Evidence-backed allegations in Kashkadarya and Namangan highlight persistent abuse of power and impunity of officials.
This article is based on a video report by Ozodlik documenting two recent cases of violence by police and officials. Victim testimony and medical records point to serious injuries allegedly inflicted by police officers.
Kashkadarya: “I begged him to let me go”
On April 6, 2025, farmer Jurabek Samanov from Ko‘kdala district in Kashkadarya region, alleged he was beaten inside the office of a mahalla police officer—Captain Nizomiddin Khurramov, the local police officer for Naymansaroy mahalla. The dispute began after former mahalla chair (head of the neighborhood council) Odil Karimov warned to seize Samanov’s land and threatened his 74-year-old mother when she objected.
According to Samanov, the neighborhood police officer then warned his mother that her son, Jurabek, would be imprisoned if they continued to object. When Samanov went to the officer’s room to file a complaint, the exchange escalated. “He struck me hard near my left ear. I fell; my jaw cracked. I was handcuffed behind my back and kept like that for about two hours. I begged him to let me go.”
A subsequent forensic medical examination, categorized as “moderate” bodily harm, recorded a nasal fracture with displacement, closed chest trauma, a fracture of the left seventh rib, a traumatic perforation of the left eardrum, and multiple bruises and abrasions consistent with blunt-force injury. Samanov says eyewitnesses, including a couple who reportedly saw him bleeding in the mahalla office, have not been formally questioned. A representative of the Ko‘kdala district prosecutor’s office said by phone that the case had been forwarded to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The Kashkadarya Regional Department of Internal Affairs did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Five months after the April 6 incident, Samanov says there has been no meaningful progress toward justice or accountability.
Namangan: a 31-year-old loses his spleen
In Namangan, rights defender Abdurahmon Tashanov (Ezgulik NGO) reports that Abdulahad Ormanov (31) was detained on August 14, 2025, and held for two days inside the Namangan City Department of Internal Affairs. Ormanov alleges he was tortured by police officer Bahrom Do‘stnazarov and others. On August 16, 2025, surgeons at the Namangan regional branch of the Republican Center for Emergency Medical Care removed Ormanov’s spleen. He was then taken to the Namangan City Criminal Court on a charge of petty hooliganism that was later dismissed, his lawyer says. Photographs shared by the lawyer show handcuff marks and visible injuries. Tashanov adds that his organization has received several recent complaints from different regions describing beatings during short-term detention and transport. He argues that credible allegations should automatically trigger an independent investigation, the temporary suspension of any implicated officers, preservation of CCTV and custody-record logs, and immediate access to independent forensic examinations for detainees.
Taken together, these cases show a consistent pattern: closed-door violence, medical records that corroborate injury, and institutional shifting of blame. Files are transferred between prosecutors and internal affairs units while the officers named in complaints often remain on duty. Victims face procedural hurdles simply to register complaints and secure witness interviews. In practice, this means delays during which injuries heal, memories fade, and CCTV recordings disappear. This is not a series of isolated irregularities, but a system designed to avoid accountability.
Uzbekistan acceded to the UN Convention against Torture on September 28, 1995. However, it has not ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT). National legislation prohibits torture and ill-treatment, as provided for in Article 235 of the Criminal Code. These legal standards impose concrete obligations: prompt, effective, and independent investigations; timely preservation of evidence; protection of victims and witnesses from intimidation; and prosecution where there is sufficient evidence. However, the cases emerging from Kashkadarya and Namangan expose a persistent enforcement gap between law and practice.
Five months after the Kashkadarya assault and weeks after the Namangan incident, there are still no timely, transparent outcomes that would signal an interest by the authorities to investigate. Delayed case registration, failure to suspend implicated officers, and inconsistent oversight create incentives for abuse to continue. A credible course correction requires automatic opening of criminal inquiries where objective medical indicators exist and enforceable procedural deadlines. Without visible efforts to implement the law evenly and transparently, the public will reasonably conclude that custodial violence in Uzbekistan is addressed through impunity, not the rule of law.
Photos © Ozodlik
