The Vainakhs Veras project initially, from the very first day, covered the events both at the Evropeisky shopping center and at the Maimonides GKA dormitory, but we hoped until the end that the case of the students beaten by riot police would not come to court due to its obvious absurdity and obvious arbitrariness, but, as usual, when it comes to Russian justice, such concepts as legality and justice are absent in cases.
And here we are in the Solntsevsky District Court of Moscow at the invitation of Alaudi Musaev. And do you know what first caught my eye? If theater begins with a hanger, then Russian justice begins with the entrance to the court. There are two signs on the facade of the building: on the right is the Solntsevo Interdistrict Prosecutor's Office, on the left is the Solntsevo District Court. Subsequent events completely confirmed that such a neighborhood was not an accident.
11 o'clock 12/28/2012 Judge Olenev is considering the complaint of Alaudi Musaev about violations by the investigative authorities of Article 152 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The fact is that according to the events in the GKA dormitory. Maimonides initiated three cases against Chechen students Magamaev, Ibragimov and Islamov. For the first two, the indictments were signed by the deputy prosecutor of the Solntsevskaya district prosecutor's office and sent to court, in the absence of the prosecutor, who was on vacation. The third case was considered by the prosecutor and, due to the absurdity of the charges, it was returned to the investigative committee to be terminated due to the lack of corpus delicti, but in violation of all legal and moral norms, the leadership of the investigative committee in Moscow transferred the case to another district, justifying its illegal actions of “load redistribution”. A complaint about these actions of the investigation was filed on December 18, but with cosmic speed the investigative authorities of the Timiryazevsky district are supposedly finishing the investigation, supposedly drawing up an indictment, because all this has already been done by the investigative committee for the Solnevsky district, transferring the case to the prosecutor’s office, where the prosecutor literally in a matter of hours , having studied 3 volumes of the criminal case, sends it to the court, thereby excluding the court’s recognition of a clear violation of the Law upon the complaint of the defense, because the actions of investigative bodies can be appealed in court only in cases under their investigation. Judge Olenev is forced to leave the complaint without consideration.
12 o'clock December 28, 2012 Judge Loktionova continues to consider the case on charges against Ibragimov under Part 1 of Art. 318 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - Use of violence not dangerous to life or health, or threat of violence against a representative of the authorities, punishment up to 5 years in prison.
In this criminal case, the victim Raikov, the same tall operative in a baseball cap, who provoked the conflict with his actions, was previously interrogated. The interrogation of Raikov was preceded by his forced arrest by court decision, since he repeatedly failed to appear at court hearings, which in itself is significant. During the interrogation, Raikov behaved boorishly, threatening the lawyers that their questions could negatively affect their clients, he lied and dodged, declaring that he remembered some of the events well, but he completely forgot the part where he beat the students, which forced the party defense to petition the court to order a forensic psychiatric examination for Raikov.
Also, the rector of the State Academy of Culture named after. Maimonides Irina-Kogan, who took the blame for believing officials and asking students not to file complaints about police misconduct in exchange for assurances of similar actions by police officers. “In place of these children, it should be me, Your Honor, handcuff me.” - Veronica Irina-Kogan said to the judge.
In addition, the police officer who was in charge of the actions of the riot police that day, questioned as a witness, explained that he gave the command not to use service weapons to his employees, since Raikov’s shots from his personal traumatic pistol were perceived by them as armed resistance, and that a delay in issuing such a command could would lead to casualties on the part of civilians.
At today's court hearing, a student of the GKA named after. Maimonida, who explained that on June 8, 2012, at about 6 o’clock in the morning, several people in civilian clothes and after that did not introduce themselves knocked on her dorm room and tried to enter, and she mistook them for journalists. After she did not let them in, several riot police officers burst into the room and searched everything, the box on the balcony and even the bed, without allowing her and her neighbor to get dressed and without explaining their actions in any way. The witness also explained that she was the one who filmed the dormitory courtyard on her mobile phone from the balcony at the time police officers were beating the academy students, copied the recording onto a disk and handed it over to the investigator. The witness did not see any of the students attack the police officers, although she was on the balcony from the very beginning of the conflict, but she saw how the students lying and sitting with their hands behind their heads were beaten by the police officers, including Raikov. In addition, the witness explained that she and 36 other students filed complaints against illegal actions of police officers, but were not notified of the results of their consideration.
Lawyer Musaev explained that during the consideration of the complaints, none of the applicants were called, and the decision to refuse to initiate a criminal case was made by the person who examined them based on the materials of the criminal case, which is also a gross violation of the Law.
Further, Judge Loktionova read out a certificate according to which a number of witnesses - riot police officers who are on a long business trip - will not be able to appear in court, to which the state prosecutor proposed to read out their testimony given at the preliminary investigation. Lawyer Musaev objected, filing a motion to use a video conference from any federal court, any subject of the federation, since the interrogations of these witnesses are written as carbon copies and are full of contradictions. The judge denies the defense's request and orders the testimony of witnesses to be read out. After which the state prosecutor, with the help of the judge, who dictates to him the volume numbers and sheets of the case, which in itself is nonsense, because it is not the judge, but the parties who must present evidence, but apparently Loktionova was confused about her status in this trial, read out the testimony of five riot police officers Listening to the read-out testimony regarding the weapons of the riot police, I caught myself thinking that the impression was that they had arrived not in a student dormitory, but in a combat area - pistols, machine guns, sniper rifles, etc. By the way, earlier attention was drawn to this circumstance and one of the riot police officers issued the following phrase: “But there were Chechens there...”
So, the testimony was essentially identical, even in words and expressions, so it makes no sense to retell each interrogation. They saw a scuffle between the operatives taking 3-4 students to the forest and a group of Caucasians trying to push the operatives away from the detainees; several of them saw someone striking the police in the face, but they could not identify anyone.
Further, the state prosecutor announced the end of the presentation of evidence and the refusal to interrogate 17 (!!!) witnesses, since he considers the evidence considered sufficient to reach a verdict. The idea of the prosecution is clear, because in the testimony of witnesses - students of the academy, the prosecution's version collapses like a house of cards. Well, these witnesses will be questioned by the defense.
The court hearing on Magamaev took place in the same vein, the protocols of interrogations of the same witnesses were also read out, and the state prosecutor also refused to interrogate 17 witnesses. Identical cases and identical violations both at the stage of preliminary investigation and at the trial, where, as is usual in Russian judicial practice, the judge replaces the prosecution, and the prosecution replaces the court.
What I would like to draw your attention to in the Magomaev case is Part 2 of Art. 318 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - Use of violence dangerous to life or health, or threat of violence against a representative of the authorities, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. How did Alkhazur Magomaev manage to draw part 2? Yes, it’s very simple, after 3 months (!!!) several riot police officers went to a departmental hospital, where they were diagnosed with a concussion, and now they are ready for harm to health and 10 years.
The next day, December 29, 2012, Judge Olenev, shyly lowering his eyes, read out the decision to extend the period of detention to another student of the GKA named after. Maimonides - Islamov, without taking into account the state of health of the arrested person, who several years ago suffered a severe traumatic brain injury and currently the consequences of this injury have worsened and based only on the severity of the charges.
In this case, you will not envy the statesmen, because both the state prosecutor and the judges do not hide that the matter is political and they have no right to make decisions not agreed with their leadership, because everything is simple, if the students are not guilty, then the police officers are guilty, and these are civil servants and the shadow on them is a shadow on the state. This is how the Russian state ruins the lives of ordinary guys who have just begun their adult lives. But the consequences of this case will be much more dire, because legal lawlessness on the part of the state leads to legal nihilism of the population and a complete refusal to trust such a power system.
And one more point that I would like to note. I have been to the courts a lot and often, I have seen the work of different lawyers, but the lawyers in the case of the students of the GKA named after. Maimonides struck me with their humanity, they fight not for their clients, but for their children, that’s what they call them. And not for nothing, in the car, when Alaudi Musaev and I were driving from the court to the academy, he said bitterly: “If these children are convicted, I will surrender my lawyer’s license, because this is not justice and I do not want to participate in it.”
Murad Maksimov
Vainah's Veras @ 2007-2012
Our editorial office hosted a round table where the problems of the legal community in Russia were discussed. The reason for the conversation was a criminal case against lawyers Murad Musaev and Daria Trenina
Murad Musaev, lawyer: By the will of fate, I managed to participate in a number of so-called high-profile criminal cases. These cases were investigated primarily by the Investigative Committee of Russia. Operational support for these cases was carried out primarily by senior officials of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and some strategic units of the FSB. Unfortunately, everyone knows the accusatory bias of our justice, and we all know that, starting from the operational officer and ending with the judge of the very last instance, this entire corporation is interested in obtaining a guilty verdict at any cost, and not in an objective and fair outcome of the case. And anyone who interferes with this is perceived as absolute evil. In a number of cases, such evil is me and my colleagues. That is why we became the target of encroachment.
Unfortunately, our opponents refuse to compete fairly in criminal proceedings or are unable to compete fairly. And therefore, from time to time, in relation to some lawyers, they resort to rather vile means (for example, initiating criminal cases against them), which I personally assess as abuse of official position. That is, they use their powers of criminal prosecution against their procedural opponents, in this case against us as defenders.
For example, the case of the murder of Budanov, in which we participated together with lawyer Daria Trenina, was investigated by the Main Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee of Russia (GSU ICR) in Moscow. Naturally, we investigated cases of abuse, illegal methods and means of investigation by this body, appealed to the courts, and later to the European Court of Human Rights with allegations of abduction, torture, falsification of evidence, etc. And what should the gentlemen from the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee for Moscow oppose to us? In theory, they should refute our arguments. Obviously they can't do that, so they just decide to get rid of us as a problem. They are the ones who are initiating a criminal case against us.
I must say that both so-called bribed (according to the investigation by Murad Musaev and Daria Trenina. - Ed.) witnesses - Fataliev and Evtukhov - publicly declared not only that no one bribed them, but also that they were kidnapped and tortured them in order to extract testimony against their lawyers. As for the main witness - Evtukhov, he was in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation - and we have a protocol of the court session - having signed a notice of liability for giving false testimony, he spoke in detail about how he was kidnapped by FSB officers, how they persuaded him to knowingly give false testimony, including against lawyers. That is, over the past two years, since we entered into the case of Budanov’s murder, one might say immodestly, we have uncovered a number of crimes against justice committed by investigators and operational officers. And the only way they could answer us was to shift from a sore head to a healthy one.
We believe that, firstly, this is a reaction to our opposition to criminals in uniform. Secondly, this is a banal revenge of some officials. And thirdly, this is an attempt to remove us from a number of criminal cases that have not yet been considered, the same case of the murder of Anna Politkovskaya, the case of Alexander Mikhailik and others. I understand why. The career fate of many people depends on the outcome of these cases.
Alaudin Musaev, lawyer, father of Murad Musaev: At the beginning of December last year, I learned from neighbors in a housing complex on Mozhaiskoye Highway that investigators were interviewing them, trying to establish in which apartments Murad and Alaudin Musaev lived. I advised the neighbors to say that the Musaevs bought two apartments on different floors, but not to say that we subsequently sold one of them.
On the evening of January 12, Murad received a call from Samara and was informed that the life of his client Yusup Temerkhanov was in danger and he could be poisoned. I had to urgently fly to the Samara colony, where Temerkhanov, convicted of the murder of Colonel Budanov, is being held. Murad took a ticket for the next morning, flight at 6.25.
He left home for the airport at about 5 am. According to neighbors, about an hour later, cars with special forces, representatives of the FSB and the Investigative Committee drove into the territory of our housing complex. The Samara plane was a little late with take-off, according to the residents, they heard the investigative team’s radio say, just at the moment of take-off: “Took off!”
At 6.35 a bell rang in my apartment: there were people in masks and with weapons in front of the door. And they are already knocking on the door, waking up everyone, scaring the children. In my apartment No. 227, Murad, not being its owner, occupies one room, and three rooms are occupied by other members of my family. I reported this to the senior investigative group officer of the Investigative Committee Polyakov and the FSB Colonel Kozhevnikov accompanying him, and presented my lawyer’s ID. He proposed, as is customary in such cases, to set up security for the apartment, gather all its residents in one room, and only then, having received permission from the court to search, examine the rooms where the rest of the family lives. And where are computers and documents containing attorney-client privilege located?
Neither Polyakov nor Kozhevnikov accepted these reasons and ordered an immediate search of the entire apartment and began confiscating documents and computers. The investigative team also suggested that I hand over all the items prohibited by law (weapons, ammunition, drugs). This was done demonstratively, because it was clear that if “forbidden” things could be in the apartment, then after the opening of a criminal case against the son, only a madman could leave the apartment “dirty.”
20 minutes after the start of the search, “Come in!” came over the radio; about ten minutes after that, Polyakov told me: “And you assured me that you had nothing... They found the barrel!” - "Who?" - “In your son’s apartment.” And twenty minutes later, Colonel Kozhevnikov, the leading operative of the Russian FSB, suddenly asks: “Doesn’t apartment No. 271 belong to Murad Musaev?” - “What, that’s where the trunk was found?” - “Yours or not?” - “Murad sold it three years ago.” And Kozhevnikov commands over the radio: “Let’s roll up!” And before that, as it turned out, representatives of law enforcement agencies, using a master key to open the apartment that I had sold long ago, without introducing myself, began a search... One of them, the neighbors said, had a black bag with him...
Another third of an hour passed, the same Kozhevnikov came up to me: “The apartment on Kutuzovsky Prospekt, building 43, is yours? Tell your eldest son to open the door there.” - “This is not his apartment, but mine, I am registered there - look in my passport. Let's go there together so there are no surprises." - “They won’t wait, they’ll break into it.” I called my eldest son and asked him to open the door.
I took my passport, a property right agreement, according to which I own an apartment on Kutuzovsky in half with my 90-year-old mother, and went there. And there are already television cameras in front of the doors. In the presence of about two dozen people, I showed my documents through the peephole and demanded to be let into the apartment of which I am the owner. “There are so many of us here,” they answered me. And they didn’t let me in.
Then I turned to the president of the Moscow Bar Association, Henry Reznik, and at his request, my colleague Evgeniy Bobkov came to see me. He introduced himself and demanded to open the door and allow him to participate in the investigative actions. The answer was unintelligible and for some reason in English.
For four hours I stood at the door of my own apartment. During the search, there were more than 20 members of the group, my eldest son Magomed and two so-called witnesses, who not only observed what was happening, but also participated in the search themselves. Obviously, they are also full-time employees...
And then Magomed heard: “They found the barrel!”, after which they showed him the TT and cartridges. But he himself did not see where the weapons were seized...
Evgeny Bobkov, lawyer: I was an eyewitness to the violation of lawyer's rights that occurred in the apartment of Alaudin Musaev. I arrived, saw a crowd of people on the staircase, introduced myself: “Dear, I am a representative of the commission for the protection of professional and social rights of lawyers, we want to know what is happening here, since Alaudin Musaev has nothing to do with the criminal cases initiated. Moreover, he is the owner of the apartment in which the search is being carried out.” I was not allowed into the apartment for two hours, after which I went out into the street, approached a riot police officer, introduced myself, and asked to connect me with the leader of the group. A representative of the riot police said: “I have no contact with the leader of the group.” To be honest, I couldn’t even imagine that it would be possible to brazenly oppose advocacy to such an extent.
Marina Plotnikova, lawyer: Alaudin Musaev invited me to become his lawyer. When I looked through the materials, I immediately saw a lot of violations in them. Naturally, we challenged the actions of law enforcement officers in court. But here are some more details that explain a lot in this matter. As a lawyer, I must enter into a case, guided by certain procedural rules. I need to meet the investigator, bring a warrant signed by the principal, so that it is clear that I am not just a person from the street. I, as expected, called the investigator - Mr. Polyakov, introduced myself, said that I wanted to meet with him to bring all the necessary procedural documents. He happily answered me: “Of course, come!” I went, excuse the expression, to the Investigative Committee. I tried for a long time and persistently to contact the investigator by phone. Finally they told me that they didn’t want to meet with me. Now Mr. Polyakov and I communicate through the Russian Post: I send petitions with notifications. In this situation, I simply do not understand my importance in the legal system! I come to a procedural opponent who, like me, is limited by the framework of the Criminal Procedure Code; he, like me, has responsibilities. And the investigator tells me that he will do as he wants. I have always been wary of Article 49 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, which states that lawyers are allowed as defenders. This is probably where we should start. Why are they allowed when, according to the Constitution, any citizen of the Russian Federation has the right to protection?
I would especially like to say about the lawyer’s archive of Alaudin Musayev, which was seized during the search. The defense attorney's archive consists of materials that constitute attorney-client privilege, which is fundamentally no different from medical or even state confidentiality. The Criminal Code has a section - crimes against constitutional rights. The fundamental constitutional right is the right to non-interference in a person’s private life, and this right is automatically violated as soon as a lawyer’s archives are illegally seized.
Alexander Dobrovinsky, lawyer: The story with Murad Musayev became the detonator of an explosion of indignation in the legal community. That is why we are discussing our situation today. I think that if today we conduct a survey among all the lawyers in the country, Musaev’s position will be confirmed by several thousand more people who also suffer from law enforcement agencies. I would like to talk about the origins of these problems. The collapse of the Soviet Union nurtured a new country, and this country, of course, became free. We are free - we can move around, we sit here at a round table, discuss problems, address the president. But the majority of people in the country have not become more democratic in their mentality. The terrible formulation that the Bolsheviks loved so much and handed it down to us - political expediency - has not gone anywhere. Political expediency is what law enforcement agencies are guided by today.
Moreover, the Soviet mentality is observed even among seemingly liberal journalists. Look at the controversy between Murad Musaev, on the one hand, and Yulia Latynina and Andrei Piontkovsky, on the other. Journalists, who are supposed to defend democracy, and with it all the symbols of freedom, equate the accused with his lawyer. They say: how dare the lawyer defend the accused of such a terrible crime?! And we are absolutely sure that when they say this, they are right. If you conduct a public opinion poll, I think that 90 percent will tell you - yes, you cannot defend a scoundrel!
And one more serious problem must be mentioned - procedural errors. No matter how many times I draw the attention of judicial and law enforcement agencies to procedural errors, everything is to no avail. One judge told me an absolutely amazing thing, I will never forget it. He told me: “Well, it’s a mistake, so what? Have you seen enough of American detectives? And the reason for this attitude towards procedural norms is still the same, political expediency. If one day we can erase this concept from the consciousness of people who work in the law enforcement system and in the courts, then the institution of the legal profession will be what it should be.
Alexander Fedulov, lawyer, former deputy chairman of the State Duma Legislation Committee: At the dawn of Soviet power, there was one legal ideologist who said: “We have political power in our hands, we don’t need the law.” The trouble with Murad Musaev is his excess of professionalism, which gives him an advantage in the judicial competition of the parties. If professionalism cannot be opposed to professionalism, they begin to act by force.
And one more problem that is associated with unfinished legislation must be mentioned. Witnesses for the prosecution are always supported by the state; their attendance at the court hearing, if required, is compensated by the budget. But witnesses on behalf of a lawyer do not enjoy such rights. So what should a lawyer do then? Just pay for the arrival of the required witness from your own pocket. The result is accusations of bribery, as happened with Murad Musaev and Daria Trenina. But show me at least one witness who would agree to come from somewhere from Uryupinsk to Moscow at his own expense. We won't find anything like that. That is, the principle of equality of parties is violated.
I am against the politicization of the situation that has developed around Murad Musayev. I really want the conversation we are having to be of a constructive legal nature. I am glad that the lawyers chose the legal method to protect their colleague. Today, more than a hundred warrants have been filed from potential defenders of Musaev. Perhaps there will be several hundred, perhaps more than a thousand. My order is also there...
I oppose the sabotage of the investigation conducted by the Investigative Committee. The large number of lawyers defending Murad Musaev is rather a way to draw attention to this situation. I am sure that Murad Musaev, being a professional, will be able to defend himself. I respect the activities of law enforcement agencies and would like the dictatorship of the law to be equally important for all of us. This is the basis for the stability of the state that President Putin talks about. And I hope that the Investigative Committee, represented by Alexander Ivanovich Bastrykin, will make a lawful decision.
Arsen Edilov, lawyer: I have the honor to be one of the many defenders of Murad Musaev. But my order in the so-called Murad Musaev case is more of a solidarity towards him. As long as there are many, many of us in this matter, and as soon as we take this matter seriously, we will be able to have a real influence on the subsequent fate of the criminal process. I told Murad Musaev that often a lawyer in Russia is like the heroine of the fairy tale “Alice Through the Looking Glass,” who says to the gardener: “Roses are white, why do you paint them?” “And the queen loves red!” - they answer her. Our law enforcement agencies often “paint the roses red” to avoid losing their heads. We can resist only within the framework of our chosen profession and within the framework of our powers.
Alaudin Musaev: We are working on a bill and are going to submit it to the Duma with the help of authorized persons to create a special investigative unit that will have the right to initiate and investigate criminal cases against lawyers, prosecutors, investigators... It should be subordinate only to parliament: the State Duma or the Council Federation.
Question from the audience: Murad, do you assume that as a result the case will be brought to court and you will be arrested and receive a prison term?
Murad Musaev: Unfortunately, with our opponents, everything is such that absolutely nothing can be excluded, but, on the contrary, everything has to be allowed. Why not? From the point of view of the law and from the point of view of common sense and even, it seems to me, from political expediency, many of the things that they did seem somewhat surreal. A simple example: a murder case - it doesn’t matter whether it’s a high-profile case of Budanov’s murder or a banal domestic murder. There are two eyewitnesses. At the same time, government prosecutors in court refuse to question eyewitnesses to the murder who describe the killer. In a rule-of-law state, in Russia, in the 21st century, could I allow this? No, I couldn't! The lawyer makes a motion to call these witnesses, but the court refuses. Could I have allowed this to happen? No, I couldn't. And the court doesn’t just refuse, it says: “If you, lawyer, need these witnesses, ensure their appearance as you wish.” And because the lawyer ensured the appearance of these witnesses, carrying the burden that the court placed on him, a criminal case was opened against the lawyer. Could I allow this? No, I couldn't. From now on I can allow anything.
Search by " Musaev Alaudin". Results: Alaudin - 7, Musaev - 82.
results from 1 to 5 from 5 .
Searching results:
1. "Mad Max" from the Federation Council. Malgin was on good terms with the lawyers father and son Alaudin and Murad Musaevs . Murad was then only 23 years old, and he began to represent Malgin’s interests in arbitration courts. But Musaev Sr. is a man with enormous connections and influence. Moreover, not only among natives of Chechnya, but also among representatives of law enforcement agencies and intelligence services of the Russian Federation. As a result, Murad and Alaudin undertook to represent Malgin’s interests in his conflict with Kavjaradze. Musaevs- this is not the agronomist Starikov... . Murad was then only 23 years old, and he began to represent Malgin’s interests in arbitration courts. But Musaev Sr. is a man with enormous connections and influence. Moreover, not only among natives of Chechnya, but also among representatives of law enforcement agencies and intelligence services of the Russian Federation. As a result, Murad and Date: 04/15/2016 2. TC "Grand" - terrorist complex "Grand"? Musaev
- former employee of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Chechnya. . Murad was then only 23 years old, and he began to represent Malgin’s interests in arbitration courts. But Musaev Sr. is a man with enormous connections and influence. Moreover, not only among natives of Chechnya, but also among representatives of law enforcement agencies and intelligence services of the Russian Federation. As a result, Murad and Date: 04/15/2016 2. TC "Grand" - terrorist complex "Grand"? Date: 10/07/2004 3. Bill Browder framed HSBC for 37.5 million Gazprom shares.
His lawyer Date: 04/15/2016 2. TC "Grand" - terrorist complex "Grand"? . Murad was then only 23 years old, and he began to represent Malgin’s interests in arbitration courts. But Musaev Sr. is a man with enormous connections and influence. Moreover, not only among natives of Chechnya, but also among representatives of law enforcement agencies and intelligence services of the Russian Federation. As a result, Murad and told Kommersant that the confessions were obtained under pressure. Date: 04/15/2016 2. TC "Grand" - terrorist complex "Grand"? Date: 08/31/2015 4. Nukhaev Khozha Ahmed Tashtamirovich. Date: 04/15/2016 2. TC "Grand" - terrorist complex "Grand"?...04.1997 Date: 04/15/2016 2. TC "Grand" - terrorist complex "Grand"?- former head of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Chechen Republic, now deputy director of the National Bank of Chechnya (especially close to Dudayev). Several years ago in Moscow, in his presence, a police colonel, who was involved in drug trafficking issues at the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs, jumped out of a window (?!) and died.
worked under the leadership of this colonel. After that case he immediately left for Grozny and made no further attempts to move to Moscow. Currently Avaldi...
894. Date: 07/02/2001 5. Enemies of states. 82. Date: 07/02/2001 5. Enemies of states. ALAUDINOV Date: 07/02/2001 5. Enemies of states. ALASH ALVIEVICH*, born 03/07/1960, Chiri-Yurt, Shalinsky district of the Chechen Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.
MUSAYEV
ADLAN ALIEVICH*, born November 20, 1979, Grozny, Chechen Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. 895. ASLAN RUSLANOVICH*, born October 22, 1977, p. Gekhi, Urus-Martan district of the Chechen Republic. 896. JAMAL KHAVAZHIEVICH*, born 05/13/1985, senior Ilyinovskaya Grozny...
Date: 07/06/2011 Advocate
Alaudi Musaev
On December 8, 2015, the Oktyabrsky District Court of Stavropol issued a guilty verdict against Alexey Kharkevich, who was detained by employees of the North Caucasus Center for Countering Extremism on charges of drug possession. Alaudi Musaev appealed this decision, claiming that the case was fabricated. In April 2016, the judicial panel for criminal cases of the Stavropol Regional Court overturned the conviction and decided to release A. Kharkevich from custody in the courtroom.
In 2015, A. Musaev represented the interests of the imam of the Kislovodsk mosque, Kurman-Ali Baichorov, who was also accused of illegal possession of drugs, which, according to Musaev, were planted on him.
On January 12, 2015, by the decision of the Predgorny District Court of the Stavropol Territory, Kurman-Ali Baichorov was found guilty of drug trafficking and sentenced to 3.5 years in prison to be served in a maximum security colony and a fine of 50 thousand rubles. The investigation refused to initiate a case against the FSB officer, who, according to Baichorov’s defense, was involved in his abduction, during which drugs were planted on the imam. Musaev appealed this decision, but the court rejected the complaint.
In early February, Alaudi Musaeva filed an application with the Investigative Committee of Russia, which spoke of 20 episodes of “criminal acts committed by employees of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the North Caucasian Federal District, the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Stavropol Territory, and judges of the Predgorny Court of the Stavropol Territory.” This statement was transferred to the main military investigative department for the Southern Military District.
On February 25, 2015, Musaev filed a complaint against the actions of the judges with the Higher Qualification Board.
On April 22, 2015, the court in Stavropol refused to exclude from the case of Kurman-Ali Baichorov a substance that, according to investigators, was a drug seized from the clergyman.
On April 8, the Stavropol Regional Court began considering the appeal against the verdict. On April 27, the court announced that the sentence against Kurman-Ali Baichorov in the drug trafficking case was upheld.
On February 15, 2016, A. Musaev and other lawyers managed to achieve the release of Kurman-Ali Baichorov on his own recognizance.
Alaudi Musaev was born on December 2, 1957 in the Ilisky state farm, Ili district, Alma-Ata region, Kazakh SSR. Chechen by nationality.
In 1989 he graduated from the Rostov Faculty of the Higher Law Correspondence School of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs 1.
In 1992 he became the first member of the International Police Association in the Soviet Union.
In 1994 he graduated from the Faculty of Management Personnel of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation of the Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia.
In December 1999, he defended his thesis on the topic “Legal basis, organization and tactics of operational development of organized groups involved in illicit drug trafficking.”
In 2003, he defended his doctoral dissertation at the St. Petersburg University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs on the topic “Mechanism for combating illicit drug trafficking.”
Professional career
In 1976, he went to serve in the internal affairs bodies of the USSR, going from a policeman to the first deputy minister of security of Chechnya. He held the positions of inspector of the criminal investigation department, detective officer, senior detective officer, head of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Chechen Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, deputy head of the SCM - head of the ORB of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Chechnya, head of the Department for Combating Organized Crime of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Chechnya.
In August 1999, he began teaching, taking the position of senior lecturer in the department of operational investigative activities at the Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, and in 2000 - 2002 - associate professor of the department.
In May 2002, he was seconded to the apparatus of the State Duma of Russia.
In October 2003, he returned to teaching again, receiving a position as a professor at the department of operational investigative activities at Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. At the same university in 2004, he became a professor in the department of criminal procedure at the Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, and then returned to the department of operational investigative activities.
Literary activity
In the same year, the publishing house "Young Guard" in the book series "Life of Remarkable People" authored by A. Musaev published a biography of the military, religious and political leader Sheikh Mansur (1760-1794), who fought for the independence of the Caucasian highlanders from the expansion of the Russian Empire and 1785-1791, who raised a popular uprising in the North Caucasus. In 2009, the book was republished in Chechen.
In 2011, A. Musaev released a biography of the famous Chechen dancer Makhmud Esambaev (1924-2000).
A. Musaev also wrote two plays - “Reckoning” in Russian and “Beckham” in Chechen.
www.kavkaz-uzel.eu
Alaudi Musaev: “Werewolves in uniform” are the reason for the replenishment of the ranks of militants
Violations of rights, injustice, and illegal actions on the part of security forces and those who support them contribute to the outflow of young people to the “forest.” This was stated by his lawyer, a famous Russian lawyer, during the trial of the imam of Kislovodsk Kurman-Ali Baichorov ASLAN RUSLANOVICH*, born October 22, 1977, p. Gekhi, Urus-Martan district of the Chechen Republic. 896..
“Such prosecutors are the reason for the replenishment of the ranks of militants,” Musaev expressed his opinion in response to the state prosecutor’s refusal to choose a preventive measure other than detention for the religious figure.
“The unlawful actions of swindlers and criminals, “werewolves in uniform” who brought him [Imam Baichorov] here, and those people who support them - thanks to this, we see militants and other terrorists in the North Caucasus! This is the reason for all this! - he continued.
Let us recall that, as Ansar.Ru previously reported, the defenders of Kurman-Ali-haji quite rightly petitioned the judge to release the imam from arrest, however, both the judge and the prosecutor opposed it, without taking into account either the new circumstances of the case or personal guarantees for the imam of the Muslim leaders of the North Caucasus - the muftis of the Karachay-Cherkess Republic and Stavropol region.
Explaining his point of view to Ansar.Ru, Alaudi Musaev noted that young people cease to trust the authorities, seeing “injustice against their parents, loved ones, relatives, and religious figures.”
“Even if a third-year student comes to this trial, he will say - these are not judges and prosecutors, but barbarians!” - noted Alaudi Musaev, describing the absurdity of the trial of Imam Baichorov.
The lawyer’s opinion regarding the impact of injustice on the increase in members of illegal armed groups was supported by Kheda Saratova, member of the expert council of the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights under the President of the Russian Federation.
“These actions, as Alaudi Musaev says, “werewolves in uniform,” provoke young people, illiterate, one might say, young people who don’t know what to do with themselves, to go to the mountains,” she believes.
“We can defeat terrorism and extremism, as they call it, only through mutual respect for each other,” Kheda Saratova is sure. However, today, she notes, among people who occupy the positions of judges and prosecutors, anti-Caucasian sentiments are not uncommon.
In particular, according to her, the prosecutor participating in the trial showed his hostility towards Imam Baichorov. “Although he is judging a person who, he himself is sure, is not guilty of anything,” the public figure concluded.
It is worth noting that during the last court hearing, the imam’s lawyers, outraged by the bias and inaction of the judge and the prosecutor, requested a motion to disqualify both.
In particular, the defenders spoke about the court's concealment of criminals from among the security forces, thanks to whom the imam is in the dock, since the court for a long time refused to call them to the hearing, and the interest of the judge and the prosecutor in the accusatory outcome of the case.
One of the unspoken reasons for the recusal was the state of the prosecutor. As human rights activist Kheda Saratova told Ansar.Ru, at past meetings the state prosecutor appeared, apparently, in a form inappropriate for his status. According to our interlocutor, the prosecutor literally smelled of alcohol.
Of course, the judge, according to tradition, refused to satisfy the petition “due to the lack of grounds for challenging” the judge and the prosecutor.
By the way, which is very interesting, as Kheda Saratova noted, the local press was not present at the trial
The next court hearing in this case will take place today, September 8. Ansar.Ru is monitoring developments.
Photo from the courtroom, taken before the start of the hearing on 08.25.14
Lawyer Alaudi Musaev
Recently, the detention period of European Cup winner and former member of the Russian Greco-Roman wrestling team Adlan Bitsoev was extended. The 29-year-old athlete has been in the Cherkessk pre-trial detention center for more than four months on charges of selling and attempting to sell drugs. According to investigators, he illegally purchased a bouquet in Moscow
– Tell us what you encountered when you entered the business?
– I have never seen such legal rudeness in 57 years of my life! My client was kidnapped in Odintsovo, near Moscow. This action cannot be called detention, since it did not have any, not even procedural, shell. The police of Karachay-Cherkessia drove almost two thousand kilometers, forced Adlan into a car and took him to the Caucasus. The guy, allegedly suspected of illegal drug trafficking, was brought “for questioning” not to the state drug control center, not to the investigator at the territorial department, but to the Center for Specialized Execution of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Karachay-Cherkessia. Adlan was kept in this institution for three days without any registration and was interrogated with partiality. As it turned out, he was not the only one.
– Were lawyers or relatives allowed to see the detainees?
- No! When the relatives of the abducted people found out where they were being held and went to Cherkessk, law enforcement officers decided to “legalize” the detention. On the fourth day, the suspects were brought to a drug treatment clinic, where they received a conclusion that they had allegedly used spice the day before. Under this pretext, with the help of a magistrate, operatives took the abducted young people under administrative arrest. Adlan Bitsoev categorically denies using drugs, and, of course, he did not smoke any spice. But let's assume the opposite for a second. If the drug was used in Moscow, then the guys should be tried for this - at the place where the offense was committed - by a Moscow magistrate. If the kidnapped young people got high in Cherkessk, then this happened in the dungeons of the detention center. But how?! They were searched three times, and all their personal belongings were confiscated. Well, it turns out that the police officers treated the detainees to a smoking mixture? It is impossible to find any other explanation!
– Did Bitsoev appeal the decision of the magistrate?
– Yes, in the appeal, my client indicated that lawyers were not allowed to participate in the trial, that his rights were not explained to him, that the information in the detectives’ reports about his inappropriate behavior – “staggered from side to side, expressed himself in incoherent speech” – did not correspond to reality . This is simply refuted by the medical examination report: he spoke coherently, logically and consistently. But even if we agree with this charge, then Article 6.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses provides for a fine of 4 to 5 thousand rubles as punishment, and the court imposed the most severe type of punishment on him - arrest. Although it is completely clear to us that the arrest itself was the end in itself of the performance with the administrative case of drug use - the operas needed to put the detainees behind bars. Writing a case plot is not an easy task and takes time. Unfortunately, the Circassian City Court left the magistrate's ruling unchanged.
– What followed the administrative arrest?
– After five days, the suspects were taken to the investigative department of the Investigative Committee, where a criminal case was opened against them. By the way, they never explained to us why the case about the crime allegedly discovered by the police was not opened in the investigative unit of the local internal affairs agency. There must have been no skilled writers there. Then the investigator applied to the court with a petition to take the kidnapped, by that time already formally detained, young people into custody. What happened in court was just some kind of Kafkaesque plot, procedural lawlessness and injustice reaching the point of absurdity. In reality, there was a feeling that you were either in a dream, or returned to the thirties of the last century, to the “justice” of the OGPU-NKVD: any invention of the investigator is accepted uncritically, the arguments of the defense are ignored. Moreover, this happens openly and in some grotesque form. The investigator says: “Bitsoev can hide from the investigation or destroy evidence.” You ask him: “Where did you get the idea? Where, for example, can he hide? What kind of evidence, for example, should I destroy?” The answer is silence. The judge is not interested in what is happening, he has a detention order ready, and he shows it with all his appearance. Adlan Bitsoev was taken into custody for two months, and recently the period of detention was extended for another three months. Everything is also from scratch.
– Have you tried to appeal the actions of the investigators?
– Not long ago, we turned to the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs of the Karachay-Cherkess Republic, the head of the investigative department and the prosecutor of the Republic Tereshchenko to make a legal decision on sending the case materials under jurisdiction to Moscow. After all, Adlan had never been to the Karachay-Cherkess Republic, even theoretically he could not have committed any crime there. We also wrote several reports about offenses committed by employees of the Investigative Committee, the department for combating extremism, during the so-called interviews, which are more like torture. This has been written about more than once in the press, including in federal publications. However, we did not receive a single answer. They simply ignore us. But we don’t give up. We will fight to the last. Otherwise, what is the point in the legal profession, in the judicial system and, in general, in law?
Murad Musaev, Chechen lawyer
The phrase “Chechen defender” has recently been steadily associated with one name.
One of the most noticeable consequences of the war in Chechnya is the mass emigration of those who could constitute the intellectual elite of this Russian republic, whose attempt to become a country ended so tragically. Over the past twenty years, first of all, the most educated and successful people have left Chechnya, fleeing war and tyranny - some to Russia, some to Europe or America. Already in the early 2000s, it became difficult to find a Chechen in Russia who could comment on what was happening in Chechnya in good Russian.
Actually, even before all the wars, there were few Chechen intellectuals - Chechens had difficulty making a career in the Soviet Union. The most successful were the last Soviet Minister of the Chemical and Oil Refining Industry Salambek Khadzhiev, Major General Dzhokhar Dudayev and dancer Makhmud Esambaev. The Chechen people did not produce ministers, generals and actors in large numbers under Soviet rule. Through no fault of my own. Even after the Chechens returned from exile in the late fifties, the state's attitude towards them remained wary: they were quietly but consistently pushed away from higher education and from any meaningful career. (Actually, the stigma of a “traitor people” placed on the Chechens by Stalin in 1944 was never formally removed - they were quietly allowed to return to their homeland from places of deportation, and that’s all.)
The war of the 1990s showed new Chechens to whom - if we refrain from other assessments - no one will deny the right to be called bright: Shamil Basayev, Aslan Maskhadov, the same Dudayev and many others. Almost no one was left alive.
In the 2000s, the Chechen people were almost exclusively represented by Akhmat and Ramzan Kadyrov or their opponents, for example the Yamadayev brothers - the latter, as a rule, occasionally and not for long. And in the current decade, Ramzan Kadyrov, of course, remains the most prominent Chechen.
But in 2009, the name of the young lawyer Murad Musaev became known. He first attracted attention in 2006, when he became involved in the so-called Eduard Ullman case. Captain Ulman and his subordinates were accused of killing civilians in Chechnya in 2002. Twice the jury acquitted them, and at the third trial, in which the interests of the victims were represented by twenty-three-year-old Musaev, the judge pronounced a guilty verdict.
Since then, there have been few high-profile trials in Russia in which lawyer Murad Musaev was absent.
***
It was clear that he would not get away with the fame that had come to Musaev over the past seven years. By the age of thirty, he had acquired quite a few ill-wishers.
Some fellow lawyers answered the question “Who is Murad Musaev?” They answer with the word “decider”, which in translation means a person who is able to influence the court’s decision in an informal way. At the same time, however, when asked to give examples, they respond with the well-known formulation “well, that’s what they say about him” and insist on anonymity.
Among people who are not shy about the definition of “Russian nationalist,” Musaev received the definition of “Kadyrov’s lawyer.” Most likely, it is based on the simple statistical fact that among his clients there are many Chechens. Publicly, the leader of Chechnya mentioned Musaev’s name only once, in the fall of 2013: after the Investigative Committee opened two criminal cases against Musaev on charges of bribing witnesses in the trial of Budanov’s murder.
Among those who use the self-name “liberals” there are also those who are not fans of Murad Musaev.
He came into confrontation with writer Yulia Latynina in 2009, during the first trial of the alleged killers of Anna Politkovskaya. Then Latynina said that Musaev defends murderers and scum only because they are Chechens. Musaev, in response, reasonably caught his opponent in the overexposure, as well as the fact that she was talking about the trial without attending any of the meetings. Since then, their mutual antipathy has regularly appeared in the media.
Musaev argued with publicist Andrei Piontkovsky in October 2013. This happened after Piontkovsky re-read Hadji Murad and came to the conclusion:
“Anna Politkovskaya was killed by the Chechens. And neither her murder nor the publication of the names of her killers shocked Chechen society. It remained completely indifferent
to Anna's fate. This seemed completely incomprehensible to me, until I finally realized that both Putin and Politkovskaya are largely indistinguishable for the Chechens,” writes Piontkovsky.
“Both one and the other, like all of us, by the fact of their birth belong in their perception to the category of those very creatures for whom they experience a feeling that is stronger than hatred. Listen to the noble pathos with which the most intelligent Murad Musaev denounces these creatures today: “You are simply cynics and hypocrites, using other people’s misfortune as a reason to unleash animal hatred that overwhelms your sick souls.”
But I wonder what fills his apparently very healthy soul when he once again proudly goes to a court hearing to again kill Politkovskaya along with the Makhmudov brothers, who mock the memory of their victim?”
Musaev immediately replied:
“Among the Chechens I know, there is not a single one who despises Russians as a people or who hates anyone for being Russian. Among the vices that my people suffer from (if an entire nation can suffer from vices at all), there is definitely no xenophobia. ...You have brought false accusations against me, against my client and against the whole people. And you also used the blessed memory of Anna Stepanovna Politkovskaya for a beautiful word.
I must reassure you: it is unlikely that the Makhmudovs will be acquitted again. The full power of the domestic repressive apparatus is deployed against these guys. And it seems to me that soon, thanks to “operational work with the jury” and other simple tricks of the prosecutors, you will be able to repeat your mantra without a formal violation of the law (but still dishonestly): “Politkovskaya was killed by the Chechens.” Just repeat it louder, Mr. Piontkovsky, because you are not the only one, your voice risks getting lost in the hum of thousands of other voices, including Biryulev’s.”
In the photo: Murad Musaev, a favorite of journalists (ITAR-TASS)
The dispute with Andrei Piontkovsky became an important stage in his career Murad Musaev. For the first time in his life, he acted not just as a lawyer, but as a Chechen defending the reputation of all other Chechens. It was from this moment that “Top Secret” became interested in his figure:
– In the media, in relation to you, the term “Chechen lawyer Murad Musaev” has become popular. Doesn't it bother you?
- Not at all. Like any normal person, I love my family and my people, and I consider it an honor to belong to them.
– Do you feel a special responsibility towards those people from the North Caucasus who need legal support in Moscow?
– I feel responsible to each of my clients, regardless of their nationality or region of origin.
– Is Chechen language your native language? Or Russian?
– Dad is Chechen, mother is Chechen, ancestors on both sides for at least twelve generations are Chechens. Obviously, my native language is Chechen.
– You read Tolstoy, most likely, in Russian. Is there a Chechen translation?
– It depends on Tolstoy. For example, I read “War and Peace” only in Russian and only at school, “Anna Karenina” - in Russian and in English. I read and re-read Hadji Murad in Russian, English and Chechen. By the way, this story has been translated into Chechen more than once, the last time, if I’m not mistaken, in 2008.
– You claim that Chechens do not feel hostility towards Russians. What are they experiencing?
– Chechens are more than a million people, each of whom experiences a variety of feelings.
If we are talking about the mentality of the Chechens, then xenophobia and other similar generalizations are not characteristic of it. On the contrary, from ancient times, even when hatred of foreigners was commonplace for many peoples, Chechens were distinguished by their emphasized internationalism. The “great friend” of the Chechen people, General Ermolov, spoke about this, albeit in an extremely negative form: “Their society is not so crowded, but has increased enormously in the last few years, because it welcomes friendly villains of all other peoples who leave their land after committing any crimes. And not only. Even our soldiers are fleeing to Chechnya.”
For example, Nikolai Breshko-Breshkovsky wrote more kindly about this quality of the Chechens: “During the civil war of 1919–1920. several hundred Chechens died defending Russian Red Army soldiers from persecution by the White Guards. After a while, when the situation changed, Chechens died again, saving Cossacks who were hiding in Chechnya, now from the Red Terror.”
– From a legal point of view, how would you assess what happened in Chechnya during the period of two wars?
– You yourself answered your own question: from a legal point of view, there were wars in Chechnya. More precisely, one war with a truce every three years.
– And if we take a longer historical period – say, from February 23, 1944?
– February 23, 1944 – the day of the beginning of the massacre and wholesale deportation of Chechens and Ingush based on nationality.
– Doesn’t the fate of the Chechen people fall under the concept of “genocide”? Or at least “large-scale war crimes”?
– In 1944 there was an undoubted, if I may say so, exemplary genocide. As for the “Chechen campaigns” of the late 20th century, in this war, of course, numerous war crimes were committed: from the use of prohibited weapons to the targeted killing of civilians.
– And isn’t it a challenging task for a lawyer to be a prosecutor in a trial similar to Nuremberg? Or is it still a defender?
– I am not driven by passion in my lawyering business. Protecting a person during an investigation or in court is not a game. As for the “process similar to Nuremberg,” it does not exist and is not yet in sight, so there is nothing to talk about.
– Why, in your opinion, did Russian society change its attitude towards the Chechens so dramatically during the time that you call the truce? An extremely negative (and massive) attitude towards the first campaign – and after just three years, almost universal support for the second campaign.
– The first campaign was launched under the mocking slogan of “establishing constitutional order.” People understood perfectly well that a fratricidal war was going on, dictated by someone’s political ambitions and economic interests.
Moscow prepared thoroughly for the second campaign. All the negativity with a Chechen accent was widely covered in the media. Unfortunately, there was plenty of negativity: post-war Chechnya was poor, the entire infrastructure of the republic was destroyed, and crime gained great strength in this scorched earth.
At the same time, after a series of provocations in Chechnya, an internal armed conflict occurred, then there were the events of 1999 in Dagestan, the explosions of houses in different cities - a murky story in all respects.
All this was covered in the media. On prime time TV they showed someone shooting off someone’s finger, cutting off someone’s head, and so on. In the comments to the horrific footage, the words “Chechnya”, “Chechens”, “Chechen” were used. And this went on for several years.
In such a situation, of course, the new military campaign was received with a bang. After all, now, in the perception of Russians, the army was going to a sacred battle against the infidels, and was not serving someone’s selfish interests.
Moreover, the people were so warmed up that they began to consider anyone who killed Chechens in this war a hero: it didn’t matter whether it was a soldier who died in a battle for some height, or an officer who kidnapped, raped and brutally killed an innocent girl. Almost no one paid attention to the carpet bombings, to the shootings of peaceful houses and even columns of refugees, to the atrocities in the concentration camps.
– How do you respond to the slogan “Stop feeding the Caucasus!”?
– I don’t communicate with people who speak the language of chauvinistic slogans.
You can, of course, start explaining to some loudmouth that I myself am a taxpayer, that no less oil is pumped out of Chechnya than money is pumped there, and so on. In the end, we can open his eyes to the fact that a couple of our eastern regions feed half of Russia. But it is impossible to rationally discuss with a xenophobe or a racist, and most importantly, it is useless.
– Don’t you think that what happened in Chechnya in the 1990s is a direct consequence of the deportation of 1944?
– I don’t see a cause-and-effect relationship between these two specific tragedies. There is, however, one chronological pattern: over the past three centuries, the Chechen people have become the object of aggression literally every half century. I really hope that at the beginning of the 21st century we experienced the last turn of this terrible historical carousel.
– Is it true that in the Chechen language there is a separate noun that is translated into Russian only by the phrase “Chechen insolence”?
***
Those who do not sympathize with Murad Musaev still like to remember his father, police colonel, Doctor of Law Alaudi Musaev, who made a brilliant Soviet and post-Soviet career in law. But no one can provide more compelling evidence that Musaev Jr., who at the age of thirty became the youngest doctor of legal sciences in Russian history, owes his success solely to family connections.
Much more interesting is that Alaudi Musayev is not only a lawyer, but also a writer. His book dedicated to Sheikh Mansur, the leader of the first large-scale Chechen uprising against Russian colonization, was published in the “Life of Remarkable People” series. It cannot be called complimentary, because the historical facts are presented by the author extremely conscientiously, but the tone in which it is written is certainly enthusiastic.
And cases where in Chechen families sons reject the views of their parents are so rare that they are not worth mentioning.
***
For now, Ramzan Kadyrov remains the most famous Chechen in Russia. The text he uttered at the Grozny stadium, “The judge is corrupt, you are a goat,” became a bestseller on the Russian-language Internet. Murad Musaev, with his vivid addresses to the jury in almost exemplary Russian, attracts much less attention. He is a Chechen lawyer, and this status suits him for now.
But times are changing. And there is little doubt that someday we will see Murad Musaev - no longer a defender. Policy? Public figure? A writer, like his father? Doesn't matter. The role will change, but it seems Musaev will never get rid of the definition of “Chechen”. He won't.
DOSSIER
In 2007, Murad Musaev defended Umar Batukaev, who was accused of planning to blow up a car next to the Chechen representative office in Moscow on Victory Day. In April 2009, he was acquitted by the jury of the main charge, and the Moscow City Court sentenced Batukaev to five years in a general regime colony for using a forged document and illegal possession of weapons.
In 2010, Musaev represented the interests of the Chechen Ombudsman Nurdi Nukhazhiev in court. Through the republican prosecutor's office, Musaev applied to the court to recognize the article describing the Chechen Republic in the 58th volume of the "Big Encyclopedia" of the Terra publishing house as extremist. The application was granted.
In 2010, Musaev was the lawyer of Martin Babakekhyan, who was sentenced to 19 years in prison in a maximum security colony for his participation in the murder of Magadan governor Tsvetkov.
In 2011, Musaev was the lawyer of the accused Albert Tsgoev, who, in a quarrel, killed two guards of the former President of South Ossetia, Eduard Kokoity. Tsgoev faced life imprisonment, but in court the charge was reclassified and the jury found him guilty of murder in a state of passion. Tsgoev received 2.5 years in prison.
Since 2011, lawyer Musaev has defended Yusup Temerkhanov, accused of murdering former Colonel Yuri Budanov. In May 2013, the Moscow City Court sentenced Temerkhanov to 15 years in prison in a maximum security colony.
In 2012, during the preliminary investigation, Musaev defended a professor at the Central Music School at the Conservatory, Ryabov, who was accused of harassing school students. In the trial, Anatoly Ryabov was completely acquitted.
In 2012, Musaev acted as a lawyer for several Muslim families in the Stavropol Territory who complained that their daughters were prohibited from attending school wearing hijabs. The claim was dismissed, the decision was appealed, and the case was in the Supreme Court of Russia and the decision of the Stavropol Regional Court of March 22, 2013 was left unchanged.
Murad Musaev is the lawyer of Dzhabrail Makhmudov, one of the defendants in the case of Anna Politkovskaya. Dzhabrail Makhmudov is accused of complicity in murder. He was arrested in 2007, but was unanimously acquitted by a jury in February 2009 and released. Now Makhmudov has been charged again, and the murder case is being heard again in the Moscow City Court.