Trial on Oyub Titiev: day 4

17.08.2018

Investigator in the Kurchaloevskij police station Nurid Salamov questioned. He was the head of the investigative group on Oyub Titiev's case during the first period of pre-trial investigation. 

Today in the court there is a lot of people. A quarter of them are diplomats from the French and German embassies as well as two representatives of the European Union. Tanya Lokshina from Human Rights Watch, Alexander Cherkasov from Memorial, the Caucasian Knot, DOSH, the New Gazeta (Novaya gazeta), a lawyer from Dagestana, Ziyautdin Uweisov, Anne Neistat from Amnesty International and relatives. Also here is the chairman of the Council to the Head of the Chechen Republic on the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights Timur Aliyev, a member of the Public Chamber, Mansur Soltayev, and the media of Chechnya.

1 (23) The first witness Shakhiev Ahmed Mahmudovich, born in 1974. He lives in Kurchaloy.
The witness is Oyub’s neighbor. He says that they don’t have any tensions.
He has lived next door to Oyub since birth.
Recently, Oyub had a Lada Kalina car, but he does not remember for how long.
We talked, visited each other on holidays.
He did not see someone else driving Oyub’s car.
From the witness’s yard you cannot see what is happening in Oyub’s courtyard.
The place of entry into the yard is also not visible.
Sometimes I saw how Oyub left for work and stopped in later.
On January 8 and 9, I did not see Oyub driving his car out of the yard.
According to the witness, Oyub’s car is a steel hatchback, without tinted windows. I did not notice this car anywhere else.
He was called into the police station. The interrogation was at his home, «Kalmyk fat," the protocol is handwritten.

Prosecutor Baitaeva asks that Zaikin’s questions be removed. The lawyer answers that the prosecutor exceeds his authority and, if this continues, she will be challenged.
Zaikin continues questioning. The witness never saw Oyub in a state of intoxication. But he constantly exercised and ran.
He does not know anything about Oyub’s circle.
He does not remember what time Oyub usually went to work.
He only has good things to say about Oyub as a fellow villager.
The witness, except for «this Kalmyk», was not questioned. Only when he came to Grozny was the «the protocol written.»
Zaikin petitioned for an investigation of the witness’s interrogation record at the preliminary investigation.
The witness confirms that the protocol has his signature on it.
He does not remember who interrogated him in Grozny. The interrogation protocol was kept on the computer and the witness signed it.
Kalmyk from the Kurchaloveskij police station, who interrogated him the first time, came to the witness’s home and said that he should go to Grozny and testify.
Where exactly he was interrogated he does not know and does not understand this.
Dubrovina petitioned for the disclosure of the interrogation report.
Baitaeva objected.
The protocol is announced.
Investigator Khadukaev interrogated him on March 10, according to the protocol.
He was interrogated in the summer, but this is no exact.

2 (24) Salamov Nurid Denilbekovich, born in 1987. He lives in Geldagan and works as an investigator in the Kurchaloevskij police station.
A sign with Oyub from the moment the criminal case was opened.
In the beginning of January he brought a case against Titiev. First, he refused to give evidence under Article 51. The investigator charged, carried out a series of investigative actions and then petitioned for a preventive measure.
I did not invoke the use of Article 51.
I did not admit guilt.
The lawyer was present.
The investigator did not express concrete dissatisfaction with Oyub.
Since case was opened, an investigative team led by Salamov was established. There were also investigators Agabekov and Muratov.
On January 9, the case was opened.
After the filing of the case, I saw Oyuba for the first time in the evening.
He came into the office with the lawyer Telhigov.
As far as Salamov remembers, no one else came with them.
He does not know where Oyub was at the time of the opening of the case.
A description of Oyub’s appearance was provided, perhaps, by one of the staff.
Prior to the criminal case, from the moment of the actual cessation, Oyub did not apply to the investigator about the unlawful methods.
He does not remember anything about the circumstances of the arrest. It is in the materials of the case, he says.
He does not remember how many people stopped Oyub according to the case materials. There are more than two car inspectors. He does not know if there were other employees there. «I was not there," and in the materials there is nothing written about the others.
Khutayev and Garayev are the names of auto inspectors.
The investigator inspected and sealed Oyub’s car. Zaikin is trying to find out where the car was put, in which parking lot and whether it was under a canopy.
The investigator draws a diagram.
Now everyone is looking at the diagram.
When I examined the car I opened the door, I inspected everything without damaging anything.
Zaikin tries to figure out how close the car was to the fences and other obstacles.
Zaikin asks to see the photo of the car, which the investigator took then.
Zaikin: The defense still does not know anything about the where the statement about embezzlement of expensive equipment from Oyub’s, which during investigative actions was submitted to investigator Khadukaev, car ended up. At the same time, the investigator Khadukaev made note of the autopsy.
In the investigation department, lawyers were denied answers (Zaikin was there four times for this purpose, Dubrovin — twice), they said that they would report the results before the trial.
But there is still no answer yet.
The judge decided to review the protocol of the inspection of the subject.
All photos were examined together.
Zaikin: the distance between the right side of the car and the number of passing pipes is less than a meter. The driver’s door of the «Kalina» is about a meter when the door is open. Witness: as far as I can remember, I opened all the doors when I examined them. Zaikin: the photo shows that the door is ajar and rests against the pipe. Was it possible to inspect the driver’s seat in this way? Witness: If I examined it, of course. At the time of examination, there were no signs of opening.

There were no openings and they did not inspect them. The glove compartment was examined. All of this was done personally by Salamov and no one helped him.
Zaikin asks if the mobile phones were there. Witness: the protocol has just been read, if there were no phones, then they were not there.
When Oyub and his lawyer were in the investigator’s office, no one called Oyub and he didn’t seem to have a phone on him The witness did not contact Oyuba personally.
He does not remember what Oyub had with him at the time of his detention.
I did not see any documents on him.
According to Salamov there was a copy of his passport in the pre-investigation check materials.
Zaikin asks to examine the case materials to understand how they received a copy of the passport in the absence of the passport itself.

They need to learn what kind of document established the identity of Oyub. A lot of official violations were committed, Zaikin said.
Salamov says that without identification, he could not open a case.
Zaikin says that he waited 8 months for this moment — to finally learn how to establish the identity of Oyub.
The court reads the original documents.

On the defense, the court and the accused have some documents, while the prosecution has others. The prosecution is saying that they have supervisory review materials.

This type of situation calls for the prosecutor to return the case, Zaikin says.

When the case was opened, the defense is interested in how to establish identity.

At the time of Oyub’s arrest was there his passport with him? The investigator says there was.

There were no other documents, including a driver’s license. The investigator says to ask Titiev himself where the license was.

On what grounds Oyub was arrested, the investigator does not remember.

It seems to be for two violations, including a traffic light violation.

The prosecutor says something in Chechen to the investigator.

The investigator said that the fact that Zaikin is drinking water during his answers is a sign of disrespect.

Obligatory instructions are given by the investigator in writing. They are not attached to the case materials. Zaikin asked why the materials were not included in the Oyub case. The investigator says that this is their practice.
Zaikin: according to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) it is necessary to attach such materials.

The investigator described everything that was in the car.

If I found equipment that was not part of the original car design, I would also record it.

The investigator: There was no registrar, I don’t remember about the antennas. There was nothing else, either.

Zaikin asks to see the photo of the windshield of Oyub’s car. Because of the snow on the windshield you cannot see what is installed at the bottom of the windshield. Inside, in the area of ​​the front panel, photos were also not taken.

The investigator didn’t think that photos of these parts were necessary.

He did not notice the damage to the left side of the car.

The keys to the car were provided with the criminal case materials the chief investigator gave them over. He does not remember whether the keys were sealed.

In the same bunch, there seemed to be another key, from which he was, the investigator does not know, but he was smaller in size.

The investigator asked Oyub whether he had telephones. Oyub did not have them. All this happened with a lawyer.

After a little squabble, all parties agreed that we are not in a bazaar, but in court.

The investigator did not take anything of material value ​​from Oyub.

The witness does not know that Oyub was injured during his arrest.

Zaikin announces a challenge to prosecutor Baitaeva. She demonstrated a personal interest in the outcome of the case, said the defender. The gross violations of the CCP, which speaking of incompetence, give rise to a challenge.

Baitaeva said that the defense did not provide any evidence of her personal interest.

The prosecution is against the defense counsel asking the witness the same questions.

Zaikin: The public prosecution constantly prevents questions from being asked. Apparently, she besides her professional interest in the case, has some other, personal interest.

Oyub: From the very beginning of the trial my lawyer has been threatened. Each threat, to him, is a threat to me. My lawyer is a military officer with awards. We are not afraid of threats — neither he nor I.

The court retired to the advisory room.

Recess until 2:00pm.

Prosecutor Baytayeva will not be dismissed, the petition is not accepted.

The judge explains to Oyub: The process is emotional, so it’s not threats, it’s emotions

We continue to question the investigator Salamov.

Oyub did not see the holster on the waist belt and the shoulder holster.

The investigator was not surprised by the fact that Oyu did not have a phoe: I sometimes leave the house myself, forgetting my phone.

The witness does not remember if there were attempts to determine the location of Oyub by billing.

Salamov says that Oyub did not inform the investigator about the fact that there was a staged detention following which time Oyub’s things were confiscated.

After inspection of the car, the keys were passed to the logistics team. The keys were not sealed.

Khadukaev did not find out from Salamov the circumstances of the autopsy machine.

Third parties also did not inform Salamov that there were signs of an autopsy.

The machine was sealed with tags, tape and print on top. The witness says this is in the photo tables.

He laughs a lot for some reason.

He does not remember what date was on the tags.

Dubrovina is trying to find out how the package found in the car relates to Oyub. What does the investigator have to say about this?

The witness says: This was established during the investigation

How did he establish Titiev’s involvement in this package, Dubrovin asks. The investigator considered it sufficient to open a criminal case that drugs were found in Oyub’s car.

There was material verification.

A personal search of a person suspected of illicit drug trafficking is an axiom, says Zaikin. Salamov did not conduct it for some reason.

The car inspector was no also not involved in the arrest.

Zaikin is interested in how drugs could be found on swabs, when under his fingernails there is nothing. The investigator responds: depending on how the drugs are taken, fingers or nails.

On the tag, which was printed on the package with a substance of plant origin, there was a legible signature. He does not remember if it was Oyub’s signature.

The investigator assumes during the inspection of the scene and before Oyub was brought into his office, that the menace was with the employees or at a drug dispensary.

Oyub did show any signs of intoxication.

He does not know when Oyub was actually deprived of freedom.

Why didn’t you find out where Oyub was from the moment of actual arrest before he got into the investigator’s office? The investigator: it was necessary to tell them, when they came to me with Telhigov, but they refused under Article 51.

Zaikin asks to read the protocol of the inspection of the scene.

Reading the protocol is very difficult. The judge says he wrote in a doctor’s messy handwriting. Prosecutors help her understand what was written, but they also do not always succeed.

The opening of the package was not unauthorized, the witness said. Otherwise, he would have written an appropriate procedural document.

Dubrovina asks why the investigator interrogated police officers who were on duty on January 9 (rather than not those who detained Oyub). Witness: I checked Oyub’s account of his arrest.

What results did you get? All were in their place.

He does not know about a camouflaged «Patriot» at the police station.
A Rapid Reaction Unit does not exist at the Kurchaloevskij police station.

There is a RRF.

The RRF ​​wears the usual blue camouflage.

No employees who could have been in green uniforms were present at the police station.

Oyub asks the witness whether he is a believer and whether he knows that it is forbidden to lie to a Muslim.

Salamov knows.

The judge asks that questions be asked on the content [of the case].

We tried to find out exactly how the investigator had a copy of the passport or the actual passport of Oyub.

The judge refused to read the testimony of the traffic inspector Alikhan Garayev, as he will be questioned in court later.

The defense has more questions for Salamov, but before questioning the car inspectors it is not advisable to ask them for tactical reasons.

Oyub asks why Salamov was looking for a lawyer for Telhigov for 4 days

Salamov said that information was received that Telhigov had disappeared at the entrance to the village of Kurchaloy. He said that he would come, and after that he disappeared

The media had this information

Oyub already had another lawyer, he did not understand why he had to look for Telhigov.

He is allegedly hearing about the external supervision of Telhigov and Zaikinallegedly for the first time

Recess for 20 minutes.

The meeting continues.

Recess until 10am tomorrow.

Программа: Горячие точки
Программа: Поддержка политзэков

Титиев Оюб Салманович родился 24 августа 1957 года, живёт в селе Курчалой Чеченской Республики, правозащитник, руководитель грозненского представительства Правозащитного центра (ПЦ) «Мемориал».

Поделиться: