Kazakhstan Takes on Torture with OSCE -- Kind Of

A year ago, Zhovtis himself was speaking at conferences like this. (c) 2009 Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and the Rule of Law

A big OSCE meeting is getting underway about torture in Kazakhstan. I was among those who advocated this as a leading topic for the period of the Kazakh chair, but others thought topics like "transparency" or "media" or  "governance" or "tolerance" would "fly" better. Even so, it turns out that the government *can* handle the topic -- although in a fashion that runs a grave risk of becoming superficial and leading to the bureaucratization of a problem that in fact is a simpler matter. Dealing with torture doesn't so much require a committee as a change of heart and and a clear expression of will as a policy disseminated throughout the law-enforcement agencies that citizens have meaningful ways of checking.

I don't know how much NGOs were prepared for this meeting, but I see Penal Reform International is taking part. I'll tell you my thoughts on all this, however -- it's all kind of top-heavy, and the pedal hasn't hit the medal yet:

The event brings together some 80 participants, including officials of Kazakhstan's Presidential Administration, the Parliament and the Ministries of Justice, Internal Affairs, Education, Defence, Labour and Health. Representatives from the Committee of National Security, the Prosecutor General's Office, the Commission on Human Rights, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Council, academia and human rights defenders are also taking part.

The subject isn't torture cases or reports per say, but the optional protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture, and "the draft law developed by the Justice Ministry on establishing public control in places of detention through a national preventive mechanism (NPM), as stipulated by the OPCAT," which Kazakhstan ratified in October 2008.

"Control" is one of those translator's false friends that is better translated as "oversight," since the public will not be actually controlling, i.e. managing through democratically elected representatives and an independent judiciary, these places of detention. Even so, it's all part of the slow but steady building up of institutions that can tackle the deep problem of torture in Kazakhstan, which follows the same patterns long ago laid down by the Soviet state-sponsored torture system of the GULAG.

It helps in these endeavours to keep your eye on the ball, and not to get too distracted by a) the fabulousness of the fact that Kazakhstan has signed the optional protocol in theory enabling citizens to file complaints or b) that it is willing to have an OSCE conference on this subject or c) that a draft law is being discussed.

Because, well, there's still the torture. It's helpful to read the Committee Against Torture's latest conclusions on Kazakhstan and the various alternative reports also submitted by NGOs. The CAT says:

Detention and places of deprivation of liberty

21.    The Committee welcomes the successful reform of much of the Kazakh penitentiary system through the adoption of programmes conducted in close cooperation with international and national organizations as well as the enactment of new laws and regulations. It further notes that this reform resulted in a decrease of the rate of pre-trial detention, an increased use of alternative sanctions to imprisonment, more humane conditions of detention, and a marked improvement in the conditions of detention in post-conviction detention facilities. However, the Committee remains concerned at:

(a)    The deterioration of prison conditions and stagnation in the implementation of penal reforms since 2006; 
(b)    Persistent reports of abuse in custody;
(c)    Poor conditions of detention and persistent overcrowding in detention facilities;
(d)    Excessive use of isolation with regards to pre-trial detainees and prisoners and lack of regulation of the frequency of such isolation; 
(e)    Instances of group self-mutilation by prisoners reportedly as a form of protest for ill-treatments;
(f)    Lack of access to independent medical personnel in pre-trial detention centres and the reported failure to register signs of torture and ill-treatment or to accept detainee’s claims of torture and ill-treatment as the basis for an independent medical examination;
(g)    Persistent high incidence of death in custody, in particular in pre-trial detention (e.g. the case of the former KNB General Zhomart Mazhrenov) some of which are alleged to have followed torture or ill-treatment (art.11).