Defense Motion Discussion

The defense's motion is to be denied, as the issue of the admissibility of evidence is decided by the court in the deliberation room in conjunction with all the evidence examined in court.

Motion of Defendant Mylnikov

Mylnikov asked the court to exclude the authorship expertise from the evidence, as it is of a presumptive nature, as well as the conclusions of the technical expert regarding the printer on which the messages were allegedly printed, as they do not state with certainty that the appeals were printed on this specific printer.

The filed motion is being discussed.

• Lawyer Chernousov: I support it.
• State prosecution representative Zaraev: I believe the filed motions are not subject to satisfaction, as there are no grounds for exclusion from the evidence specified in Art. 75 of the CCP RF.
• State prosecution representative Semenenko: I support the opinion of the panel.

The court, conferring on the spot, ruled:
* To reject the motion of defendant Mylnikov.

The court questions the participants of the process regarding additions to the entire judicial investigation.

Second Motion Discussion

Defendant Mylnikov asked the court to summon witness Kirienkov to the court session, whom he approached in August 1999 and spoke about the upcoming explosions, and not as he said earlier—in September 1999, i.e., after the explosions were carried out. He approached him at the end of August, on the 30th, 1999, before the explosion on Manezh Square.

The filed motion is being discussed.

• Lawyer Chernousov: I support the motion of my client and believe that by not summoning this witness, we are infringing on the rights of my client. I ask the court to inquire with the MVD as to whether information was received from Mylnikov in late August or early September 1999, and if it was received, what its content was and to whom this information was passed.
• State prosecution representative Zaraev: I believe there are no grounds for satisfying the filed motions. The appeal was prepared after the explosions and therefore there are no grounds for summoning the witness.
• State prosecution representative Semenenko: In accordance with Art. 53 of the CCP RF, the powers of the defense counsel, the defense counsel is entitled to provide and collect evidence by means of an interview. If the defense counsel...