- Location of case in SG report
- Relevant SG report
- Year of the report
- From Country
- Country Geolocation
- Country Geolocation (linked Countries)
- Europe and Central Asia
- UN body that raised the case prior to the SG report
- UN Treaty Bodies: CAT
- UN Special Procedures: Thematic
- Dates of prior UN action
- 2 December 2019; 28 November 2019
- Type of record
- Named individual
- Was the victim a foreign national?
- Was the victim a minor?
- Individual's/organization's activity
civil society representatives who engaged with him during the visit; human rights defender and former political prisoner
- Type of rights defended
- Unclear in SG Report
- Was the victim a civil servant, member of the security forces or of the judiciary?
- Reported trigger of reprisal
On 22 September 2019, Mr. Turgunov met with the Special Rapporteur.
- Engagement with UN body
- UN Special Procedures: thematic
- Dates of engagement
- 22 September 2019
- Type of attempted engagement
- Meeting with UN officials during country visit / with locally present UN officials
- Dates of mentioned reprisals
- 21 September 2019
- Reprisal information
Before the meeting, he allegedly received a telephone call from an unidentified officer of the State Security Service asking him to explain the reason of the meeting and the kind of information he intended to share. It is unclear how the State Security Service became aware of this meeting. It is reported that Mr. Turgunov is routinely subjected to surveillance, particularly when he meets with foreigners or is invited to participate in activities by international organizations.
- Types of reprisals suffered
- Threats/Intimidations (incl. "fear of reprisal")
- Alleged/likely perpetrators
- State actors
- Was the reprisal based on new legislation?
- Does the report make general comment about country’s environment for engagement with UN?
- Government response dates
- 22 June 2020
- Government response content
Regarding the case of Mr. Turgunov, the Government stated the Prosecutor’s Office of Almazar District of Tashkent conducted a preliminary inquiry during which repeated unsuccessful attempts were made to contact him. During the inquiry, the facts of intimidation or reprisal of Mr. Turgunov by law enforcement agencies were not established. Based on this, on 19 February 2020, the Prosecutor’s Office decided not to initiate a criminal case due to the lack of corpus delicti in anyone’s actions.
- Is the country cited for a "pattern of reprisal" in the context of this case?
- Is a pattern of reprisals mentioned otherwise in the context of this case?
- Does the report cite "self-censorship" as an issue in the context of this case?
- How many times has the case been followed up in subsequent SG reports?