Uzbekistan is desperately trying to create the illusion that observance of human rights is the first priority of the regime. Several recent events, each of them nothing but a sham, are calculated to leave precisely this impression. Capital punishment was abolished in Uzbekistan and the power to order arrests was invested in judges alone not long ago. The other day, the authorities decided to up the status of the national ombudsman and "liberalize the framework of criminal sanction." All of that was discussed at length at the roundtable conference in Tashkent centered around "pressing problems of aligning the acting legislation with the law on ombudsman of the Oly Majlis of the Republic of Uzbekistan.

Lawmakers from both houses of the parliament, ministers of the Cabinet, heads of law enforcement agencies, representatives of non-governmental organizations, foreign diplomats, Russian, Azerbaijani, and Spanish ombudsmen, prominent legal scholars, experts, and journalists made the roundtable conference quite impressive. Three plenary sessions discussed foreign experience in "enhancement of legal guarantees of the ombudsman's performance". Some time was spent in discussion of "the principal directions of improvement of the ombudsman's legal status."

In the meantime, not a single independent human rights activist or lawyer (someone who could second or denounce the theses of speakers at the roundtable conference) got an invitation to attend the conference.

Justice Minister Atahanov, Chairman of the Human Rights Committee of the legislative house of the Oly Majlis (parliament) Saidov, and other speakers maintained that "a framework of promotion of human rights and freedoms" in Uzbekistan was established on President Islam Karimov's initiative. They even said that hundreds of laws aiming to promote human rights had been adopted in Uzbekistan in the years of sovereignty. Along with everything else, Uzbekistan became a signatory to international human rights accords within the framework of the UN and OSCE.

Needless to say, Uzbek independent media outlets and their foreign counterparts are full of reports on gross violations of human rights in Uzbekistan but the regime does not care and keeps putting dissenters under pressure and crushing initiatives suggested by civil society. After the tragedy in Andijan in May 2005, most human rights activists and journalists intent on telling the truth about Andijan fled the country. Whoever remained in Uzbekistan was jailed. Several prominent human rights activists and journalists were released from jail only when international organizations and first and foremost the European Union applied pressure. Needless to say, not one speaker at the roundtable conference mentioned it.

State officials given the floor at the conference said that the post of ombudsman of the Oly Majlis was introduced on Karimov's initiative twelve years ago, in 1995. The law on the ombudsman, however, was adopted in August 2004. Independent analysts point out in the meantime that the ombudsman's accountability to the parliament reduces his influence to naught. The parliament has never become an independent branch of the government in Uzbekistan. As things stand, its functions are reduced to execution of orders given by the president.

According to official estimates, over 7,600 citizens of Uzbekistan appealed to the ombudsman in 2006. There is absolutely no information available on whether the appeals were pondered or acted upon. The ombudsman is reported to be monitoring the situation with human rights in the country and mounting enlightenment campaigns. Rashidova herself, the current holder of the office, is not known for her deeds. She is rather known as the daughter of Sharaf Rashidov, the leader of Uzbekistan in the Soviet Union. All the same, if the senior official human rights activist were to be believed, "active interaction with both houses of the parliament has facilitated cooperation with state structures, courts, and law enforcement agencies in the name of more extensive and effective observance of human rights and freedoms in Uzbekistan." This is the thesis servile media outlets in Uzbekistan invariably promote.

The republican Justice Ministry convened a conference to study the state of affairs with implementation of the laws "On amendment of some standard acts of the Republic of Uzbekistan in connection with abolition of capital punishment" and "On amendment of some standard acts of the Republic of Uzbekistan in connection with delegation of the power to order arrest to courts".

Atahanov the minister addressed the conference and hailed abolition of capital punishment and delegation of the power to order arrest to courts as "momentous events in the sociopolitical life of the country."

The impression is, however, that these laws are only to be used as an ideological screen and not actually applied. Those present at the conference elaborated on "the necessity to impart to the population and all of the international community the sociopolitical and legal importance of these laws" and "to keep them updated on results of the democratic changes in the country through publication of appropriate information in the media"... Practice shows Uzbek courts as anything but independent because they only pass the sentences dictated by the powers-that-be.

The Tashkent State Law Institute in the meantime organized an international on-line conference "Abolition of capital punishment and delegation of the power to order arrest to courts - an important development in democratization of society". It was stated at the conference that "penal legislation of Uzbekistan pertaining life sentences is one of the most liberal and perfect throughout the world. The amended legislation applies life sentence to only two types of crime - first degree murder and terrorism. Life sentence is not to be applied to women, criminals under 18, and men over 60..." Pravda Vostoka, one of the central newspapers, even wrote that "legislations of South Korea, France, Austria, Poland, Switzerland, Sweden, Holland, Denmark, and the United States stipulate no restrictions at all to application of life sentences."

In short, the Uzbek authorities are after two objectives at once. On the one hand, they are trying to persuade their own population that everything with human rights in Uzbekistan is fine and dandy (more so than anywhere in the world, as a matter of fact). On the other, they are trying to disarm foreign critics with the traditional answer that comes down to "before attending to a mote in thy neighbor's eye..."

What are the authorities really after? Do the latest amendments of the legislation indicate the desire for changes or are they but a PR trick in the forthcoming presidential election? Time will show. Independent observers in the meantime remain pessimistic. Rights of farmers, politicians, businessmen, journalists, prisoners, and all others in Uzbekistan are abused and encroached on en masse. Unfortunately, the so called international community seems to have chosen its priorities too and prefers reliable energy export to actual promotion of human rights.