Why is it demanded to give a different legal qualification to the crime in the case of Sherbek Rakhmonov? Is simply registering the consequence sufficient in an event that claimed a person's life? Or do the way the event was prepared, how the attack was carried out, what actions were committed against the human being, and how the participants behaved after the event also play a decisive role in determining the legal classification of the crime?
These questions remain open regarding the criminal case related to the attack committed against Sherbek Rakhmonov and Nodir Matiyev in Payaryk district, Samarkand region.
Meanwhile, the family of the late Sherbek Rakhmonov is dissatisfied with the legal assessment given to the case and demands that the act be re-examined from the perspective of intentional murder.
What is the deceased's older brother claiming?
According to Xurshid Rakhmonov, the older brother of Sherbek Rakhmonov, his younger brother was struck hard on the head several times with rebar. According to him, Sherbek was taken to a remote place and buried. Later, when it turned out that he was still alive, inhumane actions such as strangulation with a wire were committed against him.
If these claims are confirmed by evidence, the issue may not be limited only to the infliction of severe bodily harm.
Because in the legal assessment of a crime, not only the injuries sustained by the victim are important, but also under what conditions, by what method, and with what purpose the actions against them were carried out.
The older brother of the deceased emphasizes precisely this point: he believes that it should also be investigated whether there was an intent to commit intentional murder in the actions committed against his brother.
Of course, these are statements from the deceased's relative. Their legal significance can only be determined after they are confirmed by relevant evidence.
And the case was directed not to Article 97, but to Article 104...
EFFECT.UZ source materials provided show that the criminal case was initiated under Article 104 of the Criminal Code, and subsequent documents indicated part 3, paragraph "d" of this article.
However, the older brother of the deceased is raising the issue of giving a legal assessment to the crime from the perspective of Article 97 of the Criminal Code — intentional murder.
Thus, the main debate here boils down to a single question:
Did the investigative body determine the legal classification taking into account all actions in the event, or was the main focus directed only at the severity of the inflicted injury?
To answer this question, not only the outcome of the event, but the entire chain must be studied.
What happened before the event?
The deceased's older brother claims that before the event, his younger brother was stalked, the attack was carried out with the participation of several people, and evidence regarding these circumstances exists. He also gave testimonies about certain individuals and participants in the event.
If there is evidence that prior to the event, the victim was stalked, taken to a certain place, or that planned actions were carried out against them, how was their impact on the corpus delicti assessed?
This is not a simple process. Because actions prior to the event can be of vital importance in determining the presence or absence of probable intent.
What do video surveillance recordings show?
The list of case-related documents also includes the record of reviewing video surveillance recordings. Therefore, video materials were studied within the framework of the investigation. But here another principal question arises:
Were the video recordings simply viewed, or was every important action in them compared with other evidence in the criminal case?
Who was where?
Who acted first?
Under what circumstances was the victim taken away?
What actions were carried out against them?
Where did the participants go after the event?
How do their actions explain the situation after the event?
Each of these questions may be relevant for the legal classification of the crime.
Therefore, what matters is not the mere existence of video surveillance footage, but how the information within it was legally assessed.
What about witness testimonies?
Another argument brought forward by the older brother of the deceased is the claim that several individuals participated in the event. If so, have the witness testimonies been compared with one another? Have the contradictions within them been identified?
Whose testimony was confirmed by which evidence?
Whose testimony was rejected and for what reason?
Has a separate procedural check been conducted regarding each important argument expressed by the deceased's relative?
This is one of the most important questions for the public.
Because simply attaching a piece of evidence to the case does not mean it has been fully legally assessed.
October 27: Investigation completed
The record drawn up on October 27, 2026, notes that preliminary investigative actions have been completed, and the gathered documents are deemed sufficient to draw up the bill of indictment.
Also, the victim's legal representative and their defense counsel were given the opportunity to review the case materials. This is an important stage in the procedural process.
However, the completion of the investigation does not mean that all questions in the case have automatically ended. On the contrary, it is precisely at this stage that the victim's side can review the case materials and raise circumstances that they believe were left out of attention during the investigation.
The documents also indicate that the victim's legal representative was granted the right to review case materials, submit objections, and file petitions.
Now the question is:
If the victim's side objects to the investigation results, in what order and by which body will their arguments be reviewed?
The hardest question: Was the legal classification fully examined?
What the deceased's family is demanding is not to declare anyone guilty in advance. They are asking for a different approach to the issue concerning the legal classification of the crime. The essence of this demand can be expressed with a single question:
If there are claims that a person was severely beaten multiple times, taken to a remote place, buried, and strangled after remaining alive, have all these circumstances been fully legally assessed within the scope of Article 104?
Or should these circumstances also be separately examined from the perspective of another probable legal classification of the crime? Only authorized bodies that have fully studied the investigative materials can answer this question.
If the investigation is finished, have the questions leading to the truth also finished?
The issue open today in the case of Sherbek Rakhmonov is not just the question "who is guilty?"
There are even more important questions:
How was the crime committed?
Why was it committed?
What actions took place before the event?
What actions were carried out during the event?
How did the participants behave after the event?
Have all these actions been assessed based on a single legal logic?
And finally:
Have the main objections raised by the deceased's family been fully and impartially investigated in the inquiry?
These questions are posed not to find anyone guilty without a trial. On the contrary, in a case involving human life, they are asked to ensure that no important circumstance has been left out.
EFFECT.UZ awaits an official response to these questions from the Investigative Department under the Internal Affairs Directorate of Samarkand Region and authorized prosecution authorities.
If the investigative body explains the circumstances that served as the basis for choosing the legal classification under Article 104, and also states how the arguments of the deceased's relative regarding giving a legal assessment under Article 97 were investigated, this will also be important clarity for the public.
After all, the completion of the investigation does not mean that the questions regarding the essence of the case have ended. Every reasonable question asked to reach the truth must have an answer within the framework of the law.
EFFECT.UZ will continue to study new information on the case based on the principles of legality, impartiality, and journalistic investigation. Once official responses are received, they will also be fully covered in the material. Information protected by investigative secrecy will not be disclosed, and claims not yet proven in court will not be presented as facts.
Journalist: Mohinur Hamdamova
