The trial in Tashkent of 15 individuals in relation to the terrorist attacks committed in Andijan in May 2005 was conducted in accordance with national legislation, which in its turn corresponds to the standards and norms of the international law.

It is worth to mention that norms of the international law are based on the principles of comprehensive protection of human rights and interests and are obligatory to the whole international community. For its part, Uzbekistan is strictly following these commitments.

These international standards were also applied during the course of the trial in Tashkent. Moreover, the trial was largely transparent, open and eventually accessible for the whole international community through the representatives of diplomatic missions, international organizations as well as foreign mass media. It is worth to note that until present there had not been any similar and in fact the most democratic approach in examination of the cases in judicial practices of the USA and European Union themselves.

Furthermore, the statements of the USA and European Union officials on alleged groundlessness of accusation in relation to 15 participants in mass disorder in Andijan are fairly subjective and biased.

As for the testimonial evidences, which are labeled by the USA and European Union as ?incredible and given under the compulsion?, in reality does not cause any doubts in terms of their objectiveness and credibility. As long as circumstances reflected in evidences of eyewitnesses and victims were fully confirmed in the process of investigation into collected evidences of the case. Besides, representatives of the USA and EU during the trial themselves had witnessed evidences of more than 300 people. They had also become witnesses of direct competitiveness in trial, participants of which were lawyers whose actions were noted as ?inadequate defence?.

The fact that some Articles were removed from prosecution which substantially mitigated the sentences, testifies to the irrefutable effectiveness of the defence.

It is noteworthy that such ?serious concerns? about Uzbekistan expressed by the Western states, which themselves had suffered from terrorist attacks, call some kind of bewilderment and doubts on sincerity of the expressed feelings.

The statements of the USA and EU give Uzbekistan a cause for expressing some ?concerns? in relation to them as ?zealous fighters against terrorism?. As long as they act absolutely contrary to proposed and popularized by them principles of combating terrorism.