Conducted By Michael Camarda

Maria Lisitsyna is the founder of the Youth Human Rights Group, a prominent Kyrgyz NGO, through which she advocates for children’s rights, monitors human rights in state institutions such as psychiatric hospitals and orphanages, and runs training programs on human rights throughout Kyrgyzstan and Central Asia. A lawyer, she also founded the Independent Human Rights Group, which helps to implement international human rights agreements and provide legal representation to victims of human rights violations. In 2005, Lisitsyna was elected to the Constitutional Council, a body convened to amend Kyrgyzstan’s constitution. 

How would you compare the occurrence of human rights violations in Central Asia to that in Western nations?

Human rights violations in Central Asia are systematic, deep-rooted, and widespread. My work mostly focuses on civil and political rights, and the situation is abysmal. These are authoritarian and semi-authoritarian states, where pressure on journalists, NGO activists, or political opponents of the current governments is an everyday reality. So are the cruelest violations—torture, arbitrary detention, unfair trials. At the same time, although Central Asia clearly is an authoritarian neighborhood, each of its five countries is different, has its own main problems, and the scale of its human rights abuse is not the same. It is hard to generalize.

Unfortunately, the record of a number of Western countries with regard to civil and political rights also went down in recent years, in particular, under the auspices of counter-terrorism measures. It is widely discussed and criticized internationally. The rhetoric of anti-terrorism provides a comfortable pretext for countries to hide human rights abuses, and Central Asian states did not miss the opportunity to adopt it. The global war on terrorism gave great leverage for a much harsher backlash against practicing Muslims, those who attend other than official state-managed mosques. The irony is that these are countries with majority Muslim population.

You don’t need to be a terrorist suspect in a Central Asian state to be tortured—it can happen to anyone arrested by the police. Such practices existed before the current world situation, and they continue to prevail.

What do you mean by torture?

The definition of torture includes both physical and psychological sufferings inflicted by a state official or when he knows about it and does not prevent it. Torture generally has a specific aim—to punish, to extract a confession. It is also a power game, often described that police torture and humiliate people with only objective to show who the master is.

Depending on the country, the intensity would be different. The usual practice is beating the suspect with nightsticks for hours at a time. Of course, official numbers on such incidents do not exist. Officers who want to hide the practice of torture would use methods that do not leave traces—severe beatings to the kidney or stomach, for example, sometimes with a water bottle. Some other non-traceable practices include placing a gas mask on the suspect and then cutting the oxygen. Tying or cuffing a captive’s hands behind a chair and leaving him in all sorts of uncomfortable positions is commonplace and found in all countries. There are many reports by international organizations describing even worst practices happening. Particularly horrifying are the accounts from Uzbek and Turkmen jails of throwing suspects to the solid floor from a height and the alleged administration of psychotropic drugs. Very worrying is that it looks like such practices are the norm, not an exception.

Although torture was criminalized, it is not punished. In the first torture case in Kyrgyzstan this year that finally reached court, the policemen were acquitted. And this happens in a country where acquittals make up about one percent of all verdicts in criminal cases.

What are the biggest challenges you face in advocating for human rights in Central Asia?

Central Asia is quite a difficult environment for human rights work. Lack of efficient mechanisms of human rights protection is one of the major obstacles. It is hard, and in some countries just impossible, to bring the perpetrators of abuse to justice and restore infringed rights.

Kyrgyzstan sometimes is called a country of NGOs; NGOs are the main actors in the human rights cause, but the media’s input is irreplaceable. I am happy that some defense attorneys also take seriously their role to protect the rights of their clients. We have several courageous attorneys who run cases against the government, against policemen, and their participation is extremely important. Unfortunately, many attorneys still see their role as taking bribes from a client and passing in on to the judge. We really need other actors to be involved in human rights cases—NGOs alone are limited in what we can achieve.

As for challenges, the government’s practice generally was to let you know that they were “watching” you. Some of your phone calls may sound like they are being tapped. Police may come to your apartment under the guise of passport control to ask questions about where you work, where you travel, and how much you earn.

Kyrgyzstan is, unfortunately, changing for the worse. While the central government takes “hands off” approach, local governmental officials bring lawsuits against human rights defenders. Although the charges are often ridiculous, the outcomes are not very funny, especially since most cases involve criminal prosecution. One human rights defender got ten days’ detention for exercising the freedom-of-information law. In the Kyrgyz city of Talas, activists were protesting the development of gold mines, in particular for ecological reasons.

During the protests some stones were thrown by unknown people. Some of the activists are now charged with crimes that would land them in prison for twenty years. Three key staff members of Justice, a great NGO in southern Kyrgyzstan, stand criminal trial for libel for publishing an account of a pregnant woman maltreated by the police. In Uzbekistan, NGOs often have to work underground, while in Turkmenistan, there are no registered human rights NGOs, although some activists work in exile. In sum, the major challenge is that the formal mechanisms that activists can use to defend the rights of victims of human rights violations, and sometimes protect themselves, are extremely weak and not really efficient.

Which state in Central Asia is the biggest human rights violator?

This would not be my favorite question. In Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, we call ourselves “victims of comparison,” meaning that our situation is judged to be acceptable just because we are compared to our neighbors. In the most closed and authoritarian states, which by all acounts are Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, at the moment, the violations can be so bad that other states appear warm and fuzzy in comparison. I believe that each country should be assessed against minimum international standards, and not against each other.

What legal recourse is there for victims of human rights violations in domestic law or international law?

Some nominal laws exist in all countries. You can appeal the violations to the courts, but your chance of winning is another story. Although, in Kyrgyzstan, the Independent Human Rights Group (IHRG) started actively addressing the poor performance of government officials through administrative court procedure. In particular, our cases were related to the breaches of Freedom of Information Act. During last two years IHRG got positive decisions in 12 out of 27 cases.

As for the international mechanisms, save Kazakhstan , other countries ratified the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It gives the right to send an official complaint against the state to the UN Human Rights Committee, although applicants first must exhaust all domestic remedies. The procedure in many aspects is similar to the better-known European Court on Human Rights. The problem with the Human Rights Committee is that there is no clear enforcement mechanism. Sad examples include the first Tajik case, in which the person was executed even after the government received the notification and request not to execute from Human Rights Committee. Kyrgyzstan also expelled asylum seekers back to Uzbekistan where they were facing torture despite UN Human Rights Committee’s request not to extradite.

Still, this possibility to address an international body gives people a sense of hope. One, it’s a matter of law; when a government is told they have a bad law, it does make a difference, and you can lobby harder to amend it. Two, this empowers people; they can hope for change and also at least the formal recognition of injustice. Sometimes the situation of the victim gets speedily improved. In Tajikistan, for example, in previous years some death sentences were replaced with other punishment as soon as the government learned that the complaints were sent to the Human Rights Committee.

As of October 2007  there are 77 complaints registered by the Human Rights Committee against Uzbekistan (of them, the Committee found violations of the applicant’s rights in 14, and 11 were discontinued); 28 against Tajikistan (with 11 of them decided in favor of the applicant); 16 against Kyrgyzstan (none yet decided by the Committee, but most were brought by the defense lawyers that went through training with the Youth Human Rights Group); four against Turkmenistan, where people do not complain for different reasons, including fear of retaliation. The Turkmen cases have not yet been decided either. There is one case of a Turkmen citizen against the Russian Federation that he won in the European Court for Human Rights (Garabayev v. Russia.) The case was related to his extradition back to Turkmenistan from Moscow and maltreatment there.

None of Central Asian government has yet won any case in the UN Human Rights Committee.

What is the most effective method in improving human rights in Central Asia?

In Kyrgyzstan, the usual way is to mobilize civil society. It’s easier to prevent human rights violations before they happen. Petitions, signatures, and strategic litigation are all effective preventative means. On cases that are less political, you can win in Kyrgyz and Kazakh courts. For example, the Independent Human Rights Group took the Kyrgyz government to court for not establishing independent services for people in psychiatric hospitals. The law failed to specify which agency’s duty this was. IHRG won the case. Even better, the government then looked to us for advice on implementation.

I also see great potential in Freedom of Information laws. They serve as discipline for the government.

What can the people of Central Asia do for themselves to allow for a stronger and more just rule of law?

Let’s take one example. To be corrupt is easy. Check an Index on Corruption, and you will see how high Central Asia is there. For example, in many universities you can easily pay for your grades, and generally the “price” is rather affordable. Once you stop paying, you are in the spotlight. Not being corrupt often means being outside the system or complicating your life. You still can refuse to pay, and you will make it through, it is just more difficult. Many of us did it, though, as students—we decided not to pay bribes and still graduated fine. With a growing middle class in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, the serious challenge is to resist corruption. I believe that you could at least reduce corruption that way, although maybe it is a naïve view.

How linked are standards of human rights with a vibrant economy?

I’m not a specialist on the economy, but the right to property is very important. Basically, I have very classical liberal views. I do not think that because you are poor you don’t want your human rights to be respected. Let’s look again at civil and political rights. We only ask for minimal standards: Do not torture, do not arbitrarily arrest, do not threaten journalists and dissidents, and respect your own laws. The issue of economic and social rights is dependent on economic progress. Although in our countries, where the infrastructure for social services existed not long ago, some simple reallocation of resources should improve the situation.

If you pay attention to the protests that happen quite often in Kyrgyzstan, you will see that people do not ask for money as such; they criticize corrupt practices that impede the country’s developments and their own chances to live better lives.
 
What does the future hold for human rights, freedoms, and education in Central Asia? What can the outside world do to make Central Asia a better place in these regards?

The biggest thing the outside world can do is to stop pretending that progress has been made when it hasn’t. The international organizations, as different agencies of the United Nations or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, often do not “notice” that member-states significantly violate their commitments. Different reports and resolutions are published, but they are not monitored and no action is taken. I am for sure not arguing for military interventions in every country that violates its citizens’ rights—this tactic proved inefficient in addition to raising moral doubts. But firm and principled stands on cooperation with such countries and continued demands to respect their commitments are desperately needed.

Many would argue that United States and other Western countries also do not respect human rights. I just think it is not a sufficient argument to say that because of it they have no right to comment on the others. International human rights values are universal, and citizens of many countries should be protected from the actions of their own states. Every country in the world should be under scrutiny and should be able to criticize others and be criticized. So I would hope that “usual suspects” such as the U.S. and the EU would have coherent policy toward our countries and take a firm stand on human rights issues. I would also hope that at the same time they improve their own human rights records, but it is not directly interdependent. Financial institutions, economic players, and development organizations have to finally notice human rights problems as well.

I believe local NGOs and other civil society organizations are very important actors for the future of Central Asia. International institutions would be extremely limited without working with organizations on a local level.

On the theoretical level I would like to mention what individualism means for human rights in Central Asian societies. I would argue that in places were collectivism was imposed or where the sense of community is culturally ingrained, we have to speak more about individual rights. Focus only on community would be counter-productive. My stake on the issue is that you first have to understand your value as an individual—to realize that, for example, the government functions on your taxes. Then you can meaningfully participate in the community but also protect yourself.

I am not very optimistic with regard to the future of human rights in my region. In all Central Asian countries we see a backlash of different degrees, and it is a good reason to be concerned—but not desperate. We need to take action by demanding the release of political prisoners in Turkmenistan, religious prisoners and human rights defenders in Uzbekistan, stopping harassment of religious groups such as Hare Krishna in Kazakhstan, prosecuting perpetrators of abuses in every state. Both local and international actors have to do it, and we have to take into account that often things in Central Asia move slowly, so to achieve some change for the better might take a while. But we have to get to the right track faster.

---