RECEIPT OF INTELLIGENCE OBTAINED UNDER TORTURE
Between 7,000 and 10,000 political and religious prisoners are currently detained, many after trials before kangaroo courts with no representation. Terrible torture is commonplace: the EU is currently considering a demarche over the terrible case of two Muslims tortured to death in jail apparently with boiling water. Two leading dissidents, Elena Urlaeva and Larissa Vdovna, were two weeks ago committed to a lunatic asylum, where they are being drugged, for demonstrating on human rights. Opposition political parties remain banned. There is no doubt that September 11 gave the pretext to crack down still harder on dissent under the guise of counter-terrorism…
Confidential letters from Ambassador Craig Murray…
TO FCO, Cabinet Office, DFID, MODUK, OSCE Posts, Security Council Posts
16 September 02
SUBJECT: US/Uzbekistan: Promoting Terrorism
US plays down human rights situation in Uzbekistan. A dangerous policy: increasing repression combined with poverty will promote Islamic terrorism. Support to Karimov regime a bankrupt and cynical policy.
The Economist of 7 September states: “Uzbekistan, in particular, has jailed many thousands of moderate Islamists, an excellent way of converting their families and friends to extremism.” The Economist also spoke of “the growing despotism of Mr Karimov” and judged that “the past year has seen a further deterioration of an already grim human rights record”. I agree.
Between 7,000 and 10,000 political and religious prisoners are currently detained, many after trials before kangaroo courts with no representation. Terrible torture is commonplace: the EU is currently considering a demarche over the terrible case of two Muslims tortured to death in jail apparently with boiling water. Two leading dissidents, Elena Urlaeva and Larissa Vdovna, were two weeks ago committed to a lunatic asylum, where they are being drugged, for demonstrating on human rights. Opposition political parties remain banned. There is no doubt that September 11 gave the pretext to crack down still harder on dissent under the guise of counter-terrorism.
Yet on 8 September the US State Department certified that Uzbekistan was improving in both human rights and democracy, thus fulfilling a constitutional requirement and allowing the continuing disbursement of $140 million of US aid to Uzbekistan this year. Human Rights Watch immediately published a commendably sober and balanced rebuttal of the State Department claim.
Again we are back in the area of the US accepting sham reform [a reference to my previous telegram on the economy]. In August media censorship was abolished, and theoretically there are independent media outlets, but in practice there is absolutely no criticism of President Karimov or the central government in any Uzbek media. State Department call this self-censorship: I am not sure that is a fair way to describe an unwillingness to experience the brutal methods of the security services.
Similarly, following US pressure when Karimov visited Washington, a human rights NGO has been permitted to register. This is an advance, but they have little impact given that no media are prepared to cover any of their activities or carry any of their statements.
The final improvement State quote is that in one case of murder of a prisoner the police involved have been prosecuted. That is an improvement, but again related to the Karimov visit and does not appear to presage a general change of policy. On the latest cases of torture deaths the Uzbeks have given the OSCE an incredible explanation, given the nature of the injuries, that the victims died in a fight between prisoners.
But allowing a single NGO, a token prosecution of police officers and a fake press freedom cannot possibly outweigh the huge scale of detentions, the torture and the secret executions. President Karimov has admitted to 100 executions a year but human rights groups believe there are more. Added to this, all opposition parties remain banned (the President got a 98% vote) and the Internet is strictly controlled. All Internet providers must go through a single government server and access is barred to many sites including all dissident and opposition sites and much international media (including, ironically, waronterrorism.com). This is in essence still a totalitarian state: there is far less freedom than still prevails, for example, in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. A Movement for Democratic Change or any judicial independence would be impossible here.
Karimov is a dictator who is committed to neither political nor economic reform. The purpose of his regime is not the development of his country but the diversion of economic rent to his oligarchic supporters through government controls. As a senior Uzbek academic told me privately, there is more repression here now than in Brezhnev’s time. The US are trying to prop up Karimov economically and to justify this support they need to claim that a process of economic and political reform is underway. That they do so claim is either cynicism or self-delusion.
This policy is doomed to failure. Karimov is driving this resource-rich country towards economic ruin like an Abacha. And the policy of increasing repression aimed indiscriminately at pious Muslims, combined with a deepening poverty, is the most certain way to ensure continuing support for the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. They have certainly been decimated and disorganised in Afghanistan, and Karimov’s repression may keep the lid on for years – but pressure is building and could ultimately explode.
I quite understand the interest of the US in strategic airbases and why they back Karimov, but I believe US policy is misconceived. In the short term it may help fight terrorism but in the medium term it will promote it, as the Economist points out. And it can never be right to lower our standards on human rights. There is a complex situation in Central Asia and it is wrong to look at it only through a prism picked up on September 12. Worst of all is what appears to be the philosophy underlying the current US view of Uzbekistan: that September 11 divided the World into two camps in the “War against Terrorism” and that Karimov is on “our” side.
If Karimov is on “our” side, then this war cannot be simply between the forces of good and evil. It must be about more complex things, like securing the long-term US military presence in Uzbekistan. I silently wept at the 11 September commemoration here. The right words on New York have all been said. But last week was also another anniversary – the US-led overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile. The subsequent dictatorship killed, dare I say it, rather more people than died on September 11. Should we not remember then also, and learn from that too? I fear that we are heading down the same path of US-sponsored dictatorship here. It is ironic that the beneficiary is perhaps the most unreformed of the World’s old communist leaders.
We need to think much more deeply about Central Asia. It is easy to place Uzbekistan in the “too difficult” tray and let the US run with it, but I think they are running in the wrong direction. We should tell them of the dangers we see. Our policy is theoretically one of engagement, but in practice this has not meant much. Engagement makes sense, but it must mean grappling with the problems, not mute collaboration. We need to start actively to state a distinctive position on democracy and human rights, and press for a realistic view to be taken in the IMF. We should continue to resist pressures to start a bilateral DFID programme, unless channelled non-governmentally, and not restore ECGD cover despite the constant lobbying. We should not invite Karimov to the UK. We should step up our public diplomacy effort, stressing democratic values, including more resources from the British Council. We should increase support to human rights activists, and strive for contact with non-official Islamic groups.
Above all we need to care about the 22 million Uzbek people, suffering from poverty and lack of freedom. They are not just pawns in the new Great Game.
18 March 2003
SUBJECT: US FOREIGN POLICY
1. As seen from Tashkent, US policy is not much focussed on democracy or freedom. It is about oil, gas and hegemony. In Uzbekistan the US pursues those ends through supporting a ruthless dictatorship. We must not close our eyes to uncomfortable truth.
2. Last year the US gave half a billion dollars in aid to Uzbekistan, about a quarter of it military aid. Bush and Powell repeatedly hail Karimov as a friend and ally. Yet this regime has at least seven thousand prisoners of conscience; it is a one party state without freedom of speech, without freedom of media, without freedom of movement, without freedom of assembly, without freedom of religion. It practices, systematically, the most hideous tortures on thousands. Most of the population live in conditions precisely analogous with medieval serfdom.
3. Uzbekistan’s geo-strategic position is crucial. It has half the population of the whole of Central Asia. It alone borders all the other states in a region which is important to future Western oil and gas supplies. It is the regional military power. That is why the US is here, and here to stay. Contractors at the US military bases are extending the design life of the buildings from ten to twenty five years.
4. Democracy and human rights are, despite their protestations to the contrary, in practice a long way down the US agenda here. Aid this year will be slightly less, but there is no intention to introduce any meaningful conditionality. Nobody can believe this level of aid – more than US aid to all of West Africa – is related to comparative developmental need as opposed to political support for Karimov. While the US makes token and low-level references to human rights to appease domestic opinion, they view Karimov’s vicious regime as a bastion against fundamentalism. He – and they – are in fact creating fundamentalism. When the US gives this much support to a regime that tortures people to death for having a beard or praying five times a day, is it any surprise that Muslims come to hate the West?
5. I was stunned to hear that the US had pressured the EU to withdraw a motion on Human Rights in Uzbekistan which the EU was tabling at the UN Commission for Human Rights in Geneva. I was most unhappy to find that we are helping the US in what I can only call this cover-up. I am saddened when the US constantly quote fake improvements in human rights in Uzbekistan, such as the abolition of censorship and Internet freedom, which quite simply have not happened (I see these are quoted in the draft EBRD strategy for Uzbekistan, again I understand at American urging).
6. From Tashkent it is difficult to agree that we and the US are activated by shared values. Here we have a brutal US sponsored dictatorship reminiscent of Central and South American policy under previous US Republican administrations. I watched George Bush talk today of Iraq and “dismantling the apparatus of terror? removing the torture chambers and the rape rooms”. Yet when it comes to the Karimov regime, systematic torture and rape appear to be treated as peccadilloes, not to affect the relationship and to be downplayed in international fora. Double standards? Yes.
7. I hope that once the present crisis is over we will make plain to the US, at senior level, our serious concern over their policy in Uzbekistan.
TO IMMEDIATE FCO
OF 220939 JULY 04
INFO IMMEDIATE DFID, ISLAMIC POSTS, MOD, OSCE POSTS UKDEL EBRD LONDON, UKMIS GENEVA, UKMIS MEW YORK
SUBJECT: RECEIPT OF INTELLIGENCE OBTAINED UNDER TORTURE
1. We receive intelligence obtained under torture from the Uzbek intelligence services, via the US. We should stop. It is bad information anyway. Tortured dupes are forced to sign up to confessions showing what the Uzbek government wants the US and UK to believe, that they and we are fighting the same war against terror.
2. I gather a recent London interdepartmental meeting considered the question and decided to continue to receive the material. This is morally, legally and practically wrong. It exposes as hypocritical our post Abu Ghraib pronouncements and fatally undermines our moral standing. It obviates my efforts to get the Uzbek government to stop torture they are fully aware our intelligence community laps up the results.
3. We should cease all co-operation with the Uzbek Security Services they are beyond the pale. We indeed need to establish an SIS presence here, but not as in a friendly state.
4. In the period December 2002 to March 2003 I raised several times the issue of intelligence material from the Uzbek security services which was obtained under torture and passed to us via the CIA. I queried the legality, efficacy and morality of the practice.
5. I was summoned to the UK for a meeting on 8 March 2003. Michael Wood gave his legal opinion that it was not illegal to obtain and to use intelligence acquired by torture. He said the only legal limitation on its use was that it could not be used in legal proceedings, under Article 15 of the UN Convention on Torture.
6. On behalf of the intelligence services, Matthew Kydd said that they found some of the material very useful indeed with a direct bearing on the war on terror. Linda Duffield said that she had been asked to assure me that my qualms of conscience were respected and understood.
7. Sir Michael Jay’s circular of 26 May stated that there was a reporting obligation on us to report torture by allies (and I have been instructed to refer to Uzbekistan as such in the context of the war on terror). You, Sir, have made a number of striking, and I believe heartfelt, condemnations of torture in the last few weeks. I had in the light of this decided to return to this question and to highlight an apparent contradiction in our policy. I had intimated as much to the Head of Eastern Department.
8. I was therefore somewhat surprised to hear that without informing me of the meeting, or since informing me of the result of the meeting, a meeting was convened in the FCO at the level of Heads of Department and above, precisely to consider the question of the receipt of Uzbek intelligence material obtained under torture. As the office knew, I was in London at the time and perfectly able to attend the meeting. I still have only gleaned that it happened.
9. I understand that the meeting decided to continue to obtain the Uzbek torture material. I understand that the principal argument deployed was that the intelligence material disguises the precise source, ie it does not ordinarily reveal the name of the individual who is tortured. Indeed this is true – the material is marked with a euphemism such as “From detainee debriefing.” The argument runs that if the individual is not named, we cannot prove that he was tortured.
10. I will not attempt to hide my utter contempt for such casuistry, nor my shame that I work in and organisation where colleagues would resort to it to justify torture. I have dealt with hundreds of individual cases of political or religious prisoners in Uzbekistan, and I have met with very few where torture, as defined in the UN convention, was not employed. When my then DHM raised the question with the CIA head of station 15 months ago, he readily acknowledged torture was deployed in obtaining intelligence. I do not think there is any doubt as to the fact
11. The torture record of the Uzbek security services could hardly be more widely known. Plainly there are, at the very least, reasonable grounds for believing the material is obtained under torture. There is helpful guidance at Article 3 of the UN Convention;
“The competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the state concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.”
While this article forbids extradition or deportation to Uzbekistan, it is the right test for the present
12. On the usefulness of the material obtained, this is irrelevant. Article 2 of the Convention, to which we are a party, could not be plainer:
“No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”
13. Nonetheless, I repeat that this material is useless – we are selling our souls for dross. It is in fact positively harmful. It is designed to give the message the Uzbeks want the West to hear. It exaggerates the role, size, organisation and activity of the IMU and its links with Al Qaida. The aim is to convince the West that the Uzbeks are a vital cog against a common foe, that they should keep the assistance, especially military assistance, coming, and that they should mute the international criticism on human rights and economic reform.
14. I was taken aback when Matthew Kydd said this stuff was valuable. Sixteen months ago it was difficult to argue with SIS in the area of intelligence assessment. But post Butler we know, not only that they can get it wrong on even the most vital and high profile issues, but that they have a particular yen for highly coloured material which exaggerates the threat. That is precisely what the Uzbeks give them. Furthermore MI6 have no operative within a thousand miles of me and certainly no expertise that can come close to my own in making this assessment.
15. At the Khuderbegainov trial I met an old man from Andizhan. Two of his children had been tortured in front of him until he signed a confession on the family’s links with Bin Laden. Tears were streaming down his face. I have no doubt they had as much connection with Bin Laden as I do. This is the standard of the Uzbek intelligence services.
16. I have been considering Michael Wood’s legal view, which he kindly gave in writing. I cannot understand why Michael concentrated only on Article 15 of the Convention. This certainly bans the use of material obtained under torture as evidence in proceedings, but it does not state that this is the sole exclusion of the use of such material.
17. The relevant article seems to me Article 4, which talks of complicity in torture. Knowingly to receive its results appears to be at least arguable as complicity. It does not appear that being in a different country to the actual torture would preclude complicity. I talked this over in a hypothetical sense with my old friend Prof Francois Hampson, I believe an acknowledged World authority on the Convention, who said that the complicity argument and the spirit of the Convention would be likely to be winning points. I should be grateful to hear Michael’s views on this.
18. It seems to me that there are degrees of complicity and guilt, but being at one or two removes does not make us blameless. There are other factors. Plainly it was a breach of Article 3 of the Convention for the coalition to deport detainees back here from Baghram, but it has been done. That seems plainly complicit.
19. This is a difficult and dangerous part of the World. Dire and increasing poverty and harsh repression are undoubtedly turning young people here towards radical Islam. The Uzbek government are thus creating this threat, and perceived US support for Karimov strengthens anti-Western feeling. SIS ought to establish a presence here, but not as partners of the Uzbek Security Services, whose sheer brutality puts them beyond the pale.
Below is an extract from Craig Murray’s book on his experiences as British Ambassador in Tashkent. The book will be published this autumn and is titled “Should not be known”.
Chapter 7 – Awakening
Chris looked pretty amazed. “OK, let’s go” was not a standard reaction from a British Ambassador to the news that a dissident trial was about to start. The Land Rover drew up to the Embassy door and out I went, still feeling pretty uncomfortable at people calling me “Sir”, opening doors and stopping their normal chatter as I passed.
We turned up outside the court, a small wicket entrance through an unprepossessing muddy looking wall into a dirty courtyard containing several squat white buildings. Like much Soviet construction it looked unfinished and barely functional. To enter the courtyard we had to give passport details to two policemen sitting at a table outside the gate. They took an age to write down details in an old ledger with a chewed up pencil; I was to find that the concealment of terrible viciousness behind a homely, amateur exterior was a recurring theme in Uzbekistan.
About a hundred people were hanging about the courtyard waiting for various trials to begin. I was introduced to a variety of scruffy looking individuals who represented different human rights organisations. Even in the ethnic and social kaleidoscope of Tashkent I could readily pick up that their dress was eccentric, ranging from tweed and jumpers apparently knitted poorly out of old socks, to garish Bermuda beachwear with fake designer specs. Puzzlingly the seven or eight I met seemed to belong to the same number of organisations, and it rapidly became clear that they were single member groups, and most of them would not talk to each other.
One short but distinguished looking man, with a shock of white hair and big black specs, was so self-important he wouldn’t talk to anyone at all. Chris, bustling around doing the introductions, pointed to him and said “Mikhail Ardzinov – he says it is for you to call on him”. I looked puzzled, seeing as the question of who called on whom involved taking about eight paces across the courtyard. Chris expounded that Ardzinov was feeling very important, as his group was the only one that was registered, and thus legal. The others were all illegal. Peculiarly, Ardzinov’s registered group was called the “Independent” Human Rights Organisation of Uzbekistan”. None of this meant much to me at the time, and I certainly hadn’t been an Ambassador long enough to feel my pride mortified by taking eight paces, so I went and shook the man’s hand. I received a long cool stare and very little conversation for my effort.
Even at first meeting, some of these people could not help but impress. One gentleman (and I use the term advisedly) had been a schoolteacher until he was thrown out of his job for refusing to teach the President’s books uncritically. He now spent time at all trials of dissidents, normally the less reported ones in obscure places. He documented them painstakingly by hand, and then sent details to international organisations and Embassies, as well as writing appeals himself. He was apologetic for being at the Khuderbegainov trial, which was renowned and well covered by others, “But I thought I might learn something on general policy”. I asked how he lived and he said largely on the kindness of others. Judging by his clothes, gaunt face and sparse frame, that kindness was a limited commodity. I asked if he was not in danger of arrest. He said he had “only” spent a total of four months in custody in the past three years. An unhealthy flush burned in his cheeks and his eyes alternated between a normal genial twinkle and flashes of real anger. They were unforgettable, yet they are not the eyes I saw that day which haunt me still.
Nor are Dilobar’s. Lovely as she is, I am afraid I cannot recall even the colour of her eyes. But mine had been drifting during the conversation to the full but graceful figure in blue that stood under an old corrugated iron canopy to my left. She stood tall but striking amid a group of older local women in their flowered dresses, velvet jackets and hijabs – a Muslim scarf that in Uzbekistan is colourful and covers the hair but none of the face. Her fine black hair flowed long and free down her back. Her cotton dress was full, reaching right to the neck, wrists and sleeves, and of a light flowing blue, though somehow close fitting around her slim waist. I have always enjoyed seeing as much of girls’ bodies as possible and have always viewed as tosh lines about clothes accentuating rather than obscuring the body, but in this case, gentle reader, I must say it worked on me.
Chris brought her over and introduced her as Dilobar Khuderbegainova. I have never got over the sensations of wonder and fear that I still feel when I find I can actually be in proximity to a beautiful girl. My brain simply freezes. At University I was desperately in love with a girl called Louise Ivinson. I had admired her from afar and even from middle distance, as I was a good friend of her sister. I was one day hanging around her Hall of Residence just in the hope I would see her. After a hard morning of this, I bought a packet of Maltesers for lunch and sat down in the Hall’s TV room to watch the One O’Clock News. In breezed Louise, saw me, marched straight up and said “Hi, Craig. Maltesers – I love Maltesers – can I have one?” My brain froze, my palms sweated, my bowels barely remained under control. I dragged up a word from the stinking ooze that my intellect had fallen into, and the first word that came out was “No”. She never spoke to me again.
It was a bit like that now with Dilobar. I just gaped, taking her in. Something was hammering insistently at my dulled senses. What was wrong – Khuderbegainova – Oh my God! This was the sister of the victim of this show-trial! Yes, her eyes were filling with tears. My God. I was a pervert! Her brother was going to be executed, and I was making out her legs through her dress. I was filled with self-loathing. (I really was, there and then, not just in retrospect). “I am most terribly sorry,” I blurted out. Even then I was still apologising for my own shallowness and stupidity, not for what was happening to her brother, but fortunately it was an appropriate remark for the latter, too, and she took it that way.
She said with great dignity that her brother was a good man, and the whole family would remember me for coming. I thanked her and held out my hand. Oh God, another mistake! Muslim women don’t shake hands with strange men. For a moment she was taken aback but then, she held out her hand and clenched mine firmly, and a smile almost troubled her lips. I wanted to say “Don’t worry” and promise to help, but realistically what could I do – and if I could do nothing why was I there?
Chris was looking at me curiously. “Bit hot” I said, and went and sat down under the tree. As happens so quickly, my momentary self-hate turned to real anger against a system that tortured thousands and executed hundreds, against diplomats for their complacent acquiescence and against the United States for, well, pretty well everything.
We waited two hours in the courtyard for the trial to start (and we had arrived half an hour after it should have). It was 44 centigrade in the shade that day, and we didn’t have much of that in the courtyard. There was a bustle of activity and we then entered a building through a door that led straight into stairs down the basement. The atmosphere changed completely. The short staircase was lined with perhaps twenty paramilitaries – ministry of Interior forces – in grey camouflage carrying machine guns. There was so little space left to pass that a kind of tense scrum developed. I was only about three steps down when one of the militia, for no reason I could discern, pulled me back by the arm. I snapped. Wheeling round I grabbed him by the throat and pushed him back against the wall (admittedly only about three inches, and he was a very small militiaman). I raged uselessly in English “Don’t you touch me, do you hear? Do not touch me.”
Silence fell, and everyone looked aghast. I don’t think the militia knew who I was, but I was obviously foreign and therefore probably not shootable. But these people pushed others about all their lives, and no one ever, ever pushed back. My little militiaman gave a nervous laugh, and chatter just started up again. We carried on down to the courtroom as though nothing had happened.
The atmosphere in the courtyard had been apprehensive but resigned. Now all was tension. The six prisoners were already in the “dock”. This was a large cage constructed roughly out of what looked like concrete reinforcing rods welded together, not straight but strongly, and lots of them. It had then been painted white, again with lashings of paint so thick it had oozed into the spiralled grooves in the rods, and there congealed in thick pendulous blobs. The concrete floor around it was heavily spattered, with thick wrinkled pools of dried white paint at the bottom of each supposedly vertical rod. A cage door was fastened with two enormous padlocks. Fourteen heavily armed militiamen stood shoulder to shoulder around the cage. The six accused squatted low on what looked like two school benches placed inside, with not quite enough room for three men on each.
Loved ones tried to push between the guards to say a few words of encouragement. The accused barely turned their heads, though some managed wan smiles. All were very gaunt, clean-shaven with short shaven hair. Five looked middle age and, from the ripples of skin, as though they had once perhaps been better fleshed. Their hair was whitening. The sixth, Khuderbegainov himself, looked like a teenager (he was 22). He coughed periodically and cast his eyes around quickly and furtively, in contrast to the languor of the others. He looked very skinny indeed, which accentuated features I would judge were already sharp.
Of the six, three had already been in jail for some two years. The charges were multiple but different permutations of the six were charged with a number of different offences. For example three were charged with the armed robbery of a jeweller, four with the murder of two policemen. All were charged with attempting to overthrow the government and undermine the constitution.
This was one of a whole series of trials of Muslim activists in Uzbekistan. I knew some of the statistics already – Human Rights Watch alleged some 7,000 political or religious prisoners. I had heard allegations of torture, but not in detail. And please let me stress to you this next point – in three weeks of Foreign Office and other UK Government briefings prior to my taking up Post, there had been scarcely a mention of human rights at all, and none of torture. The briefing I had been given put the emphasis firstly on FCO internal management procedure, secondly on Uzbekistan’s supportive role in the War on Terror and thirdly on Central Asia’s economic and commercial potential in cotton, other agro-industry and, above all, in oil and gas. I could have written a book on hydrocarbon pipeline options for Central Asia, but nothing had prepared me for the reality of the “War on Terror” as I was about to encounter it.
In the courtyard I had met a very helpful young man called Ole from Human Rights Watch who was going to let me share his Uzbek interpreter in the court. He filled me in on some of the facts. I later checked up on these, and they are true. Two of the people charged with murder had actually been in jail at the time, serving their sentences for “Religious extremism”. And twenty-three other people had already been convicted of these murders. There was no suggestion that they were in conspiracy, or even knew each other, or that the murders had been carried out by a mob. The simple Uzbek government tactic was that a genuine crime (and two policemen had indeed been murdered by someone) would be used to convict lots of opposition people whom the regime happened to want put away or, better still, executed. And they would of course not be political prisoners but common murderers, rapists, or whatever. And that indeed was accepted by the US State Department in its (under) estimate of political prisoners in Uzbekistan. Until I turned up the FCO was no better. In that year – 2002 – some 220 prisoners were officially executed in Uzbekistan, in addition to those murdered in police or security service custody, prison or who simply “disappeared”.
The courtroom was chokingly hot. I felt beads of sweat running down my body, inside my shirt, tickling and dribbling down. The judge looked like first goon out of central casting; swarthy and thick set, floppy hair swept back, dressed in black trousers and a white shirt that strained at his belly. He started out with a harangue at the prisoners for wasting the Court’s time. As the session went on he several times interrupted with a string of gratuitous anti-Muslim remarks.
The jeweller who had suffered the armed robbery said that three of the men, wearing balaclavas had tied him up and held him, robbing him of an improbably large sum of money. They had shot at him with pistols but missed. A defence lawyer was asking him why no bullets or bullet holes had been found in the room. The jeweller supposed rather weakly they had gone out of the window. As he was allegedly tied up on the floor at the time, the defendants must have been very bad shots indeed. The defence lawyer was making hay with this.
The judge had been ostentatiously not listening whenever the defence spoke, whittling at his fingernails with his knife or chatting with the rapporteur, who equally stopped writing whenever the defence or a defendant said anything. But somehow it must have penetrated his thick skin that the prosecution witness was not going down well. He interrupted the defence lawyer with a sharp rebuke for irrelevance, and then instructed the defendants to stand, while he harangued them.
He said that they represented evil in society. They were thieves and murderers who sought to undermine Uzbekistan’s independence and democracy. Their list of crimes was long and it would be better if they admitted it. He concluded that he was astonished that they had found the time to plan and commit so many crimes when they had to stop to pray five times a day. He evidently considered this a hilarious sally and he guffawed loudly, as did the prosecutor, rapporteur and various other cronies. But I swear I noticed a few narrowed eyes among the militiamen. Later he again amused himself hugely by interrupting a defendant who was giving evidence on what he had said. “I don’t suppose anyone could hear you through your long Muslim beard” said the judge, already slapping his ham of a thigh as he delivered the remark. He was a real monster. He several times told the defence to shut up and stop wasting time. As he was the judge and there was no jury, I suppose he had a point.
The jeweller was asked to identify which three of the six had robbed him. He peered uncertainly at the benches – plainly he had no idea. Pressed by the defence he managed – and the odds against this must be very high, perhaps some statistician could work it out – he managed to identify entirely the wrong three out of six. This got the judge very angry. “You are mistaken, you old fool” he bellowed. The judge then read out the names of the three who were charged with the crimes, and asked them to stand. “Are these the men?” He asked the terrified jeweller, who stammered his assent. “Let the record show they were positively identified by the victim,” said the judge.
This was pure farce, but I had to pull myself back and force myself to acknowledge the reality behind this bizarre charade. These six nervous men stood to be shot, their brains blown out, spines smashed, hearts exploded by high velocity bullets. The family would not be informed of the execution, so for months would not know if their loved one was dead, believing him perhaps dead while he still languished, and perhaps alive when he was well rotted. This was a deliberately refined cruelty as was the practice – inherited from the Soviets – that when the family was finally informed of the death, they would be charged for the bullets that killed him.
It was at this minute I was caught by those eyes I will never forget – they were Khuderbegainov’s. He had spotted me in the crowd, a Westerner in a three-piece suit, out of place and time. Who was I? Maybe this strange apparition brought some kind of hope. Maybe the West would do something. Maybe he wasn’t going to die after all. The drowning man had caught a fleeting glimpse of straw on the surface as he went down for the third time. His eyes bored into mine, small, dark, intense, filled with a desperate hope. He was urging me with every mute fibre of his being to do something. And there was hope in those eyes. I looked back. I don’t do telepathy, but I tried to say I will try, in God’s name I will try, with my own eyes. He smiled and nodded, a confidence shared; and then looked away again.
Once more I thought, “My God, what am I doing here. What right have I to give false hope – is that not just one more cruelty?” But then an iron resolve – I would help; I would dedicate every fibre of my being to stop this horror in Uzbekistan. I would not spend three years on the golf course and cocktail circuit. I would not go along with political lies or leave the truth unspoken. The next bit of the trial set that resolve, like catalyst added to epoxy resin.
An old man came to the witness stand. He had to be assisted – he had a little white beard, sparse white hair and wore a black lacquered skullcap and a dull brown quilted gown. He was shaking with fright. One of the accused was his nephew. His statement was read out to him, in which he confirmed that his nephew was a terrorist who stole money to send to Osama Bin Laden.
“Is this your testimony?” asked the prosecutor.
“Yes, but its not true” replied the old man, “They tortured me to say it”.
The judge said that the accused’s accusations of torture had been dismissed earlier in the case. They could not be reintroduced.
“But they tortured me” said the old man “They tortured my grandson. They beat his testicles and put electrodes on his body. They put a mask on him to stop him breathing. They raped him with a bottle. Then they brought my granddaughter and said they would rape her. All the time they said “Osama Bin Laden, Osama Bin Laden”. We are poor farmers from Andijan. We are good Muslims, but what do we know of Osama Bin Laden?”
His quavering voice had got stronger, but at this he literally collapsed and was helped out. The judge then stated that the prisoners’ connection with Osama Bin Laden was not in doubt. They had confessed to it themselves.
I had seen enough and left. Those three hours in court had a profound effect on me. If these were our allies in the War on Terror, we were not in the clear moral ground Blair and Bush claimed so braggingly. As I walked through the courtyard a militiaman came running towards me, shouting and pointing. I braced myself; something pretty awful was about to happen. Instead he came up to me and introduced himself as “Bakhtiyor”. It was the man I had grabbed by the throat. He wanted to explain, he said, that he had been pulling me back to save me from the crush. He had wanted to take me into the Court a quieter way. I apologised and felt ashamed. This was all so much harder than I had thought. I wished I were somewhere else
I sent a telegram back to London, explaining in detail what I had seen at the trial. Shortly thereafter sentence of death was passed on Khuderbegainov and long sentences given to his “accomplices”. Human Rights Policy Department in the FCO agreed we should take up the case, and the wheels clunked into the motion for the long process of agreeing an EU demarche, or formal protest.
In the meantime Dilobar and her father came to call on me in my office. She looked still extremely fetching in a lime green outfit, again high collared and long sleeved, in a ribbed cotton material, with a long tunic split at the sides from the hips and flowing almost to the knees, worn over tight trousers of the same material. She was very nervous. We sat round the coffee table in my office, I in an easy chair, Dilobar and her father on the settee next to me, with Chris on a chair opposite me, and Zhenya my secretary seated opposite the settee ready to interpret. Dilobar was nervous, and sat with her hands under her thighs.
I welcomed them, accepted their thanks for attending the trial, and said that I had been shocked by what I saw. I asked the father what they could tell me by way of background to the trial.
This was the first time I had encountered a phenomenon which was to bedevil me for the next two years; the inability of Uzbeks in human rights cases to tell their story in a plain, straightforward or concise manner. This is a phenomenon well recognised by all those working in the field and much discussed. Various reasons are given – sheer terror at saying anything against the government leading to a failure of nerve, the effect of social shaming, a cultural propensity to roundabout story-telling anyway. But the phenomenon is very real, and excruciatingly frustrating.
The Khuderbegainovs are a well-established Tashkent family previously in favour with the regime. The father was a former Head of a Tashkent State radio station. He told me now the story of when he himself had been arrested for questioning, and how they came for him when he was attending a family wedding. He was in tears as he told the story, and seemed unable to get past his despair at being arrested in such a humiliatingly public fashion, and perhaps astonishment (it was too gentle for outrage) that a wedding should be violated. Now weddings hold an important position in most cultures, but Uzbek societies take this to extremes, with a family not infrequently spending three or more years’ total income on a daughter’s wedding. So no doubt it is extremely bad form to violate one. But the poor man, holding back his tears, had spent 45 minutes telling me nothing but that he had been arrested at a wedding, which with his son sentenced to death was hardly the most important point. I felt greatly for his anguish, but if we were to be able to do anything we needed more practical information.
I therefore asked Dilobar to continue the story. I learnt from her that she and her brother had received an education at one of the Saudi funded Arabic schools opened in Tashkent in the 1990s. Following the bombings in Tashkent in 1999 (which most analysts believe were probably planted by the Karimov regime or factions within it), these schools were closed down and many of their pupils and former pupils imprisoned. Eventually this well-connected family received warning that her brother was to be arrested, and her brother ran away to Tajikistan where he made contact with rebel groups. From there he was sent to Afghanistan to fight with the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan alongside the Taliban, but he didn’t like what he saw and ran away from there too. For a year he scratched a living as a bazaar trader before eventually being arrested crossing the Tajik/Uzbek border. He had then been imprisoned for some months in Uzbekistan and severely tortured, which had caused permanent liver damage. Eventually he had confessed to the range of crimes featuring in the trial. The family had not known he was imprisoned until the trial began. It was during the period of imprisonment that the father had himself been imprisoned. His brutal interrogation had ostensibly focussed on the whereabouts of his son, which was confusing as his son was already in custody at the time.
How much of this was true it was hard to gauge; I judged that Dilobar believed it herself. I wondered whether this was the whole truth about Khuderbegainov’s involvement with the IMU and the Taliban, but even if it wasn’t, he plainly had not received a fair trial on the charges for which he had been sentenced to death. I thanked the impressively composed and articulate Dilobar and her father, and promised to do what I could. We had already decided to move for an EU demarche, but I was racking my brains for further action that might forestall the execution.