VZCZCXRO3363
OO RUEHDBU
DE RUEHNT #0427/01 0601328
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 011328Z MAR 06
FM AMEMBASSY TASHKENT
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 5261
INFO RUEHTA/AMEMBASSY ALMATY IMMEDIATE 7667
RUEHAH/AMEMBASSY ASHGABAT IMMEDIATE 1776
RUEHEK/AMEMBASSY BISHKEK IMMEDIATE 2299
RUEHDBU/AMEMBASSY DUSHANBE IMMEDIATE 2192
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW IMMEDIATE 6563
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE IMMEDIATE 1675

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 TASHKENT 000427 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR SCA/CEN AND DRL 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/01/2016 
TAGS: PHUM PREL PGOV UZ
SUBJECT: SUNSHINE COALITION TRIALS - KHIDOYATOVA SENTENCED 
TO TEN YEARS, UMAROV VERDICT COMING 
 
REF: 05 TASHKENT 2935 
 
Classified By: AMB. JON R. PURNELL, FOR REASONS 1.4 (B, D) 
 
¶1. (C) Summary: The trial of Sunshine Coalition co-founder 
Nodira Khidoyatova ended on March 1 with a ten-year prison 
sentence.  A verdict in the trial of fellow coalition 
co-founder Sanjar Umarov is scheduled for March 6.  The final 
session of Umarov's trial featured a theatrical debate 
between the prosecuting and defense attorneys that elicited 
laughter and applause from courtroom observers.  It is clear 
that both cases are political, and the trials orchestrated 
for the benefit of an international audience.  End summary. 
 
NODIRA KHIDOYATOVA SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶2. (C) On March 1, Judge Zakir Isayev of the Tashkent City 
Criminal Court sentenced Sunshine Coalition co-founder Nodira 
Khidoyatova to ten years imprisonment.  Khidoyatova was 
accused of tax evasion, illegal commodities trading, and 
conspiracy with fellow coalition co-founder Sanjar Umarov to 
violate tax and trade laws.  The prosecutor had asked the 
court for a sentence of 12 years imprisonment.  In his 
verdict, the judge ruled that the evidence did not support 
some of the accusations, and he accordingly reduced the 
requested sentence by two years.  Attorneys and observers 
expect that Khidoyatova will not qualify for amnesty or a 
lighter sentence, as she was already granted amnesty after a 
1996 criminal conviction on similar charges, and the law does 
not allow multiple amnesties. 
 
¶3. (C) Khidoyatova's trial attracted growing attention from 
journalists, local NGOs, and international observers. 
Approximately 40-50 people appeared for the final hearing, 
including representatives from the German and British 
embassies, Human Rights Watch, and several local human rights 
activists.  Some attendees were barred from the court on the 
judge's orders, presumably because they had previously been 
ejected for violating courtroom decorum.  Otherwise, the 
court did not appear to systematically prevent access.  In 
contrast to previous trials, where observers were required to 
request access in advance, guards at Khidoyatova's trial 
asked prospective observers to nominate a representative to 
compile a handwritten list of attendees immediately before 
each hearing.  Those on the list were generally admitted to 
the courtroom. 
 
SANJAR UMAROV: "I WANT A FAIR TRIAL" 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶4. (C) Khidoyatova's trial took place concurrently with 
Umarov's.  He was charged with grand larceny, bribery, 
money-laundering, and tax evasion.  Umarov's trial has taken 
place in the same courtroom, with the same judge and the same 
prosecuting attorney as in Khidoyatova's case.  The 
prosecutor has asked for an 18-year prison sentence for 
Umarov. 
 
¶5. (C) On February 27, Umarov and his attorney, Vitaly 
Krasilovsky, gave closing remarks.  In an exhaustively 
detailed presentation that drew applause from the courtroom 
observers, Krasilovsky argued that the accusations were based 
upon dubious testimony from persons who had something to gain 
from testifying, many of whom did not even know Umarov 
personally.  He argued that Umarov had no legal affiliation 
with the companies he is accused of operating, and that 
Umarov was not personally liable for Uzbek taxes as he has 
been a permanent resident of the United States for seven 
years.  "If any independent expert were to examine the 
evidence in this case," Krasilovsky said, "the prosecution's 
case would fall apart like a house of cards." 
 
¶6. (C) The prosecuting attorney then rose and hotly refuted 
Krasilovsky's claims in extemporaneous remarks addressed not 
to the judge, but to the courtroom observers.  (Comment: He 
spoke in a theatrical, pompous tone, peppered with rhetorical 
questions such as, "Is Mr. Umarov a citizen of a foreign 
country?!"  End comment.)  He argued that, in the over 2,000 
cases in which he had participated as a prosecutor (Note: 
Yes, two thousand.  End note.), he had never seen one as well 
documented as this one.  In a crescendo of fury, he expressed 
the futility of the defense's case in a rhyming Russian 
phrase which could be loosely translated as: "You can't argue 
 
TASHKENT 00000427  002 OF 002 
 
 
with a sledgehammer."  The comment sent every person in the 
courtroom into peals of laughter - including even Umarov 
himself.  (Comment: Those rooting for the defense perfectly 
understood the dark irony in the prosecutor's expression. 
The "sledgehammer," in this case, is the Uzbek government, 
against which there is no defense.  End comment.) 
 
¶7. (C) Before closing the session, the judge gave Umarov an 
opportunity for a final statement.  He rose to the occasion 
with an impassioned denunciation of the judicial process.  He 
called the government case a politically motivated response 
to his opposition activity and accused government 
investigators of bullying and threatening him in pre-trial 
detention, denying him medical attention, and denying him 
contact with his attorney.  In his final request to the 
judge, Umarov said only, "I want a fair trial."  On March 1, 
immediately after the reading of Khidoyatova's verdict, Judge 
Isayev convened a two-minute hearing to announce that he 
would read Umarov's verdict on March 6. 
 
¶8. (C) Comment: As reported reftel, there is much more than 
meets the eye here.  The trials have been bizarre exceptions 
to the usual Uzbek formula of restricted access and compliant 
attorneys.  The presence of monitors, the prosecutor's 
theatrical statements, the judge's studied avoidance of any 
hint of political rhetoric in the courtroom - all go to 
support the view that the GOU has orchestrated these trials 
in order to convince foreign observers that the cases are 
really economic and not political, and in order to project a 
veneer of fairness in a process that is fundamentally flawed. 
 Without an independent evaluation of the evidence, it is 
impossible to say whether there is any merit to the 
prosecution's case.  But it is fairly clear that, whether the 
defendants are guilty or innocent, they are being tried on 
the basis of their political opposition to the Karimov regime. 
PURNELL