SUNSHINE COALITION TRIALS - KHIDOYATOVA SENTENCED

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 TASHKENT 000427

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR SCA/CEN AND DRL

E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/01/2016
TAGS: PHUM PREL PGOV UZ
SUBJECT: SUNSHINE COALITION TRIALS - KHIDOYATOVA SENTENCED
TO TEN YEARS, UMAROV VERDICT COMING

REF: 05 TASHKENT 2935

Classified By: AMB. JON R. PURNELL, FOR REASONS 1.4 (B, D)


1. (C) Summary: The trial of Sunshine Coalition co-founder
Nodira Khidoyatova ended on March 1 with a ten-year prison
sentence. A verdict in the trial of fellow coalition
co-founder Sanjar Umarov is scheduled for March 6. The final
session of Umarov's trial featured a theatrical debate
between the prosecuting and defense attorneys that elicited
laughter and applause from courtroom observers. It is clear
that both cases are political, and the trials orchestrated
for the benefit of an international audience. End summary.

NODIRA KHIDOYATOVA SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS
--------------


2. (C) On March 1, Judge Zakir Isayev of the Tashkent City
Criminal Court sentenced Sunshine Coalition co-founder Nodira
Khidoyatova to ten years imprisonment. Khidoyatova was
accused of tax evasion, illegal commodities trading, and
conspiracy with fellow coalition co-founder Sanjar Umarov to
violate tax and trade laws. The prosecutor had asked the
court for a sentence of 12 years imprisonment. In his
verdict, the judge ruled that the evidence did not support
some of the accusations, and he accordingly reduced the
requested sentence by two years. Attorneys and observers
expect that Khidoyatova will not qualify for amnesty or a
lighter sentence, as she was already granted amnesty after a
1996 criminal conviction on similar charges, and the law does
not allow multiple amnesties.


3. (C) Khidoyatova's trial attracted growing attention from
journalists, local NGOs, and international observers.
Approximately 40-50 people appeared for the final hearing,
including representatives from the German and British
embassies, Human Rights Watch, and several local human rights
activists. Some attendees were barred from the court on the
judge's orders, presumably because they had previously been
ejected for violating courtroom decorum. Otherwise, the
court did not appear to systematically prevent access. In
contrast to previous trials, where observers were required to
request access in advance, guards at Khidoyatova's trial
asked prospective observers to nominate a representative to
compile a handwritten list of attendees immediately before
each hearing. Those on the list were generally admitted to
the courtroom.

SANJAR UMAROV: "I WANT A FAIR TRIAL"
--------------


4. (C) Khidoyatova's trial took place concurrently with
Umarov's. He was charged with grand larceny, bribery,
money-laundering, and tax evasion. Umarov's trial has taken
place in the same courtroom, with the same judge and the same
prosecuting attorney as in Khidoyatova's case. The
prosecutor has asked for an 18-year prison sentence for
Umarov.


5. (C) On February 27, Umarov and his attorney, Vitaly
Krasilovsky, gave closing remarks. In an exhaustively
detailed presentation that drew applause from the courtroom
observers, Krasilovsky argued that the accusations were based
upon dubious testimony from persons who had something to gain
from testifying, many of whom did not even know Umarov
personally. He argued that Umarov had no legal affiliation
with the companies he is accused of operating, and that
Umarov was not personally liable for Uzbek taxes as he has
been a permanent resident of the United States for seven
years. "If any independent expert were to examine the
evidence in this case," Krasilovsky said, "the prosecution's
case would fall apart like a house of cards."


6. (C) The prosecuting attorney then rose and hotly refuted
Krasilovsky's claims in extemporaneous remarks addressed not
to the judge, but to the courtroom observers. (Comment: He
spoke in a theatrical, pompous tone, peppered with rhetorical
questions such as, "Is Mr. Umarov a citizen of a foreign
country?!" End comment.) He argued that, in the over 2,000
cases in which he had participated as a prosecutor (Note:
Yes, two thousand. End note.),he had never seen one as well
documented as this one. In a crescendo of fury, he expressed
the futility of the defense's case in a rhyming Russian
phrase which could be loosely translated as: "You can't argue

TASHKENT 00000427 002 OF 002


with a sledgehammer." The comment sent every person in the
courtroom into peals of laughter - including even Umarov
himself. (Comment: Those rooting for the defense perfectly
understood the dark irony in the prosecutor's expression.
The "sledgehammer," in this case, is the Uzbek government,
against which there is no defense. End comment.)


7. (C) Before closing the session, the judge gave Umarov an
opportunity for a final statement. He rose to the occasion
with an impassioned denunciation of the judicial process. He
called the government case a politically motivated response
to his opposition activity and accused government
investigators of bullying and threatening him in pre-trial
detention, denying him medical attention, and denying him
contact with his attorney. In his final request to the
judge, Umarov said only, "I want a fair trial." On March 1,
immediately after the reading of Khidoyatova's verdict, Judge
Isayev convened a two-minute hearing to announce that he
would read Umarov's verdict on March 6.


8. (C) Comment: As reported reftel, there is much more than
meets the eye here. The trials have been bizarre exceptions
to the usual Uzbek formula of restricted access and compliant
attorneys. The presence of monitors, the prosecutor's
theatrical statements, the judge's studied avoidance of any
hint of political rhetoric in the courtroom - all go to
support the view that the GOU has orchestrated these trials
in order to convince foreign observers that the cases are
really economic and not political, and in order to project a
veneer of fairness in a process that is fundamentally flawed.
Without an independent evaluation of the evidence, it is
impossible to say whether there is any merit to the
prosecution's case. But it is fairly clear that, whether the
defendants are guilty or innocent, they are being tried on
the basis of their political opposition to the Karimov regime.
PURNELL