The administrative case against the journalist in Tashkent has been concluded

In an earlier incident, a journalist reporting in Tashkent was inexplicably detained by internal affairs officers, held in their office for hours, and charged under Article 194 of the Code of Administrative Responsibility for not complying with the legal requirements of law enforcement personnel. The responsibility was later determined, but now the administrative case against the journalist has been resolved, as informed by Aziz Obidov, the spokesman of the Supreme Court.

Aziz Obidov stated, "Based on the Uchtepa district court's decision on criminal cases dated January 16, 2024, Mikhail Dovlatov's actions lacked signs of an administrative offense. Consequently, the case under Article 183 (petty hooliganism) and Article 194 of the Code of Administrative Responsibility has been terminated under Article 271 of the Criminal Code, citing circumstances excluding the pursuit of administrative offense cases."

The incident involving journalist Mikhail Dovlatov occurred on January 14 in the Uchtepa district of Tashkent, where he intended to meet residents concerned about the construction of a kindergarten replacing 150 garages and 98 trees. Dovlatov, along with representatives from the district administration, environmentalists, and other experts, arrived at the scene at 1:00 p.m. However, he encountered a group of men, some in law enforcement uniforms, 50 meters from the parking lot entrance.

The journalist recounted, "As I passed by them, I heard them addressing me. When I turned around, one of them in civilian clothes called me. I inquired about the issue, and he mentioned that smoking is prohibited here, despite no signage. He argued that the area is considered a public place where smoking is not allowed."

Subsequently, the journalist was taken to district internal affairs office No. 2, where his phone and equipment were confiscated. During his detention, he was questioned about organizing a rally, leading to the initial charge under Article 194 of the Code of Administrative Responsibility.

It's worth noting that upon learning of the incident, the Information and Mass Communications Agency sent an inquiry letter to the General Prosecutor's Office.