VZCZCXRO5716
PP RUEHDBU
DE RUEHNT #0327/01 0450149
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 140149Z FEB 06
FM AMEMBASSY TASHKENT
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 5162
INFO RUEHEK/AMEMBASSY BISHKEK 2255
RUEHTA/AMEMBASSY ALMATY 7618
RUEHDBU/AMEMBASSY DUSHANBE 2147
RUEHAH/AMEMBASSY ASHGABAT 1730

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 TASHKENT 000327 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR SCA/CEN AND DRL 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/14/2016 
TAGS: PHUM PREL PGOV UZ
SUBJECT: SUNSHINE COALITION LEADERS' TRIALS - BOMBAST AND 
BUCKWHEAT 
 
 
CLASSIFIED BY AMB. JON R. PURNELL, FOR REASONS 1.4 (B, D). 
 
REF: TASHKENT 269 
 
¶1. (C) Summary: Sunshine Coalition co-founders Sanjar Umarov 
and Nodira Khidoyatova's trials continue in parallel 
sessions, in the same court and under the same judge.  The 
judge has excluded testimony about alleged USG financial 
support for the opposition movement, limiting testimony to 
esoteric discussions of gas exports and buckwheat imports. 
The judge clearly seems to want to focus the trial on the 
economic charges against the two, keeping any insinuations 
that politics played a role - including a charge that Umarov 
received a pledge from the USG for $28 million, $6 million 
of which was deposited in his personal account - out of his 
courtroom.  The defendants' families and supporters continue 
trying to attract attention by publicly ridiculing the 
charges.  The handful of human rights activists keeping 
vigil at the court complain that guards have selectively 
excluded or harassed them.  End summary. 
 
¶2. (C) Sunshine Uzbekistan Coalition co-founder Sanjar 
Umarov's tax evasion trial continued February 3-8, and then 
recessed until February 13 while the court proceeded with 
the parallel trial of coalition co-founder Nodira 
Khidoyatova on similar charges.  The two trials have an 
alternated schedule, as both are being heard by the same 
judge in the same courtroom.  The two trials were not 
originally scheduled to conflict, with Umarov's starting on 
January 30, the anticipated final day of Khidoyatova's 
hearings (reftel).  However, Khidoyatova's trial has run 
long with added testimony.  Judge Zakir Isayev apparently 
rejected an earlier motion to combine the two trials.  Free 
Farmers (Ozod Dehqonlar) Party loyalists, coordinated by 
activist Elena Urlayeva, have maintained a daily vigil 
outside the Tashkent Criminal Court, sending as many of 
their members into the courtroom for each session as will 
fit into the cramped chamber.  So far, authorities have not 
overtly impeded outside observers, though activists complain 
that guards sometimes selectively exclude them.  Marat 
Zakhidov of the International Society for Human Rights 
notified the Embassy that on February 10 Tashkent police 
announced they were filing charges against Urlayeva for 
giving money and food to activists to encourage them to 
observe the trials. 
 
UMAROV: HEARSAY TESTIMONY AND ALLEGED U.S. SUPPORT 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
¶3. (C) Umarov's lawyer, Vitaly Krasilovsky, told Poloff that 
Umarov's trial has been characterized by hearsay evidence 
and scarcely credible testimony, which he alleges 
investigators have coerced through threats and intimidation. 
He cited the example of a railroad customs inspector who 
testified that, while working on the Uzbek-Afghan border in 
2003, he took bribes on several occasions from a man who 
claimed to be exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG) on 
Umarov's behalf through the offshore company ProFinance. 
When asked whether he had ever taken bribes from anyone 
else, the inspector reportedly said, "No, never.  Only from 
that one person."  Krasilovsky said the comment elicited 
chuckles from the courtroom.  (Comment: Uzbek customs 
officials are notoriously corrupt.  The idea that this 
official has taken a bribe from only one individual is 
indeed laughable.  End comment.) 
 
¶4. (C) According to Krasilovsky, another witness, Umarov's 
childhood friend Grigoriy Saakyants, gave written testimony 
alleging that Umarov traveled to the United States shortly 
before his arrest and obtained a USG pledge of $28 million 
to support his opposition political activity, $6 million of 
which was already in an Umarov bank account.  When Saakyants 
appeared for live testimony, Umarov personally confronted 
him about the allegation, but the judge cut him off, saying 
that there were no political charges included in the 
indictment, and they should therefore not be discussed. 
 
KHIDOYATOVA: "A CIRCUS SHOW" 
---------------------------- 
 
¶5. (C) Nodira Khidoyatova's trial resumed on February 9 with 
esoteric testimony on her alleged illegal trading of 
buckwheat.  During the session, at which eleven witnesses 
testified, the defendant and her sister, Ozod Dehqonlar 
leader Nigora Khidoyatova, openly mocked the prosecution's 
charges.  Near the end of a statement by the prosecuting 
attorney, Nigora rose and stormed out of the courtroom, 
 
TASHKENT 00000327  002 OF 002 
 
 
shouting that the trial was a "circus show."  Only 14 
observers would fit into the small courtroom on February 9, 
leaving several outside complaining that they had been 
deliberately excluded.  Those permitted to observe included 
the defendant's family, poloff, a German diplomat, and 
several human rights activists.  One independent journalist 
and several human rights activists were denied entry. 
Several of the latter told poloff that guards had demanded 
their passport numbers, and they expressed fears of possible 
arrest.  Several gave handwritten notes to poloffs asking 
for meetings on various human rights issues.  On February 
10, guards admitted virtually all observers who wished to 
enter, regardless of the space limitation. 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶6. (C) By opening this politically motivated trial to 
outside observers, the GOU likely expected that the 
superficial appearance of a fair trial might dull Western 
criticism of judicial shortcomings.  It also gives the GOU a 
way to show its critics that Umarov and Khidoyatova's trials 
are indeed for economic crimes and unrelated to their work 
in the Sunshine Coalition.  As we have noted in the past, it 
is impossible for us to comment on the veracity of the 
charges against the two.  However, both cases are, without a 
doubt, at best examples of selective prosecution.  The 
system of laws and regulations is such that it is almost 
impossible for anyone who does business to meet all 
requirements.  Government-issued "secret" decrees make it 
even more difficult. 
 
PURNELL