Earlier this year, Uzbekistan found itself at the centre of international human rights organisations’ attention following a series of alarming events within the country’s judicial system. A closed military trial held in Tashkent sparked concerns among human rights activists, who claim that the verdict was based on testimonies obtained through unacceptable interrogation methods.
Against this backdrop, Uzbekistan’s judiciary has been under intense international scrutiny over the past two months. The catalyst for this attention is the case involving an alleged assassination attempt on Komil Allamjonov — a powerful businessman and former senior official in the presidential administration.
To better understand the situation, we spoke with Radha Stirling, a prominent lawyer and human rights advocate specialising in human rights issues in the Middle East and Central Asia. According to her, this case is a stark indicator of the deep-rooted problems within Uzbekistan’s judicial system, where pressure from the authorities and a lack of transparency remain significant barriers to meaningful reform.
European Interest: Radha, why has the Komil Allamjonov case attracted such attention from human rights organisations?
Radha Stirling: This case highlights the systemic issues facing Uzbekistan’s judiciary. The defendants, Shukhrat Rasulov and Javlon Yunusov, claimed in court that their confessions were extracted under intense pressure during harsh interrogations. The investigation was conducted by a task force comprising officers from Uzbekistan’s State Security Service (SSB), the Prosecutor’s Office, and the Main Department of Internal Affairs (GUVD) of the Uzbek capital. This department has been implicated in several cases involving harsh interrogation methods and, according to reports from human rights organisations, has a record of fabricating criminal cases. This is unacceptable if the Uzbek authorities were genuinely seeking to uncover the true motives behind the unusual attempt on the life of such an influential figure — a former senior member of the presidential administration, Allamjonov.
Notably, at a certain point, the investigation and the suspects were transferred from the State Security Service to the Main Department of Internal Affairs, since one of the suspects, Shukhrat Rasulov, had previously served in the SSB.
It’s important to highlight that the convicted individuals believe the verdict was fabricated and have filed an appeal against the decision of the closed military court.
European Interest: Does this suggest that certain forces were unhappy with how the SSB conducted the investigation and sought to expose it?
Radha Stirling: It appears so. The interrogations of Shukhrat Rasulov were later handled by officers from Tashkent’s Main Department of Internal Affairs. According to our monitoring group, the process was overseen by senior officials from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and GUVD. Specifically, Saidakbar Pulatov and Mansur Mirkhamidov from the GUVD were reportedly involved in overseeing the investigation.
European Interest: The case materials mention potential violations during the investigation. What are the international standards in such cases?
Radha Stirling: International norms require a thorough investigation of such allegations. Amnesty International and the UN Committee Against Torture have already documented cases of harsh treatment of detainees in Uzbekistan. According to reports, between 2010 and 2013 alone, there were 336 complaints of torture and pressure, but only six cases made it to court. These figures speak for themselves. The lack of effective oversight by independent monitors allows harsh interrogation methods to remain part of the system.
European Interest: What could be the consequences of this case for Uzbekistan’s international standing?
Radha Stirling: Human rights organisations usually pursue such cases to their conclusion and engage international bodies and governments. This could lead to serious repercussions. For instance, in 2004, photos and testimonies of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison sparked an international scandal and severely damaged the reputation of the United States. The situation in Uzbekistan could develop along similar lines if corrective measures are not taken. Discussions are already underway about the potential imposition of personal sanctions under the Magnitsky Act against several Uzbek officials. Notably, Uzbekistan is already represented on the Magnitsky list by Gulnara Karimova, the daughter of the late Uzbek president. Several law enforcement officials are also named.
Additionally, the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has added three former Uzbek officials to the Magnitsky list, accusing them of sexual crimes against residents of a charitable institution in Urgench.
European Interest: Reports suggest that international organisations may push for sanctions. How realistic is this scenario?
Radha Stirling: Western countries have so far avoided taking tough measures against Uzbekistan, but the situation is changing. Official appeals are already being submitted to the US Congress, the State Department, the UK Foreign Office, and EU institutions. If sanctions are imposed, Uzbek security officials could face asset freezes, travel bans to Western countries, and blocked bank accounts. This would be the first time Uzbekistan could face personal accountability for the fabrication of criminal cases.
European Interest: What aspects of Uzbekistan’s law enforcement practices require particular attention?
Radha Stirling: In recent years, Uzbekistan has seen a rise in the number of convictions. For example, in 2019, 6,955 people were sentenced to imprisonment; by 2022, this figure had risen to 17,610. The number of life sentences increased from zero in 2019 to 11 by March 2023. These figures reflect a growing trend of repressive measures within the country’s criminal justice system.
Moreover, the notorious 7th Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and GUVD of Tashkent has been implicated in several cases involving abuse of power and harsh interrogation methods. One of the most shocking cases involved the death of Donierbek Usmanov, who died after interrogations in 2023. Notably, Mansur Mirkhamidov’s name surfaced in this case as well. An independent examination revealed numerous injuries, but the criminal case against law enforcement officers was closed.
European Interest: What steps could be taken to minimise such risks in the future?
Radha Stirling: The key step is independent oversight of investigative bodies and judicial processes. International monitors should be granted access to oversee criminal cases involving potential human rights violations. Moreover, implementing reforms in the law enforcement system and increasing transparency in investigations could significantly improve the situation.
European Interest: How do you think the international community will respond to the current situation?
Radha Stirling: If the situation continues to unfold in this direction, we could expect not only sanctions but also increased diplomatic pressure on Uzbekistan. History shows that countries facing such challenges either undertake reforms or face international isolation. Much now depends on the path Uzbekistan’s authorities choose to take. Ignoring these problems could lead to reputational and economic consequences.
