Mirakmal Niyazmatov's Legal Cases (3)

International law

In the Matter of Gaybullo Jalilov v. Government of Uzbekistan

Apr 30, 2013

OUTCOME: WGAD held that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Jalilov was arbitrary and the adequate remedy would be to release Mr. Jalilov and grant him an enforceable right to compensation.

The Uzbek government arbitrarily deprived Gaybullo Jalilov of his liberty, and in so doing it put his health and life in grave danger. I was part of a team of human rights lawyers who brought a case ag ... ainst the government of Uzbekistan on behalf of Mr. Jalilov. We requested that Mr. Jalilov be considered under the “urgent action” procedure. We asked that a communication be made immediately to the Uzbek government to ensure that Mr. Jalilov received adequate food, clean water, and medical treatment and to protect Mr. Jalilov from any possible maltreatment. Due to torture and maltreatment Mr. Jalilov faced and appalling prison conditions, there was substantial reason to believe his health and life were in serious jeopardy. Accordingly, it was requested that the Working Group consider this petition pursuant to the “Urgent Action” procedure. In addition, it was also requested that the attached Petition be considered a formal request for an opinion of the Working Group pursuant to Resolution 1997/50 of the Commission on Human Rights as reconfirmed by Resolutions 2000/36, 2003/31, and Human Rights Council Resolutions 6/4 and 15/18.

International law

In the Matter of Dilmurod Saidov v. Government of Uzbekistan

Nov 23, 2012

OUTCOME: WGAD held that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Saidov was arbitrary and requested the Government to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation, which would include a retrial and adequate reparation.

The Uzbek government arbitrarily deprived Dilmurod Saidov of his liberty, and in so doing it put his health and life in grave danger. I was part of a team of human rights lawyers who brought a case a ... gainst the government of Uzbekistan on behalf of Mr. Saidov. We requested that Mr. Saidov be considered under the urgent action‖ procedure. We asked that a communication be made immediately to the Uzbek government to ensure that Mr. Saidov receives adequate food, clean water, and medical treatment and to protect Mr. Saidov from any possible maltreatment. Because of Mr. Saidov’s deteriorating health, desperate need for proper medical treatment and the substandard prison conditions, there was substantial reason to believe that Mr. Saidov’s health and life were in serious jeopardy. Accordingly, it was requested that the Working Group considered this petition pursuant to the ―Urgent Action‖ procedure. In addition, it was also requested that the attached Petition be considered a formal request for an opinion of the Working Group pursuant to Resolution 1997/50 of the Commission on Human Rights as reconfirmed by Resolutions 2000/36, 2003/31, and Human Rights Council Resolutions 6/4 and 15/18.

International law

In the Matter of Maksat Kakabayev and Murad Ovezov v. Government of Turkmenistan

Sep 22, 2012

OUTCOME: Both clients were released from arbitrary detention and the case was closed per procedures of the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

The Turkmen government arbitrarily deprived Maksat Kakabaev (also known as Ma Ro) and Murad Ovezov of their liberty. The Turkmen government refused to disclose any information about the arrest, convict ... ion and current whereabouts of Messrs. Kakabaev and Ovezov, thus there were serious grounds to believe that their physical health and psychological integrity and even their lives were in grave danger. Furthermore, given the use of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is widespread in Turkmenistan and that Messrs. Kakabaev and Ovezov were ill-treated in pre-trial detention, there were grounds to believe that they might have been subjected to torture and/or ill-treatment in detention. I was part of a team of human rights lawyers who brought a case against the government of Turkmenistan. We requested that Messrs. Kakabaev and Ovezov be considered under the “Urgent Action” procedure. We also asked that a communication be made immediately to the Turkmen government to ensure that Messrs. Kakabaev and Ovezov receive adequate food, clean water, and medical treatment and to protect them from any possible maltreatment. In addition, it was requested that the attached Petition be considered a formal request for an opinion of the Working Group pursuant to Resolution 1997/50 of the Commission on Human Rights as reconfirmed by Resolutions 2000/36, 2003/31, and Human Rights Council Resolutions 6/4 and 15/18.

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

The Avvo Rating explained