Administrative case against Komil Allamjonov’s aides dismissed for lack of evidence
The Supreme Court of Uzbekistan has recently made a decision regarding the administrative case against individuals arrested in connection with the assassination attempt on former presidential administration official Komil Allamjonov. The case has been closed due to a lack of evidence of wrongdoing, and internal sanctions have been issued against law enforcement officers and judges involved in the flawed investigation.
Following the attack on Allamjonov, several individuals from his inner circle were detained and sentenced to 15 days of administrative arrest on charges of petty hooliganism and disobeying police orders. However, their lawyers argued that the arrests were unfounded, lacked supporting evidence, and were plagued by serious procedural violations.
On February 21, the Supreme Court completed its review of the case and issued a ruling. The court determined that there was insufficient evidence to confirm the alleged administrative offense. As a result, previous court rulings against B. Yoqubov, S. Siddiqov, A. Qurbonmurodov, A. Toshov, A. Salimov, J. Turg‘unov, and X. Zufarov were overturned, and the case was dismissed under Article 271, Section 1 of the Administrative Code.
In addition to dismissing the case, the Supreme Court also highlighted significant investigative failures. A law enforcement officer from the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) was found to have neglected the proper collection of evidence, and the judges who failed to recognize the lack of proof during the hearings were also called out for their oversight.
The Supreme Court’s statement mentioned that a formal complaint has been issued to the Ministry of Internal Affairs regarding the officer’s failure to gather evidence. Furthermore, private rulings have been sent to the Judicial Qualification Commission concerning the judges who overlooked the insufficiency of evidence during the trial.
This decision by the Supreme Court aims to uphold the principles of justice and due process, ensuring that individuals are not unjustly accused or punished without sufficient evidence. It also serves as a reminder to law enforcement officers and judges to conduct thorough investigations and uphold the rule of law in all cases.
