UZBEKISTAN: ACTIVIST SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS'

C O N F I D E N T I A L TASHKENT 001257 SIPDIS DEPT FOR SCA/CEN AND DRL E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/30/2018 TAGS: PHUM PGOV PREL SOCI UZ SUBJECT: UZBEKISTAN: ACTIVIST SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS' IMPRISONMENT IN KARAKALPAKSTAN REF: A. TASHKENT 1188 ¶B. TASHKENT 1163 ¶C. TASHKENT 947 ¶D. TASHKENT 994 ¶E. TASHKENT 1200 ¶F. TASHKENT 1235 ¶G. TASHKENT 1253 Classified By: POLOFF R. FITZMAURICE FOR REASONS 1.4 (B, D) ¶1. (C) Summary: On October 23, a court in Uzbekistan's Autonomous Republic of Karakalpakstan sentenced human rights activist Akzam Turgunov and another defendant to ten years' imprisonment on politically motivated charges of extortion. Turgunov's trial had been temporarily interrupted following credible reports that a police investigator poured boiling water on his back during interrogation; however, the court later concluded that he was not tortured (ref A). Turgunov's conviction follows that of journalist Salidjahon Abdurakhmanov, who was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment on October 10 on politically motivated narcotics charges (ref B). Poloff was allowed to attend Turgunov's sentencing in Karakalpakstan and discussed the case with his relatives and acquaintances. ¶2. (C) In the past week, both the United States and the European Union issued press statements raising concerns over Turgunov and Abdurakhmanov's convictions and urging the release of both men. During a meeting with Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asia Donald Camp, Uzbek National Security Advisor Atayev independently referred to the two cases, suggesting that there might be some hope that the two men will be released on appeal. Ironically, the Justice Ministry recently registered Turgunov's "Rule of Law" human rights NGO, which is based in Tashkent. We believe that both men were targeted by local Karakalpak authorities for their human rights activities in the region, and we will continue to remind Tashkent officials that it is in their best interest to rein in their provincial colleagues and release both men. End summary. TURGUNOV AND SALIYEV CONVICTED OF EXTORTION -------------- ¶3. (C) On October 23, a court in the town of Mangit in Uzbekistan's Autonomous Republic of Karakalpakstan found human rights activist Akzam Turgunov and another defendant, Hamza Saliyev, guilty of extortion and sentenced them both to 10 years' imprisonment. Turgunov was first arrested in Mangit for extortion on July 11 after he was hired to represent a local woman, Saliyev's sister, in a divorce case. Police charged Turgunov and Saliyev with demanding 20 million soums (15,000 dollars) from the women's former husband Oybek. Turgunov and Saliyev alleged that they were arrested after being invited to a local teahouse by Oybek and his friend Sharif, who attempted to give them 500,000 soums (378 dollars) without explanation, which they reportedly refused to accept. Observers alleged that the charges against both men lacked merit and were in retaliation for Turgunov's human rights work in Karakalpakstan over the past year (ref C). Turgunov and Saliyev's trial began in late August (ref D). ¶4. (C) While Turgunov was being held in pre-trial detention, a police investigator reportedly poured boiling water on his back in a failed attempt to elicit a confession from him. Credible observers reported seeing Turgunov's burns, which they described as extensive (refs A and C). The court temporarily suspended Turgunov's trial in early October while it investigated the torture allegation, but later concluded that he was not tortured and allowed the trial to continue (ref A). POLOFF PERMITTED TO OBSERVE THE TRIAL -------------- ¶5. (C) Poloff was permitted to observe Turgunov's sentencing, which mostly consisted of the judge reading her verdict for over an hour. Turgunov appeared pale and somewhat gaunt after his three-month stay in pre-trial detention, but otherwise seemed healthy. Poloff had no opportunity to observe the reported burns on his back. When the sentencing was read, Turgunov appeared resigned to his fate, but Saliyev was in a state of shock, his eyes welling with tears as he began to shout in protest. The small courtroom was filled with approximately 20 observers, mostly Saliyev's relatives and supporters of Turgunov. Many of them expressed immediate anger at the verdict, cursing the judge and police officers present. After the verdict, poloff only had a few seconds to exchange words with both defendants before they were quickly whisked out of the courtroom by several police officers. TURGUNOV'S LAWYER IS A NO-SHOW AT SENTENCING -------------- ¶6. (C) Turgunov's lawyer, Rustam Tulyganov, did not appear at the sentencing. Robiya Utemuratova, who served as Turgunov's unofficial public defender alongside Tulyganov, did not know why Tulyganov failed to show at the hearing, but said she was unsurprised. Utemuratova was critical of Tulyganov's work throughout the case, describing it as sloppy and unprofessional. She noted that, in addition to defending Turgunov, Tulyganov was also defending journalist Salidjahon Abdurakhmanov (who received a ten-year sentence on narcotics charges in Karakalpakstan on October 10, ref B) and imprisoned dissident poet Yusuf Jumaev, who is imprisoned in the town of Jaslyk in Karakalpakstan. Utemuratova believed that Tulyganov was simply overwhelmed by the multiple cases and observed that he was one of the few attorneys who would agree to defend individuals like Turgunov and Abdurakhamnov. APPEAL HEARINGS EXPECTED IN NOVEMBER -------------- ¶7. (C) Saliyev's lawyer was present at the sentencing, though he arrived late. He told poloff that Turgunov and Saliyev's appeal would be filed within ten days, and he expected that their appeal hearings would be held sometime in November. Saliyev's lawyer also appeared knowledgeable about Abdurakhmanov's case, and reported that an appeal had been recently submitted on his behalf (Note: The independent Uznews.net website reported that Abdurakhmanov's appeal was submitted to Karakalpakstan's Supreme Court on October 21. End note.) The lawyer also expected Abdurakhmanov's appeal hearing to take place in November. TURGUNOV'S SON NOT ALLOWED TO SEE HIS FATHER -------------- ¶8. (C) Following the verdict, Turgunov's son and Utemuratova were told by court bailiffs that they could see Turgunov at a detention facility in Mangit before he was sent back to the pre-trial detention facility in Nukus, where Turgunov had been held since his arrest. They denied poloff similar permission. Turgunov's son and Utemuratova, accompanied by poloff, then went to the detention facility, where they were denied access to Turgunov. Instead, they were told they could see Turgunov at a later unspecified date in Nukus. TURGUNOV'S ACQUINTANCES SHARE IMPRESSIONS OF TRIAL -------------- -------------- ¶9. (C) Before Turgunov's sentencing, poloff talked at length about the case with Utemuratova, Turgunov's son, and Nuraddin Jumaniyazov, a colleague of Turgunov's and member of the Erk opposition political party. They described the proceedings against Turgunov as a "show trial" and argued that the Prosecutor failed to produce any concrete evidence against Turgunov and Saliyev. Before the trial even commenced, Utemuratova was reportedly told by the court's clerk that both men would be convicted regardless of "any international backlash about the case." Jumaniyazov reported that the only two witnesses called to testify against Turgunov were Oybek and Sharif, who allegedly contradicted each other on the stand. Utemuratova reported that during the trial, the Prosecutor showed a video of Turgunov and Saliyev's arrest at the teahouse. She said that the video, far from demonstrating Turgunov and Saliyev's guilt, clearly showed that both men refused to accept the money offered by Oybek and Sharif. Poloff talked with other observers at the sentencing, who also reported seeing the video and similarly described its contents. Utemuratova said that the Prosecutor refused to share a copy of the video with the defense. ¶10. (C) Jumaniyazov explained that Turgunov, a human rights activist and lawyer from Tashkent, arrived in Karakalpakstan about a year ago and set himself up in Mangit to report on local human rights issues and provide legal assistance to residents. He said that Turgunov proceeded to involve himself in several local cases, in the process raising the ire of local Karakalpak officials, whom he believed eventually concocted the case against Turgunov. Jumaniyazov described Karakalpakstan as the "poorest region of Uzbekistan," where local officials are especially sensitive about outsiders like Turgunov reporting on local problems. ¶11. (C) After the hearing, poloff spoke with one of Turgunov's supporters, a local man who described himself as an unemployed driver. He explained that Turgunov had provided him with legal assistance in Mangit and he felt indebted to him. The man clearly felt great admiration for Turgunov and his work, and attended all of the hearings of his trial. He argued that the Prosecutor's case against Turgunov was "a total sham," and observed that "such things do not happen in America, because your citizens can freely buy guns. If we had gun shops in Karakalpakstan, the authorities would not treat us like dogs anymore." JOURNALIST DESCRIBES FEAR AFTER ABDURAKHMANOV CONVICTION -------------- -------------- ¶12. (C) On October 22, poloff had dinner with local journalist Alena Aminova, who writes for the state-controlled Pravda Vostok newspaper in Nukus and also contributes articles for several independent (and blocked) news websites. Aminova, a long-time friend of Abdurakhmanov, observed that his conviction has had a chilling effect on journalists in Karakalpakstan, who are now even more afraid than usual of local officials. Aminova restricted herself to writing completely innocuous articles, even for the independent websites. She explained that Abdurakhmanov, whom she described him as "fearless," was the most active independent journalist in Karakalpakstan. Fearing for his safety, Aminova reportedly had warned Abdurakhmanov on many occasions before his arrest that his reporting was bound to get him in trouble with local authorities, but Abdurakhmanov reportedly brushed off the warnings. ¶13. (C) Aminova participated in an International Visitors exchange program for Uzbek journalists this spring. She reportedly learned a great deal by meeting fellow journalists in the United States and believed that the experience already had positively contributed to her work in Uzbekistan. She has not suffered any negative repercussions since returning to Uzbekistan and was actually encouraged to take part in the program by her editor at Pravda Vostok. INTERVENTIONS ON BEHALF OF TURGUNOV AND ABDURAKHMANOV -------------- -------------- ¶14. (C) On October 23, USOSCE Ambassador Finley issued a statement at the OSCE Permanent Council in Vienna that praised the Uzbeks for recently releasing a few political prisoners (ref D),but also raised serious concerns over the sentencing of both Turgunov and Abdurakhmanov. On October 27, the Embassy submitted a nonpaper under diplomatic note to the MFA, which largely tracked with the USOSCE statement. It further noted that the way in which local Karakalpak authorities handled the two cases was hurting the international reputation of Uzbekistan as a whole and requested that authorities in Tashkent consider amnestying and releasing both men. Also on October 27, the U.S. State Department issued a press release expressing disappointment about serious deficiencies in due process in both cases and urging the release of Abdurakhmanov, Turgunov, and other imprisoned human rights activists. ¶15. (C) The Ambassador, accompanied by former U.S. Ambassador Jean Kennedy Smith, citied the Turgunov and Abdurakhmanov cases in an October 16 meeting with the Deputy Chairman of the Karakalpakstan Councils of Ministers, noting that such episodes only harmed the region's image. ¶16. (C) Poloff also discussed the Turgunov and Abdurakhmanov cases at length with colleagues at European Embassies in Tashkent and has kept them informed of developments. On October 28, the Presidency of the European Union issued a press statement raising deep concern over the ten-year prison sentences given to both men and expressed hope they will soon be freed. The statement also called on Uzbek authorities to "respect the obligation to protect prisoners against maltreatment" and to investigate the claims made by both men at trial. PDAS CAMP RAISES HUMAN RIGHTS CASES IN TASHKENT -------------- -- ¶17. (C) During a meeting in Tashkent on October 28 with Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asia, National Security Chairman Atayev referred to the "cases in Karakalpakstan," noting that Uzbekistan still had work to do on human rights (Comment: The way in which Atayev referred to the two cases without prompting suggests that there is some hope that the men might be amnestied and released on appeal. End comment.) ¶18. (C) Camp specifically raised with Norov and Atayev the case of imprisoned oppositionist Sanjar Umarov, whose health is reportedly growing much worse in prison (ref E). Both promised to keep post informed on results of the medical commission that was formed last week on President Karimov's initiative to examine Umarov. Norov also claimed that Umarov's condition was not as bad as reported by his wife. JUSTICE MINISTRY REGISTERS TURGUNOV'S NGO -------------- ¶19. (SBU) On October 29, former Human Rights Watch Tashkent office director Igor Vorontsov, who has carefully followed the Turgunov and Abdurakhmanov cases, reported by email that an NGO organized by Turgunov was recently granted registration by the Ministry of Justice. The organization is called "Rule of Law" and focuses on human rights issues. With Turgunov now in prison, the NGO is now being run by Turgunov's colleague, defense attorney Rustam Karabayev. COMMENT -------------- ¶20. (C) We believe that both Turgunov and Abdurakhmanov were targeted by local "Republic of Karakalpakstan" authorities for their human rights activities in the region, and we will continue to remind officials in Tashkent that it is in their best interest to rein in their provincial colleagues and have both men released. At the same time, we cannot completely discount the possibility that certain Ministries in Tashkent orchestrated the cases against the two men in another attempt to poison relations with West and advance their own interests (ref F). NORLAND