The defendants in the Nalchik attack case plead to be released

At the court session on March 23 dealing with the militants' attack of on power agencies of Nalchik on October 13, 2005, the judge announced the ruling about extension of defendants' custody by three more months. The court argued that all of them are accused of grave and especially grave crimes as members of an organized group. Also, in the course of the session, defendants blamed the court of being biased, and one of them, Anzor Mashukov, petitioned for challenging the judges.

"Study by the court of some evidences does not allow concluding that the grounds for changing the freedom restriction measure have changed," runs the ruling of the court. The document also notes that the diseases revealed in some of the defendants are not among those, which release from serving punishments.

After announcing the ruling, the court considered Anzor Mashukov's petition, who had been earlier removed from the courtroom, on challenging the court composition. The petition was announced by Oleg Kelemetov, Mashukov's advocate.

The document asserts that the court was treating Mashukov personally "in the negative manner." The defendant made the conclusion after the court prohibited his participation in the process and rejected his petition on challenging his lawyer.

By supporting his client's petition, lawyer Kelemetov said that Anzor Mashukov was in a worse position than other defendants.

"Not only our clients, but also we ourselves are 'aliens'," Mr Kelemetov has emphasized. <…> "Two times a day we are exposed to irradiation and screened by metal detectors."

In Mr Kelemetov's opinion, after a year of judicial investigation, the attitude of the court to the defendants changes only to the worse, while Judge Gorislavskaya runs the trial with accusatory inclination.

The petition to challenge the court was supported by some of the lawyers. Lawyer Zalim Zagashtov said that he was forced not without regret to support the challenge of the court. "My client Mironov received four remarks with entrance into the protocol. I disagree with these remarks. The aim is to remove him from the courtroom. They hope in the court that others will keep silent and stop self-defence," said the lawyer.

Defendant Zamaev also accused the court of bias. He also challenged the head of the group of state accusers Olga Chibinyova.

Defendants Azret Shavaev, Daniil Khamukov, Aslan Berov and Zalim Dugulubov categorically objected to challenge the court. "In modern Russia there is no court which would run this trial differently; therefore, there is no sense to challenge this one. It will just protract the litigation. The end of the trial will give us the status of convicts, chances to see relatives and occupy a bit more space than a SIZO (pre-trial prison) cell," runs the petition signed by them.

Defendant Eduard Mironov said that he is ready to bear his punishment for what he had committed and is not going to "wobble", but he wanted to explain motives: what his prehistory was. "There were events that foreran October 13, and they should be cleared out at the trial. People not just took arms and went; they were driven to. A year before many could not even think about it," Mr Mironov has noted.

Defendant Shokumov said that defendant Mashukov was his personal disturbance, and he was against the latter's return into the process; he was also categorically against the challenge of the court.

Some of the defendants - Tukhuzhev and Sokmyshev - called the parties in the process "not to forget about the Judgement Day," when everyone, including judges, "will face the Allah and respond for their actions."

Lawyers also supported the challenge of state accuser Chibinyova.

Olga Chibinyova moved a petition to reject the challenge of the court and personally her as unjustified. Mashukov, in her opinion, was reasonably removed.

After a lunch break the court announced its decision on the stated petition: it was rejected.