Fine imposed on girl who defended herself against sexual harassment overturned

In Syrdarya region, a 1,236,000-soum fine imposed on an 18-year-old girl for “petty hooliganism” after she was subjected to sexual harassment by her former coach has been overturned. The appellate court concluded that her actions did not constitute an administrative offense at all.

The court did not limit itself to changing the initial ruling. Submissions were also issued against the prevention inspector who prepared the case materials and the first-instance judge who held the girl liable.

What decision did the appellate court make?

Under a ruling by the Saykhunabad District Court for Criminal Cases dated July 28, 2026, 18-year-old G.I. had been found guilty of petty hooliganism.

She was fined three times the basic estimated amount — 1,236,000 soums.

The girl disagreed with the ruling and filed an appeal. On August 3, the appellate instance of the Syrdarya Regional Court, which reconsidered the case, overturned the lower court’s decision.

The court noted that G.I.’s actions did not constitute an offense and terminated the case against her under the first part of Article 271 of the Code of Administrative Responsibility.

According to this provision, if there is no occurrence or indication of an administrative offense, proceedings cannot be initiated, and any proceedings already initiated must be terminated.

Why was the girl charged with “petty hooliganism”?

The court of first instance held G.I. liable under Article 183 of the Code of Administrative Responsibility.

This article defines petty hooliganism as using obscene language in public, offensively harassing citizens, or committing other acts that disrupt public order and people’s peace. In such cases, the person must have deliberately disregarded the rules of conduct in society.

However, the appellate court found that the girl’s actions did not contain such an offense. In other words, the penalty was not reduced or replaced with a warning — the part of the case concerning her was terminated in full.

The incident began with the former coach’s actions

According to details provided by the Nemolchi.uz project, the incident occurred on July 17. At the time, G.I. had turned 18 approximately two weeks earlier.

Twenty-six-year-old S.H. worked as a coach-instructor at a local sports school, while the girl was his former student.

According to the report, the former coach encountered the girl in a park, propositioned her for sex, and committed acts of a sexual nature.

The court found S.H. guilty of sexual harassment under the first part of Article 41-1 of the Code of Administrative Responsibility and sentenced him to five days of administrative detention.

However, an administrative report was also drawn up against the girl who was subjected to harassment during the same incident.

The victim was also punished in the same incident

This was the aspect of the case that generated the greatest public discussion: while the court established that the former coach had sexually harassed the girl, the girl who tried to defend herself against him was also deemed to have “disrupted public order.”

Following the initial rulings, the penalties were distributed as follows:

Nemolchi.uz criticized the situation, pointing out that the girl’s shouting, anger, or call for help was a natural defensive reaction to the harassment.

The project raised the question, “Whose peace exactly did she disrupt?” and emphasized that such decisions could force other women and girls to remain silent in dangerous situations.

The court did more than cancel the fine

In addition to terminating the case, the appellate instance issued a submission concerning the internal affairs agency’s prevention inspector who prepared the administrative materials.

A separate submission was also filed concerning the investigative judge of the Saykhunabad District Court for Criminal Cases who examined the case at first instance.

These decisions mean that the circumstances identified in the process of legally assessing the girl’s actions must be reviewed in accordance with the established procedure. However, the submissions themselves do not mean that the officials have automatically been found guilty or that a specific punishment has been imposed on them.

The competent authorities will now have to examine the shortcomings identified by the court and take measures to eliminate their causes.

Why was the lower court’s decision overturned?

When considering an administrative case, the mere fact that a person shouted or reacted sharply is not enough. The court must also assess whether the person’s actions were deliberately aimed at disrupting public order, the circumstances in which the incident occurred, and whether the person was defending herself.

The burden of proving that an administrative offense was committed rests with the authority that prepared the report. The body examining the case must fully and objectively establish whether the incident occurred, determine the person’s guilt, and examine all circumstances relevant to the decision.

Based on the appellate court’s conclusion, there were insufficient legal grounds to confirm that G.I. had committed such an offense.

What did this decision change?

Following the appellate ruling:

• G.I. is not considered a person who committed petty hooliganism;

• the 1,236,000-soum fine was cancelled;

• the administrative case against her was terminated;

• a submission was issued concerning the prevention inspector’s conduct;

• a submission was also filed concerning the first-instance investigative judge.

Most importantly, the appellate instance did not merely release the girl from punishment. The court stated that her actions did not constitute an offense in the first place.

There is a significant legal difference between these two situations: in the first, a person would have committed an offense but been exempted from punishment for a particular reason. In this case, however, the girl’s actions were not deemed an administrative offense.

Self-defense must not become “misconduct”

This case is about more than the cancellation of a single fine. It raised important questions about how the reaction of a person subjected to sexual harassment or another dangerous situation should be assessed.

Fear, shouting, calling for help, resisting, or responding sharply do not always mean deliberately disrupting public order. Such actions must be examined together with the origin of the incident, the level of threat, and the person’s need to protect her own personal inviolability.

Otherwise, a person subjected to harassment faces a dangerous choice: defend herself while accepting the risk of punishment, or remain silent and allow the assault to continue.

The appellate ruling of the Syrdarya Regional Court resolved this contradiction in the case by finding that the actions of the 18-year-old girl subjected to sexual harassment did not constitute petty hooliganism.

In your opinion, do police and court officials need special guidelines on assessing a victim’s defensive reaction in such cases? Leave your thoughts in the comments and share the article with your friends on Telegram or other social networks!