Uzbekistan Military Court Issues Harsh Sentences in Assassination Attempt Case Amidst Strong Criticism

Tashkent, Uzbekistan – The Military Court of Uzbekistan has sentenced 10 individuals to lengthy prison terms in connection with an alleged assassination attempt on Komil Allamjonov, a former staff member of the Presidential Administration. Sentences range up to 23 years, with several key defendants receiving severe penalties.

Among those convicted are Shukhrat Rasulov, who was sentenced to 23 years in prison, Javlon Yunusov to 18 years and 6 months, Shokhrukh Akhmedov to 23 years, Ismoil Jahongirov to 23 years, and Doniyor Toshkhodjayev, the former First Deputy Chief of the Tashkent Main Internal Affairs Department, to 7 years. The verdicts were announced on Wednesday, as confirmed by the press service of the Supreme Court.

However, the ruling has been met with strong criticism from legal experts and human rights advocates. Radha Stirling, a prominent legal advocate and founder of Due Process International, has condemned the “politically and economically motivated” verdict as “completely baseless, without merit, and without evidence.” Stirling further confirmed that an appeal will be lodged against the ruling, highlighting serious concerns regarding due process and the legitimacy of the charges brought against the accused.  “The accusations against Shukhrat Rasulov lack any evidentiary basis, making the court’s verdict essentially fabricated. Moreover, the court ignored allegations that Shukhrat Rasulov had been subjected to torture.”

Stirling emphasised that this case is yet another example of politically motivated prosecutions in Uzbekistan. “This verdict underscores a worrying trend in the country’s judiciary, where convictions are often secured without credible evidence or fair trial guarantees. The international community must scrutinise these proceedings and demand justice,” she added.

The case has drawn significant international attention, with calls for transparency in Uzbekistan’s judicial system. Observers have raised questions about the fairness of the trial and the political implications surrounding the case.

Further developments are expected as the appeal process unfolds.