Today, the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan commenced reviewing the complaint of seven individuals from the entourage of the former chief of the Information Policy Department of the Presidential Administration (PA), Komil Allamjonov. The upcoming hearing was announced on the eve by the Manba (Source) Telegram channel linked with the PA.

The first hearing was very brief. The Deputy Chairman of the Bar of Attorneys, the lawyer Davron Saidov said that he would file a motion for the participation of journalists in the process. Soon, he came out and said that the hearing was rescheduled for January 23.

Davron Saidov represents the interests of all seven individuals. He added that these men were brought to administrative liability on October 26 - a day after the assassination attempt on Komil Allamjonov, which took place in the Kibray district of the Tashkent province. According to him, they were with him on the evening of October 25.

"During the day, these seven individuals, [among them - three security guards, a driver, a chef (on request), a caretaker and a bathhouse attendant (on request)], the men were brought in by members of the operational investigative team in order to find out their links to the attempted crime. During the day, they told their versions on this matter. However, for unknown reasons, on the evening of October 26, when they were already at home after all the procedures were completed, they were again summoned to the Kibray district police department," the defense attorney said.

"At the Kibray district police department, they were asked to sign a statement and admit committing petty hooliganism. After they refused to do so, they were taken to the Kibray district court. They were not provided with a lawyer, they were not heard by court, the judge simply announced the verdict of 15-day administrative arrest, and should they not agree with the verdict, they were told they could appeal it to a higher court," said Davron Saidov.

"After lawyers were not allowed to see them on November 3 and they were not allow to appeal the court rulings, Komil Allamjonov contacted me to take on the defense of these men. I familiarized myself with the ruling and through questioning found out that in fact the event of the administrative offense did not actually take place on that day. That is, these individuals were not in front of the Argin cafe in the Kibray district, where they allegedly drank alcoholic beverages, where petty hooliganism was allegedly committed. The district police officer drew up an administrative offence sheet, and thus they found themselves under administrative arrest,” the lawyer added.

The appeal in the revision procedure was prepared after seven people had served their sentences. Of the seven individuals, six came to court, one, according to the lawyer, was not notified, so he filed a motion to postpone the consideration of the case until January 23.

Davron Saidov said that he had also filed a motion to call up in the case “that same district police officer, that is, the body that drew up the administrative offence sheet.”

“I really hope that this case will become a precedent, since in the course of bringing these individuals to administrative arrest, a lot of shortcomings that exist in our judicial and legal system were revealed. In particular, lawyers were not provided with access to meet with their clients. Meanwhile, a special chapter has been added into the renewed Constitution of Uzbekistan, which is dedicated to the legal profession. It is a great achievement that this chapter exists in the Constitution. However, it is big time for these constitutional norms to start working. To do this, it is necessary to repeal a lot of by-laws that prevent lawyers from meeting with their clients,” the defense attorney said.

“Keeping them under administrative arrest contradicted both the national legislation and the international obligations of the Republic of Uzbekistan, enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Our individuals were deprived of the right to a fair trial,” he said.

One of the journalists asked whether the denial of access to lawyers could be linked with “outside influence.” Davron Saidov answered in the affirmative. The district police officer who drew up the offence sheet also “did not do it on himself,” he said. “But who gave such an order can only be established through investigation.” The defense plans to file a motion asking the court to issue a private ruling and give a legal assessment of these actions.

When asked by another journalist whether there was pressure on the defendants during their arrest, the lawyer replied: “There was pressure, based on international legal norms. The conditions of their detention, the attitude towards them - all this is assessed as torture. But in our practice, for some reason, this is assessed as a normal phenomenon and is not assessed as torture. This is prohibited by the aforementioned International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 7, and the norms of the Criminal Code of Uzbekistan. There was a prohibited attitude here.”

When asked whether he had encountered cases of obstruction of access to lawyers in his practice, the lawyer said: “Of course, such cases happen very often. Based on the need for an investigation, the rights of the defense are violated. That is, justifying this by the need to establish the involvement or non-involvement of citizens in a crime, they create obstacles to meeting with lawyers.”

When asked whether he knew the details of the criminal case regarding the assassination attempt on Komil Allamjonov, Davron Saidov replied that he was not involved in this process and was not in a position to provide “reasonable information” about it.