In the opposition

Process. Issue 12

September 22, 2009 Daily Journal

In order to somehow understand what is happening on these, so to say, meetings, of course, it is necessary to go there. Well, at least once. While in this, let’s say, a bizarre atmosphere, you clearly understand that the true content and genuine dramaturgy of what is happening not in the spoken words, not in the chaotic exchange of remarks, the essence of which is far from always understood by the uninitiated, but in some other thing-in the expression of people, in arbitrary, and most often involuntary gestures, in a total, deafening paralyzing paralyzing paralyzing paralyzing. will and attention boredom.

And therefore, there are so incredible quite ordinary, but, most importantly, the living manifestations of living people - namely, two accused. Watching all this, I always want to shake my head and remember who is judging whom there.

Indeed: the idea should be sorry for those who are sitting in glass boxing. And it’s a pity all the time of those who, without raising their eyes, rustling with their lips and pieces of paper on one note.

But for some reason, for some reason, a judge who, with all his offended appearance and short ones, all the time out of place-makes it clear that he has nothing to do with it. What brought him into this tedious performance by some wild winds. That he ended up here by accident and really wants to go home.

How do you like this, for example, Mizanscena:

Krasnov : "Either we allow the state prosecution in court to defiantly ignore the law, or the presiding judge within the framework of his authority takes measures to prevent this."

Judge : "How?"

Krasnov : "I can’t give advice, this is not my function."

Judge : “I'll think about it. We continue. "

He won’t think anything, there is no doubt. He will only think about how to get out of the role that weighs him incredibly.

But, too, not bad:

Judge (Lachtin) : “Valery Alekseevich, we are already reading all this in the second circle. For an hour in vain spent! ”

Ibragimova (Lachtin) : "Valery Alekseevich, why do you announce what we have already announced?"

Lebedev : "Your honor, I am already completely confused what we are doing now."

Judge : "I wrote down which sheets announce, but it does not help me."

Nothing to him, poor man, does not help. Neither legal education, nor judicial experience, nor simple common sense.

Or:

“ Lebedev :“ Your honor, make sure that sheet 177 has nothing to do with a sheet of 178 at all. They are different in font, different in structure and even different in sequential numbering of the content. Thus, they lied to you. ”

(The judge sighs)

And who would not sigh?

Leonid Semloths

Elena Lipzer, lawyer Platon Lebedeva comments on what is happening at the request of the "Daily Journal":

“On September 14, the cassation instance considered our complaint about the decision of the Danilkin judge of June 2, in which he set the term of detention until August 17, and he did this at the request of our clients, since earlier, when he made a resolution according to the results of the preliminary hearings, he left a preventive measure without changing the time, that is, he left the time for it, that is, thus left the one without changes The preventive measure, which was first elected to the Ingodinsky district court, then was extended by the Chita Regional Court. She acted in relation to Khodorkovsky until 00 hours on the night of March 17 to 18, and in relation to Lebedev - on the night of April 2 to 3. Therefore, we believed that since that time Khodorkovsky and Lebedev began to be detained illegally, since there was no court decision that would determine the term of detention. We also said that this decision should be motivated - the court should bring grounds for further detention. None of this was done by the court. On June 2, the judge, without reinforcing his decision, only referring to Article 255 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wrote that the duration of this preventive measure is set until August 17. Article 255, firstly, applies only to the defendants, so he could not be guided by her, making a decision on March 17, because then they were still accused-this was a preliminary hearing in the case-and secondly, it was created in order to limit the term of detention, it suggests that the term of detention for people accused of committing low crimes cannot exceed six months, and in relation to those who are accused of committing serious and especially serious crimes, the deadline can then be extended for three months. At the same time, the article does not say that if the case has been the court, then the accused may be detained for six months, this is a free interpretation of the article by a judge, which is not based on any law.

When the judge made a decision on the extension of the detention on August 14, we also considered it unreasonable, since the judge wrote that the circumstances did not change, the grounds for which the preventive measure was elected, did not disappear, but Khodorkovsky and Lebedev are already contained in the judgment of the court sentence.

Of course, we did not assume that the Moscow City Court could cancel these decisions, however, we needed to bring our position to the Moscow City Court in order to exhaust all the effective means of protection within the country, we could subsequently apply to the European Court of Human Rights on this issue. The European Court has already recognized Platon Leonidovich illegal on the complaint of its detention without a court decision in the first case.

The prosecutors continue, as they call it, the presentation of evidence from the prosecution, reading some documents on the activities of the company Yukos. Prosecutor Lakhtin began to disclose the company's confidential relations with lawyers, with whom agreements were concluded on the submission of interests in various authorities of both the company and its employees - on the requirements for paying taxes, in criminal cases that they began to initiate in 2003. Naturally, we were indignant, because this is confidential information that has absolutely nothing to do with the charges. Prosecutor Lakhtin said that lawyers thus counteracted justice, but we can say so about any lawyer who fulfills his professional duty, protecting the interests of the accused of committing a crime. This attitude of the prosecutor Lakhtin to the accused and his lawyers cannot be considered not only legal, but simply normal. The judge, in principle, expressed his position, he believes that we act within the framework of the law, when he exercises protection. Nevertheless, he did not make any remarks to the prosecutor, which we asked for, and, moreover, said that he did not have the right to prevent the prosecutor in the presentation of the evidence that he considers necessary. But at the same time, the judge considered it possible to close the court session at a time when the prosecutor will submit some documents that are confidential. As a result, the audience was removed from the hall, while the prosecutors announced the decisions of the meeting of shareholders to allocate certain funds to pay for legal assistance, including in international processes.

The judge took a position according to which the accusation could represent evidence as it considers necessary, and he cannot interfere in either order or what they represent as evidence. Then, having listened to everything from the prosecution and defense, he will already be assessed this in the point of view of the relevance, admissibility, and so on. So far, we have no reason to believe that he will prohibit us something. Now it is possible to somehow comment on the announced documents, but without delving into their essence and evidence, since now the stage of presentation of evidence from the prosecution. We hope that we can at the stage of presenting evidence on the part of the defense submit the same documents that prosecutors announce, because we believe that these documents are evidence of protection, if they comment and explain them to the court what they mean and not distort - as the accusation does: it reads in pieces, inserting their comments that this is not the work of the organization, but the activities of the criminal group. ”

Artist Alexander Kotlyarov

Issue 1
Issue 2
Issue 3
Issue 4
Issue 5
Issue 6
Issue 7
Issue 8
Issue 9
Issue 10
Issue 11
Issue 12

Due to the fact that on September 18, the prosecution ended the presentation of evidence and a break was announced in the court sessions until September 28, when the interrogation of witnesses to the prosecution begins, the next issue will be published on October 6.

To be continued...