Investigating Natalia Estemirova’s Murder: Questions for the Investigation. Materials from the Press Conference

On 8 June 2010, a press conference was held entitled “Investigating Natalia Estemirova’s Murder: Questions for the Investigation” at the Independent Press Center. The following individuals participated in the press conference:

Oleg Orlov, the chairman of the board of the HRC Memorial;

Svetlana Gannushkina- a member of the board for Memorial’s Human Rights Center, chairwoman of the Committee Civil Assistance, and a member of the Civil Society Institutions and Human Rights Council under the President of the Russian Federation.

Aleksander Cherkasov- a member of the board of HRC Memorial;

Tatyana Lokshina- the Human Rights Watch representative for Russia

Roman Karpinskij- the lawyer representing the victims.

On 15 July 2010, the year will have passed since the abduction and murder of Natalia Estemirova. The criminal case’s investigation of Natalia’s murder will has gone on for almost a year. In the last couple of months, information about the investigation’s progress from various sources has gradually come to light.

At the start of the press conference, Aleksander Cherkasov explained the reasons compelling each of the participants to speak at the press conference: “It has become clear that in the last little while, the investigation has halted on only one version: Estemirova was killed by boeviks out of personal dislike for her and in order to compromise the Chechen leadership. They have chosen as the murderer, of course, a boevik who has already been killed. In this way, first of all, the case will be covered-up. Second, it will not have to be taken to court where the assumed murderer might be contested. Third, all of the suspicions about the government’s complicity in the crime will be disproved. The simpler versions- ones mostly connected with cases which Natasha worked on: the abduction of individuals, extrajudicial executions, the burning down of homes by Chechen law enforcement agents- are being left uninvestigated.”

Svetlana Gannushkina: “During the first months of the investigation, there was a clear impression that the investigation was interested in covering-up this crime.” The investigation began with interrogations of Memorial officers. The first interrogations dealt with the work of Estemirova herself and the cases which she was working on during the last days of her life (abductions, a public execution). The composite photos were made of two witnesses of the abduction, but not one of them was found or questioned.

However, in the fall of 2010, the questions of the investigative unit concentrated exclusively on Memorial’s publications about boeviks. Moreover, in private conversations with members of the investigative unit, doubts were expressed that this direction of the investigation could turn up Natasha’s real murderers. At the same time as this there appeared inexplicable obstacles for the work of the lawyer representing the victim in the case (the sister of Natalia Estemirova).

At the end of April, we received a document dated 31 March. We learned from this document the name of the individual which the government had already declared guilty. He is a member of an illegal paramilitary unit, Alkhazur Bashaev. According to the investigation’s version, Bashaev had a personal dislike for Estemirova because of her publications and at the same time wanted her murder to compromise the Chechen government. On 13 November 2009, Bashaev was killed during a special operation.

As later Gannushkina learnt, the main piece of evidence against Bashaev became a concealed compartment found by the police in which the handgun which killed Estemirova was found along with a counterfeit police identity badge with A. Bashaev’s photograph. “The only thing that is missing at this time is a sincerely written confession of the murder which this boevik also was keeping in his hideout.” In this way, “the investigation has taken the path which appears to be profitable and convenient for somebody.”

Tatiana Lokshina: “The human rights committee demands an impartial, exhaustive, and transparent investigation of this case.” The lack of an effective investigation compels human rights activists to ask the Russian government: “Today, a year after the murder, < . . .> what has been done? And what has been done in the development of the version about the possible complicity of the government and armed forces in the murder of our colleague Natalia Estemirova?” She spoke at length about the case of the public execution of Rizvan Albekov in the Chechen village Ahkinchu-Borzoi on 7 July 2009 (http://www.memo.ru/hr/hotpoints/caucas1/msg/2009/07/m166693.htmhttp://www.memo.ru/2009/07/21/2107092.htm). On 9 July, Natasha reported about this incident to the website Kavkazkii Uzel. She was referred to as the source of the information in this report. (http://www.kavkaz-uzel.ru/articles/156399).

This report provoked displeasure in the Chechen leadership. From what is known, this case has remained uninvestigated. “What has been done by the investigative unit. which is investigating Estemirova’s murder, to confirm the version about the complicity of the murder R. Albekov in Estemirova’s murder” asks Lokshina. Aleksander Cherkasov noted that, in order to establish someone’s guilt, it is not enough simply to show pieces of evidence or to demonstrate the opportunity to commit the crime by an individual, but also to explain his motives.

“The leaks of information” from the investigative unit give the following possible explanation for the motive of Alkhazur Bashaev from the village of Shalazhi. In the spring of 2009, Natasha reported about activities which gave him cause for personal animosity. However, we raise the question: How could a boevik find out what Natasha was writing about him? He or someone else saw Natasha in the village Shalazhi. He or someone else then heard what Natasha was saying about this and read what she had written about this.

In reality, the investigation discovered in Natasha’s computer the reports from the Chronicles of Violence, one of which is about an incident in Shalazhi concerning Bashaev. However, how did she obtain this information?

“As a result of inquiries of Memorial officers, I have been able to ascertain this. In order to do so, I had to speak with those Memorial officers whom we had to evacuate out of Chechnya and even out of Russia after Natasha’s murder” reported Cherkasov. “Information from the village of Shalazhi came to the Grozny office from acquaintances of one Memorial officer and from relatives of another. Natasha had no connection in this. She had no reason to go to Shalazha and she did not go there.

In April/May of 2009, as usual, here fellow human rights activists from Moscow and St. Petersburg stopped by at the home of Natasha Estemirova. They also did not hear any stories from Natasha about a trip to Shalazhi and Natasha was not in the habit of keeping her work a secret from them.

How did these reports end up in Estemirova’s computer? Very simple: besides other duties, she was fulfilling the duties of editor and was consolidating information from various officers.

However, is it possible that she left such a mark on this information as to establish her own authorship? No: the reports were later compiled in Moscow into one unified Chronicle of Violence, in which separate reports could not be signed. This Chronicle was then moved on the Memorial website and sent out to journalists. Natasha did not give any interviews or write any articles about Bashaev.

It is thus inexplicable how a dislike towards or a motive to kill Natalia Estemirova could arise in Alkhazur Bashaev. In short, those who investigated the contents of her computers hard drive could not know all of these details . . .

According to Oleg Orlov, not one case in which Natalia Estemirova worked on in 2009 was investigated by the government. “Moreover, I am convinced, that it is not possible to speak seriously about the investigation of all versions without detailed researched of the cases and without establishing the individuals guilty of those crimes which Natasha was writing about,” stated Orlov. Criminal cases of these incidents are being initiated, but their investigation is being sabotaged.

A clear example of this has become the “investigation” of the criminal case in the abduction of Apti Zainalov. Orlov dwelt in depth about this case (http://www.memo.ru/2010/06/18/1806103.htm#_Toc264640914).

Natalia Estemirova succeeded in initiating a criminal case in this incident. However, the agents responsible for the investigation are creating counterfeit documents, are lying and violating the norms of the Criminal Code. As a result, the fate of the individual abducted remains uncertain and the circle of people guilty of committing the crime has not been established even though it is obvious to all that Chechen law enforcement agents are the guilty ones.

Orlov drew attention to the threats which are currently being directed against human rights activists including Memorial officers in Chechnya: “On 3 June, in an interview for the television station “Grozny”, Ramzan Kadyrov called the people who work for Memorial enemies of the people, enemies of the law, and enemies of the government” (http://www.memo.ru/2010/07/08/08071010.htm).

In the present Chechnya, this public statement by the Chechen president is a clear and direct threat. The Republic’s civil servants and law enforcement agency officers will interpret President Kadyrov’s words as an instruction to work against Memorial and its officers. One of them might interpret the words of their leader as a declaration that Memorial officers are outside of the law with all of its ensuing consequences.

During the first half of 2009, officials from the Chechen administration incessantly castigated human rights activists including Memorial officers with public attacks. On 15 June 2009, Natasha Estemirova was murdered.

A year has passed. We are witnessing the same thing. The public declaration of “’enemies of the people, enemies of the law, and enemies of the government’ may lead to more tragic events.”

In connection with this, Oleg Orlov appealed to the leadership of Russia and foreign countries, to the Russian and international communities, with the request to “do all that is possible in order to prevent the further development of a situation concerning our colleagues in Chechnya with the same tragic scenario.”

July 12, 2010