Amnesty International recently expressed its strong opinion against the extradition of Akbar Abdullaev, politically persecuted by Uzbek authorities and currently under extradition arrest in Kyiv, to Uzbekistan.
Numerous human rights activists, nongovernmental organizations and journalists have called international attention to the case of Abdullaev and related human rights violations.
In response to the high profile case, the chairman of the Committee on Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid of the German Federal Government plans to visit Kyiv together with a delegation in June to get a precise idea of the current human rights situation in Ukraine.
The Ukrainian population itself has clearly positioned itself; a representative study of March of the Center for Policy Studies “Image Control” shows that 76,7% of the Ukrainian respondents believe that it is fundamentally wrong to extradite to countries violating human rights such as Uzbekistan.
When does the Kyiv Court of Appeal finally wake up to the current travesty of international justice and human rights? When will Abdullaev be released?
The extradition case of Abdullaev, the nephew of the late Uzbek President Islam Karimov, before the Court of Appeal continues to drag on.
Abdullaev is being held in custody in Kyiv pending extradition on politically motivated charges that have been brought against him by Uzbekistan authorities. Surprisingly, he was released from prison for a few days, only to be subsequently readmitted, to the chagrin of many human rights activists and NGOs.
The background: On April 19, 2017, Abdullaev was released from custody at the request of his lawyers in a decision by a Kyiv district court that stipulated he would be placed under house arrest until a final decision on his asylum appeal and possible extradition to Uzbekistan had been made. Though Abdullaev meticulously fulfilled all requirements imposed upon him as a condition of his release, the prosecution nevertheless petitioned the Court of Appeal to rescind the house arrest order and to readmit Abdullaev to prison. In a decision from 26 April, the Court of Appeals in Kyiv ruled in favor of the prosecution. Given the fact that the appeal court has repeatedly postponed deciding on the admissibility of Abdullaev’s arrest over the course of the past six months, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that these events represent an orchestrated attempt to deny Abdullaev his right to a fair and impartial trial. The behavior of the prosecution’s office appears to support this claim.
The lack of justice and the stone cold lack of basic human decency on display in Akbar Abdullaev’s trial is patently evident, as is the Court’s disdain and disregard for the fundamental tenets of the western legal system and the European Convention on Human Rights. The Abdullaev trial leaves even the most casual observer with the impression that the judges have made up their minds on the case even before the trial began. This is a judicial process that conjures up the worst memories of Ukraine’s bleak history under totalitarian rule. The political significance of this case consists in the fact that it is a weather vane for the future development of the human rights situation in Ukraine. On April 25, 2017, Amnesty International issued a four-page opinion on this case, in which the Deputy Programme Director of the Europe and Central Asia Regional Office, Denis Krivosheev, took the following position:
Ukraine is obliged under international law – specifically, the principle of non-refoulement – to refrain from transferring any person to a country where there is a real risk of torture or other ill-treatment on return. This is a rule of customary international law that applies to all states irrespective of their specific treaty obligations […]. Amnesty International would argue that in Uzbekistan there is credible and consistent evidence of such a pattern of violations. Amnesty International believes that Akbar Abdullaev is at real risk of incommunicado detention, torture and other ill-treatment, unfair trial and imprisonment in cruel, inhuman and degrading conditions if forcibly returned to Uzbekistan. As such, the organization considers that he must not be extradited to his country of origin.
Akbar Abdullaev’s case is being observed very closely in Germany. The chairman of the Committee on Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid of the CDU/CSU Group in the German Bundestag, Professor Matthias Zimmer, in a meeting with the Ukrainian Ambassador in Berlin on 30 March 2017, asked about the human rights situation and the independence of the judiciary in Ukraine in light of the Abdullaev case. The Federal Republic of Germany has a strong interest in a rapprochement of Ukraine with the values of the European Union, including the respect of human rights. Germany itself does not extradite people to Uzbekistan because of the overwhelming evidence that the country regularly and systematically violates the ban on torture, and despite the diplomatic assurances of Uzbek authorities, the country lacks an independent judiciary. Dr. Zimmer plans to make an official visit to Ukraine in early June 2017 to hold talks on human rights developments in Ukraine with government representatives and NGOs.
However, none of this changes the fact that the prosecutor seeks a quick extradition of Abdullaev to Uzbekistan without bothering to cite grounds for such a move. The defense attorneys in the case have compellingly argued that this case is a test for whether Ukraine intends to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights, but tragically, their arguments have fallen upon deaf ears. The court proceedings in the case have made it progressively clear that Akbar Abdullaev is not being afforded basic constitutionally guaranteed rights and protections.
In a speech marking the anniversary of the EuroMaidan protests that drove President Viktor Yanukovych from power in 2014, President Petro Poroshenko emphasized the rapprochement between Ukraine and Europe not only in terms of economic reforms, but also in terms of European values such as democracy, freedom of expression and protection of human rights. But the trail of Abdullaev, as reflected in the actions of the General Prosecutor’s Office and the Court of Appeal in Kyiv, threatens to make a mockery of such sentiments.
Despite these indignities and the sophistry of the court process, Abdullaev has applied for political asylum in Ukraine. There is, it seems, still a chance for Ukraine to demonstrate its commitment to human rights and to show it is progressing on the way to becoming a member of the European Union – by granting Abdullaev asylum.
