Alisher Ilhamov Biography

The proposed review is based exclusively on press messages. Briefly about what happened, and the reasons in early July in the Republic of Karakalpakstan, which is part of Uzbekistan, there were unrest and their brutal suppression by force units that arrived from Tashkent. The main events occurred from July 1 to July 3, but the tension began to increase after the publication of the project of constitutional amendments on June 25, including changes in six articles 70 - 75, according to which until now the Republic of Karakalpakstan had a sovereign status as part of Uzbekistan and the right to withdraw from the country, if most residents of the republic vote in a referendum.

These changes, which liquidate the sovereign status of the republic, were not discussed widely in the republic, which caused protests among its citizens. The trigger, who prompted the inhabitants of Nukus, the arrest of the local informal leader of the public opinion of the lawyer and blogger Dauletmurat Tazhimuratov was the arrest of July 1, but initially protested a rather peaceful character.

The use of lacrimal gas, smoke bombs, noise grenades and rubber bullets began only after midnight of the same day when a large crowd gathered at the Zokargi Kenes parliament of the Republic. By this time, units of the National Guard from Tashkent began to arrive. The first victims appeared. But the main sacrifices among the population took place on July 2, when the NAC took up the suppression of protests.

The guard, acting much more cruelly than local internal affairs bodies. There were isolated cases of violence from the protesters, but this was mainly in response to cruelty from the power organs, which, according to local, became a firearm. The protests were completely suppressed by the morning of July 3. But the introduced emergency in the republic was canceled only on July 21.

In official figures, 21 people died victims, including 4 employees of the law enforcement agencies, injured, 94 in critical condition, was arrested. However, many locals do not believe in this statistics and claim that there were much more killed. According to local doctors who are referred by the journalist of the newspaper. According to the opposition, Aman Sagidullaev, who has been living in Norway and has long advocated for the exit of Karakalpastan from Uzbekistan, a person was killed and wounded.

In my opinion, in view of the obvious motivation for the undersication of the number of victims in the first case, and to exaggerate in the third, more reliable, apparently the figure reported by doctors, that is, within 77 killed. Most likely, this number has increased slightly if part of the seriously wounded in the end died. The main identified problems of the amendment Constitutional Regulation on the right to withdraw from Uzbekistan is really unique in the post -Soviet space.

The country's leadership was obvious to fears that one day this constitutional status of a sovereign republic could lead to a threat to the territorial integrity of Uzbekistan. However, the authorities, preparing these amendments, did not prepare public opinion in this republic, did not conduct discussions and explanations among the population. The amendments were brought down as snow on the head of the inhabitants of the republic.

Formally, the initiative to change the articles on sovereignty came from the deputies of Zhokarg Kenes, but in fact, most likely, this “initiative” was lowered from above, from Tashkent. We must pay tribute to the fact that the president already announced the recall of the amendments on July 2. However, this decision did not immediately reach the residents of Karakalpakstan due to the information blockade around the republic, since access to the Internet in the republic was almost completely blocked by the evening of July 1.

Also, this concession was not supplemented by a more tolerant attitude of the power organs towards the protesters. Because of this, the effect of this concession was very limited. The use of force against protesters as noted, in addition to special equipment, apparently used firearms against protesters. At least, participants in the events said that they had heard shots.

Judging by the scale of the victims, we can talk about the high probability that firearms were used by the power organs. Arbitrary detention and torture are the whereabouts of some detainees, their state of health is still unknown. According to the local, the bodies of the dead were returned, provided that relatives would sign a document that the victims had died while in a drunk or drug state.

The authorities obliged to bury the dead quickly, not allowing their families to observe the necessary national rituals, and even more so to order a forensic medical examination of bodies before burial. In some cases, the families of the victims were offered money for silence, as happened with the family of worker-builder Madiyar Orazbaev, who, after his arrest, was brutally beaten and died from the rupture of the scrotum.

However, the parents of the deceased refused the money, demanding to punish the murderers of their son.In total, at least two cases were reported when the arrested died in the places of detention. The fate of the two arrested, public opinion leaders, blogger Dauletmurat Tazhimuratov and journalist Lolagul Kallykhanov is also particularly concerned. There is little or nothing about their state of health.

At least Kallykhanova’s relatives are not allowed to meet her. Urgenche of the Khorezm region. The Ombudsman of Feruz Ashmatov, together with the members of the parliamentary commission of the “independent” investigation of the Karakalpak events, led by her, visited the investigative insulator and met with Tazhimuratov. According to the Ombudsman, during the visit, members of the commission witnessed that the rights of the suspect were not violated during his maintenance in the isolator and during the investigation, cases of mental and physical torture were not allowed, and that he was provided with access to a lawyer, and also provided the opportunity to meet with relatives.

However, the relatives themselves have not yet publicly confirmed the fact of their meeting with Tazhimuratov. It should also be borne in mind that in Uzbekistan there was a practice of imposing lawyers not at their choice, especially in “custom -made” and politically motivated matters. In such cases, the appointed lawyer actually incesses the defendant to admit his guilt, allegedly in exchange for mitigating punishment.

The fact that a criminal case has been instituted against Tazhimuratorov is also concerned against part 4 of an article in the constitutional system of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan. If we are talking about the fact that he called for the exit on the demonstration on July 5, then firstly, he notified the local authorities in advance about this, and secondly, such an appeal is fully consistent with the constitution, according to Article 33 of which citizens "have the right to carry out their public activity in the form of rallies, meetings and demonstrations." If the prosecutor's office considers in his actions a call to the withdrawal of Karakalpakstan from Uzbekistan, then such a right is also enshrined in the constitution, just those articles that the authorities wanted to cancel, but in the end recalled the corresponding amendments.

In principle, accusations under the article are usually politically motivated in Uzbekistan, and if so, then counting on a full -fledged lawyer protection and justification in court, unfortunately, is not necessary. This, in turn, raises the question, in connection with this case, as well as the affairs of other detainees, about the status of justice in the country. This justice was not independent, and remains so to this day that it leaves no hope that the cases of detainees will be considered objectively and fairly, exclusively within the framework of the law.

Access to the Internet was limited on June 27, but was completely blocked by the evening of July 1, which led to the fact that many in the republic were not aware that the president announced the recall of amendments. Only July 18 began to include the Internet, and then, only for an hour a day. By July 24, access increased slightly, but only for a few hours, while the Internet remained inaccessible in the evening.

On the very first day of protests, the entrance to the republic was sharply limited, because of which the press was not in place in the midst of events, that is, July 1 and 2. Arriving in Nucus on July 3, British journalist Joanna Lillis, the authorities hindered her journalistic investigation and forced to remove photos and videos from her gadget during the detention. The authorities massively removed gadgets from citizens, where photos and videos from the places of events are captured, and to demand their removal.

Thus, the primary information base is narrowing, which would allow you to get a reliable picture of what happened from July 1 to July 3. Some local journalists managed to arrive in Nucus only since July 3. Freedom of assembly as we noted above, Tazhimuratov and other protests were arrested, and a number of them were accused by the prosecutor’s office for an encroachment on the constitutional system and violation of public order.

However, these persons only exercised their constitutional right to participate in demonstrations and rallies. Briefly suppressing these protests and punishing their participants for exit to the streets, the authorities of Uzbekistan show that this constitutional right in the country remains only on paper. The freedom of associations, due to the restrictions on the registration of initiative non-governmental organizations that are still valid since Karimov, did not turn out to be enough professionally working such organizations, especially for human rights, which, along with the press, could begin to monitor and document human rights and proposed violations of human rights.

Finally, this is the problem of accountability of those authorities and officials, whose fault and connivance of whose law enforcement agencies used excessive and cruel violence that ended with many lethal cases and injuries, as well as the investigation, applied torture in the places of detention.There are fears that these officials will remain unpunished for the crimes committed.

Comparison with the Andijan events of May, such a comparison is necessary to assess the meaning of these events and actions of the authorities in the context of the post -Soviet history of Uzbekistan. In Andijan, the Karimov regime arranged a real massacre, shooting a crowd of protesters from large -caliber machine guns, machine guns and sniper rifles. As a result, a person died about official figures, of which 27 law enforcement officers, and according to human rights organizations and civil society activists, are more than five hundred people.

The comparison, of course, is not in favor of Karimov, who not only brutally suppressed protests, but also completely ignored calls for an independent investigation. In this case, the scale of the victims and the use of firearms were relatively smaller. In addition, President Mirziyev immediately made concessions on the main issue, on constitutional amendments, and after the events allowed to create a parliamentary commission for their investigation, which included three representatives of civil society, as well as representatives of Karakalpakstan.

Nevertheless, in general, the actions of the authorities and in this case turned out to be quite typical for authoritarian regimes and the political culture that is characteristic of such regimes. This refers to the lack of proper dialogue and consultations with the company in the preparation of important decisions for this society. This is also the still actually absent law of citizens to peaceful street protests, as well as excessive use of force in suppression.

These are mass arbitrary detentions, as well as torture in places of detentions. This is the lack of access to information during and after events. This is a weakness of civil society, the reason for which is, first of all, the restrictions on freedom of associations remaining in the country. What is necessary first of all now, it is important, albeit post -fact, conduct an independent investigation in order to get an objective and comprehensive picture of what happened, identify persons who should be responsible for the victims.

It is hardly possible to completely rely on the results of the investigation of the parliamentary commission. First of all, because most of its composition are deputies, representatives of pocket parties, fully controlled by the executive branch. Due to the lack of a sufficiently developed organized society in the country, it is necessary to form the international composition of the commission, which would include representatives of the relevant structures of the UN Special Procedure, Committee on Civil and Political Laws, as well as against torture, as well as international human rights organizations with high reputation, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

If Uzbekistan does not allow such an international commission to the country and does not create appropriate conditions for its work, then international human rights organizations must conduct such an investigation unilaterally, based on the available data, and publish its results, as well as submit to the relevant bodies of the UN, OSCE and the European Union. Photo: consequences of protests in Karakalpakstan.