The Tashkent Criminal Court contemplating the case of Sandzhar Umarov, leader of the Sunny Coalition arrested for economic crimes last autumn, convened its second meeting on February 3. In theory, the trial is open - but only in theory.

The meeting was scheduled for 10 a.m. Arriving at 9:50 p.m., I encountered a crowd of approximately 50 persons wishing to attend - mostly relatives of defendants (the Prosecutor General's Office pressed related charges against three others apart from Umarov himself - gas station employees Usmanov, Khasanbayev, and Babadzhanov), lawyers, human rights activists, several diplomats, a couple of journalists, and a dozen plainclothesmen.

It turned out that whoever wanted to attend the allegedly open trial was supposed to enter his or her name on some sort of list compiled right there. Once the list was compiled, it was turned over to a policeman. The policeman took it inside, had it approved by someone, and returned to let people on the list in. It was not a particularly open trial after all.

One such list was already taken inside for approval, but people kept coming and compilation of another list began. A policeman took it with him, eventually returned, and began calling people's names. Within half an hour or so the whole crowd entered the building. Only three people found themselves left out - Alisher Taksanov, Vasily Markov, and yours truly (journalists, all of us). We were told that the list with our names on it mysteriously disappeared and we could not pass therefore. "Call the secretary," we told policemen at the entry. "He has left," was the reply. "All right, who approves the lists then?" - "The judge." - "Zokirzhon Isayev himself?" - "Yes."

That was that. Journalists were left out. Independent observers could attend the technically open trial but they were certainly unwelcome.

In the meantime, not even all of those who made it as far as the yard fared much better. Standing outside, we saw people emerge from the building again. As it turned out, the authorities arranged the trial of the opposition leader in the basement, in a room three meters by eight!

Since everybody could not be squeezed into the room, the judge ruled that only the families would remain and all others should leave. Between 20 and 30 people eventually remained in the tiny courtroom - defendants' relatives, lawyers, and (miraculously) some diplomats and human rights activist Surat Ikramov. In the meantime, some seats in the courtroom had already been occupied by some young men nobody knew and by one Mikhail Ardzinov. Identifying himself as a human rights activist, this man never misses a chance to speak up in defense of the authorities. ("Is Ardzinov a relative too?" one of the people outside wanted to know.) Carlo Boham and Umida Niyazova of Human Rights Watch found themselves outside too and left.

The first meeting of the court on January 30 was held in the same room in the basement. Human rights activists and VOA correspondent Abdumalik Boboyev were prevented from attending it therefore. The second meeting proved off bounds for approximately 15 human rights activists and representatives of the Sunny Coalition, and three journalists.

Umarov pleads innocent

Defendants were questioned once the bill of indictment was read aloud in court. Umarov pleaded innocent and denounced all charges. Babadzhanov pleaded partially guilty, Usmanov pleaded innocent, and Khasanbayev was not questioned at all. Usmanov denounced his previous testimony signed with his lawyers absent and said he had confessed under duress.

According to Ikramov, Umarov said that several men had jumped him in front of the Sunny Coalition office on October 23, pushed him in a waiting car, and he eventually came to more than a week later. Umarov began coming too in early November. He found himself in a cell where lights were never turned off so that it was impossible to judge the time of the day. Umarov asked for a doctor - who never came. Investigators did, more than once.

Ikramov said that Umarov was accused of a dozen or so episodes of bribery. In the meantime, the prosecution encountered troubles with evidence.

Ikramov: Umarov said, "If I bribed someone or someone else bribed me, why are these people absent? Why are they not here, behind the bars?" "I ask questions here," prosecutor replied. "If I'm owner of all these companies as the prosecution claims, where are documents proving that I'm the owner indeed?" Umarov asked. The prosecution is supposed to provide evidence, you know, and evidence is what it has not provided.

As far as Ikramov is concerned, absurdity of the whole proceedings is apparent.

"Umarov is a professional who knows everything there is to know about economics, who speaks several foreign languages, and who attracted millions of dollars worth of investments in the economy of Uzbekistan. This man is facing trial now. Prosecutor Davletov meanwhile, a state official with the monthly salary amounting to $50-60 only, drives a deluxe car but accuses Umarov of corruption," the human rights activist said.

Getting rid of snooping observers

References to the size of the courtroom is certainly an invention aimed - along with other similar excuses - to prevent independent observers and correspondents from attending the trial.

Now the trial of Mutabar Tadzhibayeva, a prominent human rights activist charged under 17 articles of the Criminal Code (an absolute record), is certainly different. In defiance of Article 391 of the Procedural Criminal Code stating that trials should take place in the area where the crime was committed, her trial is taking place elsewhere. Not even in the capital of Uzbekistan but in the district center of Dustabad (once the village of Soldatskoye) 60 kilometers from it. Just like the trials of participants of the events in Andizhan and human rights activist Saidzhakhon Zainabitdinov promptly arranged in obscure townships in the Tashkent and Syrdarja regions dozens and hundreds kilometers from the areas where they had allegedly committed their crimes.

Article 393 states that "Chairman of a higher court may order a case transferred to a different court for the sake of a more exhaustive, objective, and immediate investigation. The question of transfer of a case to another region or to the Republic of Karakalpakstan is handled by chairman of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan." Tadzhibayeva's relatives and witnesses of her "crimes" reside in the Ferghana Valley and not in Dustabad, and transfer of her case from Ferghana to Dustabad was unlikely to facilitate a "more exhaustive, objective, and immediate investigation". Quite the contrary.

It does not take a genius to see that only one objective is promoted. The idea is to keep journalists, human rights activists, and defendants' families away. In Tadzhibayeva's case, the authorities even set up checkpoints on the roads where cars with observers are turned back before they so much as approach Dustabad (see Human Rights Watch web site for details). In other words, there can be no doubts whatsoever as to what all these trials are about. They are supposed to attach legitimacy to the campaign of locking up enemies of the regime launched by the authorities.