On January 13, the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan began reviewing the appeal of seven individuals sentenced to 15 days of detention for allegedly disturbing public order after the attempt on Komil Allamjonov’s life. Kun.uz correspondent attended the hearing and provided updates.

The incident

According to lawyer Davron Saidov, after the October 25, 2024, assassination attempt on Komil Allamjonov, his employees were interrogated by law enforcement for a full day to determine whether they were involved.

"On October 26, the employees were released but later summoned to the Qibray district police department in the evening for unknown reasons. At the station, they were asked to sign a report alleging ‘minor hooliganism.’ When they refused, all seven were taken to the Qibray district administrative court. Without hearing their testimonies, the judge sentenced them to 15 days of administrative detention and advised them to appeal to a higher court if dissatisfied," said Saidov.

The lawyer also revealed that the detainees were not allowed to meet with legal representatives or appeal the court's decision. According to the police report, the employees were accused of engaging in "minor hooliganism" by allegedly consuming alcohol and behaving inappropriately near a café in Qibray. Despite the lack of evidence, the district officer filed the administrative report.

Violation of rights

The lawyer noted that during the appellate process, the seven individuals were not brought to the courtroom and served the entirety of their detention. After their release, the case was referred to the Supreme Court for further review.

At the Supreme Court hearing, six of the seven individuals were present, while one was absent, prompting the case to be postponed until January 23. The court is also considering involving the district officer who filed the report against the individuals. According to Saidov, this case represents a severe violation of the detainees' rights under both international law and the Uzbek Constitution.

When asked by journalists whether external influence had impacted the court proceedings and why the defendants were denied legal protection, Saidov responded:

"The denial of legal representation strongly suggests external interference. The officer who filed the administrative report did not act independently. Identifying those responsible requires further investigation. On January 23, we will submit a petition requesting the court to address these procedural violations and issue a private ruling on the matter."

Regarding whether the detainees faced physical or psychological abuse during their detention, Saidov stated:

"Yes, there were instances of abuse. We submitted a written complaint to the Prosecutor General's Office. Once reviewed, we can provide more detailed information. Based on international legal standards, the conditions they endured and the treatment they received constitute torture. However, such incidents are often dismissed as routine here. These actions violate the norms outlined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Criminal Code."

The Supreme Court's review panel will reconvene on January 23 to continue examining the case. The district officer responsible for the administrative report has also been summoned to testify.