CCPR/C/128/D/2689/2015
later, the author was arrested by the police on suspicion of receiving a bribe in the amount of
$2001 and charged under article 214 of the Criminal Code of Uzbekistan. 2 The author claims
that she was read her rights but that, having been in a state of shock, she did not understand
them.
2.2
The author claims that, under the Code of Criminal Procedure of Uzbekistan, the
investigator is required to provide those detained with a defence attorney and to notify his or
her family of the detention. In the author’s case, the investigator provided no access to a
lawyer, nor did he notify the author’s relatives. The author notes that the investigator took
her fingerprints in the presence of witnesses, without an attorney.
2.3
The author was brought to the Office of the Prosecutor of Bukhara Region. She claims
that the investigator swore at her and demanded $20,000 or $30,000 to terminate the
proceedings. After that, the investigator began to interrogate her without a lawyer. The author
asked for access to a lawyer, to be allowed to call her relatives and to use a bathroom, but her
requests were ignored. The author was threatened with physical abuse and a harsher criminal
penalty if she did not cooperate. The investigator also threatened to inject her with some
drugs in order to make her confess. The interrogation commenced between 12 and 12:30 p.m.,
but the author was allowed to use bathroom only at around 6 p.m.
2.4
Later that evening, a lawyer arrived, but he showed no interest in the case, and the
author could not meet with him in private. The lawyer met with the author for only 10 minutes
and insisted that the author sign the interrogation records. When the author began to review
the minutes of the interrogation, the investigator yelled at her, saying that she was not in a
library. The author therefore felt harassed and signed the records, including a confession.
2.5
The author believes that her arrest was initiated and arranged by the management of
the university. She explains that she never had any issue with the university administration,
until a new dean of faculty took up his post in 2012. The new dean had a personal grudge
against her, humiliating her publicly and in front of her peers and threatening her with
dismissal. Unable to withstand the insults, the author asked her husband to lodge a complaint
with the rector of the university, criticizing the methods of work of the recently appointed
dean, accusing him of discrimination, including forcing the author to do hard physical work
outside of working hours, instead of involving male teachers. He requested that the rector
undertake an internal investigation and take disciplinary action against the dean. 3
2.6
The author submits that, after the initiation of her criminal case, she continued
working. To force her to leave her post, the university management initiated a harassment
campaign. The university initiated its own internal investigation, and the author’s actions
were found to be in violation of article 100 of the Labour Code of Uzbekistan. As a result,
the author was dismissed from her post on 12 September 2014. 4
2.7
On 27 October 2014, the Criminal Court of Bukhara City sentenced the author under
article 214 of the Criminal Code and imposed a fine of 25 times the monthly minimum wage,
equalling 2,402,625 sum (approximately $1,010). The Court established that the author had
committed a crime by extorting a fee in exchange for performing work that was part of her
immediate official duties. It stated that the author was assigned as a thesis advisor to N.B.
and was responsible for supervising and guiding the preparation of her dissertation. In the
course of that supervisory work, the author demanded $200 in exchange for the preparation
of the thesis drafted by the author. On 9 June 2014, the author received $200 from N.B. The
Court took into account the author’s arguments that N.B. lacked the skills and experience to
draft the thesis and that she therefore helped her to draft a 60-page thesis. The author adds
1
2
3
4
2
Currency notes were marked with a special chemical substance planted by law enforcement
personnel.
Article 214 of the Criminal Code envisages liability for the illegal receipt of material values or
property benefits by an employee of a State body, an organization with State participation or a selfgoverning body of citizens.
In that connection, see the State party’s observations of 6 December 2016 (para. 8.1 below).
The author provided a translation of Order of the Rector of the University No. 644, in which reference
is made to article 100 (4) of the Labor Code of 1996, which stipulates the termination of an
employment contract for a single gross violation of duties committed by an employee.