Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: NTV, Lenta ru: Some remarks from trial of Dekkushev and Krymshakhalov

Expand Messages
  • mariuslab2002
    Who Hides in the Details Defence Asking Questions in the Apartment Block Bombings Case By Olga Allenova Kommersant Yesterday Shamil Arifulov, the defense
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 31, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Who Hides in the Details Defence Asking Questions in the Apartment
      Block Bombings Case

      By Olga Allenova

      Kommersant

      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
      prosecutor."

      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
      Arifulov.

      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
      for."

      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 chechnya-sl@yahoogroups.com, "mariuslab2002" <mariuslab@s...>
      wrote:
      > Some excerpts from Russian sources (my tr)
      >
      >
      > http://www.ntv.ru/news/index.jsp?nid=37106
      >
      > 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
      there's
      > moratorium to this measure of punishment.
      >
      > 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
      > incomprehensible.
      >
      > 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
      the
      > camps of fighters in 2000, he therefore he could not explode those
      > houses in 1999, since simply he did not know [then] how to do it.
      >
      >
      >
      > http://lenta.ru/terror/2004/01/12/prigovor/
      >
      > The prosector demands for them life imprisonment, their attorney
      > insists that the accused ones were "zombified" with the aid of
      > narcotic substances.
      >
      >
      >
      > http://lenta.ru/terror/2004/01/12/prigovor2/
      >
      > Krymshakhlov's attorney [Arifulov] asserts that, the
      representatives
      > of the Prosecutor's General's Office falsified materials collected
      in
      > the course of investigation. "In particular, this relates to the
      > interpretation of the statements of witnesses and investigation of
      > forensic expertises", said the attorney. In the opinion of
      Arifulov,
      > in the course of court trial "completeness and the
      comprehensiveness
      > of study of evidence" had not been observed.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.