According to the lawyer, Uezbaev was unjustly subjected to criminal liability. He noted that the initiation of the case was based on the conclusion of the working commission for the implementation of the Automated Traffic Management System (ATMS).
“In the October District Court, when the case began to be heard, the first witnesses were the members of the working commission, most of whom signed the conclusion. However, it turned out that about 99% of them do not support the commission's conclusions and do not consider the actions of Uezbaev and the other defendants to be criminal,” Jumashiev clarified.
The lawyer emphasizes that the investigator relies solely on this conclusion. “When reviewing the witness interrogations, I had the impression that I was reading the same text. The interrogation protocols show that the investigator essentially rewrote the same material, changing only the names of the witnesses. The interrogations were conducted with a clear bias towards the prosecution, without attempts to clarify the objective circumstances of the case. According to the Criminal Procedure Code, interrogation protocols should be admissible evidence, but in this case, they were obtained in violation of the law,” he added.
Furthermore, the lawyer noted that Uezbaev, as the director of the department, was subordinate to the city hall. “During the court proceedings, it was established that all actions regarding the implementation of the ATMS were coordinated with the management, multiple meetings were held, as evidenced by the protocols, in which the first deputy mayor participated, and the information was communicated to the mayor. From the documents preceding the implementation of the ATMS, it is evident that the pricing policy was also agreed upon,” Jumashiev said.
He also added that another defendant in this case was placed under house arrest. “According to Article 18, Part 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code, all participants in the criminal process have equal rights. However, inequality before the investigation and the court manifested itself in that one of the defendants had his preventive measure changed to house arrest, while Uezbaev was not granted this. In December 2025, the preventive measure for Uezbaev was extended until February 5, 2026, and after that date, he was supposed to be released, as there were no legal grounds for his detention. On the day the term expired, we informed the court of the need to change the preventive measure, but the judge extended an already non-existent measure,” the lawyer explained.
In this regard, Jumashiev called on the Prosecutor General to take action against the judge and appealed to the president to pay attention to this case. Uezbaev's relatives also expressed hope for the president's intervention and his release from custody.
