|
Uzbekistan appeared before CEDAW on 20 January 2010.[1] The delegation of Uzbekistan was led by Mr Akmal Saidov, Chairman of the National Centre for Human Rights. He was supported by a high-level delegation, consisting of the Head of Information and Analysis from the Department on Education, Health and Social Protection, Deputy Minister of Justice, Deputy Chairperson of the Women’s Committee, and Second Secretary of the UN and International Organisations Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Committee members were pleased with the cooperation of the Uzbek delegation and also commended the State on the composition of the delegation, which included two women.
The Committee raised several key issues during the constructive dialogue, including: the legal status of the Convention in the Uzbek legal order and its visibility in the judicial system; the lack of political will to adopt the bill on Guarantees of the Equal Rights and Equal Opportunities for Women and Men; freedom of speech and association, and strict conditions for NGO registration, as well as criminalization of non-registration; questions related to whether the Women’s Committee is a governmental or non-governmental institution and its functions; temporary and special measures where the quota system for participation of women was introduced for the elections but not in the area of education and employment; the perception of domestic violence as being a part of the family private sphere and the reluctance of State organs to adequately respond, which perpetuates traditional values of patriarchal society; discrepancy in relation to land ownership, where only 17% of registered farms are owned by women; the lack of sufficient fight against stereotyping of women in mass media; the use of harmful traditional practices that violate women’s rights, such as forced marriage and bride kidnapping, especially in rural areas; discrepancy in the age limit for eligibility for marriage, with women at 17 and men at 18 years; polygamy in the Criminal Code perceived as such only if a man lives in the same household with more women, but not if he has more wives in separate households; and the role of Makhallya, the self-governing bodies, in protecting women’s rights, in contrast to their role of preserving traditional patriarchal values.
In the end the delegation showed openness to dialogue with the Committee, yet it was not pleased with some of the criticism provided by the Committee, and claimed that it would have appreciated more ‘accurate’ criticism. The delegation also appeared to put more emphasis on the benefits of the family as a whole than on the rights of women, stating that Uzbekistan is a secular state with Muslim values, and that promoting family values should not be a bad thing. The Uzbek delegation also took a defensive position regarding the status of Makhallya, asserting that their role is politicised by certain western States and that there have been negative and inaccurate reports given to the Committee regarding Makhallya.
Despite a rather thorough report from Uzbekistan, the Committee requested further statistics regarding violence against women, the number of women murdered by their husbands, and the number of women who have gone through a successful divorce process. The Committee also warned the delegation that the Women’s Committee cannot replace the primary role of the Uzbek Government in dealing with the rights of women and that the Uzbek Government should ratify the amendment to Article 20(1) to help the Committee do its work. [2] The Committee also requested the State to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention. |
