Ruling of Khasavyurt town court, Dagestan, on the case of human rights activist Osman Boliev

As the "Caucasian Knot" already reported earlier, yesterday Osman Boliev accused of illegal acquisition, storage and carrying of fire-arms, received the full text of the ruling of Khasavyurt town court in Dagestan, passed on May 18. A copy of the ruling has been handed by Boliev to the "Caucasian Knot" correspondent. The full text is as follows.

RULING IN THE NAME OF RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

Khasavyurt. May 18, 2006.

JUDGE of Khasavyurt town federal court Ramazanov Y. S.

with participation of prosecutor Omarov G. S.

defendant Boliev Osman Ramzanovich,

defence lawyers Umaev A.M., lawyer of "Zaschita" legal advice company (certificate No 25 of December 07, 2005), lawyer Kadyrova S. A. of Kizilyurt inter-district bar (certificate No 274 of December 13, 2005), lawyer Magomadov M. of "Nizam" bar, Grozny, ChR (certificate No 9927 of 14.12.2005), lawyer Brovchenko S. V. of "Yurgasenergo" legal office, Moscow (certificate No 270-UB of 13.12.2005)

secretary Gamzatkhanova R. М.

having considered at an open court hearing the criminal case of:

BOLIEV OSMAN RAMZANOVICH - born on June 20, 1968,

resident of Khasavyurt, address: 32, Mira Street,

occupation: head of "Romashka" public organization in Khasavyurt, citizen of RF, education: higher incomplete, no previous convictions, charged with committing a crime under art. 222, para. 1, of RF CC
 
RULES AS FOLLOWS:

Preliminary investigation agency accuses Boliev O. R. of committing illegal acquisition, storage and carrying of an explosive device under the following circumstances:

Boliev O. R. illegally acquired a grenade with a fuse, which is a fragmentation combat RGN (Afghan) grenade manufactured in mass production, and carried it on himself.

On November 15, 2005, in the course of personal search of Boliev O. R., brought to the militia station in connection with an administrative offence, a combat RGN grenade with a fuse was found in the right-hand external pocket of his leather jacket and confiscated.

Defendant Boliev O. R. testified to the court that he was not implicated in the commission of the above crime, the confiscated grenade did not belong to him and had been intentionally planted into the pocket of his jacket by militiamen, and the criminal case against him had been framed under the following circumstances:

- on November 15, 2005, around 12 o'clock, when he was washing his car VАZ- 2107, he was approached by militiamen on duty at the street crossing who claimed that his car had been involved in a road accident and suggested that he should follow them to the militia station. He asked them to let him finish washing his car, and they were standing by inspecting his car.

Having washed the car, he changed his clothes at home, when he was coming out his mother gave him his jacket and a knitted cap. Outside, the militiamen checked his documents for the car and its technical checkup and told him to follow them. When he was getting into his car, one of the militiamen made an external examination of his clothes, checked the pockets of his jacket. He got indignant, "are they looking for the car or searching him."

The militiamen took away his documents leaving him only the ID of a human rights activist. They were driving fast, and he followed them at a distance. In the area of the bus terminal his car was stopped by other militiamen in the company of traffic militia officers.

One of the militiamen called him from the window of the UAZ jeep and asked him to get into their jeep. When he got into the back seat of the jeep, everything happened very quickly, they put a plastic bag on his head, handcuffed him, locked the handcuffs on his back, and he came to himself already at the department of internal affairs. During detention he did not try to escape, there was no corner on the spot, there was a straight wall of a building.

In the militia station they blocked his breathing with the bag, he lost consciousness, they wanted him to confess to his connections with secret services and that he was someone's agent. This had been lasting for a long time. When he lost consciousness they poured water on him, a lot of people were asking him the same questions.

For three days, from November 15 to 17, 2005, he had been illegally kept handcuffed; the handcuffs were removed only on 17.11.05, when he was taken to the Khasavyurt prosecutor's office. He could not recognize the militiamen who had been interrogating him because of the plastic bag on his head.

He demanded a lawyer, but did not get one at the time. After he had been given lawyer Umaev А. М., he complained him and later, on 17.11.05, he told everything to Batdalov S. A, deputy prosecutor of Khasavyurt, he also demonstrated his wounds, but the latter advised him not to apply for medical help. However, the lawyer called for an ambulance and he got medical treatment.

He does not remember in what room he was subjected to personal search, the witnesses were present, he asked them for water. During the search, they took off his cap, he was all dirty, tattered and wet, he does not remember well all details of the search because he was constantly beaten on the head, his hands were handcuffed behind his back. They did not show him what they had discovered, they never asked him to sign anything. He could not sign anything as his hands were handcuffed. They wanted him to give testimony on whose agent he was, who had trained him, who he worked for, who was paying him, what was the source of his income, who sponsored his organization.

When he asked for a lawyer they intensified taunting, invited him to work for them and they would help him. No grenade was mentioned initially, they only wanted information from him, he had no grenade either at the moment of detention or at the militia station. The grenade was not shown him for inspection, the fact that they had found a grenade on him became known to him only on the third day when he was brought to Dadaev M., investigating officer.

All this time, he had not been placed to the temporary detention facility, for three days had been kept handcuffed at the militia station, but does not know where. He did not attend the magistrate court hearing on the administrative offence, he was not taken there.

He thinks that the reason for his arrest is his human rights activity and his applications to the European Court on Human Rights in protection of the families of Israilov Е. and Abdurashidov, and others. The complaints have been admitted for consideration by the European Court on Human Rights, both complaints are against officers of the Mobile Group of the RF MIA in SFD who have detained him.

Having interrogated defendant Boliev О. R., who pleaded not guilty of the crime he is charged with, as well as the witnesses from the list of persons summoned to the court hearing and the witnesses summoned upon the request of the defence, and having studied the other evidence submitted by the prosecution, the court has established other circumstances of the criminal case which are as follows:

The prosecution, in order to substantiate the guilt of defendant Boliev O. R. in committing the crime under art. 222, para. 1, of the RF CC, has submitted to the court the following evidence;

Witness Shamber V. N. has stated in court that, on November 15, 2005, after 1 p.m. he along with militiaman Novitskiy K. and the driver were driving in an armoured militia car to Khasavyurt. Near the bus terminal they stopped on the side of the road. Some time later they saw Boliev O. R. running across the road in their direction. Having noticed them he started to behave suspiciously, reacted to their presence.

They approached him and introduced themselves, and asked him to show his documents, but his reaction was not adequate, he refused to show his documents, started to argue with them, refused to follow them and tried to run away. He and Novikov K. caught up with Boliev O. R. who was 2-3 m away, detained him, handcuffed him and immediately brought to the town department of internal affairs.

In the inspection room, 2 (two) hours later, the local militiamen conducted personal search of Boliev O. R. and found on him a grenade with a fuse, which they confiscated. In the office of the chief of criminal investigation department they wrote reports on the fact of detention of Boliev O. R., in which they indicated 5 p.m. as the time of his delivery, although it was at 3 p.m. "Nobody put a plastic bag on the head of Boliev O. R., no violence was used, and Boliev O. R. did not loose consciousness in his presence."

Witness Novitskiy К. V. has stated in court: on November 15, 2005, after 1 p.m. they were driving to Khasavyurt, stopped near the bus terminal to buy cigarettes, at one moment he heard the voice of Shamber V. who was talking to Boliev O. R. Shamber V. N. told him that Boliev O. R. had tried to run away although he himself did not see it, after which they brought him to Khasavyurt department of internal affairs. No personal search of Boliev O. R. was conducted in his presence. He spent about one hour at the department, then went to the district internal affairs unit and later he learnt from Shamber V. N. that an RGD grenade had been found on Boliev O. R. and confiscated, and that he had been checked on involvement with an illegal armed unit. In the minutes of his interrogation as a witness it was wrongly stated that the grenade had been confiscated in his presence, while in his own report the time of detention was indicated wrongly, at 5 p.m., the correct time is 3 p.m..

Having analyzed the testimony of witnesses Shamber V. N. and Novitskiy К. V, the court states that none of the witnesses have confirmed the fact that defendant Boliev O. R. had a grenade on him at the moment of detention, i.e. on November 15, 2005 about 3 p.m. near the Khasavyurt bus terminal. Moreover, witness Novitskiy К. V. has failed to corroborate the testimony of Shamber V. N. about commission by Boliev O. R. of the administrative offence under art. 19.3 of the Code of Administrative offences, non-abidance by a legitimate instruction of militia officers.

The court has studied the reports of the above militia officers from which the following circumstance can be stated:

"approximately at 5 p.m. in the area of the old bus terminal we noticed a man who, having noticed our service car, started to behave in a confused way, he ran round the corner on the territory of the bus terminal. After that we approached him, introduced ourselves as militia officers and asked him to show his identification documents, but he started to grudge, ran away from us and wanted to escape. We took measures for taking the above individual to the Khasavyurt town department of internal affairs ."

The circumstances described in the identical reports of the above militia officers are not corroborated by the documents on the administrative offence compiled in connection with this fact with regard to Boliev O. R., which establish the following:

The report on administrative offence RD No 015132, attached to the files of this criminal case states: "On 15.11.05 at 5.15 p.m., when operational search actions were conducted on the territory of Khasavyurt bus terminal, having noticed the service car Boliev O. R. behaved in a confused way. When he was asked to present his identification documents he started to complain," i. е., committed an administrative offence under art. 19.3 of the RF CAO.

The above demonstrates that there are no elements of administrative offence in the actions of Boliev O. R.

Having analyzed the above documents the court concludes that the documents, i.e. the reports of the militia officers and the report on the administrative offence, contradict each other both in the time of compilation and in the circumstances of the case. From the documents, it can not be established what legitimate requirements have been laid by the militia officers to Boliev O. R. and what exactly his non-abidance amounted to.

Also, the court has studied the report on the personal search and the inspection of personal things of a natural person, dated November 15, 2005, and compiled by Umarov Y. L., acting inspector on examination of Khasavyurt department of internal affairs, which states: "compiled this report on the fact that, on 15.11.05, at 6.00 p.m. in the room for examination of detained persons I have conducted a personal search of Boliev O. R. In the course of the search, an object resembling the grenade fuse has been found in the left external pocket of the jacket, and an object resembling a grenade has been found in the right-hand external pocket of the jacket. Nothing else has been confiscated or found on the above person, the confiscated grenade and fuse have been packed into a polyethylene bag and sealed with stamp No 25 of Khasavyurt department of internal affairs."

The above report is signed by the witnesses but not by Boliev O. R. who was subjected to search or by Umarov Y. L, the person who compiled the report.

Witness Umarov Y. L who has been interrogated in connection with the circumstances stated that in mid-November (he does not remember the exact date) of 2005 he worked in the capacity of inspector on examination at the Khasavyurt department of internal affairs. Officers of the RF MIA Mobile Group in SFD brought Boliev O. R., as they explained, in connection with his non-abidance by legitimate requests of militia officers. In the examination room he compiled reports on administrative detention and administrative offence. He asked Boliev O. R. to sign them but the latter refused to sign them and did not give any explanation of his detention. This fact was registered in the reports in the presence of witnesses. The militia officers invited witnesses and in their presence a personal search of Boliev O. R., who was handcuffed, was conducted. It was nearly evening. An object resembling a grenade was found in the right-hand external pocket of his jacket, and an object resembling a grenade fuse was found in the left external pocket of the jacket.

On the same day, 15.11.05, he compiled a report on revealing elements of crime . Why it is dated November 16, 2005 and registered in the log-book on 16.11.2005 he can not explain. In the report he stated that an RGD-5 grenade with a fuse had been found on Boliev O. R. and confiscated. He was sure that it was the RGD-5 model. He did not clarify whether Boliev O. R. had committed an administrative offence, but he compiled an administrative file on the fact of non-abidance for sending it to court on the basis of reports of militia officers Shamber V. N. and Novitskiy К. He did not send the administrative file to court personally because he was off duty on the next day. He passed the file to the other officer on duty, while Boliev O. R. was taken away by the criminal investigation officers for clarifying the circumstances of finding a grenade on him. All the time, Boliev O. R. was handcuffed with hands locked behind. The investigators had the key. He forgot to sign the report on personal search of 15.11.2005 in the capacity of the person who had compiled it because he immediately started to compile another report on a refusal to sign of 15.11.2005.

The court hearing has analyzed the argument of defendant Boliev O. R. on the illegal use of special measures, i.e. the handcuffs, the application of which is regulated by items 2, 3 and 5 of art. 14 of the RF law "On Militia."

The court notes that legal registration of the fact of use of handcuffs is required by the respective forms of law-enforcement documents. In conformance with the instruction approved by the chief of Khasavyurt department of internal affairs on November 5, 2006 (ten days prior to the administrative detention in question), the report on administrative detention of 15.11.2005 must contain the fact of the use of handcuffs, the time of their putting on and taking off. As a mandatory requirement, the report must specify the ground for the use of handcuffs. Additionally, item 163 of the Regulations of patrol service of the RF public safety militia requires that the use of handcuffs should be registered in a report. These legislative requirements have been grossly violated by militia officers. Therefore, no legitimate grounds for using special measures, i.e. handcuffs, with regard to defendant Boliev O. R. have been established in the course of the court hearing.

The ruling of Khasavyurt federal court of May 17, 2006 reverses the ruling of the magistrate district court No 35 of Khasavyurt of November 16, 2005 on a 2 (two) day administrative arrest of Boliev O. R. The proceedings on the case have been stopped. Therefore, it has been established that Boliev O. R. did not commit any administrative offence and, in the opinion of the court, the use of handcuffs with regard to Boliev O. R. has been illegitimate.

Witness Khasaev А. G. has stated in court that he works in the criminal investigation section of the town department of internal affairs. Boliev O. R. was delivered to the town department of internal affairs by riot squad officers. The witness saw him directly before the personal search. He does not remember in what office the search was conducted, but in the course of the personal search two grenades were found on Boliev O. R., although he does not remember where exactly the grenades were found. Boliev O. R. explained that he had found the grenades in the shed as early as during the Novolak events. The witness obtained an explanation from Boliev O. R. on the same day and handed it over to the unit on duty of the town department of internal affairs. The defendant was brought to the TDIA in connection with an administrative offence, namely, he had jumped from his car near the bus terminal. He can not explain, why this explanation and his report are dated 16.11.2005, although he interrogated Boliev O. R. on November 15, 2005.

Having assessed the above evidence, the court has established that the case file does not contain any report or any other document compiled by militia officers from which it follows that Boliev O. R. had an RGD-5 grenade with a fuse from the moment of detention and delivery to the examination room up to the moment of his personal search, during which period more than 3 (three) hours had passed.

In connection with the above, the court holds the testimony of the above militia officers as doubtful and not corresponding to reality, therefore, the argument of defendant Boliev O. R. to the effect that he had no grenade on him and that he has nothing to do with the confiscated grenade is confirmed.

The witnesses of the personal search have been interrogated and stated in court as follows:

Witness Emeyev М. R. has stated in court that on November 15, 2005, during night time, Anasov B. and he attended, in the capacity of witnesses, the personal search of Boliev O. R. at the Khasavyurt TDIA in the farthest office at the end of the ground floor. A militia officer in the rank of lieutenant conducted the personal search of Boliev O. R. The hands of Boliev O. R. were handcuffed behind his back. One RGD-5 grenade was found in the pocket of the jacket of Boliev O. R. The grenade was not packed into a bag in their presence. He does not remember what else was confiscated, apart from the grenade. The grenade was placed on the table, Boliev O. R. claimed "it is not mine," he was half-dressed and wet, asked them for water, his cap was drawn over his face.

Witness Anasov P. T. has stated in court that on the day in question he went out of his house at 8 p.m. and was going on a visit along with his friend. Near the militia station he was stopped by militia officers and asked to act as a witness. Boliev O. R. was in the room, he was handcuffed with his hands behind his back, he felt bad, his clothes were dirty, his black cap covered his eyes and he asked to lift it, and asked for water. The militia officer, having explained them the rights of witnesses, conducted the personal search of Boliev O. R. and found an RGD-5 grenade in his jacket. The grenade was placed on the table and they started to write. The handcuffs were not removed, the grenade was not packed or sealed in their presence. Boliev O. R. stated that the grenade did not belong to him. When they left the militia station he remained handcuffed. He was not asked to sign the report in their presence. He confirms that, although the report on the personal search indicates 6 p.m. as the time of the search, the personal search of Boliev O. R. was conducted at about 9 p.m., he remembers this well as had gone out of his house after 8 p.m.

Then, witness Dadaev B. I. has stated in court that, in the capacity of the inquest officer of Khasavyurt TDIA, he initiated a criminal case under art. 222, para. 1, of RF CC with regard to Boliev O. R., compiled the report on detention and the report on interrogation of the suspect. Boliev O. R. refused to give his testimony, in the course of the inquest he or his lawyer did not lay any complaints or claims. Nobody exerted any physical or psychological pressure on Boliev O. R., and personally to him, Boliev O. R. did not mention that the grenade had been planted on him.

He did not deliver the grenade for an expert study. The type of grenade specified in the resolution on initiating a criminal case (RGD-5) is similar by appearance to the one incriminated to Boliev O. R. (RGN), which explains the contradictions in the case file. He can not explain why a different grenade (RGN) happened to be in the bag sent to the expert, and can not explain why he failed to request a fingerprint analysis on the grenade.

In the resolution on initiating a criminal case, he specified the RGD-5 grenade on the basis of the field officers' reports, although, at the moment, he had no expert's confirmation of the grenade type. He does not know where he took the administrative materials. He inspected the car of Boliev O. R. in the yard of the department, he does not remember details of the case.

He is also unable to explain the contradictions in time (11.45 a.m.) specified in the resolution on initiating a criminal case of 17.11.05 and in the prosecutor's resolution denying the initiation of the criminal case.

Witness Malagadjiev N. А., officer of traffic militia under TDIA has stated in court that approximately on 15th of a month which he does not remember, 2005, when he was on duty in Mira Street, he received an instruction to deliver to the TDIA a white car, model VAZ-2107, with identification number starting with digits 400. The duty officer did not explain the purpose of the instruction.

They noticed the car in question and approached it, Boliev O. R. was standing near it. They introduced themselves, checked the car documents and immediately returned them. Then they asked him to drive to the department for checking, Boliev O. R. agreed, he behaved calmly, showed no disobedience. Then Boliev O. R. went into his house to change his clothes, came out, got into his car, they got into their service car and started for the TDIA. They reported to the duty officer that the car was found on the way to the department.

On their way, near the bus terminal they lost sight of Boliev O. R. and drove to the TDIA. There they learnt from the duty officer that the car in question had failed to arrive. They returned to the bus terminal, made a circle and returned back. They were still at the department when the officers of the mobile militia group brought Boliev O. R. He saw the detained Boliev O. R. at the check-point, reported this to the duty officer and returned to his post. He did not see the car of Boliev O. R., although, in accordance with the instruction it was necessary to check the car and not Boliev O. R.

Witness Akhmedov S.S. has stated in court that on November 15, 2005 he was on duty at Khasavyurt TDIA in the capacity of assistant of the operational duty officer. The traffic militia sent a instruction for the delivery to the department of a car which had deviated from its route on the way to the department. The instruction was issued at the request of traffic militia. The instruction must be registered in the log-book by the operational duty officer. Aliaskhabov R., operational duty officer, told him that the car was near the bus terminal, gave him the key from the car and ordered him and Niyazbiyev S., another militia officer, to drive the car from the old bus terminal to the militia station. After that he returned the key to the operational duty officer. The log-book of detained persons is kept by the inspector on examination, the same person delivers the detainees to the room for detainees. However, he did not see Boliev O. R. in the room for detainees on that day. The persons detained for administrative offences are brought to court by the inspector on examination. He can not explain why Boliev O. R. is not registered in the log-book of persons brought before the court.

Niyazbiyev S., officer of the criminal investigation department, interrogated as witness has given similar testimony.

Witness Aliaskhabov R. Z. has stated in court that on November 15, 2005 he was on duty as operational duty officer at the Khasavyurt TDIA. During the duty period, a lot of instructions arrive and he does not remember whether he issued an instruction to deliver the car, model VAZ -2107, of white colour, No 474. The persons brought by militia officers are registered in the log-book and placed into the room for detained persons on the basis of reports of militia officers by the inspector on examination, who notified him.

His duty includes checking whether the person in question has been registered in the log-book of detainees. However, he does not remember how and under what circumstances Boliev O. R. was brought or whether he was placed into the room for detainees and other details because he did not check the log-book from 15.11.05 to 17.11.05. No unauthorized persons are allowed to be at the militia premises at night time. He does not remember whether Boliev O. R. stayed there at night during the period in question. Neither does he remember whether he gave the keys from the car of Boliev O. R. to anyone, the materials for registration of Boliev O. R. in the log-book arrived at 6.20 a.m. on November 16, 2005. He does not remember anything about finding a grenade.

Having analyzed and assessed the testimonies of the above witnesses, militiamen Umarov L. Y., Khasaev A.G., Aliaskhabov R. Z., Dadaev B. I., Malagadjiev N. A., Akhmedov S.S., the court regards them as inconsistent, incomplete and contradicting the requirements of art. 79 of the RF CCP, as they do not concretely specify the material evidence.

Additionally, the testimonies of the above witnesses, i.e. militia officers, contradict the following evidence submitted to the court by defence:

Witness Yusunova R. M., mother of Boliev O. R., has stated in court that on November 15, 2005 in the morning a militia officer visited them and asked for him. The latter was sleeping and his wife answered that he was not in. After lunch her son, wearing old clothes, was washing his car, she was at home. Her grandson told her that the militiamen who were on duty in their street were picking at his father. She came out into the street and learned from her neighbour that the militiamen wanted to take her son to the militia station. However, her son calmed her down and she went home.

Some time later her son came in to change, she made him wear a cap and a newly-washed leather jacket. She checked if the jacket was dry, there was nothing in the dry pockets of the jacket. She followed her son into the street. Before getting into the car the militiamen made an external check of Osman's clothes. They drove away. After 4 p.m. her neighbour came in and said that he had seen Osman detained by militia officers. Her son did not return home on that day.

Witness Khasukhadjieva Z. I. has given similar testament in court, stating that the militia officer who was asking a lot about her husband was not their district militia officer and that they never had any grenade at home.

Witness Ghekhaev M. S. has stated in court that on November 15, 2005 about 2 p.m. he was outside his house. His neighbour Boliev O. R. was washing his car when militiamen approached him, checked the Boliev's car documents, inspected the car, took away his documents and ordered him to follow them to the militia station. Before Boliev O. R. got into his car, the militiamen patted his pockets. On the next day he learned that Boliev O. R. had been detained and that they had found a grenade on him at the militia station.

Witness Ustarkhanov V. U. has stated in court that on November 15, 2005 after 2 p.m. he was near the bus terminal. He noticed a red "model nine" car stop ahead of the car of Boliev O. R. Boliev O. R. was approached by a militiaman who suggested that he should come out of his car and get into their UAZ jeep. Prior to this, the militiaman patted the clothes of Boliev O. R. He thought that Boliev O. R. was being searched, but there was no conflict between them, they both behaved in a friendly way. Boliev O. R. left his car where it was, he only closed its doors. They left, and somebody drove the car of Boliev O. R. away. This seemed strange to him. When he returned home, he visited the Bolievs and told them about what he had seen. Subsequently he learned that Boliev O. R. had been detained and a grenade had been found on him at the militia station.

The argument of defendant Boliev O. R. to the effect that the grenade was planted on him in connection with his human rights activity has been confirmed in court by witness Israilov M. E. who has stated the following:

In 2004, militia officers burst into their house in Khasavyurt and arrested his father and brothers. Later the brothers were released while the father disappeared. People advised him to apply to human rights activist Boliev O. R. who helped him to compile applications and complaints to various instances, then, having made sure of the futility of his efforts, he used the assistance of Boliev O. R. to apply to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg which admitted his complaint.

Having analyzed and assessed the testimonies of the above witnesses, the court regards them as correct and corresponding to the actual circumstances of the case since these testimonies objectively match each other and other evidence considered by the court. In their entirety they fully corroborate the argument of defendant Boliev O. R. on his innocence of the charge laid. The court has no grounds to doubt the evidence of defendant Boliev O. R. and the above witnesses. The prosecution has failed to submit any evidence to the contrary.

In conformance with art. 285 of RF CCP, the court hearing has also considered the reports on the investigative actions and other documents brought upon the request of the prosecution. They corroborate the following facts:

The court has established that the evidence submitted by the prosecution is contradictory and refuted by the defence.

For example, the resolution of November 17, 2005 on initiating a criminal case and accepting it for investigation and in the report on revealing elements of crime by Umarov Y. L., inspector on examination, establish that, in the course of the personal search, and RGD-5 grenade with a fuse was found in the right-hand external pocket of the leather jacket of Boliev O. R. and confiscated. It means that the grenade and the fuse were found in one pocket of the jacket. At the same time, the report on personal search of 15.11.2005 states that an object resembling the grenade fuse was found in the left external pocket of the jacket, and an object resembling a grenade was found in the right-hand external pocket of the jacket of Boliev O. R. The above states that the grenade and the fuse were found in different pockets of the jacket of Boliev O. R. These contradictions have not been eliminated by the prosecution.

Next, the resolution on appointing an explosion technical expert study of November 17, 2005 states that an RGD-5 grenade with a fuse, packed and sealed, was sent to the expert, while the expert opinion No. 368МО of November 25, 2005 states that, at opening the package, an RGN grenade with an UDZ fuse, a standard combat grenade, was extracted from it. These incompatible contradictions have not been eliminated by the prosecution either.

Additionally, Umarov Y. L., inspector on examination, has violated art. 27.7, para. b, of RF CAO, pursuant to which he was under obligation to compile a report of the grenade examination immediately upon its finding and confiscation. The report on personal search and examination of personal things on the natural person must specify "the type, make, model, calibre, serial number, other identification features of the fire-arms, the type and quantity of ammunition, the form and properties of the documents revealed in the course of the search on the natural person." This has not been done by him.

There are also contradictions in the report on examination of the objects compiled by Dadaev B. I., inquest officer, of November 25, 2005, in which the type of the fire-arms has not been indicated. The report states: "the object of examination constitutes a grenade. It is a metal casing of elliptical shape, 62 mm high, its surface is covered with olive-colour varnish, the surface is smooth, the marking is deleted."

The above data contradict the expert report No 368/10 of November 25, 2005 which contains no information on deleted marking on the grenade and does not specify the grenade type, RGD-5 or RGN (Afghan).

Next, according to the log-book of persons brought to the Khasavyurt TDIA between 25.05.05 and 25.12.05, examined by the court, it has been established that Boliev O. R. was not among the persons brought there on November 15, 2005.

Magistrate court certificate No 693 of December 16, 2005 confirms that, starting from 15.11.2005, no materials on administrative offence with regard to Boliev O. R. have been submitted or considered.

According to the report on detention of November 17, 2005, Boliev O. R. was detained as suspected of committing a crime under art. 222, para. 1 of RF CC at 5 p.m. on November 17, 2005.

Certificate No 4/8697 of 26.12.05 signed by Temirghereyev S. K., chief of Khasavyurt TDIA mobile group, testifies that Boliev O. R. was placed at the temporary detention facility of Khasavyurt TDIA on 17.11.05 at 7 p.m. and held there until 4 p.m. 23.11.05, after which he was escorted to the pre-trial prison No 3/5 of Khasavyurt.

Thus, the prosecution has failed to refute the above evidence.

Neither has the prosecution submitted to the court any evidence where defendant Boliev O. R. was kept from 3 p.m. of November 15, 2005 to 5 p.m. of November 17, 2005. Therefore, the argument of defendant Boliev O. R. to the effect that the grenade was planted into the pocket of jacket at the militia station when he was held handcuffed and with a bag on his head in one of the offices of Khasavyurt TDIA, is corroborated.

The court hearing has studied the log-book of instructions for the period in question and established the following:

On page 39 of the log-book of instructions there is an entry "15.11.05, 12.20. Car VAZ-2107, white, number 474 05/RUS to be brought to TDIA." The log-book does not specify who issued the instruction, who sighed it and to which town and district units of Khasavyurt TDIA it was related. There is no record of its execution. Moreover, at the bottom of the same page No 39 there is another entry "18.11.05, 2.15 p.m. Car VAZ-2107, white, number 474 05/RUS to be detained and brought to TDIA," which testifies to the fact that the instruction, which served to justify taking Boliev O. R. to the Khasavyurt TDIA by traffic militia, was false because the car had already been in the TDIA yard. This fact is also corroborated by the response obtained by Kadyrova S. A., defendant's lawyer, that no instruction relating to the car VAZ-2107, white, number 474 05/RUS was registered on 15.11.05 at Khasavyurt district DIA. The other instruction of 15.11.05 was not registered either.

The court has also inspected the jacket of Boliev O. R. and established that the jacket pockets are not external but of cut-in type with an open top, up to 09 cm deep, and that it was impossible to miss the presence of a grenade in such a pocket at the moment of detention.

Thus, the above analysis of evidence submitted by the prosecution and considered by the court shows that there is no admissible and convincing evidence which sufficiently corroborates, individually or in its entirety, the guilt of Boliev O. R. of committing the crime in question.

The arguments of defendant Boliev O. R. to the effect that he was unlawfully brought to the Khasavyurt TDIA and, with the use of handcuffs, he was planted a grenade into his jacket, that for two day he was unlawfully held at the department premises, that he is not guilty of committing this crime, are fully corroborated and Boliev O. R., in conformance with art. 302, para. 2, item 2, of RF CCP, shall be acquitted.

On the basis of the above and guided by art. 302, art. 305 art. 306 of RF CCP, the court hereby RULES:

TO ACQUIT BOLIEV OSMAN RAMZANOVICH of the charge of committing a crime under art. 222, para. 1, of RF CCP owing to the innocence of the defendant of committing the crime. The measure of restraint with regard to Boliev O. R., i.e. undertaking not to leave, shall be invalidated upon the ruling coming into force.

TO RECOGNIZE the right of BOLIEV O. R. to rehabilitation following the procedure prescribed in section 18 of RF CCP.

The material evidence, i.e. RGN grenade (without a fuse), shall be destroyed upon the ruling coming into force.

No civil law suit has been filed on the case, there are no procedural costs on the case.

This ruling may be appealed by a cassation procedure in the judicial chamber on criminal cases of the RD Supreme Court within 10 (ten) days from the day of announcement; the acquitted Boliev O. R. - within the same time limit from the day of receiving a copy of the ruling. In case of a cassation appeal, acquitted Boliev O. R. shall be entitled to apply for attending the cassation instance court hearing on the criminal case.

This ruling has been compiled and printed in the deliberation room.

Presiding judge: Ramazanov Y. S.