Jumashov appealed to President Sadyr Japarov, Chairman of the Supreme Court Mederbek Satyiev, Prosecutor General Maksat Asanaliev, and Ombudsman Jamila Dzhamanbaeva to take control of this case.
According to the lawyer, his client has been unjustly prosecuted. The basis for this was the conclusion of a working group involved in the implementation of the Automated Traffic Management System (ATMS).
“During the court proceedings at the Oktyabrsky District Court, witnesses—members of the working commission—were first heard, all of whom actually signed the conclusion. However, it turned out that most of them, about 99%, do not agree with the commission's findings and do not consider the actions of Uezbaev and other participants to be a crime,” he noted.
The lawyer emphasized that the investigator relies entirely on the conclusions of this commission.
“When I studied the witness interrogations, it seemed like I was reading the same text. A comparison of the interrogation protocols shows that the investigator used identical phrases, changing only the names of the witnesses. The interrogations were conducted with a clear bias towards the accusation, without an effort to ascertain the real circumstances of the case. According to the CPC, interrogation protocols must be admissible evidence; however, such protocols cannot be considered as such due to violations,” the lawyer expressed his opinion.
He also reminded that Uezbaev headed the department subordinate to the city hall.
“During the court session, it became clear that all actions related to the implementation of the ATMS were coordinated with the management, regular meetings were held, as evidenced by protocols that included the first deputy mayor and the mayor. From the documents preceding the implementation of the system, it is evident that the pricing policy was agreed upon,” Jumashov added.
Furthermore, the lawyer noted that another participant in the case was released under house arrest.
“According to Article 18, Part 4 of the CPC, all parties involved in the criminal process have equal rights. However, inequality in this case manifested itself in the fact that one of the defendants had their preventive measure changed to house arrest, while Uezbaev was not granted this. In December 2025, Uezbaev's detention was extended until February 5, 2026. At the same time, the term was supposed to expire on February 4 at 23:59. After February 5 arrived, he should have been immediately released, as there were no legal grounds for his detention. On that day, we pointed out in court the expiration of the preventive measure and requested to change it to house arrest. But the judge extended a measure that no longer existed,” the lawyer noted.
In light of the above, he appealed to the Prosecutor General to take measures regarding the judge, and to the president to pay attention to this case and take it under control.
Uezbaev's relatives also expressed hope for the president's intervention and his release from custody.
