That there were no chances for the investigation to develop into a trial has become clear long ago. Or, to be more exact, on October 26, the day when Russian commandos stormed the Dubrovka theatre to knock out the hostage-takers. At 13:55 that day deputy interior minister Vladimir Vasiliyev came out to shivering from cold reporters gathered at the police line and announced that all terrorists were killed. Why had not Russian special forces saved the lives of still alive, half-conscious hostage-takers neutralized by paralytic gas phentalin pumped into the theatre building? This is the kind of question which would take the Russian justice long time to answer. Normally, this carefully thought-over brutal technique is used to eliminate important witnesses who could reveal to the court things bound to distress the parties concerned.
The prosecutor’s claim that all the terrorists were killed is quite inconsistent. Judge for yourself. Initially, officials in charge of the rescue operation said there were more than 50 terrorists involved, then 34. Later, when Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev claimed responsibility for the theatre seizure, they made “adjustment” against Basayev’s “forty”, adding one more terrorist to make it look more credible.
Then, what was the role of certain Khanpashi Terkibayev who took part in the theatre seizure together with Barayev’s men but left the building just hours before the rescue operation. Alexander Litvinenko, a former federal security service (FSB) officer who has defected to the West, claims that Terkibayev is safe and sound and allegedly accompanied the “representative of the Chechen public” and head of the State Duma international policy committee, Dmitry Rogozin, to Strasbourg on March 31 of this year to attend a session of the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly. Terkibayev confirmed his participation in the Dubrovka hostage-taking in an interview to Anna Politkovskaya, published by the newspaper “Novaya Gazeta” on April 28 of this year.
If Terkibayev is a FSB officer who had infiltrated Barayev’s group the law enforcement should say so outright. Otherwise, it looks as if they have been harboring the man who had committed grave offences. And with all his declarations to journalist Politkovskaya of how he had arranged safe passage through Moscow to Barayev’s group, the fate of this man, whether he is a FSB agent or a stool pigeon, should have been decided by court. If the FSB turns its back on him as one of its own agents then he appears to be that very live defendant worthy of calling a trial.
There are a lot of other puzzles that could have been solved in court. For example, how one should interpret the fact that Barayev’s men killed three hostages, and special forces, at least 126 hostages and 41 terrorists. Who ordered commandos to make use of the poisonous gas to neutralize the terrorists without providing adequate medical help to all those inside afterwards? Does this act of collaboration between Terkibayev and the FSB mean the top officials of the country had been aware about the Dubrovka conspiracy and had knowingly allowed that to happen? What was the role and measure of responsibility of state security services in this event? There is a pile of unanswered questions there.
An yet there would be no trial to solve them. The investigation is over, the case is closed.