Testimony of Achimez Gochiyayev

Materials for the meeting of the Public Commission for the investigation of the apartment bombings in Moscow

Prepared by Alexander Litvinenko and Yuri Felshtinsky

July 25, 2002

1. Circumstances of contacts with Gochiyayev

• At the end of March 2002, an unknown person called Yuri Felshtinsky and offered information regarding Gochiyayev.
• To make a decision, we took a pause. A second phone call from the unknown person was received in mid-April. An agreement was reached for a meeting in one of the European countries.
• At the end of April 2002, a meeting took place between Felshtinsky and Litvinenko and a courier. The courier was given a list of questions for Gochiyayev concerning (1) the authenticity of Gochiyayev's identity and (2) the circumstances of the terrorist attacks in Moscow in September 1999, as well as a video camera to record Gochiyayev's answers.
• A few days later, in another European country, a meeting took place with a certain intermediary. We were handed a video recording and several photographs establishing Gochiyayev's identity, as well as his handwritten testimony.
• The materials were obtained free of charge; no money or material assets were transferred for them (with the exception of the video camera, which was not returned due to the difficulties of sending equipment across borders).

2. Authenticity of Gochiyayev's identity

• Having studied the photos, video materials, and Gochiyayev's testimony, in which he stated that he was not connected with Khattab and Basayev, during a subsequent conversation with the intermediary, we asked him to obtain an answer from Gochiyayev regarding the authenticity of his joint photograph with Khattab, published on the official "FSB-ru" website.
• A few days later, the intermediary reported that the person in the photograph was not Gochiyayev, but some other person.

Expert Examination Findings

To verify this claim, we turned to independent expert Geoffrey John Oxlee (London mobile phone 07970-884-954).

Eight photographs were provided to the independent expert:
* Nos. 1, 2 — posted on the "FSB-Ru" website in the "Wanted" section.
* Four photographs (Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6) received from Gochiyayev.
* Two photographs with Khattab (Nos. 7, 8) posted on the "FSB-Ru" website.

According to the expert's conclusion:
* Gochiyayev is depicted in photographs Nos. 1-6.
* Photographs Nos. 4-6, received by us from Gochiyayev, indeed depict Gochiyayev himself.
* Regarding photographs Nos. 7, 8, where, according to the FSB's claim, Khattab is photographed together with Gochiyayev, the expert examination established that the photographs are not originals and appear to have been subjected to digital processing (in other words, they are "photomontages").
* To the question of whether the person depicted in photographs Nos. 1-6 and photographs Nos. 7-8 is the same person, the expert replied that photographs Nos. 7 and 8 are not forensically reliable and cannot be used as evidence.

Substance of Gochiyayev's Testimony

Gochiyayev provided fairly detailed biographical data about himself (studies, military service, professional position). In addition, he indicated that, starting from 1996, he lived in Moscow at the address Strogino, Marshal Katukov Street, house 6, apt. 188, where he was officially registered. Since 1997, he was the head of the firm "Kapstroy-2000".

Gochiyayev claims that in June 1999 he rented premises for commercial purposes in the basements of the houses that were subsequently blown up, as well as in two other houses where explosions were prevented: in Kapotnya and on Borisov Ponds. He claims that he was used "blindly" to rent these premises by a person whom he knew "from his school days" and who, in his opinion, was an FSB agent.

It was this person who, on the morning of September 9, informed Gochiyayev by telephone about a small fire at his warehouse on Guryanova Street and asked Gochiyayev to arrive at the scene immediately.

After the second explosion on September 13, Gochiyayev realized that the warehouses he had rented were being blown up and immediately

Testimony and Allegations

• Reported to the police duty services, ambulance, and 911 rescue service about possible explosions at the addresses Borisovskie Prudy Street and Kapotnya.

This part of Gochiyaev's testimony is the most important. It was he who warned the authorities about two other premises, in Kapotnya and on Borisovskie Prudy (where warehouses with explosives and six timers were later discovered) and thereby prevented new terrorist attacks.

Gochiyaev also denies that he is connected with Basayev and Khattab, that he underwent training in a camp in Urus-Martan, and that he received financial reward for the bombings.

Gochiyaev claims that there is an FSB order "not to take him alive," citing information from his relative - a police officer in the city of Karachaevsk.

According to Gochiyaev, his sister was subjected to beatings by the FSB in order to give knowingly false testimony against him.

Recommendations

• Confirm Gochiyaev's biographical data specified in the explanation (studies, military service, places of residence and work in Moscow). [Handwritten note: confirmed]

• Conduct a comprehensive investigation of the episode with the discovery of explosive devices in Kapotnya and on Borisovskie Prudy. In particular, find out who and under what circumstances reported these addresses. Request and listen to tape recordings of reports on September 13, 1999, in the duty services of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, ambulance, and rescue service. [Handwritten note: conducted, but...]

• Find out which law enforcement units responded to these signals. Establish the reasons why, after the discovery of explosives and 6 ready-to-use timers for explosive devices on Borisovskie Prudy and in Kapotnya, an ambush was not set up to detain the terrorists, but instead information about the finds was given to the media. [Handwritten note: +]

• Establish Gochiyaev's mobile phone number and obtain call logs for September 1999. Find out who called Gochiyaev around five o'clock in the morning on September 9, 1999. [Handwritten note: no authority]

• Interview Gochiyaev's acquaintances in Moscow to establish his whereabouts from September 8 to 13, 1999, and assess his psychological state at the time of the terrorist attacks. [Handwritten note: l.e. ?]

• Check whether Gochiyaev's company "Kapstroy-2000" was registered in Moscow. Study Gochiyaev's business operations in Moscow starting from June 1999. In particular, check the deal with mineral water, which, according to Gochiyaev, was concluded with a person whom he

Investigation Points

• Considers an "FSB agent" and who used him, Gochiyaev, "blindly."
• Question acquaintances, relatives, and employees of Gochiyaev for the purpose of establishing the identity of the person whom he calls the initiator of the basement rentals.
• Request law enforcement agencies of third countries, in the event of Gochiyaev's detention, not to hand him over to the FSB, regarding which there are numerous facts of data concealment, destruction of evidence, intimidation of witnesses, falsifications, and the use of unauthorized methods of investigation. Gochiyaev, who is an important witness to the terrorist attacks, must be questioned by independent and impartial investigators.

Appendices

1. Copy of Gochiyaev's handwritten explanation dated April 24, 2002. 6 sheets.
2. Printout of Gochiyaev's explanation dated April 24, 2002. 2 sheets.
3. Video recording of Gochiyaev.
4. Expert conclusion of Geoffrey John Oxley (copy in Russian). 4 sheets and 8 photographs.

5

Bureau of Image Interpretation, Culgate

Report by Geoffrey John Oxley

Specialization: FORENSIC ANALYST OF IMAGES

COMPARISON OF TWO FACES

REFERRED TO AS PERSON A AND PERSON B

Introduction

I, Geoffrey John Oxley, senior analyst at the Bureau of Image Interpretation, Culgate. I was invited to look at 8 photographs, each of which depicted a person referred to as the subject. I was then asked to answer 3 questions relating to these photographs.

The analysis of the photographs was carried out using an Abrams stereoscope and a Bausch & Lomb precision measuring magnifier. In view of the fact that some photographs lacked detail, I was only able to carry out a small number of photogrammetric measurement comparisons. The results of the photogrammetry are provided in Appendix A.

Questions

Question 1

Do photographs N1-GO through N6-GO represent the same face or different faces?

Answer

The photographs represent the same face. The vast number of similar facial features allows for the assertion that only identical twins could possess such similarity. Hereafter, this face is referred to as Person A.

Question 2

Do photographs N7-GO through N8-GO represent the same face or different faces?

Answer

These photographs are not originals and it appears they have been subjected to digital processing. Both photographs depict the same face. The facial features that can be seen in the photographs match, the facial hair and clothing are identical. Hereafter, this face is referred to as Person B.

Question 3

Is it possible to determine on the basis of these photographs whether Person A and Person B are one and the same person or whether they are different persons?

Answer

It is impossible to answer this question. There is a lack of detail in the facial features of Person B for a reliable comparison. The upper part of Person B's face is hidden by his hat, and the lower part by facial hair. There are certain similarities, for example, in the general shape of the face and the general shape of the nose. However, this kind of similarity can be observed in a significant number of persons.

Question 4

Is it reasonable to use only photographs N7-GO and N8-GO for identification with a positive result?

Answer

No, this would be both unreasonable and unreliable from a forensic point of view. There is an insufficient amount of detail in the facial features here and therefore a clearly insufficient number of measurements can be carried out.

APPENDIX A PHOTOGRAMMETRY RESULTS

Photographs N3-GO and N8-GO were used. They were taken at different scales. However, if ratios of values (distances) are used, the need for rescaling can be avoided. In each case, 10 measurements of each distance were performed, then, in order to reduce measurement errors, the average value of the results of these measurements was used.

Results

• Person A
• Person B

Facial Measurement Analysis

Measurements

• Nasion (Bridge of the nose):
  • 0 mm = 0%
  • Nasion: 0 mm = 0
• Pronasale (Tip of the nose):
  • 6.5 mm = 70.6%
  • Pronasale: 3.8 mm = 69.1%
• Stomion (Center of the mouth):
  • 9.2 mm = 100%
  • Stomion: 5.5 mm = 100%
• Ears:
  • 7.4 mm = 80.4%
  • Ears: 4.0 mm = 72.7%
• Eye distance:
  • 8.6 mm = 93.4%
  • Eye distance: 5.1 mm = 92.7%

Conclusion

From these results, it is evident that within the limits of mathematically acceptable deviation, both faces are identical in most measurements. The exception is the proportional size of the ears. Although this circumstance may lead to doubt regarding the identity of Person A and Person B, nevertheless, a single difference of such scale is insufficient to assert that these are two different people.