Uzbekistan's Jury Trial Pilot: What Starts in November 2026

Uzbek criminal trials already have laypeople on the bench. Under the long-standing system of people's assessors, two ordinary citizens sit next to the judge, and each of their votes counts as much as the judge's. What's coming in November 2026 is something different: a panel of citizens, separate from the judge, called in for the country's most serious criminal cases.

Officially it's a "collegium of people's representatives" (xalq vakillari hay'ati in Uzbek). In plain English, a jury. And for now it's a pilot, limited to one city and the region around it.

What was decided, and when

The idea first appeared publicly in a draft presidential decree that Gazeta.uz reported on 26 January 2026. It became policy on 16 February 2026, when President Shavkat Mirziyoyev signed the decree approving the State Programme for 2026. Gazeta.uz, Asia-Plus and Anhor.uz all reported the jury provision in the days that followed.

The core points, as those outlets summarised the programme:

Start: November 2026.
Where: courts in Tashkent city and Tashkent region only.
Which cases: especially serious crimes, with offences against peace and security left out.

That last exclusion matters more than it looks. In Uzbekistan's Criminal Code, crimes against peace and security form their own section: war propaganda, aggression, genocide, terrorism and incitement of ethnic or religious hatred, alongside treason, espionage, attempts on the constitutional order and offences against the president. That's the politically sensitive end of the docket. So the first jury cases are likely to be grave but ordinary crimes (the reports don't list which offences), not the prosecutions that draw international attention.

Is the November date still on?

As of late September 2026, yes, as far as the public record shows. We found no report of a postponement.

The clearest later signal came on 14 August 2026, when the president approved a long-range court strategy called "Justice 2030". Gazeta.uz and Podrobno.uz reported that it sets a target of extending jury trials to at least three categories of crime. A summary on Yuz.uz describes the same goal. The strategy, according to those reports, contains 57 tasks, 160 measures for 2026 to 2028, and 33 targets to reach by 2030. It builds on the pilot rather than replacing it.

What we couldn't find is the machinery. None of the sources we checked set out how many jurors will sit, how they'll be chosen, whether they decide guilt alone or with the judge, or what majority a verdict needs. Those rules would normally need changes to the Criminal Procedure Code. If they've been published, they hadn't reached the English- or Russian-language press by the end of September. That's the gap to watch between now and November.

Assessors versus jurors

Why bother, when laypeople are already in the courtroom?

Because assessors and jurors do different jobs. The US Federal Judicial Center's profile of Uzbekistan's courts describes people's assessors as citizens aged at least 35, elected by their community or workplace for two and a half years, who usually serve about two weeks a year. They sit with the judge, deliberate with the judge and vote on everything with the judge. It's a Soviet-era design, and the obvious worry is that two laypeople deliberating with a professional judge will tend to follow the professional.

A jury in its classic form deliberates without the judge and answers one question: guilty or not. Whether Tashkent's version works that way is one of the open questions above.

Next door, Kazakhstan offers a cautionary comparison. It introduced juries in January 2007, with nine jurors and two judges on one mixed panel; in 2010 that became ten jurors and one judge. A 2019 analysis for CABAR.asia argued that because the judge deliberates with the jurors, the panel's independence is weakened, and noted that the list of cases eligible for jury trial had been widened and then narrowed again. Our view: Uzbekistan's choice between a mixed panel and a separate jury will say more about the reform's ambition than the headline word "jury" does.

The rest of the package

The jury pilot arrived bundled with changes to the pre-trial stage, which is where most criminal cases are really decided.

Investigative judges get wider power to change or cancel detention, house arrest and other preventive measures, which the reports frame as strengthening habeas corpus. Gazeta.uz reported a new document called Himoya fikri ("defence opinion"), which lets the defence file its written position alongside the prosecution's indictment when a case goes to court. Defence lawyers, whom Gazeta.uz numbered at about 7,000 working in criminal cases, gain the right to see and copy case materials at the pre-investigation stage, and to have requests to state bodies, such as notaries and the land registry, processed free of charge. The government was given until 1 June 2026 to work out measures putting defence and prosecution on an equal procedural footing.

The August strategy adds a "reasonable suspicion" standard: when investigators ask for an arrest, the investigative judge is meant to check whether the detention was lawful and whether there are enough grounds to suspect the person at all.

Habeas corpus, the first time round

Uzbekistan has tried this before, and the history is the reason to read the new promises carefully.

In 2007 parliament passed a law moving the power to sanction arrests from prosecutors to the courts. It took effect on 1 January 2008, the same day the death penalty was abolished. Human Rights Watch's World Report 2008 called both positive steps, while warning that torture remained widespread.

By 2011 its verdict was harsher. HRW's report No One Left to Witness found that courts approved about 98 percent of prosecutors' detention requests and argued that the hearings weren't protecting detainees from abuse in custody. HRW said the ministries it sent its findings to didn't reply. The lesson is plain enough: a new procedure on paper and a new habit in practice aren't the same thing, and it took years to see which one Uzbekistan had got in 2008.

The government's stated rationale this time is public participation. "Justice 2030" is organised around a "people's court" priority, and the reforms are framed as giving citizens a direct part in the verdicts that matter most. That argument is stronger for the fact that the pilot comes alongside real changes to lawyers' access and detention review, rather than on its own.

What to watch after November

A few questions will show whether the pilot is working. How many cases actually go before a jury in Tashkent and Tashkent region in the first year? Do jurors ever acquit? Is a defendant able to choose a jury, or does the court decide? And which three categories of crime does the 2030 strategy eventually name?

For visitors, nothing changes day to day. If you're interested in how the state's relationship with citizens is shifting more broadly, our pieces on the end of the exit visa and the mahalla cover two other corners of the same story, and our guide to laws and customs covers the rules that do apply to travellers.

Sources

This article is for general information and is not legal advice.