On Wednesday, 5 August the Moscow District Military Court resumed examination of the case against those suspected of involvement in Anna Politkovskaya’s murder. The accused (the brothers Makhmudov, former police detective Khadjikurbanov and FSB officer Ryaguzov) face a second trial because the Military Board of the Supreme Court agreed with the arguments of the Prosecutor General's office and on 25 June annulled the verdict of not guilty reached by the jury in February this year.

The injured party, Anna’s daughter and son Vera and Ilya, and their lawyers Karinna Moskalenko and Anna Stavitskaya admitted that they had a feeling of déjà vu when, once again, they found themselves sitting in the same seats in the same courtroom on Arbat in the centre of Moscow. The feeling would have been complete were it not for some changes in personnel and other details. One, there is a different judge. Colonel Nikolai Tkachuk, who is well known for his part in the notorious trial of rights activist, defence attorney and former KGB officer Mikhail Trepashkin, has replaced Judge Yevgeny Zubov. Two, the State is represented by different prosecutors. Three, only one of the four accused was in the dock: former organised crime squad detective Sergei Khadjikurbanov is currently in custody accused of committing another crime. Four, lawyers Chernikov and Litvin, defence attorneys respectively for Ryaguzov and Khadjikurbanov, have withdrawn from the case.

Wednesday was intended to be no more than a preliminary hearing to which journalists are not usually admitted, even in civil cases. Judge Tkachuk, however, decided to open the proceedings to the press. He also allowed in TV cameras and photographers, and they were crowded into the jury box. FSB Lieutenant-Colonel Ryaguzov and Khadjikurbanov were evidently unsettled by the numerous microphones and flashing cameras and showed their anger.

A procedural hearing became heated when representatives for Anna Politkovskaya’s children petitioned for the criminal case to be returned to the prosecutor’s office in order to remove certain shortcomings. In plain language, further investigation was required. Their arguments were as follows: that the case has not been solved; a number of scenarios have not been investigated; there were significant gaps in the charges, which could not be made good during the judicial hearings; and the killer was not in the dock, not to speak of the person who ordered the killing and others involved in the murder.

Judge Tkachuk clearly did not like such suggestions. He constantly interrupted Moskalenko and Stavitskaya and hinted to Vera and Ilya Politkovsky that if they decided not to attend the trial they would be forced to come by the police. One can only advise the presiding judge to read the law carefully and not confuse it with the rules governing army barracks and sentry duty.

Unexpectedly the petition of the injured party was supported by the prosecution. The prosecutors consider that further investigation is needed so that the main case concerning the killer and the person who ordered the killing can be linked to that which has already come before the court.

The lawyers for the accused made the same request. Khadjikurbanov and his defence attorney, for instance, consider that a third case should be added. This concerns the charge that he extorted money from former police surveillance officer Pavlyuchenkov and is the reason Khadjikurbanov is now in custody. Pavlyuchenkov was one of the main witnesses at the Politkovskaya trial.

Having listened to the parties, Judge Tkachuk preferred to continue the hearing on Friday, 7 August. Either he was in a hurry to go somewhere else, or else he was not ready to reach a decision. In any case, all now depends on him: all the remaining participants in the coming trial were in agreement – something that is rare for any court. Having conducted our own journalistic investigation, as colleagues of Anna Politkovskaya, we also consider that the only way to make real progress in tracking down the killers is for the official investigation to be extended.

Since the first trial began, a year ago, the investigators of the Investigative Committee could probably have got considerably further with their inquiries. Perhaps they would now even be ready to combine the cases in one. In any event, it seems more than a little strange to come before a new jury with arguments and evidence that have already been repeatedly discussed in public and failed to convince the previous jury.

If the court nevertheless decides to bring exactly the same charges a second time then it will be clear that those orchestrating this performance are less concerned to establish the full truth than to force through a guilty verdict at any price and then pretend that Anna’s murder has been solved.