Due to the high interest of the public, I would like to introduce the interim information on the investigation into the case of the Aphang Mukhtarli and introduce several important decisions.
On May 30, officers of old Tbilisi police division under Tbilisi Police Department launched investigation on the fact of illegally restricting freedom to Aphgan Mukhtarli (crime envisaged by the article 143, I part of the Criminal Code) which was based on the report of the lawyer Archil Chopikashvili, hired by the spouse of Mukhtarli-Leyla Mustafaeva.
A series of investigative actions were carried out within the investigation.
Namely: video recordings from 46 surveillance cameras were extracted and studied, including footages recorded by cameras installed in 10 various facilities, located on “Kolkhoz” Square. Additionally, 19 more camera footages were studied located in the nearby area. The video recording of the "Georgian State Electro System" building located on Nikoloz Baratashvili Street, N2 depicts the scene where person dressed in white who presumably is Aphgan Mukhtarli gets into the minibus N4.
All the drivers (22 witnesses) of the N4 minibus were interviewed by the investigation. They explained that their route includes the following territory: “Samasi Aragveli” Metro station, leading to the “Kolkhoz” Square, Chonkadze street, up to the Gotua street and stated that they witnessed nothing suspicious on May 29, 2017.
Inspectors have interviewed dozens of witnesses: parking lot workers, taxi drivers, traders and private security personnel who stated that on May 29, 2017 they hadn’t witnessed any facts of physical assault or car abduction, nor had they witnessed any other suspicious circumstance.
In addrition, investigators extracted and studied footages recorded by the 27 surveillance cameras installed in the 4 building located near to Mukhtarli’s residence. In the mentioned footage Mukhtarli was not depicted.
On Niagvari and Chonkadze streets and adjacent areas, 127 witnesses were interrogated, who explained that on May 29, 2017, they did not witness any fact of the physical assault or car abduction, nor had they noticed any other suspicious circumstance.
61 employees of the Border Police Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs were questioned on the above mentioned criminal case, who explained that no incident or suspicious circumstance was recorded at Lagodekhi BCP and border line located in Dedoplistskaro and Sighnagi regions.
In total 343 witnesses were questioned within the frames of the ongoing investigation.
Based on the decision of the court, investigation requested a detailed list incoming and outgoing phone calls from the mobile phone owned by an Aphgan Mukhtarli from May 25 to May 30, 2017 as well as information on the so called “IMEI” code and masts of the company.
Investigations, for the purpose of legal assistance, provided the relevant authorities of the Republic of Azerbaijan with the relevant petition, requesting the criminal case materials and information on the details of the interrogation of Mukhtarli, they also requested the attendance of the Georgian side at the interrogation.
Leyla Mustafayeva- spouce of Aphgan Mukhtarli, and their child were provided with special protection, which was rejected by Leyla Mustafayeva.
Archil Chopikshvili, lawyer of Afgan Mukhtar and Leila Mustafayeva, got acquainted with the written materials of the criminal case and was given the opportunity to view the video recordings.
At this stage investigation is in progress.
In this regard, I would like to present you some important decisions. Of course, we had active communication with the State Security Service.
Given the fact that this case relates to the high public interest and approach to such cases determines our department's reputation, it is very important that the public should not have any unanswered questions regarding the ongoing investigation, efficient border control and counter-intelligence activities.
Therefore, after having held consultation with the above mentioned agency, the mutual decision was made and heads of the relevant services, which are directly responsible for, on the one hand, state border control and on the other hand, counter-intelligence activities - MIA Border Police and the State Security Service Counterintelligence Department directors theft their positions before the end of the ongoing investigation.
As you know, the investigation does not have a right to exclude any version and considering that fact of state border crossing took place in uncertain circumstances, the relevant decision was made.
I believe that leaving the positions of the relevant officials is a very important step to prevent any unreasonable interpretation of the case in the future.
