Europe and Central Asia Summary of Amnesty International’s Concerns in the Region, January-June 2007 35 Concrete proof, not oral statements by governments, should be the measure of whether positive steps towards ending human rights violations had been taken. human rights situation in Central Asia, and that his office would be open to consultation and cooperation with such groups. AI also welcomed the fact that these dialogues would enable the EU to raise concerns about the human rights situation in the countries and to seek clarification and improvements. The draft strategy made clear that the human rights dialogues were also a forum to discuss issues of mutual interest. However, the organization was concerned that the absence of any real shared interest in addressing human rights in some instances would make it unlikely for these dialogues to succeed. Whereas Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan had achieved some progress in the field of human rights and the rule of law and showed willingness to address human rights issues, there was a lack of political willingness to effectively address serious and long-standing human rights violations in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. This would make it difficult to raise certain human rights concerns and get a firm commitment from these countries to address shortcomings and improve the human rights situation. AI therefore urged the EU to ensure that human rights would always be and without compromise, an issue of priority in every political meeting at all levels as stated in the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Dialogues. The organization also welcomed the commitment by the EU to open Commission delegations in all five Central Asian countries. AI expected these delegations to have a strong human rights mandate which would enable them to strongly and effectively support Central Asian authorities in their reforms in the field of human rights and the rule of law. Against this background AI pointed out the need to develop detailed country-related strategies and programmes which took the specificity of the human rights situation in each country into account. * EU Guidelines on the Death Penalty. The organization welcomed the proposal in the draft strategy that the EU Special Representative for Central Asia be given a supervisory role in monitoring the implementation of the strategy. The organization hoped that this office would be provided with sufficient resources to monitor the human rights situation in the Central Asian states and that his reports would be made available to other interested parties, such as non-governmental organizations working to improve the Amnesty International Benchmarking: AI’s recommendations Benchmarks needed to be developed separately for each of the five countries as the human rights situation in each country is different. Such benchmarks should be created on the basis of the EU Guidelines on Human Rights. AI welcomed the fact that the draft strategy made reference to these guidelines as the basis for the human rights dialogues, but recommended that those specific guidelines relevant to the region were spelt out in the strategy. In AI’s opinion the most relevant were the: *EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders; * EU Guidelines on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; AI urged the EU to call for the implementation of those international human rights conventions which have already been ratified by the Central Asian states, and to ratify and implement other core international human rights conventions and optional protocols. These included the 1951 Refugee Convention, which has not been signed and ratified by Uzbekistan, or the First Optional Protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OP CAT), which none of the Central Asian states was party to. Based on AI’s assessment of the specific human rights situation in each country, the AI Index: EUR 01/010/2007