Lawyers assessed the chances of a guilty verdict for Ingush imams

Case of failure to report a crime, under which Ingush imams Muhammad Tamaskhanov and Magomed Sultygov are charged, are typically based on witness testimony, and the court most often supports the prosecution's case, according to lawyers. Tamaskhanov refused to testify, a source familiar with the case reported.

As reported by "Caucasian Knot," on April 12, 2025, the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for Ingushetia opened a criminal case against imams Muhammad Tamaskhanov and Magomed Sultygov for failure to report a crime. Both imams were released on their own recognizance. Both are popular among followers of the Salafi school of Islam. On February 18, more than a hundred people came to the Magas District Court of Ingushetia, where the trial of Imam Muhammad Tamaskhanov, accused of failing to report a crime, began. The judge, citing technical problems, postponed the hearing.

How the special operation in Karabulak took place

On April 10, 2025, Muhammad Tamaskhanov, imam of a mosque in Nazran, and Magomed Sultygov, imam of a mosque in Karabulak, were detained in Ingushetia. The arrests were allegedly motivated by their concealment of information about a request for assistance from Khazir Ganiev, a member of a militant group linked to Amirkhan Gurazhev, who had attacked traffic police posts in the republic. Criminal charges of failure to report were brought against both imams, according to the "Caucasian Knot" article "Highlights of the Detention of Ingush Imams Tamaskhanov and Sultygov." Tamaskhanov denied the charges, and Sultygov also maintained his innocence.

A source familiar with the trial of imams Muhammad Tamaskhanov and Muhammad Sultygov reported that they are free and have no pretrial detention measures in place.

"There is a requirement to appear in court. There were no restrictions on religious activity. Public pressure may have played a role in the fact that the trial was postponed until the end of Ramadan. "People were outraged by the situation," the source noted.

According to him, both are charged under Article 205.6 of the Russian Criminal Code.

"Their cases are being heard separately because Sultygov had a special procedure; he admitted his guilt. He wanted to close the case quickly. Sultygov was forced to admit his guilt because of a secret witness who incriminated him. There are reports of torture against them. And Tamaskhanov was charged under Article 51. Most likely, he does not admit his guilt; at the very least, he refused to answer investigators' questions," the source explained to a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent.

Lawyer Timofey Shirokov, who is not associated with this case, noted that Article 205.6 is rarely used due to its "light" nature.

"I've heard of a few isolated cases, and they're all regional. "This article isn't very effective, in the sense that security forces, it seems to me, will more often than not simply "caulk" a suspect under Article 205 if there is any evidence of contacts, for example, with members of some terrorist group. Or they will coerce a confession and use them as a witness in the case. But here I can assume that there was probably a personal attack on these imams. In Ingushetia and Chechnya, unlike even Dagestan, the activities of imams are monitored very closely. That's why they decided to control them this way," Shirokov told a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent.

 In his opinion, charges under this article are usually based on the testimony of third parties.

 "In most cases, charges are brought if someone testified against someone else. It could even be that they were 'written,' their activities were being monitored, or there could be some video recordings or audio recordings of conversations." "Naturally, the investigation can conclude that they knew and did not immediately report someone's plans," Shirokov explained.

Lawyer Kaloy Akhilgov, also not connected with this case, in turn noted that in recent years, Article 205.6 has also become more frequently used.

"But overall, the trend is that the number of cases under all versions of Article 205 has increased," he told a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent.

According to the lawyer, the investigation is not experiencing any difficulties in "proving" this and other articles. "Basically, innocence is never proven, so if an investigation is opened under this article, there will definitely be a verdict. I don't know about this specific case, but I suspect proving the imams' guilt to the investigators and the court was just as difficult as proving that someone sent 200 rubles to finance terrorism," Akhilgov lamented.

As a reminder, the arrest of imams Muhammad Tamaskhanov and Magomed Sultygov caused a widespread outcry. Security forces used brute force to detain Imam Magomed Tamaskhanov and pressured him to confess to ties to a terrorist group, according to religious leaders who demanded Ingush authorities intervene.

Tamaskhanov "was forced into his home, thrown to the floor, restrained, and taken to the security forces' center in Magas. Using illegal interrogation methods, they demanded he confess to meeting with an extremist element with whom Magomed is completely unfamiliar, has never met, and has had no dealings with," the statement reads. It was specifically emphasized that Tamaskhanov was not acquainted with Ganiev.

The criminal case against Ingush imams is related to religious activity, including the construction of mosques and support for the Anti-Irika movement, stated Muhammad Tamaskhanov.

Muftiates exist within the legal framework of the state, and their cooperation with the authorities cannot be determined by medieval Sharia rulings, and there are no modern fatwas on this matter, analysts noted, commenting on the persecution of imams Tamaskhanov and Sultygov, who are accused of failure to report.