Азам ФОРМОНОВ, Аъзам ФАРМОНОВ, ENGLISH

Claim letter

To

The Attorney General

General Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Uzbekistan

Mr. Ikhtiyor Abdullayev

From

Talib Yakubov

—————————————

16, rue Marcel Pajotin, Angers, 49000, France

Tel. +33(0)241667961


Respected Attorney General!

On 01 May 2015 Kungrat District Criminal Court of the Republic of Karakalpakstan in its meeting considered the criminal case №156673, instituted by the preliminary investigation body against the Azam Farmonov accused under the item «b» of Part 2 of Article 221 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan.

I consider and confirm that this judgment is absolutely illegal.

Extract from the judgment of Kungrat District Criminal Court of the Republic of Karakalpakstan on May 1, 2015:

Presiding – Judge of the Court D. Razov; Secretary B. Tleuberganov, the public prosecutor – a special prosecutor of Kungrat region M. Davlatkilichev with the participation of the defendant – A. Farmonov in the building of Kungrat district department of internal affairs, in the open court considered the criminal case №156673, instituted by the preliminary investigation body against A. Farmonov to the accused under the item «b» of part 2 of article 221 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan’.

As can be seen in the composition of the court, there is only one of the opposing sides on the court – the public prosecutor. There is no other major side – defense Counsel (lawyer) of the defendant. Consequently, the court was not adversarial, which is a flagrant violation of the requirements of the Article 25 (adversarial proceeding at court) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) of the Republic of Uzbekistan. In addition, witnesses at the trial Davlatov Parhat Saparbaevich, Abdimajidov Abdibet Aleutadinovich, Djumagulov Suyishbek Tlegenovich, Yusupov Dilshod Turamuratovich, Toremuratov Sobit Otashevich are employees of PC UY 64/71,i.e. their people.

It is not difficult to imagine that judge D. Razov was under strong pressure from the special (!!!) District prosecutor of Kungrat district M. Davlatkilichev and they – the judge, the prosecutor, and witnesses – taunted the defendant Azam Farmonov as they wanted. In any civilized country, such a tribunal is not allowed. It was not a trial against the human rights activist Azam Farmonov but this trial was namely the judgment seat.

I affirm that the Uzbek public justice in the face of the judge Kungrat District Criminal Court D. Razov committed one of the vilest and heinous crimes against justice, failing to ensure the defendant’s advocate. So, whether the awarded judgment of Kungrat District Criminal Court by the judge D. Razov has legal validity? NO, it has not. There is the main proof.

CPC of Uzbekistan requires not only the competitiveness of the court but also is in the Part 6 of Article 51 (Mandatory participation of defense counsel) categorically states that: » Participation of a defense counsel in criminal proceedings shall be mandatory in cases that involve the participation of a state or public accuser ».

As a specialist in mathematical logic, I’m accustomed to proving the illegality of the judgment the judge D. Razov by the language formulas of mathematical logic and it is clearer and more convincing.

In the language of mathematical logic above proposal is expressed as a formula: P → Q, which reads as follows: «If P, then Q» (or «From P to be Q»), where the letter P indicated by the sentence «In the criminal case in a court session will participate State or public prosecutor, «and the letter Q – the sentence» Participation of the defense counsel is a mandatory.” Let ¬ P denial proposal P (¬ P is read as «not P»), that is to say the sentence: «In the process of criminal case at the trial state or the public prosecutor will not participate», and after ¬ Q denial proposal Q, then there is a proposal “In the court defense counsel will not participate”. One of the laws of mathematical logic states that approval of P → Q and ¬ Q → ¬ P are identical, that is the identity: P → Q ≡ ¬ Q → ¬ P. Verbal expression of this identity reads as Proposal «From P to be Q» is equivalent to the proposal «From ¬ ¬ Q follows P» (that is to say, «From P to be Q» and «From non-Q should not P» – the same thing).

Thus, we set: to say P → Q (“If in criminal proceedings the state or the public prosecutor is participated, than participation of counsel is required») and say ¬ Q → ¬ P («If in the criminal case in court the defense counsel did not participate than the participation of the state or the public prosecutor is not allowed «) is the same.

What does the formula ¬ Q → ¬ P? It says, «If in the criminal court did not participate (not involved) defense counsel, in this case, state or the public prosecutor, must not participate». But, as we seen from the above extract, the public prosecutor, in the face of a special prosecutor Kungrat district M. Davlatkilichev participated in the trial!

The conclusion is clear: The verdict or decided bill of Kungrat District Criminal Court by the judge D. Razov is illegal and should be canceled.

On 01, May 2015 judge D. Razov made unjust verdict purposely, by grossly violating part 1 of the Article 231 (Rendering Unjust Sentence, Decision, Finding, or Ruling) of the Criminal Code of Uzbekistan, for which according to law shall be punished with imprisonment up to five years.

Participation of Prosecutor in the judgment seat in Kungrat District Court and even a special, Prosecutor of Kungrat district M. Davlatkilichev, who had to stop perpetrated judgment seat which occurred in his eyes clearly points that the situation which slipped in Uzbek justice system and in the supervising authority for the execution of the laws.

Dear Mr. Attorney General!

I’ve had some time think about that with who to contact – to the Chairman of the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan to Mr. Boritosh Mustafayev or to you. Knowing that Mr. Boritosh Mustafayev has a habit of not respond to the requests and complaints by blatantly violating the law “On citizens’ appeal”, and regarding your office I received a reply to my complaint, for which I would like to say many thanks and decided once again to appeal to you. I really cheered from the reply of your staff Mr. U. U. Muhammadiev.

Based on the above, PLEASE:

1) Take steps for canceling imposed sentence of Kungrat District criminal Court of Republic of Karakalpakstan in the face of D. Razov which is injustice and illegal;

2) Institute legal proceedings against a judge D. Razov under part 1 of Article 231 of the Criminal Code of Uzbekistan.

ATTACHMENTS:

1) Sentence of Kungrat district criminal court of the Republic of Karakalpakstan from 01May, 2015;

2) Result of inquest;

Talib Yakubov

12November, 2015

This time I again have received an answer to my letter from the Prosecutor General’s Office. (On 5, December 2015, under the number №24/12-15-9950). In this respond says that my complaint forwarded to the Prosecutor of the Republic of Karakalpakstan, the Counsel Justice I. A. Palvanov and from respond, we can read:

Forwarding to you the complaint letter of T. Yakubov for further inspection and taking measures. Please, organize a thorough and comprehensive inspection of all arguments which mentioned in that letter. About results inform to the applicant and the forward to the second applicant for information. Attachment in: 4 + 1 sheets.

Sh. Amirov is head of the department of letters and complaints of citizens, Justice Advisor.

My complaint letter was sent on 12, November 2015 and I have received an answer to my letter on December 5, 2015. It means my letter approximately reached to Prosecutor General Office within 12 (twelve) days, i.e. reached on 24, November. If we consider that my complaint letter reached to the Nukus city not later than 4 (four) days, i.e. 28 (twenty-eight) November 2015 than my complaint letter are about nine (9) months lying in the prosecutor’s office of the Republic of Karakalpakstan. There is no answer till now! If someone would learn dirty things from another person and repeated it than Uzbeks simply saying: «Someone did” an” and bundle weigh it. Indeed Rashitjon Kadirov’s «a» weighing by I. Abdullayev? If it is so, we cannot expect any changes in Uzbekistan.

I felt like a penny waiting for change and on May 23, 2016 I have written my last letter to Attorney General I. Abdullayev. It is in below:

My son-in-law Azam Farmonov was arrested on April 29, 2006 and accused under the Article 165 of the Criminal Code (Extortion). He was sentenced to 9 (nine) years of imprisonment according to the judgment of Yangiyer district criminal court on June 15, 2006. On May 1, 2015 Azam Farmonov was convicted the second time by the Kungrat district criminal court of the Republic of Karakalpakstan under the Article 221 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan (Disobedience to Legitimate Orders of Administration of Institution of Execution of Penalty) and this time extended his term of punishment for 5 (five) years and 26 days. On June 24, 2015 I wrote a statement addressed to the Attorney General of the Republic of Uzbekistan concerning the first trial and requested bring an action due to the existence of newly discovered circumstances. I have received a letter under the number №12 / 23-15-445, on August 13, 2015 which was sent by the head of the department of the prosecutor’s authority to the courts in criminal cases U.U. Muhammadiev. At the section of sending application, there are two particular sentences and it forwarded to Sirdarya region prosecutor, legal adviser Ya. M. Ochilov:

The claim letters of Talib Yakubov and others related to Azam Farmonov and concerning to opening the new criminal case as the newly discovered circumstances is sending for the consideration. It is required to inform the results to the authors of claim letter.

I can say without any error that the Prosecutor General’s letter to the Sirdarya regional prosecutor’s office reached not later than 4 (four) days and this means my application already in region prosecutor’s office for nine (9) months. There are specific actions in case of any criminal investigation, and it will allocate a limited period for each case. And every person of the prosecutor’s office has known about this, and they do not need my advice about this matter.

From above a natural question arises: In spite of already 9 months past but it is unknown that is it instituted a new criminal case or not regarding №1-110/2006 criminal case against Azam Farmonov? It is surprising! I do not understand for the solution of this simple matter should we need the interference of Attorney General of the Republic of Uzbekistan?

I have written letter to the respected Attorney General of the Republic of Uzbekistan (on 12 November 2015) regarding second criminal case (May 1, 2015) №156673 against my son-in-law Azam Farmonov.

This time I have received an answer to my letter from the Prosecutor General’s Office (On 5, December 2015 under number №24/12-15-9950. In this respond says that my complaint forwarded to the Prosecutor of the Republic of Karakalpakstan, the Counsel Justice I. A. Palvanov and from respond, we can read:

Forwarding to you the complaint letter of T. Yakubov for further inspection and taking measures. Please, organize a thorough and comprehensive inspection of all arguments which mentioned in that letter. About results inform to the applicant and the forward to the second applicant for information. Attachment in: 4 + 1 sheets.

Sh. Amirov is head of the department of letters and complaints of citizens, Justice Advisor.

As it is stated from the Postal Service of Uzbekistan joint company letters as usual from Tashkent to Nukus will reach no later than seven (7) days. Thus, the Prosecutor General’s Office №24 / 12-15-9950 letter reached to I. Palvanov on 12, December 2015 and therefore, letter already for 4 (four) months in that institution. If compare two criminal cases provided in №12/23-15-445 and №24 / 12-15-9950 letters we can see a big difference between them, simply saying heaven and earth: forwarded to the Ya. Ochilov is required to make difficult tasks- to open the new criminal case, to investigate arguments which have mentioned in a complaint letter, conduct a criminal investigation. As concerns to the second letter which has sent to Mr. I. Palvanov in this letter the issue was about the legality of the sentence of Kungrat district criminal court (judge D. Razov) according to the Criminal Procedure Code Republic of Uzbekistan. The sentence of the judge of the Kungrat district criminal court D. Razov not only illegal but also very groundless, unreliable. I have no any doubts about it. I will explain. I have observed several numbers of court processes. Two trials have taken place in two different parts of the country and two judges sentenced two defendants with one Article means with similar Article of law and their judgment, sentence completely different, quite opposite from each other. I will repeat: the trials took place in different places and at different times, the judges are different people, i.e. not the same person, in both trials defendants charged with the same article. However, the judges accusing the defendants with two different sentences which completely contradict each other, and both lie! The defendants have no juridical knowledge; they could not appeal for judge’s lies and defense counsel (lawyer) was sitting in silence! In other words, in both trials judges were saying simple, “run away with an empty trolley”. Thus, two trials occurred with “lies” “conversation rotate in the opposite direction” and defendants sentenced to long-term arrest.

It is too clear of unjustified sentences of Judge D.Razov that it is not possible to change or to interpret by difference way the 6 part of the Article 51 of the Penal Procedure Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan (Mandatory Participation of Defense Counsel) In fact, this part of the article states: Participation of a defense counsel in criminal proceedings shall be mandatory”, i.e. in the process of participation of public prosecutor at the same time participation of defense counsel is compulsory. If in this Article was mentioned that in the process of participation of public prosecutor might participate of defense counsel than a judge might have made casuistry. Article 51 is such as univariant. Who were the participants of district court trial on May 1, 2015? They are the presiding judge D.Razov, the clerk of court B.Tleuberganov, public prosecutor M.Davlatqilichev, the prosecution witnesses: Davlatov Parhat Saparbaevich, Abdimajidov Abdibet Aleutadinovich, Djumagulov Suyishbek Tlegenovich, Yusupov Dilshod Turamuratovich, Toremuratov Sobit Otashevich – all are employees of PC UY 64/71 and accused Azam Farmonov. Defense counsel did not participate.

Conclusion: If the honorable I.Palvanov (or prosecutors under him) read thoroughly the sentences of judge of Kungrat district criminal court D.Razov on 1 May 1, 2015 concerning to my son-in-law Azam Farmonov than they could not have any other decision except cancellation of district court’s sentences, i.e. they would have changed the decision of the court in favor of the accused. This process would have lasted only half an hour. Dear I.Palvanov for 5 (five) months, what are you waiting for?

Dear Attorney General! I have written to you two complaint letter concerning of my son-in-law Azam Farmonov, who unlawful is remaining for a long time in panel colony. I have got a reply to my two letters. This situation before never happened in Uzbekistan. Is this serious or it is a just game?

May 23, 2016

I did not receive an answer to this letter.

New Attorney General’s respond to my complaints was game.

Javob berish

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Изменить )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Изменить )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Изменить )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Изменить )

Connecting to %s