Sociological Conclusions
“Physical Abuse in the Law Enforcement Bodies”
(Complied though interviews with doctors and staff working in ambulance services and trauma centers in Bukhara, Karshi, Navoi)

Primary Author: Mr.Shukhrat Ganiev, RRG member

Preliminary comments

The purpose of this study is not to reinforce perceptions of the Uzbek law enforcement agencies as a source of violence and abuse; rather, this study is an attempt to provide statistical evidence towards more informed and dispassionate analysis.

The primary reason for the negative public perception towards the law enforcement bodies in is that the police have in fact abused their power, committed arbitrary arrest, beatings and torture. A number of factors make it extremely difficult to define the both the extent and nature of the above abuse. First, the law enforcement agencies in Uzbekistan are extremely close-knit, closed institutions, operating with little external control. Second, public scrutiny is undermined by the institutions charged with overseeing the law enforcement bodies (the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Public Prosecutor’s office and others) that were created during the Soviet Union to exercise legal and civil order. Finally, fear of the law enforcement and security agencies run deep in Uzbek society, effectively paralyzing civil solidarity in addressing abuse and creating a culture of toleration for state sponsored violence.

Nevertheless, the negative reputation of the law-enforcement structures can not, on its own, be a sound basis for precisely evaluating the nature and extent their abuse. The study, conducted in May of 2007, represents the first of a multitude of possible follow-on research aimed at providing society with a more adequate picture of both the popular attitudes towards the law enforcement agencies and extent and nature of abuse within these agencies.

Methodology

The below conclusions are the result of interviews with 42 ambulance service personnel and 20 of trauma centers professional from 22 settlements in the three regions stated above. The average interviewees reported 14-15 years of medical work experience, expect in Bukhara, where a higher percentage reported less than 5 years of work experience (primarily due to greater work related stress and greater economic opportunity). The overwhelming majority of interviewees (81 %) are middle-aged (25 to 54 years old). The gender ration is almost even; in villages, the number of male interviews is slightly higher. 61 % of the interviewees have higher education (55% among ambulance service staff and 74% among medical staff at the trauma centers).

To gauge the extent of openness in which participants responded to questioning, each session concluded with the following question: “Do you believe your colleagues will answer questions frankly or will be too afraid to address these themes?” 77 % (there was not statistical difference in the responses from the ambulance staff and the trauma staff) believed that interviewees would speak frankly, while 22-23 % thought their colleagues would be afraid.

The Prevalence of Physical Abuse within the Law Enforcement Agencies

73 % of doctors and paramedical staff rendering initial medical treatment believe abuse of detained persons by law enforcement officials is a very serious problem (23 % believe that the problem does not merit serious consideration and 4 % consider believe the problem does not exist). 43 % of those interviewed believe that unlawful violence occurs “quite frequently” in police custody ( 55% in Bukhara and Navoi) while 10 % (in Bukhara,14 %) believe that abuse is a “general practice” within the Ministry of Internal Affairs and other security agencies. 46 % (32% in Bukhara) believe that violence is typically an infrequent, isolated occurrence.

Trauma center staff believes abuse is more prevalent than ambulance service personnel. A possible explanation of this difference is those injured by police officers infrequently call for ambulances for assistance but are forced to apply directly to trauma centers. In an emergency, moreover, ambulance service personnel have less time and resources to identify the perpetrator of an assault. 77 % of ambulance service personnel reported experience rendering medical aid to patients injured as a result of actions from law enforcement officials, compared with 87% of trauma center doctors.

Do you have knowledge of which law enforcement bodies have inflicted harm to a victim?

(% of those interviewed, those interviewed could name several positions; therefore, the sum of answers is more than 100 %).

Law enforcement bodies	Overall	Ambulance service teams	Trauma centers
Number interviewed	62	42	20
Police	72	68	82
detention facilities, guard	12	12	12
SNB (investigation agency and other services)	2	2	2
Public prosecutor’s office (investigation agency and other services)	2	2	2
Court	2	2	1
Paramilitary services	1	1	2
Other services	4	4	4
Unknown	7	8	4
Did not answer	20	23	14

Who are the most common victims in such cases?

(in % to the number of the interviewed people in a column; the interviewed people could name several positions, on the average two, therefore the sum of answers is more than 100 %).

	Overall	Ambulance service	Trauma centers
Drunks	67	67	67
Youth, teenagers	48	42	62
Homeless	23	24	20
People not belonging to the indigenous ethnic groups	17	16	19
Outsiders	12	10	16
Common people, law-abiding citizens	10	9	13
Women	4	2	7
Well-off people	3	2	5
Old people	2	2	2
Others	4	3	5
No answers	20	23	14

Victims and Perpetrators

Police officers are most likely to commit acts of abuse or other coercion. Victims of police violence are most often men falling into “socially weak” categories: drunks, teenagers and the homeless. These individuals are typically unable to adequately protect themselves, socially, civically, as well as physically.

Evidently many victims suffered significant but less than near fatal injuries. Patients with this degree of injury typically to go the trauma centers without assistance. An alternative possibility is that ambulance services are reluctant to respond to cases involving police brutality or marginalized groups. Notably fewer and less severe injuries are inflicted upon women, as they rarely call for ambulance (2 % of total), or go to trauma centers (4 %).

In roughly three out of every four cases (73%), victims are the primary source of information doctors receive on the perpetrators of their injuries. Those who come or are delivered to trauma centers (79 %) are more likely to disclose the perpetrator(s). Other than claims from the victims, one-third (32%) of trauma center professions and one-fifth (21%) of ambulance staff claim the cause is the injury is clear from physical markings on the victim, or, in 12% of cases, the cause is revealed from the “behavior of the victim”.

Motives for bodily harm

(interviewed persons could name several positions, therefore the sum of answers may be more than 100 %).

(all answers according to victims)

(all answers according to victims)	Overall	Ambulance service	The personnel of trauma centers
When detained	61	57	69
Were beaten without any cause, demonstrating power	34	32	38
In “forcing information necessary for law enforcement bodies’ personnel out of persons”	16	16	17
Cell mates have beaten at the instruction of the law enforcement bodies’ staff	3	3	3
Others	6	6	5

The above data makes clear that violence and cruelty are neither minimized or in self-protection, but rather applied in significant measure and aimed at elevating the status of the perpetrator. Such violence often functions as part of a ritualistic “taming” of detained persons; that is, demonstrating “who is who”, de-individualizing the victim, depriving his/her rights to independence, and paralyzing his/her resistance.Cruelty as a norm

Although the majority of doctors consider violence and/or beatings unacceptable, cruelty as a norm of daily existence tends to perpetuate repressive societies. In this survey, the absolute majority of doctors and paramedical staff interviewed believed that the cause of violence and cruelty was the detainee and/or their unacceptable behavior towards the militia, guard, or other authority (in other words, doctors tend to side with the militia). Only one-fifth of those interviewed believed that such violence is categorically unjustified and not in any way provoked by the victim. The issue is one of conventional definitions of cruelty and violence: an internal consent to the “propriety” or “inevitability” of violence in cases when a drunk or aggressively inclined detainee is subjected to force.

Thus, the issue involves an “internal” justification for force, a code of immediate and severe cruel behavior, with which society, doctors included, agree. The behavior of drunken people is likely unacceptable, but excessive, inexplicable police force, largely confined to marginalized groups, is more inadmissible in a normal society.

Violence and society

The largely closed and unsupervised nature law enforcement agencies (for example, giving doctors little opportunity to take a position against a militiaman in exercising his duties) are aggravated by procedures governing information sharing in cases of police violence. According to their responses (below) a plurality of ambulance service personnel and the majority of cases the personnel of trauma centers are professionally obligated inform the police about traumas inflicted by the police. Medical staff in small and middle size settlements must strictly abide by this obligation.

According to your job descriptions, whom are you obliged to inform in the event of bodily harm to citizens inflicted by staff of the law enforcement bodies?
(% of interviewed persons).

	Overall	Ambulance service	The personnel of trauma centers
To police call center	39	30	60
To office of Public Prosecutor	12	11	15
To central station	6	9	0
Others	4	6	1
There are no such instructions	16	20	6
Do not know	9	9	8
No answers	20	23	14

However, the interviewees claim to attempt to avoid this obligation.

Do you inform representatives of law enforcement bodies of such cases?

	Overall	Ambulance services	The personnel of trauma centers
Always	14	10	21
Sometimes	3	2	5
Never	2	2	1
No answer	81	85	73

Do representatives of the law enforcement bodies accept explanations in relation to provided information? (information on illegal actions of police themselves)

	Overall	Ambulance services	The personnel of trauma centers
Always	7	6	10
Sometimes	6	5	10
Never	3	1	5
No answer	84	88	74

Who exactly takes explanations on the provided information?

	Overall	Ambulance services	The personnel of trauma centers
Police	10	9	12
Office of Public Prosecutor	3	2	6
Defense attorneys	Less than 1	Less than 1	1
Others	Less than 1	Less than 1	1
No answer	86	89	79

Predictably, the police staff and/or other official representatives are primarily interested in stifling a case, not recording and not publicizing it. It is reasonable to assume that in the majority of cases the authorities achieve this goal. However, in the small number of instances when events threaten beyond to spin beyond their control, the law enforcement bodies exert pressure on doctors not to register or spread information about the violence. Medical staff in Bukhara, Navoi and Karshi (where the official authority is concentrated) feels great official pressure, as do doctors in mid-sized and small towns, where the authorities are “closer” and have more opportunities for direct influence.

However this study has found that in every other case, if not in reality more often, the victim asks doctors not to record information about their assailants. Victims are clearly afraid of the aftermaths “disclosure” might bring; they believe that a record neither to their benefit nor to the benefit of other victims. In short, not only the medical staff, but also the victims themselves, adamantly side with the police that inflicted their injury.

Were there cases in which the law enforcement bodies, authorities, your management asked you or your colleagues not to register injuries presumably inflicted by staff of the law enforcement bodies?

	Overall	Ambulance services	The personnel of trauma centers
Yes	14	15	10
No	67	62	76
No answer	20	23	14

Were there any cases when the law enforcement bodies, authorities, your management asked you or your colleagues not to inform upon or recorded injuries presumably inflicted by the staff of the law enforcement bodies?

	Overall	Ambulance services	The personnel of trauma centers
Yes	13	14	10
No	67	64	76
No answer	20	23	14

Were there any cases when victims asked not to record in official documents that they had been beaten by the staff of the law enforcement bodies?

	Overall	Ambulance services	The personnel of trauma centers
Yes	46	41	59
No	34	36	28
No answer	20	23	14

Have you been forced to go to law enforcement offices to record signs of violence inflicted by officers?

	Overall	Ambulance services	The personnel of trauma centers
Yes	45	45	45
No	22	21	26
No answer	33	34	29

How did officers of the law enforcement bodies explain causes of victims’ injuries?

	Overall	Ambulance services	The personnel of trauma centers
A victim resisted to the militia staff	48	44	57
A victim had injuries before his coming to militia	33	38	23
He was injured due to carelessness	18	20	15
A victim attacked militia staff	17	16	19
A victim was injured fighting with cell mates	10	11	7
Others	2	2	1
It is not explained in any manner	19	17	22
No answer	20	23	14

Meanwhile, the participating medical staff are largely unaware of organizations addressing arbitrary behavior and violence with the law enforcement agencies (in total, only 8 % of those interviewed know anything at all about these organizations). However, up to three-fifths of all respondents (55 % among staff at trauma centers and 61 % of ambulance teams) claimed that if aware of a means to contact such organizations, they would inform them about violence caused by the law enforcement bodies.

In sum, the culture of violence, patience and silence, examined at the beginning of the report, involves not only state organs, but also the victims. Uzbekistan is a society in which forms of positive solidarity are extremely undeveloped and expressed. In the same vain, negative forms of cohesion, accepting the point of view of the “repressors”, and manifestations of a collective hostage syndrome have emerged among all actors in this report.

Non-governmental organizations committed to preventing torture can play a rather vital supporting role; however, to date professional groups such as doctors or other officials remain beyond of view of NGOs.