The defendant in the case of” Dok-1 Max “said that in the investigation they were” locked up without a hand

Speaking at the next meeting of the court session, which began on October 4, on the “Dok-1 max” syrup, which is considered to be the cause of the death of 65 children in Uzbekistan, the defendant denied his instructions during the investigation and explained the reason by the pressure on him. 

At a hearing on October 4, 2023, the defendant, who served as the deputy director of the Scientific Center for standardization of medicines, was questioned until the opening of the Dok-1 Maks. 

During his instructions to the court, the judge who questioned the defendant, who denied most of the information he had given in the investigation, including information about the group that had made a profit by buying drugs that should be labored, asked “Have you been pressured in the investigation? If repressed, the administration will be checked,” he said. 

Responding to this, the defendant said, “Now I do not know if you will understand this as harassment or what, the reason is that I was told that these things were foreseen, ready.” The judge then asked” who told you that". The defendant replied "investigator".

Okay, what about your remorse application if your instructions are pre-recorded in writing? Is it too pre-recorded? In your application for remorse there are also these cases (information about the sale of drugs and the receipt of income). What do you say to this. Have you written your remorse application yourself, Have you not written it?, the judge asked.   

"Yes I wrote my remorse application myself. There was no agreement on acquired drugs. But the drugs have been seized, " the defendant said. 

The defendant added that during the investigation, the investigator intimidated him during the writing of a remorse petition. 

Did you be intimidated by the investigator that you will write the remorse application this way? Or did you write voluntarily yourself?, the judge asked. 

"There was also intimidation. They said that you will be imprisoned if you do not recognize these things,” the defendant said. 

The judge responded by telling the defendant not only that he was denying his instruction in the investigation, but that what he was saying in court was not overlapping. 

In the course of the judicial investigation, the defendant admitted that the laboratory had acquired the drugs that were to be done, they had been sold. But it stated that the works were not planned in advance, there was no agreement. 

No one asked for these drugs, and the list was not compiled, " he replied.