Central Asia
Source tier A. Conventions checked 2026-07-29.
Drug and firearms law in Uzbekistan: statutes on record and in force
Uzbekistan, in Central Asia, is party to 3 of the four instruments tracked here but not to the Firearms Protocol. It appears on neither FATF list. Its confirmed instrument on record is the 1994 Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan of 1994. The dates below are the depositary's; the instruments, where any are named, are the register's.
International framework
Uzbekistan is bound by 3 of the four instruments this dataset tracks, the earliest from 1995 and the most recent from 2008. The exception is the Firearms Protocol, and that exception has consequences: there is no treaty obligation to mark or trace weapons, so a firearm recovered at a crime scene may have no route back to its point of diversion — the single most common reason a trafficking chain cannot be reconstructed.
| Instrument | Adopted | Ratified or acceded | Depositary reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1988 Convention | 1988 | 24 Aug 1995 | Chapter VI-19 |
| UNTOC | 2000 | 9 Dec 2003 | Chapter XVIII-12 |
| UNCAC | 2003 | 29 Jul 2008 | Chapter XVIII-14 |
| Firearms Protocol | 2001 | not a party | Chapter XVIII-12-c |
What each instrument obliges a party to do is set out once, per instrument, in the conventions reference. The dates above are what is specific to Uzbekistan: they are the points from which each obligation began to bind, taken from the depositary's own status tables.
National legislation
These are the instruments an official source confirms for Uzbekistan. The list is what could be cited, not necessarily everything in force.
1994 Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan — A code rather than a dedicated statute: the offences sit within the general body of law and are read together with its provisions on attempt, participation and sentencing. Confirmed against the UNODC legal library, checked 2026-07-30.
Enforcement authorities
One body is named in the record for Uzbekistan, each confirmed on Uzbekistan's own government domain. The division of mandate is what decides where a case can actually be taken: interception, investigation and prosecution are three different powers, rarely held by one body.
| Body | Function | Confirmed on |
|---|---|---|
| Ministry of Internal Affairs | policy and oversight | gov.uz |
Ratification sequence
The order matters as much as the count. Uzbekistan came to these instruments over 13 years, beginning with the 1988 Convention in 1995 and ending with the UNCAC in 2008. Measured against each instrument's own adoption, the shortest gap was the UNTOC at 3 years, the longest the 1988 Convention at 7.
Uzbekistan became a party to the 1988 Convention in 1995, 7 years after it was adopted — slower than the median lag of 5 years across this dataset.
Between the first date and the last, the framework binding this jurisdiction was incomplete in specific ways. For the 8 years between 1995 and 2003, Uzbekistan was bound by the 1988 Convention but not yet by the UNTOC or the UNCAC. For the 5 years between 2003 and 2008, Uzbekistan was bound by the 1988 Convention and the UNTOC but not yet by the UNCAC. The practical effect is on what could be charged, and on what could be confiscated, in the years before the later instruments arrived.
On coverage, Uzbekistan is one of 22 jurisdiction s here party to 3 of the four, against 81 party to all four. The Central Asia cohort runs to 10 records, 0 of them currently listed for increased monitoring.
What is not in force
One of the four instruments does not bind Uzbekistan, and the gap has specific consequences rather than symbolic ones.
Firearms Protocol — adopted 2001, and Uzbekistan is not a party. In practice, there is no treaty obligation to mark or trace weapons, so a firearm recovered at a crime scene may have no route back to its point of diversion — the single most common reason a trafficking chain cannot be reconstructed.
Position on the trafficking corridors
Uzbekistan sits on the northern route, one of the six corridors profiled here. The record above is what a consignment moving along it encounters here.
The northern route — 6 jurisdictions, carrying heroin. The legs either side of Uzbekistan in the reporting are Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. Across the corridor as a whole, 2 of the 6 legs are party to all four instruments, 4 sit outside the Firearms Protocol, 2 carry no confirmed national instrument , and none is under increased monitoring. Uzbekistan carries one of those gaps. The corridor profile carries the leg-by-leg comparison.
Financial-crime monitoring
As of the FATF plenary statements of 2026-06-19, Uzbekistan is recorded as Not listed . A jurisdiction can enter or leave either list at any plenary, so this line is dated rather than settled. What each status entails is set out on the FATF grey list tracker.
Questions about drug and firearms law in Uzbekistan
Which drug-control conventions has Uzbekistan ratified?
3 of the four instruments tracked here — the 1988 Convention (24 Aug 1995), the UNTOC (9 Dec 2003), the UNCAC (29 Jul 2008). It is not a party to the Firearms Protocol.
Is Uzbekistan on the FATF grey list?
No. Uzbekistan appears on neither the increased-monitoring list nor the call-for-action list in the FATF statements of 19 June 2026.
What national drug legislation is on record for Uzbekistan?
1994 Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, confirmed against the UNODC legal library.
Which register confirms the legislation on this page?
Each instrument names its own. For Uzbekistan that is the UNODC legal library. The citation is to the issuing register rather than to any account of it, so the text can be read as enacted.
What is source tier A, and why is this record in it?
Tier A means a national instrument has been confirmed against an official register — for Uzbekistan, 1 of them. The treaty dates and the listing status are separately sourced, so all three layers of this record carry a citation.
What does it mean that Uzbekistan is not a party to the Firearms Protocol?
In practice, there is no treaty obligation to mark or trace weapons, so a firearm recovered at a crime scene may have no route back to its point of diversion — the single most common reason a trafficking chain cannot be reconstructed.
Sources
- Ratification dates: United Nations Treaty Collection, depositary status tables (chapters VI-19, XVIII-12, XVIII-14, XVIII-12-c). Checked 2026-07-29.
- Listing status: FATF, Jurisdictions under Increased Monitoring and High-Risk Jurisdictions subject to a Call for Action, 2026-06-19.
- 1994 Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan: the UNODC legal library, checked 2026-07-30.