State Rights Report on UK, to compare to Uzbekistan

by Laurence on 3/1/2005 · 1 comment

2004 Country Report on Human Rights Practices in the United Kingdom

a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life
There were no politically motivated killings by the Government or its agents. Between January 1 and September 30, 40 persons died while being arrested by police or while in police custody; however, there was no indication that the deaths resulted from police misconduct.
On December 8, Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights issued its inquiry into deaths in custody, calling for establishment of a cross-departmental expert task force to develop guidelines on how to prevent such deaths.

(NOTE: The US State Department reported 6 citizens of Uzbekistan died in police custody during the same year 40 died in the UK)

Subscribe to receive updates from Registan

This post was written by...

– author of 618 posts on 17_PersonNotFound.

For information on reproducing this article, see our Terms of Use

{ 1 comment }

Nemo Ignotus March 4, 2005 at 11:52 am

Yes, let’s compare them. Linking to the Uzbek report might be a start.


The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) is a longstanding constitutional monarchy with a democratic, parliamentary government. The most recent general election was held in 2001; a number of political parties participated in the election, and it was free and fair. The judiciary is independent.


Uzbekistan is an authoritarian state with limited civil rights. The Constitution provides for a presidential system with separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches; however, in practice, President Islam Karimov and the centralized executive branch that serves him dominated political life and exercised nearly complete control over the other branches. On December 26, elections were held for seats in the lower chamber of the Supreme Assembly (Oliy Majlis) that fell significantly short of international standards for democratic elections. The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary; however, the executive branch heavily influenced the courts and did not ensure due process.

The rest of this comparison is left as an exercise for the reader.

Previous post:

Next post: