The Worldwide Lawyers Association (WOLAS) expresses its profound concern over the sentencing to death of three Uzbek citizens—Olimboy Tokhirovitch Davlatyorov, Mahmudjon Abdurakhim Ugli Kenjaboev (both 28 years old), and Azizbek Komilovich Ismailov (33 years old)—by the Abu Dhabi Federal Court ofAppeals’State Security Chamber on 31 March 2025. The charges relate to the kidnapping and premeditated murder of Moldovan-Israeli national Zvi Kogan. A fourth individual was sentenced to life imprisonment and deportation following the completion of his sentence.
Under Article 230 of Federal Law No. 35 of 1992 on Criminal Procedure, which constitutes the primary procedural law governing the conduct of criminal trials, appeals, and the execution of judgments in the UAE, any judgment issued by a Court of Appeal that imposes the death penalty must be automatically referred to the Federal Supreme Court, even in the absence of an appeal. Accordingly, the Federal Supreme Court of the UAE is expected to conduct a mandatory legal review of the judgment rendered by the Abu Dhabi Federal Court of Appeals. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 384 ofFederalDecree Law No.31 of2021, theexecutionof anycapital sentence requires final ratification by the President of the UAE following judicial review.
While WOLAS affirms that serious crimes must be addressed through fair, transparent, and lawful processes, the imposition of the death penalty is inherently incompatible with the right to life and the absolute prohibition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment, as enshrined in international human rights law.
Given that (i) the death sentences were handed down in a State Security trial before a special court; (ii) the charges involved allegations of terrorism, a category of offences in which fair trial rights are frequently restricted; (iii) the evidence included confessions1—in capital cases often obtained through torture or ill-treatment2; (iv) the case arises in a politically charged context involving UAE-Israel relations under the Abraham Accords, which may jeopardize judicial independence; and (v) there are credible concerns regarding lack of full legal representation, consular access, and public transparency— WOLAS hereby raises serious concerns regarding due process, judicial impartiality, and the risk of coercive interrogation practices.
1 https://www.wam.ae/a/bixy8nr
2 The report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Morris Tidball-Binz, transmitted to the UN General Assembly on 5 August 2022, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3987211/files/A_77_270-EN.pdf, p15.
1
The Inviolable Right to Life
Capital punishment, regardless of the gravity of the offense, constitutes a violation of fundamental human rights, particularly:
· Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – which obliges States to restrict and move toward abolition of the death penalty. It’s a regret that UAE violates its commitments in this regard by not taking steps towards total abolition of the death penalty, which is mandated also by the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR.3 By regularly voting against United Nations General Assembly resolutions calling for a moratorium on the use of capital punishment, the UAE standing in opposition to the established international human rights tendency4.
· The provision (Article 6) further affirms that “anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence,” and that such relief “may be granted in all cases.
· Customary international law places strong emphasis on the irreversibility of executions, especially where due process violations, lack of access to legal representation, or concerns over the independence and impartiality of the judiciary may arise. In such circumstances, even a judicially imposed death sentence is rendered arbitrary deprivation of life,prohibited under international law.
Death Penalty in Relation to the Absolute Prohibition of Torture
Although the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is not a party to international treaties aimed at the abolition of the death penalty and has consistently distanced itself from such commitments, it remains legally bound by the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), having ratified the treaty on 19 July 2012. As a State Party, the UAE is subject to the absolute prohibition of torture under Article 2 of CAT and has an obligation to investigate, prosecute, and punish acts of torture. These obligations are non-derogable and apply at all times, including during the criminal investigation and sentencing phases of a trial.
It has been reported that the evidence presented by the UAE State Security Prosecution in the case of the three Uzbek nationals included detailed confessions, forensic and post-mortem reports, witness testimonies, and descriptions of the instruments used in the alleged crimes. However, the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Morris Tidball-Binz, submitted to the GeneralAssembly in 2022 (A/77/270), warns that torture may occur before a death sentence is imposed: “torture can be carried out before an individual receives a
3 Furthermore, international legal instruments, such as Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which abolishes the death penalty in peacetime, and Protocol No. 13, which prohibits it in all circumstances, further reinforce the principle that the right to life must be upheld without exception.
4 To date, 113 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes, 9 countries have abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes, retaining it only for exceptional circumstances such as war crimes. Furthermore, 29 countries have a moratorium on executions, having not carried out executions in the past decade and maintaining a policy or established practice of not executing prisoners.There are only 47 retentionist states [20%] on the world including the UAE where the death penalty is implemented. See https://www.ecpm.org/en/worldmap/
2
death sentence; numerous submissions were made concerning the treatment of individuals being accused of a capital offence,including a lack of access to legal representation and the use of torture and ill-treatment to elicit forced confessions.”5. Such circumstances substantially heighten the risk that death sentences may be based on coerced or unreliable evidence.
This legal tension has long been recognized by human rights bodies. In 2012, Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan E. Méndez argued that capital punishment must be evaluated through the lens of the absolute prohibition of torture, which reflects an emerging customary norm.6 Likewise, former Rapporteur Mr. Wako stressed that the prohibition of torture applies “throughout the process leading to capital punishment and in all aspects thereof.”7
The inherent cruelty of capital punishment has been increasingly scrutinized under international law through the lens of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment (CIDTP). This scrutiny extends beyond the physical act of execution to encompass the entire process: prolonged periods on death row, solitary confinement, lack of adequate medical care, and the psychological torment associated with the so-called “death row phenomenon.” The Human Rights Committee (General Comment No. 20) and various regional human rights courts, including in Soering v. United Kingdom (ECtHR), have recognized that such conditions can amount to CIDTP.
Execution methods—such as hanging, electrocution, or lethal injection—have been shown to result in prolonged, painful deaths due to procedural errors and physiological unpredictability. Moreover, arbitrariness and discrimination persist, particularly in cases involving unfair trials or vulnerable individuals, including those with intellectual or mental disabilities.8
As international legal scholar William Schabas incisively observed: “If you were to connect someone to electrodes and put jolts of electricity through them to get a confession, that would be torture and a violation of article 7 [of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights], unless you turned up the current enough to kill them, which would be okay. That is the paradox of dealing with the death penalty.”9
All of these reveals that the processes leading to death penalty simultaneously involve violations of prohibiting torture under any circumstance.
In conclusion, while the death penalty is not per se prohibited under UAE domestic law, its application also entails violations of the Convention against Torture, to which the UAE is bound.
Special Courts and the Right to a Fair Trial under International Law
Within the meaning of international human rights law, particularly when assessed under standards set by the UN Human Rights Committee (ICCPR monitoring body), the Abu Dhabi Federal Court of Appeals’State Security Chamber falls under a special court. The UN Human Rights Committee
5 https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3987211/files/A_77_270-EN.pdf, p15. 6 https://docs.un.org/en/A/67/279, para. 74.
7 https://docs.un.org/en/E/CN.4/1984/29, para. 22-23.
8 SeeA/HRC/42/2; https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/42/28
9 William Schabas, “International law and the abolition of the death penalty”, in Comparative Capital Punishment, Carol S. Steiker and Jordan M. Steiker, eds. (Cheltenham, United Kingdom, and Northampton, United States, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019).
3
has consistently expressed concern over such courts. In General Comment No. 32 (2007) on Article 14 ICCPR, the Committee emphasizes that “the trial of civilians in military or special courts may raise serious problems as far as the equitable, impartial and independent administration of justice is concerned.”10 The Committee also urges to limit the use of this courts with when the regular civilian courts are unable to undertake the trials in the offences at issue. In the given case, the trials could have been conducted at Abu Dhabi Court ofAppeal.Therefore, we raise concerns over trying the defendants in a special court due to the lack of transparency, undue limitation of the right to legal representation and defence, lack of proper judicial independence/subordination of these courts to the executive and the obstruction of public and media access to court proceedings.
Concerns Regarding Political Interference and the Application of Enemy Criminal Law
As the case now proceeds to the Federal Supreme Court of the UAE for mandatory review, we stress that adjudication must remain strictly independent of political considerations, including:
· The UAE’s normalization process with Israel under the AbrahamAccords;
· The UAE’s apparent tendency to frame high-profile prosecutions in ways that serve diplomatic or reputational objectives raises serious concerns regarding the independence of the judiciary and the impartiality of the proceedings11;
· The use of the trial as a symbolic demonstration of counter-terrorism policy, rather than a process governed by law and fact.12
The Supreme Court must adjudicate on legal merits alone, in full compliance with the UAE Constitution and international legal obligations, and with a full appreciation of the irreversible consequences of execution.
Responsibility of the Republic of Uzbekistan
The Government of Uzbekistan bears a positive obligation under international law to protect its nationals abroad, including:
· Under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963), which guarantees detained foreign nationals access to consular assistance and legal support;
· Under its constitutional and international human rights obligations, which extend to Uzbek citizens regardless of their location.
10 https://docs.un.org/en/CCPR/C/GC/32
11 “The Attorney General emphasised that the verdict reflects the UAE’s unwavering commitment to combating terrorisminaccordancewiththehighest standardsof justiceandtheruleof lawwhileensuringfair trial guarantees. He stressed that the UAE judiciary resolutely confronts any attempts to undermine national security and stability. Furthermore, the Attorney General added that the United Arab Emirates stands as a global model of coexistence and tolerance, where its laws protect all residents, regardless of religion or ethnicity, ensuring their safety and security.” Source: https://www.wam.ae/a/bixy8nr
12 Ibid.
4
We call upon Uzbekistan to:
· Fulfill its diplomatic obligations;
· Ensure vigorous consular engagement with UAE authorities;
· Protect its citizens from the irreversible and degrading punishment of execution.
Failure to act decisively would send a dangerous message: that the lives of Uzbek nationals abroad are expendable in the face of geopolitical considerations.
Our Call
In light of the foregoing, the Worldwide Lawyers Association urges the following:
· Immediate commutation of the death sentences imposed on Olimboy Tohirovich, Mahmudjon Abdurakhim, and Azizbek Kamilovich;
· Full access to qualified legal representation, independent medical assessment, and family visitation;
· The Republic of Uzbekistan to fulfill its consular and diplomatic responsibilities and take all legal measures to protect its nationals;
· The United Nations, particularly:
o the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR),
o the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, o and the Special Rapporteur on Torture,
to urgently investigate the circumstances of detention, trial, and sentencing; to issue urgent appeals or allegation letters to the UAE government;
to request a stay of execution pending review; and
to include the case in thematic or country-specific reports;
· That the final review by the Federal Supreme Court of the UAE proceed in strict accordance with legal standards, free from political pressure or symbolic prosecution practices.
The Worldwide Lawyers Association stands in solidarity with the families of the convicted and with all individuals who face capital punishment without full guarantees of a fair, impartial, and transparent trial.
Worldwide LawyersAssociation (WOLAS) www.wolas.org
info@wolas.org
