Tashkent, Uzbekistan (UzDaily.com) — On 13 January, the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan commenced a revision hearing on a complaint filed on behalf of seven individuals who had been held administratively liable following an incident involving former head of the Presidential Administration’s Department of Information Policy, Komil Allamjonov.

The initial session was brief. According to a correspondent, Davron Saidov, the lawyer representing all seven individuals, informed journalists of his intention to file a motion requesting media access to the trial. However, the session was soon adjourned and rescheduled for 23 January.

Davron Saidov explained that his clients were detained on 26 October, one day after an attempted assault on Komil Allamjonov in the Kibrai district of Tashkent region. The detainees — comprising security guards, a driver, a cook, a maintenance worker, and a bathhouse attendant — were with Allamjonov at the time of the incident. Following questioning by investigative authorities, they were initially released. However, on the evening of 26 October, they were summoned again to the Kibrai district police department, where they were asked to sign documents admitting to petty hooliganism. When they refused, they were taken to court, where, without legal representation, they were sentenced to 15 days of administrative detention.

Saidov emphasized that his clients were deprived of the right to appeal the decision, as lawyers were denied access to them. Only after they had served their sentence was the complaint prepared and submitted to the Supreme Court.

The lawyer pointed out numerous violations, including the lack of access to legal defense, which he argued contradicts Uzbekistan’s Constitution and the country’s international obligations. He expressed hope that this case would set a precedent for improving the judicial system.

“We witnessed gross violations of the Code of Administrative Responsibility, national legislation, and international obligations. Such actions are in direct conflict with Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which prohibits torture and degrading treatment,” he noted.

Saidov also filed a motion to summon the district police officer who had drafted the administrative offense protocol. According to him, the officer had not acted independently, and the question of who issued the corresponding orders should be thoroughly investigated during the proceedings.

In addition, the lawyer reported that a petition had been submitted to the Prosecutor General’s Office requesting an investigation into possible coercion of his clients during their detention.

“We expect to present detailed explanations once our complaint is reviewed. Any actions involving physical or psychological pressure should be classified as torture or degrading treatment under international law,” Saidov emphasized.

The next hearing is scheduled for 23 January, with a motion to summon the district officer responsible for drafting the administrative offense protocol already submitted by the lawyer.