Currency
  • Loading...
Weather
  • Loading...
Air Quality (AQI)
  • Loading...

On March 30, a 47-year-old citizen identified as A.Ch. climbed a tree in front of the Supreme Court building in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, to protest judicial decisions in his criminal case. The incident, captured in photos that went viral on social media, highlights unconventional methods of dissent in the country. The protester aimed to draw attention to his grievances against the court system.

After security services brought the man down from the tree, Supreme Court Chairman Baxtiyor Islomov met with him and formally registered his complaint. In a statement, the court's press service emphasized that citizens' right to judicial protection is guaranteed by law, but there is no need to resort to unusual or dangerous actions to file appeals. This response underscores the authorities' stance on maintaining procedural order.

A.Ch.'s criminal case dates back to October 5, 2020, when the Chilanzar District Court acquitted him of tax evasion but sentenced him to 7 years in prison for embezzlement. The verdict was upheld by higher courts, indicating the rigidity of the judicial process in Uzbekistan. The Supreme Court had previously reviewed the case on November 29, 2025, and informed the citizen that there were insufficient grounds to alter the decisions.

The Supreme Court's statement criticized such protest methods, noting that "climbing a tree does not contribute to resolving the issue" and that appeals should be submitted through established legal channels. It urged citizens to enhance their legal literacy and use lawful mechanisms to protect their rights, reflecting broader efforts to manage public discontent within formal frameworks.

This incident sheds light on societal friction in Uzbekistan, where some citizens feel compelled to take extreme measures to voice dissatisfaction with the judicial system. While the chairman's meeting may be seen as a gesture of responsiveness, it does not signal any substantive change in judicial outcomes, pointing to ongoing challenges in legal transparency and public trust.

Source: kun.uz