Defendants in Nalchik attack case disrupt litigation again

Today, the judicial session at the Supreme Court of Kabardino-Balkaria, which considers the events on October 13, 2005, in Nalchik, was again disrupted by the defendants who disagreed to replacement of an advocate.

It became known by the start of the session that advocate Kanshoubi Gazhonov, who represents the interests of defendants Anzor Sasikov and Mukhadin Kardanov, is ill. The defendants refused to have another lawyer. The chairing judge Galina Gorislavskaya has warned the defendants that if their advocate is not OK within five days, Sasikov and Kardanov will have to define their new defender, or the court will appoint an advocate for them by its will.

It was planned to discuss today the petition of advocate Magomed Abubakarov, put forward on Tuesday, April 13, asking to exclude the surrender of the amnestied Zelimkhan Karaev from eligible evidences because it was documented not immediately after Karaev's detention on October 13, 2005, but almost one month later - on November 10, 2005.

The surrender statement ran: "I, Karaev Zelimkhan, hereby open-heartedly confess that I took part in the attack on the 2nd OVD (Interior Division). Together with me, one of the attackers was Budtuev Kazbek."

In the courtroom, Karaev refused from all his previous evidences, including his surrender statement, and said that it all had been invented by him. Neither he nor Budtuev took part in the attack, Karaev said.

When asked why he had slandered himself, Karaev explained that the inspector promised to amnesty him and Budtuev, therefore, he has agreed as he saw amnesty as the only chance to get at large. But when Karaev was amnestied and Budtuev - left in prison, he decided to tell the truth.

The petition of lawyer Abubakarov asking to exclude Karaev's surrender statement from eligible evidences was discussed with the defence party.

Defendant Sergey Kaziev has stated that there was a precedent of such exclusion: "The same situation was with me. I moved such petition, and Judge Mohammed Tashuev, who earlier chaired the trial, satisfied it."

The prosecution party took time to prepare a motivated answer, which should have been announced today.