A neighborhood youth leader in the Qiziltepa district of Navoiy province has been sentenced to five days in detention for sexually harassing a woman he was driving home — but in a decision drawing sharp criticism, the court also fined the woman for insulting him as she tried to fend off his advances.

According to court documents reviewed by Daryo, Sh.Sh., who serves as a youth leader in one of the district's neighborhoods, agreed on the night of August 18 to drive a woman identified as G. to the district center in his Nexia. It was just after midnight.

Along the way, he repeatedly propositioned her. When she refused, he pulled the car over, stepped out, and grabbed her by the arm. A struggle broke out between them, during which the woman, in anger and fear, hurled insults at him.

In court, Sh.Sh. admitted guilt, expressed remorse, and asked for leniency. The woman acknowledged that she had insulted him during the confrontation but maintained that she still had grievances against him over his conduct.

The Qiziltepa District Criminal Court found Sh.Sh. guilty under Part 1, Article 41-1 of the Code of Administrative Responsibility — sexual harassment — and sentenced him to five days of administrative detention. But in the same proceeding, the court also found the woman guilty under Article 41 of the same code for insulting him, fining her one base calculation unit, or 412,000 soums.

The ruling has renewed criticism of how courts handle harassment cases, with rights advocates arguing that punishing a woman for verbally defending herself against unwanted physical and sexual advances sends a troubling message: that a victim's anger in the moment of an assault can be treated as an offense equal in weight to the assault itself. Critics say such rulings risk discouraging women from resisting or reporting harassment altogether, for fear that speaking out — even in self-defense — could land them in court alongside their harasser. A five-day sentence for the perpetrator, paired with a fine for the victim, they argue, reflects a judicial approach that too often measures the letter of the law while losing sight of who was actually wronged.