Allamjonov’s employees acquitted in the Supreme Court
Uzbekistan
The Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan reviewed the case of seven citizens who were sentenced to 15 days in prison for allegedly disturbing public order following an assassination attempt on Komil Allamjonov, the former head of the Information Policy Department of the Presidential Administration. This was reported by UzA.
On February 21, the Supreme Court concluded the administrative case against B. Yoqubov and others (a total of 7 people), who were accused of committing administrative offenses under Article 183 (minor hooliganism) and Part 1 of Article 194 (failure to comply with the lawful demands of an internal affairs officer) of the Code of Administrative Responsibility. A court ruling was announced.
According to the announced decision, due to insufficient evidence confirming the administrative offense, the court rulings against B. Yoqubov, S. Siddikov, A. Qurbonmurodov, A. Toshov, A. Salimov, J. Turg‘unov, and X. Zufarov were annulled, and the administrative case was closed based on Article 271 (circumstances excluding administrative proceedings) of the Code of Administrative Responsibility.
“A private ruling was issued against the Ministry of Internal Affairs regarding the officer who failed to take measures to collect evidence confirming the offense during the investigation. Additionally, private rulings were sent to the Judicial Qualification Board regarding judges who failed to consider the lack of sufficient evidence during the trial,” the report stated.
According to the announced decision, due to insufficient evidence confirming the administrative offense, the court rulings against B. Yoqubov, S. Siddikov, A. Qurbonmurodov, A. Toshov, A. Salimov, J. Turg‘unov, and X. Zufarov were annulled, and the administrative case was closed based on Article 271 (circumstances excluding administrative proceedings) of the Code of Administrative Responsibility.
“A private ruling was issued against the Ministry of Internal Affairs regarding the officer who failed to take measures to collect evidence confirming the offense during the investigation. Additionally, private rulings were sent to the Judicial Qualification Board regarding judges who failed to consider the lack of sufficient evidence during the trial,” the report stated.
Powered by Froala Editor