BRIEFING
COMMISSION ON SECURITY & COOPERATION IN EUROPE: U.S. HELSINKI COMMISSION
IN THE EYE OF THE STORM: CHECHNYA AND THE MOUNTING VIOLENCE IN THE NORTH
CAUCASUS
WITNESSES:
ELENA MILASHINA,
INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, NOVAYA GAZETA
IGOR KALYAPIN,
CHAIR, COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE
RAISA TURLUEVA,
VICTIM WHOSE SON WAS ABDUCTED
IN CHECHNYA BY SECURITY SERVICES
THE HEARING WAS HELD FROM 10:00 A.M. to 11:30 A.M. IN ROOM 340 OF THE CANNON
HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C., [RONALD MCNAMARA, INTERNATIONAL POLICY
DIRECTOR, CSCE, MODERATING]
WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 2010
RON MCNAMARA: Good morning and welcome to this briefing of the Commission on
Security and Cooperation in Europe. My name is Ron McNamara and on behalf of
our chairman, Senator Cardin, and our cochairman, Congressman Alcee Hastings,
welcome to this briefing, which is part of the commission’s ongoing efforts to
draw attention to human rights in the OSCE region in the Russian Federation and
particularly in the North Caucasus region.
This morning I actually looked and saw that our first hearing was on May 1st of
1995, exclusively focused on the situation in Chechnya. I would invite you to
visit the commission’s website, www.csce.gov, where you can review the
materials related to this, today’s subject, “In the Eye of the Storm: Chechnya
and the Mounting Violence in the North Caucasus Region.”
I want to, at the outset, express appreciation for Freedom House and their
assistance in facilitating the experts that will be sharing today with us
regarding their observations with respect to the situation in that part of the
Russian Federation. I would point out that yesterday our cochairman,
Congressman Hastings, introduced a resolution – copies of the text are
available – H.Res. 1539, which, among other things, expresses solidarity with
human rights defenders in the Russian Federation.
The introduction timing is, of course, in close proximity to the one-year
anniversary of the murder of human rights defender Natalya Estemirova. And I
thought in terms of sort of introducing the subject matter today, what I’ll do
is read from Congressman Hastings’ brief statement of introduction related to
the subjects of human rights defenders in the Russian Federation:
“A year ago this month Natalya Estemirova, the leading human rights defender in
Chechnya was abducted near her apartment in the capital city of Grozny by
unidentified men, transported to the neighboring republic of Ingushetia and
brutally killed. She led a courageous life of denouncing corruption, calling
for a fair judicial system, and standing up for human rights. For that she was
cut down.
“While her killers may have ended her life, they will never silence the voice
she brought to these issues. Ms. Estemirova’s work was well known to the
Helsinki Commission and colleagues here as we recall her visit in 2006 to the
commission to discuss the situation in Chechnya. Like Estemirova, all too many
of her fellow human rights defenders and journalists are targeted because they
have the temerity to speak out about human rights abuses in the Russian
Federation.
“Yesterday, as I mentioned, Congressman Hastings introduced a resolution, a
measure expressing solidarity with human rights defenders in the Russian
Federation; urging the Russian authorities to take appropriate steps to end the
harassment, persecution and attacks against activists; and calling for an end
to the impunity for those responsible for such acts, including through the
conducting of timely, transparent and thorough criminal investigations into the
unresolved murders of human rights defenders, journalists and political
opposition members and the prosecution of all of those responsible for these
crimes. And I would emphasize all those responsible.
“The Helsinki Commission has been at the forefront of drawing attention to the
human rights situation in Chechnya and elsewhere in the North Caucasus region
of Russia, having held numerous hearings and briefings on related concerns.
Notwithstanding the assertions by the powers that be in Moscow that the
situation in Chechnya has returned to normal, the reality on the ground reveals
otherwise.
“The recently released 2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, issued
by the State Department, found that the Russian government’s already poor human
rights record in the North Caucasus worsened during the reporting period, with
a marked increase in extrajudicial killings by both government and rebel forces
and politically motivated disappearances in Chechnya as well as in neighboring
Ingushetia and Dagestan. The Helsinki Commission remains deeply concerned over
ongoing human rights abuses, legal impunity and the permeating climate of fear
in the North Caucasus.
“While one cannot discount that terrorist elements are responsible for some of
the rights violations in the region, many of the reported abuses are
perpetrated by federal and local security forces in Chechnya, including the
private militia of Chechen strongman Ramzan Kadyrov, the republic’s
Kremlin-backed president.
“While it remains unclear what, if any role Kadyrov had in Estemirova’s
killing, his contempt for her and others involved in human rights defense is
palpable. Earlier this month Kadyrov publicly labeled independent journalists
and rights activists as, quote, “traitors and enemies of the state,” end quote.
Among those targeted by the Chechen leader is the respected Russian human
rights organization Memorial.
“Our concern over the deterioration in situation of human rights in the North
Caucasus generally, and Chechnya specifically, is held by others as well. I
would point out that the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly adopted a
resolution late last month on the North Caucasus.
“The measure pointed to a series of specific concerns in Chechnya against the
backdrop of what it characterized as, quote, “a climate of pervading fear,” end
quote, nurtured by the current authorities: Recurrent disappearances of
government opponents and human rights defenders still remain widely unpunished;
continuing threats and reprisals, including abductions of relatives of persons
suspected of belonging to illegal armed factions; and ongoing intimidation of
media and civil society, among other concerns.
“Ramzan Kadyrov's utter contempt for human rights and fundamental freedoms was
again manifested recently in his reaction to paintball gun attacks against
women on the streets of Grozny apparently because they were not wearing
headscarves. Instead of condemning these assaults, the Chechen president
reportedly praised the perpetrators. While Kadyrov has largely had free reins
in Chechnya, that does not absolve his backers in Moscow from responsibility
for the deteriorating human rights situation in that part of the Russian
Federation.
“As a participating state of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe, it is incumbent upon the Russian authorities to ensure that fundamental
freedoms are respected throughout the country, including in the North Caucasus.
Turning a blind eye to human rights violations is unacceptable.
“Congressman Hastings urged President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin to take
effective measures to stop the harassment, persecution and attacks against
human rights activists and journalists in the Russian Federation and to end the
impunity for those responsible for the murder of Ms. Estemirova and others.
Only then will there be hope of the situation in Chechnya will return to
anything approaching normal.”
Before turning to our expert panelists this morning, I would note a couple of
recent items: One, for example, an open letter that was sent by the human
rights chamber, led by Ms. Pamfilova and that was cosigned by about a dozen
other human rights activists and veterans including Lyudmila Alexeyeva,
concerned exactly with this question of Kadyrov’s threats directed to or
against human rights defenders.
Finally, an item that I was reading just before coming over here is by Sergei
Kovalev, the veteran human rights activist himself, where he concluded that
Moscow is seeking to extend to the entire North Caucasus the political model
which has taken shape in Chechnya where the bandits serve as a prop for the
federal powers that be.
Again, welcome to this briefing and we look forward to the comments of our
experts this morning. And we’ll start with Elena Milashina, investigative
reporter for Novaya Gazeta.
ELENA MILASHINA: Hi. A year ago a leading Chechen human rights activist and
defender, Natasha Estemirova was killed. It happened next day I left Chechnya,
coming back from my business trip there. From 9th until 14th of July last
year, I worked together with Natasha and lived at her house. Natasha for many
years was my friend and was my guide in Chechnya and her house was my place to
live in Chechnya. And so many people can say about Natasha.
Early in the morning 14th of July, we said bye to each other, goodbye. She was
going to her work to office of Chechen organization Memorial where she worked.
And I was leaving for airport and coming back to Moscow. On 15th of July at
7:30 in the morning she left her house, but she couldn’t reach the bus station
to go to her work because she was kidnapped.
Several people in camouflage form without ski masks put her in the car and took
her away. And it happened in the center of Grozny, the capital of Chechnya.
And several eyewitnesses saw that, but none of them was complaining or called
to police. And this is a sign that people knew who did it. Around 14, 40, 16
p.m., Natasha was found in neighboring republic Ingushetia, shot. In her body
the experts found five bullets. Three were in the chest and two in the head.
This was not the usual contract killer. I think it was the public execution of
the enemy of state.
Recently on 3rd of July, Chechen president of Chechnya appointed by Kremlin,
Ramzan Kadyrov, gave interview to a public TV channel in Chechnya and called
human rights defenders working in Chechnya as enemies of people, enemies of law
and enemies of state. These statements were made while there was completely
total official silence about the investigation of Natasha Estemirova’s murder.
Neither investigators, official investigators nor the government
representatives or public Russian politics mentioned this investigation or
Natasha Estemirova’s death. They didn’t actually remember this a year later.
And thanks to German journalists only, we got to know that president of Russia,
Dmitry Medvedev, still remember about Natasha Estemirova. It happened during
the second Russian-German consultation and the second time German journalists
did what Russian journalists can’t do anymore. They asked direct question to
Dmitry Medvedev and Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, what and how the
investigation of Natasha Estemirova’s murder goes.
As a year ago, Dmitry Medvedev, the president of Russia, had to say something
about this to German people, to German journalists, not to Russian people. He
was not feeling and wanting to talk a lot about it. He said that the
investigation goes in full swing, the killer actually identified and he is on
international wanted list. And said Mr. Medvedev, you should – he was actually
talking to German people, to German journalists – you should understand that
that kind of crimes are really hard to investigate and the investigation can be
really slow.
Well, as an eyewitness of the last week of Natasha’s life, I had to deal with
the investigation really close because me and Natasha’s colleague and friends
took this crime, took this order as a personal question. And we were trying to
do our best to clear this crime and to bring those who guilty to the answer.
And maybe because we took it as a personal thing, we got to know more that
President Medvedev knows. So I can say that the murder of Natasha Estemirova
is not really tough crime because from the beginning, the investigators got
really important thing: They got DNA samples of killers. And from this
information, we get to know that at least three of people – well, the actually,
exact killers who – contract killers who did the murder, there were three of
them. And they found that from the expertise of Natasha’s body.
You know, when you got the DNA samples of killers and it is really rare when
the contract murder happens because contract murder actually doesn’t happen
without direct physical contact of murderer and his victim because the murderer
just shoot the victim and go away. But Natasha was kidnapped. And Natasha was
fighting for her freedom. And that’s why it was possible to discover DNA
samples of those who committed it.
And from the first – from the beginning of the investigation, there was – the
investigation had a really tight circle of (concrete ?) policemen, Chechen
policemen who were under suspicion that they have relationship to this
(concrete ?) murder. And I can name those people. This policemen of local
police department of Kurchaloyevski district – it’s close to Grozny in Chechnya
and their names are Sultan Bilayev (sp), Musa Salmanev (sp) and commander of
this local police department and one of the closest friends of Ramzan Kadyrov,
Hamzad Edelgeryev (sp).
In the last week of her life, Natasha was investigating several situations of
kidnapping and public executions, which were made – and we have some evidence
and provements (sic) of that and not only we but investigators do – were made
by policemen of this local police department. And I want to tell you about one
situation that got world famous because Natasha’s death. I want you to look
after the dates because it is important.
Seventh of July last year, the policemen of this local police department of
Kurchaloyevski district kidnapped two people: Rizvan Albekov and his
17-years-old son, Aziz. Rizvan – at the evening of this day, Rizvan was
killed, publicly killed in the village, Chechen village Akhinchu-Borzoi and
there were several people who live in this village, they were eyewitnesses of
this killing because it was public.
After Natasha’s death, his son, Aziz, was actually – he was kept for three
weeks in an unknown place. He was released. And investigators who are trying
to have an investigation of Natasha’s murder, they didn’t find him. And they
told me, why we should look for him? Why we should search for him? He
wouldn’t tell us anything because he is afraid.
On 9th of July, it happened – the kidnapping and killing of Rizvan Albekov
happened on 7th of July. The 9th of July – 9 of July – Natasha gave an
interview where she said that in Chechnya, they have a new wave of violence.
Yes, and she named concrete Chechen policemen who were responsible for summary
execution of Rizvan Albekov.
On 10th of July, Ramzan Kadyrov gave order to Chechen ombudsman to put pressure
on the human-rights defender organization Memorial, where Natasha worked. The
Chechen ombudsman, Nukhazhiev, he asked – the human-rights defenders came to
his place. And in front of TV journalists, he accused them that they blackened
the authorities of Chechnya and told them, listen carefully. If Anna
Politkovskaya were more careful, she would be alive till now. 15th of July,
Natasha Estemirova was killed.
Five months, the official investigation team had only one lead of her murderer,
Natasha’s murderer. We call this lead, “Kurchaloyevski lead,” by the name of
the local police department where those people who, I think, responsible for
her murder work till now.
And the investigators, from the beginning of investigation, had the DNA samples
of real killers. And the investigation team had information of eyewitnesses
who were actually at the same time when Natasha was kidnapped. And the
investigation team had concrete people under suspicion, who might be
responsible for Natasha’s death.
To prove their guilt, or to clear them from these suspicions, the investigators
had to do – by law, had to do one simple thing. They had to take samples of
their blood – the people whom they suspect – and to compare it with DNA samples
they got from Natasha’s body, the DNA samples of real killers. They didn’t do
that. The investigators didn’t even find the eyewitnesses of Natasha’s
kidnapping. But their testimony was really important and could be the – could
be really improvement in the process of identification of Natasha’s killers.
I think the investigation was really passive. Maybe, I think, I guess because
all those things led to the person who made contract on this killing. And I
think the main problems of this investigation were that from the very
beginning, on the second day after Natasha’s death, the president of Russia,
Medvedev, made a really clear statement that the president of Chechnya, Ramzan
Kadyrov, has nothing to do to this crime. And Natasha was killed by those who
were trying to blacken the image of Ramzan Kadyrov.
So she was killed by the enemies of Kadyrov. And those statements of President
Medvedev actually were put in the base of the second lead of Natasha’s killers.
And this lead was made not only by investigators, but with a great help, I
would say, Russian secret service, FSB. Well, this lead says that Natasha was
killed by the insurgents. And the motive of the insurgents to kill Natasha was
to blacken the image of Ramzan Kadyrov. It’s written, I mean, in
investigators’ papers.
When Dmitry Medvedev told the German journalist that the killer, actually, is
known and he is on international wanted list, he was partly lying. Yes, the
killer is known. His name is Alkhazur Bashaev. He is from a small, tiny
Chechen village, Shalazhiy (ph). And he is from the so-named Shalazhenskiy
Dzhemat (ph). It’s a kind of a – oh, don’t know how to explain it. Maybe my
translator will help me; dzhemat, it is – okay, thanks. Thank you that you
know what is dzhemat, actually.
Well, and this person can’t be on an international wanted list because he is
dead. He was killed last year, in November. And I am so sorry for Mr.
Medvedev that he wasn’t told that. It’s very convenient and it’s very common
in Russia to make guilty those who can’t actually speak up because they are
dead. And this happened – happening, actually because investigation of Natasha
Estemirova’s murder is not closed and far from the end; it’s happening with
Natasha’s case.
I think it’s a kind of typical Russian tragedy to investigate such kinds of
crimes, like contract murders. And the most important thing is to take as much
time as possible. So in a year, at next German-Russian consulting, someone
from international journalists will remember about this murder and ask the
question to Mr. Medvedev. And I think in a year, Mr. Medvedev will answer,
well, the killer of Natasha Estemirova got what he deserved and that will be
the end.
Thank you. I want to say one thing in conclusion. It’s a typical situation.
It happens not only with Natasha, not only with Anna Politkovskaya’s murder and
those murders are still different because well-known people were killed. It
happens every day in Chechnya with tens and maybe hundreds of people who still
continue to be kidnapped and killed without any chance that their killers will
be brought to the court and to justice.
And it’s very important because everybody in Chechnya is scared to death and
keeps his mouth shut. It’s very important from you and from us to support
those who are still there to speak. And I want to represent one person, a
mother, whose son was kidnapped and he’s still alive – to support her because
he is one of you, those who want and dare to speak about those who kidnapped
her son. Because she wants to save him.
MR. MCNAMARA: Thank you. Now we’ll here from Raisa Turlueva, whose son was
abducted in Chechnya.
(Ms. Turlueva’s remarks are delivered via translator.)
RAISA TURLUEVA: On October the 21st of 2009, there was a special operation
conducted on the premises of my house by law enforcement. And as a result of
this operation, my house was burned down to the ground, with all the property
that was inside. And my son was kidnapped as he was coming back from college.
As my son was detained, he was not charged with any crime by the law
enforcement.
I and the uncle of my son were taken to the police station. And we were held
there for five hours. And I was released after 9 p.m. And in about an hour, I
received a phone call on my cell phone. The person on the other end of the
line introduced himself as a detective and he asked me to go back to the police
station and take my son with me. And actually, my son was in police detention
at that time.
That I had learned from the uncle of my son, who was also brought back to the
police station, to the office of Sharif (ph) Delimkhanov. He is a cousin of
Ramzan Kadyrov. He is also head of a special unit responsible for, for a
special police unit. Later, the uncle of my son was released. And before the
uncle was released, he was asked to renounce his nephew. And he did not do
that. And right after he was released, he saw my son being taken into the same
office.
And the uncle was told that my son is a dead man for sure because of the blood
vendetta. Apparently, during this special operation at the premises of my
house, one of the law enforcement officers was shot. So since our family is
now responsible, we have to be culpable and pay with blood for blood spilled by
the law enforcement officer. And they were told – and he was told that we’re
not going to wait for the relatives of the law enforcement officer to pick up
on that.
They would not need the relatives to decide on whether they’re going to commit
vendetta against my family because prior to that, they formed a fellowship, a
brotherhood of sorts, that regardless of whose relatives involved, they will
have to execute those who they think would be responsible for blood of one of
their killed brethren. This all happened the night of October the 21st and
into October the 22nd, probably around 1 a.m. in the morning.
So the uncle was released and my son remained in detention at the headquarters
of this unit. And the day after, both my neighbors and my relatives were
advising me against writing complains to law enforcement. They were telling me
that it will be of no use. And actually, it might work against us. They might
come back to the village and burn everybody else’s houses and kill more people.
Our people are intimidated and scared of the atrocities committed by official
law enforcement, to the point that they are even afraid to raise their voice.
In the wake of that incident, on October – on November the 30th, I got an
invitation from the prosecutor’s office. And the prosecutor advised us against
making an official statement or writing a complaint about kidnapping of my son.
He said it’s not going to do you any good.
Nevertheless, I was able to convince the uncle of my son to write a statement
and testify about what he saw because he was the last person who saw my son
alive. After the documents were signed, Sharif Delimkhanov had another
conversation with the uncle of my son in his office. And he was greatly
displeased with the fact that this document, the complaint, existed. And he
told him, well, you can say all you want that you saw him in my office. I will
maintain that I released him.
He had no authority to interrogate either my son or the uncle of my son. It
was clearly the exceeding of the authority that the person had. And for some
reason, there was no single person who saw my son after that interrogation a
free man. And questions still remain where and how he disappeared.
Those who are charged with detective work are afraid to approach and question
high-level officials in law enforcement or security forces or security
services. The criminal investigation and the criminal case were opened but it
has got us nowhere so far. The only information I received is that my son is
alive and kept somewhere in a cellar.
What happens is young people are kept in long detention, just long enough for
their beards to grow long, for their hair and nails to grow long. Then they
escort them out to the woods, put camouflage uniforms on them, give them
Kalashnikovs and then kill them, and then report that they were able to
eliminate another group of insurgents.
Well, and if you’re asking the question why there are so many law enforcement
officers die of attacks on law enforcement, you would realize that sometimes
our sons, the young people, are pretty much forced to take this path of
resisting unlawful law enforcement.
And if you ask the official authorities, they would say, well, you see, the
situation in Chechnya is tranquil; look at these beautiful houses, the new
development, the clean streets. But we can argue that it’s a too-high price to
pay for this exterior. We don’t have to pay with the lives of our brothers and
our sons for this type of exterior.
We’re not able to tell the truth and we’re not able to describe things as they
are. People are scared and intimidated daily. For example, the relatives on
my husband’s side pretty much withdrew from my cause. And pretty much because
I signed written statements and because I came here. But it’s understandable
because they’re afraid for their own children and for their own families
because it’s not an individual who bear responsibility for his action. His
entire family.
My last visit to a detective – or, to an investigator was in December. He took
an incomplete testimony from me and he told me that he would call me when he
needs more information. And I’m still waiting for that call.
Thank you very much.
MR. MCNAMARA: Thank you. I’d note Congressman McIntyre, one of our
commissioners, has just arrived. If you have any comments you wanted to make,
sir?
REP. MIKE MCINTYRE (D-NC): (Off mike.)
MR. MCNAMARA: Thank you. We’ll next hear from Igor Kalyapin, chairman of the
Committee Against Torture.
(Note: Mr. Kalyapin’s remarks are delivered via translator.)
IGOR KALYAPIN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues. I would
like to start my presentation with a few words about my organization and what I
do. My organization employs services of professional attorneys who provide
services to victims who suffered from abuses of law enforcement agencies and
those who were tortured.
In November last year, and after the murder of Natalya Estemirova, we’ve come
to a realization that we probably need to establish a permanent representation
in Chechnya for providing services directly to victims of abuse and torture by
law enforcement and those whose relatives were kidnapped, those like Raisa.
And unlike the work that is done by Memorial and by colleagues of Natalya
Estemirova, we’ve emphasized our efforts as using regulations and procedural
rules stipulated by Russian law in trying to address the same issue.
There’s a common misunderstanding, or even a myth, that imperfections or
inefficiencies of Russian law or regulatory framework does not allow for
effective investigation or persecution of government officials responsible for
committing unlawful acts.
As a practicing attorney, I can tell you that this is not true. The issue is
not in gaps in Russian law or in its inefficiency. The problem is that the
provisions of laws and regulations are systematically – daily – violated and
ignored by those who are supposed to follow them and enforce them.
And just for clarification, I want to inform you that the felonies, the most
heinous crimes, and crimes committed by law enforcement officers are
investigated and prosecuted not by law enforcement; by a special committee
within the prosecutor’s office. It’s called investigative committee.
Investigators in the investigative committee have a wide range of authority;
more than sufficient in order to successfully investigate crimes and incidents
that we were referring to here. And in the province of Chechnya,
representatives of this investigative committee received additional authority
under the home rule, so they will have even more resources available to them to
investigate these crimes.
And in the case of the kidnapping of the son of Raisa Turlueva is actually
investigated by this very elite unit of the investigative committee. And now I
will tell you my observation of how it is done in practice.
And I would like also to mention that our associates are involved in the
investigation and in this particular criminal case as attorneys on behalf of
the victim, or relatives of the victim.
Well, actually, there’s no investigation at all. What we witness is a total
sabotage. There’s an undisputed fact that Raisa’s son was accosted and taken
into custody by police officers that are assigned to this special unit. And
their only responsibility is providing security for oil-producing facilities.
And it is an undisputed fact that Said Ibragimov, the son of Ms. Turlueva, was
taken into custody by these security personnel and taken into the headquarters
of the unit to the commander of the unit.
And the uncle testified that the commander of the unit told him that the son
would be killed as a vendetta revenge for a fallen comrade of theirs, who was
killed during the counterinsurgency operation because apparently there is some
link between the son and the insurgent who was responsible for the death of the
officer.
So you see, there are undisputed facts. People are coming and taking into
custody a young man without charging him with any crime. There was no
indictment; there was no summons to come to the prosecutor or to the detective
to give testimony. He was just brought to a police station while a relative, a
close relative of that person, was told that the nephew is a dead man. Then
the person disappears and the mother goes to the investigator in the
investigative committee. The first thing the investigator does is try to
convince the claimant to withdraw the complaint. He tells her, please, don’t
make that statement.
Then on the second visit to the investigative committee when Raisa was actually
accompanied by her attorney, she stated that there were police officers from
this particular unit that took her son into custody. And she also relayed a
conversation that she had with the uncle and the statement that the commander
of the unit made referring to the blood vendetta, saying that the son will have
to pay for the spilled blood of one of their brethren. The investigator of the
investigative committee flatly refused to write these words down in the police
report. We had to go to the boss of that investigator in order to make this
investigator comply with the regulations and his professional duties.
When we asked the – or requested that the investigator and the uncle of Raisa’s
son would visit the crime scene – basically, go into the unit’s headquarters
and go into the office where the conversation between the commander of the unit
and uncle took place, it was visible that the investigator was simply scared.
Off the record, the investigator told the attorney that nobody would grant him
access to the office of the commander. And if he tries to obtain the access,
he probably would get beaten up.
I have another example from a different case, but very similar circumstances.
We requested that the inspector in the investigative committee would find out
what particular units were involved in the special counterinsurgency operations
at a particular area. Danish Council of Refugees associate Zarema Gaisanova
(sp) was kidnapped during that incident. So here’s what’s happening. The
investigator sends an official request to provide information to the head of
the local law enforcement department so he would provide names and ranks of
police officers who were involved in that particular counterinsurgency
operation.
By law, the person has to respond to the request by investigative committee
within five days. But the investigators got no response at all, and they
repeatedly sent those requests to the head of the local law enforcement
department. And the police simply ignored the request from the investigative
committee. The district attorney, the prosecutor, states that, you know, the
requests have to be replied to and sends an accompanying letter, with another
request, to the local police chief.
Again, no response. And since the departments are vertically integrated within
each province, the line investigator writes to his boss and the boss writes a
letter to the minister of the interior of the Chechen ethnic province with a
complaint, saying that one of the line agencies and the head of the line
agencies is not responding to an official request submitted by the
investigative committee. Again, no response.
And these are all – all of these are official documents, official papers,
official letters that now are a part of the criminal case. And there’s only
one remarkable thing about this case. It’s the persistence of the
investigator. The absolute majority of investigators get the drift, get the
signal when they’re stonewalled. You know, they just send a couple of requests
and if no response would come, they would just give up.
And you know, even the investigators themselves grow cynical about the
situation to an extent, you know, even, we’re talking about summoning
lower-rank police officer. They might say, well, you know, first of all, it’s
no use to me because I can call him and I can write to him; he would not come
anyway. And most likely, if they receive the summons, they would arrange for a
beating for me the same night. And I have this fundamental question that I
can’t find an answer to: Who’s to blame for what’s going on in Chechnya?
Either the party at fault would be the Chechnyan (sic) law enforcement, who
choose to, daily, ignore and disregard the law and regulations that are written
for them, or we have to blame the investigators of the investigative committee,
who are not persistent enough and do not use the full range of authority given
to them in order to successfully prosecute those who commit crimes. I
personally have not found an answer to this question for myself.
MR. MCNAMARA: Excuse me. I think we’re going to have to wrap up this. So if
you could sum up. Because I would like to open it up, as we do at our
briefings, to any questions that the audience might have. So if you could sort
of sum things up –
MR. KALYAPIN: And you know, I ask this question to many people and I receive
somewhat similar answers. Everybody is telling me that they are writing
letters to their bosses. Eventually, these letters go to Moscow, to the
higher-ups there. And unfortunately, they get no response from Moscow.
They’re just waiting for a clear signal. And I can tell you that I talked to
the deputy prosecutor-general of Chechnya, who told me the same thing. And I
know I have to wrap up and I’ll be happy to answer your questions.
MR. MCNAMARA: Thank you very much. As part of our normal format for our
briefings, we will entertain a few questions. I should have also indicated
that, at the formal conclusion of the briefing, we will have the showing of a
documentary film, “Victims Take the Floor,” which is about 30 minutes in
length. So we invite any of you who have the time to view that documentary.
I had two very quick questions, and hopefully, short responses. I wondered if
you could indicate the volume of cases that the committee is looking into in
Chechnya – maybe if you’re working, also, in other republics of the North
Caucasus region as well, if you could briefly respond to that. And then we’ve
heard a lot of allegations regarding the special role played by Kadyrov’s sort
of special, personal forces.
And I wonder if any of you want to make any comments on that. And then, once
we have the answers to those questions, we have a microphone at the end of the
dais here. Please come forward. If you state your name, any affiliation you
have, and briefly make the question. Because I’d like to see if we can wrap up
in around 10 or 15 minutes. So thank you.
MS. MILASHINA: I can answer the second question. While all the time we say
Chechen policemen, we mean Kadyrovzi, that means Kadyrov’s special troops.
(Off-side conversation.)
MS. MILASHINA: And for the first question, I think – (in Russian).
MR. KALYAPIN: I can’t give you exact figures, but if we’re talking about
kidnappings and killings, we’re probably dealing with about 150 cases like that.
MS. MILASHINA: And compared to neighboring republics on the Northern Caucasus,
the situation is that all crimes connected with abductions or executions of the
former insurgents or people who are connected to them and those crimes,
actually, made by official policemen.
This situation is typical for Chechnya, for Ingushetia, for Dagestan, for
Kabardino-Balkaria. And what is more typical, that really – I mean, I don’t
know any cases where the policemen would be charged for tortures, for
abductions, for killing. It’s typical situation, not for Chechnya, but for
almost the whole region on the Northern Caucasus region.
MR. MCNAMARA: So if there are any questions from the audience.
Q: Thank you very much for your very disturbing testimony. I’m Kathy Kosman
from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, and my
organization has recommended that the U.S. consider issuing a visa ban on
Kadyrov entering the United States, as well as freezing the bank assets of
Kadyrov.
But I’m wondering, in that connection, whether any of you have information
about Kadyrov being personally responsible for some of the crimes that you have
described – I mean, directly legally – like, you can point to his personal
involvement, not to mention the fact that one might argue that being the head
of the Kadyrovzi and the head of the Republic of Chechnya – not a province – he
also had legal responsibility? Thank you.
MS. MILASHINA: Okay, I think I can answer this question. Since 2006, I think
– it began in September 2006 till now, as I commented with my friends, more
than 10 people who were considered to be different people with different life
stories, but they had one thing in common.
All of them were, you can consider, as enemies of Kadyrov – personal enemies of
Kadyrov. Some of them were political – (inaudible); some of them were victims
who actually escaped and tried to get justice abroad. And some of them were
critics of Kadyrov, like Anna Politkovskaya and Natasha Estemirova. And all of
them were killed.
Well, they were not – I can’t say that we were likely (ph), but in some –
(inaudible) – we were – that not all of them were killed in Russia. Some of
them were killed abroad. For example, in Dubai, in April 2008, a big Chechen
person, actually, who switched sides at the same time as Kadyrov – Ramzan
Kadyrov and his father did – and his – (inaudible) – he was killed in Dubai and
he was a political concurrent of Ramzan Kadyrov. He was killed in Dubai.
And then one, who was actually a bodyguard of Kadyrov, and then he was captured
in Santori (ph) in the secret prison by order made on Ramzan Kadyrov. He
escaped. He managed to escape from Russia and then his family – his father –
was taken to this prison and was captured there more than 11 months, I think,
and also was released and he moved out of Russia. They were victims of Kadyrov
and they made application to European Court. And Umar Israilov, the first man,
who was bodyguard of Kadyrov – former bodyguard of Kadyrov – he was killed in
Vienna in 2009.
And those crimes were investigated because they were made abroad. And in
Dubai’s case, the, actually, personal responsibility and guilt of Ramzan
Kadyrov and his closest person, Adam Delimkhanov, were proved. And I think the
same thing can happen in Austrian murder. What about the Russian murders?
Investigations, like we were talking today – there was no real investigation.
So we can’t be sure it’s Kadyrov’s fault or Kadyrov’s guilt, personally. But I
think the sign that there’s no investigation, it’s kind of a provement (sic)
that he is and might be guilty, directly.
MR. KALYAPIN: I would like to follow up. Again, I think you were referring to
having a body of evidence sufficient to implicate Kadyrov in any of the crimes
that were committed in Chechnya. Well, talking about Russia, we can
unequivocally say that there’s no body of evidence that would implicate Kadyrov
in a court of law in any of the crimes that we were referring to here, and it’s
practically impossible to have this body of evidence.
I will just give you one example, of Zarema Gaisanova, who was kidnapped during
a counterinsurgency operation. We took up this case and we pressured the
investigator to summon Ramzan Kadyrov for a questioning, an interview. He
refused to do so. We were able to get a court order to have Ramzan Kadyrov
questioned by the investigators.
Even though formally, the investigator agreed to question Kadyrov, he hasn’t
questioned him yet, even though Kadyrov made a statement saying he is not
opposed to coming for questioning. He’s not trying to evade the questioning or
try to escape. I actually had a meeting with him in February and I asked him
point-blank, Ramzan, why don’t you have an interview with the investigator in
this case? And he told me, well, you know, I’m not opposed to that. I’m
willing to testify. It’s not my fault that the investigator is a coward.
And when you – when I asked the investigator why he is not questioning Kadyrov,
he’s saying, well, I don’t feel like doing it. So if you have this type of
attitudes, you will never have a body of evidence.
MS. MILASHINA: Can I ask some important things, I think, for you to better
understand what we’re talking about. Why it’s all possible in Chechnya? Why
not only in Chechnya, in the Northern Caucasus, why it happens? Why people who
actually make these crimes can be brought to justice?
When Putin was actually dealing with Chechen problem, with Chechen war, he gave
power – total power, without any borders – to Ramzan Kadyrov, to Akhmad
Kadyrov, his father, and then Ramzan Kadyrov, and people from Chechen
insurgents switched side and followed, then, by Kremlin and his interest. And
he decided this Chechen problem with a very simple principle.
He gave these people opportunity, actually, to kill without any justice,
without anything, not follow the law, because it was the main principle to
resolve this problem – to put together Chechens against Chechens and, in this
way, dissolve this big problem for Kremlin on the Caucasus. And that’s by
nobody, not even – I mean, not Kadyrov, not even smaller people under him can
be brought to justice in this crime, because it would kill this principle on
which the Putin stability is actually established – so-called “stability” in
Northern Caucasus.
MR. MCNAMARA: Thank you. Any additional questions? If not, then we will
conclude the briefing. I should indicate that a full transcript of today’s
briefing will be available at the commission’s website, www.csce.gov. And that
should be available by tomorrow afternoon. Just in looking over Sergei
Kovalev’s remarks regarding the situation in the North Caucasus and elsewhere,
he talks about, sort of, the Machiavellian dynamic. And no matter what, I
guess we can conclude, certainly, that we well know who the prince of Chechnya
is and certainly are very concerned, regarding the statements that he makes.
So whether, in a legal sense, he is complicit, certainly, he’s sending very
strong signals to the security forces and others regarding the work of human
rights defenders and journalists and others, as well, when you label them as
“enemies of the state.” And we know that, all too often, that translates,
then, into the types of situations that we have in the case of Politkovskaya or
Natasha’s case, as well – Estemirova. Again, copies of Congressman Hastings’
statement and the resolution that he introduced on the subject is available and
I thank you. And again, if your schedule permits, we will be showing the
documentary, “Victims Take the Floor.” Thank you very much.
(END)
COMMISSION ON SECURITY & COOPERATION IN EUROPE: U.S. HELSINKI COMMISSION
IN THE EYE OF THE STORM: CHECHNYA AND THE MOUNTING VIOLENCE IN THE NORTH
CAUCASUS
WITNESSES:
ELENA MILASHINA,
INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, NOVAYA GAZETA
IGOR KALYAPIN,
CHAIR, COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE
RAISA TURLUEVA,
VICTIM WHOSE SON WAS ABDUCTED
IN CHECHNYA BY SECURITY SERVICES
THE HEARING WAS HELD FROM 10:00 A.M. to 11:30 A.M. IN ROOM 340 OF THE CANNON
HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C., [RONALD MCNAMARA, INTERNATIONAL POLICY
DIRECTOR, CSCE, MODERATING]
WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 2010
Transcript by
Federal News Service
Washington, D.C.
RON MCNAMARA: Good morning and welcome to this briefing of the Commission on
Security and Cooperation in Europe. My name is Ron McNamara and on behalf of
our chairman, Senator Cardin, and our cochairman, Congressman Alcee Hastings,
welcome to this briefing, which is part of the commission’s ongoing efforts to
draw attention to human rights in the OSCE region in the Russian Federation and
particularly in the North Caucasus region.
This morning I actually looked and saw that our first hearing was on May 1st of
1995, exclusively focused on the situation in Chechnya. I would invite you to
visit the commission’s website, www.csce.gov, where you can review the
materials related to this, today’s subject, “In the Eye of the Storm: Chechnya
and the Mounting Violence in the North Caucasus Region.”
I want to, at the outset, express appreciation for Freedom House and their
assistance in facilitating the experts that will be sharing today with us
regarding their observations with respect to the situation in that part of the
Russian Federation. I would point out that yesterday our cochairman,
Congressman Hastings, introduced a resolution – copies of the text are
available – H.Res. 1539, which, among other things, expresses solidarity with
human rights defenders in the Russian Federation.
The introduction timing is, of course, in close proximity to the one-year
anniversary of the murder of human rights defender Natalya Estemirova. And I
thought in terms of sort of introducing the subject matter today, what I’ll do
is read from Congressman Hastings’ brief statement of introduction related to
the subjects of human rights defenders in the Russian Federation:
“A year ago this month Natalya Estemirova, the leading human rights defender in
Chechnya was abducted near her apartment in the capital city of Grozny by
unidentified men, transported to the neighboring republic of Ingushetia and
brutally killed. She led a courageous life of denouncing corruption, calling
for a fair judicial system, and standing up for human rights. For that she was
cut down.
“While her killers may have ended her life, they will never silence the voice
she brought to these issues. Ms. Estemirova’s work was well known to the
Helsinki Commission and colleagues here as we recall her visit in 2006 to the
commission to discuss the situation in Chechnya. Like Estemirova, all too many
of her fellow human rights defenders and journalists are targeted because they
have the temerity to speak out about human rights abuses in the Russian
Federation.
“Yesterday, as I mentioned, Congressman Hastings introduced a resolution, a
measure expressing solidarity with human rights defenders in the Russian
Federation; urging the Russian authorities to take appropriate steps to end the
harassment, persecution and attacks against activists; and calling for an end
to the impunity for those responsible for such acts, including through the
conducting of timely, transparent and thorough criminal investigations into the
unresolved murders of human rights defenders, journalists and political
opposition members and the prosecution of all of those responsible for these
crimes. And I would emphasize all those responsible.
“The Helsinki Commission has been at the forefront of drawing attention to the
human rights situation in Chechnya and elsewhere in the North Caucasus region
of Russia, having held numerous hearings and briefings on related concerns.
Notwithstanding the assertions by the powers that be in Moscow that the
situation in Chechnya has returned to normal, the reality on the ground reveals
otherwise.
“The recently released 2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, issued
by the State Department, found that the Russian government’s already poor human
rights record in the North Caucasus worsened during the reporting period, with
a marked increase in extrajudicial killings by both government and rebel forces
and politically motivated disappearances in Chechnya as well as in neighboring
Ingushetia and Dagestan. The Helsinki Commission remains deeply concerned over
ongoing human rights abuses, legal impunity and the permeating climate of fear
in the North Caucasus.
“While one cannot discount that terrorist elements are responsible for some of
the rights violations in the region, many of the reported abuses are
perpetrated by federal and local security forces in Chechnya, including the
private militia of Chechen strongman Ramzan Kadyrov, the republic’s
Kremlin-backed president.
“While it remains unclear what, if any role Kadyrov had in Estemirova’s
killing, his contempt for her and others involved in human rights defense is
palpable. Earlier this month Kadyrov publicly labeled independent journalists
and rights activists as, quote, “traitors and enemies of the state,” end quote.
Among those targeted by the Chechen leader is the respected Russian human
rights organization Memorial.
“Our concern over the deterioration in situation of human rights in the North
Caucasus generally, and Chechnya specifically, is held by others as well. I
would point out that the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly adopted a
resolution late last month on the North Caucasus.
“The measure pointed to a series of specific concerns in Chechnya against the
backdrop of what it characterized as, quote, “a climate of pervading fear,” end
quote, nurtured by the current authorities: Recurrent disappearances of
government opponents and human rights defenders still remain widely unpunished;
continuing threats and reprisals, including abductions of relatives of persons
suspected of belonging to illegal armed factions; and ongoing intimidation of
media and civil society, among other concerns.
“Ramzan Kadyrov's utter contempt for human rights and fundamental freedoms was
again manifested recently in his reaction to paintball gun attacks against
women on the streets of Grozny apparently because they were not wearing
headscarves. Instead of condemning these assaults, the Chechen president
reportedly praised the perpetrators. While Kadyrov has largely had free reins
in Chechnya, that does not absolve his backers in Moscow from responsibility
for the deteriorating human rights situation in that part of the Russian
Federation.
“As a participating state of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe, it is incumbent upon the Russian authorities to ensure that fundamental
freedoms are respected throughout the country, including in the North Caucasus.
Turning a blind eye to human rights violations is unacceptable.
“Congressman Hastings urged President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin to take
effective measures to stop the harassment, persecution and attacks against
human rights activists and journalists in the Russian Federation and to end the
impunity for those responsible for the murder of Ms. Estemirova and others.
Only then will there be hope of the situation in Chechnya will return to
anything approaching normal.”
Before turning to our expert panelists this morning, I would note a couple of
recent items: One, for example, an open letter that was sent by the human
rights chamber, led by Ms. Pamfilova and that was cosigned by about a dozen
other human rights activists and veterans including Lyudmila Alexeyeva,
concerned exactly with this question of Kadyrov’s threats directed to or
against human rights defenders.
Finally, an item that I was reading just before coming over here is by Sergei
Kovalev, the veteran human rights activist himself, where he concluded that
Moscow is seeking to extend to the entire North Caucasus the political model
which has taken shape in Chechnya where the bandits serve as a prop for the
federal powers that be.
Again, welcome to this briefing and we look forward to the comments of our
experts this morning. And we’ll start with Elena Milashina, investigative
reporter for Novaya Gazeta.
ELENA MILASHINA: Hi. A year ago a leading Chechen human rights activist and
defender, Natasha Estemirova was killed. It happened next day I left Chechnya,
coming back from my business trip there. From 9th until 14th of July last
year, I worked together with Natasha and lived at her house. Natasha for many
years was my friend and was my guide in Chechnya and her house was my place to
live in Chechnya. And so many people can say about Natasha.
Early in the morning 14th of July, we said bye to each other, goodbye. She was
going to her work to office of Chechen organization Memorial where she worked.
And I was leaving for airport and coming back to Moscow. On 15th of July at
7:30 in the morning she left her house, but she couldn’t reach the bus station
to go to her work because she was kidnapped.
Several people in camouflage form without ski masks put her in the car and took
her away. And it happened in the center of Grozny, the capital of Chechnya.
And several eyewitnesses saw that, but none of them was complaining or called
to police. And this is a sign that people knew who did it. Around 14, 40, 16
p.m., Natasha was found in neighboring republic Ingushetia, shot. In her body
the experts found five bullets. Three were in the chest and two in the head.
This was not the usual contract killer. I think it was the public execution of
the enemy of state.
Recently on 3rd of July, Chechen president of Chechnya appointed by Kremlin,
Ramzan Kadyrov, gave interview to a public TV channel in Chechnya and called
human rights defenders working in Chechnya as enemies of people, enemies of law
and enemies of state. These statements were made while there was completely
total official silence about the investigation of Natasha Estemirova’s murder.
Neither investigators, official investigators nor the government
representatives or public Russian politics mentioned this investigation or
Natasha Estemirova’s death. They didn’t actually remember this a year later.
And thanks to German journalists only, we got to know that president of Russia,
Dmitry Medvedev, still remember about Natasha Estemirova. It happened during
the second Russian-German consultation and the second time German journalists
did what Russian journalists can’t do anymore. They asked direct question to
Dmitry Medvedev and Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, what and how the
investigation of Natasha Estemirova’s murder goes.
As a year ago, Dmitry Medvedev, the president of Russia, had to say something
about this to German people, to German journalists, not to Russian people. He
was not feeling and wanting to talk a lot about it. He said that the
investigation goes in full swing, the killer actually identified and he is on
international wanted list. And said Mr. Medvedev, you should – he was actually
talking to German people, to German journalists – you should understand that
that kind of crimes are really hard to investigate and the investigation can be
really slow.
Well, as an eyewitness of the last week of Natasha’s life, I had to deal with
the investigation really close because me and Natasha’s colleague and friends
took this crime, took this order as a personal question. And we were trying to
do our best to clear this crime and to bring those who guilty to the answer.
And maybe because we took it as a personal thing, we got to know more that
President Medvedev knows. So I can say that the murder of Natasha Estemirova
is not really tough crime because from the beginning, the investigators got
really important thing: They got DNA samples of killers. And from this
information, we get to know that at least three of people – well, the actually,
exact killers who – contract killers who did the murder, there were three of
them. And they found that from the expertise of Natasha’s body.
You know, when you got the DNA samples of killers and it is really rare when
the contract murder happens because contract murder actually doesn’t happen
without direct physical contact of murderer and his victim because the murderer
just shoot the victim and go away. But Natasha was kidnapped. And Natasha was
fighting for her freedom. And that’s why it was possible to discover DNA
samples of those who committed it.
And from the first – from the beginning of the investigation, there was – the
investigation had a really tight circle of (concrete ?) policemen, Chechen
policemen who were under suspicion that they have relationship to this
(concrete ?) murder. And I can name those people. This policemen of local
police department of Kurchaloyevski district – it’s close to Grozny in Chechnya
and their names are Sultan Bilayev (sp), Musa Salmanev (sp) and commander of
this local police department and one of the closest friends of Ramzan Kadyrov,
Hamzad Edelgeryev (sp).
In the last week of her life, Natasha was investigating several situations of
kidnapping and public executions, which were made – and we have some evidence
and provements (sic) of that and not only we but investigators do – were made
by policemen of this local police department. And I want to tell you about one
situation that got world famous because Natasha’s death. I want you to look
after the dates because it is important.
Seventh of July last year, the policemen of this local police department of
Kurchaloyevski district kidnapped two people: Rizvan Albekov and his
17-years-old son, Aziz. Rizvan – at the evening of this day, Rizvan was
killed, publicly killed in the village, Chechen village Akhinchu-Borzoi and
there were several people who live in this village, they were eyewitnesses of
this killing because it was public.
After Natasha’s death, his son, Aziz, was actually – he was kept for three
weeks in an unknown place. He was released. And investigators who are trying
to have an investigation of Natasha’s murder, they didn’t find him. And they
told me, why we should look for him? Why we should search for him? He
wouldn’t tell us anything because he is afraid.
On 9th of July, it happened – the kidnapping and killing of Rizvan Albekov
happened on 7th of July. The 9th of July – 9 of July – Natasha gave an
interview where she said that in Chechnya, they have a new wave of violence.
Yes, and she named concrete Chechen policemen who were responsible for summary
execution of Rizvan Albekov.
On 10th of July, Ramzan Kadyrov gave order to Chechen ombudsman to put pressure
on the human-rights defender organization Memorial, where Natasha worked. The
Chechen ombudsman, Nukhazhiev, he asked – the human-rights defenders came to
his place. And in front of TV journalists, he accused them that they blackened
the authorities of Chechnya and told them, listen carefully. If Anna
Politkovskaya were more careful, she would be alive till now. 15th of July,
Natasha Estemirova was killed.
Five months, the official investigation team had only one lead of her murderer,
Natasha’s murderer. We call this lead, “Kurchaloyevski lead,” by the name of
the local police department where those people who, I think, responsible for
her murder work till now.
And the investigators, from the beginning of investigation, had the DNA samples
of real killers. And the investigation team had information of eyewitnesses
who were actually at the same time when Natasha was kidnapped. And the
investigation team had concrete people under suspicion, who might be
responsible for Natasha’s death.
To prove their guilt, or to clear them from these suspicions, the investigators
had to do – by law, had to do one simple thing. They had to take samples of
their blood – the people whom they suspect – and to compare it with DNA samples
they got from Natasha’s body, the DNA samples of real killers. They didn’t do
that. The investigators didn’t even find the eyewitnesses of Natasha’s
kidnapping. But their testimony was really important and could be the – could
be really improvement in the process of identification of Natasha’s killers.
I think the investigation was really passive. Maybe, I think, I guess because
all those things led to the person who made contract on this killing. And I
think the main problems of this investigation were that from the very
beginning, on the second day after Natasha’s death, the president of Russia,
Medvedev, made a really clear statement that the president of Chechnya, Ramzan
Kadyrov, has nothing to do to this crime. And Natasha was killed by those who
were trying to blacken the image of Ramzan Kadyrov.
So she was killed by the enemies of Kadyrov. And those statements of President
Medvedev actually were put in the base of the second lead of Natasha’s killers.
And this lead was made not only by investigators, but with a great help, I
would say, Russian secret service, FSB. Well, this lead says that Natasha was
killed by the insurgents. And the motive of the insurgents to kill Natasha was
to blacken the image of Ramzan Kadyrov. It’s written, I mean, in
investigators’ papers.
When Dmitry Medvedev told the German journalist that the killer, actually, is
known and he is on international wanted list, he was partly lying. Yes, the
killer is known. His name is Alkhazur Bashaev. He is from a small, tiny
Chechen village, Shalazhiy (ph). And he is from the so-named Shalazhenskiy
Dzhemat (ph). It’s a kind of a – oh, don’t know how to explain it. Maybe my
translator will help me; dzhemat, it is – okay, thanks. Thank you that you
know what is dzhemat, actually.
Well, and this person can’t be on an international wanted list because he is
dead. He was killed last year, in November. And I am so sorry for Mr.
Medvedev that he wasn’t told that. It’s very convenient and it’s very common
in Russia to make guilty those who can’t actually speak up because they are
dead. And this happened – happening, actually because investigation of Natasha
Estemirova’s murder is not closed and far from the end; it’s happening with
Natasha’s case.
I think it’s a kind of typical Russian tragedy to investigate such kinds of
crimes, like contract murders. And the most important thing is to take as much
time as possible. So in a year, at next German-Russian consulting, someone
from international journalists will remember about this murder and ask the
question to Mr. Medvedev. And I think in a year, Mr. Medvedev will answer,
well, the killer of Natasha Estemirova got what he deserved and that will be
the end.
Thank you. I want to say one thing in conclusion. It’s a typical situation.
It happens not only with Natasha, not only with Anna Politkovskaya’s murder and
those murders are still different because well-known people were killed. It
happens every day in Chechnya with tens and maybe hundreds of people who still
continue to be kidnapped and killed without any chance that their killers will
be brought to the court and to justice.
And it’s very important because everybody in Chechnya is scared to death and
keeps his mouth shut. It’s very important from you and from us to support
those who are still there to speak. And I want to represent one person, a
mother, whose son was kidnapped and he’s still alive – to support her because
he is one of you, those who want and dare to speak about those who kidnapped
her son. Because she wants to save him.
MR. MCNAMARA: Thank you. Now we’ll here from Raisa Turlueva, whose son was
abducted in Chechnya.
(Ms. Turlueva’s remarks are delivered via translator.)
RAISA TURLUEVA: On October the 21st of 2009, there was a special operation
conducted on the premises of my house by law enforcement. And as a result of
this operation, my house was burned down to the ground, with all the property
that was inside. And my son was kidnapped as he was coming back from college.
As my son was detained, he was not charged with any crime by the law
enforcement.
I and the uncle of my son were taken to the police station. And we were held
there for five hours. And I was released after 9 p.m. And in about an hour, I
received a phone call on my cell phone. The person on the other end of the
line introduced himself as a detective and he asked me to go back to the police
station and take my son with me. And actually, my son was in police detention
at that time.
That I had learned from the uncle of my son, who was also brought back to the
police station, to the office of Sharif (ph) Delimkhanov. He is a cousin of
Ramzan Kadyrov. He is also head of a special unit responsible for, for a
special police unit. Later, the uncle of my son was released. And before the
uncle was released, he was asked to renounce his nephew. And he did not do
that. And right after he was released, he saw my son being taken into the same
office.
And the uncle was told that my son is a dead man for sure because of the blood
vendetta. Apparently, during this special operation at the premises of my
house, one of the law enforcement officers was shot. So since our family is
now responsible, we have to be culpable and pay with blood for blood spilled by
the law enforcement officer. And they were told – and he was told that we’re
not going to wait for the relatives of the law enforcement officer to pick up
on that.
They would not need the relatives to decide on whether they’re going to commit
vendetta against my family because prior to that, they formed a fellowship, a
brotherhood of sorts, that regardless of whose relatives involved, they will
have to execute those who they think would be responsible for blood of one of
their killed brethren. This all happened the night of October the 21st and
into October the 22nd, probably around 1 a.m. in the morning.
So the uncle was released and my son remained in detention at the headquarters
of this unit. And the day after, both my neighbors and my relatives were
advising me against writing complains to law enforcement. They were telling me
that it will be of no use. And actually, it might work against us. They might
come back to the village and burn everybody else’s houses and kill more people.
Our people are intimidated and scared of the atrocities committed by official
law enforcement, to the point that they are even afraid to raise their voice.
In the wake of that incident, on October – on November the 30th, I got an
invitation from the prosecutor’s office. And the prosecutor advised us against
making an official statement or writing a complaint about kidnapping of my son.
He said it’s not going to do you any good.
Nevertheless, I was able to convince the uncle of my son to write a statement
and testify about what he saw because he was the last person who saw my son
alive. After the documents were signed, Sharif Delimkhanov had another
conversation with the uncle of my son in his office. And he was greatly
displeased with the fact that this document, the complaint, existed. And he
told him, well, you can say all you want that you saw him in my office. I will
maintain that I released him.
He had no authority to interrogate either my son or the uncle of my son. It
was clearly the exceeding of the authority that the person had. And for some
reason, there was no single person who saw my son after that interrogation a
free man. And questions still remain where and how he disappeared.
Those who are charged with detective work are afraid to approach and question
high-level officials in law enforcement or security forces or security
services. The criminal investigation and the criminal case were opened but it
has got us nowhere so far. The only information I received is that my son is
alive and kept somewhere in a cellar.
What happens is young people are kept in long detention, just long enough for
their beards to grow long, for their hair and nails to grow long. Then they
escort them out to the woods, put camouflage uniforms on them, give them
Kalashnikovs and then kill them, and then report that they were able to
eliminate another group of insurgents.
Well, and if you’re asking the question why there are so many law enforcement
officers die of attacks on law enforcement, you would realize that sometimes
our sons, the young people, are pretty much forced to take this path of
resisting unlawful law enforcement.
And if you ask the official authorities, they would say, well, you see, the
situation in Chechnya is tranquil; look at these beautiful houses, the new
development, the clean streets. But we can argue that it’s a too-high price to
pay for this exterior. We don’t have to pay with the lives of our brothers and
our sons for this type of exterior.
We’re not able to tell the truth and we’re not able to describe things as they
are. People are scared and intimidated daily. For example, the relatives on
my husband’s side pretty much withdrew from my cause. And pretty much because
I signed written statements and because I came here. But it’s understandable
because they’re afraid for their own children and for their own families
because it’s not an individual who bear responsibility for his action. His
entire family.
My last visit to a detective – or, to an investigator was in December. He took
an incomplete testimony from me and he told me that he would call me when he
needs more information. And I’m still waiting for that call.
Thank you very much.
MR. MCNAMARA: Thank you. I’d note Congressman McIntyre, one of our
commissioners, has just arrived. If you have any comments you wanted to make,
sir?
REP. MIKE MCINTYRE (D-NC): (Off mike.)
MR. MCNAMARA: Thank you. We’ll next hear from Igor Kalyapin, chairman of the
Committee Against Torture.
(Note: Mr. Kalyapin’s remarks are delivered via translator.)
IGOR KALYAPIN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues. I would
like to start my presentation with a few words about my organization and what I
do. My organization employs services of professional attorneys who provide
services to victims who suffered from abuses of law enforcement agencies and
those who were tortured.
In November last year, and after the murder of Natalya Estemirova, we’ve come
to a realization that we probably need to establish a permanent representation
in Chechnya for providing services directly to victims of abuse and torture by
law enforcement and those whose relatives were kidnapped, those like Raisa.
And unlike the work that is done by Memorial and by colleagues of Natalya
Estemirova, we’ve emphasized our efforts as using regulations and procedural
rules stipulated by Russian law in trying to address the same issue.
There’s a common misunderstanding, or even a myth, that imperfections or
inefficiencies of Russian law or regulatory framework does not allow for
effective investigation or persecution of government officials responsible for
committing unlawful acts.
As a practicing attorney, I can tell you that this is not true. The issue is
not in gaps in Russian law or in its inefficiency. The problem is that the
provisions of laws and regulations are systematically – daily – violated and
ignored by those who are supposed to follow them and enforce them.
And just for clarification, I want to inform you that the felonies, the most
heinous crimes, and crimes committed by law enforcement officers are
investigated and prosecuted not by law enforcement; by a special committee
within the prosecutor’s office. It’s called investigative committee.
Investigators in the investigative committee have a wide range of authority;
more than sufficient in order to successfully investigate crimes and incidents
that we were referring to here. And in the province of Chechnya,
representatives of this investigative committee received additional authority
under the home rule, so they will have even more resources available to them to
investigate these crimes.
And in the case of the kidnapping of the son of Raisa Turlueva is actually
investigated by this very elite unit of the investigative committee. And now I
will tell you my observation of how it is done in practice.
And I would like also to mention that our associates are involved in the
investigation and in this particular criminal case as attorneys on behalf of
the victim, or relatives of the victim.
Well, actually, there’s no investigation at all. What we witness is a total
sabotage. There’s an undisputed fact that Raisa’s son was accosted and taken
into custody by police officers that are assigned to this special unit. And
their only responsibility is providing security for oil-producing facilities.
And it is an undisputed fact that Said Ibragimov, the son of Ms. Turlueva, was
taken into custody by these security personnel and taken into the headquarters
of the unit to the commander of the unit.
And the uncle testified that the commander of the unit told him that the son
would be killed as a vendetta revenge for a fallen comrade of theirs, who was
killed during the counterinsurgency operation because apparently there is some
link between the son and the insurgent who was responsible for the death of the
officer.
So you see, there are undisputed facts. People are coming and taking into
custody a young man without charging him with any crime. There was no
indictment; there was no summons to come to the prosecutor or to the detective
to give testimony. He was just brought to a police station while a relative, a
close relative of that person, was told that the nephew is a dead man. Then
the person disappears and the mother goes to the investigator in the
investigative committee. The first thing the investigator does is try to
convince the claimant to withdraw the complaint. He tells her, please, don’t
make that statement.
Then on the second visit to the investigative committee when Raisa was actually
accompanied by her attorney, she stated that there were police officers from
this particular unit that took her son into custody. And she also relayed a
conversation that she had with the uncle and the statement that the commander
of the unit made referring to the blood vendetta, saying that the son will have
to pay for the spilled blood of one of their brethren. The investigator of the
investigative committee flatly refused to write these words down in the police
report. We had to go to the boss of that investigator in order to make this
investigator comply with the regulations and his professional duties.
When we asked the – or requested that the investigator and the uncle of Raisa’s
son would visit the crime scene – basically, go into the unit’s headquarters
and go into the office where the conversation between the commander of the unit
and uncle took place, it was visible that the investigator was simply scared.
Off the record, the investigator told the attorney that nobody would grant him
access to the office of the commander. And if he tries to obtain the access,
he probably would get beaten up.
I have another example from a different case, but very similar circumstances.
We requested that the inspector in the investigative committee would find out
what particular units were involved in the special counterinsurgency operations
at a particular area. Danish Council of Refugees associate Zarema Gaisanova
(sp) was kidnapped during that incident. So here’s what’s happening. The
investigator sends an official request to provide information to the head of
the local law enforcement department so he would provide names and ranks of
police officers who were involved in that particular counterinsurgency
operation.
By law, the person has to respond to the request by investigative committee
within five days. But the investigators got no response at all, and they
repeatedly sent those requests to the head of the local law enforcement
department. And the police simply ignored the request from the investigative
committee. The district attorney, the prosecutor, states that, you know, the
requests have to be replied to and sends an accompanying letter, with another
request, to the local police chief.
Again, no response. And since the departments are vertically integrated within
each province, the line investigator writes to his boss and the boss writes a
letter to the minister of the interior of the Chechen ethnic province with a
complaint, saying that one of the line agencies and the head of the line
agencies is not responding to an official request submitted by the
investigative committee. Again, no response.
And these are all – all of these are official documents, official papers,
official letters that now are a part of the criminal case. And there’s only
one remarkable thing about this case. It’s the persistence of the
investigator. The absolute majority of investigators get the drift, get the
signal when they’re stonewalled. You know, they just send a couple of requests
and if no response would come, they would just give up.
And you know, even the investigators themselves grow cynical about the
situation to an extent, you know, even, we’re talking about summoning
lower-rank police officer. They might say, well, you know, first of all, it’s
no use to me because I can call him and I can write to him; he would not come
anyway. And most likely, if they receive the summons, they would arrange for a
beating for me the same night. And I have this fundamental question that I
can’t find an answer to: Who’s to blame for what’s going on in Chechnya?
Either the party at fault would be the Chechnyan (sic) law enforcement, who
choose to, daily, ignore and disregard the law and regulations that are written
for them, or we have to blame the investigators of the investigative committee,
who are not persistent enough and do not use the full range of authority given
to them in order to successfully prosecute those who commit crimes. I
personally have not found an answer to this question for myself.
MR. MCNAMARA: Excuse me. I think we’re going to have to wrap up this. So if
you could sum up. Because I would like to open it up, as we do at our
briefings, to any questions that the audience might have. So if you could sort
of sum things up –
MR. KALYAPIN: And you know, I ask this question to many people and I receive
somewhat similar answers. Everybody is telling me that they are writing
letters to their bosses. Eventually, these letters go to Moscow, to the
higher-ups there. And unfortunately, they get no response from Moscow.
They’re just waiting for a clear signal. And I can tell you that I talked to
the deputy prosecutor-general of Chechnya, who told me the same thing. And I
know I have to wrap up and I’ll be happy to answer your questions.
MR. MCNAMARA: Thank you very much. As part of our normal format for our
briefings, we will entertain a few questions. I should have also indicated
that, at the formal conclusion of the briefing, we will have the showing of a
documentary film, “Victims Take the Floor,” which is about 30 minutes in
length. So we invite any of you who have the time to view that documentary.
I had two very quick questions, and hopefully, short responses. I wondered if
you could indicate the volume of cases that the committee is looking into in
Chechnya – maybe if you’re working, also, in other republics of the North
Caucasus region as well, if you could briefly respond to that. And then we’ve
heard a lot of allegations regarding the special role played by Kadyrov’s sort
of special, personal forces.
And I wonder if any of you want to make any comments on that. And then, once
we have the answers to those questions, we have a microphone at the end of the
dais here. Please come forward. If you state your name, any affiliation you
have, and briefly make the question. Because I’d like to see if we can wrap up
in around 10 or 15 minutes. So thank you.
MS. MILASHINA: I can answer the second question. While all the time we say
Chechen policemen, we mean Kadyrovzi, that means Kadyrov’s special troops.
(Off-side conversation.)
MS. MILASHINA: And for the first question, I think – (in Russian).
MR. KALYAPIN: I can’t give you exact figures, but if we’re talking about
kidnappings and killings, we’re probably dealing with about 150 cases like that.
MS. MILASHINA: And compared to neighboring republics on the Northern Caucasus,
the situation is that all crimes connected with abductions or executions of the
former insurgents or people who are connected to them and those crimes,
actually, made by official policemen.
This situation is typical for Chechnya, for Ingushetia, for Dagestan, for
Kabardino-Balkaria. And what is more typical, that really – I mean, I don’t
know any cases where the policemen would be charged for tortures, for
abductions, for killing. It’s typical situation, not for Chechnya, but for
almost the whole region on the Northern Caucasus region.
MR. MCNAMARA: So if there are any questions from the audience.
Q: Thank you very much for your very disturbing testimony. I’m Kathy Kosman
from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, and my
organization has recommended that the U.S. consider issuing a visa ban on
Kadyrov entering the United States, as well as freezing the bank assets of
Kadyrov.
But I’m wondering, in that connection, whether any of you have information
about Kadyrov being personally responsible for some of the crimes that you have
described – I mean, directly legally – like, you can point to his personal
involvement, not to mention the fact that one might argue that being the head
of the Kadyrovzi and the head of the Republic of Chechnya – not a province – he
also had legal responsibility? Thank you.
MS. MILASHINA: Okay, I think I can answer this question. Since 2006, I think
– it began in September 2006 till now, as I commented with my friends, more
than 10 people who were considered to be different people with different life
stories, but they had one thing in common.
All of them were, you can consider, as enemies of Kadyrov – personal enemies of
Kadyrov. Some of them were political – (inaudible); some of them were victims
who actually escaped and tried to get justice abroad. And some of them were
critics of Kadyrov, like Anna Politkovskaya and Natasha Estemirova. And all of
them were killed.
Well, they were not – I can’t say that we were likely (ph), but in some –
(inaudible) – we were – that not all of them were killed in Russia. Some of
them were killed abroad. For example, in Dubai, in April 2008, a big Chechen
person, actually, who switched sides at the same time as Kadyrov – Ramzan
Kadyrov and his father did – and his – (inaudible) – he was killed in Dubai and
he was a political concurrent of Ramzan Kadyrov. He was killed in Dubai.
And then one, who was actually a bodyguard of Kadyrov, and then he was captured
in Santori (ph) in the secret prison by order made on Ramzan Kadyrov. He
escaped. He managed to escape from Russia and then his family – his father –
was taken to this prison and was captured there more than 11 months, I think,
and also was released and he moved out of Russia. They were victims of Kadyrov
and they made application to European Court. And Umar Israilov, the first man,
who was bodyguard of Kadyrov – former bodyguard of Kadyrov – he was killed in
Vienna in 2009.
And those crimes were investigated because they were made abroad. And in
Dubai’s case, the, actually, personal responsibility and guilt of Ramzan
Kadyrov and his closest person, Adam Delimkhanov, were proved. And I think the
same thing can happen in Austrian murder. What about the Russian murders?
Investigations, like we were talking today – there was no real investigation.
So we can’t be sure it’s Kadyrov’s fault or Kadyrov’s guilt, personally. But I
think the sign that there’s no investigation, it’s kind of a provement (sic)
that he is and might be guilty, directly.
MR. KALYAPIN: I would like to follow up. Again, I think you were referring to
having a body of evidence sufficient to implicate Kadyrov in any of the crimes
that were committed in Chechnya. Well, talking about Russia, we can
unequivocally say that there’s no body of evidence that would implicate Kadyrov
in a court of law in any of the crimes that we were referring to here, and it’s
practically impossible to have this body of evidence.
I will just give you one example, of Zarema Gaisanova, who was kidnapped during
a counterinsurgency operation. We took up this case and we pressured the
investigator to summon Ramzan Kadyrov for a questioning, an interview. He
refused to do so. We were able to get a court order to have Ramzan Kadyrov
questioned by the investigators.
Even though formally, the investigator agreed to question Kadyrov, he hasn’t
questioned him yet, even though Kadyrov made a statement saying he is not
opposed to coming for questioning. He’s not trying to evade the questioning or
try to escape. I actually had a meeting with him in February and I asked him
point-blank, Ramzan, why don’t you have an interview with the investigator in
this case? And he told me, well, you know, I’m not opposed to that. I’m
willing to testify. It’s not my fault that the investigator is a coward.
And when you – when I asked the investigator why he is not questioning Kadyrov,
he’s saying, well, I don’t feel like doing it. So if you have this type of
attitudes, you will never have a body of evidence.
MS. MILASHINA: Can I ask some important things, I think, for you to better
understand what we’re talking about. Why it’s all possible in Chechnya? Why
not only in Chechnya, in the Northern Caucasus, why it happens? Why people who
actually make these crimes can be brought to justice?
When Putin was actually dealing with Chechen problem, with Chechen war, he gave
power – total power, without any borders – to Ramzan Kadyrov, to Akhmad
Kadyrov, his father, and then Ramzan Kadyrov, and people from Chechen
insurgents switched side and followed, then, by Kremlin and his interest. And
he decided this Chechen problem with a very simple principle.
He gave these people opportunity, actually, to kill without any justice,
without anything, not follow the law, because it was the main principle to
resolve this problem – to put together Chechens against Chechens and, in this
way, dissolve this big problem for Kremlin on the Caucasus. And that’s by
nobody, not even – I mean, not Kadyrov, not even smaller people under him can
be brought to justice in this crime, because it would kill this principle on
which the Putin stability is actually established – so-called “stability” in
Northern Caucasus.
MR. MCNAMARA: Thank you. Any additional questions? If not, then we will
conclude the briefing. I should indicate that a full transcript of today’s
briefing will be available at the commission’s website, www.csce.gov. And that
should be available by tomorrow afternoon. Just in looking over Sergei
Kovalev’s remarks regarding the situation in the North Caucasus and elsewhere,
he talks about, sort of, the Machiavellian dynamic. And no matter what, I
guess we can conclude, certainly, that we well know who the prince of Chechnya
is and certainly are very concerned, regarding the statements that he makes.
So whether, in a legal sense, he is complicit, certainly, he’s sending very
strong signals to the security forces and others regarding the work of human
rights defenders and journalists and others, as well, when you label them as
“enemies of the state.” And we know that, all too often, that translates,
then, into the types of situations that we have in the case of Politkovskaya or
Natasha’s case, as well – Estemirova. Again, copies of Congressman Hastings’
statement and the resolution that he introduced on the subject is available and
I thank you. And again, if your schedule permits, we will be showing the
documentary, “Victims Take the Floor.” Thank you very much.
(END)
|