'Nord-Ost' set the value of a citizen’s life, but it has yet to be indexed

Even after the decision of the European Court, no one wants to name those really responsible for most of the hostage deaths at Dubrovka

The twelfth anniversary of ‘Nord-Ost’ is this Sunday. Russia does not like to recall such dates, however. It seems high time all these Nor’easters to grow out of it. So what? All the terrorists involved in the hostage taking were killed, and all lawsuits — both in Russia and abroad — had their day in court. Some people were compensated… But relatives and former hostages still kick up a fuss, still looking for some kind of truth. But why?

To better to understand why, in a nutshell, let me remind you what ‘Nord-Ost’ means. Let me remind you what happened back then at Dubrovka, and that has been going for the last 12 years — because ‘Nord-Ost’ did not end with the assault and the death of 130 hostages. It has been continuing and I would even venture to say, still continues. It leaves open a route for further blood to be spilled in our Russian reality, and to some extent even justifies it by convincingly showing us all that when people die in the name of the abstract interests of the state, no one will, or should, be found responsible.

On October 23rd, 2002, a group of terrorists led by Movsar Barayev captured the Dubrovka theatrical center, which at the time was showing the musical ‘Nord-Ost’. More than 900 people were taken hostage.

Over the course of two days there were negotiations with the terrorists. At 5:10 am on October 26th, gas was released into the auditorium where the hostages were located, and soon afterwards FSB security forces stormed the center. As a result of this operation, according to official figures, 130 civilians died. Of these, terrorists killed only 5 — the rest just fell asleep and never woke up. Doctors were unable to save some who were still alive when brought to hospitals, since no one had prepared them for this unknown, toxic substance.

All 40 of the terrorists were annihilated.

Immediately after the assault a criminal case was opened. They began to search for accomplices of the dead terrorists. During this time, the investigation tried to distance itself from determining the real cause of death of most of the hostages. Why was it that they fell asleep and did not wake up? Why could not all of them have been saved? Was it advisable to use the gas?

As a result, in the conclusions of the forensic experts as well as in the pages of the criminal case there is a certain statement. Try to get your head around this: “…Death was caused by acute respiratory and heart failure caused by a combination of adverse factors dangerous to life and health, which emerged among a number of hostages during the period of October 23 to 26, 2002, factors such as severe prolonged emotional stress, reduced oxygen content in the air space, prolonged forced positioning of the body usually accompanied by the development of oxygen starvation of the body, hypovolemia (dehydration) due to the prolonged lack of food and water, prolonged sleep deprivation, debilitating compensatory mechanisms and respiratory disorders caused by exposure to unidentified chemical substance (s) applied by law enforcement agencies during the security operation to free hostages on October 26th, 2002. The multifactorial causes of death exclude any direct causal relationship between exposure to the applied gaseous chemical substance (s) and death.”

In other words, the hostages were tired, were sitting too long in the same spot, and then there was the gas. Not all of them could handle it.

A second item, to which the investigators adhered, was moving as far away as possible from evaluating the actions of hostage rescue headquarters staff (who later found themselves bearers of medals: FSB generals Pronichev and Tikhonov received Hero of Russia stars, and many of the authorities got other awards in aggregate. But here, I must admit, the investigative work also proved very effective, because from the outset the criminal investigation dealt with the actions of the terrorists, not the actions of the headquarters staff. We still which members of the operational headquarters planned the operation to storm the theater center, and who exactly it was who gave the order. We do not know who was responsible for planning medical support for the assault, which — it was clear — would not take place without injuries and deaths.

On receiving no answer, the victims of the terrorist attack went to Strasbourg.

Strasbourg ruled in 2011. Since I do not intent to evaluate it, I will only cite a few excerpts (translated by jurists from the International Protection center, whose attorneys Karinna Moskalenko and Olga Mikhailova, together with the law firm of Trunov, Ayvar and Partners, represented the interests of the victims before the European Court):

“It is inconceivable that 125 people of all ages and physical conditions died almost simultaneously and in the same place due to a variety of prior health problems… This means that the gas was not a ‘harmless’, because ‘harmless’ means the absence of significant side effects.”

“It remains an open question as to whether the investigation was successful in terms of analyzing the actions of the authorities themselves in the hostage situation.”

“Although the formal investigation is not yet complete, the prosecutor’s office has repeatedly reached decisions on the absence of negligence on the part of the authorities in their actions…”

“The Court notes that criminal proceedings were instituted under Article 205 (The Terrorism Act) and Article 206 (Hostage-taking) of the (Russian Federal) Criminal Code. These articles do not cover negligence on the part of the authorities. Therefore, from the very beginning and throughout, the investigation was limited by very narrow bounds. This follows from the action plans submitted by the investigator, which were mainly about the terrorist attack, rather than the actions of the authorities in this hostage situation.”

These unpleasant passages are neither rhetorical sobs, nor the personal points of view of the European Judges. This is a recommendation made though very stringent guidelines, and mandatory for the Russian authorities to carry out.

With this decision by the European Court of Human Rights, the victims went to the Russian courts, because, formally, this represented newly discovered facts that made it necessary to reopen and re-investigate this case of a loss of life. Lefortovo District Court in Moscow did not argue with Strasbourg, and a decision was made to resume the investigation. Moscow City Court, however, reversed this decision, citing the fact that a review of materials was not attached to the official translation of the Strasbourg decision. By the next hearing by the Lefortovo court the translation had arrived, and the court in its new composition upheld the previous decision by its colleagues: ‘Nord-Ost’ must be investigated again. And once again, Moscow City Court overturned the decision.

On the third try, Lefortovo finally realized the best solution, and rejected the applicants’ suit, explaining its position due to the fact that the case, which Strasbourg insisted on being investigated, had already been normally investigated in Russia, and without a sniffle from Strasbourg. If the investigators did not see anything similar to what the applicants were imagining, it meant that there was nothing to see here, move along. Such things were easier to see from their point of view.

Strasbourg also received an appropriate letter that, among other things, emphasized that compensation had already been paid to the majority of applicants.  As for the rest — no further activity.

All of this enabled the applicants to apply to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which acts as a kind of an appellate court to the European Court of Human Rights: this committee is assigned the function of monitoring the execution of Strasbourg’s decisions. It meets four times a year, and this year it had been expected to consider ‘Nord-Ost’ at one of its sessions, but the European ministers did not have the time: sessions lasts only three days. It is reported that now the question “will be considered at a future session”, perhaps in the coming months.

P. S. On October 26th, from 10:00 am to noon, a memorial event dedicated to the anniversary of the tragic events will be held in the square at the Dubrovka Theater Center at Melnikov Street #7, near the Dubrovka or Proletarskaya Metro stations.

Come, if you do care.

In ‘Novaya Gazeta’

Comments (1)

1. Written by C. Бунтман , on 19-07-2015 18:48 … солидарность – это не самое наше распространенное качество. Солидарность через год… ну, много ли к Дубровке стали приходить через год, два, три, четыре? Все это забывается. «Эхо Москвы» Report

Write Comment
Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article. Personal verbal attacks will be deleted. Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed. Just ensure to *Refresh* your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button. Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
Name:
E-mail
Homepage
Title:
Comment:
Code:*
	I wish to be contacted by email regarding additional comments

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.6
AkoComment © Copyright 2004 by Arthur Konze — www.mamboportal.com
All right reserved