"Under pressure and without the right to defend themselves": Why were seven employees of Allamzhanov arrested for 15 days?

On January 13, the Supreme Court began reviewing the appeal from these seven citizens. According to lawyer Davron Saidov, on October 25, 2024, following the attempted assassination of Allamjonov, his employees were summoned for questioning.

On October 26, they were released, but later that same evening, they were again called to the local police department. They were asked to sign a report regarding petty hooliganism, which they refused to do. Subsequently, they were taken to the administrative court, where, without their explanations, each was assigned 15 days of administrative detention.

Saidov claims that the accusations against the employees were unfounded:

“They were accused of supposedly being at a café in Kibray, consuming alcoholic beverages, and committing minor offenses. However, these facts were not substantiated. The district officer simply drafted an administrative report.”

The employees were not allowed to meet with their lawyers or appeal the court's decision. Allamjonov sought assistance from lawyer Saidov. The case is currently under cassation review, and both parties are hopeful for a reconsideration of the disputed ruling.

According to the defense attorney, at the appellate court, the seven citizens were also not brought to the courtroom, and they fully served their 15 days of detention. After their release, the case was sent for review in supervisory proceedings to the Supreme Court. At this time, 6 out of the 7 citizens have appeared, while one was absent, leading to the case being postponed until January 23. There is also a consideration of involving the preventive inspector who drafted the report regarding the administrative liability of the 7 citizens. The rights of the citizens, enshrined in international law and the Constitution, were grossly violated.

At the end of the proceedings, the lawyer also answered a few brief questions from journalists.

– Do you believe that there was external pressure on the court? Why were people not granted the right to defense?

– The reason for not providing a defender could certainly have been external pressure. After all, the official who drafted the administrative offense report did not do so without reason. However, who exactly exerted the pressure can only be determined during the investigation. On January 23, we will submit a motion to the court requesting a legal assessment of the violations in this case and to issue a private ruling.

– Was there any physical impact, psychological, or other pressure applied to these citizens during administrative detention?

– Such pressure did occur. We have sent a written request to the General Prosecutor's Office regarding this matter. After it is reviewed, we will be able to provide detailed explanations and make statements. Based on international law standards, the conditions of their detention and treatment can be classified as torture. However, for some reason, this is perceived as normal in our context. Actions that violate the norms of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Criminal Code were employed against them.

The Supreme Court panel will continue the case review on November 23 of this year. The preventive inspector who drafted the administrative report concerning the citizens will be summoned to court.