VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHNT #0866/01 2070753
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 250753Z JUL 08
FM AMEMBASSY TASHKENT
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0048
INFO RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE
RUEHAH/AMEMBASSY ASHGABAT 4201
RUEHTA/AMEMBASSY ASTANA 0414
RUEHEK/AMEMBASSY BISHKEK 4817
RUEHLM/AMEMBASSY COLOMBO 0672
RUEHDK/AMEMBASSY DAKAR 0267
RUEHDBU/AMEMBASSY DUSHANBE 0698
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD 4400
RUEHBUL/AMEMBASSY KABUL 2692
RUEHKT/AMEMBASSY KATHMANDU 0711
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI 1350
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO 1952
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 1355
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE 2660
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHDC
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC 0106
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHINGTON DC 0256

C O N F I D E N T I A L TASHKENT 000866 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR SCA/CEN AND DRL 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/25/2018 
TAGS: PHUM ICRC KIRF PGOV PREL UZ
SUBJECT: AMBASSADOR HANFORD MEETS WITH ICRC REPRESENTATIVE 
 
Classified By: POLOFF R. FITZMAURICE FOR REASONS 1.4 (B, D) 
 
¶1. (C) Summary: During a two-day visit to Uzbekistan, 
Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom John 
Hanford met on May 30 with International Committee of the Red 
Cross (ICRC) Deputy Director Raffaello Muller, who reported 
on prison conditions for individuals convicted of religious 
extremism and shared his sober analysis of the likelihood of 
prison reform and how to best achieve progress.  On May 29, 
Hanford also met with government officials to discuss 
Uzbekistan's Country of Particular Concern (CPC) designation 
under the International Religious Freedom Act and the 
contents of a draft confidential letter, delivered by Hanford 
to the Uzbeks the week before his visit, which lays out steps 
the government could take to increase religious freedom and 
have its CPC designation eventually lifted.  In addition, on 
May 30, Hanford met with a variety of religious leaders, 
scholars, and human rights activists. (Please see septels). 
End summary. 
 
ICRC PRISON VISITS PROCEEDING ACCORDING TO PLAN 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
 
¶2.  (C) On May 30, Ambassador Hanford met with  International 
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Deputy Director Raffaello 
Muller.  In March, the ICRC reached agreement with the Uzbek 
government to restart prison visits, which had been stalled 
since December 2004, on the basis of a six-month trial 
period.  Muller noted that a "good dialogue" continued with 
Uzbek authorities and that the government had so far 
respected the agreement's modalities, which includes 
unfettered access to prisons and prisoners.  He reported that 
the ICRC had conducted seven prison visits to date under the 
interim agreement: three in Tashkent, one in Chirchik, and 
three in Bukhara province, including one repeat visit. 
Muller was adamant that if the Uzbeks did not respect their 
standard operating modalities, ICRC would immediately halt 
its prison visits in Uzbekistan. 
 
TREATMENT OF RELIGIOUS PRISONERS 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶3.  (C) Hanford explained to Muller that one of the major 
reasons why Uzbekistan was designated a Country of Particular 
concern (CPC) were persistent reports that significant 
numbers of Muslims had been tortured and sentenced to long 
prison sentences for alleged membership in extremist 
organizations based often on little more than coerced 
confessions.  Muller acknowledged hearing of such incidents, 
noting estimates from human rights organizations that Uzbek 
prisons held 3,000 to 7,000 political prisoners, most of whom 
were reportedly sentenced on religious extremism charges. 
However, Muller stressed that he had no way to determine the 
credibility of such estimates.  He was unable to estimate 
what percentage of the prison population comprised religious 
prisoners.  Muller explained that while the ICRC was 
responsible for monitoring the welfare of all prisoners, it 
paid special attention to political prisoners (including 
religious prisoners), as they were more often exposed to 
mistreatment. 
 
¶4.  (C) Muller noted that at least according to Uzbek prison 
regulations, all prisoners have the right to fully practice 
their religion.  During visits to prisons, Muller reported 
seeing areas inmates could use to pray and copies of the 
Koran and the Bible in prison libraries.  However, he also 
heard about incidents in which prisoners were punished for 
violating internal prison regulations by praying at certain 
times of the day.  Muller believed that prison regulations on 
religious practice were inconsistent, or applied 
inconsistently.  He believed that individuals sentenced on 
religious extremism charges had less freedom to practice 
their religion than other inmates.  Muller also noted that 
prison conditions varied considerably across Uzbekistan, and 
that staff at certain prisoners were better trained or more 
lenient than others. 
 
PRISON VISIT MECHANICS 
---------------------- 
 
¶5.  (C) Muller explained that ICRC currently has six prison 
monitors in Uzbekistan, and that it takes about a week to 
conduct each prison visit.  Upon first arriving at the 
prison, ICRC asks to see the list of prisoners and archives 
of the prison.  It then interviews a random selection of 
detainees, spending between 20 minutes and two hours 
interviewing each of them.  ICRC also will specifically 
request to see certain political prisoners.  Before leaving 
the prison, the ICRC monitors will share their initial 
assessment of conditions with the prison administration. 
ICRC attempts to revisit prisons in order to determine 
whether authorities have made requested improvements and to 
ensure that prisoners were not punished for talking with 
ICRC.  The organization also periodically shares its findings 
with higher-level officials.  Between 2001 and 2004, Muller 
said that ICRC managed to visit almost all of Uzbekistan's 
detention facilities.  He noted that there have been some 
improvements in prison conditions since 2001. 
 
¶6.  (C) Muller emphasized that receiving a comprehensive list 
of the inmates for each prison was one of ICRC's standard 
operating modalities and was non-negotiable from their 
standpoint.  Muller said that ICRC could not share the lists 
with other organizations, as doing so would violate its 
confidentiality agreement with the government.  Muller 
recognized that the government could still try to hide 
certain prisoners from the ICRC by transferring them to other 
locations, but he believed that it would be difficult to hide 
individuals indefinitely.  He pointed to his own experience 
in Chechnya, where authorities tried but failed to hide 
certain prisoners from the ICRC, whose existence eventually 
became known through repeated visits.  However, Muller added 
that authorities in Chechnya eventually constrained the 
ICRC's access to prisons after they decided the organization 
knew too much about conditions. 
 
PROSPECTS FOR PRISON REFORM 
--------------------------- 
 
¶7.  (C) Muller believed that most of the human rights 
violations he observed in Uzbek prisons were the result of 
two factors: poor training for Uzbek prison guards and 
policies determined by higher-level Uzbek officials.  He 
noted that the ICRC was able to point out and attempt to 
correct mistakes made by lower-level prison authorities, but 
it had much less influence on decisions made at higher levels 
of government.  Muller explained that prison officials and 
guards themselves were operating under high degrees of stress 
and suffered from elevated suicide rates.  Another major 
problem Muller noted was that prison officials were generally 
not punished for committing human rights violations 
 
¶8.  (C) Muller was somewhat skeptical about the short-term 
prospect of improving prison conditions in Uzbekistan.  Since 
the restart of prison visits in March, Muller noted that some 
things had improved at various prisons, but he did not see 
systematic improvements.  Muller believed that reformers 
existed within the Uzbek government, including former Deputy 
Interior Minister and current Deputy General Prosecutor 
Alisher Sharafutdinov, but noted that they were few and far 
between.  He believed that real change would be generational, 
observing that the current ruling class still shared a 
largely Soviet mentality, while the younger generation tended 
to be more worldly and interested in human rights issues. 
 
MULLER'S VIEWS ON SANCTIONS 
--------------------------- 
 
¶9.  (C) In response to Hanford's question, Muller argued that 
sanctions were counterproductive in the context of 
Uzbekistan, observing that EU sanctions against Uzbekistan, 
first implemented in the wake of the 2005 Andijon events, 
were largely symbolic and ineffective.  He believed that the 
imposition of EU sanctions blocked, rather than facilitated, 
dialogue with the Uzbek government on human rights issues, 
including on restarting ICRC prison visits.  Muller explained 
that Uzbekistan's proud and stubborn officials were afraid of 
appearing to lose face by caving into the EU's political 
pressures on human rights.  Instead, he noted that it was 
only after the EU decreased the pressure on Uzbekistan by 
waiving the sanctions for six months in October 2007 that the 
ICRC and the government were able to reengage in a serious 
dialogue on restarting prison visits. 
 
¶10.  (C) Rather than the threat of sanctions, Muller believed 
that the most effective approach for dealing with the Uzbek 
government on human rights issues was to offer it 
step-by-step assistance in bringing its law enforcement and 
judicial systems up to international standards.  Muller 
believed that Uzbek officials were more receptive to offers 
of assistance than threats of sanctions. 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶11.  (C) What Muller told us about conditions improving for 
religious prisoners at some prisons, but not at others, 
tracks generally with what we have heard from human rights 
activists.  We also agree with Muller's assessment that 
offers of assistance, rather than threats of sanctions, are 
likely to spur further human rights and religious freedom 
improvements. 
BUTCHER