Today at 2:00 p.m., the Moscow Regional Court will hear the appeal filed by the lawyers against the Khimki court’s decision to jail Alexei Navalny for 30 days. The very same decision handed down in a police station assembly hall beneath a portrait of Genrikh Yagoda (head of the Soviet secret police in the 1930s).
Ahead of the hearing, we decided to entertain you with the transcript of the previous court session that sent Alexei to Matrosskaya Tishina (a Moscow detention center). Here is the official record, and below is a transcription. A historic stenographic record of how Russian justice was dismantled and destroyed.
COURT HEARING TRANSCRIPT Khimki Urban District January 18, 2021 Judge E.E. Morozova of the Khimki City Court of Moscow Region with the participation of Deputy Prosecutor of the City of Khimki, Moscow Region, E.A. Koloskova; convicted person Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny; defense counsel: O.O. Mikhailova, who presented ID No. 10104 and warrant No. 511, and V.D. Kobzev, who presented ID No. 6925 and warrant No. 040350; representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Khimki Urban District of Moscow Region E.V. Naumova; and court assistant Yu.Yu. Goncharova,
considered, at an open off-site court hearing held on the premises of Police Department No. 2 of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Khimki Urban District of Moscow Region, the application of I.V. Yanchuk, head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Khimki Urban District of Moscow Region, concerning Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny, convicted by the judgment of the Zamoskvoretsky District Court of Moscow dated December 30, 2014 under Part 2 of Article 159.4, Part 3 of Article 159.4, and Paragraph “a” of Part 2 of Article 174.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and sentenced pursuant to Part 2 of Article 69 of the Criminal Code to 3 (three) years and 6 (six) months’ imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 rubles, with the sentence deemed suspended under Article 73 of the Criminal Code and a probation period of 5 (five) years imposed; by the appellate ruling of the Judicial Panel for Criminal Cases of the Moscow City Court dated February 17, 2015, the judgment of the Zamoskvoretsky District Court of Moscow dated December 30, 2014 was amended, and finally, for the aggregate of crimes предусмотренных under Part 2 of Article 159.4, Part 3 of Article 159.4, and Paragraph “a” of Part 2 of Article 174.1 of the Criminal Code, pursuant to Part 2 of Article 69 of the Criminal Code, a sentence of 3 (three) years and 6 (six) months’ imprisonment was imposed, which under Article 73 of the Criminal Code was deemed suspended with a probation period of 5 (five) years, with the following obligations imposed on A.A. Navalny: not to change his permanent place of residence without notifying the specialized state body supervising convicted persons, to notify that body in advance of any change in actual residence, and to appear for registration on time at least twice a month; regarding the detention in custody of convicted person A.A. Navalny for a period of up to 30 days.
The court hearing opened at 12:46 p.m. The court hearing opened at 4:52 p.m.
The presiding judge declares the hearing open and states which application is to be considered, and also informs the participants that an audio record of the hearing is being made.
Attendance at the hearing is checked: Deputy Prosecutor of the City of Khimki, Moscow Region, E.A. Koloskova — present. Convicted person A.A. Navalny — brought to court. Defense counsel O.O. Mikhailova — present. Defense counsel V.D. Kobzev — present. Representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Khimki Urban District of Moscow Region E.V. Naumova — present.
Convicted person A.A. Navalny: I do not understand what is happening here. I was detained on January 17, 2021, and was not given the opportunity to meet with a lawyer or make a phone call. Now they are taking me out for a meeting with my lawyer, and instead there is some kind of court hearing here—have you all gone mad? Does criminal procedure even exist in Russia? Why is a court hearing taking place at a police department? Why was I not notified? Why is there no summons? Some application from the head of the police department—what is going on here? I do not understand.
Presiding judge: This motion was received by the Khimki City Court of Moscow Region on January 18, 2021. On the basis of the application by the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Khimki Urban District, an open off-site court hearing is being held, attended by the parties to the proceedings as well as persons who expressed a wish to attend this hearing.
The presiding judge acquaints the participants with the rules of the hearing provided for by Article 257 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The participants and those present in the courtroom are informed of Article 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which provides for measures in response to violations of courtroom order.
Convicted person A.A. Navalny: If this is an open court hearing, I demand that a recess be declared so that all participants can take part in it. It is secret even from me—I walked in here and discovered that a court hearing was already underway. If it is open, then declare a recess and I will invite additional defense representatives and my relatives. You are not following the rules of the hearing, because it should be taking place in the Khimki City Court building. Why is it off-site, and on what grounds?
The composition of the court is announced and the right to challenge the court is explained.
Convicted person A.A. Navalny: I do not trust the court.
Defense counsel O.O. Mikhailova: We do not trust the court, because what is happening now is completely outrageous. We do not know the reasons for this off-site hearing, we have not been allowed to review the materials, and I was notified at 12:29 p.m. that there would be a court hearing scheduled for 12:30 p.m. I believe these are unprecedented conditions in which we find ourselves. In addition, the court has not ensured the publicity and openness of the hearing: it is unclear how the people who are here got in. I tried to enter the police department for an hour and a half and was not allowed in. Yet now it turns out there are cameras here, many journalists are outside, and even members of the ONK (Public Monitoring Commission, a civilian prison oversight body) were not allowed in at first and were only admitted later. Lawyers were not being let in, while certain members of the public are present at the hearing. I would like to know who these people are and how they got in, and I ask that the following people who are outside and ready to attend be admitted to the hearing: Ilya Pakhomov, Ruslan Shaveddinov, as well as journalists from various TV companies, including TV Rain, Reuters, and so on. I ask that the openness of the proceedings be ensured and that we be allowed to review the materials, and only after that should the issue of challenges be considered. Nevertheless, I am filing a challenge, because I believe you cannot be sitting here: if this hearing is being conducted by the Khimki City Court, then it must be open and held at the Khimki City Court. If not, then there must be a ruling, and we should at least know the reasons why we are gathered here in such a restricted composition. I do not trust the court to consider this matter.
Defense counsel V.D. Kobzev: I also do not trust the court and fully support defense counsel O.O. Mikhailova.
Prosecutor: The defense has not presented any legally established grounds for challenging the judge. I ask that the motion be denied.
Representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Khimki Urban District of Moscow Region E.V. Naumova: I object to the motion.
Having heard the views of the participants, the court retires to the deliberation room to issue a ruling until 1:15 p.m. At 1:17 p.m., the ruling is issued and announced.
The hearing resumes with the same participants.
The court informs the participants that motions have been submitted by lawyers O.O. Mikhailova and V.D. Kobzev requesting access to the submitted materials and an opportunity to confer with A.A. Navalny in order to coordinate their position.
The court also informs the participants that requests were submitted to the presiding judge of the Khimki City Court by the LIFE TV channel, the television studio of the Moscow Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the Rossiya TV channel program *Vesti. Duty Unit* seeking permission to attend the open hearing on the application concerning A.A. Navalny.
The motions of defense counsel O.O. Mikhailova and V.D. Kobzev to review the submitted materials and coordinate their position are discussed.
Defense counsel O.O. Mikhailova: I support the motion. I ask that confidential communication with my client be ensured, since we have not had such an opportunity.
Defense counsel V.D. Kobzev: I support it.
Convicted person A.A. Navalny: I support it. I have not seen the materials and had no idea a court hearing had been scheduled.
Prosecutor: I do not object.
Representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Khimki Urban District of Moscow Region E.V. Naumova: I do not object.
Having heard the views of the participants, the court rules: to attach the motions of defense counsel O.O. Mikhailova and V.D. Kobzev to the materials under consideration and to provide time to review the submitted materials. The materials are bound and numbered. Thirty minutes are granted for review, and the defense is also granted 20 minutes to confer with A.A. Navalny in order to coordinate their position.
The requests of the LIFE TV channel, the television studio of the Moscow Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the Rossiya TV channel program *Vesti. Duty Unit* to attend the open hearing on the application concerning A.A. Navalny are discussed.
Defense counsel O.O. Mikhailova: I would like to clarify what time these requests were submitted, since I learned of and was notified about the hearing at 12:27 p.m.
The court informs the participants that all of the above-mentioned requests were sent to the Khimki City Court of Moscow Region on January 18, 2021, and assigned to Judge E.E. Morozova.
Defense counsel O.O. Mikhailova: I believe these requests should not be attached, because it is completely unclear how and from whom these TV companies learned about this hearing. I believe this does not ensure the openness of the proceedings. These are precisely the TV companies selected by the prosecution side—presumably those favorable to the side that decided to conduct this hearing in such a closed manner. Numerous journalists are standing at the gates of the police department and are not being allowed in; they were not granted accreditation. I ask that, on equal terms with the TV companies you have selected, other TV companies that also wish to participate in this hearing be admitted as well. As far as I know, they also submitted such requests, yet for some reason we do not see any companies in the courtroom other than those named above.
Question from the presiding judge to defense counsel O.O. Mikhailova: Do you object?
Defense counsel O.O. Mikhailova: If it is only these companies, then we object, because their presence here is completely unclear and unjustified. They learned about this hearing earlier than A.A. Navalny and the defense did, which indicates their obvious bias.
Defense counsel V.D. Kobzev: I support the position of defense counsel O.O. Mikhailova. I would like to point out that since absolutely no one, including us, knew that there would be a hearing here today at this time, these TV companies could only have learned about it from those who did know. And those who knew, Your Honor, were you, your superiors, the police, and the prosecutor’s office. Someone—either the prosecutor’s office, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, or the Khimki court—told these particular TV companies that there would be a hearing today. Thus, the selection of these media outlets is obviously biased and intended to cover the proceedings in a one-sided way.
Convicted person A.A. Navalny: If this is an open proceeding, then let it be open. I would like to clarify the procedure for submitting accreditation requests to the Khimki City Court, because I know for a fact that journalists are standing there right now holding slips of paper requesting accreditation, and they are simply not being let in. So if you declare a five-minute recess now and allow everyone to submit accreditation requests, then we can ensure equality for all media outlets. Otherwise, we are seeing an absurd situation: they are standing outside the gates asking for accreditation, but physically no one will accept their requests. This indicates bias. Therefore, I support making this process as open as possible, so that all media outlets can observe the astonishing absurdity taking place here. I want everyone to be let in—not only Vesti. Duty Unit, LIFE, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs studio, but also the real journalists who are now standing outside the gates in the cold and are not being let in. You cannot pretend this is not happening. I state that the journalists are standing there, they want to be accredited, and they are demanding the exercise of their rights, and I demand it together with them.
Defense counsel V.D. Kobzev: Lawyer O.O. Mikhailova and I were standing outside as well. You cannot receive their applications because the police either turned off the doorbell or the duty desk was instructed simply not to respond to it. Members of the ONK and we ourselves rang that bell, and no one answered. They cannot submit their applications because no one opens the door for them. So formally you pretend not to know they are standing there, and act as if this does not exist.
Prosecutor: I believe the TV company staff currently present at the hearing may remain. I believe it is impossible to invite other media representatives, as requested by A.A. Navalny, because the room is too small and, due to the restrictions in place, we cannot invite all media outlets.
Representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Khimki Urban District of Moscow Region E.V. Naumova: I support the prosecutor.
Having heard the views of the participants, the court rules: to attach to the materials under consideration the accreditation requests submitted by the Rossiya TV channel program *Vesti. Duty Unit*, the LIFE TV channel, and the television studio of the Moscow Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for participation in the hearing. Since no other requests for accreditation and participation from any TV channels were received by the Khimki City Court, the hearing shall proceed with the participation of the said TV channel staff.
Convicted person A.A. Navalny: Your Honor, these proceedings are continuous, are they not? I ask that the police officers trying to remove me and restrict my movements be called to order. I am not under arrest at the moment; they have no right to take me to a cell, and in general police officers have no right to order me around.
The court explains to convicted person A.A. Navalny that questions are not put to the court.
A recess is declared in the hearing from 1:30 p.m. to 2:20 p.m. At 2:28 p.m., the hearing resumes with the same participants.
The identity of the convicted person is established: Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny, born June 4, 1976, native of the village of Butyn, Odintsovo District, Moscow Region, citizen of the Russian Federation, registered at: 175 Lyublinskaya St., Apt. XX, Moscow; actually residing at: 1 Masterkova St., Apt. XX, Moscow.
There are no questions regarding the personal details.
The procedural rights of the convicted person, as provided for by Part 3 of Article 399 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, are explained.
Convicted person A.A. Navalny: What you just said—some words—I think I understood them, but assess the situation yourselves. I did not start this proceeding by saying you had gone mad for nothing. You say I have certain rights, you declared this an open hearing, but you are not letting in a single journalist. There is no court here at all; this is some kind of nonsense, a sham document. Just because you are wearing a robe does not make this a court. The court should be sitting a hundred meters away in the Khimki courthouse. You dragged me out here, you warned no one, you let no one in, and you call this an open hearing while not allowing journalists in and guarding the building. You told me you were giving me time for confidential communication with my lawyers, yet two police officers with body cameras were with me the entire time. This is complete absurdity: you say one thing, and something else happens.
The presiding judge again explains to the participants the rules of the hearing provided for by Article 257 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.
The participants and those present in the courtroom are again informed of Article 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for measures in response to violations of courtroom order.
Convicted person A.A. Navalny: Please do not interrupt me—hear me out.
The presiding judge reprimands convicted person A.A. Navalny for violating the rules of the hearing.
Convicted person A.A. Navalny: You are the one violating the rules of the hearing.
The presiding judge explains to the participants that mobile devices used for video recording must be turned off. Defense counsel are informed that audio recording is permitted. The presiding judge again explains to the participants the rules of the hearing provided for by Article 257 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The participants and those present in the courtroom are again informed of Article 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for measures in response to violations of courtroom order.
Convicted person A.A. Navalny: A court hearing is impossible without summoning counsel; there is nothing about that in the case materials. A court hearing is impossible without reviewing the documents and having confidential communication with lawyers. You told me you would allocate 30 minutes. What kind of confidential communication is it if I am sitting there with the lawyers and two police officers with body cameras? Does that not seem strange to you? It certainly does to me. What respect for the court do you expect from me if you yourselves are blatantly ignoring everything? This is no court at all. You are committing a criminal offense, and you will absolutely end up in prison. You are still a very young woman, followed by a statement concerning the President of the Russian Federation.
The presiding judge reprimands convicted person A.A. Navalny for insulting remarks.
Convicted person A.A. Navalny: You will go to prison—but after a real trial, and you will be tried for what you are doing.
The presiding judge reprimands convicted person A.A. Navalny for insulting remarks.
Convicted person A.A. Navalny: I do not give a damn about your transcript.
The court inquires whether there are any motions.
Convicted person A.A. Navalny: I have a motion to admit the journalists who are here right now and whom you are not letting in. There are many journalists outside, but the respected prosecutor said not everyone can be let in. I demand that journalists from TV Rain and Mediazona be admitted here. They are standing outside and physically cannot hand you their motions because they are not being allowed to do so. But if this is a public and open proceeding, and everyone is to be admitted, then I demand that you declare a three-minute recess and invite at least two media representatives.
The motion is discussed.
Defense counsel O.O. Mikhailova: I fully support the motion.
Defense counsel V.D. Kobzev: I support the motion.
Prosecutor: This motion has already been made and considered by the court. There are no grounds to revisit it.
Representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Khimki Urban District of Moscow Region E.V. Naumova: I support the prosecutor’s position.
Having heard the views of the participants, the court rules: to attach A.A. Navalny’s written motion to the materials under consideration, and to deny the motion, since it was previously resolved by the court and accredited companies carrying out video recording of the hearing are present in the courtroom.
Defense counsel V.D. Kobzev: Since we were not provided with confidential communication as required by law, because two police officers were present there, we were unable to discuss the details of the defense. Here the police officers acted contrary to what the court had ordered. The court granted us confidential communication in private, and that was not ensured. Therefore, I again move that we be given the opportunity to speak with our client A.A. Navalny privately and confidentially.
The motion is discussed.
Defense counsel O.O. Mikhailova: I support the motion. Convicted person A.A. Navalny: I support the motion. Prosecutor: This motion has already been resolved by the court; time for communication was provided. Representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Khimki Urban District of Moscow Region E.V. Naumova: I support the prosecutor’s position.
Having heard the views of the participants, the court rules: to deny defense counsel V.D. Kobzev’s motion for time to communicate confidentially with A.A. Navalny, since the court had previously provided an opportunity to review the materials submitted in support of the application, as well as time for communication and coordination of position.
Defense counsel V.D. Kobzev: We were not provided in full with the materials we are entitled to review, because among what was shown to us we did not see any ruling or other judicial act scheduling today’s hearing for 12:30 p.m. and specifically in this off-site format. This document was not provided to us, so I ask that it be produced. I am certain it must exist.
The motion is discussed.
Defense counsel O.O. Mikhailova: I support the motion. I would like to point out that there is no ruling at all in the materials scheduling the hearing. Convicted person A.A. Navalny: I support the motion. Prosecutor: I object on the merits of the motion; the materials were provided in full. Representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Khimki Urban District of Moscow Region E.V. Naumova: I support the prosecutor’s position.
Having heard the views of the participants, the court rules: to deny defense counsel V.D. Kobzev’s motion for the production of materials, since the court had previously provided materials for review.
Defense counsel V.D. Kobzev: Yesterday, during the detention and personal search of A.A. Navalny, his international passport was seized; a copy of the passport is in the case materials. In the detention report, however, the passport is not listed among the items seized during the personal search. In this connection, I ask that my written motion be attached. We ask that the whereabouts of A.A. Navalny’s international passport, seized in his name, be established and that it be handed to A.A. Navalny or to the defense.
The motion is discussed.
Defense counsel O.O. Mikhailova: I support the motion.
Convicted person A.A. Navalny: I support the motion. It is a strange situation: yesterday my passport was taken from me at the border, I was brought here, all my belongings were inventoried—shoelaces, belt, and so on—but the passport is not listed among the seized items in the detention report. So it was either stolen or lost, or something was done with it. It should be part of the case materials and included in the detention report. I want the court to establish where my passport is. Maybe it was omitted by mistake, maybe they forgot, there was confusion yesterday. Because it is an important document and the only document identifying me in this court. Prosecutor: I object on the merits of the motion; establishing the whereabouts of A.A. Navalny’s passport falls outside the scope of consideration of this application.
Representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Khimki Urban District of Moscow Region E.V. Naumova: I support the prosecutor’s position.
Having heard the views of the participants, the court rules: to attach defense counsel V.D. Kobzev’s written motion to the materials submitted in support of the application. To deny defense counsel V.D. Kobzev’s motion to establish the whereabouts of A.A. Navalny’s international passport and to hand it to A.A. Navalny or his defense, since this issue falls outside the scope of consideration of the submitted materials.
Defense counsel O.O. Mikhailova: I ask that A.A. Navalny’s press secretary, Kira Yarmysh, who is at the entrance to the police department, be admitted to the hearing. The motion is discussed. Defense counsel V.D. Kobzev: I support the motion.
Convicted person A.A. Navalny: I support the motion; this is an open proceeding. Prosecutor: I object on the merits of the motion. The maximum number of persons participating in the hearing has been exceeded. I ask that the motion be denied. Representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Khimki Urban District of Moscow Region E.V. Naumova: I support the prosecutor’s position. Having heard the views of the participants, the court rules: to deny defense counsel O.O. Mikhailova’s motion to admit press secretary K.A. Yarmysh to the hearing, since the room in which the hearing is being held is limited in size and in order to comply with sanitary regulations. Convicted person A.A. Navalny: Two of my defense representatives are here—Pakhomov and Shaveddinov, acting under powers of attorney. They are my defenders, and they are not being let in. This is unlawful. I demand that they be admitted immediately. The motion is discussed. Defense counsel O.O. Mikhailova: I support the motion. Defense counsel V.D. Kobzev: I support the motion. Prosecutor: I object to granting the motion, since A.A. Navalny is already provided with two professional lawyers. Representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Khimki Urban District of Moscow Region E.V. Naumova: I object to granting the motion. Having heard the views of the participants, the court rules: to deny A.A. Navalny’s motion, since in the hearing the lawful rights and interests of A.A. Navalny are being represented by qualified defense counsel—lawyers O.O. Mikhailova and V.D. Kobzev—acting on the basis of warrants presented at the hearing.
Convicted person A.A. Navalny: Because the court has clearly taken the side of the prosecution; because I have just been denied the elementary right to my defense; because the media and the public are not being admitted to the proceedings and only people who got in by some unclear means and were obviously brought here by the prosecutor, the judge, or the police are present; because there is no document establishing these proceedings—a court proceeding cannot just appear out of nowhere, you cannot simply sit down in a kitchen and start trying someone; someone had to schedule this court hearing, and then someone had to move it here—and because none of that exists, I challenge the court.
The motion is discussed. Defense counsel V.D. Kobzev: I support the motion. I would point out that we believe you are interested in the outcome of this case, because you scheduled an off-site hearing in a police department building, which is simply unprecedented. No one in Russia has ever seen anything like this. You, Your Honor, did not provide us with the materials in full. Although you granted our motion for confidential private communication with our client, you did not ensure that communication, and then denied our repeated motion. You also denied our repeated motion to review all case materials. You also refused to admit A.A. Navalny’s press secretary and journalists from TV Rain and Mediazona, telling us to our faces that the room could not hold any more people, although we can clearly see there are many empty seats. What sanitary regulations are you talking about? I might understand if everyone were seated in a checkerboard pattern, as is now required in theaters, but for some reason everyone here is sitting right next to each other. For this reason, I conclude that you are directly interested in the outcome of this case. The 30 days requested by the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the City of Khimki will inevitably be granted by you, because you are clearly acting in the interests of the state. Defense counsel O.O. Mikhailova: I fully support the position of my client and of lawyer V.D. Kobzev. For my part, I would add that you do not have the authority to consider this issue regarding a suspended sentence—indeed, this is not even a modification, but the detention of a person serving a suspended sentence. The legislation does not grant you such powers, and I believe this hearing cannot lawfully exist. Nevertheless, since you are considering this issue without even issuing a ruling scheduling the hearing, I believe you are clearly interested, not impartial, and that fundamental rights are thereby being violated, and this is unquestionably a violation of the right to a fair trial. This proceeding is unfair a priori.
Prosecutor: Your Honor, I ask that the motion be denied, since the arguments of the defense are unfounded and not based in law. The court’s adoption of decisions that do not correspond to the defense’s position cannot in any way indicate that the judge is interested in the outcome of the case. Representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Khimki Urban District of Moscow Region E.V. Naumova: I ask that the motion be denied.
Having heard the views of the participants, the court retires to the deliberation room to issue a ruling until 2:55 p.m. At 2:57 p.m., the ruling is issued and announced.
The hearing resumes with the same participants.
The court proceeds to consider the merits of the matter.
Representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Khimki Urban District of Moscow Region E.V. Naumova reads out the application of I.V. Yanchuk, head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Khimki Urban District of Moscow Region, concerning A.A. Navalny. Representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Khimki Urban District of Moscow Region E.V. Naumova: I fully support the application.
At the hearing, the materials submitted in support of the representative’s application, case file pages 1–170, are examined.
Convicted person A.A. Navalny: What I do not understand is what the head of the Khimki police department has to do with any of this. Can the head of the Khimki police department issue an order asking you to get married? Or compel the court to decide to send you off to get married? Proceedings have already been scheduled; there is the Federal Penitentiary Service, which believes I failed to appear somewhere. The Federal Penitentiary Service scheduled a court hearing. I am serving a suspended sentence; in your case materials you have my wanted-person form, and it says in black and white—especially for prosecutors and judges in Khimki—that no preventive measure has been imposed. And then the head of the Khimki police department comes along and says, “Let’s arrest him.” How can you arrest me? How can this even be considered? You have nothing to do with this at all! The procedure is set out in black and white in the law: the Federal Penitentiary Service may petition to convert a suspended sentence into a real prison term, and they did petition, and a hearing date was set. If the police believe I need to be detained, they can detain me for 48 hours. How can the head of the Khimki police department insert himself into this system at all and petition for my detention? It is laughable; nothing provides for this, and again it states very clearly there: no preventive measure is provided for. In other words, the Federal Penitentiary Service writes in its wanted-person form: no preventive measure. But of course, the head of the Khimki police department knows better. I believe this is absurd, just as this entire court proceeding is absurd. It is absolutely unlawful—and not merely unsupported by law, but directly contrary to the provisions of the law.
Defense counsel O.O. Mikhailova: As for the application for detention submitted by the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Khimki Urban District, at the end of the application he cites three legal provisions. The first is Article 46 of the Penal Enforcement Code of the Russian Federation. But that article is completely inapplicable to our case, because it concerns liability for violating the procedure and conditions of serving correctional labor and provides for liability in cases of malicious evasion of such punishment. Correctional labor has nothing to do with us, and accordingly this article is cited in the application entirely unlawfully. The second article cited by the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs is Article 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which concerns detention of convicted persons who have absconded from serving punishments in the form of a fine, compulsory labor, correctional labor, restriction of liberty, or forced labor. Again, this article does not apply to persons serving suspended sentences, and accordingly it cannot be applied in this case. Therefore, it is cited in the application contrary to the law and has absolutely no relation to our case. The third article cited by the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs is Article 399 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; however, that article does not give the court authority to consider placing a person serving a suspended sentence in custody for 30 days. Accordingly, all the legal provisions cited in the application have nothing to do with persons serving suspended sentences and are simply cited improperly in this application. Why did this happen? Because the legislation does not provide for placing persons serving suspended sentences in custody for 30 days. Indeed, there is such a gap in the legislation. And this hearing—normally such hearings are not held; in my many years of practice I have never heard of or seen such hearings. Accordingly, the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Khimki Urban District had no authority; he is not a proper applicant to apply to the court with such an application, and moreover there is not a single legal provision that would allow him to do so. A.A. Navalny was not hiding; he notified the penal inspection service that he was undergoing treatment in Germany, and a medical certificate from Charité was submitted, which, as I understand it, is in the materials.
Defense counsel V.D. Kobzev: It is not in these materials, though the application itself refers to that notice.
Defense counsel O.O. Mikhailova: Such material does exist. Unfortunately, there is no representative of the Federal Penitentiary Service at this hearing who could explain this to us. That is, of course, improper; a representative of the Federal Penitentiary Service should also have been invited to this hearing. The Federal Penitentiary Service was informed of where A.A. Navalny was, that he was undergoing outpatient treatment in Germany after discharge from the hospital, and that he was under the care of doctors at Charité. These documents are in the materials submitted to the Simonovsky District Court of Moscow, where a hearing is scheduled for January 29, 2021. Given that the issue of converting the suspended sentence into a real prison term will be considered on January 29, 2021, this hearing falls outside the bounds of current legislation. We have a certificate received from Charité a few days ago. Unfortunately, because this hearing is being held on an emergency basis, we did not have time to translate this certificate into Russian or obtain an apostille. It is dated January 15, 2021, and I ask that it be attached to the case materials. It shows that A.A. Navalny was treated at Charité and subsequently underwent a rehabilitation course, which ended on January 15, 2021. As has now become known, A.A. Navalny was in Germany, where he was questioned by the German authorities in response to a request from the Russian Federation under an agreement on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. That questioning was transmitted to the authorities of the Russian Federation, and it states exactly where he was. Accordingly, everyone always knew where he was. Moreover, a magistrate’s court hearing in a criminal defamation case is scheduled for January 20, 2021, and the court sent a summons to A.A. Navalny at his German address, where he was staying, and it reached him. I ask that it be shown to the court. It was sent by DHL; I have the envelope and can attach that as well. In other words, the court, knowing that he was in Germany at a specific address, sent a summons to that address. In addition, the Simonovsky District Court of Moscow, where the hearing scheduled for January 29, 2021 is to take place, also sent a summons to A.A. Navalny at his known German address; this is also in the case materials. Accordingly, there are no grounds whatsoever to say that A.A. Navalny absconded or that his whereabouts were unknown. Everyone knew where he was, and moreover he informed the penal inspection service of this; they have his application with the attached medical certificate from Charité.
In support of her position, defense counsel O.O. Mikhailova presents to the court for inspection a summons dated December 30, 2020 from Judicial District No. 320 of the Yuzhnoye Medvedkovo District of Moscow, which is examined at the hearing. The motion of defense counsel O.O. Mikhailova to attach a medical document submitted without translation to the materials is discussed. The motion is discussed.
Convicted person A.A. Navalny: I support the motion. Defense counsel V.D. Kobzev: I support the motion; there was no opportunity to prepare a translation. Prosecutor: I ask that the motion be denied, since judicial proceedings in the Russian Federation are conducted in Russian. Representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Khimki Urban District of Moscow Region E.V. Naumova: I object to granting the motion. Having heard the views of the participants, the court rules: to deny defense counsel O.O. Mikhailova’s motion, since judicial proceedings in the Russian Federation are conducted in Russian and the document was submitted without translation. Defense counsel V.D. Kobzev: I support the position of A.A. Navalny and the position of my colleague O.O. Mikhailova. I also believe that the application of the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Khimki Urban District should not be granted, because, as already stated, A.A. Navalny did not report to the inspectorate from the time of his poisoning until January 17, 2021—that is, until yesterday, when he flew in—and he failed to report for a valid reason. Since he failed to report for a valid reason, there are no grounds to convert his suspended sentence into a real prison term, because state bodies of the Russian Federation—the magistrate’s court of Judicial District No. 320, the penal inspection service where he was registered, and the Simonovsky District Court of Moscow—all knew perfectly well A.A. Navalny’s residential address in Germany. A person may be placed on a wanted list only if that person’s whereabouts have not been established. In this case, the Russian Federation knew his whereabouts; that is, they had been established. If the whereabouts are known, but there is no practical possibility of carrying out certain actions with respect to the person, that is not grounds for declaring him wanted. That is precisely why A.A. Navalny specifically filed applications both with the magistrate’s court and with the penal inspection service, indicating his address in Berlin. Thus, he was declared wanted unlawfully. The Supreme Court, in a Plenum resolution, explains that A.A. Navalny’s probation period expired on December 30, 2020. The Supreme Court explained that it is indeed possible to consider converting a suspended sentence into a real one after the probation period has expired, but only if it is established that the violations were committed before that period expired. Thus, the certificate we sought to attach confirms that he failed to report for a valid reason, that is, he committed no violations. He was declared wanted unlawfully, and the Supreme Court separately states that the matter may be considered after the expiration of the term only if the person is found to have absconded from supervision. And in fact, that is exactly why the Moscow office of the Federal Penitentiary Service needed a ruling declaring him wanted. If not for that instruction from the Supreme Court, they would simply have filed an application with the Simonovsky District Court of Moscow. The Simonovsky District Court of Moscow would have set a hearing date, and that hearing would have taken place. There would have been no need for any wanted search at all. But the Supreme Court specifically stated that such a hearing can take place only in that case, and that is the only reason the Federal Penitentiary Service declared him wanted—not because they did not know his whereabouts. I would point out that in his application the head of the Khimki Ministry of Internal Affairs cites three legal provisions. I will not even discuss the first one, Article 46 of the Penal Enforcement Code; it concerns only people sentenced to correctional labor. So this is clearly not our case. Next, Article 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, entitled “Issues to be considered by the court in the execution of a sentence.” As my colleague has already said, among the list of issues set out there, there is no issue of placing a person serving a suspended sentence in custody. It is a lengthy article; there are two clauses regulating placing a person in custody for up to 30 days—clauses 18 and 18.1—and a person serving a suspended sentence is not mentioned in either of them. Thus, again, even based on the title of the article—“Issues to be considered by the court in the execution of a sentence”—the issue raised by the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Khimki Urban District cannot be considered by the court in the execution of a sentence, because it is not included in the list defined by Article 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The third article, Article 399 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to which the police chief refers, again points us to clauses 18 and 18.1 of Article 397. Article 399 merely states who may apply to the court, nothing more. Thus, there are no legal grounds for granting the police chief’s motion. There are no legal grounds for holding this hearing. For everything to be lawful, even if some state body—whether the Federal Penitentiary Service or the head of some Ministry of Internal Affairs office—does not know the law, has not read it, and nevertheless wrote an application, signed it, and sent it to the court, such an application should have been returned to him with an explanation that the issue he is placing before the court cannot be resolved by the court, precisely by virtue of Article 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which he himself cites. The court did not do this. Which, in turn, I believe is grounds for challenging the presiding judge, because it was the presiding judge who accepted this application for consideration and scheduled the hearing at the police department. Therefore, I ask that the police chief’s application be denied.
Prosecutor: I believe the application was submitted lawfully and is well-founded, and I ask that it be granted in full for the reasons set out in the application. There are no additions or explanations. The court retires to the deliberation room to issue a ruling until 3:45 p.m. At 4:52 p.m., the ruling is issued and announced. The content of the ruling, the time limit for appeal, and the procedure for appeal are explained. The convicted person is informed of the right, in the event of filing an appeal within 3 days of receiving a copy of the ruling, to request participation in the consideration of the matter by the appellate court. The time limits and procedure for reviewing the hearing transcript, obtaining a copy of the hearing transcript, and submitting comments on the hearing transcript are explained. The hearing is declared closed.