Kyrgyzstan: Hopes for Stronger Anti-Torture Regulation
Analysts say mechanisms to prevent abuses must be overseen by independent institution.
Kyrgyzstan: Hopes for Stronger Anti-Torture Regulation
Analysts say mechanisms to prevent abuses must be overseen by independent institution.
Rights activists in Kyrgyzstan are hoping that stronger regulatory mechanisms will help bring an end to the use of torture against detainees.
Mistreatment in detention remains common, particularly in the initial stages of a criminal investigation when police are keen to obtain a confession and solve a case.
The Coalition Against Torture, an umbrella group of non-government organisations from Kazakstan and Tajikistan as well as Kyrgyzstan, has recorded 83 cases where torture has allegedly been used in Kyrgyzstan over the past three years. Of 59 cases recorded over one year, ending April 2008, 53 took place in police facilities.
Ikram Mameshov of the Kyrgyz human rights ombudsman’s office believes this is an underestimate. “There are a lot more unpublicised cases,” he said, adding that the problem was worst at district-level police stations.
“The period between the start of an investigation to the launch of criminal proceedings is the most dangerous,” he said. “That’s precisely the period when torture may be used against a detainee.”
There is a widespread public perception that such abuses are routine.
“My brother was beaten brutally by the police until he confessed,” said a man interviewed by IWPR who gave his first name as Valery, and insisted his brother was now in jail for a crime he did not commit. “You can pin anything on someone if you use torture.”
“Everyone knows that criminals buy their way out and live in contented liberty. But to get positive statistics showing that crimes are being solved, someone has to go to jail in place of the person who perpetrated the crime.”
As Mameshev points out, “Proving that torture has taken place is very difficult, as the police may say that any injuries were sustained when the [detainee] resisted, or that his cellmates assaulted him.”
Mameshev argues that apart from being highly unprofessional behaviour, the use of torture to coerce confessions reflects the police’s inability to gather evidence by other means.
“There are numerous DNA identification methods in the modern world, but we don’t have that technology in this country,” he said. “You have to go to neighbouring Kazakstan to get a DNA analysis done. And it’s the suspect’s relatives who have to pay for it in order to prove his innocence.”
Bakyt Seitov, spokesman for the interior ministry, which controls the uniformed police, told IWPR he was not aware of a single case where police had attempted to obtain a confession through violent means since Kyrgyzstan became independent in 1991.
Suspects are initially held in police custody, under the interior ministry’s jurisdiction, but they are placed in facilities called SIZOs at a later stage in the case, pending trial. These institutions, like penitentiaries, are run by the justice ministry.
Tabysh Mukaev, who heads the office for prisoners’ rights within the ministry’s penal affairs department, denies that torture occurs.
He told IWPR that following an internal inspection of prisons conducted in February, “I can say with authority that there is no torture in our agency.”
Mukaev said Kyrgyzstan’s penal system had changed radically in recent years, and was now much more publicly accountable. Previously, inspections were conducted once a year, but “now we are obliged to react instantly to any allegation that convicts’ rights have been violated, and relatives as well as convicts and their lawyers are able to bring such allegations”.
Overall, though policing and the penal system remain largely closed to public view.
Erns Japarov, coordinator of the Voice of Freedom foundation in Kyrgyzstan, says NGOs are commonly turned down when they ask to visit prisons, as there is no legal mechanism requiring the authorities to let them have access.
Legal experts hope that things will begin changing following Kyrgyzstan’s accession to an international agreement last year.
Kyrgyzstan has been a party to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment since 1996, and undertook additional obligations when it ratified the optional protocol to the document in February2008.
The additional protocol is intended to “establish a system of regular visits undertaken by independent international and national bodies” of places of detention.
As well as providing access to inspection teams from outside the country, Kyrgyz activists are hoping this will mean that local non-government representatives are allowed to visit prisons system and pre-trial facilities as a matter of course, so that all allegations of abuse are recorded, made public and properly dealt with.
“The preventive mechanism will allow civil society representatives unfettered access to closed institutions,” said Japarov. “This in turn will help increase accountability and professional standards in law-enforcement.”
The form that this national mechanism could take is still under discussion, and might consist of a national commission on torture, or an arrangement that people are calling “ombudsman-plus”. The latter idea would see the ombudsman working in tandem with regionally-based monitoring groups, brought together by a torture monitoring centre.
Although the ombudsman’s office in Kyrgyzstan is state-funded, it has proved itself an independent and critical voice. In February, for example, it produced a highly critical report of the way a demonstration last year was dealt with, detailing evidence that police denied detainees their rights and used violence to coerce confessions.
Tolekan Ismailova of the Citizens Against Corruption group argues that it is essential to configure the mechanism correctly, given the sensitivity of torture as an issue and Kyrgyzstan ‘s polarised political environment. She believes it will work only if it is entirely neutral while also securing buy-in from government and President Kurmanbek Bakiev.
As she put it, “The torture prevention institution must be independent of the state without being an enemy of the state.”
Mameshov, for one, is optimistic that mechanisms creating a greater level of public scrutiny could work wonders.
“If [police] investigators know their actions are being watched by civil society representatives, they will no longer be able to break the law with such impunity,” he said.
Mistreatment in detention remains common, particularly in the initial stages of a criminal investigation when police are keen to obtain a confession and solve a case.
The Coalition Against Torture, an umbrella group of non-government organisations from Kazakstan and Tajikistan as well as Kyrgyzstan, has recorded 83 cases where torture has allegedly been used in Kyrgyzstan over the past three years. Of 59 cases recorded over one year, ending April 2008, 53 took place in police facilities.
Ikram Mameshov of the Kyrgyz human rights ombudsman’s office believes this is an underestimate. “There are a lot more unpublicised cases,” he said, adding that the problem was worst at district-level police stations.
“The period between the start of an investigation to the launch of criminal proceedings is the most dangerous,” he said. “That’s precisely the period when torture may be used against a detainee.”
There is a widespread public perception that such abuses are routine.
“My brother was beaten brutally by the police until he confessed,” said a man interviewed by IWPR who gave his first name as Valery, and insisted his brother was now in jail for a crime he did not commit. “You can pin anything on someone if you use torture.”
“Everyone knows that criminals buy their way out and live in contented liberty. But to get positive statistics showing that crimes are being solved, someone has to go to jail in place of the person who perpetrated the crime.”
As Mameshev points out, “Proving that torture has taken place is very difficult, as the police may say that any injuries were sustained when the [detainee] resisted, or that his cellmates assaulted him.”
Mameshev argues that apart from being highly unprofessional behaviour, the use of torture to coerce confessions reflects the police’s inability to gather evidence by other means.
“There are numerous DNA identification methods in the modern world, but we don’t have that technology in this country,” he said. “You have to go to neighbouring Kazakstan to get a DNA analysis done. And it’s the suspect’s relatives who have to pay for it in order to prove his innocence.”
Bakyt Seitov, spokesman for the interior ministry, which controls the uniformed police, told IWPR he was not aware of a single case where police had attempted to obtain a confession through violent means since Kyrgyzstan became independent in 1991.
Suspects are initially held in police custody, under the interior ministry’s jurisdiction, but they are placed in facilities called SIZOs at a later stage in the case, pending trial. These institutions, like penitentiaries, are run by the justice ministry.
Tabysh Mukaev, who heads the office for prisoners’ rights within the ministry’s penal affairs department, denies that torture occurs.
He told IWPR that following an internal inspection of prisons conducted in February, “I can say with authority that there is no torture in our agency.”
Mukaev said Kyrgyzstan’s penal system had changed radically in recent years, and was now much more publicly accountable. Previously, inspections were conducted once a year, but “now we are obliged to react instantly to any allegation that convicts’ rights have been violated, and relatives as well as convicts and their lawyers are able to bring such allegations”.
Overall, though policing and the penal system remain largely closed to public view.
Erns Japarov, coordinator of the Voice of Freedom foundation in Kyrgyzstan, says NGOs are commonly turned down when they ask to visit prisons, as there is no legal mechanism requiring the authorities to let them have access.
Legal experts hope that things will begin changing following Kyrgyzstan’s accession to an international agreement last year.
Kyrgyzstan has been a party to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment since 1996, and undertook additional obligations when it ratified the optional protocol to the document in February2008.
The additional protocol is intended to “establish a system of regular visits undertaken by independent international and national bodies” of places of detention.
As well as providing access to inspection teams from outside the country, Kyrgyz activists are hoping this will mean that local non-government representatives are allowed to visit prisons system and pre-trial facilities as a matter of course, so that all allegations of abuse are recorded, made public and properly dealt with.
“The preventive mechanism will allow civil society representatives unfettered access to closed institutions,” said Japarov. “This in turn will help increase accountability and professional standards in law-enforcement.”
The form that this national mechanism could take is still under discussion, and might consist of a national commission on torture, or an arrangement that people are calling “ombudsman-plus”. The latter idea would see the ombudsman working in tandem with regionally-based monitoring groups, brought together by a torture monitoring centre.
Although the ombudsman’s office in Kyrgyzstan is state-funded, it has proved itself an independent and critical voice. In February, for example, it produced a highly critical report of the way a demonstration last year was dealt with, detailing evidence that police denied detainees their rights and used violence to coerce confessions.
Tolekan Ismailova of the Citizens Against Corruption group argues that it is essential to configure the mechanism correctly, given the sensitivity of torture as an issue and Kyrgyzstan ‘s polarised political environment. She believes it will work only if it is entirely neutral while also securing buy-in from government and President Kurmanbek Bakiev.
As she put it, “The torture prevention institution must be independent of the state without being an enemy of the state.”
Mameshov, for one, is optimistic that mechanisms creating a greater level of public scrutiny could work wonders.
“If [police] investigators know their actions are being watched by civil society representatives, they will no longer be able to break the law with such impunity,” he said.
