TAJIKISTAN: ARBITRARY DETENTION OF THREE HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYERS

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. 19/2024 concerning Faromuz Irgashov, Khursandsho Mamadshoev and Manuchehr Kholiknazarov, asking the Government of Tajikistan to immediately and unconditionally release Faromuz Irgashov, Khursandsho Mamadshoev and Manuchehr Kholiknazarov and to accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations in accordance with international law.

Read the full WGAD Opinion concerning Faromuz Irgashov, Khursandsho Mamadshoev and Manuchehr Kholiknazarov (Tajikistan): Opinion No. 19/2024.

THREE HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYERS ARRESTED

Faromuz Irgashov, Khursandsho Mamadshoev and Manuchehr Kholiknazarov are all citizens of Tajikistan and human rights lawyers. Mr. Irgashov is also a member of the Pamiri Lawyers’ Association and a former Member of Parliament in Kŭhistoni Badakhshon Autonomous Province. Mr. Mamadshoev is a representative of the Pamiri minority and a member of the Pamiri Lawyers’ Association. Finally, Mr. Kholiknazarov is the Director of the Pamiri Lawyers’ Association and a member of various platforms such as the Civil Society Coalition against Torture and Impunity in Tajikistan, the Public Council on Police Reform and the Coalition on Housing Rights.

The three lawyers were all members of the Commission 44, which is a group of 44 representatives of civil society and government bodies created to investigate the alleged excessive use of force by the police after the repression of the mass protests following the death of a local Indigenous Pamiri resident in Kŭhistoni Badakhshon Autonomous Province.

As they were at the initiative of an informal meeting concerning Commission 44, the three human rights lawyers were arrested, among other members of the Commission, by agents from the Khorugh Prosecutor's Office, the State Committee for National Security and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Finally, they were all sentenced to prison, respectively 29 years for M. Irgashov, 18 years for M. Mamadshoev and 16 years for M. Kholiknazarov.

The Government of Tajikistan was given the opportunity to answer these allegations, which it did on 1 December 2023.

ARRESTED WITHOUT WARRANT

Prior to their arrests, the three lawyers had not been issued with an arrest warrant. Instead, the government of Tajikistan made Mr Mamadshoev and Mr Kholiknazarov sign a copy of the records of arrest, which they did. However, the Working Group's jurisprudence has made a distinction between an arrest warrant and a record of arrest. A record of arrest may not be considered as a valid judicial declaration of authorizing police to arrest an individual. In consequence, the arrest of Mr. Irgashov, Mr. Mamadshoev or Mr. Kholiknazarov violated the article 9 of the Covenant as they were not aware of the reasons of their arrests.

Therefore, the Working Group found that the arrests and detentions of the three individuals were all arbitrary under category I, as they lacked any legal basis.

DEPRIVED OF THEIR RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND ASSEMBLY

The source alleged that the detention of Mr. Irgashov, Mr. Mamadshoev and Mr. Kholiknazarov was related to their activities as human rights lawyers, especially for their work in the Commission 44. The Government denied these allegations.

However, the Working Group stressed that the human rights and media freedom situation in Tajikistan was under severe repression as recorded by various international organisations such as the European Union and the United Nations. Indeed, Tajikistan authorities have a pattern of using vague and general reference to serious crimes to submit charges of extremism and terrorism, specifically against human rights activists.

In the light of these information, the Government had to demonstrate that these arrestations carried solid legal basis, which it failed to do. Thus, the Working Group found that the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly of the three individuals guaranteed by the articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant, were violated.

Therefore, the Working Group found that the arrest and detention of Mr. Irgashov, Mr. Mamadshoev and Mr. Kholiknazarov were arbitrary under category II.

VIOLATION OF THEIR RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS

The source alleged that the three lawyers were tried before a non-independent and partial tribunal. The Working Group stressed that, according to the well-established reports of international organisations, the independence of the judiciary system in Tajikistan was not respected as it is operating under the control of the executive branch. The Government of Tajikistan failed to challenge these findings. In consequence, the Working Group found the violation of the article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (1) of the Covenant, as the individuals were not tried by an independent and impartial tribunal.

Furthermore, the trials of the three individuals were closed to public and media. This has not been contested by the Government of Tajikistan. Thus, the Working Group found the violation of the article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (1) of the Covenant, as the WGAD recalled that any individual shall be able to defend his case in a public hearing which was not the case here.

Also, the source alleged that Mr. Irgashov, Mr. Mamadshoev and Mr. Kholiknazarov had some difficulties to communicate with their lawyers and so to prepare their defence. These allegations are reinforced by the various reports stating that lawyers are intimidated in Tajikistan, even if the Government contested that. The individuals were also prevented from communicating with their families as well as with independent medical personnel and lawyers. By doing so, the Government of Tajikistan violated their right to due process. Thus, the Working Group found a violation of the articles 9 (1) and 14 (1) and (3) (b) of the Covenant and articles 3, 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Therefore, the Working Group found that the arrests and detentions of the three lawyers were all arbitrary under category III, as they gravely violated the detainees’ fair trial rights and due process.

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS

The source alleged that the arrest and detention of the three individuals was due to their activities as Human Rights defenders, which the government denied. However, according to reports from international organisations, it has been shown that there is a pattern of repression against Human Rights defenders in the country that has not been sufficiently denied by the government.

Thus, in relation to the demonstration concerning category II, the Working Group considered that Mr. Irgashov, Mr. Mamadshoev and Mr. Kholiknazarov were detained discriminatorily on the basis of political or other opinion, which violated  articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant.

Therefore, the Working Group found that the arrests and detentions of the three human rights lawyers were all arbitrary under category V.

CONCLUSIONS OF THE UN WORKING GROUP AGAINST ARBITRARY DETENTION

In light of the foregoing, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention considered that the detention of Faromuz Irgashov, Khursandsho Mamadshoev and Manuchehr Kholiknazarov was arbitrary and fell under categories I, II, III and V because the deprivation of liberty of Faromuz Irgashov, Khursandsho Mamadshoev and Manuchehr Kholiknazarov was in contravention of articles 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11 (1) and 29 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1), 3 (b) and (d), 9 (1), (2) and (4), 14 (1), 19 (2) 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 situation of Faromuz Irgashov, Khursandsho Mamadshoev and Manuchehr Kholiknazarov  without delay and bring it into conformity with the relevant international norms. The Working group considered that, taking into account all circumstances of the case, the appropriate remedy would be to release them immediately and accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law.