WEEK TWO

Thursday, 27 November

10.30 am TV journalists and photographers have got in the habit of trying to take over the courtroom an hour before the hearing is due to begin. This greatly upsets the guards but on Thursday they had an Alsatian with them. The dog inhibited the journalists a little but then stretched out on the floor and sadly observed the proceedings, making no attempt to halt the “strictly forbidden” filming and photography.

The parents of two of the accused, the brothers Makhmudov, also come an hour before the hearing. A little later today they were joined by Tamerlan, another of their sons. (At first he also was detained as an accomplice but charges against him were dropped and he was released.) The parents had a copy of Novaya gazeta and talked quietly to one another. On Wednesday when the prosecutor read out the results of the forensic investigations (“the first shot was to the temple and then, as the victim began to fall, her attacker shot her two more times, and then twice again”) the father of the Makhmudovs slowly shook his head.

12.30 pm The hearing was late to begin. The official explanation was that the prison vehicle transporting the accused was involved in a traffic accident. Journalists for news agencies and newspapers were allowed in; those taking pictures were promised admission “next time”. Journalists from Reuters and Echo Moskvy could not gain entrance.

12.40 pm The prosecution began to cross-examine Anna’s children Vera and Ilya Politkovsky. The questions mainly concerned 7 October 2006, the day of Anna Politkovskaya’s death. How often and when had they phoned their mother? Why had she regularly driven along that route recently? Why did she go to the Ramstor supermarket on the Frunzenskaya embankment? The route was indeed regular. Having just buried her father, Anna was dividing her time between her mother in hospital and her pregnant daughter Vera.

Particular attention was paid to the threats Anna received. In his reply Ilya said that for a period of five years his mother was constantly threatened because of her newspaper articles. Vera recalled that roughly a week before her death Anna Politkovskaya said that she kept seeing unfamiliar and suspicious men in the entrance to her stairwell. (It later became clear that Anna had come face to face with her future killer several times.) “She was most concerned, however, that I should be more careful,” said Vera. Two weeks before 7 October 2006 the entry phone for stairwell No 2a stopped working. It was repaired but several days later it was broken again. (According to the investigators the killer entered the lobby using a very simple technique: a piece of plasticine was taped to the door so that the coded lock would not work.)

“Tell me,” Judge Zubov asked Anna Politkovskaya’s children. “I read her articles. Several of them, in my view, should have led to the instigation of criminal investigations. Was there such a reaction to her articles?”

Ilya and Vera answered in the affirmative.

Unfortunately, it is true to say that the reaction was often belated. The criminal cases that Anna Politkovskaya forced the authorities to open are still being investigated.

13.20 pm Interval

13.50 pm The press filled the corridor, not immediately noticing that they were in Judge Zubov’s way.

“Why are you sitting out here? What are we waiting for?” the judge asked, putting on an expression of amazement. The journalists rushed towards the courtroom and the guards did not obstruct them. As a result, they were there before the accused, the Politkovskaya family, the jury and the judge himself. It was the first time that happened during this trial.

Soon the accused were led in, followed by their attorneys.

2.15 pm The hearing continued. Musayev told the court that the accused had eaten almost nothing the whole day and were only sleeping 3-4 hours. The request for humane treatment was supported by Karinna Moskalenko, attorney for the Politkovskaya family. The judge promised to look into the matter.

The State prosecutors Julia Safina and Vera Pashkovskaya showed the jury a sequence of video recordings, shot by shot. These were taken between 3 and 7 October 2006 by CCTV cameras over the stairwell entrances to the building where Anna Politkovskaya had her apartment (8/12 Lesnaya Street) and the VTB24 bank next door. One and the same man, wearing a baseball cap and trainers with a white trim, could be seen entering the door to Anna’s stairwell four times and the car he arrived in was parked each time in the same place, opposite the bank.

On 7 October the presumed killer (“the man in the baseball cap”) entered stairwell 2a at 4.01 pm. Ten minutes later Anna Politkovskaya also entered the door. At 4.12 pm the suspect came out, said the prosecutor, and “rapidly departed”. According to the evidence presented by the prosecution, the killer needed only 27 seconds to fire the five shots that killed the Novaya gazeta columnist. That is quite enough time if when Anna called the lift in which she was murdered it was already waiting on the ground floor.

The judge was uneasy that the prosecution referred to the man shown on the video footage as the killer. “The killer is not present at this trial. So let’s call him ‘the man’ or ‘the unidentified man’,” Zubov advised.

3.50 pm Judge Zubov adjourned the trial until Monday, 1 December.

Questions that demand an answer

The investigation into the killing of Anna Politkovskaya is not complete. The main part of the case, concerning the killer and the person who hired him, are being treated as a separate investigation. Novaya gazeta insists that issues not addressed, for a number of reasons, during the first investigation must be examined as part of the second case.

In order to respect the law and not influence the proceedings we shall formulate these questions only after the circumstances with which they are connected have been mentioned in open court.

Vera and Ilya Politkovsky testified that for the last five years their mother faced constant threats. This is true and yet not one of those instances was properly investigated.

In October 2001 a threat to kill Anna Politkovskaya was sent by S. Lapin (“Cadet”), a policeman who had served in Chechnya, in an e-mail to the Novaya gazeta address. Anna was given official bodyguards under the witness protection programme. However, Lapin, an officer with the Khanty-Mansiisk region police, accused by Anna of serious crimes, remained at liberty until 2005. His police accomplices from the same region, Minin and Prilepin, have still not been charged. Officially, the case against them was halted in 2006 because they could not be found. As far as Novaya gazeta is aware, when warrants for their arrest had already been issued Prilepin and Minin continued to live at their home addresses until 2007 (and Minin even kept the same job). The investigators checked on their possible involvement in the murder of Anna Politkovskaya and concluded they were not involved.

We would like to know: have those in the police and the prosecutor’s office, who shielded Minin and Prilepin when there were warrants for their arrest, themselves been punished?

In February 2001 Anna Politkovskaya was seized by soldiers of the 45th regiment near the village of Khatuni in Chechnya. They taunted and mistreated her and then threatened to shoot her.

Who ordered that the journalist be seized? Who threatened to shoot her? Who has been punished for these acts and what was their punishment?

In September 2004 Anna was poisoned on the plane to Rostov-on-Don, on her way to help the hostages in Beslan. She had already reached agreement with the separatist Chechen leader Aslan Maskhadov who expressed his readiness to enter the seized school and negotiate with the terrorists. Anna Politkovskaya was taken to the Rostov hospital in a very serious condition. It is known that two people, who told airport officials they were from the security services, got on the plane at the last minute. They were not entered on the passenger list. The first blood samples taken from Anna in the first aid room at Rostov airport were dropped and broken, in strange circumstances; the second samples were destroyed. The transport police conducted a preliminary inquiry and decided there were no grounds for opening a criminal investigation.

What actually happened on the plane? Does it not have a connection with the tragic events of 7 October 2006?

These are just the three, main incidents. There were a great many others. Strange individuals were seen in the courtyard of Anna’s apartment building. She was openly followed. An attempt was made to force Anna’s car into the oncoming lane of traffic. She received threats by telephone and from Russian Nazis on fascist websites. These were regular occurrences and we submitted official complaints about them but are still waiting for a reply. The lack of a coherent reaction from the law enforcement agencies has led to impunity for the murderers.

In court the prosecution told the jury how the murder was committed. For several days Anna was closely followed. Three times the killing was rehearsed: the man in the baseball cap entered the stairwell a few minutes before Anna Politkovskaya arrived; he got out of a car that was always parked in the same place. Evidently, the car is crucial. If it had not been found there would have been no incriminating evidence.

So who gave the media a full description (license plate, colour, the roof-rack and missing windscreen wiper) and even the details released confidentially for its identification before the car was found in a repair shop?