A session dedicated to the 60th anniversary of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) was held during the Samarkand Human Rights Forum in Tashkent. Participants examined ways to ensure the practical application of international guarantees.

Carlos Ramon Fernandez Liesa, a member of the UN Human Rights Committee, called the Covenant one of the cornerstones of international law. He noted that the realization of many rights enshrined in the pact depends on the state of democracy, separation of powers, judicial independence, and the work of law enforcement agencies. At the same time, he emphasized that neither UN membership nor participation in the Covenant requires a state to adopt a specific democratic governance system. “The principle of free choice of political, economic, social, and cultural systems means there is no single model of democracy in the world,” said the UN Committee member.

Fernandez Liesa identified the Covenant’s main task as raising standards of rights protection in all countries, regardless of their political system. He described the document as a “living instrument” that must evolve with a changing world. However, such evolution requires a broad consensus among states. According to the expert, current polarization hinders this goal. “The international community is going through a period of geopolitical confrontation and weakening multilateral cooperation. There is a tendency to put sovereignty and particular interests above common ones,” he said. Fernandez Liesa warned of the risk of weakening support for human rights and called for efforts to prevent the loss of achieved guarantees. “In this transitional period, it is necessary to mobilize all efforts not to abandon achieved values and to prevent regression in the field of human rights,” the expert stressed.

Alisher Usmanov, First Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan, linked the practical protection of human rights primarily to judicial independence, fair trial, and effective mechanisms for restoring violated rights. “The implementation of international standards into national legislation is undoubtedly important. However, their practical effectiveness directly depends on how they are applied by courts,” he noted. Usmanov recalled constitutional guarantees of judicial protection, the establishment of administrative courts, and the launch of investigative judges’ work on January 1, 2025. According to him, investigative judges provide independent judicial control over respect for human rights at the pre-trial stage when considering procedural issues related to restrictions on constitutional rights and freedoms. “When considering a criminal case, the court must verify not only the validity of the accusation but also assess whether evidence was obtained by lawful means, whether the right to defense was ensured, and whether constitutional rights were violated during the preliminary investigation,” said the First Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court. He stressed that in this process, the provisions of the Covenant, as well as legal conclusions and recommendations of the UN Human Rights Committee, should serve as guidelines for courts. Usmanov pointed to the need for regular study of the positions of international treaty bodies, their inclusion in professional training programs for judges, and the development of the application of international norms in court decisions.

Pauline Jacobs, Associate Professor of Criminal Law at Tilburg University, devoted her presentation to the ability of convicts and persons serving sentences to file complaints about conditions in places of detention. “Complaint review mechanisms are one of the main guarantees for protecting persons deprived of liberty from torture, cruel and degrading treatment,” she said. Such appeals may relate to unlawful actions by staff, poor detention conditions, lack of useful activities, or insufficient medical care. According to Jacobs, a serious approach to complaints helps reduce tension and establish proper relations between prisoners and staff. Drawing on the standards of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and the European Prison Rules, she listed the necessary conditions for such a mechanism to work: unhindered access, confidentiality, independence of the reviewing body, timely consideration, and the possibility of obtaining legal assistance. “Prisoners must receive oral and written information about this procedure in a language they understand. Complaint forms must be easily accessible, and all materials necessary for filing a complaint must be open for free use,” said the researcher. It is especially important that the appeal itself does not create new risks for the person. “The procedure must be confidential and safe. Filing a complaint must not be accompanied by intimidation or retaliatory measures. It must not work against the prisoner who submitted it,” Jacobs emphasized. According to her, in the Netherlands, complaints against decisions of the prison governor or made on his behalf are considered by an independent commission not connected to the prison administration. This mechanism also provides for the possibility of compensation—in particular, in the form of additional visits or telephone conversations for prisoners.

Uzbek participants spoke about how these guarantees work in practice. Gulnora Ishanxanova, Deputy Chair of the “Ilm Nuri Center” NGO and lawyer, stressed the importance of judges studying decisions of the UN Human Rights Committee and its evidence. She also reminded that non-governmental organizations can submit alternative reports on the country’s implementation of international obligations. She separately raised the issue of courts’ attitude to reports of torture. “We certainly very much want our judges to have a practical attitude toward applications about torture,” said Ishanxanova, emphasizing the need to verify such statements and resolve the issue of the admissibility of obtained testimony. Lawyer Tamila Rakhmatullaeva reported that international organizations and the Chamber of Advocates conduct training sessions for judges and lawyers on international law norms, but in her assessment, practice is still far from fully applying them. “I have not seen a single court decision based on the norms of the international pact, although I myself refer to these norms in all my documents,” said the lawyer. Positively assessing the guarantees enshrined in the Constitution, Rakhmatullaeva called for their more active application in the work of courts and law enforcement agencies. “The fact that all this is reflected in our Constitution is a huge achievement of our state, but we want to see it in practice,” she said.

Session moderator Eldor Tulyakov, Executive Director of the “Development Strategy” Center, noted that international norms have already been incorporated into national legislation. He also reminded that in case of divergence with national legislation, international treaty norms have priority. Janos Videmann, Director General for Equal Treatment at the Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary, spoke about the administrative procedure for protection against discrimination. Under this procedure, the burden of proof should not fall on the applicant; it is enough for him to show that he suffered damage and that at the time of the violation he possessed a legally protected characteristic (for example, gender or disability). The opposing party must prove the absence of the indicated circumstances, compliance with the requirement of equal treatment, or the inapplicability of this requirement to the given relations. When a violation is established, the ombudsman may demand the elimination of the illegal situation, prohibit the repetition of such actions, impose a fine, or issue an instruction to announce the final decision. The right to appeal this decision in court remains. According to Videmann, among the violations identified, the most common is discrimination on the grounds of disability, including failure to ensure infrastructure accessibility.

Source: www.gazeta.uz