The Court continues to analyze the “Gasification” block, and as previously, the process continues to reveal new surprises. As a rule, they are not usually in favor of the prosecution. This time during the witness hearings a former head of LLP “OblTransGaz”, the designer of the 2nd gasification stage, Igor Partylov and gas pipe test specialists from the plant, “Shevronmunaygaz”, were questioned. During interrogation it was found out that they were given a test tube of another size than that indicated in the case file. And as it turned out, this was not the only discrepancy and not the last surprise.

The presiding officer of the court, Gulnar Dauletova pointed out the pictured pipes in the protocol to the witnesses. The experts first stated that they did not remember how those those pipes looked, only after looking, noted that it is not the same material, because of their size does not correspond to the one they studied in the laboratory. This discovery quite frankly put an end to allegations of the prosecution regarding the issue of gasification. It is quite obvious the reason for tampering with the evidence. But the complete defeat of the prosecutor’s representatives came after two key witnesses suddenly refused to acknowledge the data they provided during the preliminary investigation.

In particular, on June 2 the witness, Zhumyrgozhin admitted that he had signed an already prepared statement without reading it:

“I do not have time to read it – they did not give enough time, they gave it to me and said, sign it. I was handed the protocol and the investigator said: “Quickly go over the text and the sign, what’s there to read?” And I signed, ” - he told Zhumyrgozhin.

The witness added that the investigators did not record the interrogation and that everything was already prepared and the information it contained was for him (Zhumyrgozhina) was new. According to him, the protocol contained numbers, contracts and surnames which he had never known.

In addition, it was revealed that investigators also play with words during interrogations. In particular, according to Zhumyrgozhin, he does not know the meaning of the word “affiliate”, since most dialogue is mainly in the state language, but interrogations were conducted in Russian. It was found that such practices are found in the records of the interrogations regularly. Even lawyers have repeatedly drawn the court’s attention to this aspect of the case.

Following Zhumyrgozhin’s revelations, the director of “ATG-Kurylys” Ersain Bekeshev, was greatly surprised, having heard his own alleged testimony, which ha had signed. The witness said that the testimony read out in the courtroom, was unheard of.

” I wrote this?! This is the first time I’m hearing it “- said Bekeshev .

When the judge asked how is it then that this appeared in the record, the witness proposed to call the investigator and find out from him. Actually, according to the latest information, the judge approved the idea, and called the investigator of ABEKP Ruslan Ashen from Astana to testify as a witness in court. After him there will be another investigator called to testify on June 5 – DBEKP Investigator of the Atyrau region, Galymbek Bisengaliev. The first investigator had already been questioned, but that’s another story, and we’ll discuss that in the next article.

Continuing on, I would like to draw attention to the fact that after the witnesses’ confessions, the prosecution resorted to psychological pressure via direct threats.

“Because these protocols have been signed by them, according to Art. 387 Criminal Procedure Code and Art. 352 of the Criminal Code we are asking that they be prosecuted for perjury, - said the prosecutor.

Legally, of course, there is an article regarding perjury, but at the same time it is appropriate to note that law enforcement authorities are required to warn the witnesses during interrogation that perjury is punishable by law. Let me remind you that the witnesses admitted in court that the investigation did not warn them of criminal liability for knowingly giving false testimony. In addition, according to witnesses, the interrogations were not recorded, but had already been typed up in advance, and thus pointed to the fact that investigators themselves were engaged in perjury.

Lawyers have called the prosecutors’ allegations “premature, illegal, inappropriate,” and described it as “an attempt to influence witnesses in favor of the prosecution.” The Court decided to dismiss the prosecution’s request.

From all of the above it is clear that the investigation is clearly not interested in a fair verdict, is playing some sort of game, deliberately distorting the facts and providing false evidence. Moreover, it has been shown that the interrogation protocols provided by the prosecution, were not verified in court. Now the big question is, if we are talking about true justice, will the investigators and prosecution incur any liability for their actions, the guilt that already needs no proof.

To be continued….