Chance for everyone

The undisputed information “hit” of the past days was the beginning of the trial in the case of M.B. Khodorkovsky. and Lebedev P.L., accused of allegedly “illegal appropriation of someone else’s property and laundering of criminally acquired property.” The result of many years of investigative work was an enviable number of papers filed in the case: 14 volumes of the indictment and 168 volumes of the criminal case.

In the pre-trial assessment of the charges brought and the evidence collected in the case, the parties, not surprisingly, disagree. The Prosecutor General, for example, is not very concerned about the “presumption of innocence” of M.B. Khodorkovsky. and Lebedev P.L., firmly stated that their guilt had been proven. Mr. Chaika’s categorical attitude naturally gives rise to suspicion whether his confidence is connected with the knowledge that the trial that is beginning is only a formal procedure for assigning additional years in camp. The accused and their highly qualified lawyers, on the contrary, argue that it is difficult to imagine a greater legal absurdity than the multi-volume “work” of investigators. And indeed, the individual wording of the indictment cited by the defense, the amounts imputed and the tons of stolen goods by M.B. Khodorkovsky. and Lebedev P.L. in the companies they own, i.e. They cannot cause anything but bewilderment in themselves, in mentally healthy people. And it’s really sad to read P.L. Lebedev’s objections. on the charges brought, when he demands that certified prosecutors eliminate confusion (whether through ignorance or intentionally) in the application of branches of criminal, civil, business, tax and other law and not disgrace a respected profession with blatant legal illiteracy.

That is why, despite Mr. Chaika’s administrative optimism, there is still hope that with the quality of the investigation “stitched” into criminal volumes, it will not be difficult for an unbiased court, if desired, not only to understand from the legal position, but also to pass a fair verdict. In any case, Judge Danilkin, who is considering the criminal case, rejecting the defense’s request for no confidence in himself, is convinced that there is no reason to doubt his, Danilkin’s, objectivity and strict adherence to the spirit and letter of the law. Although, of course, concerns about his bias remain when you understand who is personally interested in the indefinite stay of the Yukosites behind bars, and you see with what recklessness and uncompromisingness the judge rejects all motivated defense requests.
Since the trial of M.B. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev P.L. - the phenomenon is not an ordinary criminal one, but a socio-political one, then the enormous interest in it and the diversity of judgments about the invisible political springs driving the Byzantine mechanism of Russian legal proceedings are understandable. Political scientists, politicians and journalists are doing a lot of practice in putting forward versions of alleged political motives and searching for the initiators of transferring the case to court, do not skimp on forecasts regarding the outcome of the process, considering the court as a field of possible battle between the Kremlin “liberals” and the White House “security officials”. Of those participating in the discussion, however, almost no one believes in a favorable verdict, despite all the far-fetched and absurdity of the accusation: the break between Medvedev and Putin because of M.B. Khodorkovsky. So far it looks unrealistic to experts. Moreover, public opinion, recorded in recent polls of sociologists, does not force Russian leaders to stop trampling on moral and legal norms in the “YUKOS case.” But even those who do not rule out the acquittal of those involved in the case believe that this can only happen if Mr. Medvedev, through his personal power, provides space for the rule of law. In other words, no one hopes for the independence of the court in this case, but only a political decision is allowed both in case of conviction and in case of acquittal.

It’s tragic, but in this situation, the legal protection of the communist G. Dimitrov and his comrades in the confrontation with the top of the fascist state was initially higher than that of the moderate liberals M.B. Khodorkovsky. and Lebedeva P.L. in confrontation with the chicks of the liberal Sobchak, who have settled in the Kremlin and its environs. It is curious that when Goering, who falsely accused the Communists of organizing the Reichstag fire, complained to Hitler about the judges’ skeptical attitude towards his evidence, he replied that as long as Hindenburg remained president, the Nazis had no way to end their (the judges’) independence.

And yet, today, in March 2009 in Moscow, the position of the Yukosites, in my opinion, does not look so hopeless compared to the situation of the Cominternists in September 1933 in Leipzig. A chance for the triumph of law under President-lawyer Medvedev for M.B. Khodorkovsky. and Lebedeva P.L. despite all reasonable reasons, it remains. It is undoubtedly not as obvious as in the case of the Bulgarian communists under President Field Marshal Hindenburg, but also not as insignificant as Russian political scientists estimate it. Of course, the current Russian leaders have more reliable telephone communications with the courts than Mr. Goering did in the second half of 1933. But this does not mean, however, that it cannot fail in the conditions of a growing economic crisis. But in Russia in 2009, representatives of the media do not yet experience the animal horror of the punitive authorities that the thugs from the SA units instilled in German journalists in 1933. Therefore, there are no more obstacles to obtaining objective information from the Khamovnichesky District Court than from the Leipzig court. The attention of the world community to the process in Moscow is, of course, not as enormous as to the historical one in Leipzig, but it is not small either, and citizens’ access to means of communication is now an order of magnitude higher. In the conditions of an open trial, prosecutors' stories about theft from their own pockets under the watchful eye of Western and Russian experts who understand the issue and a large interested public will sound more comical and stupid than accusations of Comintern representatives of a penchant for pyromania. I am convinced that if anything can shake the keen desire of some sufferers in power to impose another sentence on M.B. Khodorkovsky. and Lebedev P.L., then this is a public ridicule of the absurdities in the “stitched together with white thread” case. And the more friendly and powerful the laughter (growing into Homeric), the more difficult it will be to pass a political, rather than a legal, verdict.

It seems that the defendants also believe in the healing power of laughter, and therefore are ready, despite the seeming hopelessness of their situation to some, to “amuse” and “make laugh” the respectable spectators with the murderous power of their arguments in a duel with representatives of the state prosecution. At the same time, Khodorkovsky M.B. with his characteristic restraint, trying to remain extremely correct in relation to his procedural opponents, he notes that the upcoming trial promises to be “not without interest,” and asks the public to “compare the intelligibility and openness of his position with the closedness and incomprehensibility of the essence of the accusation.” “It’s all too shockingly simple,” he concludes, smiling.

In turn, Lebedev P.L., throwing diplomacy aside, promises in the vocabulary of his cellmates to “tear the prosecutor’s office like a tuzik’s hot water bottle.” A prison cell increases tenfold the ability of a strong person to defend himself, and therefore there is no doubt that promises will be more than fulfilled, and there will be plenty of grounds for derogatory laughter at the prosecution.
Faith in the ability of M.B. Khodorkovsky and Lebedeva P.L. proving the ridiculousness of the accusations and the bias of the accusers requires no explanation. First of all, they are incomparably better versed and understand the intricacies (including legal ones) of the functioning of a vertically integrated company, their professional activities in which are interpreted by the investigation as criminally punishable. It's funny, but Lebedev P.L. during the incriminated period he did not work at YUKOS at all.
Without any exaggeration or exaggeration, it can be argued that the scale of the personalities of the defendants and those who oppose them is incomparable. Intelligence, general and professional knowledge of M.B. Khodorkovsky. and Lebedeva P.L. are many times greater than the similar potential of the representatives of the prosecution, Messrs. Shokhin and Lakhtin. As for Shokhin, his colorlessness (a sort of Gogol character) was strikingly evident even at the first trial. Since Lakhtin, presumably, is a figure of the same level, he will not become a “tough nut to crack” for the defendants and their lawyers.
One should not discount the important fact that each of the accused now has served almost six years in prison, which not only did not break them, but, on the contrary, strengthened them, repeatedly confirming their desire to prove their own innocence. Behind them are punishment cells, hunger strikes, the arbitrariness of jailers, many courts and disappointing court decisions. But they stubbornly continue to fight for their good names, demanding justice and the law. Life has forged these people into Shalamov’s type of camp inmates: both in terms of their strength of spirit and in terms of the terms to which they are trying to condemn them. Their desire to win is an order of magnitude higher than that of their pursuers. Personalities such as M.B. Khodorkovsky. and Lebedev P.L., cannot afford to wipe their mud-stained government shoes on themselves. For them, the stake in the trial is reputation and freedom, and maybe even life; for Shokhin and Lakhtin, it’s the favor of their superiors and crosses on their chests. The difference is gigantic.
The fact that the battlefield in the Khamovniki court will remain with M.B. Khodorkovsky. and Lebedev P.L., and the accusation will be disgraced, at least in my mind, there is no doubt. And the prosecution should be disgraced to such an extent that, having retired to pronounce a sentence, the judge, even if his phone is hot from calls, would not hesitate for a minute, making a just and humane decision. These extraordinary people deserve not the “mercy” of the authorities, but justice and truth. As, indeed, each of us.
Judge Danilkin, speaking quite seriously, has a unique opportunity to prove with his own professional actions that a Russian citizen, even in politically motivated criminal cases, can count on justice not only in Strasbourg, but also in his native country. Rarely does anyone get such a historic chance. Let's hope that he deserves this chance and doesn't miss it. It is better to remain in history as a judge in the Reichstag arson trial than as a “six” in Mr. Goering’s retinue.