Re: NTV, Lenta ru: Some remarks from trial of Dekkushev and Krymshakhalov
- Who Hides in the Details Defence Asking Questions in the Apartment
Block Bombings Case
By Olga Allenova
Yesterday Shamil Arifulov, the defense lawyer of Yussuf
Krymshamkhalov, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for
complicity in the terror attacks in Moscow and Volgodonsk, declared
that he intends to appeal to the Supreme Court and ask for the
verdict to be recalled and the case re-tried. "Gross violations were
noted during the trial, the state prosecution representatives were
deliberately distorting the contents of the case documents", claims
the lawyer. The human rights activists observing the trial identify
it with a "political fraud".
"I have nothing to complain about the investigation," said Mr
Arifulov, who was speaking to the press for the first time since the
trial began (it was held in the special closed premises of Moscow
City Court). "My client's relatives could visit him in prison and
once he was even visited by representatives of western social
organizations. However, I have loads of objections to the state
In court the state prosecutor accused Yussuf Krymshamkhalov of having
been part of an illegal armed unit (IAU) before September 1999.
However, attorney Arifulov claims that as early as during the
investigation it was proved that Krymshamkhalov had not broken any
laws prior to the attack in Volgodonsk. He found himself in a
diversionary camp after the Volgodonsk act of terror. "So the
prosecutor decides to commit an offence," says Mr Arifulov. "He takes
the initial material (i.e. whatever got inside the case file at the
very beginning, before the investigation proved that prior to the
autumn of 1999 Mr Krymshamkhalov had been no member of any IAU) and
says: "Here is proof that Mr Krymshamkhalov was a member of an IAU".
On that basis the prosecutor concludes: no wonder that the defendant,
who was in contact with members of IAUs, took it upon himself to make
preparations for the terror attack." "That was done in direct breach
of law," continues the lawyer, "because any initial material is to be
left out of the indictment and the prosecutor has no right to use it.
And there are many such examples".
The lawyer thinks that it was vital for the prosecution to tie"
Krymshamkhalov to an illegal unit, because Article 105 of the Penal
Code (premeditated murder") suggests deliberate actions; however, in
the lawyer's opinion, the investigation failed to prove that
Krymshamkhalov had been intentionally making the explosive mix to be
used for murder. Please note that according to Yussuf Krymshamkhalov
himself, he thought that on his friend Adam Dekkushev's request he
was mixing dye components, rather than explosives, and did not
suspect that his actions could result in a terror attack. His story
is partially corroborated by the statements made by the detained
fighters, the ones who were in the camp when Dekkushev and
Krymshamkhalov arrived there after the blast. According to them,
Krymshamkhalov was often heard fighting with Dekkushev, accusing him
that he had "kept him in the dark" about the terror attack and used
him without his knowledge.
According to attorney Arifulov, that was why the prosecution decides
to tie" Yussuf Krymshamkhalov to the IAU in the period prior to the
blast in Volgodonsk. "True, Krymshamkhalov was no part in the
preparations for the attack," said Prosecutor Verbin in court, "but
since the illegal group had the explosion as a goal, Krymshamkhalov
should be considered a co-manufacturer of the explosive and therefore
an accomplice to the terror attack". In other words, the lawyer
thinks that the prosecution "tied" Defendant Krymshamkhalov to
Article 105 ("murder"), which is not applicable in his case.
The lawyer intends to fight for the charges of terrorism (Article 205
of the Penal Code) against his client, to be dropped, either. His
point is that the Penal Code article in question is only applicable
when a terrorist's aim is to force the government into committing a
certain act. And Adam Dekkushev, who admitted to the investigation
that he had indeed wanted to commit an act of terror with an aim to
stop a new war in Chechnya, can be convicted under that
article. "However, Mr Krymkhamkhalov had no such aim. " insists Mr
The defence lawyer thinks that the charge under Article 223 (illegal
manufacture of explosives") brought against Yussuf Krymshamkhalov was
illegitimate, either. "When he was preparing the mix, the first batch
of which ended up in Moscow and the second in Volgodonsk,
Krymshamkhalov did not know what it was he was mixing," claims the
lawyer. "Article 223 is only applicable if the defendant knew what he
was doing all along. The investigation failed to prove that my client
had known about the character of the mix and what it was intended
The lawyer thinks that there are many black spots in the Moscow and
Volgodonsk bombings case; moreover, a whole range of questions
calling for answers was left outside the scope of the trial
altogether. One of the significant discrepancies in the case is the
chemical composition of the substances found at the three sites: in
the apartment block in Borisovsky Prudy and Krasnoyarskaya Street
warehouses in Moscow, the blast site in Volgodonsk and the warehouse
in Kislovodsk. The expert analysis revealed significant differences
between the samples. It can mean, for example, that the explosive
made by Krymshamkhalov in Kislovodsk was neither used at the site in
Volgodonsk, nor was it stored in any warehouses in Moscow. In support
of this version one can quote the results of another expert analysis.
According to attorney Arifulov, the chemical composition of the cloth
of the sacks bought by Krymshamkhalov in Kislovodsk does not match to
the one of the sacks recovered from the Moscow warehouses. Moreover,
the sacks found in the capital were stitched by a sewing machine
different from the one used by Krymshamkhalov in Kislovodsk. The
lawyer thinks that all those details should have been most thoroughly
investigated; however the court preferred to ignore them all.
The lawyer also questions the results of the expert analysis done at
the blast site in Volgodonsk. The experts claim that the explosion
power calculated in trotyl equivalent amounted to 100 - 300 kilogram.
The truck Krymshamkhalov and Dekkushev used to drive to Kislovodsk
carried 4 5 tonnes of explosives, or so the investigation says. "If
only 300 kg of the truckload went off, where was the rest of the
explosives, which was carried in the same vehicle?" asks Mr
Arifulov. "We have no answer to this question".
Another expert conclusion is rather interesting, too: the epicentre
of the explosion was not in the truck which Dekkushev and
Krymshamkhalov left in Volgodonsk (in court they were claiming that
after they failed to blow up the bridge, they simply self the
explosive in Volgodonsk and Dekkushev went to see the organizers to
find out what to do next), but somewhere either on the ground level
or underground. Considering that Krymshamkhalov left Volgodonsk one
day and Dekkushev eight hours before the blast, the fact confirmed by
the truck driver (he did not know what he was carrying, so he parked
the truck in front his own house, fearing car thieves), one can
conclude that either the explosive was unloaded from the truck and
carried elsewhere or it was something else that blew up. It remains
unclear who could have been carrying it and what could have exploded.
In the context of some witness statements, in which several witnesses
say they saw some workers lowering something into a sewer manhole
before the blast, the picture of the events looks odd, to say the
least. However, for some reason those aspects of the case failed to
interest the court.
Meanwhile, if one believes attorney Arifulov and his client, what
happened at the trial seriously discredits the Moscow City Court and
investigation. If the connection between Krymshamkhalov's making the
explosive mix in Kislovodsk and the blasts in Moscow and Volgodonsk
is not quite proved, it is possible it does not exist at all. Please
note another remark made by attorney Arifulov, which is, however, not
directly related to his client.
According to the investigation, the prime suspect in the Moscow and
Volgodonsk bombings case Achemez Gochiyaev rented the basements in
Gurianov, Kashirka, Krasnoyarskaya Streets and Borisovsky Prudy and
brought the explosives from Kislovodsk there, immediately after that
the houses in Kashirka and Gurianova blew up. The investigation
claims that the epicentre in the Kashirka building lay in the
warehouse in the basement, where Gochiyaev was storing the explosive.
However, the owner of the warehouse claims that after the blast the
basement remained almost intact and even the light was working,
whereas the rest of the building was destroyed. Moreover, one can
clearly see on the video which recorded the demolishing of the rubble
and was showed in court that the ground floor wall of the house was
still standing. If the explosive went off not inside the basement
rented by Gochiyaev but somewhere higher, it will be hard to prove
his complicity in the blast. "The trial was meant to completely crash
Gochiyaev," says the lawyer, "but even I have a lot of questions
concerning Gochiyaev." "
The conclusion which logically follows from the lawyer's story was
voiced by the human right activists Sergey Kovalev, who chairs the
investigative commission on the Moscow and Volgodonsk blasts, and
Valentin Gefter, a member of that same commission. Both were taking
part in the briefing and said: the trial of the technical
executors", Krymshamkhalov and Dekkushev, was so demonstratively
sensational because that way it was easier to try and hide the truth
about what really happened in the fall of 1999 in Moscow and who
really was behind the blasts. "We saw for ourselves that whatever
they were talking about at the trial had nothing to do with the
Moscow blasts", said Mr Kovalev. "The attempt to identify the trial
with the Moscow blasts is nothing but political fraud. The law
enforcement agencies made a big show of the trial, picturing it as a
huge success, claiming that the culprits were caught and punished;
but it is only the scapegoats who are punished, and the real
organizers were left out of the case. I think that the trial served
the purpose to avoid conducting real investigation and find the real
organizers of the crime."
--- In email@example.com, "mariuslab2002" <mariuslab@s...>
> Some excerpts from Russian sources (my tr)there's
> The case had been investigated for four years. They trial has been
> finished in two months. Judge Komarov has read the verdict in the
> presence of journalists for 10 minutes.
> Two natives of Karachayevo-Cherkesiia Adam Dekkushev and Yusuf
> Krymshamkhalov will spend the rest of their lifes in a colony of
> special regime. Prosecutor Verbin, known to community from thecases
> of Salman Raduyev and Edward Limonov, spoke with regret that the
> defendants were worthy the capital punishment, but in Russia
> moratorium to this measure of punishment.the
> Because the process was closed, for journalists it was necessary to
> find some pieces of information and a lot questions have remained
> unanswered. For example, Krymshamkhalov's motives are
> The wealthy inhabitant of Karachayevo-Cherkesia had left a property
> in his native land, more resembled a mansion, so there, he acted,
> it's clear, not because of money.
> At his trial Krymshamkhalov has changed his statements in general
> which he had given during preliminary investigation in Kislovodsk.
> Now he declared, that he was occupied with production not of
> explosives, but some ordinary paint.
> His attorney also asserted, citing materials of the case that were
> assembled by the FSB, that if his client went through training in
> camps of fighters in 2000, he therefore he could not explode thoserepresentatives
> houses in 1999, since simply he did not know [then] how to do it.
> The prosector demands for them life imprisonment, their attorney
> insists that the accused ones were "zombified" with the aid of
> narcotic substances.
> Krymshakhlov's attorney [Arifulov] asserts that, the
> of the Prosecutor's General's Office falsified materials collectedin
> the course of investigation. "In particular, this relates to theArifulov,
> interpretation of the statements of witnesses and investigation of
> forensic expertises", said the attorney. In the opinion of
> in the course of court trial "completeness and thecomprehensiveness
> of study of evidence" had not been observed.