The majority of defendants who figure in the criminal case on the events on October 13, 2005, in Nalchik refuse to admit their guilt. Some of them have admitted only the charge under Article 222 of the Russian Criminal Code - "Bearing and storage of arms".
At today's session of the Supreme Court of Kabardino-Balkaria, the defendants and their advocates have expressed their attitude to the indictment.
The debate of the bill of particulars started with the speech of advocate Anatoly Kunizhev who stated that "it's impossible to agree that the defendants wanted to tear away a small territory from the great country and create an Islamic state." In his opinion, the tragedy was a result misunderstanding between believers and the authorities.
"Believers came to the mosque, but it was closed. The militia stated that people were doing something illegal in mosques. Probably, there were such culprits, but it was the militia's duty to isolate them," said Mr Kunizhev. In the opinion of the advocate, it is also wrongful to accuse the defendants that they had the aim of killing peaceful citizens. The casualties among peaceful residents, as he has emphasized, were the result of their curiosity. Moreover, nobody had warned them about the danger to go out.
Advocate Kunizhev has drawn attention to "forced arguments" in the bill of particulars. "We are convinced that they underwent special training, and at the same time we are told that before the attack they had been briefed and taught how to trigger the rifle bolt," Anatoly Kunizhev has emphasizes. In his opinion, his client R. Amshukov cannot use arms and is very far from thinking about creation of an Islamic state, and as to the grenade given to him on October 13, 2005, he threw it away and went home.
"The Code of Criminal Procedure has an article, according to which a voluntary refusal to take part in a crime acquits from criminal liability," Mr Kunizhev has reminded.
Advocate Magomed Abubakarov, who is representing the interests of defendant Rasul Kudaev, believes that the charge is built on assumptions, instead of facts. Under his information, the defendants were tortured, and the required evidences were knocked out of them, therefore, the court should not take these evidences into account.
Some of the defendants, in particular, Khabas Emkuzhev, have come out with an assumption that some of the charges are mutually exclusive. "If I'm accused of an armed rebellion, which assumes bearing arms, what then Article 205 ("Terrorism") has to do with it?" asked the defendant.
Defendant Azret Shavaev read out his statement and asked to add it to the case files. The idea of the statement is that the defendant would not admit his guilt, and all the evidences were obtained under pressure; like others, he was beaten before and after interrogations, kept in inhuman conditions, and their complaints of beatings were ignored. "There is no mechanism to defend inmates' rights," Shavaev has emphasized.
Several defendants have stated that they did not understand the indictment. Murat Midov said, in particular, that he and eight other persons were accused of attacking the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic (KBR): "Nobody was lost there, only four persons were wounded. However, I'm charged with Article 105 - 'Murder of two and more persons'."
Judge Galina Gorislavskaya addressed Olga Chibinyova, head of the prosecution group, and asked her to answer the question. According to Ms Chibinyova, the defendants were members of a steady criminal grouping and should collectively respond for all committed crimes.
See earlier reports: "Two defendants in Nalchik attack case complain to Russia's Constitutional Court," "State prosecutor in Nalchik attack case gives details of events on October 13, 2005," "Prosecution in the case on attack on Nalchik: militants planned to create Islamic state."
Author: Luiza Orazaeva; Source: CK correspondent
