VZCZCXRO1448
RR RUEHBI RUEHCI RUEHDBU RUEHLH RUEHPW RUEHSL
DE RUEHNT #0067/01 0421406
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 111406Z FEB 10
FM AMEMBASSY TASHKENT
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 1873
INFO ALL SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIA COLLECTIVE
CIS COLLECTIVE
NATO EU COLLECTIVE
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC
RHEHAAA/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0095
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 TASHKENT 000067 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
AMEMBASSY ASTANA PASS TO AMCONSUL ALMATY 
AMEMBASSY HELSINKI PASS TO AMCONSUL ST PETERSBURG 
AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PASS TO AMCONSUL VLADIVOSTOK 
AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PASS TO AMCONSUL YEKATERINBURG 
AMEMBASSY BELGRADE PASS TO AMEMBASSY PODGORICA 
AMEMBASSY ATHENS PASS TO AMCONSUL THESSALONIKI 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 2020/02/11 
TAGS: PREL PHUM PGOV KPAO UZ
SUBJECT: Uzbekistan: Photographer Akhmedova Convicted and Amnestied 
 
REF: 10 TASHKENT 47; 10 TASHKENT 29 
 
CLASSIFIED BY: Holly Lindquist Thomas, P/E Officer, Tashkent; REASON: 
1.4(B), (D) 
 
¶1.       (SBU) Summary:  Photographer Umida Akhmedova stood trial 
in Tashkent this week on charges of defaming and insulting the 
people of Uzbekistan through a book of photographs and a 
documentary film.  (See reftels.)  After one full day of trial, the 
court found her guilty of the charges, but exempted her from 
punishment on the basis of amnesty.  Akhmedova reported that she is 
relieved to not be going to jail (the charges carried with them up 
to three years in prison), but she intends to appeal the 
conviction.  The international community's attention and post's 
quiet diplomatic efforts on Akhmedova's behalf likely played a role 
in what appears to be a face-saving outcome.  End summary. 
 
 
 
¶2.       (U) The works in question included the 2007 book, "Women 
and Men - from Dawn to Dusk," and the 2008 documentary, "The Burden 
of Virginity," which looked at the traditional practice of a woman 
having to prove her virginity on her wedding night.  On January 23, 
Akhmedova was notified of the charges against her.  Soon after, she 
was told of the conclusions of a government-selected expert panel 
that reviewed her works and determined that they were insulting to 
Uzbekistan.  Authorities forbade her from leaving Uzbekistan until 
the conclusion of her case. 
 
 
 
¶3.       (SBU) The trial began on February 9, and the documentary 
was shown in its entirety to the courtroom audience.  The 
difficulties of proving an insult to an entire nation were readily 
apparent.  In her testimony, Ahmedova said that half of the 
pictures in her book depicted her relatives, and it would never be 
her intent to insult her relatives.  When the defense lawyer asked 
a witness whether he was personally insulted by the material, the 
judge ruled that the question was irrelevant.  When one witness 
from the Religious Affairs Committee stated that the documentary 
contradicted the "national ideology," the defense attorney asked 
pointedly, "WHAT national ideology?" but the judge ruled the 
question irrelevant.  In closing statements, the defense attorney 
brought up Article 12 of the Constitution, which states that "no 
ideology can be a state ideology," and asserted that the country 
itself could not be considered a victim of the defamation charges 
brought in this case.  He also argued that the only person who 
could speak on behalf of the Uzbek people was the president 
himself. 
 
 
 
¶4.       (U) Following a full day of testimony, the judge delayed 
the announcement of the verdict until the next day.  On February 
10, he found Akhmedova guilty of the charges against her, but 
released her on the basis of amnesty.  Contrary to some press 
reports, the judge also released her from the restriction on travel 
outside of Uzbekistan.  Akhmedova stated that she was relieved to 
hear the news, but intends to appeal the conviction. 
 
 
 
Comment 
 
------------ 
 
¶5.       (C) The outcome of the Akhmedova case thus far, while far 
from ideal, is the best we could hope for realistically.  Given the 
strong possibility that it was President Karimov himself who took 
offense at her photographs, some sort of prosecution was 
inevitable.  Fortunately, saner heads within the Uzbek system were 
able to prevail upon Karimov to "settle" for a guilty verdict 
followed by immediate amnesty, which offered a face-saving way out 
for the GOU.  The fact that a freewheeling argument took place in 
 
TASHKENT 00000067  002 OF 002 
 
 
the courtroom and that the defense will appeal the slander verdict 
is also encouraging, and we will continue to follow this case 
closely. 
 
 
 
¶6.       (C) A couple of lessons can be drawn for handling of 
similar cases - both for individuals currently in custody and for 
future cases that, unfortunately, we can anticipate will emerge. 
First, the strong international public reaction of groups like 
Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders did catch the 
GOU's attention.  It is clear senior officials (including First 
Deputy FM Kamilov, who appeared to be a positive factor in the 
final outcome) immediately understood the negative implications of 
the Akhmedova case for Uzbekistan's image abroad and the impact 
this would have on the ability of senior U.S. officials to engage 
with Uzbek counterparts.  Second, the track record of U.S. 
engagement with Uzbek officials, and the fact we were able to 
approach them confidentially about this matter in a firm but 
non-threatening way, made it possible for us to focus GOU attention 
on the case in a positive, constructive way and find a face-saving 
solution.  Had the USG echoed publicly the concerns of private 
NGO's, the Uzbeks would probably have gotten their hackles up and 
it is unlikely we would have achieved even this modestly positive 
outcome.  Understanding by the NGO's of the need to give the USG a 
little space to find a solution contributed to this outcome. 
 
 
 
¶7.       (C) In short, our ability to go quietly to the Uzbeks and 
say "guys, you have a problem, we'll try to be helpful but do 
yourselves a favor and fix this fast" (a level of frankness that a 
year ago could have had calamitous effects) shows that the current 
U.S. approach to Uzbekistan has the potential to make tangible 
progress on human rights issues.  We got our first real taste of 
this last year with the release of Sanjar Umarov; the Ahmedova case 
(while of course unsatisfactory at a basic level) is fundamentally 
another example of how principled, pragmatic engagement with 
Uzbekistan can pay dividends.  A deepening of our dialogue on these 
issues under the "human dimension" of the Annual Bilateral 
Consultation (ABC) process is the logical next step.  End comment. 
 
 
 
 
NORLAND 
NORLAND