Nancy Patricia Pelosi

United states house of representatives

Speaker of the house

Nancy Patricia Pelosi

Postal address: U. S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 224-3121, TTY: (202)-225-1904

https: //www. house. gov

From Grekhov Igor Dmitrievich, 05. 02. 1964 year born,

Convicted by the city Court of Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan

From the 10. 02. 2003 year to the death penalty

Appellate Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan

The verdict came into force from the 17. 06. 2003 year.

The supervisory Board of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan

From 03. 03. 2015 year the verdict was changed to life imprisonment

At present, contained in the Criminal Code of the 161/3the city of Zhitikara

Kostanay region, Republic of Kazakhstan

Address for postal correspondence: 050061, Almaty City, Alatau District, Narva Street house № 3, Apartment № 1, mobile phone numbers + 77775932914, + 77075932914, warren_buffet@mail. ru

Complaint

1) Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

2019 year.

Information about the author of the complaint:

Grekhov Igor, Republic of Kazakhstan: KAZSSR, City of Almaty.

RSU 161/3 the city of Zhitikara, Kostanay region, Republic of Kazakhstan

2) The State concerned. Violated articles.

Republic of Kazakhstan.

Violated articles:

Article 13, paragraph 3, Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan article 77 Part 3 paragraph 9 Constitution of RK

Article 28, article 71 Part 1, paragraph 5, article 97 Part 1 paragraph 4, article 115 Part 1 pp. 1, 2, 3, 4

Article 9, article 116 Part 4, article 197 Part 1 paragraph 14, article 303, article 415 Part 3 paragraph 4 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Article 10 Part 3, article 14 paragraph 4 of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

III. Exhaustion of domestic remedies.

1. 10. 02. 2003 sentenced under Article 96 Part 2, 103 chat 1, 131 Part 3, 175 Part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan to the death penalty. This punishment I consider illegal, which I was appealed to the Supreme Court of the RK in the Appeals Board. Presiding Judge R. Yurchenko, members of the Collegium: A. Smolin, a. Ryskaliyev from June 17, 2003. Resolution № 2sk-04-03. Copy attached.

2. Appealed to the supervisory Board of the Supreme Court of RK. Acting Presiding Judge Kasimov A. A., Judges Zhukenova A. T., Kozhabaev OS, Nuralin D. Resolution № 2UE-22-15 of March 3, 2015. The death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment. Earlier, in the form of a pardon from the 07. 12. 2007 year, the death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment. Prescription № 000191.

3. Applied to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan from the 30. 05. 2016 of the year. Answer by Judge Nuryshev K. Copy enclosed.

4. Appealed to the Chairman of the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan AsanovZhakipukazmanovich with a petition for a protest-submission for reconsideration of June 5, 2018. The answer was received from September 07, 2018 for № 2KP-285-18, № 6001-18-2 KP-15831 signed by the judge of the judicial Panel on criminal cases Zhakuin R. Copy of the petition and the answer enclosed.

5. Appealed to the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Kazakhstan on making a protest against the verdict and all subsequent decisions to Mr. Kozhamzharovukajratuperneshovichu of November 08, 2018, the answer received in 5 days. Copies of the petition and the answer I enclose.

Further appeals within the country are meaningless. All of the following events occurred prior to the ratification of the Covenant, but the consequences of the violation, as well as the proceedings before the courts, continue to date, and are now in detention.

IV. Facts and circumstances in chronological order.

1. Violated the basic right of the accused, the right to qualified legal assistance, have a professional defender, a lawyer. Article 71 Part 1 paragraph 5 of the CPC. Mandatory participation of the defender. If a person is accused of committing a crime for which there is a sanction in the form of punishment for more than 10 years of imprisonment or death penalty. The participation of the defender is obligatory. In this case, I was deprived of real protection throughout the preliminary investigation. I enclose the decree of the 10. 07. 2002 year. Further complaints and appeals within the country are not justified because they will be ineffective for the following reasons:

Investigator Isanov R. K from the first days of preliminary investigation grossly violates my right to protection of article 13, paragraph 3 of the Constitution of the RK, article 28, as well as article 71 Part 1 paragraph 5 of CPC.

Allows for the protection of my rights, as a lawyer KabulovaAsemMaratovna, who is not a lawyer, the license for the right to engage in legal profession has not, in fact, is not a person of procedure and is subject to removal in accordance with Article 97 Part 1 paragraph 4 of the CPC. Despite this fact, he is defending throughout the preliminary investigation of the order for № 981 of November 27, 2001, recognized by the Court of the city of Almaty falsified document.

Throughout the preliminary investigation, Advocate of illegal actionKabulovaAsemMaratovna misled me, systematically deceiving me. Thus, all factual data in the case are obtained with significant violations of the law. Investigator Isanov R. K. falsializesThe materials of the criminal case, customizing the facts under the episodes.

When the court established the fact of violation of my rights to protection, as well as the fact that the investigator Isanov R. K. Allows KabulovaAsemMaratovna to protect other defendants in this criminal case, the court returns the criminal case for additional investigation, to eliminate the admitted violations, the production of which is entrusted to the same investigator Isanov R. K., while violating a number of laws:

1) Article 197 Part 1 Paragraph 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states: If a violation of the law in the production of preliminary investigation, investigator, interrogating officer suspended from further participation in this criminal case.

2) Normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 6, 2002 for № 26 " on the practice of application of the criminal procedure legislation regulating the right to protection". Paragraph 18 violation of the right to protection of the accused is not an obstacle to the appointment of the main court proceedings and in accordance with article 303 of the CPC RK may not serve as a basis for further investigation. The materiality of such a violation should be taken into account during the main trial, in assessing the admissibility of the evidence and its sufficiency for the decision on guilt or innocence of the defendant.

3) Normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated April 20, 2006 № 4 " On some issues of assessment of evidence in criminal cases". Paragraph 10 the court should, in assessing the evidence in the case, carefully check whether the requirements of the law guaranteeing the right to protection were complied with when they were collected and secured. The actual data obtained in the course of proceedings with the participation of the defender, which under article 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of RK was to be eliminated from participation in the proceedings in accordance with article 9 of CPC, are recognized as inadmissible as Evidence. Evidence obtained after the referral of a criminal case for additional investigation in violation of article 303 of the CPC (violated the right to protection; sent at the request of the defender; without the prosecutor's petition) are subject to recognition inadmissible.

4) Item № 4. Evidence. They are considered inadmissible in violation of human rights and citizens guaranteed by the Constitution of Kazakhstan, establishing the circumstances specified in article 116 of CPC.

The court, seeing the most flagrant violations of legality, in the production of preliminary investigation, realizing that all the evidence in the case obtained in violation of the law and inadmissible as evidence, illegally directs the materials Criminal case for additional investigation with the sole purpose – to legalize illegal materials. As a matter of fact and succeeded in the end.

At the additional investigation investigatorIsanov R. K. did not conduct any investigative action with the participation of a legal professional lawyer instead of knowingly illegal. The court returned the materials of the criminal case with all the evidence, endorsed by the false lawyer KabulovaAsemMaratovna, which should be found inadmissible as evidence.

As a result, the materials of the criminal case are wholly and completely inadmissible as evidence: obtained in violation of the law; With the participation of a person liable to be detached from conducting additional investigation for the significant violations of the law; With the participation of the person to be eliminated from the proceedings because he was not a lawyer; According to the evidence, endorsed by the lawyer Kabulovoj a. m.; On the evidence of non-legal force in accordance with article 77 Part 3 paragraph 9 of the Constitution of the RK; In full, contrary to article 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Part 4 of the CPC was the basis of the accusation, on which the sentence " death penalty" was pronounced.

The materials of the criminal case do not have a single interrogation protocol with my participation in the presence of a professional legal lawyer. With this appeal to the International Commission on Human Rights, the UN is addressing for the first time:

In chronological order the circumstances of the case.

So, on November 27, 2001, in 2345, I was detained on suspicion of particularly serious crimes. The whole night was conducted by an inquiry with the use of the ill-called interrogation methods. In the morning, on November 28, 2001, I was given a lawyer KabulovaAsemMaratovna on the order № 981 from the 27. 11. 2001 of the Year (vol. № 2 ld 12), which fraudulently misled me, informing: " What you write and sign, it doesn't matter. Judging me will be on the testimony that I give in court and to avoid violence from the inquest, I better write and sign everything that is required of me. "

According to the video footage, all inconsistencies on the fact of two murders are clearly visible. It seems that all three defendants show different crimes (places, poses, and moments of death). Although according to written indications, written under the dictation of the investigators, all three defendants are alike.

In the decision of the city Court of Almaty of July 10, 2002 it is stated that KabulovaAsem Marat was a lawyer at the initial stages of investigation at Sotnikova T. V., and at the accused Grekhov I. d., I was in the whole period of preliminary investigation. However, from the materials of the case it can be seen that at the initial stages of the investigation Kabulova a. m. was a lawyer for all three defendants, Sotnikova V. V., Sotnikova T. V. and Grekhov I. D. Since all investigative protocols, interrogation protocols, statements on the spot Crimes are endorsed by KabulovaA. M. Also on the materials of video-audio recording it is visible that the false-lawyer Kabulova A. M. participated in the show at the crime scene one of all three defendants.

After one month of preliminary investigation, KabulovaA. M. refused to protect Sotnikova V. V. (in the future, Sotnikova V. V. had no lawyer at all, even in court. ) This fact was the basis of her release in the courtroom on February 10, 2003.

At the end of the first trial, the prosecutor Khalikova seeing in the acts of Sotnikova V. V. requested 10 years of imprisonment with a serving in a colony of strict regime. After additional investigation, where in the materials of the case absolutely nothing has changed, with Sotnikova V. V. remove all charges of particularly serious crimes, leave only the non-submission of the article 363 of the Criminal Code of RK, where by law the participation of the defender Not necessarily, because to recognize the fact of violation of the rights of Sotnikova V. V. to protect, already after additional investigation for the court was more complicated than to release Sotnikova V. V. in the courtroom.

Also, the court was reliably established that the Grekhov Igor Dmitrievich, that is, I was appointed professional lawyer Duysekhanov etc., according to the order for № 0012038. However, investigator Isanov R. K allows him to protect Sotnikova T. V. (vol. 2 L. 207-1), which is a significant violation of the law. AndGrekhov, I have the same and remained false-lawyer KabulovaAsemMaratovna, until the completion of investigation and familiarization with the materials of the case. After that all the materials of the criminal case were sent to the Court through the Prosecutor of the City of Almaty (fully and completely endorsed by the false lawyer Kabulova A. M. )

In the court was reliably established the fact that Kabulova a. m. Lawyer is not that the defense led by the trumped order, the license for the right to engage in lawyer activity has not.

As required by law: the materials obtained in violation of the law are recognized as null and void and may not be used as evidence of paragraph 9 Part 3 of article 77 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan. And equally, should be excluded from the materials of the criminal case. As the lawyer of Byimanov demanded in court. However, contrary to the law, all investigative protocols of the false lawyer KabulovaA. M. were the basis of the accusation. Since there is no other evidence in the case.

Further, the case files are sent for additional investigation. By the decision of the Almaty City Court of July 10, 2002, which was challenged by the prosecutor Khalikova representing the prosecution in court, the prosecutor points out in the protest that the list of articles 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of RK is not such, which indicates that the case Was aimed at additional investigation in violation of article 303 of CPC.

By the decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan on September 17, 2002 protest of the prosecutor is left without satisfaction, and the city court ruling unchanged.

After the fact that the Court had reliably established the facts of gross material violations of legality in the production of preliminary investigation investigator Isanov R. K., contrary to the requirement of article 197 Part 1 Paragraph 14 of the CPC, which reads when Infringement of legality at manufacture of preliminary investigation, the investigator, the interrogating officer remove from the further participation on the given criminal case. In fact, the investigator is subject to removal, but despite this, the production of additional investigation instruct the investigator Isanov R. K. To eliminate the violations intentionally to them. As can be seen from the materials of the case, the violations were not eliminated, as no investigative action was taken to replace the illegal one.

During the additional investigation the evidence and facts, contradicting the accusation of the first trial, disappeared from the materials of the criminal case, as during the whole preliminary investigation the facts were roughly fitting into the episodes. Also from the case materials disappeared the first indictment, endorsed by the Prosecutor of the city of Almaty, appeared a new identical to the second, even without the signature of the prosecutor, where there was no selective facts from the conclusion of forensic medical examination of Due to the death of Sotnikova A. A. and Amerzhakupova L. V., such as the size of the wandering furrow, the size of which Sotnikova A. A. 0. 6, and the Amerzhakupova L. V. 3 cm. According to the indications strangled by one nylon, linen rope, as Expert Pak A. A. in the court explained that the rope to leave a trail of wandering furrow 3 centimeters is impossible.

In the case materials there are two conclusions about the cause of death of Kovaleva N. M. and Amerzhakupova L. V., signed by one expert Pak A. A. at the conclusion of Kovalev N. M. signature of the expert is doubtful in the affiliation of Pak A. A. as the conclusion, where it is stated: " No bodily harm was found in the investigation of the corpse. " And in conclusion it is stated: " Cause of death of a brain injury as a result of fracture of bones of a skull base due to open craniocerebral trauma. " Also nowhere in the materials of the criminal case, no one pointed to the strangulation of the boyar pillow. This version was put forward during the main trial by presiding Judge Zhangazin at the first court hearing.

After further investigation, this version was listed in both indictments (suffocation pillow). In the conclusion of the SME on the cause of the death of an Unknown Woman (Boyarshinova) came from acute poisoning ethyl alcohol. The blood found 6. 8 ppm. The expert believes that the concentration of alcohol in the blood is relatively, as the corpse was exposed to high temperature of the open flame.

In this criminal case:

Boyarshinova was found in the house at Sotnikova Tatiana dead, because her relatives in Kazakhstan did not have to bury, under the influence of alcohol, we decided to take her out of the house, then spontaneously, gasoline merged from the lamp poured and set on fire. It's been four months, Sotnikova T. V. and Sotnikova V. V. strangled a sleeping, drunken A. A., Tatiana's husband, as I learned in court, he collected documents for divorce from Tatiana with the subsequent deprivation of her parental rights and eviction of Sotnikova T. V. and Sotnikova V. V. from his home, for After the murder of her husband, T. Sotnikova came to me and said: " I killed my husband and if I do not help to get rid of the corpse, she will inform the police that I killedBoyarshinova and burned the body.

" Then I did not know the cause of the death of Boyarshinova, and knowing that no one would not understand and I will go to jail, I buried the body of Sotnikova A. A. in the yard of the house in the barn, in the cellar.

Two murders of Amerzhakupova and Kovalevaus policemen were forced to take over. With this roughly customizing the facts under the episodes. The SME on Amerzhakupova has not found on clothes of layers of oil products, to strangle nylon linen rope and to leave a trace in 3 centimeters it is impossible. According to the testimony, we carried the body of Amerzhakupova at 3 o'clock in the morning, poured gasoline and set fire. The witness who found the corpse in the fire and called the police claim that Leaving the house at 8 o'clock in the morning there was no corpse. While returning at 9 o'clock in the morning I saw a burning corpse at the gate of the house.

According to Kovalev, the body was discovered in the morning by neighbors, whom he sold part of the House the day before. And only in the evening phoned his relatives and already called the police. Relatives claim that the father was killed by the neighbors to pick up the money given for the part of the house.

In the episode of Kovaleva, four months have passed before I wrote a confession to the dictation of investigators and investigator Isanova R. K. In the case materials there is no kuzized material. Although the investigation was under way, there were interrogation of witnesses, records of corpse detection, inventory and so on, but in criminal case it is not.

It has been 17 (seventeen) years and I have been trying to prove that the verdict is illegal, that it was carried out on inadmissible proofs, which have no legal force.

I write in all instances. But alas, to no avail. Only the answers in the form of an on-call statement are received back: " Violations of legality are eliminated, the guilty persons are punished, the materials of the case with the new indictment have come to court, they have been investigated, the violation of the law, Which could lead to the recognition of the proceedings in the case invalid, or to affect the legality of the verdict is prevented. "

And with all this, no one wants to see that the materials are completely illegal, have no legal effect, because were extracted with the participation of persons subject to withdrawal, with the deprivation of the right of the defendant to defend, when the participation of the defender is mandatory. On all these facts, I appealed to all power and legal organizations of the Republic of Kazakhstan. From 2002 to January 2007, I wrote more than 50 complaints, petitions, and appeals. Always received an unsubscribe: violations of the law is not found, your guilt is fully proven. But even in the illegal materials of the case there is not a single incontrovertible evidence of my guilt in causing death in any episode.

In January 2007, I received a reply, where it was stated: -on the grounds of legality and validity of correspondence with you terminated, further appeals will be left without consideration.

Six years later, I resumed correspondence to appeal the verdict. Since July 2013 and up to now I have also addressed again more than 50 times. Passed all the instances in the second circle. In 2015, the supervisory Board of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan on March 3, 2015, the verdict changed, the death penalty was replaced by life imprisonment. Although the Presidential decree of 07 December 2007, all persons sentenced to death under a moratorium have been replaced by a pardon for life imprisonment.

According to the law, to whom in the form of pardon were substituted for life imprisonment, they are deprived of the right to parole. This means that before the physical, biological death for something that in fact did not commit.

In November 2018, in a petition addressed to the Attorney general, I applied for a protest against the verdict and all subsequent judicial acts. And I got a reminder again that the correspondence with me has been discontinued since 2007. In the form of writing of this appeal it is indicated whether these violations are of a systematic nature.

The decision on refusal to initiate a criminal case of October 13, 2002, the investigator Trofimova L. M. found that KabulovaAsemMaratovna conducted six criminal cases on especially serious crimes, where by law the participation of the defender is obligatory on Falsified orders № № 951, 980, 981, 1029, 1032, 1033.

The investigators confirmed that only KabulovaA. M. was involved in the proceedings, that no one had checked the license to engage in legal activity. But this is only a reservation. Since article 72 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates: The lawyer is allowed to the case upon presentation of a lawyer's certificate and a warrant to protect the individual.

But as it was established by the court, Kabulova a. m., the lawyer was not, and equal to the certificate of the lawyer she did not have. The conclusion begs itself that investigators deliberately allowed KabulovaAsemMaratovna to mislead the defendants on their constitutional and procedural rights, in order to freely falsify criminal cases.

Turning to you, I hope that this appeal to you will be considered acceptable and that after consideration will be restored my rights. I have been serving for almost 20 years for crimes that I have not committed. All this time I live in inhuman conditions. We are ill, extremely poorly fed. Seldom bring out for a walk. Give a little time to take a shower.

We, convicted constantly without any reason are beaten, tortured, and some are killed. Not all correspondence goes beyond the institution, because any letters are censored. Therefore, I had to write a corresponding power of attorney in the name of my native sister. I've spent almost half my life in prison without any reason. So I want at least a couple of years before death to live on the will, to see pure open skies.

I urge you! I have no material opportunity to hire a professional lawyer. I beg you, I stand before you on my knees and I ask you as the solid international organization to which heads of the states listen, help me, I ask to allocate from the funds on payment and granting to me the independent, professional lawyer who Will deeply study my criminal case, on which I am in knowingly fabricated conditions.

We have so materially limited conditions for the purchase of essential goods in the shop of the correctional Institution. From you at least some, one-time charitable help, will allow me at least something less to live the rest of my days. I have no one and I have no one to count and hope for.

I ask you to influence the state of Kazakhstan, at least write a letter of recommendation to the head of the state of Kazakhstan to revise my criminal case, improve the conditions of maintenance of the sentence. On your part, this will not interfere in the internal affairs of the State of Kazakhstan, but only a recommendation that may affect the change of my hopeless life.

I would never go anywhere if I was actually serving a sentence for a committed crime. But I did not do what I suffer and pay for decades irretrievable years. You are my last hope not to put your hands on yourself. Grab any straw to escape, cling to any opportunity. I believe, I hope, I wait.

GrekhovIgor Dmitrievich ______________________ March 22, 2019 18⁵⁸