On the eve of the 9thanniversary of the May 2005 events in Andizhan in Uzbekistan, we decided to remind the UN Committee on Human Rights about the fate of the Uzbek military people convicted that time on fabricated criminal charges of espionage. One of the high-profile cases is of Sanzhar Ismailov’s, the first deputy chief of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Joint Staff of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Uzbekistan (GRU), who headed the intelligence and information and interaction sectionof the Main Intelligence Directorate. The public is almost not aware of the criminal case as it was framed and is kept in secrecy.

UN Committee on Human Rights

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

United Nations Office at Geneva

1211 Geneva 10 (Switzerland)

Fax: + 41 22 917 9022

E-mail: petitions@ohchr.org

Sanzhar Ismailov’s case, message number 1769/2008

On the eve of the 9thanniversary of the May 2005 events in Andizhan in Uzbekistan, we decided to remind the UN Committee on Human Rights about the fate of the Uzbek military people convicted that time on fabricated criminal charges of espionage. One of the high-profile cases is of Sanzhar Ismailov’s, the first deputy chief of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Joint Staff of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Uzbekistan (GRU), who headed the intelligence and information and interaction sectionof the Main Intelligence Directorate. The public is almost not aware of the criminal case as it was framed and is kept in secrecy.

Having used all available domestic means to complain about violations of Sanzhar Ismailov’s rights, his wife Natalia Bondar submitted an individual petition to the UN Committee on Human Rightson her behalf. Her complaint was registered and taken for consideration by the Committee on 12 March 2008. The committee made a decision in April 2011, admitting violationsof Sanzhar Ismailov’srights by the Government of Uzbekistan. The committee sent the Government a number of specific recommendations for restoration of justice in regard to Sanzhar Ismailov’s case, including urgent review of his case and release.

Recently it has been exactly six years since the individual complaint of Ismailov Sanzhar reached the UN Committee, and exactly three years since the UN Committee issued its decision in Sanzhar Ismailov’s favor. The Uzbek Government has not implemented the recommendations of the UN Committee in regard to Sanzhar Ismailov’s case, and apparently does not intend to continue to implement them.

Currently Sanzhar Ismailov is serving the sentence in penal colony 64/21 in the town of Bekabad, Tashkent province of Uzbekistan. Ismailov is 44 years old, a citizen of Uzbekistan. On January 26, 2006 the Military Court of the Republic of Uzbekistanfound him guilty of committing crimes under article 157, “High treason” and Article 248 “Illegal possession of ammunition” of the Uzbek Criminal Code, and sentenced him to 20 years of imprisonment. Later, the sentence was reduced to 15 years. According to the investigation, Ismailov passed state secrets, military secrets in particular, to representative of the Russian Embassy in Uzbekistan.

Political aspects of Sanzhar Ismailov’s case

Sanzhar Ismailov’s case has all the standard elements of fabricated, framed criminal cases – unlawful conviction based solely on whistle blows of some Ismailov’s interested colleagues and testimony of the defendant obtained through use of psychological pressure and threats against the defendant and his family members,a big number of interrogations and other investigative activities during the preliminary investigation without a lawyer’s participation, refusal to subpoena witnesses for the defense, continued pressure and threats against Ismailov’s family members during the preliminary investigation and the trial, refusal to investigate facts of pressure and threats against Ismailov and his family members exercised by the investigating authorities.

The present case is also interesting as Ismailov’s senior colleagues from the Main Intelligence Directorate decided to sacrifice him using false denunciationsabout his alleged treason after Ismailov rebuked his superiors that the Main Intelligence Directorate leadership did not warn the Uzbek leaders about upcoming events in Andizhan in May 2005 they had had information aboutand did nothing to prevent the events that led to numerous deaths though. Ismailov’s caseis also interesting as it points to the existing mistrust and tension between Uzbekistan and Russia despite publicized allied relations between the two countries. The Uzbek authorities often “disclose” spies working in favor of Russian among leadership of the Uzbek armed forces and law enforcement agencies.

Very often, such criminal cases are fabricated by intelligence agencies based on defendants’ confessions, which arewrested from through torture and psychological pressure; investigators and security officers, who “disclose” spies are promoted. Often progressive, patriotic Uzbek officers, majority of whom got military training in Russia, becomevictims of such spies “disclosure” operations. For example, Alisher Achildiev was sentenced to 20 years in prison for spying for Russia almost at the same time when Sanzhar Ismailov was convicted. Alisher Achildiev was charged according to Article 157 of the Uzbek Criminal Code. He was the commander of the military unit of the town of Termez, Surkhandarya province of Uzbekistan. Achildiev, like Ismailov, graduated from the Mozhaiskiy Military Engineering Institute in St. Petersburg, Russia. He was convicted under the same scenario as Ismailov –colleagues’ denunciations, pressure on the family members, fabricated materials of the case.

Framed criminal espionage cases in Uzbekistan change their vector depending on the political situation of the Uzbek authorities, on their relations with Russia and the United States. Sanzhar Ismailov is one of the many victims of military personnel cleanup conducted by the National Security Service of Uzbekistan after the 2005 Andizhan events.The case of Lieutenant Colonel Erkin Musaev could serve as another example. Erkin Musaev is the former head of the Department of International Military Cooperation of the Ministry of Defense. In June 2006, he was sentenced to 15 years in prison for “high treason”, passing classified information to intelligence services of NATO countries, negligence and forgery.

According to similar scenario, former defense minister Kadyr Gulyamov was sentenced as well as major general and former deputy defense ministerAlisher Islamov. Sometimes ordinary citizens becomevictims of spy games, too. We have repeatedly reported thatUzbekistan citizen Kayum Ortikov, a former security guard at the British Embassy in Tashkent, who was arrested on fabricated criminal charges and tortured by the security forces for nearly six months to have him confess that he spied for the United Kingdom and agreeto testify against some of his colleagues from the security of the Embassies of Great Britain and the United States, including providing evidences of involvement of these two countries in organization of the 2005 Andizhan events. Tajikistan citizen Said Ashurov, the chief metallurgist from the Joint Uzbek-British joint venture Amantaytau Goldfields, was sentenced to 12 years in prison on August 9, 2011 for spying for Tajikistan. Based on the reasons mentioned above, Sanzhar Ismailov’s case cannot be considered without analyzing the political background.

Facts of violations

Sanzhar Ismailov was arrested by the National Security Service (SNB) on June 29, 2005 and placed in a SNB detention center without bringing any charges. That day first SNB representatives invited Ismailov to the SNB Central Office for an allegedinterview about his admission to the High School under the President of Uzbekistan. However, when Ismailov arrived in the SNB building,he was interrogated by the SNB, and then his apartment was searched. No evidences were foundto bring charges against him. When Ismailov was interrogated and his house was searched, no lawyerwas provided although the Uzbek law provides possibility for a lawyer to attend such investigative actions. The same day Ismailov was arrested and placed in an SNB detention facility without being brought any charges against him.

July 1, 2005 Ismailov was given an investigator’s resolution to institute criminal proceedings against him as a defendant. That day, Ismailov’s relatives hired lawyer Kharyakov I.S. to protect his interests. However, the SNB investigator did not allow lawyer Kharyakov I.S. to access the case to defend Ismailovreferring to the secret nature of the criminal case thus ​​violating Article 116 of the Constitution and criminal procedure rules of the Uzbekistanlegislation. The SNB investigator provided a lawyer, one of his friends, to protect Ismailov’s interests.

The given lawyer met with Ismailovonly twice. He did not attend investigative activities, but signed all the investigative documents after the preliminary investigation. Thus, the prosecution limited Ismailov’s constitutional and procedural rights to appeal against the proceedings and resolutions, including the illegal detention as he did not have an opportunity to meet with the lawyer he chose to prepare relevant complaints. Only during the trial, Ismailov’s lawyer was granted access to the case to defendhis interests in the court. Thus, the prosecution violated the right to a counsel for the defence.

The preliminary investigation and the trial against Ismailov were conducted with gross violations of the procedural rulesas well of Ismailov’s constitutional and procedural rights. Psychological pressure was used against Ismailov. As a result he was forced to criminate himself. In particular, Ismailov’s apartment was searched five times without prosecutor’s order as well as homes of his close relatives. During the searches, the SNB put psychological pressure on his relatives by means of threats, forcing Ismailov to criminate himself to avoid further pressure on his relatives. Ismailov’s appeal mentioned other facts of psychological pressure exercised by the investigation, including attempts of the SNB to prevent his sister’s departure for the United States for permanent residence and property confiscation (the apartment and the car).

SNB officers searched Ismailov’s wife’scar and confiscated the car asserting that the car would be returned after her husband confessed that he had been engaged in espionage for a foreign state, and disclose his codename. Thus, Ismailov was forced to admit his guilt in order to stop pressure on his family. On March 17, 2006, April 23, 2007 and May 10, 2007, the Uzbek prosecutor’s office rejected Ismailov’s complaint about psychological pressure and threats against him.According to the documents contained in the case file, the allegations about the psychological pressure on Mr. Ismailov and his family were made in the court in the appeal dated February 5, 2007.

The allegations about the pressure and threats against Ismailov investigating authority were not considered on the meritsand were rejected by the Military Court of Uzbekistan (Court of the First Instance) and the Trial Chamber of the Military Court. During the trial, Ismailov stated that as a result of the psychological pressure and threats, he was forced to criminate himself. However, the court ignored his statement and announced a guilty verdict based only on his false confessions.

Witnesses, who could testify in favor of Ismailov, were not questioned during the preliminary investigation, the court trial and the appeal court. In particular, in his appeal Ismailov asked for interrogation of citizens of the Russian Federation V.V.Korabelnikov, N.N.Bobkin, S.V.Shcherbakovas well as citizens of the Republic of Uzbekistan A. Strokov A.,P.G. Merzlov, V.E Kuzmin and N.M. Bondar. The court justified its refusal to question witnessesclaiming that the criminal case had sufficient evidence of Ismailov’s guilt. In particular, the courts refused to summoncitizens of the Russian Federation for state of the evidence, whom Ismailov allegedly passed state secrets.

Sanzhar Ismailov’s guilt was not determined on both articles of the Criminal Code he was charged with. He did not betray state secrets to representatives of Russia. As part of his official duties and on the basis of the intergovernmental agreement between Uzbekistan and Russia, as well as between the member countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization,he applied to the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forcesthrough an official letter from the Ministry of Defence of Uzbekistan with a request to provide assistance in deciphering conversations of Afghan Taliban intercepted by representative of the UzbekIntelligence on the border between Uzbekistan and Afghanistan.

After obtaining consent of the Russian colleagues, Ismailov passed records to be deciphered to representatives of the Russian Embassy in Tashkent during formal meetings with them in the building of the Ministry of Defence. Ismailov’s supervisors were aware of these steps and provided their approvals. As for the charges of illegal possession of ammunition, Ismailov was forced to confess that he “stored” 30 practice cartridgesin his apartment only after numerous threats and pressure against his family members from the SNB.

Consideration of Sanzhar Ismailov’s case by the Uzbek authorities

The Military Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan (court of first instance) delivered its guilty verdict against Sanzhar Ismailov on January 26, 2006 and found him guilty of crimes under Article 157 “High treason” and Article 248 “Illegal possession of ammunition” of the Criminal Code of Uzbekistan. On 22 February, 2007, the judicial board of the Military Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan (the court of cassation) did not change the guilty verdict of the Military Court of Uzbekistan against Ismailov, and his cassation appeal was dismissed.

Furthermore, Gavhar Ismailova, Sanzhar Ismailov’s mother, and his wife Natalia Bondar repeatedly submitted written complaints to the Office of the President of Uzbekistan (the executive body of the head of the state), which were forwarded for consideration to the Public Prosecutor of Uzbekistan. The prosecutor’s office, without examining the complaints of Gavhar Ismailova and Natalia Bondar, sent replies which lacked arguments about lawfulness of Ismailov’s detention and conviction. In September 2007, Gavhar Ismailova sent a complaint to the Office of the President, which was forwarded to the SNB and then to the Military Court of Uzbekistan for consideration and response to the applicant.

However, the Military Court did not consider the complaint and did not providea response to Gavhar Ismailova, although she repeatedly appealed to the Office of the President in November and December 2007. Not having received answers from the President’s Office and the Military Court, in December 2007 Gavhar Ismailova appealed to the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan, which rejected her appeal for a retrial. Ismailov’s wife Natalia Bondar repeatedly but unsuccessfully tried to file a complaint to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation and the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation as well as to the Ambassador of the Russian Federation in Uzbekistan for assistance.

Appeal to the UN Human Rights Committee:

Having exhausted their possibilities in all major official institutions of Uzbekistan to restore justice in regard to Ismailov’s case and not having received a positive result, his family members filed a complaint on behalf of Ismailov to the UN Human Rights Committee in 2008 (the official number of complaints filed and accepted for review by the UN Committee is Message № 1769/2008”, Natalia Bondar against Uzbekistan, CCPR/C/101/D/1769/2008).

After receiving formal responses from the Uzbekistan Government and the response of the complainant, the UN Committee issued its decision on the complaint in April 2011. According to the Committee, the Uzbek Government violated Sanzhar Ismailov’s rights according to paragraphs (2) and (3) of Article 9 and subparagraphs (b), (d) and (e) of paragraph 3 of Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

[Paragraphs (2) and (3) of Article 9 of the Covenant: 2. Anyone arrested shall be informed about reasons for his/her arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him/her. 3.Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by the law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released. Detention of persons awaiting trial shall not be the general rule, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear in the court, to appear for trial at any other stage and in case of need to appear for execution of the judgment].

[Subparagraphs (b), (d) and (e) of paragraph 3 of article 14 of the Covenant: 3. Everyone has the right to consideration of any criminal charge against him/heron the basis of full equality to the following minimum guarantees: b) to have adequate time and possibilities to prepare his/her defense and to communicate with the counsel of his/her own choice; d) to betried in his/her presence and to defend himself/herself in person or through legal assistance of his/her own choice; if he/she does not have legal assistance, to be informed of this right and to have appointed counsel for him/her in any case where the interests of justice require and free of charge in case he/she does not have enough money to pay for a counsel; e) to interrogate the witnesses who testify against him/her or to have the right to ensure that the witnesses are interrogated, and to have the right to summon and examine witnesses on the same conditions as witnesses who testify against him/her;].

The UN Committee considers that the State party has an obligation to provide Sanzhar Ismailov effective remedy at law. The state party must also consider a retrial possibility in accordance with all the guarantees enshrined in the Covenant or a release as well as adequate indemnification, including compensation. The State party must take measures to prevent similar violations in the future. The UN Committee also demanded that within 180 days the Uzbekistan Government provides information on the measures that have been taken to implement the Committee’s decision regarding Ismailov’s complaint. The Uzbekistan Government has not complied yet the committee’s decision in regard to Ismailov’s case.

What happened next revealed shameless lies and total disregard of the Uzbek Government in relation to the UN human rights institutions. In the period from 2012 through 2013, there have been several rounds of formal correspondences with questions and answers, comments and explanations between the author of the individual complaint on behalf of Sanzhar Ismailov (his wife Natalia Bondar) and the Uzbekistan Government by the mediation of the UN Human Rights Committee. The subject of the formal correspondences was the decision of the UN Committee on the case of Sanzhar Ismailov and implementation of the Committee’s recommendations by the Government.

The individual complaint on behalf of Sanzhar Ismailov to the UN Human Rights Committee was registered and approved for consideration by the Committee on 12 March 2008. The Committee made decisions in April 2011 having admitted violation against Sanzhar Ismailov by Uzbekistan Government and having addressed the Government a number of specific recommendations for restoration of justice regarding the case of Sanzhar Ismailov, including the urgent review of his case and his release. It has already been exactly six years since the individual complaint in regard to Sanzhar Ismailov’s case reached the UN Committee and exactly three years since the UN Committee issued its decision in favor of Sanzhar Ismailov.

The fact that the Uzbek Government has not implemented the recommendations of the UN Committee in regard to Sanzhar Ismailov’s case and apparently, unfortunately, does not intend to carry them outcan be considered inappropriate, and affects the competence of the Committee. The foregoing shows that the state party delay implementation of the Committee’s decision. The state party will not meet its obligations without effective UN intervention.

In fact, the Uzbek Government repeats the following illogical argumentsin all its official comments in response to questions from the Committee on the results of individual complaint in regard to Sanzhar Ismailov’s case in a very rude and almost mocking manner:

The Government of Uzbekistan believes that Sanzhar Ismailov has not exhausted domestic remedies at law and thus Sanzhar Ismailov has no right to address his complaint to international bodies, that is, to the UN Committee without having exhausted domestic remedies at law. This statement of the Government is not true to the facts. Based on the complaints and appeals to various authorities in Uzbekistan, the UN Committee established in 2011 at its 101stsession that the legal remedies of Sanzhar Ismailov have been exhausted. Sanzhar Ismailov as well as his wife Natalia Bondar and his mother Gavhar Ismailova repeatedly complained to the Office of the President, the Prosecutor General, the Supreme Court, the Military Court and the Ombudsman of Uzbekistan (copies of official statements and responses of these government agencies have been attached to the individual complaint in regard to Sanzhar Ismailov’s case numbered 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24 and 25).

It is difficult to understand how the Government dared to declare that Sanzhar Ismailov has not exhausted all the domestic legal remedies after so many official requests and in many cases after repeated appeals to the same government agencies. In addition, the Government argues that the claims and requests for repeal of a sentence provided in the complaint to the UN Committee have not been reviewed in the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan on the merits. As regards this, the response from the Supreme Court on the submitted application was attached to the complaint of Sanzhar Ismailov’s case.

In its official response, the Uzbek Government also alleges that Sanzhar Ismailov while appealing against the actions of law enforcement and the judicial system of Uzbekistan builds his argument on the basis of the provisions of the domestic legislation of Uzbekistan, and not the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), therefore the Committee should dismiss Ismailov’s complaints. By making this statement, the Government simply is not willing to admit that the UN Committee has already accepted for consideration and has considered the complaint in regard to Ismailov’s case.

In fact there are regulations of the domestic law and those of the ICCPRin the complaint reviewed by the Committee, and the Government cannot claim that the domestic legislation contradicts the international one as all legislative acts of the Republic of Uzbekistan, including the Constitution, proclaims the primacy of the international law over the national law. All the violations committed by the Uzbekistan Government in regard to Sanzhar Ismailov are subject to the relevant paragraphs of the ICCPR as determined by the resolution about the complaint in regard to Ismailov’s case.

In its official responses, the Uzbek Government claims that the legal arguments and factual information in the complaint of Sanzhar Ismailov are not sufficient for the UN Committee’s consideration. Ismailov’s complaint was filed in full compliance with the ICCPR, bulletin № 7 of the Committee (the Committee individual complaints procedures), all copies for all necessary documents were attached for the Committee’s consideration, and the Committee has made ​​its decision on the complaint of Ismailov; and it is not entirely clear to us what according to the Uzbek Government will be sufficient to submit the case the UN Committee.

The Uzbek Government indicates that the arguments presented in the complaint of Ismailov failed to prove that the assessment of the facts of the judicial system and legal interpretations were arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. The court verdict and decisions were submitted to the Committee in regard to Ismailov’s case, and the Committee found out that the sentence was made on the basis of self-incrimination as stated in the cassation appeal, but that was rejected by the Military Court and the Panel of Judges of the Military Court without consideration on the merits.

Also, it is necessary to pay attention to the position of Sanzhar Ismailov’s counsel in the appealfor cassation, in which he asks to justify his client for lack of corpus delicti (in the past, the lawyer used to work as a judge and the deputy chairman of the Military Court, in other words, he was a judge of highest category). But the courts, both of the first instance and the court of cassation, took the side of the prosecution. The Supreme Court took the same position. Thus the sentence remains unchanged, and the complaintsremain without satisfaction, which means arbitrarinessand denial of justice.

The Government argues that in the complaint, Sanzhar Ismailov urges the Committee to conduct trial not according to the ICCPR terms and tries to force the Committee to act as a “fourth instance”, applying domestic legislation of Uzbekistan. As the Committee is not engaged in study of specific criminal cases, the individual complaint in regard of Ismailov’s casesubmitted to the Committee did not contain materials of the criminal case, but the documents and evidences related to the violations committed by the Government proven by both the domestic law and the international standards. The Committee, in turn, did not have a trial during its 101stsession, but established the presence or absence of violations of the ICCPR regulations in Ismailov’s case.

Having found out the Sanzhar Ismailov’s rights were violated, the Committee made the decision, which obliges the state party “to consider a retrial possibility in accordance with all the guarantees enshrined in the Covenantor release as well as adequate indemnification, including compensation”.In connection with the mentioned above and given that the state party has recognized the competence of the Committee by having acceded to the Optional Protocol,we believe that the responses of the Government of Uzbekistan are not substantiated.

Moreover, rejecting the arguments in the individual complaint in regard to Sanzhar Ismailov’s case, the Government refers to the criminal case against Ismailov, but says nothing about the absence of the following facts:

a) lack defense witnesses;

b) lack of proceedings in respect of psychological pressure against Ismailov and his relatives;

c) why when Ismailov refused his confessions, the court ignored this fact and issued a judgment solely on the basis of his confession obtained by psychological pressure and threats during the preliminary investigation;

d) why the episodes which were not confirmed during the trial were included in the indictment;

e) why the criminal case has the appeal of the lawyer only about return of personal belongings, but does not have other appeals (all appeals made by the lawyer and family members which were not accepted by the investigation and the judge were submitted to the Committee);

f) why when Sanzhar Ismailov was arrested as a suspect on June 29, 2005, he was not told what he was suspected of;

g) why did the lawyer chosen by the SNB investigator, not the one hired by Sanzhar Ismailov’s relatives act as the counsel (not to have Sanzhar Ismailov defenseless, his relatives were forced to sign a contract and pay fee to imposed lawyer Umerzakov), and why did the court admit the lawyer hired by Ismailov’s relatives only in the court.

The responses of the Uzbek Government make it obvious that the Government does not intend to implement the recommendations of the Committee. The Government will not review the criminal case as an independent court will recognize the innocence of her husband and that the case was fabricated. That is why the state party replies beside the point in its responses and refers to non-existent arguments.

Sanzhar Ismailov’s current situation

Meanwhile, family members of Sanzhar Ismailov are seriously concerned about his fate in the penitentiary system of Uzbekistan. They believe that the Uzbek authorities are deliberately acting in a way so that Sanzhar Ismailov is not granted annual amnesties, so that his family members are not engaged in active protection of his rights and do not raise questions about the legality and fairness of the court verdict in regard to his case. Ismailov’s wife Natalia Bondar believes that the persecution of her husband and non-use of annualamnesties indicate the intention of the state party to delay Ismailov’s release from prison. In her letter dated April 15, 2010 addressed to the UN Human Rights Committee, Natalia Bondar claimed that her husband is still persecuted by not applying annualamnesties, putting psychological and physical pressure on him, refusing access to quality health care and worsening detention conditions.

On March 24, 2010, Ismailov was transferred from Prison in Bekabad № 64/21 to Tashkent prison № 62/1. On April 9, 2010, he was transferred to colony № 64/ 71 in the town of Zhaslyq (Karakalpakstan). Prison Zhaslyqis notorious for the worst attitude to and conditions for prisoners. The transfer of Ismailov to Zhaslyq confirms the intention of the authoritiesto worsen the conditions of his detention. Then Ismailov’s mother and wife decided to visit him and arrived to Zhaslyq. There they were forced to wait for two days and then they were told that they could not visit Ismailov as he was put into solitary confinement for violation of the internal regulations of the colony.

In its official response to the letter of the UN Committee on Human Rights and comments to Sanzhar Ismailov’s wife, the Uzbek Government reported hitherto the details about Ismailov’s situation in detention are unknown (the official letter from the Government dated 21 August 2013). It is common knowledge that the penitentiary system of Uzbekistan is closed for any independent observers, and often for family members of prisoners, too. Therefore, such information always arouses interest. Indeed, in its reply, the Government asserts the following:

“While serving his sentence, convicted S. Ismailov has not made appropriate conclusions for himself, has not followed yet the path for recovery, has repeatedly violated and violates the routine and the internal rules of the facilityand has been a persistent violator of the penitentiary service regime. According to the provisions of annual resolutions of the Senate of the Oliy Majlis of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On Amnesty…”, amnesties are not applied to persons, who systematically violate the punishment regime, moreover violators of the detention regime, in accordance with the requirements of current legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan, are not subject to humane acts (such as parole or replacement of punishment by more lenient punishment). At the moment, convict S. Ismailov has three outstanding disciplinary penalties (the last one dated May 5, 2013), his behavior is not improving, and therefore humane acts are not applicable for him.

When S. Ismailov transferred to the penitentiaryfacility, he had complete comprehensive medical examination, clinical and biochemical laboratory tests, ultrasonic scanning of internal organs, X-ray, chest fluorography, electrocardiography, ultrasound examination of other internal organs, etc. …At the moment, according to medical professionals,the status of his health is satisfactory.”

Currently Ismailov is serving his sentence in the colony in Bekabad. On April 5, 2014 Ismailov’s wife arrived for a short visit with her husband. She also wanted to give him a parcel. But she was not allowed to see him and her parcel was not accepted. She was told that he was put into solitary confinement again. According to the rules of the penitentiary system of Uzbekistan, annual amnesties are not granted to those prisoners, who have been put into solitary confinement. This is the best case. And in the worst case, in practice what happens, before the release at the end of the sentence a new criminal case is fabricated against the prisoner, who is accused then of disobeying the prison administration, and as a result, his sentence is extended to five years, and ad infinitum. Considering the politicalunderlying reasonand that Ismailov’s criminal casewas framed, unfortunately such a scenario could become real for him.

For nearly nine years, the Ismailovs have not been able to get justice in the legal field of Uzbekistan, and it is obvious today that the Government of Uzbekistan does not recognize the decision of the UN Committee on Human Rights, which obliges Uzbekistanto execute the UN decision. Rather than accepting the competence of the UN Committee and starting implementation of its recommendations, the Uzbek Government questions the competence of the Committee and ignores its decision in regard to Sanzhar Ismailov’s case. The family members of Ismailov are running out of patience. They fear that the pointless continuation of the correspondence with the Uzbek government on the decision of the Committee and attempts to have the Government change its position may only set the Government against Sanzhar Ismailov, irritate the Government and lead to negative consequences for Sanzhar Ismailov and his family members.

In connection with the mentioned above, “Fiery Hearts Club” International Human Rights Organization asks the UN Committee on Human Rights, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to reassess all the accumulated documentation regarding the case of Sanzhar Ismailov, and finally begin to uphold the decision of the Committee so that the Uzbek Government implements the decision. I still hope that the UN will be able to find an efficient tool to influence the Uzbek Government.

We ask you to inform us about your further actions regarding the case of Sanzhar Ismailov.

Thank you in advance.

Sincerely,

Mutabar Tadjibayeva,

Head of “Fiery Hearts Club”
International Human Rights Organization