The International League Against Arbitrary Detention urges the Government of Tajikistan to take all the necessary actions to implement the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Opinion No. 18/2024 concerning Ulfatkhonim Mamadshoeva and Sorbon Yunoev, asking the Government of Tajikistan to immediately and unconditionally release them and to accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations in accordance with international law.
Read the full WGAD Opinion concerning Ulfatkhonim Mamadshoeva and Sorbon Yunoev (Tajikistan): Opinion No. 18/2024.
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS ARRESTED FOR PEACEFUL ACTIVISM
Ulfatkhonim Mamadshoeva is a national of Tajikstan born in 1957, usually residing in Dushanbe. She is a civil society representative for the Pamiri Indigenous population in Kŭhistoni Badakhshon Autonomous Province, a journalist, and a human rights defender. As the founder and director of the NGO “Nomus Valnsof,” she focuses on children’s rights, education, and women's rights. She is the sister of a human rights defender and representative of the Pamiri as well who has been convicted to 18 years of imprisonment in 2022.
Ms. Mamadshoeva was arrested on 18 May 2022, following accusations by the Ministry of Internal Affairs that she co-organized an "illegal rally" and incited violence during protests in Khorugh on 16 May 2022. She publicly denied these allegations, stating she was in Dushanbe at the time. On the day of her arrest, plainclothes individuals cut off electricity at her relative’s apartment and entered under the pretense of inviting her for a discussion with the State Committee for National Security (SCNS). Once arrived at the SCNS headquarters, she was ultimately arrested. Following her arrest, authorities conducted searches of her relatives' properties, seizing her computer and mobile phone.
Later, it was revealed that she faced serious charges, including "publicly calling for violent change of the constitutional order" under article 307 (2) of the Criminal Code and "supervising and financing the provision of weapons and ammunition to members of a terrorist group" under article 179 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Code, among others.
Ms. Mamadshoeva was held in pre-trial detention at the SCNS until her sentencing in December 2022, where she received a 20-year prison term for multiple charges under 10 articles of the Criminal Code, including disruption of political order, establishing a criminal association and terrorism, among others. The trial was conducted in a closed hearing, and details of the verdict were classified as a state secret.
The Supreme Court upheld the decision in appeal in March 2023. At the time of the source's communication, she was serving her sentence in Women's Penal Colony No. 3/8 of the Ministry of Justice in the town of Nurek.
As for Sorbon Yunoev, he is also a national of Tajikstan, born in 1960, and usually living in Khorugh, Kŭhistoni Badakhshon Autonomous Province. He is an entrepreneur, a civil activist, and a local opinion leader who was the only independent member of the local parliament in the early 2000s. Throughout his career, he has championed socioeconomic development and criticized governmental corruption and undemocratic practices.
In November 2021, mass protests started in Kŭhistoni Badakhshon Autonomous Province following the killing of local Indigenous Pamiri resident by the police. During these protests, at least 40 people were killed, including an acquaintance of Mr. Yuonev. As such, but also as a prominent opinion leader of his community, he actively criticised the police actions, and called for an investigation.
Mr. Yunoev was first arrested on 13 June 2022 in Dushanbe, and held by the SCNS until 16 June 2022, when he was released with a verbal summons to go to the SCNS in Khorugh within 24 hours. On 17 June 2022, Mr. Yunoev was arrested again at the SCNS premises in Khorugh, under unknown charges. Three days later, his family was informed that he had been charged with "participation in a criminal association" under article 187 (2) of the Criminal Code. Since then, he has remained in detention, initially held in a temporary detention center in Khorugh until 23 August 2022.
During his trial, Mr. Yunoev faced accusations related to his activism, including his criticisms of police violence, support for protesters, and public dissent regarding Government spending - among others. On 23 August 2022, he was found guilty of solely of "participation in a criminal association" - which according to the source does not align with the accusations presented against him during his trial - and sentenced to 10 years in prison. He was transferred to Penal Colony No. 3/5 in Khujand, where he was still detained at the time of the source's communication.
The Government was given the opportunity to contest these allegations, which it did on 29 January 2024.
ARRESTED WITHOUT BEING INFORMED OF THE REASONS OF THEIR ARREST
According to the source, neither Ms. Mamadshoeva nor Mr. Yunoev were arrested without being informed of the reason for their respective arrest - which should have been by means of an arrest warrant. The Government replied that human rights norms had been respected during both arrests, and that Mr. Yuonev signed the record of his arrest. Concerning the latter, the Working Group recalled the difference between an arrest warrant and a record of arrest, and as such concluded that the presentation of a record of arrest to Mr. Yuonev was insufficient to justify his arrest. In this light, the Working Group considered there had been a violation of Mr. Yunoev and Ms. Mamadshoeva's rights to be informed, at the time of their arrest, of the reasons justifying their arrest and to be promptly informed of the charges, enshrined in article 9(2) of the Covenant. These rights being inherent to the right to liberty and security of person and to the prohibition of arbitrary detention, articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights were also violated.
Therefore, the Working Group found that the arrest and detention of Ms. Mamadshoeva and Mr. Yunoev lackeda legal basis, rendering their respective detention arbitrary under category I.
DETAINED FOR EXERCISING THEIR RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY
According to the source, Ms. Mamadshoeva - a journalist and human-rights defender - and Mr. Yunoev - a civic activist - were arrested and detained for their human-rights activisites, and specifically in relation to their involvement in peaceful assemblies. Indeed, both were arrested amid a crackdown on activists in Kŭhistoni Badakhshon Autonomous Province. While Ms. Mamadshoeva tried to expose the human-rights violations committed by the authorities against Pamiris, Mr. Yunoev criticised the Government mismanagement and police violence during the protests. The Government denied this, claiming both were convicted based on different credible evidence of serious specific criminal activities, including terrorism and conspiracy.
Considering these diverging accounts, the Working Group recalled that several independent human-rights experts and bodies argued that the charges were politically motivated and intended to silence criticism against the state; that other political and human-rights experts and bodies, such as the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, have highlighted the repression occuring in Tajikstan against journalists, protesters, and human-rights defenders, particularly in relation Kŭhistoni Badakhshon Autonomous Province; and that the international community has called for the release of human-rights defenders, and criticised the practice of political detention.
In this light, the Working Group considered that the Government did not provide convincing evidence proving that the accusations against Ms. Mamadshoeva and Mr. Yunoev had a factual basis, as it only made vague references to serious crimes. The Working Group thus concluded that the basis for their arrest and subsequent conviction was their exercise of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, protected under articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
As a result, the Working Group considered their respective arrest and detention as arbitrary under category II, and referred the case to the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression and of peaceful assembly for further appropriate action.
PARTIAL TRIBUNALS, CLOSED-HEARING AND LACK OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION
The source claimed that neither Ms. Mamadshoeva nor Mr. Yunoev was tried by an independent and impartial tribunal. In this regard, the Working recalled reports by international organisations indicating that the judiciary branch in Tajikistan tend to operate under the control of the executive branch, thus undermining the principle of separation of powers. In this light, and considering the insufficient response of the Government, the Working Group found that the right of Ms. Mamadshoeva and Mr. Yunoev to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal, guaranteed by article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (1) of the Covenant, had been violated.
Furthermore, according to the source, Ms. Mamadshoeva's trial was closed to the public and the media. Though the Government justified this by arguing that her case was related to State secrets, this explanation was deemed insufficient by the Working Group since the Government did not explain how a civilian like Ms. Mamadshoeva could have accessto State secrets. Thus, the Working Group considered that her right to a public hearing, enshrined in article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14(1) of the Covenant, had been violated.
The source also claimed that lawyers in Tajikistan would be afraid to defend human-rights activitis due to the risk to be intimidated or persecuted for this by the authorities. As such, the source argued both Ms. Mamadshoeva and Mr. Yunoev's rights to prepare their defence and communicate with their chosen counsel were violated. The Government denied this, stating that Ms. Mamadshoeva had legal representation and that Mr. Yunoev chose to defend himself.
However, the Working Group noted that reports from different expert bodies have already highlighted the pervasive climate of intimidation against lawyers defending human rights activists in Tajikistan. The Working Group stressed that it is the state's duty to ensure that legal counsel can operate independently and without fear of reprisal. Therefore, the Working Group considered that the right of both individuals to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence and to communicate with the counsel of their choosing, protected under article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant, had been violated.
Lastly, the source alleged that Ms. Mamadshoeva's self-incriminating statements could have been made under duress. The Government did not sufficiently disprove this. As such, the Working Group noted that the use of confessions extracted throught ill-treatment or torture is a violation of the right not to be compelled to confess guilt, enshrined in article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant, and could also be a violation of article 15 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
In view of the above, the Working Group concluded that the violations of the right of the two individuals to a fair trial were of such gravity as to render their detention arbitrary under category III.
ARRESTED FOR THEIR ACTIVITIES AS HUMAN-RIGHTS DEFENDERS
While the source asserted that Ms. Mamadshoeva and Mr. Yunoev were detained for their activities as human rights defenders, the Government claimed that their detention solely resulted from their actions which amounted serious crimes.
The Working Group recalled that when a detention results from the active exercise of civil and political rights, there is a strong presumption that the detention also constitutes a violation of international law on the grounds of discrimination based on political or other views. The Working Group further observed that it has already examined in its previous jurisprudence regarding Tajikistan the same pattern in the authorities' attitude towards those belonging to opposition parties or human rights activists. This pattern is also confirmed by numerous international bodies in their reports on Tajikistan.
In light of the above, the Working Group found that Ms. Mamadshoeva and Mr. Yunoev were detained on discriminatory grounds, based on their political or other opinions, disregarding the equality of human rights protected under article 26 of the Covenant.
Henceforth, the Working Group considered that the detention of Ms. Mamadshoeva and Mr. Yunoev was arbitrary under category V.
CONCLUSION OF THE WORKING GROUP AGAINST ARBITRARY DETENTION
In light of the foregoing, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention considered that the respective detention of Ulfatkhonim Mamadshoeva and Sorbon Yunoev was arbitrary and fell under categories I, II, III, and V because the deprivation of liberty of Ms. Mamadshoeva and Mr. Yunoev was in contravention of articles 3, 9, 10, 19, and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9, 14, 19, 21, and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Working Group recommended that the Government of Tajikistan take the steps necessary to remedy the situations of Ms. Mamadshoeva and Mr. Yunoev without delay and bring them into conformity with the relevant international norms. The Working Group considered that, taking into account all circumstances of the cases, the appropriate remedy would be to release Ms. Mamadshoeva and Mr. Yunoev immediately and accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law.
Comments