Reflecting then on the evidence of this case, and the outcome of the subsequent litigation, a number of conclusions can be drawn: • The rights of private property owners violated by decree 1510-K were ultimately not protected by the courts. By contrast, the alleged violations of the developer’s rights created by decree 1510-K, and by subsequent decree 1755-K, were partially upheld by the courts. • The initial Samarkand city decree ordering the eviction of residents and demolition of their homes appears to be illegal on the grounds that there was no public purpose, the land was not first forfeited by the authorities and transferred into the public land fund, there was an absence of a city master plan, and consent was not provided by property owners. • The Samarkand Administrative Court stated that decree 1510-K did not violate residents’ rights. It reached this conclusion on the basis of flawed conclusions of fact made by the Civil Court when deliberating on the alleged violations of the developer’s right by decree 1755-K. The Supreme Court refused to review the decree on the grounds that the Administrative Court had already heard and decided that matter, a decision that in turn accepted a previous decision of the Civil Court, the factual grounds of which were overturned on appeal at the Civil Court of Appeal. • Constitutional and legal protection of private property requires consent before the property can be acquired for public need. In this case, it was not given by a notable number of residents. This was made clear in successive letters issued by the Samarkand Prosecutor General. • Initially, the Civil Court and Civil Court of Appeal upheld defences against eviction made by residents on the grounds of lack of consent. It was also noted by the courts that there was no master plan or building permit approval. The matter was later returned to the same courts to consider the same matters, but this time with the Samarkand mayoral administration attached as a party. In this second procedure, the courts upheld the evictions without considering the absence of consent (effectively reversing their previous decision). The other matters regarding the absence of a master plan or building permit approval were not mentioned. • When the Samarkand Prosecutor General was appointed as the Samarkand city mayor, he joined the civil litigation, arguing against the legal position he had previously reached in support of residents when he was Prosecutor General. Taken as a whole, residents opposing the compulsory acquisition of their private property by the state faced a complex, convoluted and contradictory legal process. The developer Silk Voyage LLC was given the chance to comment on the allegation, but no response was received. The ultimate eviction of the Rozikova sisters and the associated demolition took place on the same day, 21 January 2020. During the eviction, Dilorom Rozikova threw a burning towel towards the employees of the Bureau of Compulsory Enforcement. No one was hurt. She was sentenced, however, to restraint of liberty for one year and seven months for impeding a public officer during the course of their duties.120 A False Sense of Legality 43