Germany decided a few months back not to open a criminal investigation against former Uzbek Interior Minister Zakir Almatov, and the professionally outraged were… well, outraged. Now that Germany has a new federal prosecutor taking office, HRW is calling on Germany to reverse course.
“This is a unique opportunity to correct an unconscionable decision and show the world that Germany pays more than lip service to international justice,” said Holly Cartner, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The Uzbek victims deserve their day in court, and the new prosecutor can ensure they get it in Germany.”
Ever notice how every opportunity is unique to the writers over at the HRW press office? Don’t take my word for it, take Google’s.
Anyhow, the former prosecutor argued that a successful and investigation are impossible because there is no chance of cooperation from Uzbekistan, where, he said, any investigation would have to take place. To this, HRW reponds that Andijon refugees and other Uzbeks now outside Uzbekistan could testify. And so could Craig Murray. And Theo van Boven, former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, could as well.
Mr. van Boven, in fact, has written to the new prosecutor, arguing that her predecessor gave too much attention to a footnote in van Boven’s report (PDF) explaining how torture can be “of a systematic character” in a state without being state policy. In his letter to the new prosecutor, he says that the only way officials could be ignorant of the prevalence of torture in Uzbekistan is through willful ignorance.
But does the report prove Almatov’s guilt? I do not know what evidentiary standards are for criminal cases in Germany, and I know even less about any differences there may be in these universal jurisdiction cases. I have a sneaking suspicion that Holly Cartner perhaps does not know much either. I would wager quite a bit on the German federal prosecutor’s office being expert in the matter though.
I am also willing to bet that the former prosecutor did not doubt Almatov’s responsibility for egregious human rights violations. For the record, I certainly do not. But I do have doubts that there is the right kind of evidence available to the prosecutor’s office even with the availability of witnesses to particular crimes to secure a conviction of Almatov. Funny where HRW is hell-bent on high standards for trials and where they are not. Even if the German prosecutors did have the evidence, the conviction would be in absentia, which begs the question of why HRW, if it is interested solely in justice for victims of Uzbekistan’s government, does not demand other states with universal jurisdiction laws prosecute these crimes.
It is almost as if HRW is more interested in heaping scorn on those who have associated with Uzbekistan (which Germany did, of course, by granting Almatov a visa) than anything else. It seems that what HRW wants is to have the German court system fill out a little slip of paper that says just how rotten Uzbekistan’s government is. After all, that is about all a conviction in this case would likely amount to. Basically, they want to make the hollow gesture of high school political theater into the practice of governments (which might explain why they mention Craig Murray as a possible witness).
Germany is a bit out of step with the rest of Europe on Uzbekistan, and granting a visa to Almatov was a bad move. But an empty gesture will not suddenly make everything right. The previous prosecutor made the right call, and it certainly should stand.
Comments on this entry are closed.