"What is the purpose of punishment?" - An in-depth interview discussing administrative arrests, judges, and the concept of justice.

In the discussion of this pressing issue, Judge Sarvar Mamadiev from the Chilanzar District Court, human rights activist Abdurakhmon Tashanov, and lawyer Abdumalik Abdullaev participated. A representative from the Ministry of Internal Affairs was also invited, but the agency reported that it was unable to allocate a specialist for participation.

According to statistics, over 35,000 people were subjected to administrative arrest in 2020. By 2023, this number exceeded 80,000, and in just the first half of 2024, more than 45,000 individuals have already received such punishment. Unfortunately, the use of administrative arrest continues to grow year by year. Human rights activists and the public believe that in some cases, this type of punishment becomes a tool for law enforcement agencies, allowing them to use the time allocated for their purposes.

Human rights activists note that recently, citizens are increasingly subjected to administrative arrest under articles for "minor hooliganism" and "disobedience to lawful requirements of law enforcement officers." A court representative mentioned that in his practice, most cases of administrative arrest are related to repeated offenses defined under the article for "drinking alcoholic beverages in public places."

Sarvar Mamadiev also emphasized the need for a conceptual revision of the Code of Administrative Responsibility to align it with modern requirements.

– What does the judge consider when imposing a penalty for an administrative offense that carries up to 15 days of arrest? Can there be external pressure on the judge?

Sarvar Mamadiev, Judge of the Chilanzar District Court for Criminal Cases in Tashkent:

– The judge is guided by the framework of the law and cannot exceed its limits. A judicial decision must meet three requirements: it must be lawful, fair, and justified.

Lawfulness means that we must strictly adhere to the Code of Administrative Responsibility and the documents underlying it.

Justification implies that each decision must be supported by evidence; there must be real facts confirming unlawful actions or antisocial behavior. The judge's decision must be backed by evidence.

Fairness is a more subjective criterion. The law states that the penalty — ranging from a fine to 15 days of arrest — should not be excessive compared to the offense.

The punishment is chosen based on the specific situation: whether there is remorse, if the person acknowledges their guilt, and how their actions affect their behavior. Their social status is also taken into account. Based on these factors, the judge makes a decision, relying on their inner convictions.

Regarding external pressure, the judge in administrative cases does not depend on the authorities. For example, in criminal cases, a request for detention is submitted to the court officially. In administrative cases, this is not the case — there are no documents requesting a specific punishment. However, in reality, pressure or requests may occur. In such cases, the judge independently makes a decision, signs it, and is responsible for it. Even if there is pressure, no one openly threatens, brandishes a weapon, or says, "Arrest them, or else...". It all depends on the integrity of the judge, their character, and their fidelity to their oath.

Abdumalik Abdullaev, Lawyer:

– In practice, it cannot be claimed that there is no pressure. There have been cases where individuals accused of minor hooliganism or other offenses were told even before the trial that they would receive 10 or 15 days of arrest. Often, the court's decision coincided with these statements. Therefore, it is impossible to deny the existence of pressure. In practice, 15-day administrative arrests are sometimes used in the interests of certain agencies to fulfill their objectives in specific situations.

Abdurakhmon Tashanov, Human Rights Activist:

– Judges should not be stripped of their primary responsibility and turned into people who simply follow orders. A judge, as a person and as part of the state authority, must always maintain their position. Establishing truth and justice is not easy. This means that you might not be imprisoned or humiliated, but at the same time, they could do it.

However, a judge, for instance, as an individual with their own position and status, acting from a standpoint of trust in the law and non-interference from politics, will undoubtedly achieve results. Recently, there was a discussion online about a judge who sentenced Gairat Dustov to arrest in the first instance court. We analyzed one of this judge's cases. She sentenced a person to 18 years in prison, but a year later, this person was acquitted. If such cases are not investigated according to the Criminal Code or legislation, it will encourage negligent judges. On the other hand, one could argue that times were tough, pressure was strong, and the judge was merely following orders. But the judge could have refused: "I will leave this job; I do not want to deprive someone of 18 years of life due to a false case." If he showed weakness, he should be held accountable. The judge in Dustov's case essentially undermined trust in authority. A judge must understand the responsibility of their profession and the impact of their decisions on people's lives.

Furthermore, in the current management system and approaches, it is impossible to please everyone. Judges, journalist-bloggers, and citizens like Dustov suffer. Therefore, it is necessary to create intellectual centers that could elevate societal issues to the level of authority. We have created a significant distance between the president and the people — different structures and organizations have intervened, bringing the situation to this state.

Abdumalik Abdullaev:

– One point needs to be considered here: if a court decision is later changed or annulled, the law provides for protection, meaning the judge is not held accountable. But therein lies a subtle issue — proving that the judge indeed issued a decision contrary to their conscience becomes extremely difficult.

For example, even in obvious, clear cases, fair decisions are not made, and they say: "Well, try appealing to a higher instance." "If the decision or verdict is changed or annulled, I won't be held accountable" becomes a trend. A judge should not have such an attitude. Therefore, in this delicate matter, a clear boundary must be drawn. When we issue a verdict, we must do so based on conscience and knowledge.

There is also the factor of noise, meaning public resonance or pressure from certain state management structures, which also influences decision-making, creating pressure. For instance, the current approach is: "If we do not impose 15 or 10 days of arrest, other citizens may repeat similar behavior." We must not succumb to noise; we should not be under its influence. Each specific case needs to be carefully analyzed within its framework, and our approaches must strictly adhere to the law. The punishment should be proportional to the offender's personality, the degree of their guilt, and the mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

The full interview is available in the video linked above.

Interviewed by Farrukh Absattarov.