Amnesty Plan for Civil War Combatants
Amnesty Plan for Civil War Combatants
After a former opposition leader called for a blanket amnesty for combatants in Tajikistan’s 1992-97 civil war, NBCentralAsia experts say that only militia leaders field commanders who did not commit crimes against civilians should have their convictions quashed.
On March 13, Hoji Akbar Turajonzoda, who was a leading figure in the United Tajik Opposition, UTO, when it was at war with the government, announced that he had petitioned President Imomali Rahmonov to grant an amnesty to combatants who are currently in jail.
The civil war claimed up to 100,000 lives as the Islamic opposition confronted a secular government, in a conflict drawn along regional lines. A peace agreement was signed in 1997, but there was no blanket amnesty. Turajonzoda argues that without this, it is hard to say peace and harmony have been fully restored. He wants a special commission to look into the possibility of an amnesty.
Apart from rank-and-file combatants, about ten 10 opposition field commanders are currently in prison, most notably Democratic Party leader Mahmadruzi Iskandarov, who was sentenced to 23 years imprisonment in 2005.
Political scientist Parviz Mullojanov believes that a total amnesty for those involved in military and political aspects of the civil war is long overdue. Amnesties are common practice in other post-conflict situations, and Mullojanov blames the UTO leaders themselves for not securing it during the peace talks that brought the conflict to a close.
“The clause on amnesty in the peace accords was somewhat declaratory and the actual mechanisms were never agreed in detail,” he said.
At the same time, Mullojanov recognises that granting amnesty to individuals accused of mass crimes against civilians would be problematic. He noted that these controversial cases might include people who engaged in violence against civilians during the conflict’s initial and most brutal phase, from December 1992 to February 1993.
Abdugani Mamadazimov, head of the National Association of Political Scientists, agreed that it would be wrong to gloss over the past, given the tragic events of the civil war.
“I would back a differentiated, case-by-case approach,” he said.
It is too early to say whether Turajonzoda’s initiative will go anywhere. According to Mullojanov, it is convenient for the authorities to keep criminal cases open against former UTO leaders, since that gives a degree of control over them.
(News Briefing Central Asia draws comment and analysis from a broad range of political observers across the region.)
On March 13, Hoji Akbar Turajonzoda, who was a leading figure in the United Tajik Opposition, UTO, when it was at war with the government, announced that he had petitioned President Imomali Rahmonov to grant an amnesty to combatants who are currently in jail.
The civil war claimed up to 100,000 lives as the Islamic opposition confronted a secular government, in a conflict drawn along regional lines. A peace agreement was signed in 1997, but there was no blanket amnesty. Turajonzoda argues that without this, it is hard to say peace and harmony have been fully restored. He wants a special commission to look into the possibility of an amnesty.
Apart from rank-and-file combatants, about ten 10 opposition field commanders are currently in prison, most notably Democratic Party leader Mahmadruzi Iskandarov, who was sentenced to 23 years imprisonment in 2005.
Political scientist Parviz Mullojanov believes that a total amnesty for those involved in military and political aspects of the civil war is long overdue. Amnesties are common practice in other post-conflict situations, and Mullojanov blames the UTO leaders themselves for not securing it during the peace talks that brought the conflict to a close.
“The clause on amnesty in the peace accords was somewhat declaratory and the actual mechanisms were never agreed in detail,” he said.
At the same time, Mullojanov recognises that granting amnesty to individuals accused of mass crimes against civilians would be problematic. He noted that these controversial cases might include people who engaged in violence against civilians during the conflict’s initial and most brutal phase, from December 1992 to February 1993.
Abdugani Mamadazimov, head of the National Association of Political Scientists, agreed that it would be wrong to gloss over the past, given the tragic events of the civil war.
“I would back a differentiated, case-by-case approach,” he said.
It is too early to say whether Turajonzoda’s initiative will go anywhere. According to Mullojanov, it is convenient for the authorities to keep criminal cases open against former UTO leaders, since that gives a degree of control over them.
(News Briefing Central Asia draws comment and analysis from a broad range of political observers across the region.)
