"Every effort must be made to avoid regression in the sphere of human rights" — UN representative

"Every effort must be made to avoid regression in the field of human rights" — UN representative

The question of how to ensure the application of international guarantees of civil and political rights was discussed on September 28–29 in Tashkent at the Samarkand Human Rights Forum.

Carlos Ramón Fernández Liesa, a member of the UN Human Rights Committee, called the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights one of the cornerstones of international law.

According to him, the implementation of many rights enshrined in the covenant depends on the state of democracy, the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary, and the work of law enforcement agencies. At the same time, he stressed that neither membership in the UN nor participation in the covenant obliges a state to adhere to any specific democratic system of government.

"The principle of free choice of political, economic, social, and cultural systems means that there is no single model of democracy in the world," said the UN Committee member.

He linked the task of the covenant to raising the standards of rights protection in all countries, regardless of the nature of their political regime. Fernández Liesa called the document itself a "living instrument" that must change along with a changing world.

However, such development requires a broad consensus of states. According to the expert, achieving this is hindered by the current polarization.

"The international community is going through a period of geopolitical confrontation and the weakening of multilateral cooperation. There is a tendency to place sovereignty and individual interests above the common good," he said.

Fernández Liesa warned of the danger of weakening support for human rights and urged not to allow the loss of achieved guarantees.

"In this transition period, every effort must be made to avoid abandoning achieved values and regressing in the field of human rights," the expert emphasized.

Alisher Usmanov, First Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan, linked the practical protection of human rights primarily to the independence of the court, a fair trial, and effective mechanisms for restoring violated rights.

"The introduction of international standards into national legislation is certainly important. However, their practical effectiveness directly depends on their application by the courts," he noted.

Alisher Usmanov recalled the constitutional guarantees of judicial protection, the creation of administrative courts, and the start of the work of investigative judges from January 1, 2025. According to him, the latter ensure independent judicial control over the observance of human rights at the pre-trial stage when considering procedural issues related to the restriction of constitutional rights and freedoms.

"When considering a criminal case, the court must not only verify the validity of the accusation but also assess whether the evidence was obtained by legal methods, whether the person's right to defense was ensured, and whether their constitutional rights were violated during the pre-trial proceedings," said the First Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court.

He stressed that the provisions of the covenant, as well as the legal findings and recommendations of the UN Human Rights Committee, should serve as a guideline for the courts in this work.

Alisher Usmanov pointed to the need to systematically study the positions of international treaty bodies, include them in the professional training of judges, and develop the application of international norms in judicial decisions.

Pauline Jacobs, Associate Professor of Criminal Law at Tilburg University, dedicated her presentation to the ability of convicted persons and those serving sentences to complain about conditions in places of detention.

"Complaint mechanisms represent one of the main guarantees for protecting persons deprived of their liberty from torture, inhuman, and degrading treatment," she stressed.

Such appeals may concern unlawful actions of staff, poor detention conditions, lack of activities, or insufficient medical care. According to Jacobs, taking complaints seriously helps reduce tension and build relationships between prisoners and staff.

Drawing on the standards of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and the European Prison Rules, she listed the conditions necessary for such a mechanism to work: accessibility, confidentiality, independence of the reviewing body, timely consideration, and the possibility of legal assistance.

"Prisoners must receive both oral and written information about the procedure in a language they understand. Complaint forms must be easily accessible, and all necessary materials for filing a complaint must be freely available," the researcher said.

It is particularly important that the appeal itself does not create new threats for the person.

"The procedure must be confidential and safe. Filing a complaint must not be accompanied by intimidation or retaliatory measures. It must not turn against the prisoner who filed it," Jacobs stressed.

In the Netherlands, she said, complaints against decisions of the prison governor or those made on their behalf are reviewed by an independent committee whose members are not associated with the prison administration. The mechanism provides for the possibility of compensation, including in the form of additional visits or phone calls for prisoners.

Participants in the discussion from Uzbekistan spoke about the extent to which these guarantees are already being used in specific cases.

Gulnora Ishankhanova, Deputy Chairperson of the NGO "Ilm Nuri Markazi" and a lawyer, emphasized the importance of judges studying the decisions of the UN Human Rights Committee and its reasoning. She also recalled that non-governmental organizations can submit alternative reports on the country's implementation of international obligations.

Separately, she raised the issue of the courts' response to reports of torture.

"We, of course, very much want to see judges responding to allegations of torture," Ishankhanova said, pointing to the need to verify such allegations and decide on the admissibility of the evidence obtained.

Lawyer Tamila Rakhmatullaeva noted that international organizations and the Chamber of Advocates conduct training for judges and lawyers on international legal norms; however, in her assessment, practice is still far from their full application.

"I have not seen a single court decision in which the court referred to the norms of the international covenant, although I myself refer to these norms in all my documents," the lawyer stated.

While positively assessing the guarantees enshrined in the Constitution, Rakhmatullaeva called for their more active application in the work of courts and law enforcement agencies.

"It is a huge credit to our state that all this is recorded in our Constitution, but we want to see this in practice," the lawyer said.

The moderator of the session, Eldor Tulyakov, Executive Director of the "Development Strategy" Center, replied that international norms are already included in national legislation. He also recalled the priority of international treaty norms in case of divergence with national ones.

János Szeibert, Director General for Equal Treatment of the Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary, spoke about the administrative procedure for protection against discrimination.

Under this procedure, the burden of proof should not fall on the applicant: it is sufficient for them to show the plausibility of having suffered damage and possessing a legally protected characteristic—such as gender or disability—at the time of the violation. The other party, in turn, must prove that the specified circumstances did not exist, that the requirement of equal treatment was observed, or that it did not apply to the relevant relations.

If a violation is established, the ombudsman may demand the elimination of the unlawful situation, prohibit the repetition of the relevant actions, impose a fine, or order the publication of the final decision. The decision can be appealed in court.

According to Szeibert, among the established violations, discrimination on the grounds of disability, including the failure to ensure barrier-free accessibility, is most common.