Advocate for Ingush activist Barakh Chemurziev criticizes the verdict

While considering the appeal lodged by Magas protest leaders, the defence has repeatedly asked the court to examine the proofs in the case, but this was not done; and now, many verdict points raise questions, Magomed Abubakarov, an advocate for Barakh Chemurziev has noted.

The "Caucasian Knot" has reported that since January 13, 2023, the consideration of appeals against the verdicts to seven Magas protest leaders is underway in the Stavropol Territory. On April 27, Ingush activists demanded to remove the appointed advocates. On July 6, the Qualification Commission of the Bar Association of the Stavropol Territory agreed with the activists' position, stating that Alexander Michev, an advocate, who was appointed by the court to represent the interests of Musa Malsagov, failed to take sufficient steps to refuse to participate in the trial and committed violations of the lawyers' ethics.

Magomed Abubakarov, an advocate, has noted that the introductory part of the verdict indicated one number of victims, while the rest of the verdict has a different number of them.

A number of facts that are cited in the verdict "as proof of the guilt" are not a crime, for example, the creation of the Council of Teips (Family Clans) of Ingush People, Mr Abubakarov has added.

According to the verdict, no later than May 2018, Malsag Uzhakhov, Akhmed Barakhoev and Musa Malsagov created a community with the aim of committing extremist crimes, in particular, applying violence against law enforcers in March 2019.

The advocate has noted that as of May 2018, not all the convicts even knew each other. The creation of the community is not proved by any single fact, he has added.

Also, according to his story, nothing has proved that later Barakh Chemurziev, Bagaudin Khautiev, Ismail Nalgiev and Zarifa Sautieva joined the community.

The verdict describes the "stability" of the extremist community, the "solidity of its members," but the prosecution has failed to prove even the fact of communication among the figurants during the period, when this community allegedly existed, the advocate has concluded.

Both court sessions were attended by visitors. In their opinion, Magomed Abubakarov has perfectly analyzes the verdict, breaking the verdict into tatters.