Domodedovo found a logical error in the charges under the terrorist attack

Former leaders airport fully fulfilled the requirements of the legislation, and their actions cannot be qualified under article “services that do not meet the requirements of security of life or health of consumers” (article 238 of the Criminal code), the statement of the press service of Domodedovo, published on the official website.

Under article 238 of the criminal code charges were brought against ex-managing Director of “Domodedovo airport aviation security” Andrey Danilov, the former head of the Russian representative office of Airport Management Company Limited Svetlana Trichinae and former Director of the airport complex of Domodedovo Vyacheslav Nekrasov. 8 and 9 February, former top managers were arrested by the Basmanny district court of Moscow, although the opposition by the Prosecutor.

Trishina, Danilov and Nekrasov are defendants in the case about the attack, which happened in Domodedovo on 24 January 2011 when bomber Magomed Yevloyev got into the airport building. The explosion killed 37 people, 172 people were injured.

Former leaders ensured the safety of visitors Domodedovo in accordance with the requirement of the law written in the press service of Aeroporto. “The aviation security service of the airport at the entrance to the terminal building at the time of inspection was carried out verification activities for incoming persons to the extent assigned to the aviation security service of the airport and allowed by law”, — is specified with reference to the decision of the Arbitration court of Moscow region from April 8, 2011.

Investigators should not claim that the use of more modern technologies of inspection could have prevented the attack, confident in Domodedovo. At the airport called such statements “technique of imputing an alternate reality” and lead other ways to prevent disaster: “If the taxi driver refused to take the terrorist Yevloyev, crime would not exist; if the officer had detained Yevloyev at the streets of Moscow, the crime would not have happened”.

As noted in Domodedovo, investigators believe that the simplification of the inspection procedures in 2010 (was then introduced selective screening airport visitors), led to the attack. However, this position representatives of the airport is considered contrary to logic: if the changes do not take effect, it does not protect the airport from terrorists.

In Domodedovo also refer to Russia’s position on the case, which was tried in the European court of human rights. “The authorities consider the applicant’s submission about the absence or insufficiency of protective measures at the airport is incorrect and unfounded. Moscow international airport Domodedovo became one of the first airports that have installed a full system scan of the human body at checkpoints for passengers on international and domestic flights”, — was stated in the response in the case of “Krivolutskaya against Russia”.

Trishina, Danilov and Nekrasov had previously appeared in the case of violation of requirements of transport safety. The investigation lasted 53 months and was closed because the actions of the defendants in the end has not been found a crime. As noted by “Kommersant”, from the materials of the terminated case implies that all the equipment for screening was purchased by order of the airport authority, as a technique of law enforcement agencies did not act due to lack of spare parts or due to excessive wear.

In addition, the materials stated that the airport could not provide verification of all visitors and passengers, as this can be done only by law enforcement agencies in the event of a threat of a terrorist attack. In January 2011 about the threat was not announced, so the MVD and the FSB were not translated on the strengthened mode of service.

According to “Kommersant”, one of the grounds for termination was the decision of Arbitration court of Moscow region, which now refer to Domodedovo. The court, having considered the claim of the structures included in Domodedovo, has established that the claim of Federal Agency for transport supervision: the Agency insisted that the airport must immediately take measures to hundred percent inspection in a building of the airport complex. The arbitration concluded that at the time of the attack, the law did not require such inspection. Since then, the standards have not changed.