Court at trial on Nalchik attack changes judicial sequence

Today, the court that considers the case on the attack on power structures of Nalchik, the capital of Kabardino-Balkaria, on October 13, 2005, has decided to change the order of judicial investigation. By doing so, the court has supported the prosecution, which petitioned in favour interrogating the witnesses in full about the sites they had visited during the events.

The court relied on the provisions of the article from the Code of Criminal Procedure, stipulating that the party, which presents evidences, shall also define the sequence of investigating them.

After that, the court continued interrogating the witnesses, this time - militiamen. Before the start of interrogation, the prosecution put forward a petition asking to hold interrogation of militiamen in a closed regime, having removed journalists and defendants' relatives out of the courtroom.

The petition caused lengthy debates, as both advocates and defendants objected.

"There are no facts that witnesses received threats, therefore, there are no reasons for interrogating law enforcers in a closed session. Publicity is one of the main guarantees of an independent and objective trial," said advocate Magomed Abubakarov.

The end to the debate was put by the court by inviting witness Arsen Bagov, a former militiaman, now a pensioner. On October 13, 2005, he was on duty at the road police post (RPP) Khasanya.

The chair of the court asked the witness whether he was ready to testify in the open judicial session. Bagov answered in the affirmative, but named only his district as residence.

During Bagov's interrogation, it became clear that well before the events on October 13, 2005, RPP employees were instructed to bring persons to militia stations, in whose car luggage compartments Wahhabite literature would be found. This witness' evidence has caused sharp defendants' reaction. The witness was asked whether he knew what literature was Wahhabite and whether militiamen had been instructed to this end. The witness answered these questions by: "No, I don't know."

Today, another RPP employee - Arkhagov - also evidenced. He also agreed to speak at the open judicial session. His evidences in fact coincided with those of Bagov.