Alternative report

Background of the Criminal Case
In November 2001 a number of women picketed in Tashkent, demanding the release of their sons, brothers, sisters, and husbands convicted as a result of their religious beliefs. Nilufar Khaydarova decided to support the picketers, because her brothers, Rayim Khaydarov (born 1977) and Kayum Khaydarov (born 1981), both natives of Tashkent, had been illegally detained and convicted as a result of their religious beliefs.
An inquiry conducted by human rights defenders has shown that the detentions and the investigations were illegal, that detainees were subjected to torture and cruel treatment, that the criminal cases were fabricated, and that judges made decisions as ordered by the government.
On the day of the picket Nilufar Khaydarova was detained before she had a chance to join other picketers. Just as she was exiting a metro station she was detained by militia officers, taken to the Yakkasaray Court, and arrested for five days by the decision of that court.
In the time that followed a "case" was started against Nilufar Khaydarova (as directed by government authorities) by the district militia station in her neighborhood, where she was constantly watched, or, more exactly, persecuted by the militia, which is a blatant violation of human rights and freedoms.
The persecution was corroborated by the 75-year-old Mannon Khakimov, head of the II-Katartal makhallya, who served as a witness in court. Mr. Khakimov said that Nilufar Khaydarova was on law-enforcement authorities' "black list" since 2001, which is reflected in 90 pages of materials on file with this Criminal Case 24/04-2155. This includes "preventive measures" taken by the militia and the makhallya, and "explanatory statements" clearly demonstrating persecution for dissent.
In 2001 Nilufar Khaydarova underwent a major surgery for the vaginal removal of the uterus, fallopian tubes and ovaries. As stated in the medical record presented to the investigation officer and to the court, Ms. Khaydarova has advanced cancer and requires special care.
On 28 March 2004 Nilufar Khaydarova and her mother, Lidiya Khaydarova, went to the town of Karshi to visit her brother, who was serving his prison sentence there. They returned to Tashkent on 31 March 2004, which proves that Nilufar Khaydarova did not know and could not possibly know about the explosions in Tashkent, participation in which is incriminated to her. Moreover, she has never met any of the other defendants under this case.
The search conducted in the home of the Khaydarov family on 5 April 2004 at 5 a.m. was also conducted with a number of violations. Their residence, located at 15 Iktisod St., Chilanzar District, Tashkent, was visited by 20 law-enforcement officers with firearms. The officers ordered the Kaydarov family out of the house and into the courtyard and started the search before the arrival of witnesses. A testimony of this was presented in court by a witness of the search, Mr. Mannon Khakimov, who testified that the search was in process at the time of his arrival at the Kaydarov residence around 5:30 a.m., while the family was gathered in the courtyard.
Deliberately violating Article 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, "Persons Attending a Seizure or a Search", the law-enforcement officers planted books and leaflets in the Khaydarov residence, which were then used in charges against Nilufar Khaydarova. Furthermore, after the search conducted in the home of the Khaydarov family, the family's savings of 400 US Dollars and 2,500 Russian Roubles have "disappeared".
Articles 161, "Seizure and Search Procedures", and 164, "The Requirement to Present Copies of the Warrant and the Record of a Seizure or a Search", of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also violated during the search.
As a result, the helpless family and the sick woman were depicted as enemies and taken by law-enforcement officers to the Chilanzar ROVD of Tashkent, where Ms. Khaydarova was subjected to interrogation for over 30 hours without an attorney.
Throughout the investigation Ms. Khaydarova was unable to receive medications, clothes, or food. Moreover, care was taken to prevent her from meeting with people from the International Red Cross.
Fabrication of the Criminal Case 24/04-2155
The criminal case of Ms. Khaydarova has clearly been fabricated by the originators of this case: Mr. B.B. Bobojonov, Deputy Chief of the Investigation Department of the Tashkent Public Prosecutor's Office, with the "consent" of the head of the Investigation Department, Mr. K.R. Juraev, and the "agreement" of Tashkent's Public Prosecutor, Mr. B.B. Valiev, and investigators with the Prosecutor General's Office, Mr. Kh.O. Khusanov and Mr. Kh.M. Akhadov.

The criminal case consists solely of accusations, without a single fact or piece of evidence that would demonstrate Ms. Khaydarova's participation or complicity in the Tashkent explosions, directly or through other persons, or her acquaintance with the suicide bombers. Ms. Khaydarova is charged with all of the above, while she was not even in Tashkent during the bombings; she and her mother, Lidiya Khaydarova, were in Karshi, visiting her brother serving his sentence in that town.

All charges brought against Ms. Khaydarova are farfetched, unfounded, and slanderous.
First: Nilufar Khaydarova has never been on the wanted list, and since 2001 she has been under the close surveillance of the district militia officer of her neighborhood, as demonstrated by the case records (page 172, vol. 37).
Second: The criminal case does not contain a single fact demonstrating that Nilufar Khaydarova was hiding in Afghanistan or Pakistan and that she was part of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan or armed groups, neither has this been proven during the trial. The dates of her alleged stay in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the time when she was presumably on the wanted list also remain to be demonstrated.
Third: During the trial Public Prosecutors Mr. Akramov (Deputy Prosecutor of Tashkent) and Mr. Usmanov (Deputy Prosecutor of A. Ikramov Prosecutor's Office) were unable to ask the defendant, Ms. Khaydarova, a single question during her appearance in court on 13 September 2004, which shows that she is not guilty of any of the charges brought against her under 18 articles of the Criminal Code.
Fourth: It became known to all participants in this trial that at noon on Sunday, 12 September 2004, two MIA field agents named Edik and Ibragim gained illegal entry to the No. 1 Tashtyurma pre-trial facility. They took the defendant, Ms. Khaydarova, to a separate cell and conducted an illegal interrogation, threatening and pressuring her to plead guilty in court and not to mention the tortures and the humiliation that she experienced during the investigation. Otherwise, they threatened, she would suffer in prison or, if she is acquitted by court, she would be murdered in the street.
This further proves that the criminal case was fabricated by the investigation officers, while showing that the defendant, Ms. Khaydarova, is not guilty as charged.
Fifth: The search of the Khaydarov residence on 5 April 2004 was conducted with gross violations of basic standards of search as set forth in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The search was started before the arrival of witnesses, as stated in the testimony of Mr. Mannon Khakimov, a search witness, who also testified that during the search the owners of the home were gathered in the courtyard, and, as a result, militia officers were able to plant leaflets and books in the house and to steal the savings of the Khaydarov family amounting to 400 US Dollars and 2,500 Russian Roubles. On 22 April 2004 Ms. Lidiya Khaydarova wrote to Prosecutor General, Mr. Rashid Kadyrov, regarding that matter, but she did not receive any reply to her letter, which is a violation of the Law on Citizens' Appeals.
Sixth: During the trial Mr. S. Sharipov, an expert with the Committee for Religions under the Cabinet Office of Uzbekistan, who evaluated the content of the leaflets and books found in the Khaydarov residence, failed to provide answers to the following questions:
e) What are the laws that are used to declare certain leaflets or books prohibited?

b) What is the list of prohibited leaflets and books?

c) What are the criteria that are used to evaluate the political agenda in seized leaflets, books, audiotapes and videotapes?

d) Which agency was responsible for "approving" the list of prohibited leaflets, books, audiotapes and videotapes?

d) How can one tell "prohibited" books, leaflets, audiotapes or videotapes from those that are not prohibited, if the titles or inscriptions on these media are changed?

e) What about the fact that the content of leaflets, books, audiotapes and videotapes prohibited by the government are freely available on the Internet?

Seventh: During the investigation the detainees, all of whom are religious people arrested on a charge of participation in the bomb attack in Tashkent, were all subjected to torture by law-enforcement authorities to obtain confession by force. The investigation was carried out in the absence of lawyers, which is illegal and is essentially a criminal act committed by the investigators.
Eighth: Both the Charge Sheet and the Criminal Case 24/04-2155 are inaccurate and contain a number of serious errors, such as:
a) The Charge Sheet states that the search of the Khaydarov residence was conducted on 4 April 2004, although the search took place on 5 April 2004.

b) The Criminal Case and the Charge Sheet fail to demonstrate any link between Ms. Khaydarova and other defendants under Case 24/04-2155.

c) The Criminal Case 24/04-2155 fails to demonstrate that Ms. Khaydarova was linked to the "terrorists" who killed themselves in the explosions in Tashkent.
Overall, the Criminal Case 24/04-2155 and the Charge Sheet compiled by the investigators of the Tashkent Public Prosecutor's Office are poorly and inexpertly written.
On Public Prosecutor's Oversight
A legal review of Criminal Case 24/04-2155, which comprises 43 volumes, of which only Volume 37 consisting of 90 pages relates to the defendant, Ms. Khaydarova, shows that the case does not contain a single line that would prove the defendant guilty, and the defendant's guilt was not demonstrated in court.
Nearly every page of the criminal case shows that it has been fabricated with gross violations of procedural norms and noncompliance with the laws of Uzbekistan (Articles 1 and 4 of the Law on Public Prosecutor's Offices).
Public prosecutors participating in the trial: Mr. Akramov (Deputy Prosecutor of Tashkent) and Mr. Usmanov (Deputy Prosecutor of A. Ikramov District Prosecutor's Office in Tashkent), failed to pose any questions to the defendant, Ms. Khaydarova. Questions posed by these public prosecutors to other defendants imply that citizens have no right to get involved in politics or to have political opinions, which is a clear violation of constitutional rights and international human rights conventions signed by the Government of Uzbekistan.
Notably, Mr. B.B. Valiev, Public Prosecutor of Tashkent, with the connivance of the General Prosecutor's Office, allowed fabrication of Criminal Case 24/04-2155, which charges innocent citizens who bear no relation to the Tashkent explosions that happened in late March 2004 or to the suicide bombers who were responsible for the attacks.
A question inevitably comes to mind: why and how is it possible for the prosecutor, who is responsible for overseeing execution of relevant laws, to breach the very principles of this oversight and to allow fabrication of a criminal case, unfounded and unsubstantiated, against innocent citizens of his country.
This criminal case violates the principles of international human rights conventions.
On the Judicial Proceeding
The criminal case went to trial on 7 September 2004 under the presidency of Mr. M. Musaev, a judge with the Tashkent City Criminal Court.
During trial the following norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure were violated:

a) Before all victims were interrogated, witnesses were allowed to be examined.

b) Some defendants, witnesses, and victims were questioned in the absence of defense attorneys.

c) All sessions of the court lacked some participants of the trial.

d) Lawyers were not given enough time to prepare for the pleadings.

e) Some witnesses were not examined during the trial.

For reasons given above and as specified in the Code of Procedure,
I hereby petition the court
- to immediately release Ms. Nilufar Mirrakhimovna Khaydarova under Article 83, Sections 1 and 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Absence of the Event of Crime and Non-Participation in the Crime) while applying Article 304, Section 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

- to provide compensation for material and moral damages and for the expenses incurred as a result of illegal actions;

- to institute proceedings against the investigators of the Tashkent Public Prosecutor's Office and those complicit in the fabrication of the Criminal Case 24/04-2155 under the following articles of the Criminal Code:

Article 230, Institution of Criminal Proceedings Against an Innocent Person;

Article 233, Illegal Disposal of Seized Property;

Article 234, Illegal Detention or Taking into Custody;

Article 235, Compulsion of Evidence.
Thank you!

Surat Ikramov, Defense Attorney

30 September 2004г

146. Р. S. The fifteen defendants (including eight women) under the criminal case fabricated by the Tashkent Public Prosecutor's Office on the charge of violations of 18 articles of the Criminal Code, which failed to be proven during the trial, were

nevertheless sentenced up to 15.5 years of imprisonment.

Ms. Nilufar Khaydarova was sentenced to 6 years of imprisonment. The court dismissed charges of violation of 14 out of 18 articles, while retaining charges under Articles 159, 242, 244¹, 244² of the Criminal Code. The Tashkent City Criminal Court Board of Appeals reduced Ms. Khaydarova's term of imprisonment to 4 years. Ms. Khaydarova is currently serving her sentence at KIN 64/7 in Tashkent, while her health is steadily deteriorating. (detailed information on the subject has been published in the reports of the IGNPU Press Center on 27 April 2004, 13 September 2004, 30 September 2004, 07 October 2004, 15 October 2004, 22 October 2004, 26 October 2004)

1 Translator’s note: The abbreviations of some common terms have been transliterated from Russian (e.g. GOVD rather CDIA) to avoid possible terminological confusion.