Central Asia: Strengthening Safeguards, Oversight and Accountability to Prevent Torture

It is also problematic that existing safeguards are not applicable to all cases of detention. For example, in Tajikistan, those who are subject to administrative detention or detained as ‘’witnesses’’ do not have a legally protected right to fundamental safeguards. Concerns further persist regarding inadequate documentation of injuries, unreliable custody records and the lack of accessible, independent complaint mechanisms.

While confessions continue to play a central role in criminal proceedings, important safeguards such as comprehensive video recording of detention and interrogation processes remain insufficiently developed or inconsistently applied. For example, in Kazakhstan, video recordings have played a crucial role in corroborating victims’ allegations in some torture cases that have attracted public attention. However, such recordings have yet to be used as a standard legal safeguard applicable to all detainees.

Lack of independent oversight

Another major factor undermining torture prevention in the region is the lack of robust independent oversight of detention facilities.

Established under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT), a National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) has functioned in Kazakhstan for more than a decade. While the NPM provides an important institutional basis for independent monitoring, its effectiveness is currently limited by insufficient operational independence, resources and follow-up powers. Public monitoring commissions also need to be strengthened.

Kyrgyzstan experienced a significant setback last year when the National Centre for the Prevention of Torture (NCPT) – a NPM that was established under the OPCAT in 2012 and had served as a regional model, including in terms of its cooperation with civil society – was abolished despite widespread criticism. This step contradicted numerous recommendations received by Kyrgyzstan during the April 2025 Universal Periodic Review (UPR) to maintain the NCPT as an independent body and strengthen its operations. Following the NCPT’s liquidation, its functions were instead transferred to the Ombudsperson’s Office amid concerns about the lack of full independence of this body and its capacity to handle the new role. The ongoing transition has created a gap in torture prevention efforts and prompted concerns about an increased risk of ill-treatment in detention.

The other three Central Asian countries have not ratified the OPCAT to date.

In Uzbekistan, the Ombudsperson’s Office has conducted an increasing number of visits to places of detention, in cooperation with public groups created to assist in this task. However, this office remains dependent on the executive, impairing its effectiveness.

In Tajikistan, the Ombudsperson’s Office likewise carries out visits to detention facilities, but it is also not an independent body. In a positive development, the prison service allowed members of the NGO Coalition against Torture to monitor most penitentiary institutions as of 2024, although its access has yet to be regulated by law.

In Turkmenistan, there are serious ongoing concerns regarding the limited scope and lack of independence of the monitoring conducted by the Ombudsperson’s Office and government supervisory commissions. International monitors have not been granted access for regular monitoring.

Failure to systematically investigate, prosecute and ensure justice for torture

Across the region, serious concerns persist regarding the failure to systematically investigate, prosecute and penalise acts of torture and ill-treatment, as well as to ensure appropriate support and redress for victims. 

While torture is criminalised in Kazakhstan, the relevant Criminal Code provision is not fully aligned with international standards and allows for penalties that are not commensurate with the gravity of the crime, including fines and community service. Following legal amendments adopted in 2023, allegations classified as torture are investigated by the General Prosecutor’s Office, but complaints involving other forms of ill-treatment are handled by the police, which creates potential conflicts of interest and undermines impartiality. Many complaints of abusive treatment are not effectively investigated or prosecuted, with victims often being expected to substantiate allegations themselves, contrary to international standards. Insufficient protection against reprisals also discourages victims from reporting abuse. It remains of concern that those convicted of torture often receive lenient penalties in practice, including non-custodial sentences. At the same time, comprehensive mechanisms for rehabilitation, support and compensation of torture survivors are lacking, and compensation to victims is often inadequate, if provided at all.

In a welcome development, Kyrgyzstan’s Criminal Code was revised in spring 2026 to broaden the definition of torture to include not only physical but also mental suffering and to extend liability to individuals acting in an official capacity, even if they are not state officials. As the previous wording had allowed many perpetrators to evade responsibility, these changes raised hopes for improved accountability, although civil society actors stressed that their effective implementation will be key. In a persistent trend, allegations of torture and ill-treatment have often not been adequately investigated, with procedural delays resulting in the loss of evidence and undermining prospects for prosecution. When criminal proceedings have been initiated, they have frequently been pursued under lesser offences such as abuse of office or exceeding authority rather than torture, diminishing the gravity of the crimes. Victims also face significant obstacles in obtaining compensation and rehabilitation, with remedies rarely provided and often falling short of international standards.

While penalties for torture have been increased in Tajikistan, the application of the relevant Criminal Code provision remains limited, and the number of convictions issued remains persistently low, as the UN Committee against Torture (CAT) noted with regret during its April 2026 review of the country. When cases involving torture and ill-treatment are prosecuted, provisions on less serious offences such as abuse of power or exceeding official authority are frequently invoked. An independent mechanism for receiving and investigating torture complaints has yet to be established, with current practice relying primarily on prosecutorial bodies with close links to law enforcement authorities, undermining prospects for effective and impartial investigations. There are also no independent forensic medical institutions. Judges routinely dismiss allegations of abuse raised in court, ordering investigations only in isolated cases. At the same time, victims and their lawyers are often reluctant to report such treatment due to fear of reprisals and a lack of confidence in obtaining justice. Although legislation on compensation for torture has been strengthened, courts often dismiss compensation claims or award inadequate amounts. There is no comprehensive, state-funded rehabilitation system for torture survivors, with only limited services provided by civil society thanks to foreign funding. It also remains of concern that torture is subject to a statute of limitations and that national law does not exclude the possibility of amnesty for such acts.

Turkmenistan criminalised torture in 2012 and further strengthened the relevant provision in 2022. However, according to official information, no cases initiated under this provision have been examined by courts since it was introduced. While the authorities report conducting internal investigations when law enforcement officials are accused of exceeding their authority, they have failed to demonstrate any progress on ensuring that allegations of torture and ill-treatment are investigated in a thorough and impartial manner. In several recent cases of torture that exile-based civil society organisations have learned about, no effective investigations are known to have been conducted. Overall, the lack of prospects for obtaining justice, combined with the serious risk of reprisals, strongly discourages victims and their families from reporting torture and ill-treatment. When reviewing Turkmenistan’s compliance with the Convention against Torture in 2025, CAT expressed  grave concern about the authorities’ failure to effectively investigate and prosecute torture and hold perpetrators accountable. It also regretted the lack of progress in investigating enforced disappearances, with the fate and whereabouts of victims in dozens of documented cases remaining unknown.

Under Uzbekistan’s Criminal Code, torture and ill-treatment are punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment. However, according to available information, this provision is rarely applied in practice, with cases involving abusive treatment instead being pursued under other Criminal Code provisions, such as abuse of power or negligence in service. Such cases are frequently tried behind closed doors. Allegations of torture are typically not investigated effectively, while judges often disregard complaints raised by defendants and their lawyers and fail to order forensic examinations. Serious concerns also persist over the lack of an independent mechanism for investigating torture complaints and the absence of an independent forensic medical examination system, undermining prospects for accountability. Moreover, despite continued reports of torture and ill-treatment received by human rights defenders, including from individuals at heightened risk such as members of vulnerable groups and those prosecuted on politically motivated grounds, victims are often reluctant to report torture due to fear of reprisals and a lack of confidence in obtaining justice. An additional concern is that those convicted based on evidence obtained under duress face significant obstacles in seeking redress and overturning wrongful convictions, with authorities often refusing their claims, citing the statute of limitations.

Impunity for torture

Due to inadequate efforts to investigate, prosecute and punish acts of torture and ill-treatment – as described above – widespread impunity for such practices remains a key concern across Central Asia. This broader problem is illustrated by patterns of impunity relating to torture and other gross human rights violations committed in connection with crises in the region, including the suppression of mass protests in three Central Asian countries in 2022. While far from the only examples, these cases represent some of the most serious recent failures to ensure accountability for abusive treatment – a concern that has also been highlighted by international human rights bodies.

Following its June 2025 review of Kazakhstan, the UN Human Rights Committee regretted that many investigations into torture related to the January 2022 protests were closed because complaints allegedly were unsubstantiated. Likewise in a May 2025 report based on monitoring of court proceedings related to these events, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) raised concerns regarding inadequate investigations, disparity between widespread allegations of abuse and the low number of prosecutions, and the lack of appropriate redress for victims.

When reviewing Tajikistan in April 2026, CAT criticised the lack of effective and independent investigations into allegations of torture, ill-treatment, and extrajudicial killings reportedly carried out by security forces during the suppression of protests in Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Region (GBAO) in 2021 and 2022, noting that only a very small number of cases had been reviewed by court.

Similarly, during its April 2026 review of Uzbekistan, the UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) expressed grave concern about the lack of accountability for torture and other serious violations targeting members of the Karakalpak ethnic group – including human rights defenders – in connection with the July 2022 protests in Karakalpakstan.

The UN treaty bodies called on the authorities of the Central Asian countries to ensure effective and impartial investigations into all allegations of abuse related to the 2022 events, prosecute perpetrators, impose appropriate penalties and provide redress to victims. While issued in relation to specific events, these recommendations are equally relevant to addressing the broader problem of impunity for torture and ill-treatment across the region.

Challenges facing anti-torture advocates

Civil society organisations, activists and lawyers play an indispensable role in efforts to prevent and combat torture in Central Asia. In addition to monitoring and documenting violations, they provide victims and their families with crucial legal, medical, and psychological support, and engage in efforts to bring perpetrators to justice. However, amid a broader decline in civic space, their ability to carry out this work is increasingly challenged by hostile rhetoric, restrictive legislation, undue interference and other forms of pressure. This, in turn, weakens efforts to ensure accountability for torture and ill-treatment. Rather than obstructing civil society contributions to preventing torture, supporting victims and securing justice, the authorities should recognise, welcome and support these efforts.

International cooperation, non-refoulement and transnational repression

The concerns outlined above underscore the importance of continued international engagement to support efforts to prevent and combat torture in Central Asia, including through assistance aimed at strengthening safeguards, independent monitoring mechanisms, and investigative and prosecutorial capacities, in line with recommendations issued by international human rights bodies. Support for civil society actors working on torture related issues is an essential component of such engagement.

The persistent occurrence of torture and ill-treatment in Central Asia, combined with continuing shortcomings in prevention, oversight and accountability, also underscores the importance of fully respecting the principle of non-refoulement. In particular, at a time of increasing efforts to facilitate returns and removals, states cooperating with Central Asian countries should ensure that their migration policies fully comply with this principle and refrain from expelling, extraditing or otherwise transferring individuals to the region where there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to torture or other prohibited ill-treatment. In this context, close attention should be paid to growing patterns of transnational repression and the targeting of individuals on politically motivated grounds beyond national borders, including through attempts to secure their forcible return. Such individuals are at heightened risk of torture and other serious human rights violations if returned.

Recommendations

Against the background of the concerns raised above, we call on the governments of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan to:

• Translate international commitments concerning torture and ill-treatment into tangible improvements in law, policy and practice, including through the implementation of recommendations and decisions issued by international human rights bodies.
• Ensure that all detainees enjoy fundamental safeguards from the moment of actual deprivation of liberty, including prompt access to a lawyer, an independent medical examination, notification of relatives and effective avenues for challenging the legality of detention.
• Strengthen safeguards against abuse during detention and interrogation, including through comprehensive and tamper-proof video recording systems covering all stages of detention, transport and questioning.
• Ratify and effectively implement the OPCAT, where this has not yet been done, and establish, strengthen or restore National Preventive Mechanisms, ensuring that they operate fully independently, are adequately resourced and have unrestricted access to all places of detention.
• Establish independent and effective mechanisms for receiving and investigating complaints of torture and ill-treatment, and ensure that all allegations are investigated promptly, thoroughly and impartially.
• Ensure that torture and ill-treatment are prosecuted under appropriate criminal provisions, that penalties reflect the gravity of the offences, and that statutes of limitation, amnesties or other measures do not contribute to impunity.
• Establish independent forensic medical examination systems and ensure that allegations of torture are properly documented in accordance with international standards, including the Istanbul Protocol.
• Protect victims, witnesses, lawyers, medical professionals and human rights defenders from intimidation and reprisals related to the reporting, documentation and investigation of torture.
• Ensure that victims of torture and ill-treatment have access to effective remedies, including adequate compensation, rehabilitation and other forms of redress, and fully implement decisions issued by international human rights bodies in individual cases.
• Ensure effective, independent and transparent investigations into allegations of torture and other serious abuses committed in connection with the suppression of protests, and provide appropriate redress to victims.

We call on other OSCE participating States, OSCE institutions and international partners of the Central Asian countries to:

• Continue to prioritise the prevention of torture and ill-treatment in their engagement with Central Asian governments, including through bilateral dialogues, multilateral forums and co-operation programmes.
• Support efforts aimed at strengthening independent monitoring of places of detention, improving the implementation of safeguards against torture and enhancing accountability mechanisms in the region.
• Provide political, technical and financial support to independent civil society organisations, lawyers and victim support initiatives working to prevent torture, document violations and assist survivors.
• Consistently raise concerns regarding individual cases involving allegations of torture, impunity and reprisals against victims, lawyers, journalists and human rights defenders working on torture-related issues.
• Encourage and support the full implementation of recommendations issued by international human rights mechanisms with respect to efforts to combat torture, ill-treatment and impunity.
• Refrain from forcibly returning individuals to Central Asian countries in violation of the non-refoulement principle, including in cases involving transnational repression.

More information

For more information on the issues outlined above, please refer to the following publications:

Kazakhstan

Submission by the NGO Coalition against Torture to CAT for the adoption of a List of issues prior to submission of the fifth periodic report of Kazakhstan, March 2026: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2FCAT%2FICS%2FKAZ%2F69161&Lang=en

Submission by the NGO Coalition against Torture to the UN Human Rights Committee for the review of Kazakhstan’s third periodic report, May 2025: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2FCCPR%2FCSS%2FKAZ%2F63266&Lang=en

Kyrgyzstan

Submission by OMCT and IPHR on torture issues for the UPR of Kyrgyzstan, October 2024:

https://iphronline.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/joint-omct-iphr-upr-submission-on-torture-issues-in-kyrgyzstan-october-2024.pdf

OMCT country factsheet:

https://www.omct.org/en/global-torture-index?country=kyrgyzstan

Tajikistan

Joint submission by the Civil Society Coalition against Torture and Impunity, IPHR, HFHR and OMCT to CAT for the review of Tajikistan’s fourth periodic report, March 2026:

https://iphronline.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/joint-submission-on-tajikistan-to-the-un-cat.pdf

Joint submission by the Civil Society Coalition against Torture and Impunity, IPHR and HFHR on torture issues for the UPR of Tajikistan, April 2026: https://iphronline.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/upr-tajikistan-submission-on-torture.pdf

Turkmenistan

Joint briefing by IPHR and TIHR for the EU-Turkmenistan Human Rights Dialogue, May 2026:

https://iphronline.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/key-human-rights-issues-cases-and-recommendations-for-eu-turkmenistan-dialogue.pdf

Joint submission by IPHR and TIHR to CAT for the review of Turkmenistan’s third periodic report, April 2026:

https://iphronline.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/tihr-iphr-report-to-the-committee-against-torture-march-2025.pdf

Uzbekistan

Joint briefing by IPHR and AHRCA for the EU-Uzbekistan Human Rights Dialogue, June 2025:

https://iphronline.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/iphr-ahrca-briefing-for-eu-uzbekistan-human-rights-dialogue-june-2025.pdf