In the Southern District Military Court in Rostov-on-Don, almost everything is ready to begin the process in the case of the murder of the founder of the Chernivik newspaper Khadzhimurad Kamalov. Four residents of the republic will sit on the bench of the defendants: former Deputy Prime Minister Shamil Isaev, Magomed Abigasanov, Murad Shuaybov and Magomed Khazamov. On the eve of the trials on the merits of the case, the court examined the petitions of the victim, current founder “draft” Magdi Kamalov and his lawyer on the return of the criminal case to the prosecutor to eliminate the obstacles to his consideration by the court.

At this stage, the court considered the issue of extending a preventive measure in relation to the defendants in the case and allowed the petition of their defenders to return the criminal case to the prosecutor.

This case from the very beginning to the completion of the preliminary investigation was full of contradictions and inconsistencies. The editorial office plans to detail their next week, while we briefly talk about the main ones.

After reviewing the materials of the criminal case and the indictment, the victim in the case Magdi Kamalov considered that the criminal case should be returned to the prosecutor in accordance with Art. 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation to eliminate the obstacles to its consideration by the court.

He is convinced that the preliminary investigation in the case was completed prematurely, and the investigator did not establish all the circumstances to be proved in accordance with Art. 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

And most importantly, Magdi Kamalov is sure, the investigator is held accountable for persons who are actually not involved in the organization and committing of the murder of his brother.

“The materials of the criminal case I have studied do not contain objective, irrefutable evidence of the guilt of the above persons in the commission of the crimes that they are charged with. In addition to a significant number of procedural violations and various contradictions on the merits of the investigation, a number of circumstances are clearly distinguished, indicating that the investigation did not establish true organizers and executors of the murder of my brother, as well as the motives of the crime, ” Kamalov is sure.

Note that the investigation presented two publications in the “draft”: “Free? Strong?" From July 2010, and “Another buried sword” of the same year, and only these articles formed the basis of the alleged motive for the murder of Khadzhimurad Kamalov . More, in fact, there is nothing in business.

“The investigator did not find out who exactly the article“ Free? Strong?". In fact, she was written about the former mayor of Makhachkala Said Amirov . This is reliably known to me as the owner of this newspaper and Kamalov’s native brother. This article has nothing to do with Isaev and his family at all. In the article “Another buried sword”, the surname Isaeva Sh. A. is mentioned formally, without any assessment of his affairs and personality. Moreover, this article was not written by my brother, but by another newspaper journalist, ”Magdi Kamalov emphasizes in his petition.

In this regard, Magdi Kamalov asked the court to return this criminal case to the prosecutor to eliminate the obstacles to his court in accordance with Art. 237 Code of Criminal Procedure.

The meeting lasted almost all day. As a result, Judge Rizwan Zubairov retired to the deliberation room and, after the exit, refused to satisfy the petition. He said that all questions and petitions of interest are subject to consideration already during the trial of the court on the merits of the case.

Assad Dzhabirov, a lawyer of one of the defendants in the case of Murad Shuaybov , also commented on the results of an eight -hour meeting. Dzhabirov also believes that during the investigation in this case, a lot of significant violations of the law were committed.

“The essence of our petitions to the court was that the violations committed cannot be eliminated by the court on their own, they exclude the possibility of the decision of a legal and reasonable sentence and actually do not allow the court to realize the function of justice assigned to him,” the lawyer says, indicating that we are talking about violation of the right to defense.

“The investigation, for example, did not verify all the versions of the incident, but those circumstances, the need to verify which we paid the attention of the Investigative Committee with a detailed justification, as well as evidence that we presented in defense of our principals, or were rejected by the investigation on absolutely formal grounds, or completely remained without any response from our opponents. That is, no other versions and options for the development of events were interested in the prosecution, because they already had “convenient accused”, whom they planned to bring to trial at all costs.

In addition, before sending the case, the investigation did not indicate in the indictment of the evidence that our clients referred to during the investigation in the case, we were denied the list of witnesses from the defense and the procedure for familiarizing themselves with the materials of the criminal case was rudely violated.

According to the law, the functions of the court and accusations should be strictly delimited. The court, observing the principles of adversarial and equal rights of the parties, cannot take the side of the prosecution, or to the side of the defense, replace the parties, taking on their procedural powers, which means that it is not entitled to eliminate the consequences of the investigation made by their own forces, so the defense sought the return of the criminal case to the Prosecutor General.

However, we were denied petitions at this stage.

In general, we did not have big illusions that all our claims would be satisfied immediately and at the very beginning, because the court has the opportunity to return to this issue at any moment of the trial. It was important to convey to the court the essence of these violations.

At the same time, the preliminary hearing lasted almost the whole day, which is extremely rare, because usually most of the claims of the defenders at this stage are declared premature by the court. But this time, the presiding judge studied, at the request of the party to the defense, he introduced the documents that we presented in support of his position, and drew attention to the circumstances that we wrote about in our complaints and petitions.

“Now we have a trial of this case on the merits, where we intend to convince the composition of the judges of the presence and materiality of violations committed against our clients, and that the accusations made against them do not have a legitimate basis,” said Jabirov.

The consideration of the case is scheduled for the first days of November. ] § [

Do not be judged by the killers?