The Final Statement
‘Torture is a sign not only of the investigators’ injustice and inhumanity, but also of their weakness, helplessness, and lack of professionalism.’
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful!
Honourable Judge, honourable prosecutors, defence lawyers, and observers!
For almost two months, the court has been hearing the criminal case against me, Ravshan Salaev, Shavkat Olloyorov, and Hayotkhon Nasreddinov. During this time, my lawyers, Sergey Aleksandrovich Mayorov and Munojot Tursunalievna Parpieva, and I have done everything in our power to demonstrate that the charges brought against us are unfounded and fabricated.
From the outset, we had to work and speak up much more actively than the other defendants and their lawyers. This was because I was the principal defendant in this case. Neither I nor my lawyers had been promised or guaranteed a happy ending.
It was for these very reasons that we requested the appearance in court of a number of attesting witnesses, experts, operational officers, and investigators from Uzbekistan’s National Security Service (SNB). It was also at our initiative that forensic medical, forensic linguistic, forensic political science, and forensic authorship examinations were conducted.
Of course, all this took time. I therefore understand my co-defendants, who became extremely nervous every time my lawyers submitted a new motion. I ask you to understand my lawyers and me correctly: we had to fight.
There is a saying in football: ‘You may lose even if you go into a game determined to win. But you can never win if you go into it expecting to lose.’ In Uzbek, it goes like this: ‘You may step onto the field saying, “I will defeat my opponent,” and still lose. But if you step onto the field saying, “I will lose,” you can never win.’
Honourable Judge, honourable prosecutors, defence lawyers, and observers!
During the court hearings, I may have appeared somewhat nervous. This was because I had to defend myself not only against the investigators but also against my co-defendants, who, much to my surprise, took the side of the prosecution.
In the course of my journalistic career, I have witnessed numerous trials. I have noticed that women defendants stand in solidarity with one another and speak out against fabricated charges with far greater courage than men do. My own trial has provided further evidence of this observation. So, while I have the opportunity, I bow my head in respect to all the women present in this courtroom. This is a sign of my respect for you, dear women! I hope that your courage will be needed only in a free society.
Dear friends!
I believe that, over the two months of hearings, we have presented sufficient grounds and evidence to demonstrate that the charges in our case were fabricated. If you remember, the very first thing my lawyers and I did was raise the issue of the torture inflicted on me. Only a weak and unprofessional investigation resorts to torturing suspects and defendants. Torture is a sign not only of an investigation’s injustice and inhumanity but also of its weakness, helplessness, and lack of professionalism. And only a weak government, a weak regime, patronises and protects the agencies that torture suspects and defendants.
For this reason, I regard the new political leadership of Uzbekistan, headed by President Shavkat Mirziyoyev, as strong and courageous. It has begun a genuine fight against torture in the Republic. A strong investigation and a strong government have no need for torture. A strong government allows itself to be criticised. Such a government is not afraid even of unjustified condemnation.
The medieval Persian poet Saadi Shirazi wrote: ‘No matter how much people trample a pearl into the mud, it remains a pearl and does not become one with the earth. Likewise, no matter how much people raise dust into the sky, the dust will still settle back down and become one with the earth.’
During the years of Soviet rule, many people, without any coercion or compelling circumstances, tirelessly glorified the atheistic and inhumane communist state. Yet the years of independence have shown that Soviet rule was far from deserving the praise heaped upon it. President Mirziyoyev’s reforms today demonstrate that the Karimov regime, too, was far from deserving such glorification. Both Soviet rule and the Karimov regime have become one with the earth, like the dust described by Saadi Shirazi.
Such regimes encroach upon people’s political freedoms and rights, silencing the opposition and the mass media. Under these circumstances, the opposition resorts to clandestine resistance, while journalists write anonymously. ‘Usman Haqnazarov’ was one response to the unconstitutional actions of the Karimov regime. Had the Karimov regime guaranteed genuine freedom of speech, I would have written these articles under my real initials rather than a pseudonym. I would not have feared for my life or health. I would have been able to verify the information I received several times over and publish only verified facts.
Benjamin Franklin said: ‘An attack on the freedom of a people begins with an attack on the freedom of journalists. An attack on political freedoms begins with an attack on freedom of speech.’ A country must guarantee not only the freedom to praise the government but also the freedom to criticise it. The authorities must ensure not only press tours showcasing achievements and successes but also journalistic investigations into shortcomings and failures.
The right to openly criticise and expose wrongdoing should belong not to just one person in the country–the president–but to everyone, especially journalists. Only then will the conditions that give rise to new Usman Haqnazarovs cease to exist.
Honourable Judge, honourable prosecutors, defence lawyers, and observers!
Why do I keep emphasising the need for genuine, rather than merely declarative, freedom of speech? Because this issue is not simply a matter of concern to one particular sector; it is a matter of national importance. One of the founding fathers of American democracy once said that free newspapers could be either good or bad. ‘But unfree newspapers can only be bad,’ he warned.
And this is true. Until quite recently, local mass media, echoing the country’s security services, provided the head of state and the Uzbek people with reports and news exclusively about successes and achievements.
Praise be to Allah, since Shavkat Mirziyoyev came to power, our mass media have begun publishing criticism and giving voice to differing opinions. I could hardly believe my eyes when my lawyers showed me reports about my court statement published on the Gazeta.Uz, Kun.Uz, and other websites. I believe these are the first fruits of the liberal reforms initiated by President Shavkat Mirziyoyev.
I believe that free mass media are the principal sources from which the head of state and the people can obtain truthful information about the actual state of affairs in the country. I am convinced that the existence of a free press is the only way to reduce officials’ ability to deceive and misinform the head of state.
At the end of the nineteenth century, Khudoyar Khan, the ruler of Kokand, was persuaded by his entourage to execute his own brother, Sarmysak-biy, the hokim (mayor) of Tashkent. Khudoyar Khan later deeply regretted what he had done. But by then, it was too late.
In the nineteenth century, our khanates had no newspapers or journalists capable of conveying reliable information about conditions in the khanates, including Tashkent. But this is the twenty-first century–the age of information! I therefore regard any restrictions on the media not only as a relic of the communist past but also as sheer stupidity and barbaric ignorance.
Honourable Judge, honourable prosecutors, defence lawyers, and observers!
It was precisely because of the circumstances described above that I had no opportunity to verify the information I received. These same circumstances forced me, against my will, to include inaccurate information in some of my articles published under the pseudonym ‘Usman Haqnazarov’. It happened occasionally, but it did happen. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to apologise for the unavoidable shortcomings in my articles written under the pseudonym ‘Usman Haqnazarov’.
However, I do not consider myself guilty of committing the crimes set out in Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan. I also consider Ravshan Salaev, Shavkat Allayarov, and Hayotkhon Nasreddinov innocent. I reiterate that I do not admit the charges brought against me by investigators from Uzbekistan’s National Security Service!
I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to everyone in Uzbekistan and abroad who has spoken out in my defence. These include representatives of international and national human rights organisations, as well as members of the mass media. It is heartening to know that, besides Allah, there are people standing behind you.
I was glad to see at my trial the long-suffering journalist and opposition figure Muhammad Bekjan, my tireless colleagues Alexey Volosevich and Malokhat Eshonkulova, human rights defenders Surat Ikramov, Elena Urlaeva, Dilorom Iskhakova, Agzam Turgunov, and others. It was also a pleasure to see Stephen Swerdlow, Daniil Kislov, Arkady Dubnov, and other representatives of foreign media outlets and human rights organisations. I would also like to thank representatives of foreign diplomatic missions for their interest in my trial!
I express my profound gratitude to the country’s President, Shavkat Miromonovich Mirziyoyev, and the Tashkent City Criminal Court for providing my lawyers and me with every opportunity to mount my defence and for ensuring that the proceedings were open to the public!
Honourable Judge! I hope that you will deliver a fair verdict.
Tashkent City Criminal Court, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
2 May 2018
Source: Manuscript by Bobomurod himself
More on the case: https://rus.azattyk.org/a/30774572.html
Photo: Bobomurod Abdullaev / Facebook