Dagestani court acquits thief in law Zyava on whom police planted drugs: Prosecutor’s Office to appeal  

Dagestani court acquits thief in law Zyava on whom police planted drugs: Prosecutor’s Office to appeal
Ziyavudin Abdulkhalikov

In Dagestan, the judicial struggle surrounding the thief in law Zyava continues. Police officers have tried to put Ziyavudin Abdulkhalikov in jail, but discredited the law enforcement system with their actions instead. Zyava’s lawyer believes that another thief in law, to whom Zyava had blocked the channel of heroin supply to one of the republic’s penal colonies, is the one that is pushing high-ranking MIA officers at his client.

January 17, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan will hear the appeal of the Prosecutor's Office against the acquittal of thief in law Ziyavudin Abdulkhalikov, accused of possession of drugs.

As reported by Chernovik, the case against Ziyavudin Abdulkhalikov had been considered for over a year. September 29, the Leninsky District Court of Makhachkala acquitted the defendant and issued a determination mentioning violations committed by OCD (Organized Crime Control Department) officers.

The main evidence of the thief in law’s guilt was a video showing him being searched by police officers. As a result, it became the main evidence of falsification of the criminal case materials, abuse of official powers by OCD officers, and concealment of illegal actions by investigators and prosecutors.

Meanwhile, law enforcers do not give up. The Prosecutor's Office intends to appeal the verdict of the district court in the Supreme Republican Court. The defense also gets ready to present its arguments. According to Chernovik, at a press conference before consideration of the appeal of the prosecutor's office, Abdulkhalikov’s lawyer Konstantin Mudunov explained how the video of body search exposed OCD operatives and investigators.

According to the investigation, July 21, 2016, OCD officers stopped the driver of Mercedes, Ziyavudin Abdulkhalikov, near Stepnaya Street in Makhachkala, and asked him to proceed to the police department for body search. The operatives had information that he might have heroin. Abdulkhalikov voluntarily agreed to go with them. A bag of heroin was found in his pants pocket in the Leninsky police department. At the same time, the operatives videotaped the whole process of personal search.

Meanwhile, according to the lawyer, the video clearly shows that law enforcer Musa Gusenov searching Abdulkhalikov’s pockets without wearing rubber gloves, and then finding the illicit substance. Whereas experts should have done it.

Then Gusenov cuts off his pocket and begins to feel the bag with the narcotic drug witohut getting the prints first off of it, which could have proven that the bag belonged to Abdulkhalikov. Then the operative opened the bag, smelled it, and said that the contents had a characteristic smell. He does not stop there and puts his fingers in the bag. Later, experts would confirm it was heroin. He gets the detainee’s fingerprints with the same dirty fingers and feels the cut pocket. As a result, the examination would later show that there were traces of heroin on the pocket. In addition, a pill was found in the detainee’s pocket (according to the lawyer, Abdulkhalikov was receiving medical treatment). In the video, the police officer said it was the remnants of a drug. However, it later disappeared from the material evidence and was not subjected to examination.

Despite that Abdulkhalikov claimed the bag had been planted on him and asked to summon his lawyers, his lawyer Zaynab Kurbanova was not let into the Leninsky police department building, Konstantin Mudunov said.

In addition, there were other inconsistencies and oddities during Ziyavudin Abdulkhalikov’s detention. In particular, according to the lawyer, the detention was carried out through the use of force. Abdulkhalikov’s car, in which he was together with his friend Mukhtarpasha Umarov, was blocked. The detainees were laid on the ground either side of the car. Umarov watched what was happening with Abdulkhalikov through the bottom of the car. According to him, he was pressed to the ground, and one of the OCD officers approached him and put the bag with drugs into his pocket.

The officers, in turn, said that Abdulkhalikov himself got out of the car and was talking on the phone.

“We believe that the investigation’s version is total lies. It is not appropriate to stop the car in this place, stand for 10 minutes talking on the phone, and thus create an obstacle to traffic and attract attention. The question is: if OCD officers act in accordance with the operational and search activity, why didn’t they conduct search and find out where his phone’s gone? There was no phone during Abdulkhalikov’s detention. There is no information in the case indicating that they’ve made an attempt to find it. During the trial, I asked the operatives why they didn’t search Mercedes. Their response was: they received no such command; they were only instructed to work with him alone. This means that there was a command to plat heroin on him. Why neither the phone number nor the person whom he was talking to have been established? What if it concerned preparation for some particularly serious crime? All operatives have many years of experience and couldn't have not known this,” Konstantin Mudunov explained.

In the applications, the lawyer listed all signs of the crime committed by the OCD officers and investigators. First, it concerns illegal acquisition and possession of narcotic drugs (heroin). Second, falsification of operational and search activity results. And third, abuse of official powers.

In addition, the lawyer believes that the law enforcers were assisted by several investigators and prosecutors; the witnesses’ signatures were forged – the legal expertise confirms this.

“I’ve raised the issue of criminal case initiation against investigators Rabadanov and Magomednabiev, as well as the prosecutor who approved the indictment. I believe that an official such as a prosecutor must read the criminal case and get acquainted with the material evidence before signing the indictment. I also put the motion of initiating a criminal case against the state prosecutor, who supported falsified evidence at the trial. The proceedings went on for almost a year in the Leninsky Court – over this time, I raised 53 issues before State Prosecutor Yusup Shakhbanov concerning the contradictions mentioned above. He had to answer them. On what grounds were the operational activities carried out? Whether there was operative information about Abdulkhalikov? I petitioned the court to request this information from the Ministry of Internal Affairs. But it was never provided to the court,” the lawyer said.

“I know that this order is coming from the MIA administration, but not due to being a thief in law, but due to being related to certain events. There is an assumption, according to which the reason is that Abdulkhalikov had shut down the channel of heroin supply to a Shamkhala prison, which had been established by another thief in law. For now, I am not authorized to reveal his identity,” Mudunov said.

Video: А thief in law - that sums it up

Discuss

Recommended

1 / 3