The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
73
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
73-78
10.37547/tajpslc/Volume07Issue06-14
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
30 April 2025
ACCEPTED
28 May 2025
PUBLISHED
30 June 2025
VOLUME
Vol.07 Issue06 2025
CITATION
Mamurov Sanjarbek Ilkhomovich. (2025). Reflections on the specific
features of imposing non-custodial punishments under the criminal
legislation of the republic of Uzbekistan. The American Journal of Political
Science Law and Criminology, 7(06), 73
–
78.
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume07Issue06-14
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Reflections on the specific
features of imposing non-
custodial punishments
under the criminal
legislation of the republic of
Uzbekistan
Mamurov Sanjarbek Ilkhomovich
Assistant Prosecutor of Namangan Region, Junior Justice Advisor,
Uzbekistan
Abstract:
This article analyzes the theoretical and
practical
aspects
of
imposing
non-custodial
punishments in the criminal legislation of the Republic
of Uzbekistan, focusing on their legal nature, forms,
scope of application, and challenges in enforcement.
The shift from traditional custodial sanctions toward
more humane and rehabilitative alternatives is
reviewed in light of legislative reforms, court practices,
and international human rights standards. Particular
attention is given to fines, correctional labor,
community service, deprivation of rights, and restriction
of liberty. The study emphasizes the need to further
refine the legal framework to ensure clarity,
consistency, and effective implementation of such
penalties. Drawing upon comparative legal analysis,
including the experience of Armenia and Ukraine, the
author proposes concrete legislative recommendations
aimed at enhancing the legal regulation and execution
of non-custodial sentences in Uzbekistan. The article
concludes that strengthening the institutional and
procedural aspects of these penalties can contribute to
the overall liberalization and humanization of the penal
system.
Keywords:
Non-custodial punishment, criminal justice
reform, correctional labor, community service,
restriction of liberty, Uzbekistan, penal policy, criminal
law, enforcement mechanisms, individualization of
punishment.
Introduction:
Excessively harsh penalties tend not only
to negatively affect the lives and moral standing of those
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
74
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
being punished but also to coarsen the ethical and
professional mindset of those administering such
punishments. In modern criminal justice practice, the
inefficiency of severe punitive measures in combating
crime has become increasingly evident. For this
reason, Uzbekistan’s criminal policy has shifted toward
greater emphasis on non-custodial punishments as an
effective and humane alternative to incarceration.
According to the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the
Republic of Uzbekistan, in its Resolution of 21 May
2004 titled “On Certain Issues Related to the
Application of the Law on Liberalization of Criminal
Penalties in Relation to Economic Crimes”, when
material damage caused by a crime has been fully
compensated, imprisonment may not be imposed as a
punishment
—
even in cases where the offense was not
completed, provided that the criminal consequences
associated with the damage were prevented in time.
Furthermore, when adjudicating criminal cases in the
economic sphere, courts may consider the application
of Article 57 of the Criminal Code, which governs the
imposition of lighter penalties. In particular, if the
offender has reimbursed at least half of the amount of
damage caused, such restitution may be recognized as
a significant mitigating circumstance, thereby
justifying a substantial reduction in the severity of the
sentence imposed[1].
Furthermore, Article 571 of the Criminal Code of the
Republic of Uzbekistan, introduced on 19 May 2010,
provides that if the offender demonstrates genuine
remorse, voluntarily compensates the damage caused,
and if the circumstances outlined in Part 1 of Article 56
of the Code are present, the sentence imposed may
not exceed two-thirds of the maximum punishment
provided under the relevant article of the Special Part
of the Code.
According
to
current
legislative
provisions,
imprisonment is prescribed in approximately 78.0% of
the criminal offenses defined in the Special Part of the
Criminal Code. Among these, 40.7% include
imprisonment as an alternative sanction, while 43.4%
of offenses provide for a fine as an alternative
punishment.
The analysis of the Criminal Code shows that fines are
most extensively applied as a sanction for offenses
against the foundations of the economy (92.8%) and
for environmental crimes (100%). By contrast, fines are
rarely applied for crimes against life and health (only
13.3%), and are generally not available for offenses
against peace and security, as well as those involving
military service violations[2].
Under the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan,
a fine is regarded as the mildest form of punishment,
which is confirmed by Part 3 of Article 44. According to
this provision, if a convicted person deliberately evades
payment of a fine within the time limits prescribed for
its enforcement, or if enforcement is not possible within
such time frame due to the absence of seizable
property, or if the fine is not paid after the expiration of
a court-granted postponement period, or if the
installment payment schedule is violated, the court may
replace the unpaid portion of the fine with one of the
following punishments: compulsory community service,
correctional labor, restriction on military or official
service, restriction of liberty, or imprisonment.
In such cases: 2.5 hours of compulsory community
service is deemed equivalent to one base calculation
amount of the unpaid fine, and this may be imposed for
a period not exceeding 480 hours; one month of
correctional labor, restriction on service, restriction of
liberty, or imprisonment is equated to sixteen base
calculation amounts of the unpaid fine, and may be
imposed for a period not exceeding three years.
This legislative mechanism aims to ensure that fines, as
a form of punishment, are not rendered ineffective due
to non-payment and serves as a legal basis for
proportionally replacing them with alternative
sanctions in appropriate circumstances.
As emphasized by D.J. Suyunova and B.J. Akhrorov,
“
When imposing punishment, courts must strictly
adhere to the principle of individualized sentencing as
required by law. This means that the punishment must
correspond to the degree and nature of the social
danger posed by the offense, the personality of the
offender, and the presence of mitigating or aggravating
circumstances[3]”.
In essence, punishment is imposed in order to morally
rehabilitate the offender, to prevent the continuation of
criminal activity, and to deter both the offender and
others from committing new crimes in the future. As
M.Kh. Rustambaev rightly notes, a fine, as a form of
state coercion, represents an economic measure
imposed on the offender, aimed at restricting the
property rights of the individual through financial
liability for the committed offense[4].
M. Usmonaliyev defines a fine as “the collection of a
monetary sum from the offender, in an amount
specified by the Criminal Code, for the benefit of the
state budget. Among all criminal punishments, a fine is
considered the least severe and is ranked first in the
system of sanctions[5]”.
According to K.R. Abdurasulova, “a fine primarily entails
material loss to the convicted person, as it involves the
compulsory collection of a certain sum of money in
favor of the state. When such a punishment is applied,
the coercive force of the state exerts a direct influence
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
75
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
on the root causes that prompted the person’s
antisocial behavior[6]”.
In the opinion of Yu.S. Pulatov, “a fine is the
compulsory collection of a monetary amount ranging
from five to six hundred times the minimum monthly
wage as established by the Criminal Code[7]”.
Q.P. Payzullayev similarly characterizes a fine as “a
form of state coercion which economically impacts the
offender by restricting their property rights through
financial liability for the committed offense[8]”.
As we can observe, legal scholars in our country define
the concept of a fine not only within the framework of
its statutory (legal) definition as provided in the
Criminal Code, but also in light of its practical
application, distinctive characteristics, and its
functional role within the overall system of criminal
punishments.
In our view, when adjudicating criminal cases and
determining an appropriate form of punishment,
judges should carefully assess the circumstances of
each individual case, giving due consideration to the
principle of differentiation and individualization of
punishments. Within this context, we believe it would
be expedient to provide a fine as an alternative
punishment for the following offenses: Article 116,
Part 1 (Improper performance of professional duties),
Article 117, Part 1 (Leaving a person in danger), Article
121 (Coercion of a woman into sexual intercourse),
Article 129, Part 1 (Lewd acts against a person under
the age of sixteen), Article 236, Part 1 (Interference
with investigation or adjudication), Article 244¹, Part 3
(Preparation or dissemination of materials threatening
public security and order), Article 246, Part 1
(Smuggling), Article 247, Part 1 (Illegal possession of
firearms, ammunition, main parts of firearms,
explosives, or explosive devices).
Naturally, in prescribing a fine for these offenses, it
would be appropriate to set the fine at a high monetary
amount, thereby ensuring its deterrent effect. In doing
so, the fine can function as an effective criminal
sanction capable of discouraging future criminal
conduct by the offender and achieving the intended
goals of punishment.
Deprivation of a specific right consists in prohibiting
the convicted person, for a period determined by the
court, from holding certain positions in enterprises,
institutions, or organizations, or from engaging in
specific types of activity (Article 45, Part 1 of the
Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan).
Where the offense committed is directly related to the
offender’s position or professional activity, this
punishment may be imposed: as a principal
punishment for a term of one to five years, or as an
additional punishment for a term of one to three years.
If deprivation of a specific right is not imposed as the
main punishment, the court may apply it as an
additional sanction alongside any other type of
punishment provided for in the relevant article of the
Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Republic of
Uzbekistan.
According to the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the
Republic of Uzbekistan, in its Resolution dated 3
February 2006 titled “On Judicial Practice in the
Imposition of Criminal Punishments”, it is stated that:
“Deprivation of a specific right, as an additional
punishment, shall be imposed within the limits of the
sanction provided for in the relevant article of the
Special Part of the Criminal Code under which the
person has been found guilty. If the relevant article of
the Special Part does not provide for such punishment,
it may still be applied in accordance with the grounds
and within the scope established by Article 45 of the
Criminal Code, provided that the court substantiates its
decision in the judgment”[9]. We believe this
interpretation is well-founded and should be supported,
as it promotes flexibility in sentencing while maintaining
the requirement of judicial reasoning and legal
justification.
The following characteristics may be identified in
relation to deprivation of a specific right:
It may only be imposed for offenses committed in
connection with the offender’s position or engagement
in a specific type of professional activity;
It applies exclusively to offenses involving a special
subject (qualified offender);
The substantive content of this punishment consists in
the deprivation of the convict’s subjective rights, as well
as the temporary restriction of their legal capacity, for a
term established by the court.
Compulsory community service entails the mandatory
engagement of the convict in socially beneficial work
without remuneration. If the convicted person is
employed or studying, the sentence must be served
outside of working or study hours.
This type of punishment shall not be applied to the
following categories of individuals:
persons of retirement age;
individuals under the age of sixteen;
pregnant women;
women with children under the age of three;
persons with first- or second-degree disabilities;
military servicemen;
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
76
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
foreign nationals and individuals who do not reside
permanently in the Republic of Uzbekistan[10].
If a convict evades the execution of a sentence of
compulsory community service, the court shall replace
the unserved portion of the sentence with restriction
of liberty or imprisonment, calculating the substitution
based on the formula that four hours of community
service equals one day of restriction of liberty or
imprisonment. The time during which the sentence
was evaded shall not be included in the duration of the
served sentence.
Correctional labor, on the other hand, consists in
compelling the convict to perform labor, with 10 to 30
percent of their wages deducted in favor of the state
budget, as established in Part 1 of Article 46 of the
Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan. This
punishment is served either at the
offender’s existing
place of employment or, if that is not possible, at
another workplace assigned by the authorities
supervising the execution of the sentence. Correctional
labor may be imposed for a period ranging from six
months to three years.
This punishment may not be imposed on persons of
retirement age, those deemed unfit for labor, pregnant
women, women on maternity leave caring for a young
child, and military servicemen.
If the convicted person deliberately evades more than
one-tenth of the total term of the correctional labor
sentence, the court may replace the remaining portion
with imprisonment for an equivalent duration.Шу
ўринда битта муаммоли ҳолатга эътибор қаратиш
лозим.
In the current context of ongoing privatization reforms
in Uzbekistan, an important question arises: Can
enforcement authorities assign individuals sentenced
to correctional labor to work in private enterprises?
Although privatization has been widely implemented
across the country, there is no clear legal guidance on
whether convicts subject to correctional labor may be
assigned to, or allowed to work in, privately owned
businesses. Given this legal gap, it would be expedient
for relevant authorities to provide explicit clarification
in official guidelines or instructions on this matter.
According to the Criminal Codes of Armenia and
Ukraine, if circumstances arise during the execution of
a sentence that make it impossible for the individual to
continue serving correctional labor
—
for instance, if
new grounds for exemption or incompatibility
appear
—
the convict may be released from the
sentence or the correctional labor may be substituted
with a less severe punishment. However, the Criminal
Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan contains no such
provision, and for this reason, we believe it is necessary
to develop appropriate recommendations and initiate
legal and procedural discussions on this issue.
Taking the above into account, we propose
supplementing Article 46 of the Criminal Code with a
new Part Four, to read as follows:
“If,
during the execution of correctional labor, any of the
circumstances specified in Part Three of this Article
arise, the correctional labor may be replaced with a less
severe punishment.”
Restriction on service (Article 47 of the Criminal Code) is
a special type of punishment that applies exclusively to
military personnel serving under contract.
This
punishment
consists
in
depriving
the
servicemember of certain rights and privileges for the
duration specified in the court judgment, along with a
deduction of 10 to 30 percent of their monetary
allowance in favor of the state budget.
Restriction of liberty entails prohibiting the convict from
leaving their place of residence entirely, or restricting
their movement during specific hours of the day.
This punishment may be imposed for a term ranging
from one month to five years and is served under the
supervision of designated authorities as determined by
the court. The conditions under which restriction of
liberty is to be served are set by the court with
consideration of the nature of the offense and the need
to prevent evasion of the enforcement of the
sentence[11].
If a convict deliberately evades serving a sentence of
restriction of liberty, or fails to comply with obligations
imposed by the court, the court may replace the
unserved portion of the sentence with another type of
punishment. The period during which the offender
evaded enforcement shall not be counted toward the
served term.
A key feature of restriction of liberty is its function as an
intermediary link in the system of criminal sanctions
—
connecting non-custodial punishments with custodial
sentences. Previously, this role was effectively fulfilled
by conditional sentencing in the form of parole from
places of imprisonment, accompanied by compulsory
labor, which served as a practical criminal-legal
measure.
Restriction of liberty avoids many of the negative effects
associated with full isolation from society, such as those
observed in penal colonies, prisons, or detention
centers. At the same time, it possesses strong punitive
potential and allows for the consistent exertion of
rehabilitative and disciplinary influence over an
extended period of time[12].
Restriction of liberty may not be imposed on military
servicemen, foreign nationals, or individuals without
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
77
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
permanent residence in the Republic of Uzbekistan.
Furthermore, restriction of liberty and compulsory
labor, as forms of non-custodial punishment, may not
fully comply with the European Convention on Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In particular,
Article 4 of the Convention stipulates that forced or
compulsory labor may be imposed only on persons
lawfully detained or conditionally released from
imprisonment. Thus, the imposition of such penalties
outside the framework of detention or parole may
raise concerns regarding their compatibility with
international human rights standards[13].
In this regard, we would like to present several
observations concerning the execution of the
restriction of liberty sentence in Uzbekistan and the
challenges currently arising in its implementation:
First, although it is established that the execution of
restriction of liberty is carried out by the Inspectorate
for the Execution of Punishments under the internal
affairs bodies, the Inspectorate’s specific dutie
s in
enforcing this sentence remain undefined. This stands
in contrast to other types of punishments
—
such as
fines, deprivation of a specific right, correctional labor,
and compulsory community service
–
where the
Criminal-Executive Code (CEC) clearly outlines the
Inspectorate’s responsibilities in separate chapters,
often as standalone articles. Accordingly, to enhance
the effectiveness of enforcing restriction of liberty, it
would be advisable to introduce a dedicated provision
into the CEC explicitly defining the Inspectorate's
duties in this area.
Second, Part 3 of Article 443 of the CEC requires
clarification. The law fails to specify under what
circumstances a convict may leave their place of
residence, change residence, exit the administrative
territory, or change place of work or study. This
ambiguity results in legal uncertainty. In the criminal-
executive legislation of many other countries, such
conditions are defined under the concept of
“exceptional personal circumstances,” with a clear list
of qualifying situations.
Third, the rules governing the substitution of the
restriction of liberty with another form of punishment
are also presented unclearly in both the Criminal Code
and the Criminal-Executive Code. For example, Part 2
of Article 444 of the CEC provides that if the convicted
person deliberately evades serving the sentence or
fails to comply with obligations imposed by the court,
a submission (petition) shall be made to replace the
unserved portion of the sentence with another form of
punishment. However, neither the procedure nor the
applicable alternative punishments are clearly defined,
leaving room for discretionary interpretation.
Restriction of liberty consists in prohibiting the
convicted person from leaving their place of residence
entirely, or restricting their ability to leave their
residence during specific hours of the day, as
determined by the court. For the purposes of this
sanction, the term place of residence shall be
understood to include private houses at the conv
ict’s
permanent address, apartments in multi-storey
buildings, rooms within buildings intended for
habitation, and other residential premises.
It should be clarified that the operative part of the court
judgment must clearly specify the form of restriction of
liberty being imposed
—
namely, whether it consists of a
complete prohibition on leaving the place of residence,
or a restriction on movement during specific times of
the day, as well as the substantive conditions of the
punishment.
Restriction of liberty may be imposed for a term of one
month to five years, and for minors, from six months to
two years. The sentence is to be served under the
supervision of the Inspectorate for the Execution of
Punishments at the convict’s place of residence, or
another div designated by the court. The specific
conditions under which the punishment is to be served
shall be determined by the court, taking into account
the nature of the committed offense and the necessity
of preventing evasion of the sentence[14]”.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we believe that the incorporation of the
above-mentioned proposals and recommendations into
the national legislation concerning the system of non-
custodial punishments and their application would
serve to advance ongoing reforms to a new stage and
significantly enhance the effectiveness of criminal
justice policy in this area.
REFERENCES
Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
Compilation of Plenum Resolutions: 1991
–
2006. Vol. II.
–
Tashkent: O‘qituvchi, 2007.
Parpiyev H.Sh. Problems of Improving Fine as Criminal
Punishment
under
the
Conditions
of
Penal
Liberalization. PhD dissertation.
–
Tashkent: Tashkent
State University of Law, 2011.
Suyunova D.J., Akhrorov B.D. Problems of Sentencing.
–
Tashkent: TSUL, 2007.
Rustambaev M.Kh. Commentary on the Criminal Code
of the Republic of Uzbekistan: General Part.
–
Tashkent:
ILM-ZIYO, 2006.
Usmonaliyev M. Criminal Law: General Part.
–
Tashkent:
Yangi asr avlodi, 2005.
Abdurasulova Q.R. Criminological and Criminal-Legal
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
78
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
Problems of Female Criminality. Doctoral Dissertation.
–
Tashkent: TSUL, 2005.
Criminal Law: General Part.
–
Tashkent: Academy of
the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Uzbekistan, 2005.
Payzullayev Q.P. Problems in the Execution of Fines.
Study Guide.
–
Tashkent: TSUL, 2006.
Plenum of the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan.
Resolution No. 1 of February 3, 2006 “On Judicial
Practice in Imposing Criminal Punishments”. Available
at: https://lex.uz/acts/1455976
Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. O‘RQ
-770 of
May 17, 2022
–
National Database of Legislation, May
18, 2022, No. 03/22/770/0424.
Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. O‘RQ
-421 of
March 29, 2017
–
Collection of Legislation, 2017, No.
13, Article 194.
Milyukov S.F. Russian Criminal Legislation: A Critical
Analysis.
–
St. Petersburg, 2000.
Melentyev M.P. Penitentiary Policy at the Turn of the
Century and the Problem of Ensuring the Legal Status
of Convicts // Man: Crime and Punishment, Bulletin of
the Ryazan Institute of Law and Economics, 2000, No.
1.
Supreme Court of Uzbekistan. Plenum Resolution No.
1 of February 3, 2006 “On Judicial Practice in Imposing
Criminal Punishments”, Clauses 251–
256.
