An ex-FSB employee told the site who and why could have started a wave of evacuations throughout Russia.

How, a wave of mass evacuations swept across Russia after anonymous calls about alleged bombs. Since September 10, thousands of people have been evacuated from public places in dozens of cities. Official bodies do not give clear comments about what is happening. There are two versions: large-scale exercises and an attack by “telephone terrorists”.

The former head of the anti-terrorist unit of the FSB, Alexander Gusak, citing his sources among the security forces, told the site that large-scale anti-terrorism exercises are taking place in Russia:

“I asked some employees from law enforcement agencies what was going on here,” said Gusak. - They say that this is happening on the orders of the President of the Russian Federation. Mobilization preparation activities are being carried out. This check applies to both the Ministry of Emergency Situations and all law enforcement agencies.

I have mixed opinions on this matter. I think people need to be warned about the upcoming drill. It's always been like this. But we see that now both foreign and Russian media are whipping up psychosis. This [check] should take place in a calm environment, and not as it is now. Conducting such a seemingly spontaneous check is not only unsightly, it is wrong. Both the Minister of Emergency Situations and the Director of the FSB had to officially come forward with an explanation on this matter.

The heads of law enforcement agencies must explain everything so that there is no psychosis. The situation in Russia is already electrified, there is a militarized frenzy. The exercises should be carried out calmly, and not in such a way that the population is shocked. It is not normal to conduct such events in secret.

We do have a threat of terrorist attacks - I think a little above average. And where, as the media write, they are achieving some success with terrorists, we must wait for some kind of “response.” We still have 30% of the Muslim population, and not everyone has love for the current regime.

- Why was the inspection organized right now? What are we preparing for?

I also asked the following question: “And what does he [Vladimir Putin] want?” This question would be more appropriate to ask Vladimir Vladimirovich. I don't know what's going on in his head.

I think that systematic training of the population in civil defense is necessary. But not this way. Not against such a background - surrounded by seemingly hostile states, during an armed conflict [in Syria] and with a militarizing economy.

Alexander Gusak // Photo: YouTube

- Can we talk about some kind of responsibility for what happened, since Putin decided to conduct an inspection?

Putin is just a senior official, he is the chosen one of the people, he must act in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, he must take care of his people. So everyone should be held accountable, including the president. He told us something about the dictatorship of the law. Everyone should be equal before the law, especially if you are responsible for the entire country.

Or maybe there was a “damaged phone.” Putin said one thing, and some leader decided to bend over backwards and show how well-trained his population is. Here you have to ask, of course.

- That is, after this anti-terrorism check, it is necessary to check those who carried out this check?

There are people responsible for holding this event. We need to calculate the losses. They are all self-supporting. We must consider: if there is a loss, then we must ask.

“We will jail Berezovsky anyway” when his “Kremlin roof” comes off

Moscow Garrison Military Court in a closed court session in the premises of a military court consisting of:
Presiding Judge - Judge of the Moscow Garrison Military Court, Lieutenant Colonel of Justice E.V. Kravchenko, People's Assessors - Lieutenant Commander E.V. Komissarov. and captain-lieutenant Sannikov A.B., with secretary Gnedenko T.A., with the participation of the state prosecutor - military prosecutor of the 6th department of the Main Military Prosecutor's Office, Colonel of Justice A.V. Besedin, defense lawyers E.P. Kavun, V. Svistunov. O., Marova M.A., representatives of the victims - lawyers Bakatina Yu.N. and Strelnikov B.V., considered a criminal case on charges of former servicemen of the 7th department of the URPO FSB of the Russian Federation, reserve lieutenant colonels:

Husak Alexander Ivanovich, born on October 19, 1957 in the city of Donetsk, Ukrainian, with a higher education, married, with two dependent minor children, no previous convictions, served in military service from 1985 to December 1998, awarded the "Order of Courage", the order “For Military Merit”, medals “For Courage”, “For Distinction in Military Service 3rd Degree”, “70 Years of the USSR Armed Forces”, working as Deputy President of the Northern Construction Group company, living in Moscow at the address: Michurinsky Prospekt, building 25, building 2, apartment 165, in the commission of a crime under Art. 286, paragraphs “a”, “b” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

Litvienko Alexander Valterovich, born on December 4, 1962 in the city of Voronezh, Russian, with a higher education, married, with three dependent minor children, no previous convictions, served in military service from 1980 to January 1999, incl. as an officer - since 1985, awarded the medals "For Impeccable Service" 3rd degree, "For Distinction in Military Service" 1st degree, "For Distinction in Military Service" 3rd degree, "70 Years of the Armed Forces of the USSR", working as an advisor to the Executive Secretariat CIS, living in the city of Moscow at the address: Dnepropetrovskaya street, building 14, apartment 14, for committing a crime under Art. 286, part 3, paragraph "a" of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

During the judicial investigation, the military court found:

Preliminary investigation authorities Gusak A.I. and Litvinenko A.V. were accused of committing by them, as officials, actions that clearly went beyond the scope of their powers and entailed a significant violation of the morals and legitimate interests of citizens, committed with the use of violence and threats of its use, and Husak, in addition, with the use of weapons, in connection with whereby Gusak was charged with committing a crime under Article 286, part 3, paragraphs a, b of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and Litvinenko - Art. 286, part 3, paragraph a of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation .

According to the indictment in the case, the actions charged against Gusak and Litvinenko were committed by them under the following circumstances.

In the second half of December 1997, employees of the 7th department of the URPO FSB of the Russian Federation received information about what was committed against citizens by Trokhin A.Ya. and Volobueva Yu.V. robbery and the possible involvement in it of an employee of the Moscow OMON Malyuga O.V., whose whereabouts could have been known to his acquaintance - citizen Polishchuk V.I., living in apartment 77 of building 55 on Mitinskaya Street in Moscow.

On the evening of December 23 of the same year, Gusak, in violation of the requirements of Article 25 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Clause "h" of Article 13 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Federal Security Bodies of the Russian Federation", exceeding the official powers granted to him, without any legal grounds, decided to enter the apartment of citizen Polishchuk, conduct a search there and obtain written explanations from persons living in the apartment on issues of interest to him. .

To do this, he instructed his subordinates Litvinenko, Ponkin, Shebalin, Shcheglov, Shevchuk, Latyshonok and Bavdey to follow him to the Mitino municipal district of Moscow to conduct operational search activities.

At the same time, as stated in the indictment in the case, Gusak, with the aim of unhindered penetration into the apartment and psychological influence on citizens in order to obtain from them information of interest to him, illegally involved in this event five employees of the operational search department of the city police department armed with machine guns, equipped with body armor and helmets Moscow, providing them with deliberately false information about the presence of armed criminals at the specified address, introducing Litvinenko to the essence and purpose of the planned event, who, aware of the obvious illegality of these actions, agreed to participate in it.

At about 10 p.m. on December 23, 1997, an armed group led by Gusak, consisting of Litvinenko. Ponkin and five police officers burst into the apartment of citizen Polishchuk, against the will of the latter, as well as Polishchuk’s twelve-year-old son and citizen Kharchenko, who were in the apartment. At the same time, Gusak and the FSB officers acting under his leadership, without introducing themselves or presenting documents confirming their belonging to law enforcement agencies, without a corresponding order from the investigator and a search order, without witnesses, without drawing up a protocol, began to carry out an illegal search in the apartment, in during which persons unidentified during the investigation stole $1,000 from Polishchuk’s purse.

The police officers, realizing that they had been misled by Gusak about the presence of armed criminals in the apartment, left the premises a few minutes later, and Gusak and Litvinenko, continuing to illegally remain in the citizens’ residential premises, demanded that Kharchenko and Polishchuk provide information about Malyuga’s whereabouts.

At the same time, Litvinenko expressed his demands in a rude and obscene form, and if he refused to provide this information, he threatened to take Kharchenko naked into the forest, handcuff him to a tree and leave him there until the MORNING. In addition, while seeking the necessary information from Kharchenko, Litvinenko beat the latter, punching him 7-8 times on the body, causing him bodily harm in the form of abrasions and bruises that did not cause short-term health problems, and he did this in the presence of Gusak.

In order to conceal his illegal actions, Litvinenko, leaving Polishchuk’s apartment at about 2 o’clock on December 24, 1997, made threats to Kharchenko and Polishchuk if they filed complaints about his actions.

At the court hearing, the victims brought civil claims against the defendants Gusak and Litvinenko:

Polishchuk V.I. - on the recovery in her favor from the defendants of 1,000 US dollars stolen from her in ruble equivalent and 50,000 rubles in compensation for moral damage caused to her;

Kharchenko V.V. - to recover from the defendants in his favor 50,000 rubles in compensation for moral damage caused to him.

As can be seen from the indictment in the case, the charges against Gusak and Litvinenko were based on:

Testimony of the victims Polishchuk and Kharchenko, witnesses Shiferman, and the adult son of the victim - Dmitry Polishchuk. Golombosh, Malyugi L.V., Tarasova, Chervyakov, Svyatosnyuk, Manilov, Ponknna, Shebalin, Shevchuk, Latyshonka, Shcheglova, Bavdey, Kamyshnnkov, as well as data obtained during the investigative experiment with the participation of Kharchenko;

Telephone message from the doctor at the emergency room of clinic No. 79, dated December 26, 1997, about Kharchenko’s visit there;

Conclusion of a forensic medical expert;

Data obtained during the inspection of the scene of the incident - Polishchuk’s apartment;

Resolution to initiate criminal proceedings against Malyuga and Khudoley.

Taking into account the nature of the charge brought against the defendants, the determining factors for the conclusions about the involvement of Gusak and Litvinenko in the commission of the actions described in the indictment and their proper qualification were, in the opinion of the court, the conclusions of the preliminary investigation authorities about:

The purpose and time of arrival at the Polishchuk apartment of a group of employees of the FSB of the Russian Federation and the Oro of the Central Internal Affairs Directorate of Moscow:

The circumstances of the entry of the arriving persons into Polishchuk’s apartment;

The nature of the actions and the time of stay of the mentioned persons in Polishchuk’s apartment;

Consequences of Gusak and Litvinenko’s visit to Polishchuk’s apartment for the people living there.

In accordance with Article 20, 71 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR, the preliminary investigation authorities were obliged to take all measures provided for by law for a comprehensive, complete and objective examination of the circumstances of the case, and then properly evaluate this evidence in its entirety, taking into account that no evidence has predetermined strength.

According to the indictment in the case regarding these circumstances, in addition to the victims Polishchuk and Kharchenko, as well as Gusak and Litvinenko themselves, a number of persons were questioned as witnesses, both those who were in the apartment together with the defendants, and those who were eyewitnesses of the entry into the apartment and departure from it.

Meanwhile, at the court hearing it was indisputably established that the BASIS of the conclusions of the preliminary investigation authorities about the proof of the commission of the described illegal actions by Gusak and Litvinenko was in fact based on the testimony of Polishchuk and Kharchenko about the circumstances of the incident, since, as stated in the indictment, these testimonies are consistent with other materials affairs.

In particular, as can be seen from Polishchuk’s statement addressed to the head of the Mitino police department and the prosecutor of the North-Eastern District of Moscow, at about XX o’clock on December 23, 1997, unknown persons called her apartment, where she lived with her minor son Dmitry and citizen Kharchenko, identified themselves as police officers and demanded to be let into the apartment, after which they began to break down first the door leading to the elevator hall, and then the door of her apartment. Frightened by this, her son Dmitry ran naked onto the balcony and wanted to jump off it, after which she was forced to open the door of the apartment, into which people in camouflage uniforms armed with machine guns and three people in civilian clothes immediately burst into it. At the same time, she was “rudely pushed” into one of the rooms, and Kharchenko, threatening him with a machine gun, was taken to the kitchen, after which they began to demand from her information about the home address of her friend Malyuga Oleg, threatening, if she refused, to take Kharchenko to the forest and leave him undressed . When Polishchuk asked her to introduce herself, the arrivals stated that they were police officers, but they categorically refused to present any documents confirming this, after which “some of the officers began to rummage” through the things that were in the apartment.

At the same time, as can be seen from the aforementioned statements of Polishchuk dated December 26, 1997 and January 19, 1998, the persons who arrived at her apartment from 10 p.m. on December 23 to 2 a.m. on December 24, 1997 put “mental pressure” on her and Kharchenko, forcing her write an explanation indicating Malyuga’s home address, and only after they left the apartment did she learn from Kharchenko that he had been beaten in the kitchen, and on the morning of December 24, 1997, she discovered the loss of $1,000 from her bag in the hallway of the apartment.

During interrogation as a victim on March 4, 1999, Polishchuk, giving generally testimony about the circumstances of the incident similar to the content of her previously submitted statements dated December 26, 1997 and January 19, 1998, nevertheless testified that at about 10 p.m. on December 23, 1997 , when people unknown to her tried to knock down the door of her apartment and introduced themselves as police officers, she asked her son Dmitry to hide in the closet, and after she opened the door, one of the people in camouflage uniforms who burst into the apartment hit Kharchenko in the leg with the butt of a machine gun, after which he was “pushed into the kitchen.” At the same time, Polishchuk explained that she saw her son standing naked on the balcony of the apartment, from which she concluded that the child was so frightened that he could “jump from the balcony.” While in the living room with her son, she heard obscene language coming from the kitchen, where Kharchenko was at that time, which stopped only after, in response to her remark on this matter, Gusak went to the kitchen and then returned to the room . Along with this, Polishchuk testified on March 4, 1999 that before “her eyes,” Litvinenko hit Kharchenko hard in the chest area with his fist,” stopping these actions only on the instructions of Gusak, who saw what was happening. In addition, Polishchuk explained that the threats to take out It was Litvinenko who spoke to Kharchenko in the forest, and before leaving the apartment, he suggested that she and Kharchenko not go anywhere with statements about what had happened. Believing that bandits had “visited” her house, she, Polishchuk, immediately called Malyuga’s apartment on the phone and told him about it. wife about what happened.

In addition, during the aforementioned interrogation, Polishchuk stated that at the end of 1998, she saw “practically all the people who arrived at her apartment” on television programs, and, in particular, on Sergei Dorenko’s program, when she “identified them” and learned their names, in connection with which, in the interrogation protocol, she testified about the actions of the defendants, confidently naming their names.

Being interrogated during the judicial investigation, Polishchuk testified that at about 10 p.m. on December 23, 1997, when she was in her apartment with Kharchenko and her son Dmitry, the doorbell rang. Leaving the apartment, she saw several people in civilian clothes standing behind the glass door of the elevator hall, who answered her question “police” and demanded to open the door. Since the arrivals did not present any documents, she, Polishchuk, suggested that they wait until she contacted the local police department by telephone and clarified the purpose and reasons for the police officers’ visit to her in the evening, however, while she was in her apartment at the telephone , heard one of the arrivals “knocking down the hall door with strong blows,” which, as she and Kharchenko later discovered, was damaged by this. Through the closed door of her apartment, she heard her neighbor Shiferman come out of her apartment and open the door leading to the elevator hall, after which the arrivals began to “knock down the door” of her, Polishchuk, apartment, striking it so hard that the wall fell off plaster, in connection with which she was forced to open the door, into which, against her will, people dressed in camouflage uniforms, armed with machine guns, as well as several people dressed in civilian clothes, among whom were Gusak, Litvinenko and Ponknn, burst in. At the same time, Polishchuk stated that she did not notice any insignia on the camouflage uniforms of the people who broke into her apartment on December 23, 1997, and therefore, during the entire time these people were in the apartment, taking into account their behavior, she believed that they are not law enforcement officers, although she understood that “bandits” in camouflage uniforms and armed with machine guns cannot move around the city in this form.

In addition, she, Polishchuk, saw how Kharchenko was “pushed with the butt of a machine gun” into the kitchen, and one of those who arrived immediately began to demand that she and Kharchenko provide any information about her friend Malyuga Oleg, refusing her request to present documents certifying their belonging to law enforcement agencies. Then Gusak invited her and Kharchenko, who was in the kitchen, to write an explanation about the circumstances and nature of their acquaintance with Malyuga, his address and home telephone number, and from Kharchenko, in addition, he demanded to write also that he allegedly was an eyewitness to Malyuga’s participation in the attack to the company where Kharchenko worked and took part in the beating of its employees.

Despite the fact that, when leaving the apartment at about 2 o’clock on December 24, 1997, one of the arrivals asked her and Kharchenko not to report what had happened anywhere, she, Polishuk, immediately after that called Malyuga’s wife home and told her about what had happened. that unknown armed people were looking for her husband, but she submitted a statement to the internal affairs bodies about the attack on her apartment only on December 26, 1997, without giving the court any convincing explanations about the reasons for this.

Along with this, Polishchuk testified that she was not an eyewitness to Kharchenko’s blows, but only saw how “Litvinenko swung at him,” and she made the conclusion that a search was carried out in the apartment only due to the fact that in the morning on On the table, she discovered her passport and $1,000 missing from a lady’s bag, although she did not see any of the arrivals inspect the things in the apartment or the contents of the furniture. Kharchenko himself told her about the beating of Litvinenko, showing the bruises on his chest and saying that while beating him, they forced him to write in an explanation about Malyuga’s involvement in the attack on the company in which Kharchenko worked, although this was not true.

In addition, Polishchuk stated in court that she identified Litvinenko and Ponknia not while watching television programs at the end of 1998, but in the spring of that year from photographs that were presented to her and Kharchenko by an employee of the Internal Security Directorate of the Moscow City Internal Affairs Directorate in the presence of an employee of the Internal Security Service of the FSB of the Russian Federation, however, no protocol was drawn up, and no witnesses were present.

At the same time, Polishchuk was unable to provide any explanations about the reasons for the mentioned inconsistencies in her testimony during the preliminary and judicial investigation at the court hearing, explaining this only by forgetfulness due to the remoteness of the events.

According to Kharchenko’s statement dated January 19, 1998, addressed to the prosecutor of the North-Eastern District of Moscow, at about 10 p.m. on December 23, 1997, unknown persons called to the apartment where he lived with citizen Polishchuk and her minor son Dmitry, who identified themselves as police officers and demanded to be let in them into the apartment, after which they began to break down first the door leading to the elevator hall, and then the door of the apartment itself. At the same time, Polishchuk suggested that Dima hide in the closet, but he “didn’t understand anything and rushed around the rooms.” Since the blows on the door were strong, Polishchuk was forced to open it, after which several people in camouflage uniforms, armed with machine guns, and several people in civilian clothes immediately burst into the apartment, and one of the people in uniform hit him in the leg with the butt of a machine gun and put the barrel of a machine gun to his head, after which he, Kharchenko, was taken to the kitchen, where the arrivals, using obscene language, began to strike him in the chest, demanding, under threat of physical harm, “to tell them what he didn’t know,” to tell him his last name acquaintances from the riot police, and also tell him everything he knows about Oleg Malyuga, threatening, if he refuses, to take him to the forest and leave him there undressed. At the same time, the persons who arrived at the apartment did not present any identification documents, “rummaged through things and documents without any reason,” and left the apartment only at about 2 o’clock on December 24, 1997, forcing him to write an explanation about the circumstances attacks on the company "SK Kometa", where he, Kharchenko, worked as a manager.

As can be seen from the aforementioned statement by Kharchenko, he wanted to contact the police “in relation to the fact of a gangster attack” on Polishchuk’s apartment, but until December 26, 1997, he did not do this, “fearing for his life and the lives of his loved ones.”

From the protocol of Kharchenko’s oral statement dated January 28, 1998, it is clear that on the specified day the latter made a statement about the attack committed on Polishchuk’s apartment on December 23, 1997, explaining that the persons who broke into the apartment “rummaged through the things” that were in the apartment, as a result of which Money in the amount of $1,000 disappeared from Polishchuk’s bag.

During the interrogation as a victim on March 9, 1999, Kharchenko testified about the circumstances of the incident, which were generally similar to the content of the statements mentioned, showing that at about 10 p.m. on December 23, 1997, one of the people in camouflage uniforms who broke into the apartment hit him with the butt of a machine gun on the leg and " pushed" him into the kitchen, where Litvinenko, swearing obscenely, dealt him "many - 7-8 blows to the chest and hands with his fists in the presence of a tall man who looked like a Tatar," who, however, did not beat him, Kharchenko.

At the same time, Litvinenko demanded that he, Kharchenko, write in his explanation that he allegedly saw Malyuga take part in an attack on the SK Kometa company and beat the employees there, threatening if this demand was not met to “take him out.” into the forest, naked, handcuffed to a tree and left there to die until the morning.” Perceiving these threats as real, he, Kharchenko, fearing for his life, was forced to comply with Litvinenko’s demands.

In addition, during the aforementioned interrogation, Kharchenko stated that at the end of 1998, “he saw almost all the people who arrived at Polishchuk’s apartment on television programs, and, in particular, on Sergei Dorenko’s program, when he “identified them” and learned their names, in connection with which, in the interrogation protocol, he testified about the actions of the defendants, confidently naming their names.

Being interrogated during the judicial investigation, Kharchenko testified that at about 10 p.m. on December 23, 1997, a group of people who identified themselves as police officers, but did not present documents, began to knock down first the door of the elevator hall, and then the door of the apartment where he lived with Polishchuk and her son Dmitry, demanding to open the door, which Polishchuk was forced to do, as plaster fell from the wall from strong blows to the door. After that, people dressed in camouflage uniforms without insignia, armed with machine guns, as well as several people dressed in civilian clothes, among whom were Gusak, Litvinenko, Ponkin and Svyatosnyuk, burst into the apartment; one of the people dressed in uniform hit him in the leg with the butt of a machine gun. , and, putting the barrel of a machine gun to his head, pushed him into the kitchen, where Gusak, Litvinenko, Svyatosnyuk and two other people armed with machine guns then entered. At the same time, he, Kharchenko, was seated at the table, and Litvinenko and Svyatoshnyuk, who sat next to him on both sides, in the presence of Ponkin and one of the people dressed in camouflage uniforms, began to beat him, punching him in the chest and on the arms, demanding to write an explanation about the involvement of his friend Malyuga in the attack on the company where he, Kharchenko, worked. Taking into account the threat expressed by Litvinenko to him to take him to the forest and leave him there, handcuffed to a tree, and also being suppressed by the unlawful actions of Litvinenko and Svyatosnyuk, he, Kharchenko, was forced to comply with Litvinenko’s demands, indicating in his explanation untrue information regarding the involvement Malyugi to attack the SK Kometa company, believing that all the people who arrived at Polishchuk’s apartment were not law enforcement officers, but “bandits.” At about 2 o'clock on December 24, 1997, the mentioned persons from Polishchuk's apartment warned him and Polishchuk not to inform anyone about their visit, but Polishchuk immediately called Malyuga's home on the phone and informed his wife about what had happened.

On the evening of December 25, 1997, as Kharchenko explained to the court, their friend Morunov, who works as a doctor, came into Polishchuk’s apartment, examined the bruises on his chest as a result of the beating and advised him to take an x-ray to detect possible fractures of the chest bones, but he did not make this recommendation. fulfilled, in connection with which he, Kharchenko, in the evening of the next day went to the Shchukinskaya metro station located nearby, i.e. in another area of ​​the city, a trauma center, where she was examined by the doctor on duty, and Polishchuk that same evening submitted a statement to the Mitino police department about an attack on her apartment on December 23, 1997.

Besides. Kharchenko testified that, contrary to his own statements during the preliminary investigation in the case, he did not see how any of the strangers who were in Polishchuk’s apartment on December 23, 1997 examined his or Polishchuk’s personal belongings and pieces of furniture, and the conclusion was that , that a search was carried out in the apartment, he did only on the basis of Dmitry Polishchuk’s story about the movements of armed people through the rooms of the apartment, the discovery of 1000 US dollars missing from Polishchuk’s handbag, and also the fact that on the night of December 23, 1997 he saw it in Litvinenko’s hands, Kharchenko and Polishchuk passports and their notebook.

Along with this, Kharchenko stated in court that he identified Litvinenko and Ponkin not while watching television programs at the end of 1998, as indicated in the protocol of his own interrogation dated March 9, 1999, but in the spring of 1998 from photographs that were presented to him and Polishchuk as an employee of the Internal Security Department of the Moscow City Internal Affairs Directorate in the presence of an employee of the Internal Security Service of the FSB of the Russian Federation.

However, as expressly stated in the indictment in the case, on the basis of Polishchuk’s statement, a criminal case regarding the attack on her apartment was opened on January 30, 1998, and the said “crime remained unsolved until the broadcast of a story on television with the participation of GUSAK and Litvinenko, whom Polishchuk and Kharchenko were identified as the perpetrators of the attack on their apartment."

At the same time, any convincing explanations about the reasons for the mentioned inconsistencies in his testimony during the preliminary and judicial investigation regarding his statement “about the search” in Polishchuk’s apartment and the statement during the interrogation on March 9, 1999 that on December 23, 1997 his beat only Litvinenko, Kharchenko did not bring it up at the trial, explaining only that during the preliminary investigation Svyatosnyuk was not presented to him for identification, and therefore, in agreement with the investigator of the military prosecutor’s office, he did not insist on indicating in the protocol of the said interrogation that he had been beaten, except Litvinenko, other persons, and Svyatosnyuk was seen and recognized for the first time after the incident only in the premises of the military court.

At the same time, as can be seen from the resolution of the investigator of the Main Military Prosecutor's Office dated May 31, 1999, which was not canceled in accordance with the established procedure.

“Ponkin, Chervyakov, Svyatoshnyuk, Manilov and 2-3 unidentified employees of the Moscow City Internal Affairs Directorate... did not take any active actions against the residents of the Polishchuk apartment,” and therefore the criminal case against the mentioned persons was terminated by the said resolution on the grounds paragraph 2 of article 5 of the PC of the RSFSR, i.e. for lack of corpus delicti.

In addition, from the photocopy of the written explanation personally executed by the victim, which was taken from Kharchenko in Polishchuk’s apartment on December 23, 1997, examined at the court hearing, it is clear that the said document does not contain any information indicating Milyuga’s involvement in the attack on the SK Kometa company “is not available at all, although during the preliminary and judicial investigation, Kharchenko consistently stated that this information was obtained from him by Litvinenko as a result of the use of violence against him by the latter and Svyatosnyuk on December 23, 1997.

Kharchenko himself was unable to give any explanations on this matter at the court hearing.

According to the telephone message examined at the court hearing by employees of clinic No. 79 of the Khoroshevsky district of the city of Moscow, registered at the Mitino police station on December 27, 1997, Kharchenko at 21:52 on December 26, 1997 went to the trauma center of the named medical institution with a statement about beating him " at 3 a.m. on December 24, 1997 by police officers."

As can be seen from the certificate of the chief physician of polyclinic No. 126, located in Moscow on Y. Rainisa Street, building 4, building 5, throughout 1997, medical care for trauma patients living in the Mitino microdistrict was provided at the trauma center of the named polyclinic around the clock.

Meanwhile, Kharchenko explained the reason for going to the emergency room for examination only three days after the incident only as “being busy with work,” and going to the clinic not at his place of residence, but to a medical institution located in a different area of ​​Moscow - due to his ignorance of the location of the nearest to the house of the Polishchuk trauma center.

As for the entry in the telephone message from the words of Kharchenko himself about his beating not by unknown persons, as he and Polishchuk consistently indicated in their statements to various authorities and during interrogations until March 1999, when they were interrogated by an investigator of the Main Military Prosecutor's Office, but police officers, Kharchenko did not give any explanations on this matter, citing the remoteness of the events.

Son Polishchuk, questioned at the court hearing at the request of the victim. V.I. - Dmitry Polishchuk, born in 1985, testified that at about 10 p.m. on December 23, 1997, unknown persons first rang the doorbell of the apartment where he lived with his mother and Kharchenko, after which they began to knock strongly and loudly, first on the door of the elevator hall, and then at the door of the apartment, in connection with which he only went out to the balcony at his mother’s suggestion to hide, but did not intend to jump from the balcony. After that, he saw how people armed with machine guns, dressed in camouflage uniforms, as well as several people in civilian clothes, among whom were Gusak and Litvinenko, burst into the apartment, and immediately began asking his mother and Kharchenko about the whereabouts of Malyuga Oleg. At the same time, Gusak entered the living room and invited him to go to his room, citing the need to talk with his mother, and Kharchenko was in the kitchen at that time. Along with this, Dmitry Polishchuk stated that during the entire time strangers were in their apartment, he was in his room; he did not see the latter’s movements around the apartment or their inspection of personal belongings or the contents of furnishings.

In addition, witness Polishchuk testified in court that after the EVENT he heard Kharchenko complaining to his mother about pain in the chest, but he did not see any blows being struck by Kharchenko on the night of December 23-24, 1997, and he did not see the names of Gusak and Litvinenko found out when he accidentally saw them on a television program at the end of 1998.

Witnesses Golombosh, Malyuga L.V., and Tarasova, whose testimony was referred to in the indictment in the case as evidence confirming the guilt of the defendants in the crime, were not eyewitnesses to the events that took place in the Polishchuk apartment on December 23, 1997, and therefore During the preliminary investigation and at the court hearing, the line testified about the circumstances of the incident, according to the victims.

In particular, witness Malyuga L.V. - wife of the convicted Malyuga O.V. - testified in court that at about 2 o’clock on December 24, 1997, her friend Polishchuk, who was in an extremely agitated state, called her on the phone and told her how a few hours ago armed people burst into her apartment and searched the apartment to find weapons and drugs , demanded from her and Kharchenko information about the whereabouts of her, Malyuga, husband. In addition, Polishchuk told her that out of fear, her son Dmitry ran out onto the balcony, and she herself, being in one of the rooms of the apartment, heard Kharchenko being beaten in the kitchen.

Witness Golombosh, having been interrogated during the preliminary investigation in the case only once - on April 8, 1999 - testified that on December 26, 1997, he, having returned to Moscow after vacation, learned from his wife Malyuga about the attack on Polishchuk’s apartment, after which Polishchuk herself told him about how on December 23, 1997, armed people burst into her apartment, searched the apartment and beat her roommate Kharchenko, demanding information about the whereabouts of Malyuga Oleg.

At the same time, as can be seen from the protocol of the mentioned interrogation, Golombosh did not testify about any details of the attack; questions about his knowledge of the circumstances of the incident known to him from the words of Polishchuk or Kharchenko were not clarified by the named witness.

At the same time, Golombosh, interrogated during the judicial investigation, testified in court that he was and is on friendly terms with the Polishchuk and Malyugi families, and therefore on December 26, 1997, he learned from Polishchuk and Kharchenko about the details of the events in their apartment on the night of 23 to December 24, 1997. At the same time, Golombosh told the court that Kharchenko and Polishchuk told him how, at about 23-24 hours on December 23, 1997, armed people in camouflage uniforms and civilian clothes burst into their apartment, trying to first break down the door, without the consent of Polishchuk and Kharchenko, in total about 8 people, after which, without presenting documents, they began to demand that Kharchenko and Polishchuk testify against Malyuga, put a machine gun to Kharchenko’s head, threatened, if their demand was not met, to take Kharchenko into the forest and leave him there, and Polishchuk’s son Dmitry, frightened by this, ran out onto the balcony and wanted to jump down out of fear. At the same time, several of the people who arrived at the apartment went to their rooms and began to look for something, and at that time Kharchenko was beaten in the kitchen. Kharchenko told him, Golombos, that two people beat him, and one of them, “armed with a machine gun, kicked Kharchenko, and the second helped him.” In addition, Polishchuk and Kharchenko told him, Golombos, that one of the people who broke into the apartment stole $1,000 from them.

Malyuga Lyudmila, as Golombosh testified, told him that at about 2 o'clock on December 24, 1997, Polishchuk, who was in an extremely agitated state, called her at home and reported an attack on her apartment, during which armed people were seeking information about the whereabouts of her husband Oleg .

Along with this, Golombosh stated that he, his wife, Malyuga’s wife Lyudmila and their mutual friend, doctor Morunov, strongly advised Kharchenko and Polishchuk to file a statement about the incident with the police, which the latter did on December 26, 1997.

Witness Tarasova testified in court that at about 8 pm on one day in the second half of December 1997, her friend Polishchuk called her home on the phone, reporting an attack on her apartment, during which “people working in the authorities broke into the apartment and demanded a large sum of money,” after which her partner Kharchenko was detained at the Sviblovo police station and wants to be interrogated.

In response to Polishchuk’s request to help her with advice, she, Tarasova, gave her the phone numbers of several of her familiar lawyers, suggesting that she contact them to provide Kharchenko with legal assistance.

Questioned at the court hearing at the request of the victim Polishchuk, witness Kalinkin, the general director of SK Kometa CJSC, which was attacked on December 16, 1997, testified that on the night of December 23-24, 1997, an employee called his home on the phone his company Kharchenko, who informed him about an attack on the apartment of his cohabitant Polishchuk, during which armed people who burst in beat him, hitting him in the chest with a machine gun, searched the apartment, interrogated him for two hours, threatening to take him to the forest and leave him there in in the event that he does not give the testimony they need about the Moscow riot police officer Malyuga.

Despite the inconsistency and contradictory evidence of the victims about the circumstances of the incident, as well as the presence of significant, in the opinion of the court, contradictions in the testimony of those witnesses who knew about this only from the words of the victims themselves, only the testimony of Gusak and Litvinenko by the preliminary investigation authorities were regarded as contradictory and conditioned by their intention to avoid criminal liability.

At the same time, during the preliminary and judicial investigation, both Gusak and Litvinenko consistently denied the fact of committing the acts accused of them, and their testimony did not contradict the testimony about the circumstances of the incident given by witnesses Ponkin, Svyatosnyuk, Manilov, Chervyakov, Shebalin, Latyshonok, Shevchuk and Shiferman .

Thus, defendant Gusak testified during the preliminary and judicial investigation that in December 1997, employees of the department he headed were actively working to implement information received that gave reason to believe that employees of the internal affairs bodies of the city of Moscow, including departments, were involved in the commission of a number of serious crimes Moscow OMON and RUOP. At the same time, he, Gusak, received operational information about a robbery attack on the office of SK Kometa CJSC committed in mid-December 1997, involving extortion of large sums of money, kidnapping of people and causing bodily harm to them, about the possible involvement of a riot police officer in the commission of this crime named “Oleg”, as well as the presence in apartment 77 of building 55 on Mitinskaya Street in Moscow of citizens aware of the identity and whereabouts of “Oleg”, himself suspected of committing a crime or a person who is an employee of the mentioned company, but involved in the attack on her office.

Since every event carried out by the employees of the department, including those related to the identification of persons involved in committing crimes, required the involvement of police officers, he, Gusak, turned to the employees of the operational search department of the Moscow City Internal Affairs Directorate with a request for assistance in the planned actions , after which on the evening of December 23, 1997, in official vehicles, employees of the department he headed and several employees of the Moscow Central Internal Affairs Directorate went to the Mitino microdistrict. Along the way, taking into account the established practice of interaction with law enforcement agencies, the duty officer of the local police department was notified of the upcoming visit to the mentioned house on Mitinskaya Street, who was presented with the relevant identification documents of the department employees. Upon arrival at about 7 p.m. on December 23, 1997, at the said house, as testified by Husak. Some of the employees, on his instructions, remained at the house, and some, including himself, took the elevator to the desired apartment and rang the bell of the door separating the elevator hall and the entrance doors of the apartments located on the floor of the building.. At the same time, she left her apartment and approached to the door of a previously unknown citizen Polishchuk, he, Gusak, announced his affiliation with the police, but she did not open the door, saying that she needed to call the local police department by phone to confirm the validity of the arrival of police officers to her. Since Polishchuk did not appear for a long time, one of the police officers who arrived with him rang the bell of a neighboring apartment, from which a woman came out and immediately opened the door of the elevator hall. After this, Polishchuk herself opened the door of her apartment, he and the officers who arrived with him, without any objections from Polishchuk, entered the apartment, reintroducing themselves as police officers. Moreover, he, Gusak, showed Polishchuk his ID as a MUR employee, and then invited Kharchenko, who was in the apartment, to go with them to the police station to give an explanation about the robbery attack on SK Kometa. Due to the fact that the man who was in the apartment, i.e. Kharchenko turned out to be not the wanted “Oleg”, and Kharchenko and Polishchuk immediately agreed to tell everything they knew about their acquaintance OMON officer Malyuga Oleg, he, Gusak, at the request of Polishchuk and Kharchenko themselves, decided to take away their explanations not in the department police, but directly in the apartment, which was done. Having stayed in Polishchuk’s apartment for no more than 1 hour, he himself and the EMPLOYEES who arrived with him left the apartment, having previously addressed Kharchenko and Polishchuk with a request not to inform anyone about their visit, since this could negatively affect further work to expose and detain persons involved in the crime crime.

Along with this, Husak stated that neither he himself nor the employees of the department he headed who arrived with him, incl. and Litvinenko, nor the employees of the Oro GUVD of the city of Moscow did not try to knock down the doors of the elevator hall and Polishchuk’s apartment, did not hit them, Polishchuk entered the apartment with her consent, while in the apartment they treated its residents correctly, there was no violence against Kharchenko were used, there was no inspection or search of personal belongings, premises and furniture of the apartment, no obscene language was used towards those present, etc. Moreover, they did not confiscate any property of the residents from the apartment, incl. and money in foreign currency.

In addition, Gusak explained that when turning to the leadership of the Moscow Municipal Department of Internal Affairs with a request to allocate employees for their participation in a trip to Mitino to check operational information, he did not express a proposal to equip them with camouflage uniforms, automatic weapons or other special equipment, and some of the mentioned The employees were dressed and armed in this way only in connection with a planned long-term large-scale operation in the city at that time aimed at suppressing crimes and detaining those responsible for their commission.

The defendant Litvinenko, during the preliminary investigation and at the trial, consistently denied his guilt in committing any illegal actions in the Polishchuk apartment, showed the court that at the end of the working day on December 23, 1997, he, on the instructions of his immediate superior Gusak, together with other employees 7 department of the URPO of the FSB of the Russian Federation and employees of the Oro of the Main Internal Affairs Directorate of the city of Moscow went to the Mitino microdistrict, where, according to Gusak, in one of the apartments of the residential building there could be persons involved in the commission of a serious crime or having information about them. At the same time, as Litvinenko explained, there are no specific tasks and goals regarding the nature of the proposed actions, incl. about the possibility of conducting a search in the mentioned apartment, obtaining any specific information from the persons living there, the possible (if necessary) use of weapons, etc.. Gusak did not raise this question either with him or with other subordinates.

Along with this, Litvinenko explained that he himself and other specified officers of the FSB of the Russian Federation and the Moscow Police Department of the Moscow City Police Department entered Polishchuk’s apartment with her consent, they did not try to knock down the doors of the elevator hall and the apartment, they did not hit the doors, he himself was with Kharchenko and Polishchuk did not select explanations, did not use violence against Kharchenko and did not see him being beaten by other employees, searches or searches of personal belongings of persons. living in the apartment, did not produce the personal property of these persons, incl. and money in foreign currency, did not seize or steal.

In addition, Litvinenko testified that only as a result of the information received on December 23, 19997 from Kharchenko and Polishchuk, he, together with employees of the Internal Affairs Directorate of the Moscow City Internal Affairs Directorate, established the identity of riot police officer Malyuga, who, according to operational information, could have been involved in the attack on SK Kometa "What is he talking about, Litvinenko. On December 26, 1997, he reported with a report to the head of the Sviblovo Department of Internal Affairs, after the initiation of a criminal case on the fact of the MENTIONED attack, he, Litvinenko, by a resolution of the Deputy Ostankino Interdistrict Prosecutor of the City of Moscow, was included in the investigative and operational group in this case, in connection with which he took part in preparing the detention of Malyuga, who was subsequently found guilty by the court of a number of serious crimes committed by him during the attack on SK Kometa, and sentenced to a long term of imprisonment.

As for the motives for the testimony of the victims Polishchuk and Kharchenko about his, Litvinenko’s, involvement in the commission of the actions described in the indictment, the defendant stated that Polishchuk herself. in his opinion, she had grounds for slandering him, since she was on friendly terms with the Malyugi family, just like the witness Golombosh interrogated in the case. In particular, Litvinenko explained that on the evening of December 26, 1997, in the premises of the Sviblovo police station, where victims, witnesses and suspects in the criminal case of an attack on SK Kometa were being interrogated, Polishchuk, who was also there, in the presence of his colleague Ponkin, expressed him, Litvinenko, addressed a threat to bring him to criminal liability on the basis of her statement about the theft of money from her on December 23, 1997 in the event that Malyuga is sentenced to imprisonment.

Litvinenko's testimony regarding his submission of the aforementioned report and his inclusion in the operational investigative group in the case of the attack on SK Kometa is confirmed by copies of the relevant documents examined at the court hearing.

Witness Ponkin testified at the court hearing that at the end of the working day on December 23, 1997, i.e. at 7 p.m., he, Gusak, Litvinenko and a number of employees of the department in which he served, together with employees of the Moscow Central Internal Affairs Directorate, actually went to the Mitino microdistrict to check operational information about the crime committed. At the same time, as Ponkin explained, he and the mentioned employees who arrived there entered Polishchuk’s apartment with Polishchuk’s permission, no blows were struck on the doors of the apartment and the elevator hall, explanations from Kharchenko and Polishchuk were taken directly from Polishchuk’s apartment only at their request, since initially Kharchenko was asked to go to the police station to give an explanation. Explanation, as Ponknn explained, Kharchenko actually wrote in the kitchen of the apartment in his presence, but neither Litvinenko nor any of the other FSB of the Russian Federation and ORO officers who arrived at Polishchuk’s apartment beat him, and no search or examination of Kharchenko’s and Polishchuk’s belongings was carried out in the apartment , no one used weapons against the residents of the apartment and made no threats to use them, as well as other threats against Kharchenko or Polishchuk.

Along with this, Ponkin explained that on the evening of December 26, 1997, in the premises of the Sviblovo police department, he heard Polishchuk actually threatening Litvinenko with bringing him to criminal responsibility for allegedly stealing $1,000 from her if Malyuga was convicted

Witnesses Svyatoshnyuk and Manilov - employees of the Moscow Central Internal Affairs Directorate - testified in court that at 19:00 on December 23, 1997, they, together with Gusak, Litvinenko and others, with employees of the 7th department of the URPO FSB of the Russian Federation, went to the Mitino microdistrict to check the available operational information about possible location at the address available to FSB officers of persons involved in the commission of a crime or who had any information about it. At the same time, as Svyatoshnyuk and Manilov explained, they themselves and the arriving FSB officers entered Polishchuk’s apartment with Polishchuk’s permission; none of them struck the doors of the apartment or the elevator hall. Immediately upon arrival at the apartment, Gusak showed Polishchuk his official ID, introducing himself as an employee of the CRIMINAL Investigation Department, and Kharchenko, who was in the apartment, offered to go to the police station to give an explanation, however, at the request of POLISCHUK and Kharchenko, Gusak decided to take away the explanation from them directly in the apartment, which Kharchenko then wrote in the kitchen. However, neither Litvinenko nor any of the other FSB officers of the Russian Federation and ORO Kharchenko who arrived at Polishchuk’s apartment beat up Kharchenko and Polishchuk’s belongings in the apartment, they did not use weapons against the residents of the apartment and did not express threats to use them, and as well as other threats against Kharchenko or Polishchuk.

Along with this, Svyatoshnyuk and M. Shilov explained that they themselves and other ORO officers did not enter the kitchen of the apartment where Kharchenko was with one of the FSB officers at all, remaining in the apartment corridor and the elevator hall, and in the apartment itself they and FSB officers stayed for no more than 40 MINUTES, after which they all left FROM THERE together, and already at 22:00 of the same DAY they, in the same composition, took part in the detention of a criminal on the territory of another administrative district of the city of Moscow.

In addition, as Svyatoshnyuk and Manilov showed, the employees of the Moscow Municipal Department of Internal Affairs, with the exception of Svyatoshnyuk, were indeed dressed in camouflage uniforms and armed with machine guns, and on the uniforms of each of them there were distinctive signs of the established pattern: on the front of the jackets there were chevrons with the inscription " Police", a similar inscription in large letters on the back of the jackets, side chevrons on the sleeves of the jackets with the inscription "Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia". At the same time, Svyatoshnyuk and Manilov testified that immediately before leaving with employees of the FSB of the Russian Federation to the Mitino microdistrict, employees of the Oro of the Central Internal Affairs Directorate of Moscow were not equipped specifically for this purpose with uniforms, automatic weapons and other special equipment, since, as a rule, they had previously traveled to conduct similar events in civilian clothes. As for the presence of such uniforms and weapons on the evening of December 23, 1997, then, as witnesses explained, this was only due to the participation in December 1997 of all employees of the operational search department in the city-wide planned operation "Whirlwind", in connection with with which the mentioned employees were similarly equipped and armed almost every day.

From the testimony of witness Chervyakov, read out at the court hearing, given by him during the preliminary investigation in the case, it is clear that at the end of December 1997, he, Svyatoshnyuk, Manilov and several other employees of the Moscow Central Internal Affairs Directorate actually, at the request of Gusak, went to the Mitino microdistrict to providing assistance to employees of the 7th department of the URPO FSB of the Russian Federation in checking operational information. At the same time, as can be seen from the protocol of the mentioned interrogation, Chervyakov testified that neither he nor the other persons who arrived there took any illegal actions when entering Polishchuk’s apartment; no more weapons were used.

Witnesses Shebalin, Latyshonok and Bavdey - former employees of the 7th department of the URPO FSB of the Russian Federation - testified that at 19:00 on December 23, 1997, they, together with Gusak, Litvinenko and several employees of the operational search department of the Moscow Central Internal Affairs Directorate, went to the Mitino microdistrict to check the operational information that Gusak had on the serious crime committed, and along the way they stopped at the Mitino police station, where Gusak and Bavdey informed the duty officer about their upcoming visit to the house on Mitinskaya Street. At the same time, these witnesses explained that they themselves did not enter the apartment of the house on Mitinskaya Street, since, on Gusak’s instructions, they remained at the entrance, arrived at the house no later than 19:30, and left there together with the employees of the Oro of the Moscow City Internal Affairs Directorate after 30 - 40 minutes.

Witness Shiferman, a neighbor of Polishchuk, explained to the court that at about 7 p.m. on December 23, 1997, the doorbell of her apartment rang several times, after which she went to the door leading to the elevator hall, where she saw several people who introduced themselves as police officers and asked her to open the door , which she did. After this, the arrivals asked her for permission to go to Polishchuk’s apartment, and for her to return to her apartment.

Along with this, Shiferman stated that before she, at the request of the police officers, opened the door of the elevator hall, one of the latter actually “shaked the door”, but did not inflict any blows on the door, and the door itself was not damaged from this. Moreover, as Shiferman explained, the arrivals addressed her very politely, and after she left for her apartment, she did not hear any noise, including knocks on the door of Polishchuk’s apartment. 30-40 minutes later, when she, Shiferman, left her apartment, the door to Polishchuk’s apartment was closed, no sounds were coming from there, there was no one near Polishuk’s apartment or in the elevator hall.

Shiferman gave similar testimony, as can be seen from the witness interrogation protocol, during the preliminary investigation in the case.

An analysis of the content of the testimony of the victims and the mentioned witnesses, given by them during the preliminary and judicial investigation, indicates that these testimonies in terms of describing the time of arrival of employees of the FSB of the Russian Federation and the ORO of the City Internal Affairs Directorate of Moscow to the Polishchuk apartment, the time of their stay in the apartment, as well as actions of the mentioned persons immediately before their entry into the apartment and in the apartment itself are contradictory to each other.

At the same time, the preliminary investigation authorities, concluding and proving the guilt of Gusak and Litvinenko in committing the acts incriminated by them, not only did not evaluate these contradictory testimonies, but also assessed the testimonies of witnesses Ponkin, Svyatosnyuk, Manilov, Chervyakov, Shebalin, Latyshonok and Shiferman, as confirming the circumstances of the incident described in the indictment in the case.

Taking into account the above, the military court comes to the conclusion that it is impossible, on the basis of the evidence collected in the case and examined at the court hearing, to draw an indisputable conclusion about the underlying circumstances of the events that took place in the Polishchuk apartment on December 23, 1997, which is fundamental for the correct resolution of the issue of validity charges brought against Gusak and Litvinenko.

At the same time, the military court believes that neither the testimony of the victims nor the testimony of the witnesses interrogated in the case, taking into account their inconsistency with each other, can be confirmed or refuted by other evidence in the case.

In particular, as can be seen from the forensic expert’s report, Kharchenko had bruises on the left front surface of his chest and an abrasion on his left elbow joint. These bodily injuries, according to the expert’s conclusions, could have occurred on the night of December 23-24, 1997 from the impact of blunt hard objects, and relate to injuries that did not cause harm to health, since they did not entail a short-term health disorder for the victim.

The mentioned expert study, as can be seen from the conclusion, was carried out on the basis of an examination by the expert not of the victim Kharchenko himself, but of his outpatient card, presented by the trauma center of clinic No. 79 in Moscow, according to which on the anterior surface of Kharchenko’s chest at 21:50 on December 26, 1997 years, i.e. when he went to the specified medical institution, purple bruises were discovered.

When assessing the conclusion of a forensic expert, the military court takes into account that, in accordance with the current criminal procedural legislation, the expert’s conclusion does not have any advantages over other evidence in the case, is subject to mandatory assessment and can be used as the basis for a court decision only if it is consistent other evidence. At the same time. other evidence in the case, relating not only to the presence, but also to the circumstances of infliction of the mentioned bodily injuries to Kharchenko, is contradictory.

The inspection of her apartment, carried out on May 18, 1999 with the participation of the victim Polishchuk, as a scene of an incident, the protocol of which is referred to as evidence in the case in the indictment, does not contain data confirming the statements of Kharchenko, V. I. Polishchuk, and Dmitry Polishchuk about damage to the door elevator hall and the door of the Polishchuk apartment.

As for the references in the indictment in the case, as evidence of the validity of the charges brought against Gusak and Litvinenko, to the testimony of witnesses Kamyshnikov, Shcheglov, Khalinen, Kaznin, Busygin, Volobuev, Sidorov, the convicted Malyugi, a certificate from the Moscow Hydrometeorological Center about weather conditions on the night of December 24 1997, a resolution to initiate a criminal case against Malyuga and Khudoley, materials from the Internal Security Service of the FSB of the Russian Federation and materials from the internal investigation, photocopies of statements from Polishchuk and Kharchenko dated December 23, 1997, then, in the opinion of the court, contained in the interrogation reports of these witnesses and in the mentioned documents the information does not contain any information that allows one to draw a correct conclusion about the circumstances of the incident.

In addition, according to the indictment in the case, while qualifying what the defendants did as an abuse of power, the preliminary investigation authorities charged Husak with the fact that he “entered Polishchuk’s apartment using violence and threats of violence, as well as weapons,” and also in “illegal receipt from Polishchuk and Kharchenko of information of interest to him using violent actions and threats of their use.” Along with this, Gusak and Litvinenko were charged with conducting an illegal search in Polishchuk’s apartment.

At the same time, as was indisputably established in court, the victims Polishchuk and Kharchenko, in their statements to law enforcement agencies about the attack on Polishchuk’s apartment on December 23, 1997, during interrogations at the preliminary investigation and at the court hearing, did not state that Gusak or those who arrived with According to him, on December 23, 1997, when entering their apartment, they used weapons, violence or threats of violence against any of its residents, that Husak himself used violence against Polishchuk or Kharchenko when taking explanations from them, as well as that directly Gusak or Litvinenko, while in the apartment, carried out a search or examination of their personal belongings and property, and this circumstance was not indicated by any of the witnesses interrogated in the case. At the same time, as can be seen from the corresponding resolution of the investigator of the Main Military Prosecutor's Office dated May 31, 1999, other persons who arrived at Polishchuk's apartment along with Gusak and Litvinenko, the criminal case against whom in this regard was terminated due to lack of action in their actions, did not carry out these actions. corpus delicti.

In addition, by the above-mentioned resolution of the investigator, due to the lack of corpus delicti, the criminal case regarding the theft of 1000 US dollars from Polishchuk and Kharchenko was discontinued not only in relation to Litvinenko, Ponkin, Chervyakov, Svyatoshnyuk, Manilov and 2-3 unidentified employees of the Moscow Municipal Department of Internal Affairs, but and in relation to Gusak, however, despite this, he was charged with the fact that “as a result of his illegal search in the apartment, citizens Polishchuk and Kharchenko were caused material damage in the amount of 1000 US dollars (equivalent to 5,947,000 non-denominated rubles at the exchange rate Central Bank of the Russian Federation). At the same time, a description of the method and circumstances of Gusak causing such damage, as well as references to evidence of its infliction, are missing in the indictment.

Along with this, as can be seen from the indictment in the case, the preliminary investigation authorities concluded that Gusak “on December 23, 1997 decided to enter the apartment of citizen Polishchuk and conduct a search there...”, for which purpose “with the aim of unhindered entry into the apartment and psychological impact on citizens, in order to obtain from them the information he was interested in, he illegally attracted five employees of the operational search department of the Moscow City Internal Affairs Directorate to this event, armed with machine guns, equipped with bulletproof vests and helmets, giving them knowingly false information about the presence of armed criminals at the specified address" .

At the same time, during the preliminary and judicial investigation, the indicated conclusion about the purpose of a group of employees of the FSB of the Russian Federation and the Moscow Department of Internal Affairs Directorate going to the apartment of the victim Polishchuk, about the purpose of Gusak’s involvement of employees of the operational investigative department for this purpose, was not confirmed. At the same time, the court takes into account that during the preliminary and judicial investigation, Husak’s testimony was not refuted in any way that the purpose of going to the address known to him was the need to check operational information about the possible presence there of persons who have information about the circumstances of the grave crime committed, and to attract participation in this departure of employees subordinate to him and employees of the Oro GUVD of the city of Moscow was due to information he received from the same source about the possible presence at the mentioned address of a person directly involved in the attack on JSC SK Kometa, who could be armed. As for Gusak’s powers to involve employees of the Moscow Central Internal Affairs Directorate in the events carried out by FSB officers, as well as the grounds for such actions by the defendant, the case materials do not contain any documents regulating the rights and obligations of officials of the FSB of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation when planning and producing joint events. At the same time, witnesses Svyatoshnyuk and Manilov testified in court that until December 1997, they themselves and their colleagues repeatedly together with officers of the FSB of the Russian Federation, incl. and the 7th department of the URPO FSB of the Russian Federation, in carrying out activities to solve crimes, detain persons suspected of committing various crimes, seize weapons, narcotic substances, etc.

Moreover, the mentioned conclusions of the preliminary investigation bodies do not correspond to the fact that, as was indisputably established at the court hearing, taking into account the information received from Kharchenko and Polishchuk, riot police officer O. V. Malyuga was detained as a suspect in committing a crime, and then According to the verdict of the Ostankino Intermunicipal Court of the North-Eastern Administrative District of Moscow dated March 4, 1999, which entered into legal force, he was found guilty of committing a number of serious crimes during the attack on the office of SK Kometa CJSC and was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 9 years.

Assessing the testimony at the court hearing of the witness Kamyshnikov, who stated that operational work to identify persons suspected of committing robberies, kidnappings, causing bodily harm to them and extorting large sums of money was not within the competence of the FSB of the Russian Federation, the military court takes into account that Kamyshnikov himself confirmed to the COURT the fact that as of December 1997, Gusak, as the head of the 7th department of the URPO FSB of the Russian Federation, and his subordinates did not have job descriptions defining the range of their official duties and powers. Along with this, the court takes into account that, according to Kamyshnikov’s testimony in court, the decision to take explanations from citizens about the circumstances of the crimes committed was within the competence of Gusak, as the head of the department, and did not require additional approval from higher command.

As for the instructions in the indictment in the case of Gusak and Litvinenko’s concealment from law enforcement agencies of the fact of their entry into the home and the unauthorized search carried out in Polishchuk’s apartment, then. in the opinion of the court, these circumstances were subject to the necessary assessment when qualifying the actions of the defendants only if there was indisputable proof that they committed the mentioned illegal actions. At the same time, the court takes into account the fact that Kamyshnikov, as the deputy head of the FSB of the Russian Federation, as he himself testified in court, was aware of the participation of Gusak himself and a number of employees subordinate to him in the work on the criminal case regarding the attack on the JSC "SK Kometa", however, until law enforcement agencies identified Gusak, Litvinenko and others as having been in Polishchuk's apartment on December 23, 1997. and the defendants were charged in the spring of 1999, an official investigation into the circumstances of their work in this case was not carried out by competent officials, disciplinary liability for actions related to the implementation of measures in cases not within the competence of the FSB of the Russian Federation, as well as for “concealing “Neither Gusak nor Litvinenko were involved from law enforcement agencies regarding the nature and essence of these events.

Taking into account the above, and taking into account the fact that the above evidence, on which the preliminary investigation authorities based the charges brought against Gusak and Litvinenko, are, in the opinion of the court, questionable due to their contradiction to each other, and the possibilities of obtaining reliable evidence have been exhausted, the military court comes to the conclusion that the guilt of the DEFENDANTS Husak has not been proven in committing a crime under Art. 286, part 3, paragraphs “a”, “b” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and Litvinenko - in committing a crime under Art. 286, part 3, paragraph "a" of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Having discussed the grounds for civil claims brought by the victims Polishchuk and Kharchenko against the defendants, the military court believes that their claims cannot be satisfied, since Gusak and Litvinenko are guilty of committing the illegal actions accused of them, as well as of causing damage to the victims as a result of these actions, in the judicial the meeting was not proven.

Based on the above, guided by Articles 300-303, 309, 310, 316, 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR, the military court sentenced:

Gusak Alexander Ivanovich on charges brought against him of committing a crime under Art. 286, part 3, paragraph "a", "b" of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and Litvinenko Alexandra Valterovich on the charge brought against him of committing a crime under Article 286, part 3, paragraph "a" of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, was acquitted for lack of evidence their participation in the commission of a crime.

Preventive measure for A.I. Gusak - a written undertaking not to leave the place, and Litvinenko A.V. - detention - cancel.

Litvinenko A.V. be released from custody immediately in the courtroom.

In accordance with Art. 310 Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR Polishchuk V.I. and Kharchenko V.V. in satisfaction of their claims against A.I. Gusak. and Litvinenko A.V. civil claims:

Polishchuk - for the recovery in her favor, jointly and severally from Gusak and Litvinenko, of 1,000 US dollars in ruble equivalent to compensate for the material damage caused to her, and 50,000 rubles to compensate for the moral damage caused to her;

Kharchenko - about the recovery of 50,000 rubles in his favor from Gusak and Litvinenko in his favor in compensation for moral damage caused to him, refuse.

The verdict can be appealed and protested in cassation to the Moscow District Military Court through the Moscow Garrison Military Court within seven days from the moment of its proclamation.
Authentic with proper signatures true

The presiding judge of the Moscow Garrison Military Court, Lieutenant Colonel of Justice
E. Kravchenko

To the director
Federal Security Service
Russian Federation
Mr. Putin V.V.

Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich!

In mid-February 1995, officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation arrived at the Reception House of LogoVAZ JSC at the address: Moscow, Novokuznetskaya Street, building 40 in a beige VAZ-2109 car with state number 03-70 MMH, who took part in solving the assassination attempt. me, which happened in June 1994: Deputy Head of the Criminal Investigation Department of the 6th District Department of Internal Affairs of Moscow, Police Major Kozhanov Sergei Lvovich (work phone: 233-54-72), employee of the 6th District Department of Internal Affairs Nikolay Konyaev (work phone: 233 -26-92) and the head of the 4th department of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Moscow City Internal Affairs Directorate, police captain Igor Viktorovich Zinoviev (work phone: 200-66-24), who brought with them a member of an organized criminal group in the city of Omsk, previously convicted of murder Plekhanov Nikolai Alexandrovich, corner nickname "Cat". During a personal meeting Kozhanov S.L. told me that Plekhanov N.A. is one of the organizers and perpetrators of the assassination attempt on me, committed on June 7, 1994 by exploding a car in front of the Reception House of LogoVAZ JSC. Kozhanov S.L. He also told me that Plekhanov knew the customers and the motives for this crime, after which he recommended that I talk with Plekhanov and accept his conditions (Plekhanov asked for 500 thousand US dollars for this information). Besides. Kozhanov explained that it would be almost impossible to solve this crime, because cool "mafia", everything was bought, he is not allowed to work, is removed from the investigation of this case and that the head of the Moscow police, Lieutenant General Pankratov, was bought by the financial group "Most" and the fact that he managed to find Plekhanov and bring him to me - this is success at work. After that, Kozhanov introduced me to Plekhanov, who said that the assassination attempt on me was ordered by Alexander Grigorievich Ziberev (deputy director of AvtoVAZ Kadannikov). The main organizer was the criminal authority Kozubenko (nickname “Kozuben”), a close connection with thief in law V. Ivankov (nickname “Yaponchik”). The motive for the assassination attempt is the competition that I allegedly created in the automobile market. Plekhanov also indicated that another attempt on me or someone from my close circle is currently being prepared and has already been paid for, the motive of which is either the auto business or my work on television. Plekhanov also said that he took part in a meeting of “thieves”, where the issue of dividing the auto business and television was decided. As proof of this, Plekhanov offered me to buy from him for 500 thousand US dollars tapes with recordings of conversations between Ziberev and Kozubenko, where they talk about the above-mentioned crime. Moreover, 250 thousand US dollars are needed as a deposit, and 250 thousand US dollars - after providing the cassettes. Plekhanov explained that Kozubenko has enormous connections in the city of Omsk, and is closely acquainted with Nosovets and his wife (director of local television). Kozubenko has been working with Ziberev since the early 80s, when they worked together on car thefts in Tolyatti (Plekhanov was in prison for the murder of one of his accomplices). On February 28, 1995, I gave Plekhanov and Kozhany 100 thousand US dollars.

Based on these facts, I wrote a statement about the illegal actions of police officers in the FSB of Russia. The statement was accepted by investigator V. Pavlenok, to whom I also handed over video and audio recordings of the moment of transferring money to the above-listed police officers and negotiations with them for inclusion in the materials. To date, I have not received a response to my application and I do not know the decision that was made on it in accordance with Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Russia. At the same time, as I know, part of the bills that I handed over to the police under the above circumstances were found during searches in the apartments of S. Kozhanov, N. Konyaev and N. Plekhanov. Despite this, the listed police officers continued his service in the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs in senior positions, and Kozhanov received the rank of lieutenant colonel.

The money fraudulently received from me by the police and Plekhanov has not been returned to me to date. The tapes they promised with recordings of conversations of those who ordered the attempt on my life were not presented.

On March 1, 1995, the murder of ORT director V. Listyev was committed. As far as I know, two hours after the incident, the headquarters for solving the crime received a fax, from which it followed that I was considered the main suspect.

On March 3, 1995, the head of the 6th department of the RUOP of the city of Moscow, Valery Valentinovich Kazakov (work phone: 237-03-14), arrived at the Reception House of LogoVAZ JSC, accompanied by machine gunners and a group of NTV television crews to conduct a search and bring me to interrogation with the investigator in the Listyev murder case.

One of the investigators said that “We will put Berezovsky in jail anyway” when his “Kremlin roof” comes off. At the same time, I would like to note that they tried to take me for interrogation to the 6th District Department of Internal Affairs of Moscow, one of the leaders of which was S.L. Kozhanov. Suspecting possible provocation in the actions of the employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation and the fact that I had previously written a statement against them to the FSB of Russia, I turned to the officers of the FSB of Russia, who had previously participated in documenting the illegal activities of the mentioned policemen (Gusak, Litvinenko), with a request to protect me as an applicant. This is what they did with the sanction of management.

I also know that on the day of the attempt on my life, after the explosion, Ziberev held a meeting where he stated that I had allegedly been removed from business at LogoVAZ. One of the witnesses, a participant in the said meeting, was Gaft M.G., who died tragically in 1995.

Taking into account the above, as well as publications and statements in the media that employees of the FSB of Russia, who refused to carry out the illegal order of their leadership to physically eliminate me, previously protected me for money (which is slander), and the fact that some of them are currently dismissed from service, I ask for your instructions:

1. Give me an official response to my statement regarding the fraudulent receipt of 100 thousand US dollars from me by the above-mentioned police officers in February 1995.

2. Conduct an official investigation into the fact of slanderous statements against the Russian FSB officers who protected me as an applicant with the sanction of management in March 1995, in particular the statement that they were my bodyguards and received money from me for this.

Sincerely, Corresponding Member of the RAS Berezovsky B.A.
" " December 1998.

ALL PHOTOS

In addition, Gusak said that one of the agents, who was betrayed by ex-officer Litvinenko, came to him with a proposal to “finish off” his curator. Litvinenko himself is described by his former boss as a “typical traitor”
NTV

Gusak was Litvinenko’s boss in the FSB’s Organized Crime Department. He left the service in 1998, the same year Litvinenko claimed to have uncovered an FSB plot to kill billionaire oligarch Boris Berezovsky.

Alexander Litvinenko's former FSB chief Alexander Gusak gave a sensational interview to the British BBC television channel, in which he stated that plans to kill businessman Boris Berezovsky were indeed discussed, but it was “around the bush” and “not serious.”

In addition, Gusak said that one of the Russian agents in Britain, whose name was allegedly given to British counterintelligence by Litvinenko, came to him with a proposal to kill the former FSB officer and his curator. Litvinenko himself is described by his former boss as a “typical traitor.”

Gusak was the head of the 7th department of the department for the development of criminal organizations of the FSB of Russia. He left the service in 1998, the same year Litvinenko said he had uncovered an FSB plot to kill billionaire oligarch Boris Berezovsky.

Who was nothing...

Let us note that charges of treason were not previously brought against Litvinenko in the Russian Federation. Moreover, Russian officials have repeatedly emphasized Litvinenko's ignorance of the secrets of the FSB and the Russian intelligence services in general, and also pointed to his dubious personal qualities.

In particular, at a recent press conference in the Kremlin, President Putin, speaking about Litvinenko, noted that “he did not have any secrets, he was prosecuted in the Russian Federation for abuse of office and beating citizens during arrest, when he was a security officer, and also for theft of explosives."

“He was given only three years of probation, and there was no need for him to run away anywhere. He was not the bearer of any secrets at all. Everything he could say negatively regarding his service, he had already said, and there could no longer be any novelty in his actions “The investigation must answer what happened there,” the president added.

In December, Russian Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said that Alexander Litvinenko “never knew anything that was of any value to (foreign intelligence) services.” According to Ivanov, when Litvinenko was fired, he knew that he had been accused of breaking the law more than once. "For us, Litvinenko was nothing," Ivanov said.

WHO IS THE FSB IN RUSSIA?
AND WHAT ARE THEY, STATE DUMA DEPUTIES?

Alexander Gusak, retired FSB lieutenant colonel,
boss of Alexander Litvinenko while serving in the FSB.

WHO ARE THEY
THOSE WHO STAND "GUARDIAN THE PEOPLE AND RUSSIA"?

(Telephone interview).
"Echo of Moscow".

A. NORKIN: Please tell me, when this unnamed agent, if you believe the correct presentation of the text of your interview, suggested you kill Litvinenko, what did you answer to this man?

A. GUSAK: Well, what was the point? Let's say this.

A. NORKIN: Well, you think that according to Soviet laws, Litvinenko deserved the death penalty. Right?

A. GUSAK: Well, actually, yes.

A. NORKIN: And you know, Alexander Ivanovich, I also have another question. In one of his books, Litvinenko writes that you suggested that he kill Trepashkin, Mikhail Trepashkin, who is now in prison on charges of disclosing state secrets.

A. GUSAK: Yes, I remember, I remember.

http://www.echo.msk.ru/programs/razvorot/4 9480/#element-text

Gusak said that after Alexander Litvinenko fled to England, secret FSB agents came to him, who feared that their names had become known to the intelligence services thanks to Litvinenko. According to Husak, at least one of these people suggested that he remove the “traitor.”

Gusak even remembered the form in which this proposal was made. “Listen, he (Litvinenko - Gazeta.Ru) did so much bad to you. Do you want me to bring you his head?” said the unnamed security officer.

. . .

Gusak's admission to the BBC is inconsistent with recent comments by Russian President Vladimir Putin on the same issue. Let us recall that at a recent press conference in the Kremlin, the Russian leader was asked about the Litvinenko case. Putin responded that “Litvinenko did not have any secrets; he was prosecuted in Russia for abuse of office and beating citizens during arrest when he was a security officer, as well as for theft of explosives.”

“He was given only three years of probation, and there was no need for him to run away anywhere. He was not the bearer of any secrets at all,” the Russian president said then.

The remarks made by Gusak strengthen the theory that people associated with the secret services or former FSB employees were involved in the murder of Litvinenko, acting not on orders from above, but for reasons of revenge or personal gain. This version is not rejected even by Scotland Yard.

http://www.gazeta.ru/politics/polonium/1 343704.shtml

Abeltsev Sergey Nikolaevich.

(born May 6, 1961, Lyubertsy, Moscow region) is a Russian politician. Deputy of the State Duma of Russia of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th convocations, member of the Supreme Council of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR), “Minister of Security” of the shadow cabinet of the LDPR. Doctor of Law (2001). He gained fame for a number of extravagant, including obscene, statements.

2008 - accused of organizing an attack on human rights activists L. Alekseeva and L. Ponomarev

After the arrest in Switzerland of the former head of the Ministry of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation, Yevgeny Adamov, whose extradition was sought by the United States, Abeltsev in May 2005 demanded that the State Duma give a parliamentary instruction to the special services to destroy Adamov so that he could not give state secrets to the Americans

Known for: extortion, raiding, illegal possession of weapons, threats to the life and health of people, as well as a fight at a meeting of the State Duma. As a deputy himself, in addition to the massacre, Mr. Abeltsev was remembered by Russians for a number of legislative initiatives, in particular, proposals:
- expel all European Union commissions from Russia,
— give the special services a parliamentary order to kill the former Minister of Nuclear Energy Yevgeny Adamov; and also
- destroy migratory birds by the country's air defense forces.
It was also good to propose that the participants in the “March of Dissent” be hunted down with mad dogs...

Words from a State Duma deputy:

About the participants in the “dissent marches”
" Some three or four hundred people come out and begin to dictate to the whole of Russia, damn... After all, Moscow is full of mad dogs. I propose to catch these mad dogs, b..., and release them on this crowd, b..." .

"We were brought up incorrectly in the USSR. We were taught to die for our Motherland. But I believe that you need to kill for your Motherland!”

words of the deputy from this video (film at the bottom of the post):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla yer_embedded&v=BwayUTawEok#!

Abeltsev is listed in the “Presidential Reserve”.

Awards:

Medal of the Order of Merit for the Fatherland, II degree
Medal “For Strengthening the Military Commonwealth” (Ministry of Defense);
Medal "For Distinction in Military Service" (Ministry of Defense) (I, II, III degrees);
Medal “For Distinction in Service” (FSIN) (I, II degrees);
Medal "For Military Valor" (Ministry of Defense) (I, II degrees);
Medal “For strengthening the penal system” (I, II degrees);
Medal “For Diligence” (Ministry of Justice of Russia) (I, II degrees);
Badge of honor “For merits in the development of parliamentarism.”

Winner of the Kremlin Grand Prize in the nomination “Deputy of the Year” (2007). photo of a guy with a beard. This shows that they didn't know a damn thing because they were rushing here and there. This is hitting the tails. If only this guy had written on his turban that he was a martyr... This is all a serious omission in the work.

- Is this an isolated miscalculation or a systemic flaw?

Our country is actually at war. Our main focus is on Syria. We have about 30% of the population that belongs to this religion - Islam. We know that thousands of our compatriots are fighting there [in Syria]. Many people come here. When a country is at war, intelligence agencies should not sleep. It is necessary to respond to every signal - no matter whether the information is confirmed or not. It’s okay: when large-scale hostilities took place in Chechnya, preventive strikes were carried out in Moscow and other regions. There was a suspicious address - go ahead! Thus, terrorist attacks were prevented. There was no time to thoroughly study the situation then.

Here [before the terrorist attack in St. Petersburg] there were no preventive measures. If you know, then you still need to make some efforts to protect public safety - and in general along all lines. And here it’s like in a swamp. They show us pictures: these are the types of planes we have, how we fight, what kind of guard we have. And the struggle must be on an invisible front. A big reproach to the operatives.

There's a problem with the operatives. Many guys are quite smart, there are even romantics among them, but they go into purely law enforcement units. They simply slap their hands and are not allowed to work. And I can imagine what kind of operational unit this is, where they work only on orders. The initiative to stop it is being cut down, the leaders are afraid of misfires. But you must admit that it is better to try to stop and make a mistake than something like this.

Russian President Vladimir Putin at the scene of the tragedy Photo: Global Look Press

- According to preliminary data, the perpetrator of the terrorist attack was a native of Kyrgyzstan. A resident of Kazakhstan also came under suspicion. Do you agree with the statement that Central Asia is a breeding ground for terrorism?

- Not only Central Asia, but also the North Caucasus is shrouded in this. Radical Islamist movements have seriously permeated society. You can’t talk like that only about Central Asia. We have many people whose relatives are fighting.

- Why do these people fall under the influence of radical ideas?

This means that not everything is normal in our fatherland, in our kingdom. People commit such crimes because of dissatisfaction with what is happening in the country. Islamists also use propaganda; they promote life according to special canons. And people compare life there and here, where there is a gap between social strata. You see, terrorism is a combination of everything negative. The man went and blew it up, but it’s difficult to single out one motivating reason. The main thing is socio-economic phenomena that do not satisfy the majority of society. This is where it all comes from.

- What is the purpose of the terrorist attack in the St. Petersburg metro?

- The goals of terrorism are to intimidate, take revenge, and make oneself known. Remember what happened in Minsk. What was the purpose there? It’s just that a couple of idiots wanted to see what would happen to people.

- Is there a direct connection with Syria? Is this for Syria?

- There is a direct connection here. It's mostly because of what we do to their people there. After all, thousands of Russian citizens are fighting there.

- Do you think the heads of the special services who missed the terrorist attack should be punished?

We need to check. There is an operational structure that is responsible for transport safety: this is the FSB transport department for St. Petersburg and the Leningrad region, and the linear subdivision of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the metro, and the metro management. It is necessary to check all the structures that monitor order and draw conclusions. Questions should also be raised before the governor and the mayor, who have overall responsibility for maintaining law and order. Of course, there must be organizational conclusions. Verification is verification, but the very fact of the terrorist attack shows at what level the work was carried out.

- We talk vaguely about “organizational conclusions”. Should they be fired or what?

- It’s not easy to fire. There is an article in the Criminal Code about criminal negligence. If there are such things, then they must be held accountable, because they [violations] led to grave consequences. If I knew the names, I would name them.

Interesting article?