• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Tajikistan - Security

When Tajikistan was part of the Soviet Union, the republic's Committee for State Security (KGB) was an integral part of the Soviet-wide KGB. After Tajik independence, the organization was renamed the Committee of National Security and a Tajik, Alimjon Solehboyev, was put in charge. In 1995 the committee received full cabinet status as the Ministry of Security.

Police powers are divided between the forces of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Security. The MVD, Drug Control Agency (DCA), Agency on State Financial Control and Fight Against Corruption (an anticorruption agency), State Committee for National Security (GKNB), State Tax Committee, and Customs Service share civilian law enforcement responsibilities. The MVD is responsible primarily for public order and controls the police force. The DCA, anticorruption agency, and State Tax Committee have mandates to investigate specific crimes, and they report to the president. The GKNB has responsibility for intelligence and controls the Border Service, but it also investigates cases linked to alleged extremist political or religious activity. The Customs Service reports directly to the president. The Prosecutor General’s Office oversees the criminal investigations that these agencies conduct.

The agencies’ responsibilities overlap significantly, and law enforcement organizations defer to the GKNB. Law enforcement agencies were not effective in investigating organized criminal gangs because the gangs maintained high-level connections with government officials and security agencies. Narcotics agencies, for example, regularly were ordered to drop investigations of possible ties between high-level officials and drug traffickers.

Official impunity continued to be a serious problem. Victims of police abuse may submit a formal complaint in writing to the officer’s superior or the Office of the Ombudsman. Most victims reportedly chose to remain silent rather than risk official retaliation. The Ombudsman’s Office for Human Rights made efforts to respond to complaints about civil rights violations but rarely intervened, citing that the office does not have the power to make statements or recommendations regarding criminal cases.

The constitution prohibits the use of torture, but there is no specific definition of torture in the law or a provision of criminal liability for committing an act of torture. An article in the criminal procedure code (CPC) states that evidence acquired through torture is inadmissible. Some security officials reportedly continued to use beatings or other forms of coercion to extract confessions during interrogations. General Prosecutor Sherkhon Salimzoda stated during a press conference that only 13 of the 48 complaints filed in 2010 had evidence of torture. Officials did not grant sufficient access to information to allow human rights organizations to investigate claims of torture.

Defendants are legally afforded a presumption of innocence, but they did not enjoy it in practice. Nearly all defendants were found guilty. During the year there were 54 acquittals in 5,973 cases, of which 15 were fully acquitted and the remaining 39 received partial acquittals and guilt at lesser levels. Trials are presided over by a judge, who issues verdicts. There is no system of trial by jury. Defendants generally were able to consult with an attorney in a timely manner during trials but often were denied the right to an attorney during the pretrial and investigatory periods. By law the government should provide an attorney at public expense if requested, but the government rarely provided free legal aid. A number of local and international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) provided free legal counsel to defendants.