On the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, we, —civil society actors across Central Asia and Europe – the Coalitions against Torture in Kazakhstan and Tajikistan, the Association for Human Rights in Central Asia (AHRCA, Uzbekistan, in exile), the Turkmen Initiative for Human Rights (TIHR, Turkmenistan, in exile), International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR), the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (HFHR) and World Organisation against Torture (OMCT) —call on the governments of Central Asia to take immediate, concrete action to eliminate torture and ill-treatment.
Despite some positive legislative changes in recent years aimed at improving safeguards, torture remains a persistent problem across the region. Detainees particularly in politically-motivated cases, face a heightened risk. This troubling reality is exacerbated by endemic impunity, a lack of independent oversight, and the systematic intimidation of victims and defenders, effectively denying many victims access to redress and protection.
NGOs working against torture in Central Asia face growing challenges as shrinking civic space, weakened judicial independence, and severe media restrictions complicate their work. Across the region, governments are considering “foreign agent” laws—like Kyrgyzstan’s 2024 version—that stigmatize NGOs as foreign-influenced and threaten their operations. These initiatives threaten to shrink civic space and undermine efforts to expose torture and defend human rights.
Kazakhstan
Despite some legal improvements, torture and ill-treatment remain a reality and often go unpunished in Kazakhstan. The definition of torture in the Criminal Code is still not fully aligned with the UN Convention against Torture, and the absence of a unified, independent investigative body continues to undermine effective accountability. Investigations into torture are often fragmented, handled by bodies with potential conflicts of interest, and rarely lead to effective punishment. Victims face barriers in filing complaints, and many cases are dismissed due to “lack of evidence” without thorough examination. Procedural agreements and plea deals, even in serious cases like torture, allow perpetrators to escape full accountability.
Compensation is granted only to individuals who are officially recognized as victims and only when perpetrators have been identified and convicted.
In 2024, the Coalition against Torture in Kazakhstan received 347 complaints of torture and ill-treatment, which resulted in just four torture convictions.
According to the authorities, in 2024, 57 torture cases were registered under Article 146 in the Pre-trial Investigations Unified Register, relating to 48 people recognised as victims; this indicates that investigations were opened, but it is not known how many of these cases reached court. Furthermore, government statistics list 45 officials as suspects in torture cases, but it remains unclear how many, if any of them were ultimately convicted. Deep structural flaws and a climate of impunity continue to obstruct efforts to prevent and address torture in Kazakhstan.
Preventive measures remain insufficient. While Kazakhstan ratified OPCAT and established a National Preventive Mechanism (NPM), the latter lacked independence and adequate funding, limiting its effectiveness. Detainees’ complaints are frequently ignored, and forensic medical assessments often lack credibility due to state control. Additionally, the Istanbul and Minnesota Protocols are not implemented, The lack of reliable official data and the exclusion of independent human rights defenders from legislative processes further limit oversight and reform.
There is still a blatant lack of accountability for January 2022 abuses. While some 40-50 security and law enforcement officials have been convicted for torture and other abuses committed during the ‘’Bloody’’ January 2022 events, the number remains low compared to the number of victims. Proceedings have also often been marred by fair trial concerns, lenient penalties and inadequate compensation for victims. For example, in January 2025, six police officers were convicted in relation to a case when, in January 2022, some 100 people were detained on the Almaty-Bishkek highway and then tortured in a detention centre in Almaty region. The six officers all received three-year prison sentences – a sentence which is clearly not commensurate with the serious nature of the crimes committed. In addition, only some of the victims’ requests for compensation were granted.
Kyrgyzstan
As documented in a joint OMCT-IPHR submission to the Universal Periodic Review of Kyrgyzstan from October 2024, the Kyrgyzstani authorities have taken some steps to address torture in line with international obligations, but efforts have mostly focused on drafting strategies and action plans rather than enacting concrete legal or practical reforms.
For example, in a positive development, in 2024 Kyrgyzstan adopted Rules for the Medical Documentation of Violence, Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Resolution No. 562 of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Kyrgyz Republic, dated 13 September, 2024). This document aims to address the issue of insufficient involvement of departmental medical services in the implementation of the standards of the Istanbul Protocol and establish a standardized procedure for medical documentation of violence, torture, and ill-treatment in healthcare institutions.
However, prison conditions in Kyrgyzstan are severe and can pose serious risks to prisoners’ lives, with torture remaining widespread and deaths in custody occurring regularly. In 2020, political prisoner and human rights defender Azimjan Askarov died behind bars after years of deteriorating health and insufficient medical care. No independent investigation into the allegations of torture was carried out. The Kyrgyzstani authorities’ inquiry into Azimjon Askarov’s death was conducted by the prison service, the same authority that oversaw Askarov’s arbitrary detention for 10 years.
Official statistics and research findings from local and international human rights organisations confirm that torture is used widely. For instance, one study aimed at identifying the Torture Practice Index, found that of 444 participants held in Ministry of Interior temporary detention facilities (IVS) and Ministry of Justice run pre-trial detention centers (SIZO) over 20 percent reported having been subjected to torture, physical violence, or psychological pressure.
The incomplete definition of the crime of “Torture” in the Criminal Code allows many perpetrators “acting in an official capacity” to avoid responsibility.
Due to delays in investigations and court proceedings no official has been convicted for the use of torture in the last ten years. Additionally, some convicted individuals serving sentences for torture have been pardoned.
The authorities have failed to establish a mechanism for compensation for harm caused by torture and ill-treatment and victims of torture do not receive fair and appropriate compensation and rehabilitation. State compensation payments to victims of torture, based on decisions made by the UN Human Rights Committee, are rare. Moreover, the amount of compensation paid is often inadequate compared to the harm caused.
In a worrying development, Kyrgyzstan’s Parliament is currently considering a new Ombudsperson law. The version adopted at second reading reportedly includes provisions to dissolve the National Center for the Prevention of Torture (the country’s NPM), transferring its functions to the Ombudsperson’s office. Such a move would represent a serious setback in the fight against torture in the country.
Tajikistan
Torture and ill-treatment persist in Tajikistan, especially in police stations and detention centres. Detainees usually refrain from filing complaints for fear of reprisals and detrimental consequences for the severity of their sentence. Courts usually dismiss allegations of torture reported by defendants. Investigations into such allegations of torture are rare, and those that are initiated are often ineffective, resulting in impunity for most perpetrators, with few exceptions. Although the legislative framework for compensation for moral damage has been improved, in practice the amounts of compensation for moral damage to victims of torture have significantly reduced, and courts have increasingly rejected claims.The compensation that has been awarded has generally been neither fair nor adequate.
Despite repeated UN recommendations, Tajikistan has yet to establish an independent torture investigation mechanism, a forensic medical service, or a rehabilitation institution for survivors. Torture remains subject to statutes of limitation and amnesty, and full transparency—including statistical reporting—remains lacking.
In 2024, Tajikistan’s Coalition against Torture and Impunity documented 17 complaints of torture and ill-treatment, including one complaint from a woman, four from children and 12 from men.
While a handful of prosecutions took place, the overall climate of repression—especially in the Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Region (GBAO)—remains unchanged. There is ongoing concern about the lack of investigations into serious allegations of abuses committed during the security operations in 2021–2022, including extrajudicial killings and torture.
Concerns remain that prison conditions amount to cruel and inhuman treatment, and the draft Criminal Code still lacks essential provisions for probation and non-custodial alternatives despite the establishment of a system of probation and alternative, non-custodial forms punishment which are key elements of Tajikistan’s Strategy for Reforming the Penitentiary System.
Laureat of the Martin Ennals Foundation 2024 human rights defender award, Manuchehr Kholiqnazarov, imprisoned since May 2022 on trumped-up charges, remains behind bars, despite concerns for his health and fears that he has been subjected to ill-treatment. The UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention have called for his immediate and unconditional release.
Turkmenistan: Legal Changes Without Implementation
Given the closed nature of the country’s prison system, it is very difficult to obtain information about the problem of torture. However, available information, in particular reports from former detainees indicate that torture and ill-treatment remain widespread in the country’s detention facilities.
As documented in a recent joint TIHR-IPHR submission to the CAT, despite 2022 legal amendments aimed at tightening the prohibition of torture under Article 201 of the Criminal Code, no meaningful implementation has followed. Detention conditions—particularly in high-security facilities like Ovadan Depe—remain inhumane and opaque, with routine reports of overcrowding, denial of medical care, and psychological abuse.
The April 2025 CAT review of Turkmenistan’s compliance with the Convention against Torture highlighted severe problems regarding torture, detention conditions, and enforced disappearances: CAT expressed, inter alia, serious alarm over persistent, credible reports of widespread torture and ill-treatment, including severe physical abuse of detainees. Such abuses reportedly occur both in pretrial detention—often to coerce detainees into confessing their guilt —and in prison facilities. The Committee criticized the Turkmenistani authorities for failing to investigate or hold perpetrators accountable, noting that the state reported zero prosecutions under the Criminal Code article criminalizing torture (Article 201).
The Committee also raised concerns that detainees are not consistently granted basic legal safeguards from the time of arrest, including access to independent medical examinations. The absence of such protections, combined with the lack of independent oversight of detention centers, significantly increases the risk of mistreatment. The fear of retaliation further discourages victims from reporting abuse: there are cases of victims being placed in incommunicado detention and facing further abuse after speaking out. Independent monitoring remains impossible due to the government’s refusal to grant access, including to the International Committee of the Red Cross. Available information indicates that Turkmenistani authorities have consistently failed to conduct proper investigations into torture allegations, even in the rare cases where victims or their families come forward.
One striking example involves Allamurat Khudairamov, who died in custody in Mary province in November 2023, just days after being summoned by law enforcement over drug-related charges. When his family retrieved his body, it showed clear signs of torture—wounds and bruises on his limbs and back—evidence captured on video. Despite alleged attempts by officials to silence the family through bribery, they filed a complaint with the General Prosecutor’s Office. However, following a formal investigation, in January 2024, the authorities claimed Khudairamov died from brain swelling caused by an opiate, suggesting the injuries were self-inflicted. No criminal case was opened. During the April 2025 review by the UN Committee against Torture (CAT), the Turkmenistani delegation denied torture, claiming Khudairamov was already injured at the time of arrest. CAT, however, raised serious concerns about the case, noting that he belonged to the Baloch ethnic minority.
Uzbekistan
Torture and ill-treatment of detainees occur particularly during criminal investigations. Although national legislation criminalizes torture with penalties of up to 10 years’ imprisonment and formally guarantees detainees access to a lawyer, legal aid, and complaints mechanisms, these safeguards are often not respected in practice. Incommunicado detention is common in the early stages of custody, and credible reports of abuse continue to surface.
While public monitoring groups under the Ombudsman have recently begun visiting detention facilities—a positive step—systemic obstacles to accountability persist. Authorities frequently obstruct investigations, destroy evidence, and use closed trials to suppress information about torture, especially in politically sensitive cases.
Victims often refrain from lodging complaints about torture or ill-treatment for fear of reprisals against themselves and their families or because they do not believe that they can obtain justice. Nevertheless, some people come forward. One such case is that of Alexander Trofimov who sustained severe injuries while in custody at the Chilanzar District Police Department in Tashkent. Yet, despite clear forensic evidence and the identification of those responsible, the prosecutor’s office has obstructed the initiation of criminal proceedings for over four years.
Allegations of torture and ill-treatment are usually not effectively investigated by the authorities and impunity is common. In court, judges frequently ignore visible injuries or disregard statements from defendants and their lawyers complaining about torture or ill-treatment – and fail to order a forensic examination. Complaints of torture are often not reflected in the court records.
For example, Valijon Rakhmanov, a former military counter-intelligence officer, was detained in February 2024 and later sentenced to 16 years for treason after being found guilty during a closed trial at the Military Court at the Military Court. In detention, he was reportedly tortured—held in a punishment cell, sleep-deprived, and beaten—and his family was allegedly threatened when attempting to visit him. In court, Rakhmanov named his abusers, but his torture claims and his lawyers’ requests for a medical examination were ignored. His conviction was upheld in April 2025. Reported to have exposed corruption within the State Security Services and other institutions. In April Rakhmanov informed his family that he was being given drinking water with an almond-like taste, but the lawyer’s request for a medical examination was rejected by the court. There has also been strong pressure on the defense lawyers in this case. Their licenses were suspended for four months after they challenged procedural violations and the lack of evidence presented during the trial. This sends a chilling message to other lawyers and means Rakhmanov is left without independent legal representation.
There appears to be a lack of political will to establish an independent mechanism for the investigation of torture complaints, although this has been a key recommendation by UN treaty bodies for several years. Defendants who have been convicted to prison sentences on evidence obtained under duress, have had limited success in appealing against their sentences even once they were released from prison. The authorities often refuse their claims, citing the statute of limitations. Many victims have not been able to obtain a copy of the court documents or sentences, making it difficult for them to attempt to prove theicomplicating their attempts to clear their names.
There is a lack of comprehensive statistics tracking complaints, investigations, prosecutions, convictions, and redress in cases involving allegations of torture and ill-treatment.
Over the last year, the authors of this statement have not learnt of any cases initiated under Article 235 of the Criminal Code, which punishes the “use of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment”. Cases involving torture and ill-treatment are often prosecuted under other articles of the Criminal Code such as “abuse of power, excess or inaction of power” (Article 301) or “negligence in service” (Article 302). Such cases are tried by military courts behind closed doors. The information on these cases is classified as “secret” and lawyers participating in such trials sign non-disclosure agreements, as do all other participants in the trial.
Our Recommendations to the Governments of Central Asia:
We call on the authorities in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan to:
- Adopt and rigorously enforce a zero-tolerance policy on torture and ill-treatment at all levels of law-enforcement and detention;
- Publish comprehensive and disaggregated statistics on complaints, investigations, and outcomes in torture-related cases to enable effective evidence-based policy making.
- Establish safe, independent and accessible complaints mechanisms and allow independent monitoring of all places of detention;
- Engage transparently with all relevant UN mechanisms, in particular the Committee against Torture and ensure that their recommendations are fully implemented in practice;
- Ensure that all perpetrators of torture and ill-treatment are held accountable through fair and impartial trials, and that penalties reflect the gravity of these crimes.
- Guarantee the protection of victims who report torture, including full redress and adequate compensation;
- Provide mandatory and ongoing training for all law enforcement, security, and prison personnel on the absolute prohibition of torture in all circumstances.
Torture is a grave human rights violation that must be confronted with urgency and genuine political will. We stand in solidarity with all victims of torture and ill-treatment in Central Asia and call on governments across the region to act decisively to end impunity, uphold human dignity, and ensure justice.