During the last several months in Astana were passed judicial meetings by the suit of Timur Ilyasov – Russian citizen according to the National security committee (NSC) of Kazakhstan, by which department Timur wasn’t entered into country, where lives his family.
On the August of last year Timur Ilyasov, his nationality Chechen, was flabbergasted when he and his 4 years old child (citizen of Kazakhstan) were refused to release from the airport of west-kazakhstan city Aktau, where he arrived from Groznyi. Frontiersmen motivated their refusal very overbroad: Ilyasov constitutes a threat to the national safety of
A Russian person had to wait in the zone of the border checking, when his wife Natalya Samarina – citizen of
Timur and Natalya got acquainted in
– From my side there were no defiance of the law of rules for staying on the territory of RK- writes Timur in his complaint on illegitimate actions of NSC employees, given to the court of Astana, on place of finding the main management of NSC, where the border service enters too. – I wasn’t subjected to administrative offence. Also there should be observed that in respect of me court didn’t make any decisions about taking me away.
Spouse of Ilyasov applied for help to Kazakhstan bureau of human rights and lawyers of remedial organization’s capital branch had sent a request to the NSC, however the answer of the vice director of subdivision was laconic “to refuse admission according to the article # 22 of ” Migration of the population” law in security interests of the state. And nor word about in what expresses a danger of the concrete person.
In November 2008 Timur Ilyasov through his representative Anara Ibraeva, who is a director of Bureau for human rights branch in Astana, filled an application to court with requirement to oblige NSC to cancel the prohibition about his entry into
Only on the 2nd of March court made a decision – actions by employees of state security “were stood and perfect according to the law, liberties and protected by law interests of citizen were not violated”.
Significant, that on the way of consideration judges changed thrice and any time disregarding opinions of different sides, especially one – opinion of plaintiff. It was the first time when they sent a deal to other judge “in case of judge Galieva didn’t have any access to state secrets”. Second judge Kampitova resolved: civic deal has to be conducted in the locked mode. On request of Minenkov, a chief of certain subdivision of NSC. In spite of the fact that second judge possibly had accesses to state secrets, chairman of the court considered necessary to change him too. And the third judge solved “to open” judicial meetings again, but herewith refused to wait while Ilyasov will give the references about his conviction absences and about that he is not attracted into criminal account, which he had got beside competent organs.
On the part of defendant was questioned a single witness Kundyzbaev – an employee of the NSC. “Nobody speaks that Ilyasov is a criminal”, he declared on court. Anara Ibraeva confirmed that during the process there were no speech about crimes, were mentioned certain criminal tricks. However, to be based on evidences by single witness that “by the information which was got in May 2007 from Russian Federation about that Ilyasov took part in illegal actions on the Russian territory” court acknowledged the actions of Committee motivated. The source of “information” was not detected. But court agreed that details of bases are state secrets too and did not allow the part of the plaintiff to get acquainted with one of the documents.
Notable, that in Russia Timur did not notice any interests to his personality by the part of the powerful department. Additionally, when the information about him was delivered in
Meetings of judicial board, where Ilyasov addressed through Anara Ibraeva with appeal to the court’s first location decision passed in locked mode. And again representative of the plaintiff was refused in familiarization with these documents, on which bases the court of first location supported the side of CNS (motivating that court had already got acquainted with them). Together with that judge Kampitova reported to lawyers that they can be acquainted with the decisions of the court only in the chancelleries.
It seems to be that this civic deal had so locked regime. Single that court took the references sent by Timur about that he hadn’t got any problems with law earlier and hasn’t got them now.
Regarding to the locked process and lack access to information, it’s possible to bring the answer of CNS on request about state secrets. “Interesting for us information – it is secret information with vulture “secretly”, which was received in May 2008 to the NSC of RK from Russian Federation and concerning a citizen of Russia – Ilyasov Timur Baudinovich, in respect of whom in November 2008 was assessed a prohibition on entry into territory of Republic of Kazakhstan in security interests of state. In the other words, there is nothing that could give some logical explanations to the actions of national security’s employees.
Till the present time nor Ilyasov, nor his family and lawyers know why authority had destroyed their family. If there are any real bases or maybe the Kazakhstan NSC turned out to be a victim of secrecy, this time from the part of Russian colleagues, who did not toil to explain what did they “had dug” on theirs compatriot that on native land he is able to live without problems, but in Kazakhstan he is not…..
Now Timur lives in Groznyi with parents. He had not got any problems with state.
Now we are waiting for any decision, because for us it’s very hard to go there even in furlough and also with a child – its bracket. In the near future we are not going to meet or see each other anywhere, we have no possibility, – says Natalya.
And today it has been known about resolution by the judicial board to leave in effect decision of the first court. “Reason for refusal – it’s written further – became received information from
In the end of the resolution is specified: “in disclaimer of arguments by representatives of the defendant representative of plaintiff didn’t give any documents from accredited state organs such as public prosecutor’s office, Federal security service and Ministry of internal affairs, about that Ilyasov didn’t take part in different illegal activities on territory of Russian Federation.”
Published in the site: Voice of freedom in