Uzbek Photographer Convicted as Warning to Others
Court issues guilty verdict after accepting “comical” evidence that photos libelled Uzbekistan.
Uzbek Photographer Convicted as Warning to Others
Court issues guilty verdict after accepting “comical” evidence that photos libelled Uzbekistan.
A leading human rights activist in Uzbekistan has condemned the conviction of photographer Umida Ahmedova on charges of defaming the entire nation.
On February 10, Ahmedova was convicted of two criminal charges of “libelling and insulting the people of Uzbekistan”, on the basis of pictures and video depicting life in the countryside.
The prosecution’s case was based on the findings of a specially-convened committee which took a dislike to Ahmedova’s visual portrayals of rural parts of Uzbekistan where living standards are universally low. (See Uzbek Authorities Move Against Top Photographer.
Some of the “libellous” material belongs to a published collection of Ahmedova’s photographs called "Women and Men from Dawn to Dusk”.
The judge freed Ahmedova immediately, arguing that she was eligible for amnesty.
Surat Ikramov, leader of the Initiative Group of Independent Human Rights Defenders, who attended the hearing, argues that the guilty verdict was intended as a warning to others not to step out of line. Also, he said, the judge could not have dismissed the case as that would have shown that the prosecution case had no foundation.
Ikramov shared his impressions of the trial in an interview for IWPR.
IWPR: How did the hearing go?
Ikramov: The trial took place on February 9, and sentence was passed the following evening. All requests submitted by Umida Ahmedova and her lawyer were dismissed.
The most comical aspect of it was that there were three so-called experts at the trial – the ones who had issued findings on Umida’s photo collections and [documentary] films and characterised them as “insulting”. Oddly enough, these experts were not professional photographers or documentary-makers and themselves admitted they were not well up on these matters.
However, this case was a set-up, so the experts were merely doing their jobs. There were no other witnesses at the hearing. The court probably decided there was no need.
I think the haste with which the verdict was reached can be explained by the worldwide furore this case had caused; the authorities got a bit worried. That was also apparent from the judge’s demeanour. As far as I could see, he was jumpy and uncomfortable.
IWPR: Why was this hearing held in public? Over the last year and a half, independent human rights defenders and journalists haven’t been allowed into many court hearings.
Ikramov: Public trial is prescribed for the offenses of libel and causing insult. The court was hoping that some truth to the accusations could be found, although it was obvious they didn’t believe that came out. The verdict was produced very rapidly.
IWPR: Why do you think Umida was amnestied immediately?
Ikramov: The amnesty does not cancel the guilty verdict, nor does it rehabilitate her…. It effectively means a court has found the defendant guilty but the state has forgiven her. Her lawyer insisted that she be acquitted for lack of evidence. The court failed to prove her guilty in a proper manner. After two 150-minute films made by Ahmedova were shown in court, the people in the courtroom applauded and said, “Excellent film”.
IWPR: What would have happened had Ahmedova been acquitted?
Ikramov: That would have been the end of the investigators and the prosecutor, as they would have been made responsible for fabricating a criminal case.
Although Umida was not held in custody, she has suffered moral and material damages that must be compensated. By the way, under Uzbek law, a person can amnestied only once, and if – God forbid – the authorities accuse her of anything again, she will not be eligible, and may face imprisonment.
IWPR: Many experts predicted that Umida’s trial would set a precedent, in other words provide an indication of the authorities’ future action against freethinking people and journalists. There was a view that this trial could mark the start of a war on dissidents. How would you describe it?
Ikramov: The war on dissidents in Uzbekistan will continue. The authorities want to indicate to people involved in culture and the arts intellectuals and artists that they should keep silent, that they should be fearful of producing work that depicts reality, and that they should not seek independence – just as happened in 1937 [peak of Stalin's terror].
The regime wants to put an end to independent activity even by people who aren’t involved in politics. So we have concerns about Ahmedova’s husband, who co-authors some of her works; and we are also worried about sports commentator Khairullo Hamidov, whose trial is due to begin very soon. [For more on Hamidov’s case, see Uzbek Sports Journalist Accused of Islamist Leanings.]
It’s a message to others – beware.
