The debate about fairness flared up in the comments under the post about Kadirhanov's release.
Some users considered the release of Nadir Khan Kadirhanov to be fair, while others pointed out that the sentence was too lenient. Commentators reminded that the incident was preceded by a conflict and humiliation from MMA fighter Magomedrasul Mutayev, while others called murder unacceptable even in such a case.
As reported by "Caucasian Knot", in January 2025, the prosecutor's office sent the case of the murder of MMA fighter Magomed Mutayev to the Lenin District Court of Makhachkala. Nadir Khan Kadirhanov, accused of murder out of revenge, had been in pre-trial detention since early February 2024. Kadirhanov was found guilty of murdering MMA fighter Magomedrasul Mutayev but was released from the courtroom.
On January 31, 2024, MMA fighter Magomedrasul Mutayev received several gunshot wounds near his home in Makhachkala and died on the way to the hospital. On February 3, police reported that 18-year-old Nadir Khan Kadirhanov was detained on suspicion of murder. The investigation named personal animosity of the suspect as the motive for Mutayev's murder. Acquaintances of the detainee reported that he had been subjected to humiliation and mockery by Mutayev. According to other sources, Mutayev did not confront Kadirhanov one-on-one but gathered a group of about 15 people to beat Kadirhanov and humiliate him in front of witnesses.
The release of Nadir Khan sparked debates about fairness on the "Caucasian Knot" Instagram page, with the post garnering 392 comments.
In the comments to the post about Nadir Khan's release, users express joy, discuss the circumstances of the conflict with Mutayev, and evaluate the proportionality of the punishment differently.
Some users were pleased with Kadirhanov's release
A significant portion of commentators reacted positively to the news of Nadir Khan's release. Users express support for the young man and wish him well.
"Good news for today," commented Ma_kka05.
"What a wonderful piece of news! Well done, kid!", noted khadija_efendieva.
"Good luck to you, Nadir Khan! May everything go well for you! Take care of yourself," wrote in particular tskhovrebovavalentina.
Some commentators believe that the young man deserves support, as they think he faced humiliation before the conflict. They perceive the release as a fair decision.
"He deserves respect; why should someone mock him? And all the measures taken were right. Good luck to you, young man....", wrote kamila.05.dag.
"A decent and well-mannered boy who was pushed to this! Such people shouldn't serve long sentences; they would just turn him into a criminal. He has already received his punishment; that's enough! He avenged himself. Dagestan provided good support for this boy," writes lauisa.07.
Users debated the history of the conflict
Users present different versions of the backstory of the confrontation. Some believe that Mutayev humiliated Nadir Khan, while others point to possible insults from Nadir Khan himself and doubt the credibility of certain claims.
"Different versions diverge. According to one, Nadir Khan said insulting things about Mutayev's father; according to another, Nadir Khan wrote obscene things under comments on either Mutayev's sister's page or the sister of one of Mutayev's close friends," wrote user majorkadagestns.
Some participants in the discussion believe that without testimonies from both sides, it is impossible to objectively reconstruct the events.
"I don't know what really happened there; there's no other way for him to tell his version, and listening to one side is not right," wrote said_q185.
"Better not to speak of what we haven't seen with our own eyes or heard with our own ears. It's a very big sin to slander," supported abdurrakhim65kg.
The debate about the permissibility of murder
In the comments, two positions clash: some justify Nadir Khan's actions by the preceding humiliations, while others emphasize that the conflict does not give the right to take a person's life. The debate often shifts to discussions of personal honor and permissible means of defense.
Four years for murder is already lawlessness in the law enforcement agencies of the republic
"No matter what, he had no right to kill; he could have responded with fists or called his brothers for help. And four years for murder is already lawlessness in the law enforcement agencies of the republic," wrote user strannik22612.
"Had no right to kill? If your honor is being tarnished in every way? Honor, inviolability, just so you know, you can be killed for that," retorted wolf220891.
"Mutayev had no right to humiliate and mock a person," wrote user chegevaro14.
Some commentators believe that even in the case of serious insults, another way to resolve the conflict should have been sought.
"He should have gone one-on-one to sort it out; after all, he is a fighter and older than him. How many people were with him? They not only beat him but also humiliated him," wrote user murad_0fficial_05.
"He should have approached Mutayev's elders to calm him down," agreed user majorkadagestns.
Some commentators argue about how an athlete should use physical strength.
"If you are engaged in sports, you shouldn't oppress ordinary people," wrote umukusum6126.
Insults are understandable; you can injure or beat someone up with a crowd, but why kill?
A number of users discuss the length of the punishment and the circumstances of the release. Some believe that the young man has already served enough punishment, while others doubt the justification of such a decision and speak of the need to uphold the law.
"Well, our court... they do whatever they want. Insults are understandable; you can injure or beat someone up with a crowd, but why kill?" wrote psiholog.ismail.budaichiev.
"Murder in a state of affect (Article 107 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation): deprivation of liberty (or other alternative punishments, such as corrective or compulsory labor) for up to 3 years (under part 2 concerning two or more persons - up to 5 years), there is no lawlessness here," explained user _a.shapi.
Users reminded of the loss of the Mutayev family
Some commentators remind of the grief of the Mutayev family. They urge to consider that the death of a person remains a heavy loss for his loved ones, regardless of the attitude towards the circumstances of the conflict.
"This is a huge grief and trial for both sides. It's very sad that everything happened this way," wrote bintahmadamia.
"Don't write here who is right and who is wrong. Only the Almighty knows, and only He. We do not wish anyone to lose their child. Everyone will answer for their actions," noted altynajadzimuratova.
"Please don't stir this up again! Don't do this again! It's pain for both sides!", believes barcyxa05.
Some users expressed concerns for Kadirhanov's fate
In some comments, there is concern that Nadir Khan's release may lead to further confrontation. Users point out the feelings of the victim's side and the possible consequences of public discussion.
"It was a mistake to release him. The victim's side may take revenge," wrote shuainat413.
"I think we shouldn't talk about his release because the relatives may harbor resentment," noted a.g.rus111.
Displeased with the sentence for his son's death, a father committed a double murder in Dagestan
Earlier in Dagestan, a murder occurred when the father of the deceased was shocked by the lenient sentence.
On March 15, 2024, the convicted person and his lawyer Sergey Osipov were killed by the victim outside the Nogai District Court. The motive for the murder was blood revenge: the victim was dissatisfied with the court's sentence in a traffic accident case that resulted in his son's death. The Supreme Court of Dagestan overturned the sentence of the Nogai District Court, which provoked the murder of the accused and his lawyer by the father of the deceased teenager in the traffic accident. The investigation and the court admitted significant violations in the case, the appellate instance stated.
The case concerned a traffic accident that occurred near Terekli-Mekteb. A local resident in a Mazda 6 hit a 15-year-old teenager on a moped, and the young man died. The court referred to the absence of a forensic medical examination report in the case and deemed it impossible to establish the cause of death of the victim, thus sentencing the driver to one and a half years of imprisonment.
The version of blood revenge in the murder by the father of the deceased teenager of the lawyer and the perpetrator of the traffic accident is excluded; what happened was a spontaneous act in a state of affect due to the unlawful sentence, lawyers and Caucasian studies experts believe.