"Memorial": investigation into Farid Babaev's murder in Dagestan was superficial

The investigation of the murder case of Farid Babaev, leader of the Dagestan "Yabloko" Party, lacked due care. The analysis of the materials of the case and the whole litigation process give rise to the idea that either inspectors themselves set up a certain "barrier" beyond which the inquiry should not move, or such barrier had been imposed by someone. This is the topic of today's statement of the Human Rights Centre (HRC) "Memorial".

We remind you that on January 20, 2009, the board of jurymen found Rasil Mamedrizaev guilty of murdering Farid Babaev, leader of the Dagestan regional branch of the "Yabloko" Party and candidate for State Duma. Two days later, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan sentenced Mamedrizaev to 16 years of imprisonment has. At the same time, the second defendant - Seferali Sefimirzoev - was completely acquitted.

The statement of the HRC "Memorial" runs that eyewitness Gadzhiev by surname, whose evidence was announced in court, reported that about 20 minutes before Babaev's murder he has seen two unknown persons at the house entrance, and gave a detailed description of one of them. The witness gave such details of the appearance of this person, which precisely described Seferali Sefimirzoev. However, after detention of the latter, no identification with participation of witness Gadzhiev was held, although this investigatory action looked obvious.

Later, this witness hastily left Dagestan for Moscow and never appeared at the trial.

It became obvious in the course of the proceedings that the key witnesses were under pressure by the defendants, the human rights organization asserts. Thus, witness Akaev reported at the trial that he was under pressure and asked the chair of the court for protection. The judge promised "to think it over." Then, one of defence advocates told this witness that the data about his relatives is present in the materials of the criminal case; and then again asked him to tell whether he recognized any of those in the prisoners' dock.

The statement of the "Memorial" also asserts that there was an information leak about the "secret" witnesses, and this information was used by those who would not like the witnesses to evidence in the similar way.