Lawyers called the refusal to investigate the kidnapping of Emkuzhev illegal.

The investigation's refusal to open a criminal case into the kidnapping of Nalchik resident Kazbek Emkuzhev because the kidnappers' faces are not visible in the video recording and the complaint was filed late is illegal.

As "Caucasian Knot" reported, the court admitted a video of the kidnapping of 19-year-old Nalchik resident Kazbek Emkuzhev to the case, but his family and defense cannot get a criminal case opened on this matter, according to the defendant's father, Aslan Emkuzhev.

The trial is at the stage of presenting evidence by the defense, Aslan Emkuzhev told a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent. "The lawyers have filed numerous motions and violations in the case, including a motion to return the case to the prosecutor due to a violation of the right to defense. He has so far been charged under Part 2 of Article 205.5 ("Participation in the activities of a terrorist organization"), and there remains a charge under Article 308 ("Refusal of a witness or victim to testify"), for which charges have not yet been filed. They brazenly pressed it upon him, even though he invoked Article 51 of the Constitution, which states that he is not obligated to testify against himself or his loved ones, when he was presented with a protocol in which he had to confirm that he told someone he had joined this cell. In other words, if he had signed it, he would have been testifying against himself," he said.

According to Aslan Yemkuzhev, the investigator then summoned him for questioning. "And with indescribable joy, he told me, 'Your son has a second criminal charge.' I told him we would be filing a motion under this charge as well. So far, the last three hearings have been postponed for various reasons, due to the inability of some lawyers to attend," he said.

Emkuzhev noted that it was impossible to document signs of torture on his son, as he was held for another 25 days after his abduction and interrogation to allow the marks to heal. "He was brought to court for the pretrial detention hearing without any visible marks." "And even if he had demanded to be examined in the pretrial detention center, I don't think anyone there would have done it," he said.

It was also written that, as a father, I'm trying to protect my son, which is why I'm writing all these statements.

Aslan Emkuzhev also said that he and his lawyers filed a complaint with the Investigative Committee's Military Investigative Department. "The first investigator who handled the case reviewed the complaint and issued a report finding evidence of a crime under Article 286, that is, abuse of office. Then, as I understand it, that investigator was pushed aside and our request to open a criminal case was denied. Another one was appointed [...]. He issued four refusal orders and reopened the procedural review. Ultimately, the reason for the refusal, as stated in the refusal order, was that we filed the complaint after a long time, as well as the fact that the kidnappers' faces and the car's license plate number were impossible to discern on the video recording of the abduction. Another argument was that an FSB investigator and an FSB operative were questioned. And they, naturally, stated that they knew nothing about any abduction, that they had never even seen the video. It was also written there that I, as a father, am trying to protect my son, which is why I am writing all these statements," the father said. The accused.

They even threatened me with liquidation.

According to him, the family was also threatened during the investigation. "They threatened my son constantly, pressuring him that something bad would happen to his loved ones if he didn't sign. They also threatened us that our daughter would never get into college, that my wife would be fired from her job, that she wouldn't be able to find a job, that they were so powerful that they could do anything. In short, they even threatened me with liquidation, saying, 'If you don't calm down, we've already liquidated two people, and we can do the same to you,'" Aslan Emkuzhev said. He noted that the threats and harassment ended when the story of Kazbek's abduction hit the media.

Timur Filippov, a lawyer not involved in the case, and Alexandra Isaenko, a lawyer for the Team Against Torture (an organization included in the register of foreign agents), commented on the situation with Kazbek Emkuzhev's case to the "Caucasian Knot."

Timur Filippov noted that the initiation of a criminal case based on the fact of abduction is provided for by several articles of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to him, this includes Article 140, which stipulates the need to initiate a criminal case if there is probable cause and sufficient evidence indicating elements of a crime. Article 141 states that a report of a crime must be accepted, registered, and investigated; according to Article Article 144 states that the investigating agency/investigator is required to investigate the crime report and make a decision within three days (up to 10-30 days if extended), and Article 145 stipulates that if there are signs of a crime, the investigator is required to initiate criminal proceedings.

The presence of a video recording showing signs of a kidnapping is direct grounds for initiating a criminal case.

Kidnapping (Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) is classified as a serious crime. "In such cases, a victim's statement is not required for initiating a criminal investigation. The investigator is obligated to act regardless of the complainant's wishes. Therefore, the presence of a video recording showing signs of abduction (forced removal, detention, etc.) is a direct basis for initiating a case," said Timur Filippov.

Alexandra Isaenko also highlighted the role of Article 140 of the Criminal Procedure Code. "The basis [for initiating a case], in simple terms, is certain information received by a law enforcement agency and which it is obligated to verify in one way or another. This could be a written statement from a relative, the person who was abducted, or, for example, a social media post about a kidnapping incident that the investigator discovered while monitoring the media. "The basis, in turn, is the presence of sufficient data indicating the elements of a crime (illegality, guilt, punishability, and public danger). This is not yet proof that the crime was actually committed; it is only a marker indicating that something prohibited by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation may have occurred. If an investigator discovers these elements while investigating a report of a crime being prepared or already committed, they are obliged to issue a ruling to initiate criminal proceedings," she said.

An investigator is paid to clarify all the circumstances.

Refusing to initiate criminal proceedings for abuse of power by security forces is illegal, according to Timur Filippov. "There is no statute of limitations for filing a complaint in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; there are only statutes of limitations for prosecution (Article 78 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). In the case of kidnapping, the statute of limitations is up to 10 years. "A 'late submission' is not grounds for refusal. Indistinguishable faces/license plates [on video] do not negate the presence of a crime, and the investigator is paid precisely to clarify all the circumstances. Neglecting one's duties in the case of a kidnapping by unidentified persons is an official crime," he emphasized.

12:18 August 4, 2025

Kabardino-Balkaria: Chronicle of Explosions, Shelling, and Terrorist Attacks

For several years now, Kabardino-Balkaria has been featured, with varying frequency, in reports of explosions and terrorist attacks in the North Caucasus. "Caucasian Knot" monitors the situation in Kabardino-Balkaria and chronicles special operations, armed incidents, and kidnappings taking place in the republic.

According to Article 7 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, any investigator's decision must be lawful, justified, and reasoned, Alexandra Isaenko pointed out. "This means that when reviewing a crime report, the investigator must carry out all possible and necessary verification measures, primarily urgent ones—for example, inspecting the crime scene and seizing video recordings. Late filing of a crime report can indeed impact the subsequent possibility of obtaining certain evidence—the storage period for video recordings eventually expires, and traces of the crime disappear. However, if additional evidence is discovered during the review, and their totality allows one to conclude that there are elements of a crime, or, for example, there are some inconsistencies, the investigator must also initiate criminal proceedings and conduct actions that are only permissible during the investigation stage (for example, a confrontation). Therefore, the legality, validity, and justification of the investigator's decision depend on whether the investigator did everything possible during the investigation and assessed all the evidence obtained during the investigation," she said.

According to Timur Filippov, there are three ways to appeal decisions to refuse to initiate a case: a complaint to the prosecutor (under Article 124 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), which the prosecutor is required to review and make a decision within 3 to 10 days and, if necessary, overturn the refusal and order the initiation of a case; a complaint to the head of the investigative body under Article 124.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, with a shorter review period of 3 days; and a court appeal under Article Article 125 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code, when the court reviews the legality and validity of the refusal, may declare the refusal unlawful and order the violations to be corrected.

Alexandra Isaenko, highlighting the same three methods, noted that the judicial appeal procedure has its drawbacks: the court may uphold the decision to refuse to initiate criminal proceedings, in which case the opportunity to obtain a decision to initiate criminal proceedings will be significantly limited.

"Regarding the time limits for filing an appeal, neither Article 124 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code nor Article 125 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code define specific time limits for filing an initial complaint. However, if you disagree with the district court's decision, you will have 15 days from the date it was issued to appeal it to a higher court," she emphasized.

Attorney Filippov also emphasized that demanding a second, more detailed examination of the video recording is a standard tactic. "However, video recording alone cannot be the only means of solving a crime, as investigators have a wide range of legal tools. They can demand: identifying the vehicle model, analyzing the route, linking the abductors' vehicle to the location, determining the number of people involved and their routes of approach and retreat to the crime scene, restoring degraded images, identifying eyewitnesses, and investigating the identity of the abducted person," he listed.

According to Alexandra Isaenko, the complainant and the victim have the right to file motions at any stage of criminal proceedings and, at the stage of verifying a crime report or during the investigation, raise the need for a repeat or additional examination.

"If, for example, the expert initially did not answer all the questions posed to them by the investigator, or the investigator did not specify the necessary questions in the order scheduling the examination, a motion for an additional examination can be filed. And if doubts arise regarding the overall accuracy or validity of the expert's conclusion, a repeat examination can be requested. Such petitions are reviewed by the investigator within three days, and based on the review, a decision is made—either to grant the petition or to partially or completely deny it. This decision can also be appealed to the court under Article 124 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation or Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation," she noted.

Speaking about the qualification of the actions of the security forces who abducted Kazbek Emkuzhev, Timur Filippov noted that there are grounds for detention listed in Article 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation: the person was caught committing a crime; eyewitnesses identified him as the perpetrator; Obvious traces of a crime were found on him/her or in his home.

"If a person was detained during the investigation and brought before an investigator for investigative actions, including the filing of charges, then such actions do not constitute a crime under Article 126 of the Russian Criminal Code [kidnapping], and the refusal to initiate a case on this fact is lawful," he added.

In turn, Alexandra Isaenko noted that everything depends on the specific circumstances of the case. "Creating artificial grounds for bringing a person to criminal liability, as well as falsifying evidence, can be qualified under several articles of the Russian Criminal Code. For example, Article 303 of the Russian Criminal Code establishes punishment for falsifying evidence, which may be expressed, in particular, in the intentional inclusion of knowingly forged documents in case materials or the inclusion of knowingly false information in procedural acts (for example, in the protocols of various investigative actions). "However, if an investigator, based on this falsified evidence, charges a clearly innocent person, their actions may constitute a crime under Article 299 of the Russian Criminal Code, which establishes criminal liability for bringing a clearly innocent person to criminal responsibility or for unlawfully initiating a criminal case. Furthermore, the actions of security forces may constitute abuse of power if the person's detention and deprivation of liberty were unlawful," she said.