The Uzbekneftegaz trial was closed.

On August 14, the Yashnabad District Criminal Court in Tashkent continued its hearing of the case involving Bakhodirjon Sidikov, the former chairman of the board of Uzbekneftegaz, and other defendants. The trial was closed, as reported by Gazeta correspondent Shukhrat Latipov.

At the beginning of the hearing, presiding judge Jasurbek Ubaydullaev considered a motion filed by Sidikov's lawyer, Khusanov, to change his pretrial detention. At the previous hearing, the defense attorney had requested a change in the pretrial detention for the former head of Uzbekneftegaz, citing his health and arguing that Sidikov's arrest violated his parliamentary immunity, as he was a member of the Jokargy Kenes of Karakalpakstan at the time of his arrest.

The prosecutor opposed the motion. The lawyers for the other defendants either supported the defense's request or left the decision to the court's discretion. Following the hearing, the court rejected the lawyer's motion to change the preventive measure.

Following this, the prosecutor filed a motion to close the trial, citing the fact that classified documents or materials marked "for official use only" were being examined during the proceedings.

The court heard the opinions of the participants in the trial. Some lawyers supported the prosecutor's motion, while others left the decision to the court's discretion. Sidikov's lawyer, Khusanov, requested that the motion be granted only partially, arguing that not all materials under consideration were classified, and that some were only marked "for official use only." The defense attorney proposed closing the hearing to the public only during the review of such documents, while keeping the rest of the trial open. This position was supported by Sidikov's other lawyer, Muminov, and Sidikov himself also expressed agreement with his lawyers' position. Former Deputy Chairman of the Board of Uzbekneftegaz Bakhtiyar Anarkulov also spoke in favor of partially granting the prosecutor's motion. The remaining defendants either supported moving the trial to a closed session or left the matter to the court's discretion.

Following the deliberations, the court ruled to continue the criminal case behind closed doors. After announcing the decision, the judge announced that the civil defendants could remain in the courtroom. Journalists and other individuals not participating in the closed trial left the hearing.

The case of Bakhodirjon Sidikov and the other defendants is being heard by the Yashnabad District Criminal Court. Prior to the decision to close the trial, the hearings were held in public, and media representatives were allowed to attend, providing live coverage of the proceedings. Gazeta's courtroom reports are available at the following links: "The trial of former Uzbekneftegaz executives has begun. How the first hearing went," "The former head of Uzbekneftegaz denied guilt and testified on 19 counts of the case," and "What the defendants said at the third hearing in the Uzbekneftegaz case. Report."

The court has not yet rendered a verdict in the case or given a final assessment of the arguments of the prosecution and defense. In accordance with the principle of the presumption of innocence, defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty by a final court verdict.

As a reminder, at previous hearings, the defense requested permission for the lawyers to audio-record the proceedings, citing the need to accurately record what was happening in the courtroom. The state prosecutor objected, and the court denied the motion, stating that the proceedings of the hearing are reflected in the minutes. According to the Supreme Court Plenum's ruling on open court proceedings, audio recordings are permitted in criminal cases with the consent of the parties and the permission of the presiding judge.

Later, the lawyers objected to media photography and video recording, arguing that publications before the trial's conclusion could influence the public's perception of the defendants. The judge confirmed that the hearing remained open and journalists had the right to be present in the courtroom, but prohibited photography, video, and audio recording. Media representatives with cameras and recorders were then asked to remove their equipment from the courtroom. The court did not impose a ban on written coverage of the proceedings. After one of the breaks, the presiding judge separately confirmed to a Gazeta correspondent that he could not prohibit journalists from reporting on the open court hearing, citing the openness of the proceedings and freedom of the media. Some lawyers, however, opposed the publication of testimony from those involved in the case.