On the morning of March 9, 2021, Jalalutdin Sungurov, having had breakfast with his family at his home in the suburban village of Makhachkala “Karaman-2”, went to refuel his car. Sungurov, 59, was involved in transporting construction materials from neighboring republics to Dagestan and owned several stores. That day he had to deliver a truckload of bricks to Derbent, says his wife Umuzhat Sungurova.
Going out into the yard to see her husband off, Umuzhat noticed that a white Priora, which she had already noticed more than once near the house, was following his car. She decided to warn Jalalutdin, but he did not answer the phone. And ten minutes later I learned from a phone call that an attempt had been made on his life at a nearby gas station.
Umuzhat rushed there and saw the bloody body of her husband at the gas station. The killer stabbed him eight times in the head and torso and fled, leaving the blade stuck in his buttocks.
The widow says that at first she did not attach any importance to the fact that the same Priora was appearing near their house, but then she realized that the driver was the brother of the man for whose murder Jalalutdin was tried. But the jury acquitted him. Umuzhat warned her husband, who, according to her, noticed the surveillance himself, but did not want to contact the police, saying that “if it’s meant to be, he will die.”
The first jury. “We were upset that we were not allowed to listen”
Three years before the death of Jalalutdin Sungurov, he was accused of murdering Valimagomed Abdurakhmanov from Kizilyurt. According to investigators, Sungurov shot him in August 2013, when Abdurakhmanov and his friends came to collect a debt.
The accused said that he was defending himself. Sungurov said that the deceased was engaged in the resale of cars, and he gave him a deposit for a truck, which he was supposed to buy in Brest and drive to Dagestan. Having not received the car on time, Sungurov wrote a statement to the police. According to him, on that fateful night Abdurakhmanov came to him to extort money as compensation for problems with the police because of this statement. Defending himself, he took out a Saiga-MK self-loading carbine - as a result, Abdurakhmanov died, two of his friends were slightly wounded, and the rest fled.
Jalalutdin Sungurov was charged with murder by a generally dangerous method, attempted murder of two or more people, causing minor harm to health, damage to property (cars in which the murdered man arrived with friends), as well as illegal acquisition and storage of ammunition (the carbine itself was purchased legally) . He was sent to a pre-trial detention center.
When the case came to trial, Sungurov asked to be tried by a jury. The selection of the panel in the Supreme Court of Dagestan, located in Makhachkala, began in July 2014, and candidates for the jury were invited from all over the republic.
“It’s better not to write about this, it’s better to write about another topic, otherwise they’ll take it, and…” advises Nusret Radjabov, an employee of the central hospital of the Rutul district. He was eventually chosen to participate in the trial.
“We were of different ages, different professions. There weren’t even people who knew each other there,” recalls Radjabov of the selection process, which, according to him, initially included about forty people, but then they began to remove those with a “stained biography”: “they had connections with law enforcement agencies.” The selected panel - twelve main jurors and four alternates - included only one person who already had experience as a juror.
Members of the board were forbidden to talk to all participants in the process, both from the prosecution and from the defense, recalls Radzhabov: “No one greeted us. They immediately told us not to greet anyone either.” He says that he came to each meeting from his remote area (about 150 km from Makhachkala), missing work, but there were no problems with this: “This is fulfilling a duty, who would go against the Supreme Court?”
“In our college, everyone was adults. I was the youngest, I remember that,” adds another juror, who asks that her name not be used (“after all, I’m a government employee”).
Juror Khanum Isaeva, who at that time was the director of a school in the village of Sergokala, 60 km from Makhachkala, recalls that before the selection she did not know what case she was called to participate in: “It was only there that I found out that there would be such a trial, who [the defendant ] what happened. It seems like this was a high-profile case, but I’m not particularly involved in the media... I don’t have time to read these newspapers.”
According to Isaeva, the process was “very difficult,” and for the hearing to take place, several factors had to come together: the lawyer and the prosecutor were not busy with other processes, all the jurors could come to Makhachkala, and a suitable courtroom was free. “Sometimes they [met] once a week, sometimes once every two weeks. It wasn’t easy... If it had been easy, it wouldn’t have lasted six months,” she recalls.
“We sat about ten times,” explains another juror, Gusein Varisov, an urban planning specialist from the administration of the Charodinsky district (more than a hundred kilometers from Makhachkala).
Each hearing lasted about three to four hours, says Nusret Radzhabov, and “the most interesting thing” was closer to the end of the judicial investigation: “The last trials were interesting, but the rest were so... They brought interesting witnesses at the end.”
He believes jurors were asked to leave the courtroom "too often" - usually to prevent them from hearing discussions about procedural issues. According to Radjabov, the board was unhappy with this: “Usually, when [witnesses] testified, they took us into the room. They immediately told us: “Please get up and go to your room.” We were even upset that we were not allowed to listen.”
Secular laws did not defeat ancient customs
“My brother Isa was killed, not just killed, but mocked. They tied me to a tree and beat me. Then they shot him,” Adam covers his face with his hand. In the Caucasus, men are not allowed to cry. After a pause, Adam adds: “Every day I see myself killing my brother’s murderer.” How I also mock him. I had to take away his family’s most valuable asset, just as he took it away from us.”
Related article According to the law of the mountains, or Why brides continue to be stolen in the Caucasus The killer of brother Adam was sentenced to 10 years. “While he was in prison, his entire family left the village somewhere in Russia. The first to leave were my father and brothers, everyone. Then mom with his wife and little sister. There’s blood on his hands, so I’ll still find him and get my revenge,” Adam continues.
The custom of blood feud among the Caucasian peoples originated even before Islam arrived there. And, according to Caucasians, it was a deterrent to committing a crime. If someone in the village killed someone, the only way for the killer to stay alive was to escape. As a rule, all the relatives of the criminal left the village. For, according to the laws of revenge, not only relatives of the murderers - brother, son, grandson - are responsible for the bloodline, but also other male relatives: uncles, cousins. Blood feud has no statute of limitations. It can overtake the offender or his family in 100–200 years. Therefore, as Caucasians say, it is better to deal with the bloodline quickly, so that descendants do not do this.
After the Caucasus became part of Russia, many ancient customs of peoples began to be persecuted by secular laws. Therefore, cases of blood feud among Kabardians, Ossetians, Balkars, Karachais and the peoples inhabiting Dagestan have practically disappeared. However, in Chechnya and Ingushetia, secular laws failed to defeat the blood custom.
Article on the topic
Irene Bulatova: Don’t believe in “national traditions”!
“Unfortunately, murders do happen here. Someone will fight, and someone will be hit by a car (this is also a premeditated murder). So the number of bloodlines is growing,” says Ismail . Ismail also once had a bloodline. “The eldest brother, Zelimkhan, was shot by a militant (Zelimkhan was a policeman - editor's note). A car drove up to his house, he went out to see who had arrived, and they killed him. Then, during a special operation, the militant surrendered to the authorities. He served time in prison and was released. I was waiting for him, planning revenge. Then I found out that this militant was going somewhere in a car. I set up the accident. But there was another guy in the car - the brother of the militant. I not only took revenge, but also killed an innocent person. I was the blood enemy of this family. I was forgiven when a shrine was brought to the republic, a hair from the Prophet’s beard. This is a great event, it unites. We must forgive,” continues Ismail.
The first excuse. "Everyone would do the same"
“To be honest, I don’t even remember the charge, but I remember the defense very well,” says the civil servant juror. “I remember well that the lawyer was professional. I laid everything out on the shelves, in detail, literally, right down to millimeters and centimeters. I’m telling you my impression.” The defendant was defended by lawyer Mirzakhan Hasanov, and the state prosecution was represented by prosecutor Sultan Aliyev.
According to juror Radzhabov, the defense lawyer “justified Sungurov with the facts”: “He was a very competent lawyer. From the side of the investigation, not everything was proven, but the lawyer clearly proved everything. It was impossible to say anything against it. We were unanimous." Juror Isaeva notes that the prosecution “stood very firmly” and for this “must be given credit,” but the defendant’s lawyer “justified his every gesture.”
One of the witnesses in court said that he wanted to reconcile Sungurov with the murdered man, but could not, Radzhabov recalls: “He said that he could not convince Valimagomed [Abdurakhmanov] not to act outrageously.”
“They ran into [the defendant]. I remember that he defended himself at home,” adds Isaeva. - If a man, for example, even my husband, my son, my father, cannot protect me in my house, why do I need them?! When people came at gunpoint, what should he have done?
The civil servant argues more cautiously: “Maybe the person is even guilty, but the question there was: “Has guilt been properly proven?” We weren't given enough evidence." According to her recollections, there were no disagreements about the verdict among the jury.
“If there was no evidence [of innocence], we wouldn’t vote like that. The man defended his home! That’s what I remember,” agrees juror Varisov. “Everyone, if put in his place, would do the same.”
In December 2014, the board unanimously returned a verdict of not guilty, recognizing that Jalalutdin Sungurov was not guilty of either murder or attempted murder.
“Rat, you got out of it! I'll stab you!" — with these words, according to the recollections of Sungurov’s daughter, the jury’s decision was greeted by the murdered brother’s brother Magomed Abdurakhmanov. And he ran his finger across his throat.
Juror Isaeva recalls that her brother was present at the hearings and “took this situation very hard”: “At some point, when the verdict was read, there was such an ugly phrase... we women were even a little offended. In any case, we understood the emotional sides. Any of us will put ourselves in his place... to justify the murder... whoever enjoys it.” Her colleague Radjabov, on the contrary, remembered his brother as “peaceful”: “He sat and didn’t say anything.”
The only charge on which the jury found Sungurov guilty was illegal possession of cartridges for a registered carbine. For this, the judge who presided over the trial, Zakir Israfilov, sentenced him to one year in prison. The Supreme Court of Russia confirmed this decision.
Sungurov ended up in prison for some time—at the time of his sentencing, he had an unfulfilled suspended sentence—and was released on parole in August 2015. He had a little more than six months to live.
Information about “blood feud”
“Blood feud is a custom that requires mandatory retribution for killing or injuring a person. Blood feud was one of the most effective means of social regulation and protection of an individual or group in societies where state power was absent or weakly manifested. Most often, blood feud is carried out by the victim’s closest relatives in the form of murder or similar bodily harm (“blood for blood”).
Avoidance of blood feud was considered the greatest disgrace, and adherence to it was considered the greatest valor. Often relatives, without avenging the death of a person, could not enter into inheritance rights. Usually blood feud was carried out openly, the act of revenge was made public. At the same time, the principle of transferring the guilt of an individual onto his relatives, while the principle of equivalence of retribution was not developed, often turned blood feud into long-term bloody feuds between related groups or even tribes, sometimes ending in their complete extermination. A classic example of blood feud is the Corsican vendetta.
In the conditions of state formation, with the codification of customary law, blood feud was most often legitimized, but measures were taken to streamline it. Thus, the principle of equal retribution was established (talion law), the objects of retribution were limited to the direct perpetrators of crimes, the terms of revenge were limited and its forms were regulated, a system of material ransoms-compositions replacing physical violence was introduced, etc. Compositions, as well as other methods of replacing real revenge, are known and in traditional normative systems - all kinds of honor duels, customs of symbolic death (the guilty ritually dedicates himself to the murdered person, “entrusts him with his life”, the relatives of the deceased forgive the guilt in exchange for fulfilling a set of various obligations towards them - for example, Slavic obediences), etc. d.
In developed state systems, blood feud is usually punished by law, but sometimes modified traditions of blood feud take root, and in the criminal environment they continue to exist even in the conditions of modern industrial cultures (for example, the introduction of traditions of Sicilian blood feud into mafia organizations in the USA, etc.)”[1 ].
Second trial. Dissolution of the board
“Dad was afraid that they might take revenge on him,” the daughter of the murdered man, Zumrud Sungurova, told the court. According to the girl, her father was so afraid for the family members that he drove her to and from school and did not allow her to go near the windows in the house. Sungurov’s son Murad added that during his father’s trial he also received threats from Magomed Abdurakhmanov - he is the eldest son, so the blood feud could have extended to him.
Umuzhat Sungurova says that after her husband was released from prison, the district police officer was interested in him from time to time. The last time he called Jalalutdin was the day before the murder, his wife recalls, and he joked that he now had “personal security” - that “Prior” that constantly drove up to the house. But he didn’t want to officially contact the police, adds Umujat.
The widow recalls that after the death of her husband, she received proposals for reconciliation from Abdurakhmanov’s relatives, but she did not agree: “Through mutual friends they asked me to reconcile with them and forgive them, and also offered me money for this, but I refused them and said: “Let everything be according to the law.”
The murder at the gas station was witnessed by its employees and drivers. They told the police the number of the car in which the attacker arrived - the car was registered to Abdurakhman Abdurakhmanov, the elder brother of the late Valimagomed. In the same area, telephone connections were recorded using a number that, judging by the first testimony of his relatives, was used by his middle brother Magomed Abdurakhmanov.
He was wanted for four months, until in July 2021 he came to the police department himself - but refused to give evidence that day and pleaded not guilty. Moreover, the case file contains a video recording made the day after Abdurakhmanov’s surrender, in which he admits to the murder - and says that he came to the police with the intention of confessing everything, but the lawyer, who was already waiting for him at the department, advised him not to do this. Later, Abdurakhmanov complained to the prosecutor's office about the police officers, who, according to him, forced him to say this text on camera.
Illustration: Maria Tolstova / Mediazona
The investigation came to the conclusion that Magomed Abdurakhmanov decided to avenge his deceased brother - he was charged with murder motivated by blood feud (clause “e.1” of part 2 of article 105 of the Criminal Code). Aburakhmanov did not admit guilt, explaining that he trusted the verdict, so he had no motive for the murder.
When the case reached the Supreme Court of Dagestan, he also asked for a jury trial.
The process began in November 2021. School director Khanum Isaeva, who three years earlier delivered a verdict in the Sungurov case, recalls that she was again called to jury selection. “I realized in this process that this Sungurov had already been killed and the killer was accused. Ironically, I ended up there again. I was almost chosen, but I approached the judge and said: “You will forgive me, but I will not be able to participate in this process, remove me. I can express everything in a biased way.” And they removed me. I cannot participate in this, even purely humanly,” explains Isaeva.
This time, twelve main and four reserve jurors were also selected for the panel. Within a couple of days, Judge Murkhar Kurbanov, who presided over the trial, excluded the jury foreman, Shamil Yarakhmedov, who said that he had suddenly left for treatment outside the republic. “I was there for the first day or two, but due to health conditions I left the team,” Yarakhmedov explained to Mediazona. He was replaced by an alternate juror.
By March 2021, the judge expelled another member of the panel for failure to appear at a meeting. In June, as the trial was nearing completion, prosecutor Vadim Latifov announced that he had received operational information about contacts between the four jurors and the defendant’s relatives.
“The prosecutor said that they received operational information that several jurors were being approached,” recalls a relative of the defendant, Magomedkhabib Abdurazakov, who was in court as a public defender. — The ORM materials are not subject to disclosure, but the judge and defense were familiarized with them. It said it was determined that four jurors had been influenced, but did not provide details." The corresponding letter was signed by the acting Minister of Internal Affairs of Dagestan.
The victim, Umuzhat Sungurova, in turn, stated at the same meeting that a relative of the defendant, with whom she has a good relationship, told her that they “resolved the issue with the jurors, gave them money so that they could make a not guilty verdict.”
The judge interviewed the four jurors mentioned in the document - new foreman Tavzhudin Magomedov, Svetlana Magomedova, Aisat Emirova and Zemfira Gasanalieva. Foreman Magomedov explained to the court that once in the park he crossed paths and “just said hello” to a relative of the defendant.
The others also denied that they had communicated with the relatives of the accused, but Judge Kurbanov chose to exclude them from the panel, considering that they would not be able to be objective when rendering a verdict.
By this time, there were only two spare jurors left on the panel, so after the exclusion of four jurors, it had to be dissolved.
Definition
For people who commit an atrocity out of a desire for revenge, this action is fair retribution for the harm caused to a relative or loved one. If the killer acted sincerely, one should not expect repentance from him. From the point of view of researchers, initially blood feud was personal, then it became tribal. A son could take revenge on his father, or a father on his son, a brother on his brother, or their children. Currently, the custom exists mostly among peoples living in the territory of North Ossetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, and Dagestan.
In order to prevent murders for these reasons, special commissions were created at one time to reconcile the warring parties, but murders for this reason still occur. As a rule, the injured party during reconciliation withdraws all claims against the perpetrator. The prosecutor's office and the court agree to a meeting if the problem is resolved by the warring parties. Law enforcement agencies will not open a criminal case if there was a fight without injuries or with minor wounds with a knife.
If the relatives of the killed or offended person do not want to refuse to use it, they are subject to liability under Article 231 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
“They really hurt the jury.”
Foreman of the jury Tavzhudin Magomedov, in a conversation with Mediazona, repeated that it was a “purely accidental contact” with a relative of the defendant: “It happened when we were crossing the road. I admitted this to the judge. I saw him in the courtroom, but I didn’t know whose relative he was. I saw a familiar face and said hello. I am from Makhachkala myself, I have many friends here. The prosecutor said that he had some filming to do, but you already know, it’s kind of crazy.”
A teacher from the village of Novy Kyakhulai, Svetlana Magomedova, who was also expelled from the board, remained offended by these accusations: “The trial went on and on and suddenly they said: “They called you, they told you something ...” Well, if they didn’t call, if they didn’t say , if you haven't talked to anyone! Here you are, for example, on a jury, and they tell you that the defendant called you, and you stand up and say: “No, they didn’t call me,” and in fact they didn’t call you. It turns out that there is still mistrust of you.”
“This is slander, but the judge did not take this into account, he took us all and disbanded us,” Magomedova insists. She is sure that anyone could have been in the place of the foreman who greeted the relative of the accused: “When you enter the court, you say ‘hello’ to everyone. You're not telling anyone in particular. If he just said hello and didn’t talk, that’s not a reason to disband.”
According to her, after the dissolution, many of her fellow jurors said that they would no longer agree to serve as jurors: “There was a woman there with Ogney, she even stood up, spat and left. She tells this woman [the victim]: “Allah will punish you for your slander.” There were absolutely literate people there to afford this. In short, they greatly offended the jury. Every single one of them was outraged that this was done to them.”
“I didn’t say “it was or wasn’t.” I don’t like these conversations, figure it out for yourself if that’s the case,” says third juror Zemfira Gasanalieva.
“She started crying, which had an emotional impact on the board . Domestic violence and jury trials based on the example of one case in Perm
The last of these four, Aisat Emirova, was also offended by what she considered to be the groundless dissolution of the board. “They even invited me again to another trial, but I said: “I won’t come again.” I don’t need such courts.” Everyone did their job competently. I personally listened and drew conclusions. It was a very complicated case, so it was necessary to approach the investigation very competently,” she explains.
Raibat Babakhanova, who remained on the board until the very end, greeted the news of its dissolution rather with relief: “I feel sorry for this woman [the victim], and I feel sorry for this guy [the accused]. A terrible thing. We all didn't know what to do, how to act. In the end, we were lucky that we were disbanded, and we did not make a final decision. We felt that it seemed to be our fault, but there was no evidence. Although, our group, perhaps, would have made a decision that he was guilty. We thought half and half. A bad thing, of course, a very bad thing.”
Sergeant Major Magomedov admits that in the end he was also glad of his recusal: “It’s stupid to judge someone else’s life; you should keep an eye on your own.” He refuses to discuss the details of the case, explaining that this is a “double-edged sword.”
The prosecutor, lawyer and presiding officer “behaved competently,” recalls juror Svetlana Magomedova, but the witnesses were “somewhat weak” and there was “no real evidence” against the accused. “The matter was unfinished,” she is sure. — We sometimes asked questions, sending them on paper. I did not actively participate because we had cases when the same question interested me and others. Someone was ahead and I had to listen.”
Each of the parties “was literate in its own way,” admits assessor Hasanalieva, and at the time of dissolution the board had not yet had time to draw conclusions: “I wouldn’t say that the board’s sympathies were on someone’s side, we just listened, wrote down, decided , whether such a case is possible or impossible. We didn’t support anyone’s side because there was no concrete material to justify or accuse.”
A removed hood is a sign of forgiveness
Yakub and Limana are preparing for their wedding. Although a year ago their family happiness was in question. The Yakub and Limana families were bloodlines. “35 years ago everything happened, the brothers of our fathers fought. My father’s brother killed Limana’s father’s brother,” says Yakub. “I was told from childhood that we were blood enemies.” “The imam of the mosque reconciled our families. I tried to persuade him for a long time. He quoted what was written in the Koran,” Liman picks up the conversation. “Then the reconciliation itself took place. According to our customs, a former blood relative must support the affected family. On Eid al-Fitr, Yakub and his brother came to us. So we saw each other, then, by agreement, he stole me. Now we are having a wedding,” Limana smiles.
The ceremony of reconciliation between a warring family is a special ritual. Men from the offender's clan gather together and go to the house where the victim's family lives. Men from the victim's clan are waiting for them there. The offender is dressed in a wide cloak with a hood. The blood worker is brought to the victims. One of the relatives of the murdered man removes the hood from the bloodline’s head. Then the head of the affected family, addressing the bloodline, says: “We forgive you. There is no longer a threat from us. We are no longer enemies." Then the former bloodline embraces all the close relatives of his victim present, and at this point the reconciliation is considered completed.
The second excuse. “Everything was indirect”
The Supreme Court of Dagestan formed a new panel in July 2018. It already consisted of eight main and four reserve jurors - while the trials were ongoing, amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code came into force, reducing the number of jurors in the regional, regional and Supreme courts of the republics from 12 to 8 people (at the same time, panels of six jurors appeared in district courts).
The same judge Murkhar Kurbanov presided. On August 20, the foreman of the board, Jalav Bekeyev, told him ,
that one of the jurors did not show up for the trial because someone called him and asked to meet “to talk about this trial.” The court excluded the juror.
Makhachkala resident Aziz Gadzhiagaev, who was selected as an assessor for this trial, recalls that initially the board did not know that other jurors had already considered the case before them. This became known only during the trial. “When they interrogated the witnesses, they said: “Yes, as much as possible, last time we gathered too!” Same!". And we realized that there had also been a trial before us and for some reason the jury was changed,” he says.
Jurors were warned that if they were approached by any of the parties, they should immediately inform the presiding officer. “We even had one person leave. Apparently, they approached him,” adds Gadzhiagaev.
In his opinion, the prosecution was represented by a “very competent” prosecutor: “If, for example, a lawyer says something, the prosecutor would reprimand him within the framework of some procedural issues. It was felt that the man knew his business very well.” Despite this, in the case materials, Gadzhiagaev believes, there was no direct evidence of the defendant’s guilt: “Everything was indirect.”
“When they said that they saw the face of the accused on the cameras, we looked at these recordings ourselves and realized that it was impossible to see the face there. The witnesses who were at the gas station all said unequivocally that they did not see the face. We looked at the facts. To make a judgment that a person was guilty on assumptions went against our understanding of justice,” the juror explains.
On August 30, the board, after deliberating for exactly an hour, rendered a unanimous verdict - the jury acquitted Magomed Abdurakhmanov, considering his guilt of murder motivated by blood feud unproven. He was released in the courtroom.
Article for revenge murder of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
The leading motive, according to judicial practice, is revenge. In some cases, it is the desire for revenge that pushes a person to crime. Historically, it goes back to blood feud, which is the founder of other types of retribution known in society.
Note!
The motive is enshrined in Part 1 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, applied when excluding revenge on an official and the custom of blood feud. An exception to this article is hostility based on nationalities, races and religions.
Revenge is a socially dangerous phenomenon. It is a relic of the past and often arises from everyday relationships and conflicts between people. The criminal wants to feel satisfaction when he takes revenge for wrongs done in the past. The main determining factor in revenge is resentment and malicious intent.
The third and final excuse
State prosecutor Vadim Latifov appealed the acquittal in the Supreme Court of Russia. In his appeal submission, he indicated that the jury several times heard what they were not supposed to hear - for example, when the brother of the accused, Abdurakhman Abdurakhmanov, during questioning in court, said that he was tortured by police officers, demanding that he incriminate Magomed or take the crime upon himself. The prosecutor pointed out that these issues were no longer within the jurisdiction of the jury and caused them to be prejudiced about the legality of the prosecution of the accused.
In addition, the defendant’s lawyer, Abdul Magomedov, reminded the jury of this testimony during the debate, which he had no right to do, and the defendant’s relative, who acted as a public defender, in the opinion of the state prosecutor, exerted psychological pressure on the jury when he said during the debate: “I hope your verdict will not affect your future life. I hope that you will come to the conclusion that Abdurakhmanov is not guilty.”
On December 20, 2021, having considered the prosecutor’s appeal, the Supreme Court of Russia overturned the verdict and sent the case for a new trial. Abdurakhmanov was arrested again and sent to a pre-trial detention center.
The next jury was convened in February 2021, this time presided over by Judge Suleiman Suleymanov. The process moved faster, and on April 11 it ended with a not guilty verdict.
Prosecutor Murza Khanmurzaev also appealed this decision, pointing out that the judge violated the adversarial principle, and the lawyer, in the presence of the jury, again went beyond the scope of issues within their competence. In July, the Supreme Court of Russia considered this complaint and nevertheless approved the acquittal.
Magomed Abdurakhmanov, who was twice acquitted by the jury, remains free and still lives in Kizilyurt. Through his lawyer, he conveyed that he did not want to communicate with journalists and discuss his criminal case.
Kysas and blood feud
“And for you, possessors of reason, in qisas (in punishment commensurate with the severity of the crime) there is life, perhaps you will be pious [fair in imposing a death sentence when the premeditation of the murder is beyond doubt]” (Holy Quran, 2:179 ).
What is "kysas"?
Kysas is not revenge, but “punishment equivalent to the damage caused by criminal actions (equal, commensurate with the severity of the crime)”[2]. The Arabic-Russian dictionary of Kh. K. Baranov translates the word “kysas” as “retribution, punishment; pay". When every citizen is well aware of the inevitable retribution from the judiciary if he commits a crime against another person, peace and security prevail in society. This is exactly what the Koran says. A verdict of capital punishment is made only if there is undeniable, clear evidence and testimony of witnesses. Any doubt is in favor of the accused. And of course, in Islamic judicial law, the “presumption[3] of innocence” is a fundamental concept.
The meaning of the verse is that if someone decides to kill a person, then out of fear of retaliation and the inevitability of punishment, he may come to his senses and not commit the crime. Thus, two lives will be saved: the life of one - from murder, and the other - from the death penalty. It is also important to emphasize here that, according to all Muslim scholars, the decision on punishment, and especially the death penalty, can only be made by official judicial bodies[4].
'Umar ibn al-Khattab, when he was the ruler of a huge power, addressing representatives of another state, said: “I do not send my workers (my subordinates) to beat one of your people or rob. If any of them commit this (violence or robbery) towards you, then you are obligated to report it to me! I myself will administer justice to them.”[5].
With increasing cases of bribery of investigative and judicial authorities, use of official position and administrative levers, this postulate of guaranteeing safe coexistence, unfortunately, is gradually disappearing. Some criminals go unpunished and therefore can afford to commit even greater crimes, while other innocent people who have committed minor offenses may suffer from the arbitrariness of the court.
What should “mere mortals” do? To strive to ensure that society develops in the right direction, and even if this time does not come tomorrow, it is important to be able to positively influence the situation in society today. The fewer people who believe in the reality of this, the less likely it is that such a time will ever come. The one who prays to the Almighty must, in practice, and above all in relation to himself, strive to fulfill what he asks for, and at the same time never lose hope that this will become a reality.
