CCPR/C/95/D/1334/2004 Page 6 another may have been an open letter published on 23 November 2000, addressed to the mayor of Samarkand, which sought an explanation of why insufficient resources had been allocated to fund the purchase of Tajik schoolbooks. It also questioned whether closing down Tajik classes was consistent with the government’s policy of encouraging equality and the friendly coexistence of all nationalities. Mr. Mavlonov reviewed all publications prior to their release for compliance with the law. 6 Additionally, each of “Oina’s” issues had been subjected to prior censorship by the representative of the Office of the Chief of State Press Committee's State Secrets Inspectorate. The same Office’s representative, who had previously approved the publications in question, was in fact one of the members of the commission under the Samarkand regional Administration Press Department that made the decision not to re-register “Oina”. 2.8 Mr. Mavlonov filed suit on behalf of “Oina” to challenge the Press Department decision in the Temiryul Inter-district Civil Court. On 17 September 2001, the court dismissed the case due to lack of jurisdiction and instructed Mr. Mavlonov to bring his suit to the economic court. Mr. Mavlonov proceeded to the Samarkand Regional Economic Court on behalf of “Oina”, which was replaced by “Simo” during the hearing. In court, he challenged the decision of the Samarkand Regional Administration Press Department of 28 March 2001. On 20 November 2001, this court held that “Oina” was in fact required to re-register, as this requirement was triggered by a founder’s opt-out. However, the court ordered the Press Department to register “Oina” within one month, as well as reimbursing it for court fees and related expenses. The Press Department appealed. 2.9 On 20 December 2001 a three-judge appellate panel of the Samarkand Regional Economic Court affirmed that in conformity with article 48 of the Economic Procedure Code, in the case of a change in a party to the proceedings, an examination of the case should start anew. On this basis, the court repealed the decision requiring the re-registration of “Oina”. “Simo” appealed to the Higher Economic Court for cassation review. 2.10 The Higher Economic Court upheld the decision of the regional court, but on a different basis. It held, in particular, that the economic court system did not have subject-matter jurisdiction because under article 11 of the Law “On Mass Media”, registration decisions are to be appealed only to the civil courts by the founders or by the editorial board. 2.11 Mr. Mavlonov returned to the Temiryul Inter-district Civil Court where he had begun, but this time as plaintiff himself. He complained, inter alia, about the arbitrary decisions taken by the Head of the Press Department, who required Mr. Mavlonov to find an additional founder for “Oina” after the first opt-out, despite the fact that under paragraph 4 of the annex to Resolution No. 160, a mass media entity could be registered even with just one founder. A decision was rendered on 27 May 2002. The inter-district court noted a new allegation by the Press Department that “Simo”’s financial situation was insecure; it also prominently noted remarks by the Press Department that Mr. Mavlonov was ‘not a qualified journalist by education’. The court held, firstly, that under the authority of paragraph 9 of Resolution No. 160, the founder’s opt-out did indeed trigger a new obligation on “Oina” to re-register. Secondly, it upheld the Press Department’s denial of the re-registration application. In so doing, it did not advert to any 6 Newspapers cleared for publication were given an official stamp; those without stamps were prohibited from being published.