Trial against Oyub Titiev: Days 12 and 13

On September 20 and 21, the twelfth and thirteenth days of proceedings on the Oyub Titiev’s case were held. Three witnesses were questioned behind closed doors, including two key witnesses.

The twelfth day of proceedings was held in the Shali City Court. The judge was Madina Zaynetdinova. Lawyers Peter Zaikin, Ilya Novikov and Marina Dubrovina defended Titiev. The prosecution is supported by the prosecutor of the Kurchaloevsky district Dzhabrail Akhmatov and an employee of the prosecutor’s office, Milan Baitaev.

Recall that the head of the Grozny office of the Memorial Human Rights Center, Oyub Titiyev, was detained on January 9, 2018 in Chechnya, after police allegedly discovered a bag of cannabis in his car. A criminal case was opened against Titiyev under Part 2 of Art. 228 of the Criminal Code. Titiev does not admit his guilt. Memorial claims that the criminal case against him has been falsified. Oyub was recognized as a political prisoner.

Many people came to the hearing, more than thirty people, including Oyub’s relatives, journalists of Caucasus Realia, Novaya Gazeta, the Caucasian Knot, Dosh, OVD-info, Taiga.info «), Polish diplomats, employees of prominent organizations (Memorial, public commission for prisons inspection of Saint Petersburg, Public Verdict, etc.).

The trial began with the prosecution’s questions for witness Rizvan Titiev, Oyub’s cousin. He gave Oyub a positive character review.

The state prosecutor Akhmatov filed a motion to question the remaining witnesses from among the current operational police officers in a closed court session. He pointed out that it is planned to interrogate the personnel officers of the internal affairs bodies, including those carrying out operational-search activities in the fight against terrorism, organized crime and corruption, illicit drug trafficking, «exposing members of illegal armed groups». According to presidential decree 1203 of November 30, 1995, information about such people is a state secret.

«The upcoming testimonies and associated interrogations of current officers in front of civilian attendees of the trials, along with video and photographic recording of these testimonies, including of their names and occupations, does not respect the privacy of these active officers. In addition, the public disclosure of the appearance and personal data of operational staff can adversely affect their security and the security of their family,«Akhmatov wrote in the petition.

The judge gave Oyub’s lawyers time to object. The defendants spoke on the petition after the break. Zaikin said that closing the process would violate Oyub’s constitutional right to open court proceedings.

According to the defense counsel, the prosecutor did not prove that the officers of the Kurchaloevsky police department, including the active officers, are part of the units directly fighting terrorism, organized crime and corruption, which undermines their objection.

The defense lawyer asserted that it is highly unlikely that the personal data of the employees of the criminal investigation department of the Kurchaloevsky district are state secrets. At the same time, the prosecutor did not explain why this information, if it is a state secret, was not previously classified rather than being included in unclassified case file.

According to Zaikin, the arguments of the prosecutor are based on the misunderstanding of the federal law «On State Secrets». There is no information about the threat to the safety of participants in the proceedings in the case file either.

In accordance with article 6, paragraph 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the press and public may not be allowed to all or part of the proceedings «in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice." None of these grounds is relevant to the Titiev’s case.

Defense lawyer Dubrovina called the petition «unfounded». She noted that there are no videos or photographs of witnesses taken in the courtroom as the court did not give permission for this.

During the preliminary investigation, the information about active officers was not classified. Investigators have not been notified that the witnesses or their families were in danger. The case files with the personal data of the witnesses have already been submitted to the court and are thus available to an unlimited number of civilians.

In accordance with the practice of Russian courts, in almost every drug-related hearings active officers are questioned in front of civilians and they give their personal information, including on their place of work.

Dubrovina also referred to practices of the European Court of Human Rights. In the case «Belashev v. Russia» (December 4, 2008), the court determined that the organization of a public proceeding is a fundamental principle, enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. That decision stated that «by making the administration of justice transparent, publicity contributes to achieving… a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of a democratic society.»

Despite the objections of the lawyers, Judge Zainetdinova granted the petition of the prosecutor. However, she pointed out that after interrogating a number of witnesses, the process can be reopened.

After that, the public was asked to leave the courtroom and the proceedings continued.
In a closed hearing, Mikhail Kolyada was interrogated, the criminal investigative officer of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Kurchaloyevskiy police department. January 9, 2018 Kolyada was on duty and crossed paths with Oyub at the police station. The record of his interrogation is contained in the fifth volume of the case files. Kolyada was present when samples from Pyub’s hands and nails were taken.

Peter Zaikin called the petition of the prosecutor «a strategic mistake of the prosecution." He added that the «transparency of the court was ignored, but in the future it will be possible to claim a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention. The situation of the state prosecution is hazy — many journalists and human rights activists come and, especially notably, many European diplomats. Representatives of diplomatic departments will leave with the impression that the public was taken from the courtroom to keep diplomats from being present at the trial, in addition to journalists. In today’s Russia, journalists are the last effective weapon of defense teams.»

Dubrovina believes that there is no reason to close the process: «There is no evidence that the safety of active police officers or their families are in danger. There is no evidence of the involvement of these officers in any special units. We have already questioned one witness in a closed trial. As in open proceedings, in closed proceedings the witnesses do not remember anything and do not say anything substantive against Oyub.»

The board of Memorial made a statement about the closure of the proceedings and called the arguments of the prosecution, suddenly concerned about the safety of the police, absurd. Recall that most of the 57 prosecution witnesses questioned at 11 public meetings are current police officers.

The board stated:

«We regret to note the fact that the court agreed with the fakers, who realized that the prosecution’s arguments are falling apart, while the publicity of the proceedings highlighted all the lies and inconsistencies in the testimony of their witnesses. They are no longer trying to portray even the appearance of legality in the case of Titiev.

When we were demanding relocation of the proceedings, we have repeatedly stated that in Kadyrov’s Chechnya there is no hope for a fair and impartial trial against a person whom Kadyrov has already called a criminal and declared «an enemy of the people." Today’s court decision confirms our concerns.»

On September 21, in a closed court session, two prosecution witnesses were interrogated: Andrei Manzhikov, the senior security officer of the investigative unit of the Kurchaloyevskiy police department and the head of the investigative unit, Deni Dzhabrailova

Manzhikov told the court that he was leaving on January 9 to go to Oyub’s place of detention, but that he did not conduct an inspection of the scene of the incident. He was there only to protect public order and ensure the safety of the participants in the investigation. He saw Oyub’s car being inspected and a black plastic bag with green vegetable matter was found under the front passenger seat. He also took samples of the substance in question with cotton swabs from Titiev’s palms and a cut from Titiev’s nails.

In fact, it was Manzhikov who brought forward the most important document on January 9- a report, which states that «there is information» about Oyub’s intention to escape from the investigation and the court. Based on this document, the investigator requested that Oyub be arrested before the trial. Recall that Oyub has been under arrest since January 11 (actually detained since the morning of January 9). At the proceedings on how Oyub would be detained, his lawyers could not find out what kind of information the prosecution was talking about, from what sources it was obtained, who ordered that activities be carried out for operational support of the case against Titiev.

Tatyana Glushkova, lawyer of the Memorial program Human Rights Protection Through International Mechanisms, believes that although Manzhikov’s answers to these questions are not crucial for resolving a criminal case against Oyub, they are extremely important for the European Court of Human Rights to make a decision on Titiev’s complaint of the violation of Article 5 (the right to liberty and personal integrity) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in his case. This complaint is pending at the court.

As for Dzhabrailov, according to the testimony of Oyub, he was the first to threaten him in the Kurchaloyevsky District Department of Internal Affairs following the first, «unofficial," detention. In addition, it was Dzhabrailov who took Oyub out of the office, to have his palms swabbed and nails cut, when the envelopes with the samples had not yet been sealed. The police ignored Titiev’s objections. When he was brought back to the office, there was no one there, and sealed envelopes were lying on the table.

The phrase «if you want to proceed in accordance with law, we will," said Dzhabrailov. Recall that on January 9, Oyuba was detained twice. When he was brought to the Kurchaloyevskiy police station for the first time, he stated that the inspection of the car and the detention were illegal, in particular, there were no witnesses. Dzhabrailov replied to this saying, " if you want to proceed in accordance with law, we will." Then one of the policemen drove Oyub to where he would be detained and where the farce with «drug discovery» was repeated. Dzhabrailov played a key role in this whole story, but in court he stated that he had seen Oyub only once: in the office of the security officer Magomadov, on the day of detention. Dzhabrailov allegedly only asked Titiev why he refused to testify.

Tatiana Glushkova noted that the question of these witnesses behind the closed doors makes it impossible for those who follow this case to hear for themselves what the witnesses have to say about Oyub’s version of the events of January 9. «In our opinion, the fact that the prosecutor asked to close this court session suggests that the testimony of these people could determine the public’s belief in Oyub’s innocence. It should also be noted that the right to a public trial is provided for in Article 6 of the European Convention. Oyub’s deprivation of this right even partly allows us to raise the issue of violation of this article of the Convention, which we will undoubtedly do» the lawyer says.