In Uzbekistan, public attention continues around the case of an 18-year-old resident of the Akhangaran district, who was arrested for 7 days after publishing a video with accusations against an officer of the patrol and post service (PPS). The young man’s mother recorded a video address, stating that there was pressure, violations during the investigation, and restrictions on the right to defense.

Earlier, the युवक published a clip in which he accused a PPS officer of harassment of a 14-year-old girl. Later, the Tashkent Region Department of Internal Affairs refuted the accusations, stating that following the inquiry, measures would be taken against those spreading false information. The young man was summoned to the internal affairs bodies to clarify the circumstances, where, as the Department of Internal Affairs claims , he refused to comply with the lawful demands of officers and provoked a conflict. By court decision, he was arrested for 7 days.

In her video address, the mother of the detainee presented her version of events and claimed there were violations during the proceedings. According to her, her son tried to help a minor whom, she claims, an authority figure in uniform took to the mountains behind Akhangaran’s cement plant. The woman said that, in her view, law enforcement officers tried to protect their colleague and shift responsibility onto her son:

"They want to re-fabricate the case, as if it was him... a pedophile".

She also claims the family faced aggression and physical violence: according to her, one internal affairs officer took the young man’s phone while he was filming the detention process, and hit her on the head twice.

The woman also reported surveillance and fear of moving around the city, noting that she records cars that, in her opinion, are following her. In addition, she expressed outrage at her son’s conditions of detention, claiming that he is not being fed despite paid three meals a day; according to her, she spent 423 thousand soums on food.

In addition to the address, the woman posted another video on social media, showing a conversation between the detainee’s lawyer and representatives of the internal affairs bodies. Judging by the footage, the lawyer seeks a meeting with his client and insists that investigative actions must take place with the participation of the defense. Despite the warrant and ID, the lawyer, as the video shows, is not allowed to see the young man, explaining this by the young man’s refusal to meet. The defense attorney points out that the law does not require the detainee’s consent and that, with the proper documents, the lawyer has the right to a meeting.

The dialogue also raises the issue of providing the detainee with food: the lawyer states that the young man is not being given food and tries to arrange the transfer of products through the investigator. In the end, as follows from the recording, the lawyer states that it is impossible to fully perform his duties, since he is still not allowed to meet his client.

As of the time of publication, no official comments from law enforcement agencies on the family’s new statements had been received.