ORDER

on refusal to institute criminal proceedings

Moscow November 24, 2006

A.S.Shapiev, investigator for very important cases of the Prosecution office of the Central
Administrative district of Moscow, 3-rd Class Jurist, having examined the materials of E.V.
Mikheyeva’s application under № 219 pr-06.

ESTABLISHED THAT:

On November 10, 2006, during the interrogation in relation to a criminal case, Mrs Mikheyeva
E.V. informed Breyev M.S., a senior investigator of the Prosecution office of the Central
Administrative district of Moscow, that Prokhorov D.A., an investigator of the 2-nd section of
the Investigative Unit of the Main Investigative Department of the Moscow GUVD and the
authorized operative officer Kuznetsov A.K. were putting pressure on her and her husband to
alter the testimony in Criminal Case № 352470 conducted by investigator Breyev M.S., in which
Mr Mikheyev F.M. the husband of Mrs Mikheyeva E.V., is a victim.
Acting Prosecutor of the Central Administrative district of Moscow Shkabaro O.Y. filed a report
with the Moscow Prosecutor Syomin Y.Y. on the basis of the application filed by Mrs
Mikheyeva E.V.
On November 14th, 2006, this application in relation to the committed crime was registered with
the Prosecution office of the Central Administrative district of Moscow, having being assigned
№ 219pr – 06.
In the process of checking the communication about the crime, Mrs Mikheyeva E.K.was
questioned and explained the following:
She is a witness in Criminal Case № 352470, in which her husband Mrs Mikheyev F.M.is a
victim. Her husband Mikheyev F.M. is held in Pre-trial detention center # 77/2 of Moscow
[Butyrka prison].
On November 8th, 2006, she was waiting for her husband’s lawyer near Pre-trial detention #
77/2 of Moscow [Butyrka prison]. Around 3 pm Mrs Mikheyeva E.V. saw Captain Prokhorov
D.A., an investigator of the 2-nd Section of the Investigative Unit of the Main Investigative
department of the Moscow GUVD, who, on that day, conducted her husband’s interrogation
under criminal case № 61257. Having seen her, Prokhorov D.A. came up to her and started a
conversation. During the conversation, Prokhorov made her aware of the significance of
Criminal Case №61257 and that all decisions on the course of this investigation were taken “on
the very top”, told her literally the following: “If you help us, we will also help you”. She asked
him whether he understood that an innocent man (her husband) kept in prison. Prokhorov
answered that he understood everything, but he could do nothing about it. After that, Prokhorov
repeated that if she helped him, he would also help her, after which he took out from a black file
titled “VEB”[VnesheconomBank], which he held in his hands, an A4 sheet of white paper in a
transparent folder and told her to read the text and memorize it. He also explained that her
husband had already seen the text and asked him (Prokhorov) to pass to her that this would help
him to get released from the prison.
The said sheet of paper contained printed answers to some questions for two people ( as far as
she understood - for her and her husband), the information contained in this sheet was pre-
numbered stating that she was a very impressionable woman, that she misunderstood everything,
that there had been no kidnapping of her husband Mikheyev F.M. Further there was stated that in
accordance with intelligence provided by Kuznetsov, the operative officer of Section 6 of the
Tax Crime Department of the Moscow GUVD, there was an assassination of her husband
planned which had been commissioned by Bessonov, and that her husband Mikheyev F.M. had
discussed this with Golyshev A.V., an investigator of the Main Investigative Department, and
Kuznetsov requesting their help in saving his life.
Further there was a statement prepared specifically for her husband, having the following
content: “No one kidnapped me.” The text for her had the following content: “Bessonov A.Y. by
using her gullibility misled her, lied to her that money was being extorted from him (Bessonov)
for mr Mikheyev’s release, having before hand agreed with the Moscow Tverskaya District
Prosecution office and the Prosecution office of the CAO of Moscow about initiating a criminal
case in respect of Mikheyev’s kidnapping, having paid a huge sum of money to Titov, the
Prosecutor of the Moscow Tverskaya inter-district Prosecution office and to Aleksashkin and
Valdayev, investigators of the Moscow Tverskaya prosecution office. Further, it read that
Bessonov had paid money to the Prosecutor of the Tverskaya inter-district Prosecution office for
carrying out an interrogation at the Main Investigative Department of the Moscow GUVD, and
the investigators were implementing the prosecutor’s plan.
Further in the text it was stated that Bessonov paid bribes for a transfer of the criminal case to
the Prosecution office of the Central Administrative District of Moscow, where investigator
Breyev M.S. threatened Mrs Mikheyeva that if she failed to give him the required testimony he
(Breyev M.S.) would institute criminal proceedings against her for reporting a fake kidnapping.
In addition this document stated that her husband understood that he was helping a criminal
group comprising Bessonov and the investigators and the prosecutor, but he was feared for his
wife’s safety and therefore, he gave false testimony on the alleged kidnapping.
Mrs Mikheyeva E.V. noted that this text was well-written from a legal stand point having
legal terminology and wording, such as “having an intent” and/or “as part of an organized
criminal group”, etc.
After she had read the said document, Prokhorov explained to her that in case she gave this
testimony her husband would be release from pre-trial detention and subsequently a minimum
sentence for him would be considered.
Prokhorov further added that he would allow her to see her husband in the pre-trial detention
in exchange for her to discuss this matter with him and thereafter she should come back to him
(Prokhorov) for questioning where she should then confirm the proposed testimony.
During her conversation with Prokhorov, approximately at 3.10 pm, the lawyers Eronina N.A.
and Romanova M.A. came out from the Pre-trial detention # 77/2 [Butyrka prison] and invited
her to come up to them, but she refused and told them go home without her and she would catch
up with them later. These lawyers also saw that Prokhorov was holding a sheet of paper and
explaining something to her [Mrs Mikheyeva].
After her conversation with Prokhorov D.A., she went to the lawyers and told them what had
happened. After that, they decided to apply to the Prosecution office of Moscow’s Central
Administrative District.
On Thursday, at approximately at 11 am she [Mrs Mikheyeva] went to the investigator
Prokhorov’s office, where he gave her a permission to visit her husband and told her to speak
promptly with him about the conversation they had had with her, i.e. about her providing
knowingly false evidence in exchange for a release of her husband Mikheyev F.M., and that he
would be expecting her response on the next day, i.e. on Friday.
Thereafter on November 10th, 2006 after her explaining the above situation [i.e. request from
investigator Prokhorov] to the Prosecution office, she went to the Main Department of the RF
Ministry of Interior of the Central Federal District to meet with operative officers for them to
supply her with technical recording devices her upcoming conversation with investigator
Prokhorov D.A.
Also while she was in the Main Department of the RF Ministry of Interior of the Central Federal
District, she was told that it was necessary for her to call Prokhorov D.A. and agree with him on
the time of her meeting with him for questioning.
 At approximately, 1.30 pm she called Prokhorov D.A. and told him she was ready to come for
questioning. He answered that today was a celebration of the Militia Day and he was dedicated
to participate in such celebration. He further told her to call him on Monday (November 13th,
2006) at 10 am from home and then he would tell her when she should come. In her opinion, a
phone call from home was needed to track her route from home to the Main Investigative
Department of the Moscow GUVD, to make sure that she was not be able to stop by at the above
stated law enforcement agency in order to receive technical recording devices.
During the night time on November 10th to 11th, 2006, she received several phone calls from
the phone # 512 89 47, but when she picked up the receiver there was silence with heavy sighs.
She checked that phone number via the Internet, it was registered to an unknown Mr Seryogin.
The last name was familiar to her, as in August 17th, 2006, the date when her husband was
kidnapped by investigator of the Main Investigative Department of the Moscow GUVD
Golyshev A.V., acting as an accomplice, she received a call to her cell phone (780 23 22) from a
phone number, which she could not recall now but indicated it to Breyev M.S., an investigator of
the Prosecution office, and there was a statement made to this effect in the criminal case files.
That phone number was also registered to the same Mr Seryogin, which confirmed that she had
been under moral pressure.
On November 13th, 2006, when she called investigator Prokhorov D.A., he said with a
frightened voice that he was having shooting tests and exams today and could not meet with her.
It became clear to her that her telephone was being tapped and she was being followed virtually
every day. Thus, on November 13th, 2006, approximately, at 4 pm she pulled up her car nearby
the Main Department of the Ministry of Interior for the Central Federal District, she noticed that
she was followed by a silver Folkswagen-Passat, which stopped nearby her car and when she
exited her car, a tall, well-built man left the above-said car and followed her to the Identity
Check Point. When she left the Office of the Main Department of the Interior Ministry of the
CFD, the man followed her, and the afore-said car followed her car thereafter up to her home at
2-3 Academician Anokhin St. The license plate of the car was covered with mud, and it was
impossible to see the car’s plate number.
On November 14th, 2006 she called again to investigator Prokhorov A.D. to find out when she
could come for questioning, to which he literally told her: “I do not intend to meet with you,
because you are a client of the underwater currents, who difficult to work with and to trust the
words of.” It became apparent that officers of the Main Investigative Department of the Moscow
GUVD knew that she had filed an application with the Prosecution office in relation to a
pressure being exerted on her as the key witness in Criminal Case # 352470 related to the
kidnapping of her husband and fabricating false evidence against employees of the Prosecution
office.
Mikheyeva E.V. also explained that on October 31st, 2006, authorized operative officer
Kuznetsov A.K. visited her husband together with two unidentified persons [NB – Mikheyev was
held in pre-trial detention in Butyrka prison], who were put pressure on him and told him that
investigator Prokhorov would come shortly and he [Mikheyev] should do everything the
investigator [Prokhorov] would tell him to do. Such visits [to Butyrka prison] of authorized
operative officer Kuznetsov A.K. was quite often.
Mrs Mikheyeva also informed that officer Kuznetsov A.K. came to Detention Center 77/2
[Butyrka prison] around August 17th or August 18th, 2006 together with two generals and they
left a note that her husband should be transferred to the cell where his kidnapper Orlov C.V. was
held.
Mrs Mikheyeva also said that unidentified persons arranged a meeting between her husband
Mikheyev F.M. and Orlov S.V. [the kidnapper, who at that time was held in Butyrka prison as
well], and he continued to terrorize her husband. During her meeting with the warden of the
Investigatory Detention Center [Butyrka prison], the latter confirmed that he was aware of that
violation and he would certainly conduct an internal investigation.
During the internal investigation, Mikheyev F.M. was questioned and explained the following:
On either August 17th, or 18th, 2006, he was escorted to the operational section of Detention
Center 77/2 [Butyrka prison] and after a short conversation with a Detention Center employee,
he was taken to an isolated cell, where there was Orlov S.V., who was the main participant of his
kidnapping. During that meeting Orlov S.V. was putting psychological pressure on him trying to
make him change his testimonies concerning his kidnapping. Orlov also said that no one should
play such games with Vneshtorgbank.
On October 31st, 2006, he [Mikheyev] was again taken to the office of an operative ward
employee, where there was operative officer Kuznetsov A.K. and two unidentified persons.
Those people were putting pressure on him, telling him to change his witness statements
concerning his kidnapping, and also told him that investigator Prokhorov would come soon and
he should provide him with the testimonies, which he [Prokhorov] would tell him to provide, i.e.
the false testimonies.
On November 8th, 2006, as was told by operative officer Kuznetsov A.K., investigator
Prokhorov D.A. visited him together with Mikheyev’s defense attorney Eronina N.A.; at one
point, at the beginning of the interrogation, Eronina N.A. left the room to meet with her other
defendant, and at that moment, investigator Prokhorov D.A. took out a sheet of white paper with
a pre-typed text, in which there were statements (guidance) for him and his wife already made.
This text read that he [Mikheyev] should tell investigator Breyev M.S. that “I was not kidnapped
and I wrote the complain under pressure put on me by police officers of the Department for the
Central Federal District, and my wife is a very impressionable woman, and without
understanding what was happening, she wrote her criminal complaint under pressure from
Bessonov”. This text also read that he [Mikheyev] had simply been staying there [in the country-
house] and he could move independently. Mikheyev did not agree to proceed with such demands
[from Prokhorov]. The sheet of paper looked the following way: A4 size, the text was typed on a
computer, it was formulated using legal language, and the pages were numbered.
Later advocate Eronina came in and an interrogation started concerning the circumstances of
Criminal Case # 61257. When the interrogation ended, he [Prokhorov] hinted him [Mikheyev]
that, in accordance with information provided by Kuznetsov A.K., he [Mikheyev] ultimately
should prepare a criminal complaint that he was under pressure [when he filled his first criminal
complaint in relation to his kidnapping].

During the internal investigation, the lawyer Eronina N.A. was questioned and explained the
following:
On November 8th, 2006, she was taking part in an investigative action – interrogation of
Mikheyev, being an accused person under Criminal Case # 61257 investigated by Prokhorov
D.A. Approximately, at 11.30 am, this interrogation started. However, just before this
interrogation started, she had to step out from the office for her other defendant in another
criminal case, and as such investigator Prokhorov was left alone together with her client Mr
Mikheyev F.M. She was out for approximately 20 min., while she spoke with her another
defendant Mr Orlov I.V. [not to mix up with the kidnapper Orlov S.V. - just to be a coincidence
of having the same surname] in Office № 4. When she came back into the room where there
were Prokhorov D.A. andMikheyev F.M., the interrogation had began in her presence. As far as
she could recall, the investigator had some documents with him as well a dark-color folder
entitled “VEB”.
Approximately, at 1 pm, the second advocate Mrs Romanova M.A. came in, who was also
defending Mikheyev F.M.
Approximately, at 3 pm, while she and Mrs Romanova M.A. were leaving Detention Center
77/2 [Butyrka prison] they saw investigator Prokhorov D.A. speaking with Mrs Mikheyeva E.V.
near by the exit. She noticed that investigator Prokhorov D.A. was showing to Mrs Mikheyeva
E.V. some papers and was telling her something. She did not hear and could not say what they
were talking about.
During the internal investigation, the lawyer Romanova M.A. was questioned and gave
testimonies similar to those of Mrs Eronina’s.

During the internal investigation, Mr Romashin A.M., an authorized operative officer of

Detention Center 77/2 [Byturka prison] was questioned and provided the following
explanations:
He was a guard officer for Cell # 95 in which Mikheyev F.M. was held.
On October 31st, 2006, based on the permission issued by the Acting Deputy Head of the Main
Investigative Department of the Moscow GUVD Karpushina L.V., he escorted Mikheyev F.M.
out of his cell for a conversation with officers Kuznetsov A.K., Kurtov M.N. and Nessterov A.B.
The conversation was held in the room # 54. During the conversation of the officers with
Mikheyev, he left the room, but as far as he could recall, the conversation was related to the
circumstances of a criminal case investigated by the Main Investigative Department of the
Moscow GUVD. He also explained that he was not aware of a meeting between Mikheyev F.M.
and investigatory detainee Orlov.

During the internal investigation, Mr Dmitriev N.F., the warden of Detention Center 77/2
[Byturka prison] was questioned and explained the following:
Indeed Mrs Mikheyeva E.V. came to see him at her request, where she told him that she was
aware of the fact that there was a meeting arranged between the investigatory detainee Mikheyev
and the investigatory detainee Orlov in Detention Center 77/2 [Butyrka prison], which was not
supposed to happen. Mr Dmitriev N.F. promised to conduct an internal investigation into that
fact, however, at this moment such investigation has not been performed.

During the internal investigation, investigator Prokhorov D.A. was questioned and explained
the following:
On October 31st, 2006, he prepared a letter addressed to the warden of Detention Center 77/2
Dmitriev N.F. in order to authorize access to accused Mikheyev F.M. under Criminal Case #
61257 by officers of the Moscow GUVD Kuznetsov A.K., Nesterov A.B. and Kurtov M.N. This
letter was signed by Colonel Mrs Karpushkina L.V., who is acting as Deputy-Head of the Main
Investigative Department and the Head of the Investigative Unit of GUVD. The letter was
prepared at the request of one of the officers stated in the letter who were part of the
investigative team of the stated criminal case. The letter was required for them to get inside
Detention Center 77/2 [Byturka]. These officers had not informed him about actions, which they
were planning to perform. As a matter of procedures such permissions authorizing access into
the territory of Detention Center 77/2 are issued to authorized officers included into the
investigative team in order for them to perform investigative actions or other measures for the
period of a preliminary investigation, since an accused person is held in the said ward by being
assigned to the body of the preliminary investigation, which is conducting criminal proceedings.
The above-said authorized officers did not produce to him being the head of the investigative
team any reports to the fact of their visiting the Detention Center 77/2. They [officers] are
independent members of the investigative team in Criminal Case # 61257 and they conduct
independently operative measures aiming to identify the circumstances surrounding the
committed crime and identifying all participants involved in this crime.
On November 8th, 2006, between 11 am to 3 pm, he was conducting additional interrogation
of the accused Mikheyev F.M. The interrogation was conducted with participation of advocates
Mrs Eronina N.A. and Mrs Romanova V.A. inside Detention Center 77/2 of the Directorate of
the Federal Penitentiary Service of RF Ministry of Justice for the city of Moscow [Byturka
prison],
Around 11.20 am Mikheyev F.M. was brought into room # 9. At around the same time the
advocate Eronina N.A. stepped out and went to room # 4 to communicate with her another
defendant in relation another criminal case. He stayed in room # 9 with Mikheyev. The advocate
Eronina was out for approximately 10 min. While she was out, Mikheyev told him that he
wished to tell him what actually happened to him in August 2006. In particular he told that
nobody kidnapped him. He [Prokhorov] responded by saying that those circumstances were not
the subject of the investigation of Criminal Case # 61257 conducted by him. The subject of
today’s additional interrogation were the circumstances relating to the processing of the
borrowed loan by OOO “Agro-Azot” from Vnesheconombank, and that everything relating to
the kidnapping in August 2006 should be addressed by Mikheyev to the Prosecution office of the
Central Administrative District, which was conducting the criminal investigation for him being a
victim. After that, the lawyer Mrs Eronina N.A. returned back and the interrogation of Mikheyev
F.M. had started in relation to Criminal Case # 61257. Approximately in 30-40 minutes
Mikheyev’s second lawyer Mrs Romanova M.A. joined the interragation. The interrogation
ended at 3 pm, after which he [Prokhorov] left room # 9 allowing the lawyers to stay. Around
3.15 pm he left Detention Center 77/2, and near the exit from the ward he was approached by
Mrs Mikheyeva E.V., the wife of the accused Mikheyev. Mrs Mikheyeva E.V. asked him when
she supposed to come for questioning to the Main Investigative Department, since she wished to
inform him that her criminal complaint in relation to Mr Mikheyev’s August 2006 kidnapping
had been written by her based on A.Y. Bessonov’s instruction. He responded to her by saying
that the said circumstances were not the subject of his investigation of Criminal Case # 61257,
and everything she wished to state concerning her husband's kidnapping should be addressed by
her to the Prosecution office of the Central Administrative District or the Main Investigative
Department of the Moscow GUVD, and as for Criminal Case # 61257 then she would be
requested to provide information as a witness, when there would be a need for that and she
would be invited officially thru a summons. While they were talking Mr MIkheyev's lawyers
Mrs Romanova and Mrs Eronina left Detention Center 77/2 [Byturka]. They saw them talking
and said good-bye when passing by them. After that Mrs Mikheyeva asked if she could call and
find out about timing for her to be questioned, he responded by telling her to call him at his
office on Monday.
After the November 13th, 2006 conversation, Mrs Mikheyeva E.A. called him at his office and
asked when she supposed to come for an interrogation, he answered that he would send her a
summons. He could not recall whether Mrs Mikheyeva called him on Friday.
While he [Prokhorov] was in Detention Center 77/2 [Byturka], he had had with him the
Criminal Code (the RF Criminal Procedure Code), the protocol of the additional interrogation of
the accused person and clean forms required for interrogations, together with the folder "VEB"
inscribed on it, with some materials in relation to Criminal Case # 61257 (i.e. the loan document
file of OOO “Agro-Azot”, which was seized at Vnesheconombank), which were presented to the
accused Mikheyev F.M. and his lawyers during the interrogation just ended. The above-said
documents were held in a black plastic folder. He did not show any documents to Mrs
Mikheyeva.

During the internal investigation, operative officer Kuznetsov A.K. was also questioned and
explained the following:
Since the initiation of criminal proceedings in relation to Mr Bessonov A.Y., he was included
in to the investigation team to investigate the criminal case conducted by Prokhorov D.A., a
senior investigator of Section 2 of the Investigative Unit of the Moscow GUVD.
On Prokhorov's verbal instruction, Nesterov, Kurtov and he went to Detention Center 77/2
[Byturka] to meet with the investigatory detainee - Mikheyev F.M. Prokhorov D.A. also issued
to Nesterov, Kurtov and him the permission to carry out actions in Detention Center 77/2 with
the investigatory detainee Mikheyev F.M.
Approximately, at the end of October, he could not recall the exact date, perhaps, on October
31st, 2006, he together with two above stated officers visited Detention Center 77/2 to have a
conversation with Mikheyev about the circumstances of the criminal case.
 The conversation was conducted in the room of one employee of the operative unit; he did not
know who that room was belonged to. During the interview, Mikheyev explained the
circumstances of this case.
The conversation was related to the circumstances surrounding a theft of money and the
location of Ivanochkin, an accomplice in the crime. There was no pressure exerted on Mikheyev
from them. They did not maintain any protocol of the conversation (interaggation) with
Mikheyev, as well as Mikheyev did not make any written statements. The conversation was
about 15 minutes long.
He [Kuznetzov] did not file any report on this conversation, but he orally informed
investigator Prokhorov about the circumstances of this conversation, as well as informed his
[Kuznetzov’s] superiors, namely the head of his section. He did not tell Mikheyev anything
about the upcoming visit of the investigator [Prokhorov].
During this conversation they received more information in relation to Criminal Case # 61257.
He [Mikheyev] told them about the circumstances of the committed crime, which they required
for their further operative-search measures, including those relating to the obtaining of the loan
at Vnesheconombank.
In accordance with available operational intelligence, which confirmed that Mr Ivanochkin in
collusion with the wife of Mr Mikheyev and other unidentified persons were preparing
provocations in order to discredit our investigation team as well as to put pressure on our team
members, it was decided that they [Kuznetzov and other members of his team] should conduct
any instigative actions only in a group of at least two people at al time. As such during the
conversation with Mikheyev, there were he [Kuznetzov], officers Kurtov and Nesterov present in
the room, and the convoy officer was periodically coming in to the room. [He also stated] that
he did not visit Mikheyev at Detention Center 77/2 [Butyrka] on August 17th or 18th, 2006 and
he was not aware of any meeting between Mikheyev and Orlov [in prison].

During the internal investigation, Officers Kurtov M.N. and Nesterov A.B. were questioned and
provided the same evidence similar to A.K. Kuznetsov's.

During the internal investigation, at the request of the Prosecution office of the Central
Administrative District of the city of Moscow made to Detention Center 77/2 [Butyrka] a copy
of the permission of October 31st, 2006 was received (enclosed), which was issued by
investigator Prokhorov D.A. and signed by Acting Deputy-Head of the Main Investigative
Department of the Moscow GUVD Krapushina L.V.. This permission stated that the authorized
officers Kuznetsov A.K., Kurtov M.N. and Nesterov A.B. were permitted access to the
investigatory detainee in Detention Center 77/2 [Byturka]. Also the enclosed passes for the
above-said officers were issued, which confirmed that officers Kuznetsov, Nesterov and Kurtov
came to meet with Mikheyev on October 31st, 2006 at 10.12 am.

During the internal investigation, at the request of the Prosecution office of the Central
Administrative District of the city of Moscow, a copy of the visitors' log of Detention Center
77/2 was received and enclosed, which confirmed that on November 8th, 2006, at 11.15 am,
investigator Prokhorov together with the lawyers Eronina and Romanova did visit the
investigatory detainee Mikheyev F.M. in order to perform investigative activity.

Having analyzed the materials of the internal investigation, the investigator has come to the
conclusion that the internal investigation has not established elements of any crime in the actions
of Prokhoprov D.A., Kuznetsov A.K., Kurtov M.N. and Nesterov A.B.

Considering that there is sufficient information pointing to the absence of elements of a crime,
and, pursuant to Item 2, Part 1, Articles 24, 144, 145 and 148 of the RF Criminal Procedure
Code.
 ORDERED THAT:

1.Initiation of criminal proceedings on Mrs Mukheyeva's criminal request should be refused on

grounds provided by Item 2, Part 1, Art.24 of the RF Criminal Procedure Code - due to the
absence in the actions of Prokhorov D.A., Kuznetsov A.K., Kurtov M.N. and Nesterov A.B. of
elements of any crime stipulated by Articles 285, 286, 309 of the RF Criminal Code.

2. A copy of this order to be sent to the Prosecutor of the Central Administrative District of the
city of Moscow and to the Mrs Mikheyeva E.V., explaining her rights to appeal against this
decision to the prosecutor or to the court in keeping with the procedure stipulated by Articles 124
and 125 of the RF Criminal Procedure Code.

Investigator Shapiev A.S.