During the interrogation of a witness in the so-called case of Dzhemilev, significant contradictions emerged – Polozov

September 17, 2020

On Thursday, September 17, in the so-called City Court of Armyansk of the occupied Crimea, a so-called trial was held on the case against the leader of the Crimean Tatar people Mustafa Dzhemilev, during which the prosecution witness was questioned. During the interrogation, significant contradictions emerged. Lawyer Nikolay Polozov reported about it via his Facebook page.

Witness Yakub Suleymanov Yakub said that he personally does not know Mustafa Dzhemilev, saw him on TV and did not remember whether he saw him that day. Although in the testimony given earlier (during the preliminary investigation) the witness claimed that he had seen Mustafa Dzhemilev from afar.

“During the interrogation of the witness, significant contradictions emerged, in connection with which the defense filed a motion to read out the testimony previously given by the witness in order to eliminate the contradictions. This motion was granted by the court and the court read out the testimony of the witness given by him during the inquiry in December 2014”,- the message said.

It is noted that after the events, security officials came to the witness's home and gave them explanations, and once again he was summoned to the institution where he gave evidence.

“The witness explained that some of the wording that was reflected in the interrogation protocol was not announced to them. In particular, he testified that he knew nothing about the Armyansk checkpoint and believed that somewhere in the area where he was from a large number of people, there is a checkpoint “Chonhar”, the witness also testified that he never spoke about the traffic police post “Turetsky Val” and does not know what it is, how these words appeared in the protocol he does not know. Interrogation of the witness also uncovered that he does not know, whether the people broke through the line of the military”,- the lawyer added.

Polozov stressed that this fact indicates at least the poor-quality work of the inquiry, and, possibly, an intentional forgery during the preliminary investigation.