Mavjuda Mamatkasymova
Date of eviction
May 16, 2021
Land confiscation
Land tenure
- Unknown
Real property title
- Private ownership
Mavjuda Mamatkasymova
Victim(s)
Summary
An AsiaTerra news report (29 March 2021) states that Mavjuda Mamatkasymova was a resident of Oltintepa street, living with her family in her flat, which she privately owned (1).
In Decision No. 225 of the Tashkent City Khokim (19 December 2019), development company BB Stroy LLC was given permission to build multi-storey residential buildings, and to demolish the existing buildings on a 0.925 hectare plot of land on Oltintepa Street (2).
An AsiaTerra news report (28 February 2021) states that Mamatkasymova was offered compensation, which she did not accept. BB Stroy LLC then obtained a decision from the Mirzo-Ulugbek civil court to forcibly evict her family from the property (3).
The report also says that the Tashkent City Civil Appeal Court and the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan then upheld the decision of the Mirzo-Ulugbek Civil Court, and thus Mamatkasymova’s eviction (3).
The AsiaTerra news report (29 March 2021) report alleges that Mamatkasymova’s eviction was initially scheduled for 2 March 2021 (1). However, she filed supervisory complaint with the Chairman of the Supreme Court. As a result, the eviction was postponed for 15 days pending receipt of a stay of execution of the court decision (1). However, it is alleged that the Supreme Court did not send the appropriate instructions to the Mirzo-Ulugbek Court that they were to suspend the execution of the decision to evict Mamatkasymova. As a result, also, the Bureau of the Enforcement of Court Decisions (commonly known as "BPI"), under the Mirzo-Ulugbek District Prosecutor's Office was not notified (1).
The report says that on the morning of 16 March, Mamatkasymova explained to BPI officers that her case was still pending before the Supreme Court, and that she was in possession of a letter from the Parliamentary Ombudsman Aliya Yunusova that was addressed to [Kasan] Kabirjanov, Director of the BPI, Prosecutor General's Office that states: "at present, M. Mamatkasymova's application and the materials submitted are under examination by the Commissioner for the preparation and submission of the Commissioner's Opinion to the Supreme Court. Additionally, we would like to inform you that the appeal of Ms. M. Mamatkasymova dated 14.01.2021 was sent to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan for consideration on the merits. In view of the above information I ask you to consider the issue of suspension of the Mirzo-Ulugbek inter-district Court decision #2-1001-1949/52105 dated 27.09.2020 and the Appeal decision of the Tashkent City Court #3- 999/20 dated 25.12.2020 till the repeated consideration of the appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan” (1).
According to the same report, later that day, Mamatkasymova’s flat was allegedly visited by Khudoynazarov [an MIB employee] who was accompanied by the district police officer, as well as an unidentified woman, and employees of Golden Dreamlands LLC (1). It is alleged that these individuals, without making any inventory of the property, began to remove items and break doors and windows (1). The report says that Mamatkasymova’s belongings were taken to a flat in Karasu-6, a block of flats in Tashkent allegedly owned by Golden Dreamlands LLC, which was offered as compensation (1). And that Mamatkasymova refused because of her chronic illnesses, of which she had previously informed the court (1), and due to the fact that that she had not been given any documents (1). Then, according to the report, the next day Mamatkasymova complained to the authorities about the aforementioned actions of these individuals (1). Information was also posted on social media by neighbours, relatives and friends of Mamatkasymova (1). The Supreme Court allegedly responded to emphasise the legality of the forced eviction (1). The report states that while the case was still pending in the Supreme Court Mamatkasymova’s home was demolished (1). Following a sustained two year period of psychological stress relating to the eviction and demolition, Mavjuda Mamatkasymova passed away on 28 March 2021, although no direct causative relation can be drawn between her death and the events' psychological impacts (1).
Involved in event
Companies tied to linked event
Allegations of coercion
- Destruction or damage to real property
- Harassment such as regular unwanted phone calls, correspondence or visits
- Public slander or intimidation in the media, social media, or other cognate forums
- Threat of imprisonment, administrative sanction or other negative consequence
- Threats of violence
- Violence to persons
Compensation to victim
- Inadequate compensation offered
Video
Supporting files
Designed and developed by
- Involved in event
- Companies tied to linked event
- Land tenure
- Unknown
- Real property title
- Private ownership
- [TO BE REMOVED] Due process indicators
- Access to administrative remedy: No
- Consultation with stakeholders: No consultation
- Access to information granted: None
- Access to legal remedy: Partial
- Six months notice given: Unknown
- Compensation
- Inadequate compensation offered
- Allegations of coercion
- Destruction or damage to real property
- Harassment such as regular unwanted phone calls, correspondence or visits
- Public slander or intimidation in the media, social media, or other cognate forums
- Threat of imprisonment, administrative sanction or other negative consequence
- Threats of violence
- Violence to persons
- [TO BE REMOVED] Legal proceedings
- Was the appeal ultimately successful?: No
- Was legal proceedings initiated against the victim to evict them from the property?: Yes
- Did the court of first instance grant the request for eviction?: Yes
- Where the court of first instance granted the eviction order, did the victim appeal?: Yes
- Did the victim feel the legal process was fair?: Yes
- [TO BE REMOVED] Equal protection of the law
- Did the victim have access to the legal representation they needed during the legal proceeding?: No
- Did the victim have to pay for legal representation?: No
- Did the victim have access to the financial resources they required for the legal proceedings?: No
- Did the victim represent themselves at legal proceedings?: Yes
- Did the victim have access to the information they needed during the legal proceedings?: Yes
- Date of eviction
- May 16, 2021
- Summary
An AsiaTerra news report (29 March 2021) states that Mavjuda Mamatkasymova was a resident of Oltintepa street, living with her family in her flat, which she privately owned (1).
In Decision No. 225 of the Tashkent City Khokim (19 December 2019), development company BB Stroy LLC was given permission to build multi-storey residential buildings, and to demolish the existing buildings on a 0.925 hectare plot of land on Oltintepa Street (2).
An AsiaTerra news report (28 February 2021) states that Mamatkasymova was offered compensation, which she did not accept. BB Stroy LLC then obtained a decision from the Mirzo-Ulugbek civil court to forcibly evict her family from the property (3).
The report also says that the Tashkent City Civil Appeal Court and the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan then upheld the decision of the Mirzo-Ulugbek Civil Court, and thus Mamatkasymova’s eviction (3).
The AsiaTerra news report (29 March 2021) report alleges that Mamatkasymova’s eviction was initially scheduled for 2 March 2021 (1). However, she filed supervisory complaint with the Chairman of the Supreme Court. As a result, the eviction was postponed for 15 days pending receipt of a stay of execution of the court decision (1). However, it is alleged that the Supreme Court did not send the appropriate instructions to the Mirzo-Ulugbek Court that they were to suspend the execution of the decision to evict Mamatkasymova. As a result, also, the Bureau of the Enforcement of Court Decisions (commonly known as "BPI"), under the Mirzo-Ulugbek District Prosecutor's Office was not notified (1).
The report says that on the morning of 16 March, Mamatkasymova explained to BPI officers that her case was still pending before the Supreme Court, and that she was in possession of a letter from the Parliamentary Ombudsman Aliya Yunusova that was addressed to [Kasan] Kabirjanov, Director of the BPI, Prosecutor General's Office that states: "at present, M. Mamatkasymova's application and the materials submitted are under examination by the Commissioner for the preparation and submission of the Commissioner's Opinion to the Supreme Court. Additionally, we would like to inform you that the appeal of Ms. M. Mamatkasymova dated 14.01.2021 was sent to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan for consideration on the merits. In view of the above information I ask you to consider the issue of suspension of the Mirzo-Ulugbek inter-district Court decision #2-1001-1949/52105 dated 27.09.2020 and the Appeal decision of the Tashkent City Court #3- 999/20 dated 25.12.2020 till the repeated consideration of the appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan” (1).
According to the same report, later that day, Mamatkasymova’s flat was allegedly visited by Khudoynazarov [an MIB employee] who was accompanied by the district police officer, as well as an unidentified woman, and employees of Golden Dreamlands LLC (1). It is alleged that these individuals, without making any inventory of the property, began to remove items and break doors and windows (1). The report says that Mamatkasymova’s belongings were taken to a flat in Karasu-6, a block of flats in Tashkent allegedly owned by Golden Dreamlands LLC, which was offered as compensation (1). And that Mamatkasymova refused because of her chronic illnesses, of which she had previously informed the court (1), and due to the fact that that she had not been given any documents (1). Then, according to the report, the next day Mamatkasymova complained to the authorities about the aforementioned actions of these individuals (1). Information was also posted on social media by neighbours, relatives and friends of Mamatkasymova (1). The Supreme Court allegedly responded to emphasise the legality of the forced eviction (1). The report states that while the case was still pending in the Supreme Court Mamatkasymova’s home was demolished (1). Following a sustained two year period of psychological stress relating to the eviction and demolition, Mavjuda Mamatkasymova passed away on 28 March 2021, although no direct causative relation can be drawn between her death and the events' psychological impacts (1).
- Photographic evidence
Supporting files
sorted by
Date added
4 relationships, 2 entities