Prosecutor General's Office responds to serious allegations against Svetlana Ortikova

A video circulating on social media shows a citizen making serious accusations against Deputy Prosecutor General Svetlana Ortikova. In response, the Prosecutor General's Office of Uzbekistan has issued an official statement addressing the claims.

The citizen in question, identified as U.D., was previously convicted under several articles of the Criminal Code. According to the Prosecutor General's Office, the Karshi City Criminal Court, in a verdict dated April 8, 2005, found U.D. guilty under Article 167 (embezzlement), Part 3, Clause “a”; Article 168 (fraud), Part 3, Clause “a”; and Article 209 (abuse of official position), Part 1. He was sentenced to eight years in prison, along with a three-year deprivation of specific rights.

On June 7, 2005, the Kashkadarya Regional Court of Appeal amended the sentence, dropping the charge under Article 168, Part 3, Clause “a”, and imposing a reduced sentence of seven years. Additionally, his prison term was reduced by one-third in accordance with an amnesty act.

north_east

President: Prosecutor General's Office and Interior Ministry must restrain each other

The ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court's Criminal Chamber on March 26, 2021.

In the video posted on Facebook, U.D. claims that he submitted multiple appeals, which were allegedly ignored. He also reiterated that the preliminary investigation and court proceedings were biased and lacked sufficient grounds for the charges brought against him.

However, the Prosecutor General’s Office emphasized that U.D.’s guilt was confirmed by substantial evidence during the investigation and court proceedings. They added that his prior complaints were thoroughly reviewed, but no legal grounds were found to challenge the court’s rulings. The Office also stated that U.D. was informed of these findings through multiple official responses.

Additionally, the Karshi City Prosecutor's Office conducted a pre-investigation review into the death of U.D.’s father-in-law, G.B. As a result, it concluded with a substantiated decision not to initiate a criminal case.