UN Committee Against Torture prepares list of issues to be considered by Tajik government

\The UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) has prepared the list of issues to be considered in connection with the consideration of the second periodic report of Tajikistan.

Ms. Nigina Bahriyeva, the head of the Nota Bene Public Association, says the list includes issues related to the fulfillment by Tajikistan of its obligations on preventing torture and ill-treatment.

The Committee, in particular, asks to indicate if the amendment to the Criminal Code in article 143 providing for a definition of “torture” and legal punishment for such act complies with the Committee’s previous recommendation to bring the criminal legislation in line with article 1 of the Convention by covering all the purposes of torture contained therein and also ensuring that acts of torture by State agents, including the acts of attempt to commit torture and of complicity in it, ordering or participating in torture, are criminal offences.  The Committee recalls that penalties of five years imprisonment or less are not commensurate with the gravity of the crime of torture.  In light of this, please explain what steps the State party is taking to ensure that the penalties envisaged by article 143 of the Criminal Code are commensurate with the gravity of offences of torture, in accordance with article 4 of the Convention.

The Committee also asks to explain what measures have been taken to prevent impunity and disproportionate commutation of sentences under the 2011 Law on Amnesty for those accused or convicted of the use of torture.  Specifically, the Committee asked to comment on the effect of the 2011 Law on Amnesty on three police officers detained, charged and convicted for involvement in the June 2011 death in custody of Ismoil Bachajonov: L. Davlatov, convicted under Article 322 of the Criminal Code, sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, but reportedly released; R. Rahmonov and U. Ibrohimov, convicted under articles 110 and 316 of the Criminal Code, but their sentences were reportedly reduced from 8 to 6 years.

In light of the previous recommendation, the Committee asks to describe measures taken to ensure basic legal guarantees to all detainees from the moment of their arrest, including the right to contact family members and to contact and have access to a defense lawyer and independent medical doctor.

The next issue concerns steps the State party is taking to ensure that police stations, cells and interrogation rooms are monitored in order to prevent torture and ill-treatment.

The Committee also asks to describe the mechanisms in place to ensure prompt, impartial and full investigations into all complaints and all instances of deaths in custody, and indicate whether the results of all investigations are made available to relatives of the deceased, as requested in the Committee’s previous concluding observations.  The Committee asked to provide data on all deaths in custody that occurred during the reporting period, disaggregated by detention facility and data indicating the time that elapsed between the alleged commission of the acts amounting to violations of the Convention and the commencement of criminal proceedings indicated in the table provided in paragraph 42 of the State party’s periodic report, and indicate steps the State party is taking to reduce unjustified delays in investigations into allegations of torture or ill-treatment.

The Committee also asks to comment on the status of the investigations into the following cases of death in custody: (a) Mr. Bahromiddin Shodiyev, who died ten days after sustaining serious injuries at the Shohmansour district police office following his detention on suspicion of theft on October 19, 2011, and whose wounds officials initially claimed were self-inflicted.  Please describe the conclusions of the official investigation into Mr. Shodiyev’s death, indicate whether Mr. Shodiyev’s family has been informed of the outcome of the investigation, indicate what disciplinary and criminal actions, if any, have been taken against the officers involved, and whether Mr. Shodiyev’s family has received compensation; (b) Mr. Safarali Sangov who died several days after sustaining serious injuries in custody following his arrest by plainclothes Sino District police officers on March 1, 2011, and whose wounds officials initially claimed were self-inflicted. Please describe the conclusions of the official investigation into Mr. Sangov’s death, indicate whether Mr. Sangov’s family has been informed of the outcome of the investigation, indicate what disciplinary and criminal actions, if any, have been taken against the officers involved, and whether Mr. Sangov’ family has received compensation; (c) Mr. Alovuddin Davlatov (alias Ali Bedaki), who died in police custody on January 4, 2011, and who officials initially claimed was killed in a shootout forces between the authorities and militants led by Mr. Davlatov and later claimed was wounded in a confrontation with authorities and died en route to a hospital, following the online dissemination of video footage appearing to depict Mr. Davlatov alive and in the custody of authorities prior to his death; (d) Mr. Usman Boboyev, who died in custody in March 2010 following his arrest in February 2010, and whose family has reportedly been denied information about the investigation from the General Prosecutor’s office on the grounds that the investigation is still in progress, and that they are therefore not entitled to such information under article 42(2)(8) of the Criminal Code of Procedure. Please provide the Committee with information on any progress made in this investigation since June 2010 and indicate steps the State party is taking to ensure that information regarding investigations into deaths in custody are made available to the deceased’s relatives promptly, in this case and as a general matter; and (e) Khurshed Bobokalonov, who died on June 27, 2009 after being detained by police in Dushanbe.

Tajikistan’s second periodic report was submitted to the Committee last March and it will be considered in November 2012.

The Committee Against Torture (CAT) is the body of independent experts that monitors implementation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment by its State parties.

All States parties are obliged to submit regular reports to the Committee on how the rights are being implemented. States must report initially one year after acceding to the Convention and then every four years.  The Committee examines each report and addresses its concerns and recommendations to the State party in the form of “concluding observations”.