Jumashov appealed to President Sadyr Japarov, Chairman of the Supreme Court Mederbek Satyiev, Prosecutor General Maksat Asanaliev, and Ombudsman Jamila Dzhamanbaeva, asking them to pay attention to this case.
According to the lawyer, his client was brought to criminal responsibility without sufficient grounds. He cited the conclusion of a working group that was involved in the implementation of the Automated Traffic Management System (ATMS) as the reason for initiating the case.
“During the consideration of the case in the October District Court, the first witnesses who were part of the working group were questioned, and it turned out that almost all of them had signed this conclusion. However, most of them do not support its findings and do not agree that the actions of Uezbaev and other participants in the case can be classified as a crime,” the lawyer noted.
Jumashov claims that the investigator relies entirely on the conclusions of the commission. He added that, upon reviewing the witness interrogations, he concluded that they were drafted according to the same template, with only the names changed. “These interrogations had a distinctly accusatory nature, and the investigation clearly did not seek to ascertain the true circumstances of the case. The interrogation protocols cannot be considered admissible evidence, as they were obtained in violation of the law,” he expressed his viewpoint.
The lawyer also emphasized that Uezbaev worked in a department subordinate to the city hall. “It became known during the court session that all actions regarding the implementation of the ATMS were coordinated with the management, regular meetings were held, as documented in the minutes, which included the first deputy mayor. The information was also communicated to the mayor, and the pricing policy was agreed upon in advance,” he added.
Furthermore, Jumashov noted that another participant in the case was released under house arrest. “According to Article 18, Part 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the parties in a criminal process have equal rights. However, in this case, one of the defendants had their preventive measure changed to house arrest, while Uezbaev was not granted this. The preventive measure against him was extended until February 5, 2026, but after that date, the pre-trial detention center No. 1 in Bishkek was supposed to release him, as there were no longer grounds for his detention. However, the judge extended a non-existent preventive measure,” the lawyer explained.
In light of the above, he called on the Prosecutor General to take action against the judge and asked the president to pay attention to this case. Uezbaev's relatives also appealed to the president, requesting intervention and his release from custody.
