Ombudsman Role Under Scrutiny
Ombudsman Role Under Scrutiny
The authorities are unlikely to heed the calls of foreign human rights watchdogs for Uzbekistan’s ombudsman to conform to international standards, say NBCentralAsia observers.
On July 11, human rights watchdogs from Russia, Azerbaijan and Spain and the European Institute of Ombudsmen met with Uzbek lawyers and state representatives to discuss the way in which national legislation in Uzbekistan is being synchronised with the law on the ombudsman.
Those who took part in the OSCE-supported event also discussed the ombudsman’s relationship to the state and how its work can be regulated. Uzbekistan’s ombudsman is answerable to the Oliy Majlis, or parliament, and was set up in 1995, with the accompanying laws adopted two years later.
Human rights activists say that the authorities do not invite independent human rights groups into any discussions and only “create the appearance” of defending rights.
The ombudsman’s office was not available for comment.
Surat Ikramov, head of the Independent Human Rights Activists Group of Uzbekistan, says that the government only cooperates with registered human rights organisations and discourages international groups from working with anyone else.
All registered groups are pro-government, and “the last thing they want to talk about is human rights or human rights violations in Uzbekistan”, he said, adding that the very notion of a human rights watchdog simply cannot work in an authoritarian state.
If a complaint is made against an organisation, the ombudsman tends to direct that complaint to the very organisation against which the complaint is made. “It fully contradicts Uzbekistan’s legislation,” he explained.
“Even after this round table, nothing is likely to improve with the ombudsman’s work in Uzbekistan. It is practically impossible. A person who would struggle for human rights would not be appointed there,” he continued.
But activist Toshpulat Yuldashev says that there are “thinking” people in the government who care about the human rights situation and their desire to improve things is beginning to be felt.
Yet he also says that few things will change regarding the human rights situation, as “the president and top leadership don’t know what is happening”.
People are much more likely to turn to independent organisations if their rights have been violated. They know far more about the situation in Uzbekistan than the entire state system does, he says.
Inviting independent activists to submit their practical suggestions on how things can be improved would invigorate human rights discussions and make them more relevant to the real rights situation in the country, adds Yuldashev.
(News Briefing Central Asia draws comment and analysis from a broad range of political observers across the region.)
On July 11, human rights watchdogs from Russia, Azerbaijan and Spain and the European Institute of Ombudsmen met with Uzbek lawyers and state representatives to discuss the way in which national legislation in Uzbekistan is being synchronised with the law on the ombudsman.
Those who took part in the OSCE-supported event also discussed the ombudsman’s relationship to the state and how its work can be regulated. Uzbekistan’s ombudsman is answerable to the Oliy Majlis, or parliament, and was set up in 1995, with the accompanying laws adopted two years later.
Human rights activists say that the authorities do not invite independent human rights groups into any discussions and only “create the appearance” of defending rights.
The ombudsman’s office was not available for comment.
Surat Ikramov, head of the Independent Human Rights Activists Group of Uzbekistan, says that the government only cooperates with registered human rights organisations and discourages international groups from working with anyone else.
All registered groups are pro-government, and “the last thing they want to talk about is human rights or human rights violations in Uzbekistan”, he said, adding that the very notion of a human rights watchdog simply cannot work in an authoritarian state.
If a complaint is made against an organisation, the ombudsman tends to direct that complaint to the very organisation against which the complaint is made. “It fully contradicts Uzbekistan’s legislation,” he explained.
“Even after this round table, nothing is likely to improve with the ombudsman’s work in Uzbekistan. It is practically impossible. A person who would struggle for human rights would not be appointed there,” he continued.
But activist Toshpulat Yuldashev says that there are “thinking” people in the government who care about the human rights situation and their desire to improve things is beginning to be felt.
Yet he also says that few things will change regarding the human rights situation, as “the president and top leadership don’t know what is happening”.
People are much more likely to turn to independent organisations if their rights have been violated. They know far more about the situation in Uzbekistan than the entire state system does, he says.
Inviting independent activists to submit their practical suggestions on how things can be improved would invigorate human rights discussions and make them more relevant to the real rights situation in the country, adds Yuldashev.
(News Briefing Central Asia draws comment and analysis from a broad range of political observers across the region.)
