Today, another hearing in the case of blogger Aziz Hakimov (Comrade Aziz) took place at the Shaykhantakhur District Criminal Court of Tashkent. The proceedings, held behind closed doors, were marked by an important procedural decision and aggressive behavior by the defendant’s “support group” toward an independent journalist.
Court decision: correcting errors
Following today’s hearing, the court granted a motion by the defense previously announced by attorney Sergey Mayorov. The criminal case materials are being returned to the prosecutor to correct procedural violations.
As the defense lawyer reported after leaving the courtroom, the decision is related to the need to eliminate errors.
“I received the ruling that this case is being returned to the prosecutor. As of today, what we asked the court for — namely, to return the case so the prosecutor could correct his mistakes — in this part our request was satisfied,” the attorney explained.
He also emphasized that, since the hearing was closed, what happened inside cannot be disclosed.
Pressure and threats outside the courthouse
Despite the closed nature of the proceedings, Hakimov’s supporters again gathered outside the courthouse — more than 20 people. While during the preliminary hearings on April 6 they limited themselves to verbal attacks, today the actions of the “support group” escalated into physical obstruction of the professional activities of a Yep.uz journalist.
A group of women actively tried to block the work of the author of this material. One of those present grabbed the journalist by the wrist, another deliberately stood in front of the reporter, blocking the path and preventing her from approaching the lawyer for comment. The blogger’s supporters literally formed a “human shield,” moving left and right in front of the journalist.
The aim of this tactic was to disrupt the interview. In particular, aggressively minded women prevented the journalist from asking the lawyer about the defendant’s citizenship — whether Hakimov is a citizen of the Russian Federation. These attempts were accompanied by shouts about the “incorrectness” of the question and direct threats. According to the lawyer, Hakimov has only Uzbek citizenship.
Using their numerical advantage, the blogger’s support group threatened to file a counter-complaint against the journalist, emphasizing that “there are many of them and she is alone.”
While physically surrounded and after contact (being grabbed by the hand), the journalist was forced to warn those present about the presence of a “panic button” on her mobile phone that allows security to be called. Notably, this warning about self-defense measures was immediately interpreted by those present as a “threat” from my side.
A striking detail adding to the overall picture of aggressive absurdity was the behavior of one of the women. She was wearing a jacket with a large, eye-catching “USSR” inscription on the back. Unlike the others who tried to block the view, this woman, on the contrary, demonstratively called for filming. She clearly posed for the camera, demanding that her Soviet symbolism be captured, adding an element of political performance to the situation.
(The shot of this woman in the “USSR” jacket from behind, taken during her shouting, serves as the illustration for this material, demonstrating the atmosphere outside the courthouse.)
Case context
Aziz Hakimov faces charges under four articles of Uzbekistan’s Criminal Code: propaganda of war (Art. 150), incitement of hostility (Art. 156), defamation (Art. 139), and insult (Art. 140). Earlier, the defense pointed to an alleged “fabrication” of documents in the case materials, claiming that some authorizations for investigative actions were inserted into the volumes retroactively.
Returning the case to the prosecutor means that the stage of substantive court proceedings is postponed until the violations identified by the court are remedied.
The fact that the court granted the defense motion confirms the presence of serious flaws in the evidentiary base or procedural documents. The prosecution now faces a choice: either correct the violations (which may require repeating investigative actions), or, if the errors prove impossible to fix, the case in its current form may not return to court at all.
Read also: