Here is our summary of another day in Navalny’s trial. But today’s recap was very difficult to put together—the hearing was held behind closed doors.
The reason is that today the court was supposed to question two alleged victims in the fraud case—Vyacheslav Kuzin and Alexander Karnyukhin. Both Kuzin and Karnyukhin had submitted motions in advance asking for their questioning to be held in closed session, meaning there would be no broadcast for journalists. Yesterday’s “victim,” the pensioner Kostenko, had filed the exact same motion, but withdrew it in court. All of these motions were worded as if copied from the same template, so there is no doubt they were not written by the alleged victims themselves.
It is important to note that both Kuzin and Karnyukhin really were longtime donors to the ACF (Anti-Corruption Foundation). For several years, they sent money both to the Foundation and to Alexei’s presidential campaign, and they never felt they had been deceived. Then an event occurred in Vyacheslav Kuzin’s life that changed everything: a criminal case was opened against him, and he was sent to a pretrial detention center (SIZO). That is where he was first questioned in Navalny’s case. Not exactly the most welcoming environment. Kuzin was later transferred to house arrest. He is still under house arrest, and today he appeared in court wearing an electronic ankle monitor.
We have no doubt that Kuzin was pressured and forced under threat to call himself a victim.
With the second alleged victim, Karnyukhin—also a longtime donor of ours—there is only one difference. Kuzin’s case was opened recently, but Karnyukhin’s was opened long ago, for tax nonpayment. It is an old case, but it would be easy enough to revive it now. We are sure that this is exactly what Karnyukhin was threatened with if he refused to appear as a victim.
Karnyukhin also said that he had transferred the money voluntarily and that Navalny had stolen nothing from him. More than that, Karnyukhin first learned that there had supposedly been any fraud at all from a press release by the Investigative Committee. An investigator summoned him for questioning, made him read that press release, and then suggested that he become a victim. Navalny asked Karnyukhin directly: did the investigator tell you that you would have problems if you refused? Karnyukhin hesitated at first, then muttered, “Well, how should I put it…”
This is not so easy to take in, so I will repeat it once again. The donors had no complaints against Navalny. No one deceived them. The alleged fraud was entirely fabricated—the Investigative Committee wrote a press release with fictitious theft amounts, then began summoning people, showing them that press release, and demanding that they identify themselves as victims. If people refused, they were threatened.
And this is what Alexei is now being tried for. He could be sent to prison for 15 years. For a completely fabricated case, for intimidated victims, for witnesses, some of whom are paid-off bloggers and some of whom are withdrawing their testimony right there in court.
What adds a special note to this trial is that the fraud case has been merged with a case about insulting a judge. So on the one hand, Alexei is accused of stealing 2 million rubles (about $25,000 at the time), and on the other, of calling someone a gramophone. So today, immediately after the alleged victims, they began questioning Natalia Kryukova—the one who conducted the expert analysis of Navalny’s statements in court and found 104 of his phrases insulting. Among them were the exclamations “damn” and “oh man.” This expert considered those expressions obscene profanity. In the words “my God,” she—no joke—detected an insulting intonation. Or take the statement, “You do not understand at all what criminal procedure is”—Kryukova believes this creates an image of the judge as unprofessional.
You might ask: what kind of expert could seriously write such nonsense? I probably will not surprise you. To carry out this analysis, the investigators hired a specialist who is not even trained as a linguist. She is a math teacher. But do not think she is some random person. It was this same Natalia Kryukova, for example, who prepared the expert analysis for the proceedings to liquidate Memorial (the prominent Russian human rights organization).
You really could laugh at all this, if Alexei were not facing 15 years over these cases. But he is. And I am asking you very strongly to talk about this criminal case as much as possible. Let everyone see this absurdity, and let everyone know that Navalny is innocent and should be free.