Women and forced eviction in Uzbekistan

ALTERNATIVE THEMATIC REPORT

on Uzbekistan’s implementation of CEDAW Articles 2, 3 and 11 

to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women

Tashkent, 2020

Authors:

Farida Sharfullina, Tashkent SNOS (Tashkent Demolition) Activist Group

Central Asia Network on the Right to Adequate Housing 

Democracy and Human Rights Institute 

 

Introduction

 

The Tashkent SNOS Activist Group, the Central Asia Network on the Right to Adequate Housing, and the Democracy and Human Rights Institute developed this alternative thematic report on Uzbekistan’s observance of women’s right to adequate housing for the consideration by the CEDAW Committee at its 78th session in February 2021 during a constructive dialogue on Uzbekistan’s 6th report, and replies to the List of Issues. This report was developed with support of the UN OHCHR aiming at facilitating the dialogue between the CEDAW Committee and the Republic of Uzbekistan delegation to brief the CEDAW Committee on the implementation of the CEDAW Committee’s Final Recommendations to improve Uzbekistan’s compliance with its obligations under the CEDAW Convention.

Tashkent SNOS (demolition) activist group was established as a Facebook group to inform residents of the Tashkent city districts under demolition pursuant to the Government decisions on eviction related issues, enforcement of the Constitution provisions and other laws of the RUz, as well as providing mutual assistance in protecting their rights. The Tashkent SNOS group uniting 23,000 members on Facebook is administered by Farida Sharifullina. Members of the group are under threat of demolition or have lost their homes, and are trying to protect their rights.

 

The CAN on RAH is a platform integrating civil society efforts to protect the rights of citizens to housing and ensure a safe environment for all its members. The CAN on RAH provides more opportunities for effective engagement in the region allowing to provide and get advice/support, to improve their professional skills, to join efforts and unify their voices to be heard. The CAN on RAH aims to enhance cooperation between parties, in particular, people whose RAH have been violated or at risk of being violated, the government officials, private sector, donors and civil society, including media. The CAN on RAH members are human rights organizations dealing with the issues related to RAH, as well as journalists, lawyers, analysts and experts in both national and international law promoting and protecting RAH in four Central Asian countries. The CAN on RAH receives support from international organizations, engages in the dialogue with the national authorities, and has extensive direct experience with victims of forced evictions/resettlement in their countries, effectively uses regional and international mechanisms to advance its recommendations.

IDHR is an NGO established in March 2015 with branches in four regions of the country; the goal of the organization is to uphold democratic governance and society; human rights culture advocacy; promoting the strict adherence of government authorities and other organizations to democratic governance principles.

 

FORCED EVICTIONS IN UZBEKISTAN – VIOLATIONS OF WOMEN’S RIGHTS TO NON-DISCRIMINATION AND LEGAL PROTECTION

А. Uzbekistan violates women’s rights to non-discrimination in the housing demolition.

 

1.The CEDAW Article 2 reaffirms the State parties’ obligation to pursue a policy of eliminating discrimination against women. Contrary to Article 2 of the Convention, increase in cases of human rights violations in Uzbekistan have been recently reported due to demolitions, forced evictions, house seizure, including without the owners’ consent or compensation, causing discrimination against women. MJ reported numerous violations during land seizure, including violations of notification deadlines by khokimiyats during demolishing, and payment compensation to the owners. The judicial bodies studied legislation compliance during land seizure for state and public needs in 2016—2018, and revealed violations committed by khokimiyats. During this period, 4,689 residential buildings and 1,456 non-residential premises were demolished due to land seizure for state and public needs.

 

2. In accordance with the CM Resolution of 2006, district/city municipalities/khokimiyats shall notify the owners of residential, industrial or other buildings, structures or plantings on their decision in written form with signature no later than 6 months prior to the demolition, and provide copies of relevant decisions on land seizure, demolition of residential, industrial or other buildings, structures or plantings located on this land. According to data, 688 demolitions were performed without any notification, of which 569 demolitions occurred in Namangan; 57 in Andijan; 31 in Navoi; 22 in Bukhara and 7 in Samarkand regions. In 985 cases, notification deadlines were violated, including 212 in Khorezm; 189 in Samarkand; 172 in Surkhandarya and 125 in Karakalpakstan.

 

3. The Regulation on the Procedure for Compensation of Losses to Citizens and Legal Entities in connection with the Land Seizure for State and Public Needs provides for the evaluation of residential buildings (flats), facilities and structures, as well as perennial plantings located on the land to be seized conducted by valuation organisations at the applicant’s expenses. In 100 cases (Andijan 56, Navoi 31, Bukhara 6, Khorezm 4, Namangan 2, Jizzak 1) no evaluation was conducted; however, the compensation was paid. In 391 cases (Andijan 192, Khorezm 138, Samarkand 37, Kashkadarya 14, Karakalpakstan 9) the evaluation was conducted after the residential premise`s demolition. This Regulation also establishes specific terms and procedures for monetary compensation to be made before the demolition. However, 37 owners did not receive any compensation in the amount of UZS3.25 billion; and 215 owners did not receive a full payment of UZS15.06 billion. To date, no compensation of UZS1 billion has been paid to owners in Navoi, UZS6.89 billion in Namangan, UZS444 million in Khorezm, UZS136 million in Andijan and Surkhandarya, and UZS91 million in Kashkadarya.

 

4. Furthermore, in almost all regions, no practice of temporary replacement or reimbursement for renting temporary housing and their property transportation to owners (and their family members).

 

5. The judicial authorities submitted 127 remedial orders and 52 notices to district and city khokimiyats, and administrative protocols against 74 offenders to courts to prevent violations.

 

6. Forced evictions contribute to inequality, social conflict, segregation and invariably effect on the poorest, and the most socially and economically vulnerable and marginalized groups, especially women, children, minorities and PWDs.

 

7. No demolition statistics exists at the government level, and possible reasons are:

1) Khokims’ (mayor) decisions regarding land allocation for construction aren’t posted on khokimiyats’ websites. So, no tracking mechanisms.

2) Khokims’ decisions on land allocation don’t include details on buildings to be demolished; they specify only the approximate land location and size. The developers and cadaster services identify buildings and flats to be demolished, as well as families that lose their housing after the decisions are issued. This information isn’t published either.

3) No state institutions are interested in publishing demolition data, especially gender-disaggregated.

4) Unfair demolition become available only from victims who are actively fighting for their RAH, publish online and involve journalists.

 

8. Evictions take place following the city or district khokimiyat decision on land allocation to entrepreneurs or developers to carry out various commercial projects, mainly construction of multi-store apartments, hotels, shopping and entertainment and business centers. These decisions are issued despite the fact that people have their houses on this land or there are operational enterprises or other commercial facilities.

 

9. Khokims make these decisions without prior consultation or consent of residents/owners of commercial facilities. People are presented with a fate to leave their homes where they were born; or the house that they have chosen according to their preferences (near to work, school, relatives, ecological zones, etc.).

 

10. Developers pursue their profitmaking activities and aren’t interested in paying an adequate compensation for the house or moral damage. The owners of residential or non-residential facilities are sued by developers for not agreeing terms. Despite the legal prohibition of forced eviction, judges rephrase some legal provisions and adjudicate de facto forced eviction. Judges refer to the law regulating demolition for public and state needs, while most demolitions are to build and sell flats and make profit. According to the law of the RUz, the exhaustive list of state and public needs doesn’t cover such demolitions. Often, khokimiats are co-claimants with developers on forced eviction cases against owners, including women and children, which means the state structure takes the side of the commercial firms against citizens, particularly, vulnerable population violating the principle of equality of arms. Usually owners of demolished houses are not financially capable of paying a lawyer; and Uzbek law doesn’t entitle free state-guaranteed legal aid to vulnerable population in civil cases. RUz hasn’t adopted the Law on Free Legal Aid. The Tashkent City khokim, for example, in his decisions on land allocation for a commercial structure, refers to the pilot implementation aiming at improving the investment climate, and obliges the developer to compensate the owners for the damage caused.

В. The following legislation regulates ownership and rah that are violated during the demolition of housing:

 

11. Article 53 of the RUz Constitution: “The economy of RUz aimed at developing market relations, shall be based on various forms of property. Private property, along with other forms of ownership, shall be inviolable and protected by the State. The owner shall be deprived of his property only in case and manner stipulated in the law.”

 

12. The Civil Code of the RUz also protects property rights: “Ownership shall be inviolable and protected by law. The property inviolability shall imply any refraining from violation of property rights by any actor opposing the owner. The seizure of the owner’s property, as well as the restriction of his or her rights, shall be permitted only in the cases stipulated by legislation.” The owner’s property shall be seized only as recovery of the obligations of the owner in cases and under the procedure provided for by law, as well as by way of nationalization, requisition and confiscation. If a person owns property that cannot be owned by him by law, the ownership of such property shall be extinguished by the courts, and the value of the property seized shall be reimbursed.

 

13. In accordance with Article 2 of the Law of the RUz on Protection of Private Property and Guarantees of Owners’ Rights of September 24, 2012, “Private property shall be inviolable and protected by the state. The owner shall be deprived of his property only in case and manner stipulated in the law.”

 

14. The Law of the RUz on Property in the RUz, beginning with the Preamble, guaranteeing that “Property in the RUz shall be inviolable. Everyone shall have the right to property. The RUz permits any form of property that contributes to the efficient functioning of the economy and the well-being of the people. The inviolability and equal conditions for the development of all forms of ownership shall be guaranteed by law. The RUz shall provide the owner with all the necessary conditions to ensure the preservation and increase of his property.” Based on Article 1 of the Law,

“Ownership rights in the RUz shall be recognized and protected by law. The owner has the right to perform any act against his property that donэt contradict the law. He may use the property for any economic or other activity not prohibited by law. The RUz guarantees equal rights and legal protection of all forms of property.” Private property, along with other forms of ownership, shall be inviolable and protected by the state. The owner shall be deprived of his property only in case and manner stipulated in the law. It is prohibited to restrict the growth of property or to forcibly seize it, except in cases provided for by Uzbek law. The RUz shall ensure that legal entities and individuals in the RUz and other States have equal conditions for the protection of the right to property. The owner has the right to reclaim his property from the unlawful possession of others in accordance with the civil law of the RUz. The court executes protection of the right to property.

Termination of the right to property in connection with the decision to seize the land on which the house or other structures or plantings belonging to the owner are located, or other decision of a State agency not directly aimed at seizing property from the owner shall be permitted only in cases and under the procedure established by the legislation of the RUz, with full compensation for the owner’s losses caused by the termination of ownership. In case of any disagreement of the owner, the decision terminating the ownership right cannot be implemented until the court has resolved the dispute. All issues relating to compensation of the owner for the losses incurred shall also be resolved. The State shall seize the owner’s property only as recovery of the obligations of the owner in cases and under the procedure provided for by Uzbekistan’s law, as well as by way of nationalization, requisition and confiscation. In the event of natural disasters, accidents, epidemics, epizootics or other emergencies, property in the interests of society may, by decision of the public authorities, be confiscated from the owner with payment of the value of the property (requisition) in accordance with the procedure and conditions established by the law of the RUz. In cases stipulated by the legislative acts of the RUz, property may be withdrawn from the owner by court decision. The property may be seized from the owner by court decision in cases stipulated in the legislation of the RUz.

If, as a result of the act issuance by the public administration or local government authority that doesn’t conform with the law, when the rights of the owner or other persons to own, use and dispose of the property belonging to them are violated, this act shall be declared null and void by court at the request of the owner or the person whose rights have been violated. Losses incurred by citizens, organizations or other persons as a result of the issuance of the said acts shall be compensated in full by means available to the relevant authority or administration. The State bodies shall be liable for any damage caused by their unlawful interventions violating powers to possess, exercise, or dispose of their own property by the owner or persons referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, as stipulated in Article 35 of this Law.

 

15. Article 206 of the RUz Housing Code states: Termination of ownership in connection with the decision of the State authority not directly aimed at seizing the property from the owner, including the decision to seize the land where the owner’s house or other structures, buildings or planting are located, shall be permitted only in cases and in accordance with the procedure established by law, may the owner of the property be granted the right of ownership of equal value and other losses incurred or be compensated in full for the loss caused by the ownership termination. The market value of the house, other buildings, structures or plantings located on the land to be seized, as well as the right to land, shall be determined by valuation organizations in accordance with the established procedure. However, the market value of the property seized and the rights to the land upon termination of private ownership shall be determined by the valuation organization immediately, prior to the seizure of the property or when the news of the impending seizure affected the market value of the property, and the right to the land. It shall not be permitted to demolish a house, other structures or plantings on the land to be seized without prior and full compensation of losses at market value. If the owner disagrees with the decision terminating his ownership right, it shall not be implemented until the court has resolved the dispute. When considering the dispute, all issues with regard to compensating the owner for any losses incurred shall also be resolved. However, in practice, these Housing Code provisions aren’t respected. Forced evictions most often involve single women, as lower-middle-income areas are targeted for demolition. They don’t have enough financial means to hire lawyers to defend their property rights, they don’t have ‘friends in power’ who could protect their interests against arbitrary government and local officials.

 

16. Requirements of Articles 37 and 38 of the Urban Planning Code are not followed and developments projects are not based on Master plan. Any construction shall not commence if there is no General plan. Article 34 of the Urban Planning Code clearly ‘prohibits to design and build any projects within settlements without General plan or other required urban planning documentation.’ Regulations on the Procedure for Compensation of Damages to Citizens and Legal Entities due to Seizure of Land for State or Public Needs, paragraph 3  provides that ‘decisions on the seizure of land and the demolition of residential, industrial and other buildings, structures and plantings (hereinafter referred to as facilities) shall be taken in accordance with the General plans, as well as detailed planning and development designs of cities’ and towns’ residential areas, as well as microdistricts. The unwarranted demolition of residential, industrial and other buildings, structures and plantings on the land to be seized shall not be permitted.’ Khokimiyats and developers are increasingly replacing the principle of equivalent value with the principle of equivalent significance when providing replacement for the demolished housing: they offer a dwelling of equal area, regardless of the number of family members living with the owner.

 

17. The new procedure for land seizure and compensation to owners for immovable property, approved by RCM RUz No. 911 from 16.11.2019 came into force on January 1, 2020.  According to this by-law, ‘upon gaining consent of the 75 per cent of the real estate owners located on the land to be seized, the investor can go through court to apply for compulsory acquisition of the remaining owners’ property. In this case, the court shall determine the amount and types of compensation.’ Despite the fact that the Law on Protection of Ownership Rights ensures protection of the right to private property, this by-law introduced the procedure for the court to issue a decision instead of the owner. Thus, no confidence that the court will defend the owner’s interests.

 

С. Here are number of cases:

1. The case of R. in Samarkand.

 

On 04.06.2019, the Samarkand City Court satisfied a lawsuit filed by the Samarkand City khokimiyat and Silk Voyage Ltd. against R. sisters regarding forced eviction and demolition of the house where they had two flats. Higher judicial instances – the Samarkand Regional Court and the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court – left the decision of the court of first instance virtually unchanged. The R. sisters with four young children received information on eviction via Telegram messenger on January 20, 2020, the day (night) before the eviction. During the forced eviction, one of the R. sisters, set fire to a towel and threw it towards the CEB employees, who came to evict her from the house by court order. R. was detained, and criminal proceedings were instituted against her, and later she was sentenced to 2 years of imprisonment under Article 219 Part 2. She spent almost 5 months in the Kattakurgan remand center awaiting trial.

Sisters’ property was destroyed. The court decisions stated ‘forced resettlement,’ while it didn’t terminate the ownership. Moreover, the flat was demolished immediately as soon as R. was taken in custody, i.e. in her absence. During the resettlement, personal belongings from her flat were also destroyed/damaged/lost, although they should have been moved to a new place of residence at the expense of the developer. No inventory report was prepared nor property preservation measures were taken.

 

2. The case of D., Chartak district, Namangan province.

On October 1, 2020, 35-years old D., a mother of two minor sons, died in Namangan. The woman set herself on fire as protest the eviction during the CEB and law enforcement officers visit.

In 2018, D. bought a house by notarized sale agreement for $13,000 – the money she earned working abroad. But, when she tried to re-register the house in the cadaster, it appeared that the seller deceived her – the house was owned by another person, including incomplete land documentation. She couldn`t get any assistance during two years of visiting different authorities. In June 2020, the court issued an order for the former owner to pay D. UZS131 million, but woman wasn`t reimbursed nor any assistance from bailiff to reclaim the money from the perpetrator. The bailiff visited the woman to evict her, her mother and two sons, aged 11 and 15, to nowhere at the request of another owner.

The woman poured gasoline on herself and made a 13-minute statement accusing local authorities and a court of illegally taking her house from her before igniting the fire. The government provoked the woman, saying ‘you will never set yourself on fire!’

 

3. The case of Y., Tashkent

Y., a foster-child at a children’s home; between 1989-1999 her mother worked at the Abidov Str. Tashkent Tobacco Factory (now called UzBat); in 1991, the enterprise allocated her a flat in dormitory No.39, Yunus-Abad district, Tashkent. She got a warrant for this flat. In 1998, the dormitory was sold to Farangiz Savdo LLC on the condition that the dormitory tenants shall not be evicted without providing them alternative accommodation. Three years ago, this organization went bankrupt and dormitory was auctioned and purchased by the Real Standart Oil LLC as a non-residential building, despite the fact that several families were accommodated there. Y. filed a lawsuit; but then agreed to sign the agreement as tenant since her neighbors were evicted one after another without any alternative accommodation. The Real Standart Oil LLC sells flats in this 9-storey building; and Y. and her three children – a disabled (2nd category) daughter and two minor grandchildren will shortly be homeless.

 

WOMEN’S RIGHT TO WORK IS AT RISK DUE TO THE STATE VIOLATIONS 

 

18. Article 11 of CEDAW Convention sets the State obligation to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of employment in order to ensure gender equality. Alongside with housing demolition, kindergartens are being demolished in the country too. Kindergartens and other educational institutions are seized from children for entrepreneurs to pursue their profitmaking activity: construction of multi-store buildings, business centers and luxury mansions. According to statistics of the MPSE, there are 2.7 million preschool age children in Uzbekistan, and only around 1.4 million attend preschools, i.e. 52.42%. About 600,000 children are on the waiting list for kindergarten.  The total number of kindergartens in the country is 14,142, of which only 5,980 are public. Moreover, public kindergartens serve 1,143,736 children, i.e. 81% of all preschool children. “Our reports indicate that we have a shortage of places in kindergartens; therefore, many children are on the waiting lists. Demographic growth contributes and aggravates this situation; 700,000 children are born annually. We fail to build new kindergartens to catch up with the demand. The main issue is funding,” said Agrippina Shin, Minister of PSE of the RUz. The lack of kindergartens means that the mother of the child shall stay at home with her child, as she has no money to pay a babysitter. This is particularly challenging for single women or women from low-income families.

 

А. Cases of kindergarten demolitions:

 

19. Within one kilometer around the Buyuk Ipak Yuli metro station (Tashkent), in the last few years only 4-5 kindergartens have been closed and then demolished. For example, at 15 Chust Street, there was a kindergarten; currently, there is a business center under construction. The kindergarten on Buz Street was allocated to an anonymous person to build a private mansion. A commercial multi-store residential building was built replacing the former kindergarten on Muhamad-Yusuf Street. The kindergarten located in bldg. 92, 3 Blind-alley, Sairam Street, at Mirzo-Ulugbek District will have similar fate. This kindergarten belonged to UzCottonMachinery plant. In 2000, the plant was closed and the kindergarten was transferred to Tashkent City Khokimiyat. Half of the building was handed over to the Supply Department of the MPE – the State Unitary Enterprise “Ukuv Ta’lim Ta’aminot,” and the other half constantly changed owners during several years, until 2016, when it was owned by Silver Nile LLC as a compensation for the demolished commercial property. In August 2017, the khokim of Tashkent issued permission for this firm to build a multi-store residential building, but neighborhood residents didn’t agree with the developer’s plans. On behalf of all residents, one of the tenants – M. – filed a claim to the Administrative Court. In her statement, she requested to annul two previous judgements on the transfer of the former kindergarten to the Silver Nile LLC company and a permit to construct a multi-store residential building in its location.
20. argued that the building and territory of the former kindergarten are located inside the residential area between several 4-storey residential buildings. The kindergarten was built according to the standard design and the General Plan of Tashkent. It was comfortably located within a walking distance from the surrounding residential buildings. The residents didn`t have to cross highways on their way to the kindergarten. The residents justify their claim to annul the Khokim’s decisions by the fact that this transfer of the public preschool building to a private company was illegal. And, according to the current General Plan of Tashkent, only kindergarten shall be located in this place. The Resolution No. 84-F of the CM of the RUz from February 7, 2019 expressly states that buildings and structures previously built according to standard designs as preschool educational institutions shall be transferred to the MPSE.

 

The construction of an apartment building in this location also violates urban planning and SNIPs of the RUz. For example, SNIP 2.07.01-03* states: ” Planning for development and construction in urban and rural areas” states as follows: ‘It isn’t permitted to locate any facilities between apartment buildings in existing microdistricts, except for specific buildings and structures (sports grounds, playgrounds for children, laundry drying areas, temporary car parking lots).’

According to the letter of the Institute of Seismology from 28th October 2019, it is a probable risk area of M=8 earthquakes, which means that the SNIP requirements – in areas at risk of M=8 earthquakes and above, the distance between the long sides of the residential buildings shall be at least two heights of the highest building – shall be followed.

 

Thus, when the developer proposed 7-8 store residential building, i.e. at least 24 meters high, the distance between the long sides of the building and the adjacent 4-storey residential building must be at least 48 meters. This distance is merely not available in this location.

In its response to the relevant enquiry from the residents, the TMPDI stated that the abovementioned area shall not be used for the construction of any multi-storey residential buildings, except for kindergartens and sports grounds. This statement was confirmed in Gosstroy Inspection letter to Tashkent khokim. The khokim cannot reject or accept the General Plan, and since the old General Plan wasn’t rejected at the time of khokim Usmanov’s decision of 2017; therefore, this construction lacks any legal basis.

 

Currently, in the microdistrict around Sairam Street, the housing density and, consequently, the population are increasing. A large residential complex is under construction in the area of the former TEZINTOM plant; a residential complex is also planned to be built within the territory of the former UzCottonMachinery plant. A gated community of 60 cottages has already been built in TEPLOENERGO area and will be commissioned at the end of the year.

 

20. According to Urban Planning Regulations, 70-80% of children in residential areas shall be provided with access to preschools; and preschools shall be located within 300-500 meters.

“In our district, 4 or 5 preschool education institutions built according to the General Plan have already been demolished; and business centers and residential buildings are erected replacing them. According to the MPE, about 600,000 children are on the waiting list for a place in the remote control. Building only residential buildings creates an imbalance. The density of the population is increasing and the number of children is accordingly increasing, and one of the pressing problems is to provide children with a good, accessible remote control,” say residents. As a result of this CPI closure, almost 200 children were left behind. The residents request the court to restore the CPI and use this area according to its direct functional purpose and the General Plan of Tashkent. “Previously, the General Plan immediately provided for the construction of kindergartens, schools, clinics and other social facilities in residential areas. The situation now is the opposite – kindergartens are demolished, children are left behind, parents can work only part-time, as some families cannot afford expensive private kindergartens or nannies for their children,” residents say.

 

21. The Administrative Court of Bektemir District in Tashkent, at its session on September 14, 2020, didn’t overturn the first decision No. 929 of October 14, 2016, which allocated this land to the Silver Nile LLC. “Pursuant to Article 166 of the Civil Code of the RUz, the right to property shall be inviolable and protected by law,” the court explains its decision. In addition, the very fact of transferring this land to the Silver Nile LLC doesn’t affect the personal interests of the applicant; therefore, ‘there is no reason to reject the interested person (Silver Nile LLC) in protecting his trust in the disputed decision of the khokim No. 929 of October 14, 2016. The court considered lawful the decision of the Tashkent City Khokimiyat to provide the Silver Nile LLC with equivalent property and compensation for the losses incurred. As we see, the state protects the commercial legal entities’ right to property better than the women’s right whose houses and flats were demolished.

With regard to the request to annul the second decision of the Tashkent City khokim No. 1153 dated August 28, 2017, the court considered it possible to satisfy, and made a decision that the Silver Nile LLC shall not build a multi-storey apartment building on the said territory.

 

22. The biggest problem in demolition cases is the lack of independence of the courts, which adjudicate in favour of the executive power, applying the law to municipal housing demolition rather than to privately owned housing. The courts don’t take into account the arguments of the owners that the khokims’ demolition-related decisions are made not to seize land for state or public needs, but rather to transfer it to entrepreneurs to pursue their profitmaking activities – multi-storey residential buildings construction and sale. Judges shall be impartial, objective and ensure the right to fair trial as guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

 

THE STATE CONTINUES TO SEIZE PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, VIOLATING THE RIGHTS OF FAMILIES TO USE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN CLOSE VICINITY

 

22. On November 2, 2019, the CM RUz adopted Resolution No. 900 on the Establishment of Tashkent Education NGEO in Tashkent, founded by Velocius Ltd (UK). The company with this name was registered in London in November 2018, i.e. exactly one year before the adoption of this RCM. The company specified its activity as management consultation. The company has only one staff member – James SWEENE, the Director. No other information on the company’s activities or projects can be found. However, the Uzbek government hands over three public educational institutions free of charge to this unknown and unproven company:

– Buildings and structures of PEI, located at: 26 A. Kahkhora Street, Yakkasaray district, Tashkent City for Tashkent Kindergarten location;

– Buildings and structures of Tashkent Mehr Shafkat Professional College located at: 116 Vokhidova Street, Yakkasarai District, Tashkent City for School of Tashkent secondary school;

– Buildings and structures of the Tashkent Finance Institute located at: 7 Kichik Halka Yuli Street, Yunusabad District, Tashkent City for the Tashkent International University.

These were allegedly proposed by the MPSE, MPE, MHSE, while the country lacks schools and places for children.

All three institutions shall be financed by the British company, as well as through funds from tuition fees, revenues from business activities and services on a contractual basis, charitable donations from legal entities and private persons, grants and other sources. Therefore, the three public educational institutions have been replaced by commercial ones, financially unaffordable for families with children, in particular, for single mothers, people with disabilities and other vulnerable persons, and they have to look for other public education facilities located far from their homes.

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

1. Protect the rights of dwelling owners and their family members and exclude any possibility for seizure of land and premises demolition based on by laws.
2. Amend Article 27 (part 1) of the Housing Code to read as follows: «In the event of demolition of residential houses (flats) owned by citizens … owners at their choice and by agreement between the parties shall be provided with equivalent suitable residential premises in ownership with the area that at least complies with the social norms for the housing area, taking into account the number of family members, as well as tenants permanently residing in these houses (flats)».
3. Adopt the Law on Free Legal Aid, providing for free access of vulnerable population, including single women with children, low-income families to the civil case lawyer appointed by the state, including the housing demolition related cases due to the seizure of the land.
4. Eliminate the procedure when demolition of residential premises due to land seizure is carried out without the premises’ owner consent.
5. Eliminate the procedure for pre-school and school educational institutions demolition for commercial purposes, providing for improved access of children to educational institutions through increased state budget allocations for the construction of new kindergartens and schools.
6. Oblige local authorities to post demolition decisions with reference to the General Plan on their website.
7. Oblige statistical agencies to publish data on demolitions in connection with State seizures of land.
8. Ensure the independence of the judiciary through the election of judges by the population and the possibility of their recall in the event of decisions that violate the rights of citizens-voters to a fair trial, in accordance with international standards.