Lithuanian text of the speech here.
In a court hearing held on 8 November 2012, the chairwoman of the College of Judges V. Švedienė announced that the investigation of evidence had been finished and that the court proceeded to final speeches. During the same hearing, prosecutor M. Dūda presented to the chairwoman of the College of Judges V. Švedienė the material that had not been there in the case before and that, as it transpired later on, had been received from the Karlsruhe district court of Germany in accordance with the Lithuania’s request for legal assistance. This material was received in the Office of the Prosecutor General of Lithuania on 14 October 2010, i.e. before my case was referred to a court of law on 29 October 2012.
During the period of familiarisation with the case, this material, which had been received from Germany, was not enclosed with the case.
As this material was concealed from me, I was not able to defend myself appropriately. In my opinion, this material was not given to me for my information only because that required additional procedural actions, namely, confrontation of me and my family members with the Batashyevs. The prosecutors did not want it that during such confrontations it would transpire who was Arnas Baranauskas which had had an influence on me during my minor years and had communicated with Aysha Batashyeva, which resided in Germany, online and by telephone. In this manner, the prosecutors sought to conceal the fact that the State Security Department (hereinafter, the SSD) had been involved in unlawful activity by provoking a minor from 13 years of age, i.e. me. The material for the case has been selected artificially by concealing Arnas’s links with Batashyeva.
During the court hearing of 8 February 2013, I wanted to make a statement regarding these circumstances but the court did not allow that. Therefore, I passed this statement on to the court secretariat and the Prosecutor General of Lithuania. Judge V. Švedienė, by letter No 1-22/13 of 13 February 2013, returned my request without having examined it stating as a reason the fact that the court had already moved onto final speeches.
However, prosecutor of the Office of the Prosecutor General R. Petrauskas has announced that my request, which was received in the Prosecutor’s Office, was passed on to the court to be enclosed in the case.
Therefore, I am hereby asking the court to examine my request received from the Office of the Prosecutor General.
“Accused of establishing an organised group for the commitment of a terrorist attack, participating in the activities of the organised group for the commitment of a terrorist attack and preparing to commit a terrorist attack by exploding herself in an object of strategic importance, thus causing danger to the life and health of many people and seeking to cause serious consequences – that, during the explosion, as many as possible people were killed and that people were frightened by these actions, i.e. …”
I will not further quote the indictment because the text thereof is a collection of criminal activity of the SSD of Lithuania against me as of 13 years of age and similar activity of the officials of the prosecutor’s office as well as their “conceptions” or rather – figments of their imagination. I hereby maintain that I have neither committed any crime against any state, to say nothing of my Homeland Lithuania, nor intended to commit. The prosecutor’s office of Russia, with which the law enforcement authorities of Lithuania are in close cooperation while trying the Magmadovs, have not identified any organised group with my participation because such a group never existed. I have never justified terrorism and have not planned such actions even though the prosecutors are seeking to make out of me a terrorist of global scale. I have not intended to commit any combat actions. I went to Moscow only to visit.
When I was arrested, I was going from Klaipėda to Moscow, on 24 October 2009, to visit my friend Aysha Magmadova, a girl of Chechen nationality. It does not require a lawyer to understand that, should there been a real danger to anyone in Russia, the SSD of Lithuania, which was provoking and persecuting me for a long time and which, as is has turned out, works hand in hand with the Federal Security Service of Russia, had a possibility of further controlling me and the mystical organised group. They did not do that because they had understood that my friend and me were not going to commit any crimes in Moscow while all the “terrorist” phraseology was provoked by the collaborators and agents of the SSD which surrounded me. I had a chance to communicate with members of the Lithuanian resistance movement against the occupation regime. They told me that the KGB had often used against them a manner of operation which they called in Russian “v tiomnuyu” (in the dark). It was manipulation of the victim when an individual would think that he or she acted independently while in reality he or she would do what the KGB (the Soviet security authorities) would impose on him or her by agents’ suggestion, lies or terrorisation of the people surrounding him or her.
Today, I understand that this is how the authorities of Lithuania have treated me since I was 13 years of age. Now, they find it most terrifying to admit that they had acted in such a manner against me, a minor, and the people close to me. Such an idea of theirs should have had a very negative impact on the international image of the state of Lithuania.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child and the actions of the SSD until me coming of age
The Republic of Lithuania ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child on 3 July 1995. This Convention has been gravely violated with regard to me since from my early teenage years, i.e. as of 2003, I was drawn into a network of SSD provocations.
The security officials chose me as an object of their activities perhaps because I had been a more vulnerable teenager with weaker physical health. The choice was not random. My guess is that I was chosen for the SSD by an individual from the circle of acquaintances of our family. He, as it transpired later on, also was a secret agent of the police and had friends in the SSD. Thus, from 13 years of age I was drawn into the network of SSD deception, without being aware of it. Before I came of age, the SSD had concealed its criminal actions and had operated illegally, this is why the early period from 2003 to 2007 is being ignored. The court should evaluate the fact that, with regard to me, not only the Convention on the Rights of the Child but also the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was violated because, at the time, I was diagnosed with cerebral palsy. In a democratic state with the rule of law, such persons are protected by the law. While the SSD officials of this country made use of my vulnerability and started creating a terrorist out of me, without my knowledge of it, in order to receive huge financing for catching “the terrorist” they had prepared and get a promotion.
The year 2003 witnessed the start of constant multiple provocations against me as well as the use of psychological pressure and medications. All that continued until my departure for Moscow, i.e. 24 October 2009. I was surrounded by SSD agents provocateurs for about 7 years. Beginning with teenagers Ali and Toit Saidulayev who introduced themselves to me as Chechens and established contact with me, and these contacts were further continued by a crowd of SSD agents and operational employees.
When I was about 13 years of age, I was approached by teenagers Ali and Toit Saidulayev who introduced themselves as Chechen refugees. Through them, I met Arnoldas (Arnas) Baranauskas, their alleged guardian. I have talked about that in detail when giving evidence. I believe that the Saidulayevs were not Chechen but people chosen by the security authorities so that, through them, I established contact with Arnas who was a security official; he influenced the formation of my world-view and interest in the Chechen fight of liberation as well as forced radical opinions on me and incited hatred for people of other faiths. Online, he introduced me – a 16-year-old teenager – to 39-year-old Aysha Batashyeva from Germany, and sent me to her in October 2007. Both Arnas and Batashyeva affected me with psychotropic substances to suppress my thinking and will. That was also noticed by people who communicated with me: my mother, my aunt, police investigator R. Bružinskienė, psychologist Inesa Balsevich-Kuzmina, certain teachers. The material received from a German prosecutor’s office has revealed that Aysha Batashyeva is also known as Isabela Yelenkinova. But the prosecutor’s office of Lithuania deliberately did not try to find out who she was and who Arnoldas Baranauskas was, and did not look for them. Arnas’s words have been included into the indictment (The Indictment, p. 12; 9 July 2007), however, under a different name: “the interlocutor promises to register her “in that forum on jihad” “because that would be useful to you” (…), provides references wherefrom it is possible to receive books about military preparedness,” etc. These are Arnas’s words inserted into another interlocutor’s text. The prosecutor’s office maintains that Arnas does not exist. But my correspondence with him still was in my home computer which had been taken by D. Noreika during a search. My mother and my aunt knew about Arnas when I was still a teenager, and they gave evidence about it in the court. He is not an imaginary person but one of the main participants of this case. Thus, security agents (or officials) Arnas and Batashyeva directly engaged in criminal activities with regard to me, a minor, causing major harm to my not-yet-formed world-view. The unwillingness of the SSD, the prosecutor’s office and courts to investigate all that had happened until my coming of age makes one think that the truth is deliberately concealed and that there is joint agreement to convict me.
Further provocative actions of the SSD
I must emphasise that not all provocative actions performed by the SSD while imitating a crime received authorisation of a judge. Namely: persons which will gain access to the apartment have not been identified, it is not envisaged who will carry out which specific actions; there is no authorisation for the person in cooperation with the security authorities, known as Abdul-Hafiz, to communicate with me for the purpose of provoking, the period and objectives of such communication have not been indicated; there is no authorisation to accommodate me in the SSD conspiratorial apartment on Ryšininkų Street 8-114 in Klaipėda, objectives have not been envisaged; there is no authorisation for Abdul-Hafiz to pay the rent of this conspiratorial apartment; there is no authorisation to accommodate with me, in this apartment, operational security official Serrin, objectives have not been indicated; there is no authorisation for security official Abdul-Hafiz to finance my subsistence expenses, pay for recharges of calling cards and pay my bills.
Articles 158 and 159 of the Criminal Procedure Code prescribe how all the actions of officials who do not reveal their identity should be registered as well as the actions of persons who have been granted authorisation to perform actions imitating criminal activity. The violations that I have listed show that the requirements of Articles 158 and 159 of the Criminal Procedure Code were not complied with. Since there is no court authorisation for the said actions, these actions and the material collected in such a manner should be treated accordingly.
In addition, the Criminal Procedure Code clearly prohibits provoking a person to commit criminal activity. With regard to me, officials constantly conducted provocations. I talked about that in detail while giving evidence. My mother V. Kusienė and my aunt I. Jeleniauskaitė gave evidence on that in court. Officials R. Bružinskienė and D. Noreika were misleading them and wanted to turn them against me, and R. Bružinskienė wanted to turn me against them. D. Noreika kept telling them that I was not doing anything criminal and encouraged them to allow me to live separately, with “the Muslims”, i.e. with security agents provocateurs. And advised them to become Muslim. These are also provocations aimed at separating me from the people close to me and influencing me in order to drive me into a crime. Only thanks to the people close to me did I manage to separate myself from the agents provocateurs and return to normal life. Then, I started receiving threats that I would have problems and that my mother “would not live long.” It is no wonder that I sought to rest from their blackmail, at least temporarily, at Aysha Magmadova’s. Now everything has been turned upside down. Alleged evidence against me is searched for, possibly destroying the proofs of illegal actions of the SSD agents provocateurs. (2-years-worth online correspondence with A. Batashyeva and A. Baranauskas, telephone conversations with them, and my mother’s telephone conversations with A. Batashyeva in November 2007 which reveal, unambiguously, that A. Batashyeva was lying when giving evidence.) “Deciphered” SSD agents “Aysha” Yelena Baltrušytė Koshevaya and Aysha (Isabela) Batashyeva are showed as simple proselytes who have converted to Islam and not as security officials, though all facts witness that both of them are SSD agents or regular employees.
A wide network of SSD “mentors” – agents provocateurs:
1) Arnas – Arnoldas Baranauskas. In 2003–2004, “fostered” alleged Chechens, minors, Ali and Toit Saidulajev. Nobody looked for the latter in Lithuania any more. Possibly they are people who have performed an SSD task. Arnas promoted radical “Islam”, pretended to be half-Chechen and knew security official, classified witness No 2 Abdul-Hafiz.
2) Aysha (Isabela) Batashyeva. Arnoldas Baranauskas introduced her to me online. Having poisoned me with medication, on 24 October 2007 he sent me to Germany to Aysha Batashyeva. I believe she is an agent of several states, she is a radical “Muslim” and owns several different passports. She gave false evidence at a German court.
3) “Aysha” Yelena Baltrušytė Koshevaya. I met her at the Klaipėda SSD office and she immediately started actively patronising me. She introduced me to security officials Abdul-Hafiz and Serrin. She used to make provocative speeches.
4) Abdul-Hafiz. An SSD official whose real name is not known to me. He accommodated me in a security conspiratorial apartment on Ryšininkų Street 8-114. He paid the rent for that apartment and would give me money for my subsistence. Incited radical discussions on the subject of Islam, tried to provoke me to speak up. Pretended to be a Muslim. Knows Arnas. Used the same computer on Ryšininkų Street as I did. The computer belonged to Hafiz. Online, Hafiz used the nickname Zarathustra. According to Eastern philosophy, Zarathustra was a wise man who had explained that good must be “sown” with a gun. The choice of the nickname shows that SSD agent Hafiz was a man of radical views.
5) Serrin. As it turned out, she was an operational SSD employee whom Koshevaya and Abdul-Hafiz accommodated together with me in the same conspiratorial apartment on Ryšininkų Street 8-114. She lived with me for about 4-5 months. Incited discussions on the subject of Islam, pretended to be a Muslim Chechen. Kept in touch only with Abdul-Hafiz. Her and me used the same Hafiz’s computer.
6) Arūnas Paukštė. A Vilnius SSD official who used to introduce himself as Nerijus Daud. Pretended to be a Muslim. Would come to the security conspiratorial apartment on Ryšininkų Street, used the same Hafiz’s computer as I did. As a representative of the Muslim community, visited me when I was in police custody, together with S. Stasytis, passed on sweets to me with which he poisoned me so that I vomited blood. Moreover, he passed on a towel to me, but denies that, while the other official S. Stasytis confirms that in writing. False evidence of A. Paukštė shows that he is dishonest and also shows the real aims of the SSD. He did not have a court authorisation to perform actions imitating criminal activity. Later on, both of them wanted to persuade me into acknowledging the charges and they openly threatened me.
7) Vytautas-Ugnius Stonys. Introduced himself as Abdurahman, as a Muslim. Would come to the apartment on Ryšininkų Street on Friday for prayers, would read lectures on jihad. Used the same Hafiz’s computer as I did. He did not have a court authorisation for his imitational actions either.
All these security agents provocateurs were managed by senior SSD officials D. Dabašinskas, R. Vaišnoras, D. Noreika and A. Paukštė.
All the people of the SSD system that I enumerated are linked, they knew one another, communicated among themselves and acted according to the common plan: 1) pretended to be Muslims – proselytes; 2) almost all of them pretended to be Chechen or half-Chechen; 3) promoted the radical “Islam”, encouraged me to speak up on this topic, during the Friday meetings invited me to jihad, encouraged the hatred of people of other faiths and the fight against them; 4) insistently suggested that I use the alleged Muslim website in Lithuanian www.at-tauhyd.lt when, in fact, it was Hafiz’s website intended for SSD cover and secrecy.
Such actions of SSD agents and officials are obviously illegal and provoking. And the Criminal Procedure Code prohibits provoking a person. Almost all security officials, who communicated with me, introduced themselves as Chechen. I would tell my family about them, as Chechen, therefore, my family members when giving evidence made the same mistake, namely that I communicated with Chechens who were radical. In fact, they were SSD officials and agents who deliberately introduced themselves as Chechen in order to mislead the court and turn against people of this nationality. I did not know a single real Chechen in Klaipėda. The SSD, in order to shape my world-view and strengthen its influence, used psychotropic substances. They are allowed to acquire such substances under Article 7, Paragraph 3 item 6, of the Law on Operational Activities. I was poisoned using psychotropic substances by Arnoldas Baranauskas, Aysha Batashyeva, Abdul-Hafiz and Serrin. My mother and my aunt gave evidence that I had been affected with some medication, but their evidence was ignored and was not checked. Abdul-Hafiz used to buy and give to me Relanium tablets. They are sold only under prescription. When I was in police custody, SSD officials A. Paukštė and S. Stasytis brought me sweets which gave me a poisoning – I violently vomited blood; and the towel they brought me caused my skin to peel and I started feeling worse. The towel must have been sprayed with some chemicals. In the custody place, I was not given another towel or sheets. I talked about that in more detail when giving evidence.
The SSD needed such a case in order to justify huge funding which had been received for the fight with terrorism. The current director of the SSD G. Grina does not deny, either, the existence of big money. To justify the funding received, there was a need to show the work carried out in this area. Since there are no real terrorists in Lithuania, it was necessary to “make” them. The SSD employees made their black contribution to the story of how I was influenced and destroyed. Having used my youthful naivety, they in a criminal manner trapped me and boosted their career while crushing my life. Therefore, I have reasonable grounds for considering myself a victim of the schemes of the SSD. Even the chairman of the Seimas (Parliamentary) Committee on National Security and Defence A. Anušauskas, having analysed the material of internal audit of the SSD, acknowledged that in my case “the fight with terrorism had been simulated” (the weekly “Atgimimas” (Revival), 10-16 February 2012). This fact has not been denied by the SSD so far.
On 16 March 2012, director of the SSD G. Grina presented to the Vilnius Regional Court the following material for the court’s information: 1) the conclusion of the SSD internal inspection “On the actions of the SSD officials in E. Kusaitė’s operational investigation case”; conclusions of the SSD official investigations: 2) On Adrijus Žymančius’s actions in conducting the operational control case “The Sea”; 3) On Dainius Noreika’s actions in conducting an operational investigation with regard to E. Kusaitė; 4) On Arūnas Paukštė’s actions in controlling the conduct of the operational control case “The Sea” and the operational investigation case “Shahid”; 5) On Tomas Gailius’s actions in controlling the conduct of the operational control case “The Sea” and the operational investigation case “Shahid”.
Neither me nor the lawyer defending me were allowed to familiarise ourselves with those conclusions on the grounds of their secrecy. I would like to ask to declassify this material because it contains the data revealing the truth.
The SSD never gave me a warning, though, in accordance with the Law on Operational Activities, they should have warned me if they saw anything inappropriate in my actions, which also shows that I did not do anything inappropriate. Prosecutor J. Laucius, taking over the case from the SSD, saw that but did not inquire into why a warning was not given to me if, in my actions, law enforcement violations were recognised. The SSD officials were provoking discussions and forming my views for about 7 years. A teenager is too weak to withstand against a numerous group of trained security officials. A question arises – where is the responsibility of the SSD officials when they involve teenagers into their network and use those teenagers in a criminal manner? Throughout the long time when I was surrounded by the SSD officials and agents, I never received a single verbal or written warning that I did something wrong. On the contrary, while pretending to be Muslim, they were constantly provoking me with their words and demanded that I behave according to their instructions. They shaped my world-view, thinking, way of life and habits. To start with, they pretended to be my friends, were helpful and good to me, however, when our relationship became established and I became dependent on them, they showed their true face. When I started to understand that friendship with these people was dangerous and tried to separate myself from them, they would not let me go. They threatened to deal harshly not only with me but also with the people close to me. I could see that they were ready for anything. I even experienced an attempt of a physical attack when Hafiz tried to run over me. Therefore, I was looking for peace at my friend’s, Aysha Magmadova, hoping to recover from annoying persecution and sort out my thinking and my values. But I was not allowed to go to Russia. The SSD gave an instruction to the embassy of Russia to let me go in Klaipėda, and during my trip, in Kaunas, the same SSD officials detained me. This shows that the embassy of Russia and the SSD were in contact. Why was I not allowed to go to Moscow? The answer is clear – then, it would not be possible to accuse either me or Magmadovs because we did not plan any criminal actions. The SSD knew that, therefore, they performed this dirty play with letting me go to Moscow and arresting me during the trip.
A. Batashyeva’s false evidence
As I have mentioned, only at the very end of court examination, additional material was enclosed with the case; I was not familiarised with that material when giving evidence, therefore, I would like to comment on it in more detail.
During the court hearing of 8 November 2012, prosecutor M. Dūda presented the material on the interrogation of Aysha Batashyeva (Isabela Yelenkinova) which had been received at the prosecutor’s office from Germany back in September 2010, i.e. before the case was presented to me for familiarisation and transferred to the court. Why has this material been enclosed with the case only now? Me and my defence attorney objected to the enclosure of such material but the College of Judges, which had been biased as of the very start of the examination of the case and did not conceal its favour with the prosecutor, enclosed the material. Please note that there are no stamps on the German original of Batashyeva’s interrogation material. Only on the last page, where there is no text, there are signatures of the judge of the Karlsruhe district court Mahr and the secretary of the court office Sosna, and Batashyeva’s family name (not her signature). The evidence of A. Batashyeva is false. From the very beginning of the court proceedings, I suspected that she was possibly connected with the SSD of Lithuania (please refer to my evidence given to the court, pp. 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 25 and 33). Attorney-at-law A. Liutvinskas has also told me that A. Batashyeva is a security official. This attorney has been recommended to my aunt by an investigator of the Klaipėda Police Headquarters Rita Bružinskienė. He advised me not to mention the German period because I would not achieve anything. This attorney acted hand in hand with the SSD and was misleading me. He suggested acknowledging the charges formulated by the prosecutor’s office. That only confirms that the SSD of Lithuania was concerned with concealing their agent A. Batashyeva whose links with the Lithuania’s security authorities were obvious. I was introduced to Batashyeva online by security official Arnas, then I stayed in contact with her for 2 years by e-mail and telephone, and when I turned 18 years of age, Arnas, having poisoned me with psychotropic substances, sent me to Germany to visit Aysha Batashyeva (Isabela Yelenkinova). He coordinated my trip with her. The fact of poisoning was noticed by the people who were in contact with me at the time. The links between the SSD of Lithuania and Aysha Batashyeva are unquestionably proved by my 2-years-worth of correspondence (2006-2007) on my home computer. There were a lot of records of that correspondence, and those records should have been retrieved and enclosed with the case. As well as the records of correspondence of her accomplice Arnoldas Baranauskas, during the same period, with me and A. Batashyeva. During a search, D. Noreika took the computer only for the purpose of concealing the traces of his illegal activities, and prosecutor J. Laucius, before the end of a pre-trial investigation, demanded on 16 July 2010 that “the material with no significance to the case” were destroyed. He did not explain in more detail which material had been destroyed. Such excessive urgency only confirms the fact that the SSD and the prosecutor’s office act in solidarity, concealing common crimes. My mother and my aunt gave witness that A. Batashyeva possibly was an agent of the Lithuania’s security authorities. My mother talked with Batashyeva on the phone, and what Batashyeva said about herself then differed very much from the evidence sent to the prosecutor’s office of Lithuania. I am confident that those conversations remain in the SSD archives. My aunt communicated with Batashyeva directly, was shocked at her words and behaviour and asked the German and Lithuanian police to rescue me from the hands of this dangerous woman. My aunt saw that I was strongly poisoned with some substances and that I was not able to understand the reality. When I returned to Lithuania, my family asked the SSD and the police to refer me for examination as to what I was poisoned with. They did not do that because they knew that some substances would be found in my body. Such an examination would have backfired on them.
The evidence of A. Batashyeva, the same as that of other agents provocateurs, is fictitious, false and unreliable. All these people are concerned persons who were implementing the same plan.
Please note that the evidence of Batashyeva and her husband Bekhan differ substantially. A. Batashyeva slanders her husband and accuses him of actions which were performed by her. I had not known Bekhan, and before my arrival in Germany I communicated online only with Aysha Batashyeva, and it was her who invited me to Germany and not Bekhan as she claimed. It is not difficult to confirm that by reproducing the computer data.
Everything that Aysha Batashyeva talks about is a lie. Such evidence of her should be evaluated as purposeful actions performed according to a SSD scenario in order to defend her illegal activities.
Most importantly, this evidence of Batashyeva was received two years ago on 23 September 2010, and so far it was concealed in the prosecutor’s office. Only during the last hearing on 8 November 2012, prosecutor M. Dūda asked to voice it and enclose it with the case. Does the Criminal Procedure Code allow that? I did not have a possibility to familiarise myself with the evidence and comment on it in my evidence. This evidence has not even been included into the indictment.
Since the evidence of both Batashyevs is contradictory, I believe, the prosecutor should have demanded their confrontation with me so that it were obvious which of them was lying. That has not been done. In addition, A. Batashyeva’s interrogation material has not been executed appropriately, her signature is missing, there is no stamp, there are no first names of the judge and the secretary, therefore, this material raises reasonable doubts as to possible forgery. The material of Batashyevs’ interrogation has been enclosed with the case with delay. These documents were concealed because there was unwillingness to organise confrontation between Batashyeva, me, my mother and my aunt. Prosecutor M. Dūda still refers to the Batashyevs as Chechen even though it has long been known that neither of them is Chechen. It is useful for the prosecutor to talk like that in support of the prosecution line.
The prosecutors’ actions with regard to me
Prosecutors J. Laucius and M. Dūda did not want to investigate the actions performed by the SSD with regard to me. Neither prosecutor Laucius, nor Dūda investigated the early period of this story, i.e. from 2003. There is a pretence that such period never existed. Security official Arnas-Arnoldas Baranauskas has not been found and interrogated though it was easy to find him through interrogating Aysha Batashyeva from Germany who lived with two different passports. Unfortunately, this security agent (Aysha) has also remained outside of the area of interest of the prosecutors. Her interrogation was concealed. These people as if do not exist though their contribution to the “creation” of the case is obvious. Conversations and online communication between me and Arnas, Aysha Batashyeva, Abdul-Hafiz and other security agents and employees have been destroyed or are concealed. While they would show huge multiple provocations with regard to me. The general public of Lithuania, through the media, is being deliberately misled by the prosecutor’s office alleging that I associated with radical Muslims and became a fanatic. Those “Muslims” were only SSD agents provocateurs who had deliberately promoted distorted “Islam” and had forced those ideas on me even using psychotropic substances. I knew almost no true Muslims. I communicated with pretenders security officials because they would not let me go. They needed to shape “a terrorist” out of me. When I wanted to withdraw from them, persecution started.
According to prosecutor M. Dūda, my radicalisation basically took place in Germany at Batashyevs’. However, neither German, nor Lithuanian prosecutor’s offices started any cases with regard to that and do not have any claims against the Batashyevs. In general, our prosecutor’s office has not found any radicals because all of them, without exception, are SSD officials – agents provocateurs. And the prosecutors can not accuse the Magmadovs of being radicals because in my conversations with them we did not touch upon any radical subjects.
Prosecutor M. Dūda maintains that I set up an organised group for the commitment of a terrorist attack. The members of that group are me, Apti Magmadov and Aysha Magmadova. Such a statement is fictitious. This has been denied by both me and the Magmadovs. A Moscow court has recognised that the Magmadovs were neither creators nor participants of a criminal group. This is a statement invented by our prosecutors, and the same holds for the phrase “to explode oneself”. Even prosecutor J. Laucius admits that I do not speak about a terrorist attack directly, this can only be inferred from hints. However, if somebody really wants something, they can see hints even in innocent conversations. For instance, where I discuss with the Magmadovs when it is best for me to visit them – in autumn or in spring, J. Laucius sees a hidden idea about a terrorist attack. This once again proves that the prosecution is based on assumptions. Prosecutor M. Dūda names security employees as my accomplices. He states: „Kusaitė together with her accomplices considered that she could get into a military base as a blonde…” This sentence have been taken from my jokes with security operational employee Serrin (in the case, she is an anonymous witness No 1). Thus he correctly named my “accomplices” and members of “the organised group” – these are security employees Serrin and Hafiz. I wonder, though, why they are not defendants. All radical talks have been provoked exclusively by the SSD employees. It is only these talks that prosecutor M. Dūda refers to. The phrase “to explode oneself” has been coined by J. Laucius, while M. Dūda has taken it over without much exploration together with all the indictment drawn up by J. Laucius. I have not used such a phrase anywhere, I have not planned such an action. However, when drawing up my interrogations, prosecutor J. Laucius uses that phrase as mine emphasising that I wanted to kill as many people as possible. Attorney-at-law A. Liutvinskas also encouraged me to slander myself. Thus the purpose is to indispose the judges and the general public against me, and to show me as a special criminal. Even in the court documents I am identified as a perpetrator of a terrorist attack though there was neither a terrorist attack, nor preparation for it. Thus a preconceived opinion is formed that I am guilty. It does not matter that the officials do not have any proof and that nothing unallowable has been found, however, it is repeated without stopping that I was learning to produce explosives (which I have always denied), put on a belt of shahid (which I have never seen), etc. It was Hafiz who had asked me to find online and send to his computer the book about explosives “Inzhinyerniye boyepripasi” (Engineering Ammunition). That computer was used by several security officials and me. That was also done for the purpose of provoking so that, later on, it could be used to create evidence against me. I was not interested in that book, therefore, accusations that I was learning to produce explosives according to the book are completely absurd. In my opinion, this shows only enormous willingness of the prosecutors to bring charges against me and convict me at any cost.
Prosecutor J. Laucius publicly asserted that, during interrogations, I had called people of other faiths “pigs” whose heads must be cut off; I believe such assertions must have generated particularly negative feelings with regard to me in the general public. However, I have never said such words, and to assert that I have, in my opinion, is slander and incitement of religious discord. If the prosecutor’s assertions are based on the statements of the SSD agents provocateurs or if the prosecutor invented such assertions, the general public should not be misled and indisposed against me. It is mean for the officials, when they have no arguments, to resort to slander so that the case they are diligently creating does not collapse. The indictment states that I was planning a terrorist attack acting upon the instructions of “the international terrorist group” “The Caucasus Emirate”. I must emphasise that I have not had any links with this organisation either directly, or through the Magmadovs. On the other hand, in October 2009, when I was arrested, “The Caucasus Emirate” was not recognised as a criminal organisation either by the Russian Federation, or by the USA and the European Union. Thus on what grounds was I accused of criminal links with “The Caucasus Emirate” when such links, in fact, did not exist? In the case, there are not any data on my links with this organisation and there can not be. Prosecutor M. Dūda tries to find such links through my name on Facebook – “Riadus Saliheen”, but that is a clear fabrication. This is an attempt to artificially strain a point to accommodate the prosecution. I took this name for my online communication only because I liked its sound. I also said that during an interrogation. “Riyad-us-Saliheen” is a 13th century book by an Islamic theologian on the subject of religious life. The title translates as “Gardens of the Righteous”. This book has no connections with any terrorist organisations.
The prosecutors accuse me of receiving money from the Magmadovs in order to “arrive and commit a terrorist attack”. As I have already said while giving evidence, this money (500 dollars) was legal – it was from Apti Magmadov’s savings and not from any “terrorist organisation”. This money has been sent without concealing anything. Apti lent it to me for a trip to Moscow, for making the passport and a visa so that I could visit his sister Aysha. We talked that I would return the money to him. This is also attested by the records of our conversations, and Apti said the same at a Moscow court. Therefore, the idea that the money was intended for the commitment of a terrorist attack is absurd. Please note that I only had a few conversations with Apti on the subject of the trip and that we did not write to each other. Here we see the willingness of the prosecutors to strain the fictitious versions to accommodate the prosecution.
The prosecution, in fact, is based only on the evidence of operational SSD employees and agents as well as my interrogations during which, due to physical, medicational and psychological abuse, I slandered myself. This was also noticed by attorney-at-law, appointed by the state, A. Palamarchyuk. The evidence of the SSD employees can not be objective and reliable because it was them who created that case and they are interested in bringing charges against me. The letters of my aunt and my mother to the SSD contain only guesses as to possible threats I am facing, but not true facts. Those letters are their requests for help to separate me from dangerous people, i.e. security officials – “Muslims”, and to investigate what I am poisoned with. That deliberately has not been done either by the SSD, or by the police because thus the fact of my poisoning would be confirmed. The multi-faceted violence experienced during my arrest was described by me, when I was arrested, in a complaint to the Office of the Prosecutor General and the Seimas (Parliament) Ombudsmen’s Office. However, this complaint of mine was not examined. As soon as I left the prison, prosecutor G. Jasaitis, by way of deception, organised a new statement-amendment of my complaint, which had been drawn up in prison, and repealed the original complaint thus changing my status from a suspect to a witness only to be able to start a new case against me. The Law on the Procedure (the Criminal Procedure Code) does not provide for a complaint of 2 July 2010 of a suspect (arrestee) regarding the amendment of non-procedural actions. The drawing up of a new statement-amendment is a dishonest action because the complaint was investigated not according to the Law on the Procedure but manipulating the Law in order to retain the legality and validity of a fictitious indictment, at the same time “creating” a new case against me allegedly regarding the slander of the officials; thus showing the general public that it is not allowed to complain about the violence experienced in imprisonment institutions. Prosecutor G. Jasaitis did not implement the judgement of 5 October 2010 of the Vilnius Regional Court (judge V. Lenčikas) to start a pre-trial investigation on the basis of my complaint of 2 July 2010. Judge of the Appeals Court L. Ulbienė instructed to investigate this complaint in the “terrorism” case tried in the Vilnius Regional Court. That has not been done.
Currently, in addition to the main “terrorism” case, 3 additional cases have been started against me: for insulting the prosecutors, for sending a threatening text message to Laucius and for slander. All of them are fictitious and have stemmed from the main “terrorism” case. Without the main case, there would have been no other cases. That only shows that the prosecutors lack arguments in the main case and in this manner take revenge on me for defending myself and not recognising the charge. Due to these cases, me and my family for a long time have been destroyed from a moral and material point of view. Our prosecutor’s office and the SSD, when “creating” a case for me, were in direct cooperation with the Federal Security Service of Russia. This institution is the successor of the activities of the KGB. The KGB has never been disbanded, it only changed the name to the Federal Security Service. In the European Union, Russia is not considered a state with the rule of law, and the Federal Security Service (the KGB) is considered a criminal organisation. After the murder of Russian dissident A. Litvinenko, Great Britain froze the cooperation with Russia in the area of terrorism. While Lithuanian prosecutors willingly cooperate with the Federal Security Service as well as allow them to participate in an interrogation of me, a citizen of Lithuania, and sign the interrogation minutes. And what is more, in order to flatter the Russians, the interrogation was conducted not in the state language, but in Russian, and the Federal Security Service officials were allowed to mock at me and threaten me. Therefore, it is no wonder that, due to threats, in certain interrogations I slandered myself. After such investigation many “would confess”, to say nothing of an inexperienced young person who does not know the subtleties of law enforcement.
Prosecutor M. Dūda, having taken over the case from prosecutor J. Laucius, should have reviewed the case objectively, lifted the ungrounded charges and terminated the case. But he did not do that. Prosecutor M. Dūda should have disqualified himself from the case, when it transpired that in this case he brought charges, while in another case (Criminal Case No 1-180-843/2012), according to the effective court judgement, he was acknowledged the aggrieved party and I was the defendant (judgement of 28 June 2012 of the Vilnius Regional Court). It is obvious that prosecutor M. Dūda can not be unbiased. When I objected to him for this reason, prosecutor M. Dūda did not disqualify himself and continues to represent the prosecution in this case. Prosecutor General D. Valys does not react to these circumstances. I have been very much surprised at prosecutor M. Dūda’s wish to imprison me for 10 years and his proposal to arrest me in a court room without waiting for the sentence to become effective. I have not committed any crime, have been honestly performing all instructions, have not been hiding, have been participating in court hearings and orderly registering with the police. What is the basis for arresting me under an urgent procedure? I believe it was proposed only because, in prison, I would once again be influenced psychologically, with medications and in other ways, and I would not be able to adequately prepare for defence. Or maybe, according to the prosecutor’s plan, I should not make it until the appeal because of an imitated accident? This happens, not very seldom, in Lithuania’s prisons, especially in “ordered” cases. This case has been “created” by the SSD using multi-annual provocations and prosecutors which are favourable to the SSD. Therefore, the Office of the Prosecutor General should have investigated criminal activities of the SSD and not start cases against me, a victim of the SSD.
Absence of fair court proceedings
When investigating the case, a lot of violations have been committed, and the necessary actions have not been performed. During the two years while court hearings took place, I was not allowed to familiarise myself with the minutes of the court hearings. I received negative replies to all my requests from judge V. Švedienė. My requests were lodged on the following dates: 28 December 2010; 2 February 2011; 14 July 2011; 9 November 2012; 13 November 2012; 30 April 2012; 13 August 2012; 9 November 2012 and 13 November 2012. Negative replies were received on: 4 January 2011; 14 February 2011; 31 March 2011; 17 August 2012 and 13 November 2012. I received an explanation that I would be able to familiarise myself with the minutes of the hearings only at the end of the court proceedings, in this event, after the announcement of the sentence, i.e. after more than two years. This deprived me of possibilities to prepare for defence (Article 44, paragraph 7, of the Criminal Procedure Code). Thus, under the Law on the Procedure, conditions for the prosecution and the defence are not equal, the principle of competition has been violated and my rights to fair and objective court proceedings have been restricted.
When questioning witnesses, the College of Judges obviously showed favour to witnesses of the prosecution: Serrin, Hafiz (classified security employees), J. Baltrušytė-Koshevaya (security agent), A. Grublys and D. Noreika (SSD officials). If the questions asked were disadvantageous to them, the court either removed the questions, or allowed the witnesses not to answer them. The College of Judges did not try to find out additionally about the provocations performed by those witnesses, did not ask them questions, though it was a good opportunity to make the case more clear and truthful. Witnesses whose evidence was favourable to me would be stopped by the court and were not allowed to tell the court everything they knew. In order to ensure that criminal proceedings would be conducted in an honest manner and seeing biased procedural decisions, I objected, many times, to the College of Judges in general and the chairwoman of the College V. Švedienė in particular. I objected both verbally and in writing providing reasons for the objections. However, the College of Judges, expressing prejudice against me, did not disqualify itself, thus demonstrating that it seeks to convict me in any event.
On 24 March 2011, judge Z. Birštonas should have been examining my case, however, on the eve of the hearing he was removed from judges. Instead, judge A. Pažarskis was appointed to the College of Judges. Though he was not able to familiarise with the 17 volumes of my case overnight, the examination of the case was not started anew, it was continued. That fact shows the bias and prejudice of the College of Judges with regard to me. This leaves an impression that the College of Judges already knew what sentence they were to pursue.
The court has not interviewed a witness from Russia who, at a Moscow court, gave different evidence than that included into my indictment (Arsigirayev). No confrontations have been held. Aysha and Apti Magmadovs have not been questioned; they have been made my accomplices. Their replies to questions sent in requests for legal assistance a year ago, i.e. in November 2011, have not been received. After the Magmadovs’ case had been over, a Moscow court did not want to cooperate with Lithuanian law enforcement authorities. As I was giving evidence in the Magmadovs’ case upon assignment of a Moscow court, judge of the District Court No 1 V. Liudvinavičienė fulfilled the demand of prosecutor Dūda and did not allow me to take an oath, even though a Moscow court had asked for that. Thus my evidence became null and void. That evidence reached Moscow with delay, after 5 months, when the court proceedings of the Magmadovs’ case were approaching the end. Because the evidence was not given under oath, it did not make an impact on the court proceedings in Moscow, and it is not used in my case either. Moreover, according to someone’s instruction, my postscript under the evidence, which was sent to Moscow, has disappeared. In the postscript, I stated that I considered myself to have been warned. The postscript has been removed by those who found it disadvantageous, but the prosecutor’s office has not tried to find out who forged the documents.
It is known to me that the evidence of Maimouna Liškauskaitė has been put down by prosecutor J. Laucius incorrectly, distorting its meaning. Liškauskaitė objected to that, and prosecutor Laucius promised that it would be possible to amend the evidence later. But he did not do that. Liškauskaitė was not invited to a court hearing, and her evidence which was voiced was the same, without amendments.
I have not been allowed to familiarise myself with the Magmadovs’ case compiled in Lithuania which includes incorrect data about me. I have found out about that from the material sent to a Russian court. I have not had a possibility to deny the untrue facts. I was allowed to familiarise myself only with the material which was in my case (already in May 2010), in other words, a duplicate of my case. In such a way, an illusion has been created that I am allowed to familiarise myself with the Magmadovs’ case. In fact, under the cover of that case, Laucius further controlled my case and influenced the procedure.
The court proceedings in my case have already been conducted for two and a half years. Many long and unmotivated breaks have been made: 23 December 2010 – 2 March 2011 (68 days); 3 June 2011 – 18 August 2011 (75 days); 30 November 2011 – 5 March 2012 (95 days); 30 April 2012 – 20 August 2012 (111 days); 29 August 2012 – 8 November 2012 (70 days); 30 November 2012 – 8 February 2013 (69 days) and 7 March 2013 – 6 May 2013 (60 days) = 548 days.
I believe that such delays in the proceedings were intended in order to tire me so that I forget certain facts. During that time, 3 additional cases related to this case have been artificially started against me. It is obvious that conviction is awaited in the additional cases – this would strengthen the “terrorism” case and allow making a decision, unfavourable to me. Possibly, the SSD and the prosecutors are exerting pressure on the court because they are interested in avoiding the responsibility for their deeds. The computer records from the period of 2006-2007, which were seized on 24 October 2009, have not been demanded and have not been enclosed with the case. My online correspondence with Arnoldas Baranauskas and Aysha Batashyeva has not been reproduced and has not been enclosed with the case. These records are very important for the defence. From that period, only fragments of the material have been enclosed with the case; this material has been compiled purposefully distorting its essence. Expert examination of all records enclosed with the case – in order to identify their authenticity – has not been conducted. The following important documents have not been enclosed with the case, though I requested that when giving evidence:
1) My letters from prison and their excerpts about physical and psychological violence. 2) The surgeon’s certificate about a leg injury which I incurred in prison during physical violence. 3) The documents of expert examination of medication – a mixture brought from Batashyeva, which confirm that, due to my poisoning, my family asked to examine this fact. 4) The material of the SSD internal official inspection has not been declassified and enclosed with the case, though the Seimas (Parliamentary) Committee on National Security and Defence passed this material onto the Office of the Prosecutor General so that the parties – the prosecutor, the defendant and the defence attorney – would have a possibility to familiarise themselves therewith. The College of Judges did not enclose this material giving as a reason its secrecy. However, the conclusions of the Seimas (Parliamentary) Committee on National Security and Defence, that I asked to enclose, are not classified, the chairman of the Committee informed the media thereof and presented the material to the Office of the Prosecutor General so that it were enclosed with the case and available to the parties. It is known to me that this material contains substantial knowledge for the establishment of justice. Thus my rights to fair and objective court proceedings have been violated.
I do not know what the motives of the College of Judges were, why it accepted the material of the legal assistance of the Federal Republic of Germany, which had been concealed by prosecutor M. Dūda, during the final hearing (8 February 2013) and I did not have a possibility to file requests and complaints. Judge V. Švedienė stated that I would be able to file all requests and complaints with my final speech and in the appeals authority. It was an unambiguous way to say that, in this case, I had already been convicted.
My case has been tried in the Vilnius Regional Court, even though according to the principle of territorial subordination it should have been transferred to Klaipėda. After the disqualification of judge Birštonas I requested to transfer my case to another regional (county) court so that it were examined in a fair and objective manner. My request has been dismissed.
The final word
The time from my teenage years until now has been deleted from my life. I have been withdrawn from my friends, my family and studies. Today, I could have been at the end of my studies, but I am “studying”, independently, the fundamentals of law. During my not-so-long life I already was imprisoned for 9.5 months, even though I have not understood why. I have not committed any crime either against Lithuania, or against any other state. More than three years have elapsed from the beginning of my case. It is already the third year as court proceedings have been conducted. I am persecuted for my moral attitudes, which violates the Constitution of Lithuania. To enhance the political “terrorism” case, three additional cases have been started against me. In those three cases, I am being convicted, though there is no evidence for that, everything is based only on the judges’ beliefs. These cases are being started in order to break down my will as well as ruin, psychologically and financially, the people close to me. That is how the prosecutors take revenge on me for not recognising the charges. I take part in frequent court hearings, I must read the material and prepare for defence. I am wasting my time and efforts in order to defend myself against ungrounded accusations. About 60 hearings have already taken place, out of that number – 27 in the “terrorism” case and over 30 in other cases. Never-ending proceedings do not allow me to live a full life, have ruined my health and the health of my family members and are causing tension. I have no possibility to study or find a job. Moreover, once a week, I must register with the police in Vilnius; I have to rent an apartment. Due to that, my family suffers major financial losses. Regardless of all the obstacles, I try to be useful to the society. It has been a second year as I work as a volunteer in Caritas where I help elderly people and other people who need help. I like this work and, there, I receive positive references. Please note that I am a contemporary of Lithuania’s revival. The ideas of freedom and independence seemed beautiful and worth pursuing to me, as to every person. I was interested in Chechnya because, at the beginning of the revival, Lithuania was favourable to Chechnya and supported its aspirations to independence. However, I have never had plans to become a fighter – either a combatant, or, especially, a terrorist. I must emphasise that I have never supported terrorism and I have condemned massacre of peaceful people. The same opinions were also held by my online correspondence friend Aysha Magmadova and her brother Apti. They have never recruited me for any terrorist attacks and condemned such attacks. Therefore, I am asking to consider that the version about my intentions to commit a terrorist attack and the establishment of a terrorist group, created by the SSD and the prosecutors, is fictitious.
On my own behalf and on behalf of my family, I would like to express my gratitude to all the people who have supported me, former political prisoners, former members of the resistance movement, figures of the society and human rights’ defenders. Their attention to this case has provided important moral support to me.
It is still my hope that justice is possible in Lithuania and that our judicial authorities are able to make decisions independently and without the influence of outside forces. I am asking to terminate the criminal prosecution and to acquit me. I am asking the court to enclose this speech with the case.