Svetlana Gannuskina, 28/11/11 Source: HRO.org · Articles by human rights defenders · Moscow city & Moscow region · Refugees & migrants  *** The court verdict in the so-called 'Tajik Case' has entered into force. Of the six Tajiks who were originally charged, and the twenty Dagestanis questioned during the investigation, only two appeared in the dock – Alisher Otadzhonzade and Akbardzhon Otaboev. On 3 November 2011 in Ostankinsky district court in Moscow, both were found guilty of violating Article 222, Section 2 (illegal acquisition, transfer, sale, possession, transport, or carrying of weapons or the basic components thereof, ammunition, explosive materials, or explosive devices) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. They were sentenced to two-and-a-half years' imprisonment in a standard regime penal colony. They began serving their sentences on 2 November 2010, which means that in three months' time the two men will be eligible to apply for early release on parole. It all began on 15 October 2010 when a number of unidentified persons in civilian clothes turned up at the hut near Prospekt Mira in Moscow where three dozen migrant workers from Tajikistan lived. They began searching the place, walking round the room asking irrelevant questions. The same people returned on 19 October claiming to be from the police criminal investigation department, but did not produce any documents and did not introduce themselves. The visitors asked the men to identify persons in some very old photographs who were on a wanted list in Uzbekistan. No one recognised the individuals. That evening, on returning home from work, one of the men went to do his laundry. When he pulled a basin out from under his bed, he found a packet of extremist pamphlets. The packet did not belong to any of those living there. The men decided, on reflection, not to inform the police about this discovery, but to destroy the documents, and wasted no time in doing so. The next day, 20 October, several cars drove up to the migrant workers' home with officers from various security agencies wearing masks (the migrant workers believed they were from the FSB and the police), as well as a bomb technician, photographers, and dogs. They got the men down on the floor, handcuffed them, and beat three of them. They searched the place. The bed under which the pamphlets had been found was smashed to pieces. They were busy for a long time in the house. The women saw that some black packages were brought onto the premises. The whole affair lasted more than three hours. After the search the migrant workers were told that an explosive device had been found on the premises. At around 11pm the members of the security services who had carried out the operation drove off with ten men and three children of school age. For several days after that no one knew where they were. Following the searches on 21 October, six of the detainees were discovered to be at Alekseevsky police station. The three children had been taken to the City Children's Hospital № 21 for homeless children. One of the children's fathers obtained his child after paying a 'fine' – with no receipt – of 2,000 roubles. On 22 October members of Civic Assistance Committee telephoned the hospital and received confirmation that the police were not allowing the doctor to release the children. It was only on Monday 25 October that our lawyer was able to speak with the police officers and managed to convince them to release the children without a 'fine'. On the evening of 22 October we finally discovered that all six detainees were serving 12-day sentences for offences under administrative law. The police officers could give no reason for these punishments. Another three were being held in a detention centre for foreign citizens sentenced to deportation. It eventually emerged that the detainees were being held in Moscow special police detention facility №1 (on Simferopol Boulevard) for those arrested or imprisoned under administrative law. On Monday 25 October we asked three lawyers to represent the detainees: two members of the Migration and Law Network at Memorial Human Rights Centre, Emil Taubulatov and Roman Onishchenko, and a lawyer from the Civic Assistance Committee, Gulnara Bobodzhanova (for further information on this see 'Is an extremism trial in the pipeline?'). The defence lawyers studied the case materials on the administrative offences and found that, according to the documents, the migrant workers were not taken away from their home, but were arrested outside, where they swore obscenely and resisted arrest. All those convicted told their lawyers that while they were in custody they had been repeatedly visited by FSB officers who proposed that they should co-operate with them and tried to get them to sign some pieces of paper, promising they would be released immediately afterwards. The arrested men all said that they wanted to have a lawyer present, but this did not happen. One of the men was so intimidated that he signed the paper, but, of course, he was not released. When the lawyers asked staff at the detention centre on what grounds the FSB officers were permitted contact with those being punished for administrative offences, they replied that 'they [the FSB] always do this, and there's nothing to be done about it.' In accordance with the court protocol, the administrative arrest ended on 2 November at 2.10am. Lawyers and relatives of the detainees waited outside the detention centre from early morning. However, at 6pm, the defence lawyers were informed that their clients would not be released as the FSB had received further information on them. The lawyers demanded to meet with their clients. Faced with continued demands for an answer, staff at the detention centre eventually admitted that the Tajiks had already been taken away by FSB officers. Our worst fears had been confirmed. At 10am on 2 November a court hearing had been held to decide the measure of restraint for the nine detained Tajiks. The court ruled that they should all be held on remand. The lawyers began working to a meticulously thought-out plan. They appealed, unsuccessfully, against unlawful detainment, against the convictions for administrative offences, and with regard to the violations of the regulations governing the special detention centre for administrative offences (for further information, see here). As they worked, the lawyers learnt many interesting things about the 'investigation' of the 'Tajik case'. Until the first interrogation, the case materials contain statements by the detainees in fluent Russian from which it was easy to come to the conclusion that they were planning a terrorist attack. It is our guess (though nothing more) that this case was intended to support the Russian Supreme Court's recognition on 14 February 2003 of a number of organisations, including the 'Islamic Freedom Party' ('Hizb ut-Tahrir'), as terrorist. However, for all the dubious nature of the programme of this party, it has never been involved in any terrorist activity. This was the gap that it was intended to fill by the 'Tajik case', since it was intended to denounce all the people living in the hut as members of 'Hizb ut-Tahrir'. The FSB intended to bring yet more Russian 'members' of the organisation into the 'Tajik case'. To this end, on 7 December 2010, a number of searches were carried out at the Moscow homes of two dozen people from the North Caucasus. During one of these searches Bakhrom Khamroev, a staff member of Memorial Human Rights Centre, was beaten up. Those detained during the proceedings were taken to be interrogated, where our lawyers discovered that the searches and interrogations were being conducted in the framework of our 'Tajik case'. Our lawyers’ work nearly led to the case being abandoned; the people from the Caucasus returned home, out of danger’s way; the Tajiks rejected statements incriminating one another which they had signed without lawyers and interpreters and before any charges had been brought against them. It is possible that nothing more would have come of the case were it not for the interference of a relative of two brothers who were among those charged. The relative was not accustomed to the way our lawyers work: as they do not accept money, this must mean they are bad professionals, so they will not have anything to offer the inspector, and will not be able to reach an agreement with him. The inspector arranged a meeting for the relative with the brothers, and he convinced the elder brother to plead guilty and to co-operate with the investigation. The younger brother then would only have to agree with this version of events. We will not name the elder brother. His case was separated from that of the others and considered separately. In the end, only two remained in the dock: the younger of the two brothers who had 'confessed’, Alisher Otadzhonzade, and one of our clients who was taken in by Alisher, Akbardzhon Otaboev. As mentioned earlier, they were both sentenced to 2.5 years' imprisonment in a standard regime penal colony. Why, given the current situation such an outcome for the 'Tajik case' is almost a victory. Almost… Svetlana Gannushkina Chair of Civic Assistance Committee, member of the board of International Memorial Society, member of the board of Memorial Human Rights Centre 25 November, 2011 Translation adapted from ‘Tajiks Detained Last Year Convicted of Possession of Weapons’ (Memorial) by kind permission |
Site Archive > Anti-Extremism >
