It is highly likely that the criminal case was completely fabricated and the defendants have been victims of a provocation by the law enforcement agencies

The persecution of Azat Miftakhov is a prime example of the use of pseudo-legal procedures to suppress public activities that are undesirable for the authorities.

As usual in such cases, the evidence the defendants committed terrorism offences consists in their participation in meetings, discussion of ideological questions, and attempts to spread their ideas among other Muslims.

After he complained about the use of torture to him, he was accused of justifying terrorism, which allegedly consisted of reading poems to cellmates.

He is being prosecuted for political reasons solely because of his civil-society and political stance and for the non-violent realisation of the freedoms of expression, information and assembly.

The prosecution of Anastasia Shevchenko is politically motivated, intended to force her to abandon or change the character of her civil society activities as a political activist and critic of the current authorities.

As usual in cases of this kind, the evidence of terrorism was participation of the defendants in meetings, discussions of ideological questions and persuading other Muslims to adopt their views.

On January 28 and 29 the Shali City Court continued to examine the case against the director of the Grozny office of the Memorial Human Rights Center, Oyub Titiyev, for drug possession (part 2 of article 228 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

As usual in such cases, evidence of terrorism by the defendants is their participation in meetings, discussion of ideological issues and agitation of other Muslims.