Daily Journal:

Maybe Krasnenkov wants to prove in this way that my actions were deliberate. I have no idea. It is generally difficult to evaluate Mr. Krasnenkov’s logic, because he often lacks it. I saw how he handled himself in a civil trial. He is exclusively engaged in promoting himself in the eyes of the Chechen public. It is important for him to show that he is doing something, making statements, cursing at some enemies. This has nothing to do with legal work. He feels confident because he believes that he will still win this civil case. Therefore, he doesn’t really care about the legal part.

Krasnenkov always expresses some, let's say, exotic assumptions. We will have a full transcript of the meeting, but as far as I remember now, Krasnenkov said: “Or maybe Estemirova went to Ingushetia herself? What kind of business did she have in Ingushetia?” To this, the only one of the witnesses who could say something about this, an employee of the office of the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Chechen Republic, the head of the analytical department, said: “I don’t know. She actually went to Nazran. According to my information, she was supposed to go somewhere that day, either to Nazran or to Pyatigorsk.” In fact, she was supposed to go in the afternoon to Pyatigorsk with employees of the Investigative Committee of the Chechen Republic. That was his answer, so Kommersant got it wrong. He did not give any clear answer to Krasnenkov’s leading questions. Besides, this is irrelevant. Mr. Krasnenkov asks questions, all the time trying to work in the eyes of Kadyrov, his only court is Kadyrov. Kadyrov hired him, he needs to earn the money properly. Therefore, he will say any nonsense and any nasty thing. What does Krasnenkov’s assumption about whether Natasha Estemirova was kidnapped or not kidnapped have to do with the matter? None. Maybe he will assume that we ourselves kidnapped and killed her? At the civil trial, the following words came from his lips: “Why not assume that human rights activists themselves killed Estemirova in order to denigrate Kadyrov?” Why discuss them?

The fact that Natasha did not complain about the threats is said by the prosecution witnesses, people who always say that they were good acquaintances of Natasha, almost good friends. But it was not for nothing that I kept asking these people a question: “Since you are such good friends, did Natasha tell you about her latest affairs, which she was very passionate about?” She was a super enthusiastic person. They answered: “No, we don’t know what she did.” I asked not about the most recent ones, at least simply what she was doing in 2009. They don’t know, they don’t remember, she didn’t say anything. So much for you, friends. If she didn't tell them that, then why on earth would she tell them about the threats? In addition, I asked representatives of the human rights organization, these same witnesses, when they spoke at the civil trial, whether they knew rumors of kidnappings, murders, and burning of houses. They avoided this question. It is clear that they do not want to talk about topics that are dangerous to them. Naturally, they will say the same thing about the possibility of threats against Natasha.

I asked all these people if they knew about the public, published statements of Ramzan Akhmadovich Kadyrov about Natasha Estemirova. Some said they didn't know. The head of the office of the Commissioner for Human Rights did not read or hear what Kadyrov said about Estemirova. He knows nothing about how Kadyrov called Memorial and me personally enemies of the people. This is their level of competence, their level of trust in these witnesses. Someone said: “Yes, he spoke, but this cannot be regarded as a hostile attitude, much less it cannot be regarded as a threat.” And in general, they say, these are words, they are not that important.

But in the testimony of Malsagova (she now works as the head of the apparatus of the Republican Public Chamber, before that she headed one of the human rights organizations, the North Caucasus Peacekeeping Center), as honest as could be expected in this part (I understand that the person is in a difficult situation) , a rather terrible and very depressing picture of the situation in the Chechen Republic was described. She spoke directly about torture, about cruel violations of human rights, about beatings carried out by law enforcement officers, those people who should not be in these bodies. That these violations are not being investigated. She herself mentioned the case of the murder of the Ilaev brothers and admitted that this was done by employees of a certain special company, that is, representatives of the state, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Chechen Republic, controlled by Ramzan Kadyrov. Moreover, in response to Reznik’s question, she did not deny that behind the murder of Natasha Estemirova there could be people who, according to her, have no place in the law enforcement agencies of the Chechen Republic.

This shows the severity of the atmosphere there, the danger of the work of human rights activists, their vulnerability. Who is responsible for creating such an atmosphere?