Defendant in case of attack on Nalchik denies his earlier evidences

The trial on the case of the attack on power agencies located in Nalchik, which was committed by militants on October 13, 2005, partially read off the records of interrogation of defendant Ruslan Khanov. The defendant argues that he gave his testimony under physical and psychological pressure.

The records of interrogation, read off on April 17, indicated that in the course of preliminary investigation, Ruslan Khanov confessed that he was a member of the Moscow Jamaat.

The Jamaat was led by Aslan Tkhamokov (who was pardoned in October 2006, - note of the "Caucasian Knot"). The records listed the names of all members of the Jamaat Aslan Tkhamokov, who voluntarily surrendered to the police and who was pardoned, defendants Azret Shavaev, Zalim Ulimbashev, and Anzor Bagov, who was killed on October 13, 2005.

However, in the courtroom, Ruslan Khanov did not confirm that there was the Moscow Jamaat and that the attack was known in advance. He explained that such testimony was given by him under physical and psychological pressure.

According to Ruslan Khanov, he learned that the group was going to attack the building of the Department for Combating Organized Criminality of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) in the course of the investigation.

During the court session, lawyer Murat Ozrokov, who defends defendant Tokhov after lawyer Kunizhev left the process, filed a motion to declare a break in the court session due to the fact that the defendant Tokhov felt bad and could not fully participate in the court session.

A 15-minute break was announced, during which Karmokov, the head of the medical unit of SIZO (pre-trial prison), and paramedic Baidaev were invited to examine Tokhov. After examining the defendant, they wrote a certificate that Tokhov was to undergo computerized tomography of his spinal column to be diagnosed. In their certificate, medical staff members of the SIZO indicated that the defendant was able to participate in the court session. This led to strong protests from the defence. Lawyer Akhmetova claimed that the constitutional right of Tokhov to medical care had been violated.

Moreover, the lawyer Akhmetova filed a motion to summon to the trial Karmokov and Baidaev to determine "medical criteria, which reveal ability to participate in a court session." The motion was dismissed as unfounded.