UZBEKS REFUSED ASYLUM IN RUSSIA

C O N F I D E N T I A L MOSCOW 001043 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/30/2016 TAGS: PREF PHUM PREL RS SUBJECT: UZBEKS REFUSED ASYLUM IN RUSSIA REF: BISHKEK 79 AND PREVIOUS Classified By: A/POL Bruce Donahue. Reasons 1.4 (b and d). ¶1. (C) The Russian Federal Migration Service has refused to grant asylum to 13 Uzbeks whom the Government of Uzbekistan wants extradited for alleged connections to the uprising in Andijon last May. The group's lawyer, at the urging of UNHCR, has appealed that decision to Russian courts and will file separate appeals to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg. Thus far, none of the Uzbeks is in imminent danger of deportation, and the appeals should provide further protection while the courts consider their claim. The appeals could be heard in the Russian court as early as February 13. Appeals to the ECHR should be filed shortly, and the ECHR should issue a ruling in one week. ¶2. (C) UNHCR Senior Protection Officer Gang Li said that UNHCR has not received access to the 13 despite repeated requests to the Office of the Procurator General. UNHCR Moscow has asked the migration service and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to weigh in with the procuracy on its behalf, and UNHCR headquarters in Geneva has raised the issue with the Russian mission there. Although MFA officials have informally been somewhat supportive, Li said Russian officials have questioned the legal basis for UNHCR's involvement in the case. All 13 have been resident in Russia for several years and had not sought refugee status until after they were arrested, a fact Russian officials constantly stress in their discussions with UNHCR. The initial Russian response to UNHCR's request for access was that UNHCR should ask permission from Uzbek authorities, a response that left UNHCR baffled. The MFA has subsequently asked UNHCR to formally submit a justification for its involvement in the case. Li said UNHCR would argue that the men faced persecution, torture, and worse if returned to Uzbekistan. (NOTE: Of the 13, 12 are citizens of Uzbekistan, and one is a citizen of Kyrgyzstan. Authorities arrested another ethnic Uzbek with Russian citizenship and then released him. He fled to Ukraine after the GOR began proceedings to strip him of his citizenship. He has sought UNHCR protection there. END NOTE.) ¶3. (C) Li remained hopeful that UNHCR would gain access to them. It was trying to use its good relationship with the Federal Migration Service and the April visit of High Commissioner for Refugees Guterres as leverage with the MFA to convince prosecutors to allow a UNHCR visit. UNHCR would be prepared to work quickly in making a resettlement determination once it can interview the 13. Li said that UNHCR is also looking at contingency plans that would allow UNHCR to designate them as refugees without an interview and seek their immediate resettlement. Li said UNHCR did not know whether the GOR would release them from detention and allow them to leave the country, however. Li said he thought that Russian authorities will closely watch what the Government of Kyrgyzstan does with four Uzbeks still in its custody whom the GOU wants extradited (reftel). Human Rights Watch's (HRW) Aleksander Petrov also thought that the Kyrgyz Government's decision would influence the GOR's handling of these cases. Petrov said HRW has offered advice to the group's lawyer in drafting the appeals based on its reporting of what happened in Andijon. HRW would soon begin a public campaign urging the GOR not to return them to Uzbekistan. ¶4. (C) COMMENT: UNHCR has thus far found nothing to suggest that the 13 were involved in the uprising in Andijon. We understand that the GOU warrants are based on claims that they had provided financial or other support to the uprising or that members of their families were involved in it. The GOR now finds itself with a dilemma; it can meet its international obligations or preserve the recent warming in its bilateral relationship with the GOU. BURNS