HRW urges Berlin to investigate deportation of Tajik opposition activist Asadullo Boboev

Human Rights Watch (HRW) on July 7 called on German authorities to investigate the deportation to Tajikistan of opposition activist Asadullo Boboev and his teenage son, saying Berlin’s actions raise serious concerns about compliance with international human rights obligations. HRW’s Europe and Central Asia director, Хью Уильямсон, said the criticism Boboev made of the Tajik government made him an obvious target and that Germany must determine why he was deported "при таких обстоятельствах" and press Tajik authorities over his detention.

Boboev, 54, and his 19-year-old son were deported from Germany on June 20, according to HRW and relatives. Upon arrival in Dushanbe, authorities placed Boboev in an isolation cell; relatives say his son was handed over to his grandmother. The group leading a Europe-based Tajik opposition movement, «Реформы и развитие Таджикистана», reported that the family’s lawyer had submitted dozens of pages of evidence to German authorities documenting the risks Boboev would face if returned, but that a court in Geldern allegedly disregarded that material.

HRW says Boboev had sought to show that Tajik authorities had opened a criminal case against him on suspicion of extremism, and that his return could expose him to persecution and torture. The organization stressed that international law bars returning a person to a country where there is a real risk of torture or other serious human rights violations. In its statement, HRW warned that Germany was not living up to these obligations: "Германия не выполняет свои международные обязательства по защите тех, кто подвергается опасности жестокого обращения и серьезных нарушений прав при депортации," the organization said through its regional director.

HRW also noted that Boboev’s case is the fourth documented instance since 2023 in which Germany has deported a Tajik opposition activist. The three others—Abdullohi Shamsiddin, Bilol Kurbonaliev and Dilmurod Ergashev—were sentenced in Tajikistan to seven, ten and eight years in prison respectively, in cases that rights groups have described as politically motivated and unsupported by credible evidence.

The advocacy group further pointed out that while Germany has in the past suspended deportations to some countries known for engaging in transnational repression, it has continued to return Tajik nationals despite growing evidence that such returns often hand government critics "прямо в руки репрессивных служб безопасности, от которых они бежали." HRW called on Berlin not only to investigate the decision-making that led to Boboev’s deportation, but also to press Tajik authorities for information and access regarding his detention and treatment.

The deportation adds to mounting concern among Tajik activists and human rights defenders about the safety of dissidents who flee abroad only to face forced return and prosecution at home. For families and exiled opposition networks, the recent wave of returns from Germany has underscored fears of surveillance, cross-border harassment and the erosion of international protection mechanisms intended to shield those at risk.

German officials have not publicly detailed the grounds on which Boboev and his son were expelled, nor have they commented on HRW’s specific allegations about ignored evidence submitted to the court in Geldern. HRW’s appeal places pressure on Berlin to provide transparency about its asylum and deportation procedures in cases involving political activists, and to ensure compliance with the principle of non-refoulement that prohibits returning people to countries where they face serious human rights abuses.

The case will likely attract further scrutiny from international rights groups and Tajik diaspora organizations, which have repeatedly warned that prosecutions of government critics in Tajikistan are often used to silence dissent. HRW’s call for a formal investigation into the deportation aims to clarify whether Germany’s actions exposed Boboev to foreseeable harm and whether appropriate safeguards and legal standards were observed before his removal.