146 Europe and Central Asia Summary of Amnesty International’s Concerns in the Region, January – June 2007 of detention does not consider the welfare of the child”. It concluded that the detention of children for the purpose of immigration control is incompatible with children’s right to liberty. The JCHR stated that children should not be detained, and that “alternatives should be developed for ensuring compliance with immigration control where this is considered necessary”. The JCHR recommended that “the Home Office policy is further revised, so as to ensure that under no circumstances are age-disputed children detained as adults”. It also expressed concern that “[d]espite the welcome change in policy [see above], the Children’s Commissioners have seen evidence that some children are still being processed in the detained fast track.” UZBEKISTAN Relations between the European Union (EU) and Uzbekistan (Update to AI Index: EUR 01/001/2007) Review of sanctions Meeting at the beginning of March the European Union’s (EU) General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) decided not to review the sanctions – visa and arms bans imposed on Uzbekistan in November 2005 following the government’s refusal to conduct an independent international investigation into the May 2005 mass killings in Andizhan - and to postpone discussions to its May session. This happened because Uzbekistan reportedly refused to have a second round of expert talks on the Andizhan killings. A first round had been held in December 2006 in Uzbekistan. Following the GAERC meeting the German EU Council Presidency announced that the EU expected concessions from Uzbekistan. In his capacity as President of the EU Council the German Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs stated at a press conference in Brussels that the EU was exploring the possibility of cooperation on the international community level. According to Amnesty International him three issues were being discussed with the Uzbekistani government: the government was expected to make concessions on the issues of granting the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) access to all detention facilities in Uzbekistan; starting a dialogue on human rights with the EU; and continuing with expert meetings between representatives of the EU and the Uzbekistani government. According to the Minister these conditions would have to be met before the EU would discuss the possibility of intensifying cooperation with Uzbekistan. Consequently at the beginning of April a second round of expert talks was held in Tashkent. Negotiations between the ICRC and the Uzbekistani authorities resumed. At the beginning of May the first formal EU-Uzbekistan Human Rights Dialogue was held in Tashkent ahead of the GAERC session scheduled for mid-May (see below). In a letter to the EU Presidency ahead of the May GAERC session AI welcomed the two rounds of expert talks that took place in December 2006 and April in Uzbekistan. However, the organization explained that it held the view that such an initiative could not substitute for an independent international investigation into the Andizhan events. The expert talks did not meet the international standards for an effective, independent and impartial investigation, including the UN Principles on the effective prevention and investigation of extra-legal arbitrary and summary executions. AI was concerned that the EU would send out the wrong signal not only to Uzbekistan, but also to the Central Asian region and other partners if it withdrew its call for such an investigation while human rights in Uzbekistan continued to be violated with impunity. AI welcomed the holding of a resultoriented human rights dialogue with Uzbekistan and expressed hope that this dialogue would enable the EU to raise concerns about the human rights situation in the country, and to seek clarification on AI Index: EUR 01/010/2007