15 years ago the event, as a result of which hundreds of people were persecuted, took place in Ashgabat. The UN General Assembly adopted the resolution towards Turkmenistan expressing “grave concerns over human rights violations in Turkmenistan”.
Prof. Emmanuel Decaux
The OSCE initiated the Moscow mechanism in accordance with which the Special Rapporteur was scheduled to arrive in Turkmenistan to examine the situation and prepare a report.
However, since Professor Emmanuel Decaux, who had been appointed Special Rapporteur, was denied entry to Turkmenistan by the Turkmen authorities, he had to prepare the report based on the available documents.
Today we would like to bring to your attention the interview with E.Decaux, which he kindly agree to give to our news outlet.
Turkmenistan as the inviting state’ did not co-operate in any way, and it failed to name a second rapporteur, how did this affect your work?
I would have, of course, liked it, if the” requested State” had appointed a “further rapporteur”, in accordance with the rules of the Moscow Mechanism, in order to work within a “mission of rapporteurs”.
I was prepared to nominate for consideration as third member of the mission different lawyers from the list of experts.As it was, I had to be the sole rapporteur, fulfilling with independence, objectivity and impartiality, the mandate of OSCE rapporteur, in a very limited time.
On the one hand, to be alone was a pity, without the collective and sometimes lengthy deliberation inside a panel of experts, trying to reach a consensus, watering down concluding observations, but it was also the opportunity to have a strong legal framework applied to established facts and to deliver a clear message.
You were not allowed to travel to Turkmenistan; people and/or NGOs residing in the country who provided you with information were in danger of being persecuted by the Turkmen authorities, how did you gather information?
I didn’t go to Turkmenistan, but I travelled in Europe, going in Vienna, Warsaw, Geneva and The Hague for meetings.With the technical and linguistic support of the ODIHR, I had a lot of contacts, as stressed in the public report, with officials in their capacities, but also with members of the civil society, sometimes with the help of NGOs, such as yours.
It is always very important to be careful and to avoid to put at risk these contacts, but also to check the facts.And it was safer to meet people involved outside the country, as I heard that the building of the OSCE field- mission in Ashgabat was in front of a police station… I read everything about the history and politics of the country.
I also worked with a recent documentation, books, newspapers, maps, written testimonies and even with a film of the kangaroo courts released by the official TV station.As I said the report had to be compiled in a very short time, but I’m proud that the only mistake in the report challenged by representatives of Turkmenistan was the double nationality of a citizen from Armenia.
In 2003 you were appointed OSCE Special Rapporteur, as at the request of ten OSCE participating States, the Human Dimension Mechanism was triggered according to §8 of the Moscow Document.
With the benefit of the hindsight, would you say that the implementation of the Moscow Mechanism meaning the appointment of a Special Rapporteur is an effective measure in such a situation?
It is a difficult question.I feel a strong responsibility both in regard to the true people of Turkmenistan and in regard to the “integrity” and efficiency of the Moscow Mechanism.
I think there are a lot of opportunities for non-confrontational use of the Moscow Mechanism, which is a very innovative and cooperative way of fact-finding and good office.
But it is always dangerous for States to ask for a sort of legal check-up on a very difficult situation, to have a full picture of human rights violations, as they have to deliver results and solutions after an official report.
They can’t sweep the issues under the carpet, as usual.States ought to think about the next steps when they trigger the Human Dimension Mechanism.It ought to be a way out of a crisis and not to create a new problem, not only the mapping of gross violations but a diplomatic “feuille de route”.
In the report you say ’25 November coup’, in retrospect how would you characterize that coup’?
I have no more mandate after the presentation of my report and no new information on the issue.In the report, I spoke of a “so-called coup”, as it is difficult to understand the “scenario” of the events with the high level of protection surrounding president Niyazov and the very unprofessional “team” of plotters.
But the most important thing was that the coup was the pretext for a new political purge.
In your report you write: …. concerning the different facets of the repression, which is going on since the murder attempt of 25 November 2002 against Niyazov.
Large-scale violations of all the principles of due process of law, like arbitrary detentions or show trials took place.Not only has torture been used to obtain confessions, but the forced use of drugs was a means of criminalizing the detainees, entailing lethal risks for them.
A multiform collective repression fell on the “enemies of the people” ….’ sounds like a Stalinist scenario, were you shocked by its extent?
The film by Watan TV was a piteous illustration of the ill treatment of respected public figures, sometimes quite old and in poor health, in front of lawyers in military uniforms. But even more shocking for me was perhaps the sense of arbitrary madness and everlasting revenge, of collective responsibility within families and communities.
Was there a follow up to your report?
The follow-up was not mainly inside the OSCE but outside, within the UN, as the report was officially transmitted to the Human Rights Commission by the ten “inviting States” (E/CN.4/2003/G/6).
It was at this time quite difficult to find the report, but now there is great transparency and you can find the letter on the website of the OHCHR.
Soon after, the Commission on Human Rights adopted its resolution 2003/11 in April 2003.It had an indirect efficiency, naming and shaming Turkmenistan, which was till then off the radar of the treaty bodies or of the special procedures.
Turkmenistan ratified a lot of international treaties but didn’t bother to present its national reports, which were overdue, avoiding public monitoring of the situation of human rights.Thanks to the OSCE report, Turkmenistan was put on the frontline for international monitoring.
Were the recommendations you made in the report implemented?
I don’t think so.Some UN officials thought that the report included a too long list of recommendations, but it was impossible to pick and choose some violations and neglect the others, as the political system was by itself the denial of rule of law.
To help Turkmenistan to present its report to treaty bodies is not only to try mere window-dressing, it is to trigger legal accountability.The report was “diagnostic,” when in their own surveys the UNPD or other UN agencies were eager to cover up violations in order to preserve friendly relations with the authorities.
The general recommendations are still on the table, as a check-list for political reforms, as without separation of powers and independent justice, domestic remedies and public accountability, it is very difficult to have an effective protection of human rights.
Since the adoption of a new Constitution in September 2016, there is an official prohibition of torture and ill-treatment, but the actual safeguards are weak, without acceptance of an independent national mechanism, in accordance with the provisions of the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against torture.
It should be a priority for Turkmenistan to ratify the OP-CAT in order to establish these national and international mechanisms.
Turkmenistan also failed to implement two resolutions adopted by the U.N.General Assembly in 2003 and 2004, which were, so to speak, a follow up on your report expressing grave concerns about grave human rights violations in the wake of the November 2002 events.’ Turkmenistan ignored the report of the OSCE Special Rapporteur as well as the following U.N.
resolutions, doesn’t this show a certain powerlessness of the International Community, when it is faced with authoritarian regimes, such as Turkmenistan?
The main force and the main weakness of the OSCE is to be a “soft organization” based on consensus.Participating states have to agree to disagree in order to keep the OSCE operating in some fields, without a strong political visibility.
There are new armed conflicts and new international crises in the OSCE area and in the Middle-East.In these volatile contexts, authoritarian regimes, which look like a haven of stability and don’t export terrorism or nuclear proliferation, don’t seem a priority.
But the OSCE is very useful for the daily monitoring of the” frozen conflicts “or the crisis in the eastern regions of Ukraine, for example.But we need political will from both sides to find sustainable solutions.
Within the UN system, the monitoring by treaty bodies is stronger, with a full picture of the situation, public transparency and cooperation with civil society, with all the relevant information on the OHCHR website, in official languages, in particular Russian and English.
Ten years ago, there was a sort of black-out on the information, now it is accessible for civil society, with participation of NGOs presenting alternate reports and empowerment of citizens.
For example, if you look at Turkmenistan, on the website, you’ll find recent reports from this State, with concluding observations of the Committee against Torture (CAT/C/TKM/CO/2) adopted in January 2017 and of the Committee on Human Rights -CCPR/C/TKM/CO/2) adopted in March 2017.
There is also a follow up, as the Committee against Torture “requests the State Party to provide, by 7 December 2017, information on follow-up to the Committee’s recommendations on incommunicado detention, on informing the Committee about the fate and whereabouts of all persons held incommunicado or who have been disappeared” (§/41).
But the best legal tool is the mechanism of individual “communications” submitted to the Human Rights Committee, in accordance with the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
A lot of views about Turkmenistan were adjudicated but the Committee in its concluding observations to the Human Rights Committee “remains concerned about reports of secret detention and enforced disappearance of a large number of convicted and imprisoned persons, including those convicted for alleged involvement in the assassination attempt on the former President in November 2002.
It regrets the State party’s failure to respond to such allegations and to disclose the fate and whereabouts of these persons, including former Foreign Minister Boris Shikhmuradov, who was recognized by the Committee as a victim of enforced disappearance (see CCPR/C/112/D/2069/2011)” (§.16).
On this topic there is also a one-year follow-up by the Human Rights Committee.
At the same time, special rapporteurs work on specific topics, such as freedom of belief or human rights defenders, and humanitarian appeals by the Special Procedures, such as the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention or the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances with a huge case-law about Turkmenistan in the last fifteen years.
Now everybody can have a full and up-dated picture of the actual situation of human rights in the country, which was a sort of legal “no-man’s land” when I was writing the OSCE report.
Around 100 people who were imprisoned after the alleged attack were forcibly disappeared, and are still not accounted for, do you have any information about them? Were you, or are you still, in contact with their relatives?
In my new capacity on the Committee on Enforced Disappearance, I’m even more concerned with the fate of detainees who are incommunicado without access to a lawyer or communication with their family.
It is an inhumane treatment for the relatives and can be qualified as a case of enforced disappearance.Article 17 of the international Convention against Enforced Disappearance stress that “no one shall be held in secret detention” and provide a full range of safeguards.
As you know enforced disappearance is a “continuous crime”, and the victims have a right to justice, to truth and to reparation.It is a very important step to have the case-law of the Human Rights Committee as well as the decisions of the two Working Groups, but now the State had to deliver information.
The CAT is on the same line as the HRC when it “remains concerned at continued reports that estimated 90 persons are being held by the State party in long term incommunicado detention, a practice that amounts to enforced disappearance and violates the Convention.
It is particularly concerned about the State party’s failure to inform the Committee of the whereabouts of Boris and Konstantin Shikhmuradov, Batyr Beryev and Rustam Dzhumayev, and of a number of other persons who were convicted in connection with the assassination attempt on the former President in November 2002” (§.9).
Thanks to the work of NGOs and the dedication of relatives, the names of the victims are quoted by the treaty bodies and known to the international community.It is crucial to have this continuity in the monitoring of situations and this legal consistency in the qualification of violations.
As I said, I’ve no more OSCE mandate to follow the situation but as person I’m still very concerned by the ordeal of victims and dedicated to the improvement of human rights in Turkmenistan.
I hope that Turkmenistan will ratify the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, remembering that it was while Mr Shikhmuradov was Minister of Foreign Affairs that Turkmenistan ratified the main universal instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its protocols which now offer a safety net for human rights.
It will be a strong political signal for the future to ratify the Convention of 2006.
According to a report by the Turkmen Initiative for Human Rights, published in March 2017, the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Boris Shikmuradov and several other individuals imprisoned after the asserted assassination attempt on President Niyazov were allegedly shot in the notorious BL-T/5 prison between April 2003 and November 2005.
In 2008 the prison was demolished, so that any evidence has been destroyed.Are you still following the fate of Boris Shikmuradov and others?
I’ve no particular information, but all across the world, the enduring wish of the relatives is to find their dear one alive.The article 24 §.6 of the international convention puts emphasis on “the obligation to continue the investigation until the fate of the disappeared person has been clarified”, without presumption of death “with regard to the legal situation of the disappeared persons whose fate has not been clarified and that of their relatives in field such as social welfare, financial matters, family law and property rights”. The condemnation to secret detention is unlawful by itself, and it can be a sort of “mort civile” for any detainee and a state of being a perpetual outcast for his whole family.
It is even more paradox for a country, which is always congratulated for having abolished the death penalty.
Concerning human rights and rule of law, would you say Turkmenistan is still a black hole’ within the OSCE in 2017?
I think that now there is a lot of scrutiny by international bodies; As I said, we now have a full picture of the situation and a lot of accessible information.
The issue is the political will of the State authorities to establish a “constructive dialogue” with UN bodies and to examine the concluding observations in good faith, as a way to escape isolation and contempt.
But at the end, the progress of human rights is not for the sake of other countries, it is for the sake of your own people, to have an open and dynamic society with individual freedoms and legal safeguards, without the shade of fear, arbitrary detention and corruption.
It is the same for Turkmenistan as for other countries.It is my best wish for the people of Turkmenistan, now as fifteen years ago.But there is more transparency and information nowadays.
It is a cultural revolution with new media challenging propaganda and censorship.They ought to know that they are not forgotten in a backyard of the world.With economic exchanges and new technologies, peoples and societies are already interlinked.
They will be linked also by the network of universal human rights, will full participation of civil society and independent national institutions.
by Henriette Schroeder