REVIEW URGED FOR EX-GUANTANAMO TAJIKS  Two men convicted of joining Islamic 
militants deserve case review and shorter sentences, legal experts say.  By 
Dabiri Kabir, Daler Gufronov, Parvina Khamidova

**** NEW 


VACANCIES AVAILABLE: http://iwpr.net/what-we-do/vacancies 


CENTRAL ASIA PROGRAMME HOME: http://www.iwpr.net/programme/central-asia 

IWPR COMMENT: IWPR COMMENT: http://iwpr.net/report-news/editorial-comment 



**** www.iwpr.net 

RSS FEEDS: http://iwpr.net/syndication/builder 

SUBSCRIBE TO IWPR: http://iwpr.net/special/subscribe 

DONATE TO IWPR: http://iwpr.net/donate 

**** www.iwpr.net 



Two men convicted of joining Islamic militants deserve case review and shorter 
sentences, legal experts say.

By Dabiri Kabir, Daler Gufronov, Parvina Khamidova

Legal experts say there is little justification for the continued detention of 
two former Guantanamo detainees serving long prison terms in Tajikistan after 
being repatriated by the United States in 2007. 

Muqit Vohidov and Rukhniddin Sharopov, both 29, were arrested and sent to trial 
immediately after they were sent back to Tajikistan in March 2007 after 
spending five years and four months initially in Afghanistan and then at the 
Guantanamo detention facility. They were sentenced to 17 years in jail for 
serving as mercenaries with the banned Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, IMU, and 
illegally crossing the national border.

IWPR understands that Tajikistan’s prosecution may conduct a review of the 
case, at which time it could consider seeking shorter sentences.

The two were detained in the city of Kunduz in northern Afghanistan in November 
2001 by anti-Taleban forces of the Northern Alliance, and were later handed 
over to US custody.

The US authorities have released unclassified documents containing testimony 
from the two detainees in 2004, which show they were accused of being members 
of the IMU, which is on the US government’s list of terrorist organisations.

The documents state that Vohidov was transported by helicopter from eastern 
Tajikistan to Afghanistan in January 2001, and Sharopov travelled there at 
around the same time.

This testimony, from a Guantanamo tribunal review of Vohidov’s case in which 
Sharopov appeared as a witness, indicated they were recruited by the IMU in 
2000 and taken to a camp in eastern Tajikistan. They then had their passports 
taken away and were made to perform menial tasks, before being taken to 

The men told the tribunal they thought they were being recruited into 
Tajikistan’s national army and had never heard of the IMU until they arrived in 

The IMU emerged from Islamists active in the Uzbek city of Namangan in the 
early Nineties, who shifted to Tajikistan following a government crackdown. The 
Tajik civil war was then in full swing, and the IMU developed as a guerrilla 
force allied with the opposition forces. After that conflict ended in 1997, the 
IMU evolved into a separate force whose stated agenda was to make war on 
governments in Central Asia, primarily Uzbekistan. To this end, IMU guerrillas 
launched a series of raids into Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan in 1999 and 2000.

Forced out of Central Asia, the IMU relocated to Afghanistan where it joined 
forces with the country’s Taleban rulers. When the US-led Coalition arrived in 
late 2001, IMU fighters put up stiff resistance in Kunduz. Some were killed, 
others captured and many escaped to a new stronghold in northwest Pakistan.

There were a total of 12 Tajikistan nationals listed at Guantanamo. Of the 11 
sent back to Tajikistan, all but three including Vohidov and Sharopov were 
released on their return. The 12th, Umar Abdulloev, is still in Guantanamo. His 
lawyer Matthew O’Hara says Abdulloev is concerned about what happened to 
Vohidov and Sharopov, and has asked not to be repatriated.

O’Hara believes that his client should be given asylum in some third country.

“US officials have a legal… and a moral obligation not to repatriate Umar to 
Tajikistan under the circumstances of his case,” he said, adding that a 
commitment by the Tajik authorities to protect his client’s rights “is plainly 
not enforceable and does not protect a person’s human rights in practice.”

He added, “The US State Department and respected NGOs all agree that human 
rights conditions in Tajik prisons and the Tajik justice system are poor, and 
that torture occurs with impunity in Tajik prisons. These are the reasons for 
our concerns.”

In its annual human rights for 2009 published in March this year, the US State 
Department said Tajikistan’s human rights record remained poor, noting problems 
such as the torture and abuse of detainees by the security forces, the denial 
of the right to fair trial, harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, and 
lack of access to prisoners for international monitors like the Red Cross.


The parents of both Vohidov and Sharopov have been campaigning for a review of 
their cases since their imprisonment. Last year, their mothers pressed their 
case in a letter addressed to President Imomali Rahmon and published in a local 

They argue that evidence brought at Guantanamo and the subsequent trial in 
Tajikistan does not show that the two, both born in 1981, were involved in 
combat or in acts of terrorism, so the sentences are disproportionate.

Vohidov’s father Valikhon says the Tajik court did not take extenuating 
circumstances into account.

“These two suffered for five years. They are very young and inexperienced,” he 
told IWPR. “They did not take part in the war and they didn’t kill anyone. This 
is unjust.”

Another former Guantanamo detainee sent back to Tajikistan, Ibrohim 
Nasriddinov, was given a 23-year sentence in 2007 for murder and weapons 
offences, to which he pleaded guilty.

Legal experts argue that given the nature of the offences and under other 
circumstances, Vohidov and Sharopov received too harsh a punishment, and that 
the time they spent at Guantanamo should have been taken into account.

Dushanbe-based lawyer Abduqayum Yusufov says that under international 
agreements on detention, the Tajik court should have subtracted the men’s five 
years of incarceration at Guantanamo from the sentence it imposed.

A former chairman of the Supreme Court, Mahmadali Vatanov, who now sits in 
parliament, declined to comment on these specific cases, but he agreed that 
under Tajik law, any previous time in detention should be taken into account.

Payam Foroughi, an independent expert and until last year a human rights 
officer with the OSCE in Tajikistan, has followed the cases, and believes due 
process was not followed.

“It appears they [defendants] had not enough, or any, time to sufficiently and 
seriously discuss and properly prepare their case with a lawyer – and one of 
their choice – prior to their court hearing,” he told IWPR. “In my opinion, 
there may not be sufficient evidence to keep them behind bars and that the two 
men may thus deserve to be freed, as they very likely pose no danger to their 
government and society.”

After arriving in Tajikistan in March 2007, the men were swiftly prosecuted and 
put on trial, and the verdict was announced in August the same year.

Foroughi believes that the court should have probed further into the allegation 
that Vohidov and Sharopov willingly became members of the IMU.

“If anything, the evidence points to them having been victims of human 
trafficking,” Foroughi said noting that it is not clear whether they had any 
idea which group in reality recruited them.

“They claim that they had thought they were joining the Tajik military, and 
this is not far-fetched. There is indeed a high possibility that they were 
deceived, and once they found out the nature of the people who had recruited 
them, their passports had already been forcefully taken away from them and they 
were forced to go to a place they later found was Afghanistan and it was 
literally impossible to return. In short, they were tricked, trafficked and 
trapped,” he said.

Musomir Urakov, the judge who presided in the trial of Vohidov and Sharopov, 
rejects suggestions that the trial was based on poor evidence.

“During the trial and appeal process, all their [defence] arguments were 
checked out, and as presiding judge, I can say the verdict was a fair one,” he 
said. “It’s generally the case that objections are raised. I think that if 
trial participants disagree [with the verdict], it is because not everyone is 
familiar with the law and its provisions.”

Asked why the time Vohidov and Sharopov spent at Guantanamo was not taken into 
account, Judge Urakov said the court had no documentary information relating to 
their detention there.

“We could not determine, even from the defendants, on what legal basis they 
were detained at and released from Guantanamo. We could not get hold of any 
documents. So we reached a verdict based on the documents that we had,” he said.

A Dushanbe-based lawyer who wished to remain anonymous said the lack of 
documentation from Guantanamo was a recurring problem in countries to which 
detainees are repatriated.

“If no charges are brought against them, then generally they are sent back home 
and are not given documentary confirmation,” he said.

IWPR contacted the US embassy in Tajikistan, but staff were unable to say 
whether former Guantanamo inmates were issued with documents confirming they 
had spent time there.

Azizmat Imomov, who was a deputy justice minister in 2007 and is now member of 
parliament in Tajikistan, insists it was correct to detain, question and 
prosecute the men on their return, and says they were guilty under national 

“Despite the fact that these citizens were regarded as innocent abroad, within 
Tajikistan they committed acts that violate national law, and they should be 
punished,” he said.


However, it now looks at least possible that the men’s cases will be reviewed. 
On May 26, their parents met Prosecutor General Sherkhon Salimzoda and asked 
him to review their cases and consider cutting their prison terms in view of 
the time they spent at Guantanamo.

A representative of the prosecutor general’s office, who wished to remain 
anonymous, told IWPR that following the meeting, the prosecutor’s office asked 
the Supreme Court to send it the case files so that it could look into the 
possibility of a review.

“We intend to look at all the details of this case again, and we will then give 
a more detailed answer,” said the official.

Dabiri Kabir is a pseudonym for a Tajik journalist; Daler Gufronov is an 
IWPR-trained reporter; Parvina Khamidova is an IWPR editor in Tajikistan.

This article was produced jointly under two IWPR projects: Building Central 
Asian Human Rights Protection & Education Through the Media, funded by the 
European Commission; and the Human Rights Reporting, Confidence Building and 
Conflict Information Programme, funded by the Foreign Ministry of Norway.

The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of IWPR and can in no 
way be taken to reflect the views of either the European Union or the Foreign 
Ministry of Norway.

**** www.iwpr.net 

REPORTING CENTRAL ASIA provides the international community with a unique 
insiders' perspective on the region. Using our network of local journalists, 
the service publishes news and analysis from across Central Asia on a weekly 

The service forms part of IWPR's Central Asia Project based in Almaty, Bishkek, 
Tashkent and London, which supports media development and encourages better 
local and international understanding of the region.

IWPR's Reporting Central Asia is supported by the UK Community Fund. The 
service is published online in English and Russian. 

The opinions expressed in Reporting Central Asia are those of the authors and 
do not necessarily represent those of the publication or of IWPR.

REPORTING CENTRAL ASIA: Editor-in-Chief: Anthony Borden; Managing Editor: Yigal 
Chazan; Senior Editor and Acting Central Asia Director: John MacLeod; Central 
Asia Editor: Saule Mukhametrakhimova.

IWPR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT: Executive Director: Anthony Borden; Head 
of Programmes: Elizabeth Coates.

**** www.iwpr.net 

IWPR gives voice to people at the frontlines of conflict, crisis and change. 
From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, IWPR helps people in the world's most challenging 
environments have the information they need to drive positive changes in their 
lives — holding government to account, demanding constructive solutions, 
strengthening civil society and securing human rights. Amid war, dictatorship, 
and political transition, IWPR builds the level of public information and 
responsible debate. IWPR forges the skills and capacity of local journalism, 
strengthens local media institutions and engages with civil society and 
governments to ensure that information achieves impact.

IWPR - Europe, 48 Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1X 8LT, UK
Tel: +44 20 7831 1030

IWPR – United States, 1325 G Street, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005, 
United States
Tel: +1 202 449 7717

1515 Broadway, 11th Floor, New York, New York 10036, United States
Tel: +1 202 903 1073

Stichting IWPR Nederland, Eisenhowerlaan 77 K, 2517 KK Den Haag, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 70 338 9016

For further details on this project and other information services and media 
programmes, go to: www.iwpr.net 

ISSN: 1477-7924 Copyright © 2009 The Institute for War & Peace Reporting 

**** www.iwpr.net 

Reply via email to