enshrined in the laws of the country. This culture of tolerance and peace had a history of many hundreds of years in the country, but it was also inculcated in society through the civil and criminal code and the application of international law. The delegation invited Committee Members to visit the country to observe for themselves this tolerance in action.

With respect to the questions raised about the independence of the judiciary, the delegation said that Uzbekistan had adopted laws on judges and other standards which set out the basic principles for the legal system including independence of judges and the primacy of the law. This included social protection for judges and the right for them to form associations. There was also a commission for selecting and training judges.

The delegation then pointed out that it had worked closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in repatriating Afghan refugees to Afghanistan and providing humanitarian assistance to refugees from Kyrgyzstan. The State had provided logistical and organizational support to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ missions in these areas and had enjoyed good cooperation and relations with it.

A number of questions had been raised about the Office of the Ombudsman and the delegation said that while there had been no racial discrimination complaints, this did not mean that the office had not received any complaints. The Office of the Ombudsman had regional offices throughout the country and it received on average 60,000 complaints per year. The delegation pointed to written materials that the Committee could consult for more detailed information on the nature and number of complaints received each year. Moreover, the delegation asserted that both the Office of the Ombudsman and the National Human Rights Centre complied with the Paris Principles.

The delegation agreed that the question of hidden discrimination would require particular attention and this was something the State party would keep in view and continue to address.

Further Questions Posed by Experts

A Committee Expert asked about the prohibition on the creation of political parties based on race, ethnicity or religion and the delegation was also asked about the possibility of passing a specific law against racial discrimination. The Expert also asked about the role of non-governmental organizations and national human rights institutions in preparing this report specifically and their involvement in the political life in the country in general as no non-governmental organizations had submitted information on this report directly to the Committee.

A Committee Member noted that if the Roma population in Uzbekistan practiced Islam, spoke Tajik or Uzbek and identified as another nationality, then perhaps the country did not have an issue of discrimination against the Roma and if there was no problem with this community then the State party should not create one for the Committee’s benefit.

Another Committee Member asked if there were specific examples of judges applying international law and the Convention to cases. The Expert noted the delegation’s answer that judges were appointed by the President with the intervention of the parliament, but the Expert wanted to know whether there had ever been any cases of disagreement over a judicial nominee.

The delegation was asked about refugees and who qualified as an asylum seeker. The Committee member felt this was an important question given Uzbekistan’s geography and the assistance offered to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in dealing with refugees from Afghanistan and Kyrgyzstan, despite the fact that it was not party to the United Nations Convention on Refugees.

A Committee Member raised the question of language, and the switch from the Arabic and Cyrillic script to Latin script. The disadvantage was that the young people were divorced from the rich cultural history of the country as all the classics were written in Cyrillic or Arabic script. Were children being taught to read in these other scripts?

A Committee Expert asked about the President’s appointment of senate members, and the fact that women made up very few of these appointments. Could the delegation comment on that?

ANASTACIA CRICKLEY, the Committee Expert serving as country Rapporteur for the report of Uzbekistan, asked a question about what sort of measures the State was taking to ensure that employment discrimination did not take place against members of minority groups and that they had equal access to State and private sector employment opportunities. She also wanted to know the number of cases that had been filed under the criminal code regarding incitement to racial hatred and violence and the outcome of these cases. She wanted to know if the Office of the Ombudsman and the National Human Rights Centre were accredited institutions since they met the Paris Principles. What educational and employment opportunities existed for women from minority groups? With regards to human trafficking, what protections were in place to ensure that victims were not discriminated against when they returned to society?

Response by Delegation

Responding to the question on the prohibition on the creation of political parties based on race, ethnicity or religion, the delegation said this was a constitutional norm and also enshrined in the criminal code under the laws regarding the incitement to racial and ethnic hatred. The delegation said that the State was looking into the promulgation of a specific law regarding racial discrimination and in terms of non-governmental organizations the delegation felt that they should not only have a dialogue with the Committee, but they should also submit parallel reports to the Committee. The delegation was not sure why none had initiated a dialogue with this Committee because when Uzbekistan presented a periodic report to the Human Rights Committee 12 non-governmental organizations met with the Committee to offer their views.

The delegation said that there had been cases of disagreements on judicial nominations as these nominations were first considered by the senate judiciary committee before being put forward for a full vote of the legislature. Concerning the invocation of international law by judges, the delegation said that there were no such cases thus far due in most part to the number of international treaties and laws and the need to educate the entire legal community on the access to these laws and the rights embodied therein. The European Union was providing assistance in this regard to further educate legal personnel in these laws.

The delegation said that there was in fact draft legislation in parliament to change laws governing refugees because these policies regarding refugees existed in de facto form, but not de jure and it was important to remedy that. Despite the fact that Uzbekistan was not party to the United Nations Convention on Refugees, there was a “gentleman’s agreement” between the Government of Uzbekistan and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

The delegation acknowledged that the issue of language was indeed a difficult one because over the last 100 years the text had been changed several times, from Arabic to Latin, from Latin to Cyrillic, and from Cyrillic back to Latin. The delegation said that students were taught in both Arabic and Latin script using a 50/50 split and studies were carried out in seven languages in schools with Russian being the first, then English, followed by French and German. Particular attention was paid to foreign and ethnic languages and this included Arabic, as the State did not want to be divorced from this part of its heritage.

The delegation said that the gender aspect was something the State was paying particular attention to and there had been an increase in the number of female senators and the number would continue to grow as affirmative policies had greater impact. The delegation pointed out that the last time it presented a periodic report, there were no female ambassadors and now women were much better represented in the diplomatic corps, with 22 female ambassadors. So the situation was fluid and changing.

With regard to combating trafficking, the delegation said the Government of Uzbekistan had ratified the United Nations Convention against Organized Transnational Crime and its protocol on human trafficking and had implemented a national action programme to combat human trafficking. This national action plan had led to an inter-administrative commission being established with governmental bodies, non-governmental organizations, the media and civilians which met four times each year to look at not only returning victims, but their reintegration and rehabilitation. They had also established international cooperation on the issue and they were looking at the issue of compensation for damages, particularly for medical and psychological assistance for victims.

The delegation said there was also a law against forced marriages and child marriages. While many Uzbeks practiced Islam, the State was secular and did not recognize Sharia law.

There was a Government programme to ensure employment and it entailed special measures to include women in the labour force, including in areas of professional artistry and national handicrafts. Uzbekistan had ratified 13 International Labour Organization conventions and there was strict monitoring to ensure that these provisions were not violated and this included provisions barring discrimination in employment.

Concluding Remarks

In preliminary concluding observations, ANASTACIA CRICKLEY, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of Uzbekistan, thanked the delegation for its approach engaging with the Committee and the full answers provided to their questions. She also applauded the State on its abolition of the death penalty and its engagement with regional and international organizations. She reminded the delegation that the Committee would look at the importance of self-definition and allowing people to determine who they are. Ms. Crickley said she had listened with care to the responses regarding the primacy of international treaties over domestic laws, and the Committee would reflect very carefully on the responses made in this regard as well as answers on legislation addressing racial discrimination specifically.

There were a number of questions raised about the availability of education to minorities in their own language and measures taken by the State to do. The Committee would also take into account statistical recordings and the lack of disaggregated data that would help the State party meet the provisions of the Convention. Ms. Crickley acknowledged this data was not always easy to collect, but it was important to do so nonetheless. The Committee would also take into account the number of action plans formulated with regard to the Durbin process, but the Committee would also look at the third stage of these action plans which was the implementation of such plans.

A number of colleagues had commented positively on the State party’s engagement with refugees and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, but they would also be looking at the institutional framework for dealing with refugees and this required the accession to some treaties and she was happy to hear this would receive consideration in Uzbekistan. Ms. Crickley expressed her disappointment at the lack of engagement by non-governmental organizations with the Committee as they were an important part of this process. This lack of engagement would not be taken as a sign that non-governmental organizations did not have any complaints regarding racial discrimination in the country. Ms. Crickley urged the Committee to work at specifically targeted vulnerable women, particularly those from minority communities. In summation, Ms. Crickley said she valued very much the delegation’s engagement and she said the Committee looked forward to seeing the outcomes of the measures and policies put into place to meet the provisions of the Convention.

AKMAL SAIDOV, Director of the National Human Rights Centre, in concluding remarks, thanked the Committee for noting the challenges faced by Uzbekistan as a young country. Uzbekistan was 19 years old and over that time it had determined its own unique way of doing things in the domestic and international realm. Mr. Saidov fully agreed that in these areas of racial discrimination and human rights there was no ideal state and there were always problems, so it was important not to conceal these problems but to confront them and the Committee was helpful in this regards. Mr. Saidov said when the delegation returned to Tashkent, it would inform the public of its meeting here and the preliminary concluding observations given by Ms. Crickley, it would work to provide better statistical data and it would continue to work on the implementation of various action plans.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CERD10/021E