{"id":3459,"date":"2026-11-07T14:12:12","date_gmt":"2026-11-07T09:12:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/payom.tv\/?p=3459"},"modified":"2026-11-07T14:36:27","modified_gmt":"2026-11-07T09:36:27","slug":"tajikistan-likes-amnesty-un-recommendations-rahmon","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/payom.tv\/en\/tajikistan-likes-amnesty-un-recommendations-rahmon\/","title":{"rendered":"Likes and Amnesty: Implementing UN Recommendations or Emomali Rahmon\u2019s Initiative?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Tajik government presented the decriminalisation of social media \u201clikes\u201d and the granting of amnesty to convicted individuals internationally as examples of its implementation of earlier recommendations from the international community and the United Nations. Domestically, however, these measures are more often attributed to Emomali Rahmon\u2019s personal initiative and policies. Comparing these two accounts raises a more fundamental question: if correcting the mistake of the law punishing people for \u201clikes\u201d is the president\u2019s achievement, who bears responsibility for signing that law and for the practices that sent citizens to prison?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the UN meeting in Geneva on 5 November 2026, Tajikistan\u2019s Minister of Justice, Muzaffar Ashuriyon, cited the abolition of penalties for \u201clikes,\u201d the implementation of an amnesty and several legislative changes in the context of implementing United Nations recommendations. In Tajikistan, however, a measure that emerged following international pressure and compelled the government to reconsider its arbitrary actions is described as \u201cthe Leader\u2019s wise policy.\u201d Now, if the law punishing people for \u201clikes\u201d was a mistake, does Emomali Rahmon\u2014who signed it, after which hundreds were imprisoned, hundreds of parents were separated from their children, hundreds of children were left effectively orphaned despite their parents being alive, and hundreds of spouses were forced apart\u2014feel any pangs of conscience?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When Was the Law Changed, and What Happened Beforehand?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

On 14 May 2025, Emomali Rahmon signed amendments to the Criminal Code excluding criminal liability for posting a \u201clike or other reaction.\u201d Reuters<\/a> reported that day that, according to official figures, more than 1,500 people had been imprisoned for liking or commenting on content the authorities considered extremist. This figure does not cover \u201clikes\u201d alone and should not be presented as the precise number of people convicted solely for liking content.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The legal basis for such prosecutions dates back to amendments adopted in 2018. According to The Diplomat<\/a>, adding the phrase \u201cvia the internet\u201d to provisions concerning calls for and the justification of terrorism and extremism opened the way for prosecuting users over their online reactions. In other words, under the pretext of combating extremism, the authorities launched a hunt for dissenters and people dissatisfied with their arbitrary actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This was therefore not a matter of a few lower-ranking officials acting arbitrarily in a legal vacuum. The prosecutions took place within the legislative framework and the investigative and judicial systems. For that reason, abolishing the penalties must be accompanied by an assessment of the responsibility of those who introduced, signed off on, implemented and perpetuated this practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rahmon Criticised the Authorities, but the Question of Responsibility Remained Unresolved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In a speech in October 2024, Emomali Rahmon criticised unfounded criminal cases over \u201clikes,\u201d declaring: \u201cThis practice must be brought to an end.\u201d<\/strong> Asia-Plus<\/a> reported these remarks on 29 October.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This position mattered for changing the authorities\u2019 practices. But the question is why the investigative and judicial systems waited for a presidential speech before recognising that such cases were unfounded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If the cases were unfounded, simply discontinuing them is not enough. It must be established how many people were wrongfully convicted, how many convictions were overturned and whether compensation has been provided for the years taken from their lives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Diplomat\u2019s<\/a> analysis also points to this contradiction: in a system where ultimate power rests with Emomali Rahmon, both restrictive amendments and their subsequent reversal take place under the direction of the same centre of power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Did International Criticism Have an Impact?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Human rights defenders have explicitly raised this influence. Leila Seiitbek, head of Freedom for Eurasia, assessed the abolition of criminal liability as being, to a considerable extent, the result of sustained criticism from the international human rights community. Her assessment appeared in an Asia-Plus report<\/a>, citing her interview with Current Time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The available evidence demonstrates the existence of international criticism and human rights defenders\u2019 assessments of its impact. Ashuriyon\u2019s remarks, according to the account of the meeting, place these measures within the government\u2019s reporting on the implementation of recommendations. An extraordinary admission exposing the Leader\u2019s misguided policies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amnesty for 18,000 People<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

An official presidential announcement dated 16 June 2026<\/a> described the adoption of the amnesty law as \u201can expression of the humane policy\u201d<\/strong> of Emomali Rahmon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, \u201camnesty for more than 18,000 people\u201d does not mean that all of them were released from prison. According to official information, the law covered 18,038 people: 11,305 were to be released from prisons, detention facilities or other non-custodial punishments, while the remaining sentences of another 6,733 were to be reduced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amid the fanfare in state media, the amnesty law is likewise presented as the president\u2019s personal humanitarian initiative, adopted to mark the anniversary of independence. Yet Muzaffar Ashuriyon said in Geneva that this measure had been taken in accordance with a UN recommendation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Can Amnesty Replace the Exoneration of Someone Innocently Imprisoned?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Amnesty does not replace exoneration and the restoration of rights. In its report of 21 October 2026, IPHR<\/a> welcomed the release of several journalists and a blogger under the amnesty, but stressed that their convictions remained in place. The organisation also noted that, following the abolition of criminal liability for \u201clikes,\u201d the effect of the amendments on earlier convictions remained unclear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is the fundamental legal distinction. Amnesty may release someone from all or part of a punishment, but it does not, in itself, mean that the charges were wrongful or that the person has been exonerated. Amnesty means that the person granted it was indeed guilty, but the authority granting it showed mercy and pardoned them, while the stain on their record remains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Commenting on the 2025 amendments to Asia-Plus<\/a>, lawyer Navruz Odinaev recalled the retroactive effect of a law that mitigates punishment. At the same time, he warned that the amendments did not mean the automatic release of everyone convicted, and that the relevant legal procedures were necessary to secure a review of their sentences. This shows that a blind and irresponsible action by the country\u2019s leadership has devastated thousands of lives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Regime\u2019s Double Standards<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

We now know from Muzaffar Ashuriyon\u2019s report that all this \u201cwise policy\u201d was adopted under pressure from the international community. The contradiction arises when, domestically, all the credit goes to one person, while responsibility for the earlier restrictions and the devastation of thousands of lives is placed on law enforcement officers\u2014and then the president, his mouth stretched wide, declares once again: \u201cThis practice must be brought to an end.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Very well, this practice must end\u2014but when?<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Tajik government presented the decriminalisation of social media \u201clikes\u201d and the granting of amnesty to convicted individuals internationally as examples of its implementation of earlier recommendations from the international community and the United Nations. Domestically, however, these measures are more often attributed to Emomali Rahmon\u2019s personal initiative and policies. Comparing these two accounts raises […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3460,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_hide_featured_image":false,"_jetpack_featured_image_duplicate_dismissed":0,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[93],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3459","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-analysis"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/payom.tv\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/Rahmon-Ashuriyon.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/payom.tv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3459","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/payom.tv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/payom.tv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/payom.tv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/payom.tv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3459"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/payom.tv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3459\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3462,"href":"https:\/\/payom.tv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3459\/revisions\/3462"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/payom.tv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3460"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/payom.tv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3459"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/payom.tv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3459"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/payom.tv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3459"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}