“Go Back to the Prosecutor’s Office”: What Is the Purpose of a Turkmen Ombudsperson Who Does Not Protect?

“Go Back to the Prosecutor’s Office”: What Is the Purpose of a Turkmen Ombudsperson Who Does Not Protect? When a woman reports sexualized violence, violence against a child, and the failure of state institutions to the Commissioner for Human Rights, the response cannot simply be: go back and complain to the same authorities again. On 4 September, Turkmen.news published new information concerning the case of Jeren Altyyeva and her minor daughter, who have reported experiencing violence by Mesgen Akmammedov. After numerous unsuccessful attempts to secure an effective investigation, Jeren appealed to Yazdursun Gurbannazarova, the Commissioner for Human Rights (Ombudsperson) of Turkmenistan. She was not asking for advice or for the address of yet another government institution. Jeren described the alleged violence, the situation involving her daughter, and the failure of repeated complaints to prosecutorial authorities to provide them with effective protection. Yet the Ombudsperson’s response effectively amounted to a recommendation to apply once again to the Prosecutor General’s Office of Turkmenistan. This raises a fundamental question: Ms. Gurbannazarova, what, then, is the purpose of the Ombudsperson? The institution of the Commissioner for Human Rights exists precisely for situations in which a person alleges that their rights have been violated and ordinary state mechanisms have failed to provide effective protection. Turkmenistan’s Law “On the Ombudsperson” gives the Commissioner powers that go far beyond simply receiving citizens’ letters. The Ombudsperson can approach competent state authorities, seek examination of alleged human rights violations, and use mechanisms provided by law to pursue the restoration of violated rights. Why, then, were these powers not fully exercised in this case? Why was a thorough examination of the circumstances described by Jeren not initiated? Were the materials from previous inquiries and expert examinations requested and reviewed? Were the allegations concerning a minor child properly assessed? Why was the complainant effectively sent back into the very system whose inaction she was challenging? The formal nature of this response is particularly disturbing because this is not an ordinary administrative dispute. The case involves allegations of sexualized violence against a woman and a child, as well as a reported suicide attempt by the girl. In such circumstances, the Ombudsperson must not become yet another link in a bureaucratic chain: Prosecutor’s Office → Prosecutor General’s Office → Ombudsperson → back to the Prosecutor’s Office. This is not effective human rights protection. It is a closed circle. The Human Rights Platform of the Civil Movement “Dayanch” / Turkmenistan directly calls upon Yazdursun Gurbannazarova to reconsider Jeren Altyyeva’s complaint on its merits and to exercise the powers provided to the Ombudsperson by law. We are not demanding that anyone be declared guilty without due process. We are demanding an effective and impartial examination of allegations of serious violence and genuine protection for the mother and child. The independence and necessity of the Ombudsperson institution are not demonstrated by polished annual reports. They are tested precisely by cases such as this — when a person has exhausted multiple state institutions and turns to the Commissioner as a mechanism for protecting violated rights. Ms. Gurbannazarova, Jeren Altyyeva has already appealed to the prosecutorial authorities. She turned to you precisely because that path failed to provide her with protection. Sending her back means leaving the fundamental problem unresolved. If even the Ombudsperson sends a victim back to the authorities whose inaction she is challenging, who, then, protects human rights in Turkmenistan?