The “Kirovles Case.” Court Video Recording. Hearing 12

Be seated.

>> The open court session is continuing.

A criminal case is being heard concerning

Navalny and Ofitserov. The composition of the court has not

changed; all parties are present.

At the previous court hearing,

the defense filed a motion

objecting to the reading out of the verdict

of the Leninsky District Court concerning

Opolev. Let me clarify: are you asking

for this item to be recognized

as inadmissible evidence, or do you object to its

being read out? Do not read it out.

>> So, do I understand correctly? What? Not

evidence.

>> Correct. Correct. Since this is not

evidence, we insist

that it should not be read out at the

court hearing. Mm-hmm.

>> Do the defendants support this?

>> Yes.

>> I see. Did the prosecution want

to say anything further regarding the reading out? I

Our position has not changed either. Well,

we insist on it being read out, because this is

evidence, and we believe that it

constitutes evidence. The document was

submitted in the present proceedings;

we ask that it be read out and that the court continue

hearing the case on the merits. What, can we not

handle this document? Even here

there are four grown men. And this is

>> Having heard the parties, the court ruled

the court, uh,

with reference to Article 90

of the Criminal Procedure Code and to the fact

that the verdict of the Leninsky District Court

with respect to Opolev does not constitute

a prejudicial finding. However, since for the

purpose of confirming the status

of Opolev in the present court hearing,

and also in view of the fact that, uh, Opolev was

convicted for committing

a crime also connected with Kirovles

(a state-owned timber company in Kirov Region), the court ruled to grant the motion of the

prosecution and to read out the verdict

of the Leninsky District Court of the city of Kirov concerning

regarding

Volume 26, page 289 of the case file

294

>> Turn on the recording.

Verdict, December 24

2012, city of Kirov. The Leninsky

District Court of the city of Kirov, composed of

presiding Judge Kolosov,

with the state prosecutor, head of the

department for ensuring prosecutors' participation

in the consideration of criminal cases by the courts

of the Kirov Region Prosecutor's Office, Petelina,

and a prosecutor from the department for

ensuring prosecutors' participation

in the consideration of criminal cases by the courts

of the Kirov Region Prosecutor's Office,

Cheremisina, defendant Opolev,

defense counsel, attorney Shkhaldina, and secretary

Medvedeva, having considered in an open court session

the criminal case against

Opolev, Vyacheslav Nikolaevich, born on October 12,

1955, with no prior convictions, charged with

committing an offense under Part

4 of Article 160 of the Criminal Code

of the Russian Federation, as amended by

Federal Law of March 7, 2011,

No. 26-FZ, established: the defendant Opolev

committed embezzlement, that is, the theft

of another person's property entrusted to the guilty party, with

the use of his official position

on an especially large scale. The crime

was committed under the following circumstances:

By order of the director of the Department

of State Property of Kirov Region

No. 07-1588 dated December 7, 2007,

and also in accordance with the employment

contract of December 12, 2007, Opolev was

appointed, as of December 12, 2007,

to the position of General Director of the Kirov

Regional State Unitary

Enterprise Kirovles. Hereinafter, KOGUP

Kirovles. In accordance with Clause 5.2

of the charter of KOGUP Kirovles, approved

by the director of the Department of State

Property of Kirov Region on December 6,

2007, and agreed on December 6,

2007, by the head of the Department

of Forestry of Kirov Region.

The General Director of Kirovles acts

on behalf of the enterprise without

a power of attorney, in good faith and reasonably,

represents its interests within the territory

of the Russian Federation and beyond its borders,

acts on the basis of established principles and bears

responsibility for the consequences of his

actions in accordance with federal

laws and other regulatory legal

acts of the Russian Federation and Kirov

Region, the charter, and the employment contract concluded with him.

By virtue of his official duties

and employment relationship with the

Department of State

Property of Kirov Region

and in accordance with the charter

of the enterprise, the General Director

of KOGUP Kirovles, Opolev, from December 12, 2007,

continuously performed

organizational-administrative and

administrative-economic functions,

that is, he performed managerial functions

in the unitary enterprise and exercised

authority over the use, management,

and disposal of the property of KOGUP Kirovles.

On November 10, 2008, by the Department

of Forestry of Kirov Region

and KOGUP Kirovles, represented by its General

Director Opolev, contracts were concluded

No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 for the lease

of forest plots that were in

federal ownership for a term of 15

years, under which

Kirovles took into temporary

use forest plots located in

state ownership

situated within the territory of Kirov Region

in accordance with Article 606

of the Civil Code of the Russian

Federation, the fruits, products, and income

received by the lessee as a result of

using the leased property in

accordance with the contract are his

property.

In 2009, the Kirov Region Department of Forestry

and KOGUP (a regional state unitary enterprise) Kirovles

represented by General Director Opalev

entered into a state contract for

the performance of work on the protection, safeguarding,

and regeneration of forests located on

forest fund lands that are in

state ownership within

the relevant forestry districts in the territory of

Kirov Region, not assigned to persons

using the forests, with the simultaneous

sale of standing forest plantations for timber harvesting,

under the terms of which

the timber paid for and harvested under

the said contract was

the property of Kirovles. Approximately

at the end of December 2008 and the beginning of January

2009, in the building of the government of

Kirov Region, Governor

of Kirov Region Belykh met with

the heads of major enterprises

of the region, including

among whom was the general

director of Kirovles, Opalev, and introduced

his future unpaid advisers,

including N, who was officially

appointed to the said position

by order of the Governor of Kirov

Region dated May 21, 2009, No. 60-k. In

accordance with the temporary regulations on

advisers and assistants to the Governor

of Kirov Region serving on a voluntary

basis, approved by order

of the Governor of Kirov Region dated July 14,

2000, No. 887,

an unpaid adviser to the Governor, in exercising his

powers,

provides the Governor with

advisory assistance free of charge,

holds an official identification card

of the prescribed form, and is also vested

with the authority to participate in working

meetings with the Governor and sectoral

committees of the regional administration with

an advisory vote, and to cooperate with

legislative and executive authorities

in preparing draft

laws and regulatory acts of the region,

to participate in developing programs for

the socio-economic development

of the region, the formation and implementation

of regional procurement in strategically

important areas of the region’s essential services,

and in developing programs for

the restructuring and reorganization

of efficiently operating enterprises

of various forms of ownership.

Around January-February 2009, N,

knowingly aware of the possibility

of exerting influence on the activities of

state unitary enterprises

of Kirov Region by virtue of his actual

exercise of the powers of an unpaid adviser

to the Governor,

acting out of self-interest as

the organizer of the crime,

while also planning to direct its

commission together with his acquaintance

O, recruited as an accomplice

to the crime, devised a criminal plan

to embezzle the property of

Kirovles by way of misappropriation in favor of a newly

created organization under their control,

which O was to establish

and head. While preparing for

the planned embezzlement, around February

2009, N, while in fact exercising the above-mentioned

powers of an unpaid adviser

to the Governor,

acting on instructions from the leadership of

Kirov Region, which was unaware of

what he and O were doing, ostensibly for the purpose of

studying and analyzing the efficiency of

the enterprise’s operations, arrived at KOGUP

Kirovles, located at the address: Kirov Region,

the city of Kirov, Avtotransportny

Lane, Building 4, where N introduced O to

General Director Opalev and instructed the latter

to provide O with information.

about the structure of Kirovles, the range

of harvested and processed

forest products, as well as other necessary

data, which Opalev did.

Around February-March of that year, the exact

time not being established, N, continuing

to carry out his criminal intent,

aimed at embezzling the property of

Kirovles and directing the commission of the

crime while in the building of the

Government of Kirov Region

located at the address: Kirov Region,

city of Kirov, Karl Liebknecht Street, 64,

informed Opalev of O’s forthcoming creation of a

company to provide intermediary

services for the sale of harvested and processed

Kirovles forest products for the purpose of

subsequently committing misappropriation of

the entrusted property. Opalev, realizing

that as a result of the creation of this

enterprise and its further operation

Kirovles would thereafter

suffer property damage, took no

actions aimed at preventing

the unlawful acts and

agreed to the latter’s proposal, thereby

entering into a prior conspiracy with N and O

to commit misappropriation.

of the property entrusted to him, Opolev, as

embezzlement on an especially large scale

In order to carry out N's criminal plan,

he acted jointly and in coordination with

her and, in March 2009, arranged for the creation

and state registration in

the territory of Kirov Region

of a limited liability company controlled by him and N

called Vyatka

Timber Company, hereinafter LLC VLK, as well as

the opening of a bank account. In doing so,

he organized the commission of the crime

by providing

information, means, and instruments for its

commission. On March 18, 2009, the Inspectorate

of the Federal Tax Service of the city of

Kirov carried out the state registration

of LLC VLK, whose sole

participant and general director

was him. On March 25, 2009, he

opened a settlement account for LLC VLK at JSC Bank

Vyatka-Bank, city additional office

located at the address: Kirov Region,

the city of Kirov, Chepaeva Street, building

7.

Approximately in March and the first half

of April 2009, in the city of Kirov, Kirov Region,

while acting in execution of

the criminal conspiracy with N and Opolev

and continuing to aid and abet

the commission of the crime, he organized

the preparation of a draft knowingly

loss-making supply contract for Kirovles

with LLC VLK and signed it on behalf

of LLC VLK.

Under this contract, Kirovles

undertook the obligation to supply

timber products, shipping them at its own expense to

consignees that were legal entities and

individuals, including those who

were in fact the actual

buyers of Kirovles timber products,

which meant that refusing to conclude

direct supply contracts with them had no

economic sense and entailed

causing damage to Kirovles. In addition,

the said contract initially lacked

information on goods that would

correspond to and

provide equivalent compensation on the part of

LLC VLK.

the market value

of the timber products supplied by Kirovles.

He then forwarded the said contract for signature

to Opolev, who on April 15

2009, while in the building of

Kirovles at the address: Kirov Region,

the city of Kirov, Transportny Lane, building 4,

acting intentionally and in coordination with N,

being the general director of

Kirovles and using his official

position, signed the said

supply contract No. 01/2009 with LLC VLK

providing for the execution of appendices

defining the main terms of the supply

of timber products, including their price.

At the same time, having received the said

draft supply contract and the oral

negative opinion of the employees

of Kirovles responsible for timber sales,

he fully understood

the social danger of his actions and

the inevitability of

socially dangerous consequences

resulting from the conclusion of the supply contract

with VLK in the form of embezzlement of the timber products entrusted to him

of Kirovles in favor of VLK

and the causing of property damage

due to the absence on the part of VLK of

equivalent compensation for the market

value of the said timber products.

Under the contract concluded with VLK,

Kirovles was obliged

to supply timber products

to the consignees specified in the appendix

to this contract, and VLK would pay for

these goods. At the same time, Opolev and O

reliably knew that VLK would

pay for the goods on the terms

set out in the contract and the appendix to

it at a knowingly understated price compared

with the price that

Kirovles could have received from buyers

without using the intermediary services

of VLK. And the said contract was aimed

exclusively at creating the appearance

of the emergence for KOGU Kirovles (a state regional enterprise)

of civil-law obligations to

VLK to allegedly transfer timber products

for consideration

to consignees.

In reality, however, these goods would be

transferred without equivalent and

adequate compensation from

VLK. During the period from April 15, 2009, to July 13

2009, in the city of Kirov, in furtherance of

their joint criminal intent, Opolev,

using his official position

as general director of Kirovles,

>> and also the general director of LLC VLK, acting

intentionally, in coordination and in complicity with N,

who had organized the commission of the said

crime and directed its

execution, signed 36 appendices to

supply contract No. 01/2009 dated April 15,

2009,

which specified the names

of the timber products, the volumes, and the terms

of supply, as well as the price, which, without

any economic

necessity, was deliberately understated

by all participants in the crime in comparison

with the price at which the products

of Kirovles could have been sold directly

to VLK's counterparties.

For his part, during the above-mentioned period,

acting on behalf of VLK, N concluded

a contract for the supply made as

...forest products with buyers.

...sought to increase the volume of assets

...of property subject to embezzlement, as well as

also creating conditions for VLK,

allowing it to be the sole supplier and seller of

the produced

forest products.

Opolev, acting intentionally on instructions,

in coordination with him and O., and

using his official position,

as general director issued Order

No. 76 establishing the procedure for

the sale of forest products under the purchase agreement

of Rofles dated May 19, 2009, which

introduced a ban on the branch of Iskhom Purchase

Rofles independently entering into

supply and sale-and-purchase agreements

for forest products with legal entities and

individuals, as well as

sole proprietors. At the same time,

N. and O. understood that Opolev

was unlawfully depriving Gubkirovles

of the ability to independently sell

the produced forest products at market

prices, thereby transferring these

forest products to the disposal of OOVK without

corresponding equivalent

compensation for their market value. During

the period from April 15, 2009 to

September 30 of the same year, in the city of Kirov,

Opolev, using his

official position, acted

intentionally, by prior conspiracy with

N., and on his instructions ensured

the performance of the terms of Supply Contract

No. 01/2009 dated April 15, 2009, and

its appendix, as a result of which

Kogubkerafres shipped forest products worth

16,165,826

rubles 65 kopecks to the following

counterparties of OOV "VLK"

OJSC Domostroitel, volume 66.65

cubic meters, with delivery to the address:

Kirov Region, settlement of Krasnaya Polyana,

1 Druzhby Street; OOO AVS, volume

62.972

cubic meters, with delivery to the address:

Kirov Region, city of Kotelnich,

Lesovetskaya 43/25;

OOL "Les Garant." Volume 988.66

cubic meters, with delivery to the address: city of

Kirov, 92 Lenin Street; OJSC KMDK

volume 796.754

cubic meters, with delivery to the address:

city of Kirov, 10a Lesozavodskaya Street; OJSC

Volga, volume 3,068.29

cubic meters

with delivery to the address:

Nizhny Novgorod Region, city of Lokhna,

1 Gorky Street; OOO Vlada, volume

698.35

cubic meters, with delivery to the address: city of

Kirov, 32/7 Pugachev Street; OJSC Montazhnik

volume 30,310.20

cubic meters, with delivery to the address:

Kirov Region, city of Sovetsk, street

Engels Street, 10a; OOO Sevlespil

volume 59.90

cubic meters, with delivery to the address:

Komi Republic, Syktyvkar, Lesnaya Street,

2/4; sole proprietor Podgornov, volume 221.351

cubic meters, with delivery to the

address: Krasnodar Krai, city of

Novorossiysk,

Tsentr Dolina settlement, 1a Svobody Street,

1a. OJSC Mari Pulp and Paper Mill, volume 771.44

cubic meters, with delivery to the address:

Mari El Republic, city of Volzhsk, street

Karl Marx Street, 10; plant Krasny

Yakor, volume 960,265.42

cubic meters, with delivery to the address: Kirov

Region, city of Slobodskoy, street

Sovetskaya Street, 132; OOS Match Factory

Pobeda, volume 176.36

cubic meters, with delivery to the address:

Penza Region, Nizhnelomovsky District,

village of Verkhny Lomov, 1 Moskovskaya Street;

OO Ufimskie Spichki, volume 288.94

cubic meters, with delivery to the address:

Republic of Bashkortostan, city of Ufa,

88 Novozhenova Street; OO Krymskie

Zori, volume 161.190

cubic meters, with delivery to the

address: Krasnodar Krai, city of Krymsk,

65 Stroitelnaya Street; plant Polits

Pishchpro, volume 132.080

cubic meters, with delivery to the

address: Kaluga Region, city of

Balabanovo, 50 Let Oktyabrya Square, building

3; ZOO Iman, volume 115.72

cubic meters, with delivery to the address:

republic, city of Kozmin, street

Tavarova 5. As a result, the total volume

of forest products supplied by Gubkirovles

to the counterparties of OOVLK amounted to

10,084.277

cubic meters during the period from April 15, 2009 to

December 2009. For the specified volume

of forest products, into the settlement account

of the controlled OOK

No. 407028

1032129046

opened with KBK Bank, OJSC City

additional office located at the address:

Kirov Region, city of Kirov, on

Chapaeva Street, building No. 7, there were received

funds totaling 16 million

3,880 rubles 28 kopecks, namely from

the settlement account of OJSC Domostroitel in the

amount of 3,755,494

rubles 50 kopecks; from the settlement account of AVS in the

amount of 40,950 rubles; from the settlement account of

Lesgarant in the amount of 1,525,166

rubles 8 kopecks; from the settlement account of KMDK in the

amount of 1,325,919

rubles 75 kopecks; from the settlement account of Volga in the

amount of 257,239

rubles 75 kopecks; from the settlement account of Vlada in the

in the amount of 3,136,904

rubles 50 kopecks. From OJSC Montazhnik in the amount of

100,000 rubles from the current account

of Sevlispil in the amount of 99,669

rubles 70 kopecks from the current account of individual entrepreneur

Podgorno in the amount of 1,151.25

rubles 20 kopecks. From the current account

of Mari Pulp and Paper Mill in the amount of 545,783

rubles 20 kopecks. From the current account of the facto

Krasnoyakov in the amount of 200,093 rubles. Exactly from

the current account of the Pobeda Match Factory

in the amount of 291,357

rubles. From the current account of Ufimskie Spichki

in the amount of 282,686

rubles. From the current account of Krymskie Zori in

the amount of 513,486

rubles. From the current account of the polic factory

Pichprom in the amount of 177,945

rubles 60 kopecks. From the current account of Imont in

the amount of 350,160

rubles. Thus, Opolev acted pursuant to

prior conspiracy together with N and

OON, using his official

position as General Director of KRB, out of

self-interest, unlawfully

misappropriated property belonging to others that had been entrusted to him

in the form of forest products of KOGUP

Kirovles, with a volume of 10,84.277

cubic meters in the amount of 16,165,826

rubles 65 kopecks. That is, on an especially large scale

for the benefit of third parties,

accomplices in the crime and

the LLC VLK controlled by them, thereby causing

property damage to the owner of this

property, KOGUP Kirovles.

The Deputy Prosecutor General

of the Russian Federation, Grin, when

sending the materials of the criminal case to

the Leninsky District Court of the city of Kirov

filed a motion in which

he proposed applying a special procedure

for the court hearing and issuance of the court

decision in accordance with Article 316

of the Criminal Procedure Code

of the Russian Federation and Chapter 40.1

of the criminal procedure

code of the Russian Federation with respect to

Opolev, accused of committing

the crime provided for by Part

4 of Article 160 of the Criminal Code

of the Russian Federation as amended by

Federal Law No. 26-FZ of March 7, 2011

.

The state prosecutors

supported at the court hearing

the motion of the Deputy Prosecutor General

of the Russian Federation.

The defendant, Opolev, fully admitted his

guilt in the crime committed,

agreed with the charges brought against him

and with the motion of the Deputy

Prosecutor General of the Russian

Federation on the application of a special procedure

for rendering a judicial decision in connection with

the conclusion of a pre-trial cooperation

agreement. At the court hearing

it was established that during the preliminary

investigation in the criminal case, on October 1

2012, with the accused Opolev, on the

basis of the latter's petition,

agreed with his defense counsel,

a pre-trial

cooperation agreement was voluntarily concluded in

accordance with Article 317.3 of the Criminal Procedure Code

of the Russian Federation, under which he undertook

to actively assist the investigation in

solving and investigating

the crime imputed to him.

The conditions provided for by the pre-trial

cooperation agreement were complied with by Oplivov

; the obligations assumed were

fulfilled; detailed testimony was given about

his own participation

and his role in the crime committed

about the organizer and accomplice of the crime

and the mechanism of its commission. The information

provided by Oplivov in the course of fulfilling

the obligations предусмотренных by the concluded

pre-trial cooperation agreement concluded with him

is complete and

truthful, and is confirmed by the evidence collected in

the case. Thus,

the court comes to the conclusion that Oplivov

complied with the conditions and fulfilled

the obligations provided for by the pre-trial

agreement. Consequently,

the rendering of a verdict with respect to

the defendant may take place without

examining the evidence in the manner

established by the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account

the requirements of Article 317.7

of the Russian Federation. The court considers the legal classification

of the actions of the defendant Opolev under Part

4 of Article 160 of the Criminal Code

of the Russian Federation as amended by

Federal Law No. 26-FZ of March 7, 2011

as the commission of embezzlement,

that is, the theft of another person's property

entrusted to the guilty party, committed with

the use of his official

position on an especially large scale. The court

comes to the conclusion that the charge with which

the defendant agreed

is well-founded and is supported by

the evidence collected in the case. In determining

the type and amount of punishment for Opolev,

the court is guided by

the requirements of legality, fairness, and

proportionality of the punishment to the act committed,

while specifically taking into account

the circumstances of the case, the nature and degree

of the social danger of the committed

crime, as well as in full all data concerning

the defendant's personality, and the impact

of the imposed punishment on the rehabilitation

of the defendant and the living conditions of his family.

The defendant Polyfrane has no prior convictions. He is not registered with

a narcologist or a physician

He is not registered with a psychiatrist. At his place of

residence and work at the Federal State Institution Roslist

he is described positively. As for

the circumstances mitigating the punishment

of the defendant, in accordance with Article

61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the court recognizes

full admission of guilt, remorse for

the offense committed, active assistance

in the investigation of the crime, and in exposing

and prosecuting the accomplices

to the crime, as well as his state of

health. Circumstances aggravating

the defendant's punishment, in accordance with

Article 63 of the Criminal

Code of the Russian Federation, were not

established by the court. Taking into account the factual

circumstances of the crime and the degree of its

public danger, and considering the presence of

circumstances mitigating punishment and

the absence of aggravating punishment

circumstances, the court finds, in accordance

with Part 6 of Article 15

of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,

grounds to change, for defendant O.

Polev, the category of the crime

of the offense committed by him,

which is classified as a serious crime, to

a less serious category of crimes, that is,

to a crime of medium gravity.

Considering the nature and degree of public

danger of the crime and the personality

of the defendant, the court considers that Opolev, for

the crime committed by him, should be

sentenced to punishment in the form of imprisonment.

At the same time, taking into account the presence of

circumstances mitigating punishment,

the defendant's sincere remorse for

what he has done, the court considers it possible

to apply the provisions of Article 73 of the Criminal

Code of the Russian Federation on a suspended

sentence, believing that his rehabilitation

is possible without isolation from society. When

determining the term of punishment in the form of

imprisonment, the court, taking into account the requirements of

Part 2 of Article 62

of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,

and taking into account the personality of the defendant, who

is being brought to criminal

liability for the first time, and his financial

situation, the court considers additional punishment

in the form of a fine and restriction of liberty

it possible not to impose on the defendant.

apply.

Taking these same circumstances into account,

the court considers it possible not to impose

on the defendant, in accordance with Part 3 of

Article 47 of the Criminal Code

of the Russian Federation, the additional

punishment of deprivation of the right to hold

certain positions. Taking into

account the above circumstances,

the court does not see grounds for

recognizing them as exceptional,

substantially reducing the degree of

public danger of the defendant's personality

and of the act committed by him,

which would indicate

the possibility of applying, when imposing

punishment, the provisions of Article 64

of the Criminal Code of the Russian

Federation. Based on the foregoing,

guided by Articles 307, 308, 309, 316,

317 note 6, 317 note 7 of the Criminal Procedure

Code of the Russian

Federation, the court sentenced and found

Vyacheslav Nikolayevich Opolev guilty

of committing the crime provided for in

Part 4 of Article 160 of the Criminal

Code of the Russian Federation as amended by

Federal Law No. 26-FZ of March 7, 2011,

and imposed on him punishment in the form of

4 years of imprisonment. In

accordance with Article 73

of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,

the punishment imposed on Opolev shall be considered

suspended, with a probation period of 3

years. Oblige Opolev, during the

probation period, not to change his

permanent place of residence without

notifying the penal enforcement

inspectorate at his place of residence, and once

a month to appear before said inspectorate for

registration. The procedural coercive measure

in the form of an obligation to appear, with respect to

Opolev, for the period until the

judgment enters into legal force, shall remain without

change. The physical evidence:

copies of documents seized during the search on 8

June 2011 at VLK; copies of documents

seized during the search on 9 August 2011;

in the premises of Kabode Kaiban; copies

of documents seized during the search on 27

September 2012 in the premises of

the Volgograd branch of Sberbank of Russia;

a copy of the employment contract dated 15 April

2009 between VLK and Buram; copies

of information on the connections of subscriber

number 8903726

0251; as well as a copy of information on

the connections of subscriber number 8 965

206 3083, shall be kept in the materials

of the criminal case; four optical discs

shall be kept with the criminal case. The judgment

may be appealed in cassation

to the Kirov Regional Court within

10 days from the date of pronouncement. In

the event of filing a cassation appeal,

the convicted person has the right to petition for his

participation in the consideration of the criminal case

by the court of cassation instance. Signed

the judgment by presiding Judge

Kolosova, certified with the official seal

of the Leninsky District Court of the city of Kirov.

The judgment bears a note that the judgment

entered into legal force on 9 January 2013.

The judgment is certified

on the 20th

twenty-seventh

Page 75.

Order to obtain samples for

comparative examination, August 6

2012. Moscow,

investigator of the investigative team, Alexei,

having reviewed the materials of criminal

case No. 2011/7136811,

found that the Main Investigative

Directorate of the Investigative Committee

of the Russian Federation is investigating

criminal case No. 2011/7136811

on charges that Ofitserov committed

an offense under Part 5

of Article 33 and Part 4

of Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian

Federation, and that Navalny committed

an offense under

Part 3 of Article 33 and

Part 4 of Article 160, as well as Oplev

having committed an offense provided for

under Part 4 of Article

160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian

Federation. In the course of the investigation

of the criminal case, it became necessary

to conduct an examination. For this purpose, from

the accused, Ofitserov, it is necessary to obtain

experimental speech samples for

subsequent comparative examination.

On the basis of the foregoing, guided by

Article 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, I ordered that there be obtained

experimental speech samples from the accused

Ofitserov, Pyotr Yuryevich, born on May 4, 1975,

a native of the city of

Frunze, Kirghiz SSR (now Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan). Signed

by the investigator. The order was announced

on August 6, 2012.

Page

76. Record of obtaining samples for

comparative examination, August 6

2012, Moscow.

The obtaining of samples began at 12:17

and ended at 12:25. Investigator

of the investigative team Alexei, with the participation of

the accused Ofitserov and his defense counsel

Davydova, on the basis of the order of August 6

2012, in criminal

case No. 2011/7136811,

in accordance with Article 202

of the Criminal Procedure Code

of the Russian Federation, proposed obtaining

from the accused Ofitserov, Pyotr Yuryevich, born on May 4,

1975,

a native of the city of Frunze, Kirghiz

experimental speech samples for

comparative examination. Before

the start of the investigative action,

the participating persons were informed of their rights and

responsibilities, as well as the procedure

for obtaining samples for

comparative examination.

No specialist was present.

The persons participating in the investigative

action were notified in advance about

the use, in the course of

the investigative action, of technical

means, which were likewise not used.

After ознакомление with the order of August 6, 2012,

the obtaining of samples for

comparative examination, the accused

Ofitserov, in the presence of defense counsel Davydova,

refused to provide experimental

samples of his speech for comparative

examination, invoking the provisions

of Article 51 of the Constitution

of the Russian Federation. Before the beginning

and upon completion of this

investigative action, from the participating

persons—the accused Ofitserov and his defense counsel

Davydova—no statements were received.

The corresponding signatures

of the participating persons are present. The record was signed

by the investigator.

Thus, case file pages 188

through 193.

A copy of the passport of Pyotr Yuryevich Ofitserov,

born May 4, 1975. Place of birth

is listed as the city of Frunze, Kirghiz SSR. On

page 192, in the "children" field, there is an entry

showing the birth dates of Ofitserova Alyona

born in 1997, and

Ofitserov Svyatoslav, born in 2006.

Case file pages 194 through 196.

Page 194 of the case file:

a reply from the Main Information Center of the Moscow police regarding the existence

of a criminal record; the response from this institution states that

it has no information about any criminal record

with respect to Ofitserov.

A reply from the Main Information Center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation regarding

the existence of a criminal record for Ofitserov; the response is also

negative: previously, to criminal

liability he had not been brought.

A reply from the Ministry of Internal Affairs Directorate for Kirov

Region: he had not been brought to criminal liability,

is not listed in the federal wanted database,

and to administrative

liability he had likewise not been brought.

Case file page 197: a request from investigator

Akhmetov to the chief physician

of Moscow Psycho-Neurological Dispensary

No. 1, in which he requests

information as to whether

Pyotr Yulyevich Ofitserov, born May 4, 1975,

is

registered there for ongoing treatment/monitoring, and if so, since what date

and with what diagnosis.

Case file page 198.

A reply from the psycho-neurological

dispensary No. 1 addressed

to Akhmetov,

dated April 21, 2011, outgoing

No. 438, stating that

this institution does not have

medical information concerning citizen

Pyotr Yuryevich Ofitserov, born May 4, 1975,

including any information that he is registered

with this institution. Case file page

199.

A request to the chief physician of the narcological (substance abuse treatment)

from Moscow City Dispensary No. 5

to Investigator Akhmetov, in which

it is also requested to state whether

Pyotr Yuryevich Ofitserov, born May 4, 1975,

has been registered with the dispensary since

what date and with what diagnosis. This

document is turned over to the reverse side.

Narcological Clinical Dispensary

No. 5 reports that Ofitserov

is registered with the dispensary.

Case file page 200.

Request from Investigator Akhmetov

addressed to the head of the department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia

for the Ochakovo-Matveyevskoye District of

Moscow, in which he requests

that information be provided, namely

a character reference from the place of residence and other

information characterizing the individual with respect to

Pyotr Yuryevich Ofitserov, born on May 4,

1975.

Registered at the address: Moscow, Ozyornaya

Street, building 15, block 1, apartment 95.

Case file page 201: cover letter from the

department

of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian

Federation for the Ochakovo-Matveyevskoye District

of Moscow, dated January 21, 2013,

addressed to Akhmetov, in which

it is stated that a response is being sent to the

request for a character reference.

Immediately following is case file page 202.

Character reference regarding Pyotr

Yuryevich Ofitserov, born May 4, 1975,

who resides at Ozyornaya Street, building

15, apartment 95. During the period of residence at

this address, no complaints from the residents of the

building concerning Ofitserov have been received.

No complaints were received by the management company, Bordzh Komservis, section No.

1, either. He also takes part in the public

activities of the building’s residents

and participates in them.

The character reference was provided

by the director of Bordzha Kumservis.

Section No. 1; there is

a signature and seal.

Case file page 203: marriage certificate

for the marriage between Ofitserov

and [name unclear] Aleksandrovna.

Case file pages 204 through 207: birth certificates.

Page 204: birth certificate of

Svyatoslav Ofitserov, born in 2006.

The father is listed as Ofitserov

Pyotr Yuryevich. Page 205: birth certificate of

Olga Ofitserova, born in 2008.

In the “father” field, Ofitserov is listed

as Pyotr Yuryevich. Page 206: birth certificate of

Alyona Ofitserova, born in 1997.

In the “father” field there is an entry reading

“Pyotr Yuryevich Ofitserov.” Page 207:

birth certificate of Ofitserov

Kirill, born in 2011. In the “father” field

there is an entry reading “Pyotr Yuryevich Ofitserov.”

Case file pages

223

224.

Ruling authorizing the imposition of seizure on

property, dated November 20, 2012.

Moscow. By a judge of the Basmanny District

Court of Moscow

materials from criminal case

No. 20113 06811, as well as

the ruling of Senior Investigator

Akhmetov seeking authorization for

the seizure of property, and it was

ordered to authorize the seizure

of property belonging to the accused

Ofitserov, born May 4, 1975,

namely, a vehicle of the make

Opel, registration plate A780ETs 199

region code,

a 1/8 share in the right of common shared

ownership of an apartment located at

the address: Moscow Region, city of Balash

[likely Balashikha], Sverdlov Street, building 40, apartment 258, and a 1/8 share

in the right of common shared ownership of

an apartment located at the address: Moscow

Region, city of Balash[ikha], 40 Let Pobedy Street

building 29, apartment 190. The ruling

entered into legal force.

Case file pages

228

and 229: protocol of seizure of

property dated November 30, 2009, during the period

from 11:20 to 11:40, Moscow.

By an investigator of the investigative group

Alexei, in the presence of attesting witnesses, on

the basis of the court ruling of November 20,

2012, seizure was imposed on a 1/8

share in the right of common shared

ownership of two apartments

located in the city of Balashikha, the first at

Sverdlov Street, building 40, apartment 258, the second

at 40 Let Pobedy Street, building 29, apartment

190, as well as on an Opel vehicle manufactured in 2008,

bearing state

registration plate A780ES 199

region code, belonging to Pyotr Yuryevich Ofitserov, born on

May 4, 1975.

The corresponding signatures are present.

Before the start, during, or after the completion of

the seizure of property, from the

participants no comments were received.

There is also a corresponding signature.

Signed by the investigator.

Volume twenty-eight.

My apologies, volume twenty-eight, case file page

sixty-seven: ruling on

for obtaining samples for comparative

examination. Moscow, November 15,

2012. The investigator

of the investigative group of the Main

Investigative Directorate of the Investigative

Committee of the Russian Federation, Alekseyev,

ordered that experimental

handwriting samples and signatures of the accused

Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny be obtained.

Case file page sixty-eight: protocol

for obtaining samples for comparative

Examination. November 16, 2012, Moscow.

Alexeyev, with the participation of the accused,

Navalny, and defense attorneys Mikhail and Kobziv,

proposed obtaining from the accused

Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny

experimental samples of handwriting and

signature for comparative examination.

After being ознакомлен with the order on

obtaining samples for comparative

examination, Navalny, in the presence

of defense attorneys Mikhail and Kobziv, refused

to provide experimental samples

of his handwriting and signature for comparative

examination, invoking

the provisions of Article 51

of the Constitution. In addition, he also

refused to sign.

Pages 93 to 95

of the case file: photocopy

of the passport of Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny.

Case file page 96.

103.

That is, a request to the Information Center of the Moscow Main Directorate of Internal Affairs

of the city of Moscow.

There is information that Navalny was brought to

administrative liability in 2011–2012

liability

for various violations related to

the holding of assemblies and rallies.

Also, on page 102, a request was made to the Ministry of Internal Affairs information system;

there is no criminal record information.

The same on page 103: a request was made to the information system.

Ministry of Internal Affairs for Kirov Region. Information on

criminal convictions is not available.

Case file page 104.

Request

from investigator Alexeyev for the provision of

a character reference on Navalny.

Thus, on case file pages 105 through 123,

there is a response from the district police department

with

information of that nature.

“I am informing you for your information.”

That is, signed by the acting deputy

chief of police, Borsukov, addressed to

investigator for especially important cases

Akhmetov. Document dated October 30, 2012.

I am informing you that on October 27, 2012,

the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs department for

Moscow’s Basmanny District received

citizen Alexei Navalny,

Anatolyevich, who as part of a group

of 50 citizens

organized a public event not approved by

the executive authorities,

a public gathering.

At 15:40, at 8 Myasnitskaya Street, Moscow,

citizen Navalny was detained

for violating Federal Law

No. 65-FZ of the Russian Federation on

assemblies, rallies, marches, and

picketing.

He was held administratively liable

under Part 2 of Article

20 of the Administrative Code.

There are also documents, photocopies of

documents confirming the fact of

Navalny being brought to administrative

liability,

his explanations, and reports by police

officers.

In particular, on page 121

of the case file there is an extract of data on

Navalny being brought to

administrative liability

in 2011–2012 under various articles

of the Administrative Code.

Next, case file page 124.

Request from investigator Akhmetov.

for the provision of information

from the chief physician of Psychoneurological

Dispensary No. 11 in Moscow as to

whether Navalny is registered at the dispensary.

Navalny Alexander Anatolyevich, Alexei

Anatolyevich—according to the records, he is not

listed. On page 125, a request was made by

Akhmetov to the chief physician of Narcological

Dispensary No. 6 in Moscow;

Navalny is not registered there either.

Next, case file page 127.

The head of the Interior Ministry department for the Maryinsky Park district

of Moscow sent to Mr. Akhmetov

a character reference

for Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny, born

on 04.06.1976, currently residing at

175 Lyublinskaya Street, Moscow,

apartment 15. At his place of residence

he is characterized positively; no complaints or

statements from neighbors have been received.

Case file page 128: copy of the marriage certificate.

Marriage certificate.

Case file pages 129 and 130: certificates of

the birth of citizen Navalny’s children,

Alexei Anatolyevich.

Everything on the list has been read out.

>> Yes, Your Honor, everything on the list has been read out,

all the evidence that we

submitted as parties.

The only thing is that the following were not included in that list:

those contracts with counterparties

that were concluded between KOGUP and its

counterparties for the supply of timber products.

Unfortunately, we did not find them among the

materials we had already read out, so we request

an additional reading of volume

four, namely case file page 104, the request for

the provision of supply contracts with

counterparties. Also volume four,

case file pages 105–147, which are the actual

supply contracts and appendices to them

between KOGUP Kirovles, as well as

with the previously unexamined Krasny Yakor, IVS, and

Lesgarant in relation to VLK.

Please read out the contracts, investigator—the same

thing, but more slowly.

>> All right. Case file volume 14, page 104: request for

the provision of supply contracts

for timber.

>> Volume four, correct.

>> Volume four. That's correct.

And specifically, this token—case file pages

105 through 147—these are contracts between

Kirovles

and its counterparties

KMDK Krasnoyarsk,

Vlad, IVS,

Les, Garant, and Domostroitel. Parts of the

contracts were not examined, did not make it

there because we have Krasny Yakor there somehow

I'll be right back

>> Do you support the motion filed

>> Yes, Your Hon...

>> I have the defense side regarding the motion

documents now, Your Honor, we will look at them

these documents, say

While you are reviewing them, a 10-minute recess is declared

minutes.

Then may we

now

>> will

Could we, in the meantime?

>> All right, yes, let's sort it out. This person

is freezing.

>> Let's step out for now, then. Thank you very mu...

situat...

People

All right, let's take another look

Let's now

what

next

look

hear the defense side's opinion on the

motion that has been filed

>> We do not object.

The motion is granted, and the following is read out from

the case file, pages 104 and 105–147

104 of the case file

investigator Sosnin's request of January 19

2011 to the general director of KOGUP Kirovles concerning

the provision of

information on the counterparties of KOGUP

Kirovles. Pages

105–147

provision of information by the head of the

legal department of KOGUP Kirovles to the investigative

directorate for Kirov Region

sends

copies of supply contracts with

counterparties.

All right, case file pages 106–122, supply contract

No. 31, roughly, dated August 22, 2008

KOGUP Kirovles as supplier and the Kirov

Furniture and Wood-Processing Combine

as buyer. Subject of the contract: supply of

timber products

So, the price and payment procedure, uh,

are established in accordance with the appendices.

Each subsequent amendment

is to be agreed by the parties in

writing by signing

protocols. Under the contract, there are

price specifications.

All right, 123

128, contract No. 124 dated March 4, 2009

with Domostroitel

represented by Director Guryanov, the buyer, and

KOGUP Kirovles, represented by Opalev, the supplier

the same again: subject of the contract, supply of

timber products

there are

appendices to this contract regarding the agreement

of prices for timber products.

>> Please read out clause

2

1, 2.2, and clause 3

3.1

and in the first one, what is there now.

>> All right, so, the delivery procedure is section

clause 2.1. Yes, did I understand you correctly?

>> Mm-hmm.

>> Delivery terms for shipment by

rail: franco buyer's warehouse

2.2. Delivery terms for shipment by

road transport: franco buyer's warehouse

of the buyer.

And now 3.1. Yes.

>> Yes.

>> The buyer pays for the products at

the contract prices agreed

by the parties in the specification to this

contract or during performance of the

contract by drawing up price agreement

protocols, which must be

signed by both parties and shall constitute

an integral part of the present

contract. 3.2. Yes.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> It is stated in Appendix No. 3.

Price of timber materials. The base price may

be changed by agreement of the parties

by signing an additional

agreement. Mm-hmm. Thank you.

>> You're welcome.

>> 129–135, supply contract

for timber products No. 3309 dated December 25

2008. Plant Krasny Yakor, represented by

General Director Chestyakova, the buyer, and

KOGUP Kirovles, represented by General Director

Opalev, the supplier

again, the subject of the contract is the supply of

timber products; there is a price agreement

protocol

and appendices to this contract

>> Please, 2.1 and 3.1.

>> The price of the supplied raw materials is stated in

Appendix No. 2. 3.1. Payment

for the supplied raw materials shall be made

by the buyer within 10 banking days

after acceptance, on the basis of the invoice

delivery note, and transfer of funds

to the supplier's settlement account

136–140, supply contract No. 13/09, dated

27

February 2009, KOGUP Kirov

les, the supplier

and Lesbiran, the buyer

Subject of the contract: supply of timber products

Do you need to read out these clauses?

>> now

>> Clause 2.1: procedure for delivery of the goods

monthly, no later than the fifteenth day

of the month preceding the month of delivery

shall send to the supplier for approval

an order for the supply of timber products

and also 2.2, the procedure for delivery of timber products

is established in accordance with

the appendices to the contract

Clause 3.1, price; 3.2

>> and

>> 3.1, 3.2

>> Clause 3.1: of a cubic meter of timber products

from the moment the contract is signed

is established in accordance with

the appendices to the contract; each subsequent

change in prices shall be agreed by the parties in

writing by signing

a price agreement protocol, which is

an integral part of the contract; payment

for each type of timber product shall be made

in the manner established by the relevant

appendix to the contract; by agreement

of the parties, advance payment may be made

for timber products and the rail tariff against

deliveries in future periods

there is a corresponding appendix

to this contract establishing prices

for the products

14112.

Supply Contract No. 4/09, dated 27

January 2009, Kirovles as the supplier and

LLC Vlada as the buyer

and Clause 2.1: the buyer, monthly

no later than the tenth day falling in the

month of delivery, shall send to the supplier for

approval an order for the supply of

timber products

and, uh, the delivery procedure was established in

accordance with the appendix to the contract. 3.1

the price per cubic meter of timber products from the moment

the contract is signed is established in accordance with

the appendix to the contract. Each subsequent

change shall be agreed by the parties in

writing by signing

protocols

for agreeing prices.

All right, 143

143, 147, uh, Supply Contract No.

30/0709 dated 15 July 2009, Kirovles

as the supplier, LLC Vlada as the buyer.

All right,

so, Clause 2.1 is also item eight.

The supplier is obliged, no later than within five

calendar days counted from the date

of shipment of the goods, to provide the buyer with

the documents relating to the goods, invoices

and shipping documents. In the event that

the said documents are transmitted by

facsimile communication, the supplier, uh,

must subsequently send them in accordance with

the procedure set out in Clause 8.5 of this contract.

There is a reference here to facsimile communication.

So, Clause 8.5. Documents transmitted

by facsimile communication have

legal force. The parties undertake, within

10 days, to send each other

the originals of documents transmitted

by facsimile communication. All right, and

3.1, that is 3.2. The goods supplied under

this contract shall be paid for

at the price agreed by the parties, which

is specified in the appendix to this

contract. The price is set in

Russian rubles and includes

the cost of the goods loaded in the railcar, including

18% VAT.

Will the prosecution have any further

written evidence for

examination?

Your Honor, at this stage we have finished

presenting our written

evidence, but as we promised, so,

the defense challenged

the record of inspection of physical documents dated

17

of the year, in the part concerning

that is, the attesting witnesses who participated in

the inspection and in the part concerning the number

of the optical disc containing

the audio recording. Therefore, in this connection, we

would like to present to the court documents

that refute the defense's arguments

in this respect, namely this order

on recognition and attachment to the criminal case

as physical evidence, dated 19 October

2012, within criminal case

No. 2011/460674/12

by investigator Chernykh of the investigative team

in this case against Opliv; according to the materials

of the criminal case, as physical

evidence, an optical

disc with serial number D311 11 9PN 290

13854

LH, that is, precisely the same optical disc

that was examined.

We would also like to attach to

the materials of the criminal case information on

the attesting witnesses

with regard to, that is, the attesting witness Yankovich.

A certificate, his explanation to the court, and a copy of his

passport. The certificate states that

Yakovich Vyacheslavovich is studying at

a federal state government-funded

educational institution of former

professional education, the Military

University, in the fourth year

of the Prosecutorial and Investigative Faculty

in the full-time program since 2009 and

is registered at the address

of the Moscow precinct

for four months. His explanation is addressed

to the Leninsky District Court of the city of Kirov, in which

he states that Yavich Vyacheslavovich

born on 15 February 1992

confirms that he participated in

as a witness attesting to the inspection of items and

documents on October 17, 2012, in the building

of the Main Investigative Directorate

of the Investigative Committee of the Russian

Federation, and in accordance with the drawn-up

record, I confirm that it was properly prepared,

which I hereby certify.

confirmed by my signatures as

for the address indicated in the record, I gave

the address of my actual place

of residence at the time of the

investigative action; the address of my

registered residence is Kaliningrad Region, city of

Baltiysk, Pionerskaya Street, building 8a, apartment

2. For identification purposes,

I submit a one-page copy of my passport.

Statement dated June 3, 2013; there is

Yankovich’s signature; attached directly is a copy

of the passport of Vitaly Vyacheslavovich Yanukovich

born in 1992, place

of birth: Baltiysk, Leningrad Region

Region.

Passport issued, issued by the department

of the Federal Migration Service in Kaliningrad Region; indicated

place of registration: Kaliningrad

Region, city of Baltiysk, Pionerskaya

[street unclear], apartment

Two similar documents as well

regarding Kharan Gadichev Tarasyan

[patronymic unclear]. A certificate stating that he

is studying at the federal state

state-funded educational institution

of higher professional education

the Military University, in the fourth year

of the prosecutorial-investigative faculty

in full-time study, since 2009, and

is located/assigned at the address

Moscow, [street unclear], building

4, issued for submission upon

request, by the head of the personnel department.

It is indicated that the institution has his

statement to the [unclear] District Court of the city of

Kirov, in which it is stated: I, Tarasyan

[name unclear], born on May 16, 1992,

confirm that I participated

as an attesting witness during the inspection of items

and documents on October 17,

2012, in the building of the Main

Investigative Directorate of the

Investigative Committee of Russia, according to the prepared

record; I confirm the proper preparation

of the record with my signature. As

the address indicated in the record, I

gave the address of my place of residence at the time

of the investigative action; however,

the address of my registration is Sochi, street

Delegatskaya, apartment 31, building 8. As

proof of my identity, I submit

a copy of my passport, dated June 3,

signed by Tarasyan himself; attached directly

is a copy of the passport concerning Tarasyan

Kharen Gagichev, born on May 16, 1992,

place of birth: the city of

Yerevan, Armenia.

Passport issued by the department of the Directorate for

the city of Sochi of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs for Krasnodar

Krai, in Lazarevsky

District; that is, the document indicates

and confirms that in reality

such people do indeed exist and

that they were indeed present during

the inspection of the documents, which...

well.

>> And tell us, how do you explain the information from

the BTI (Bureau of Technical Inventory) stating that at the address Volochast 4/3

there is no building at all?

>> The point is that the persons in question are studying

at the Military University, and the addresses listed

are the addresses of their barracks, which are not

publicly available, since this

institution

is a military university, with barracks on site. Well,

yes, but it cannot be that a residential

premises would be in a barracks—

there is no such residential building. Did you make that up

yourself, or what?

>> Please, calmly—the defense’s position regarding

>> review it. The defense apparently wants

to look.

Let’s go.

Well, that’s [unclear].

Now the court...

Right.

Well, [unclear].

No, damn.

do.

Right.

And also

hello. Uh-huh.

Well, yes.

Uh-huh.

wrote.

>> Yes, I wrote that it appeared

in the record of the investigative actions. It seemed

that he indicated what?

And here it says that he indicated it.

The defense’s position on attaching

these documents to the case file.

>> Once again.

>> The defense’s position on attaching

these documents to the file.

Your Honor, we object to

the inclusion of these materials in

the criminal case and to their subsequent

examination, because this is a faxed

copy, and there is no basis to believe

that reliable material has been submitted

to the court. Moreover, I would like

to note that the defense’s motion for

exclusion, and the list of evidence, in

particular the inspection records in which

these very people allegedly participated, the information about whom

the prosecution is now attempting to attach

to the case—this motion was

filed on May 21. It is now June 11, and

during that time, presumably, it would have been possible

to present the original to the court, or else

to summon these people so that they could...

the defense could have asked questions

as to whether they took part in

the conduct of this investigative

action or did not. In other words,

what the prosecution is now trying

to present to the court and, uh, use to substantiate

the reliability of the inspection report, is

information that is absolutely unsupported by anything.

These are faxed messages, and

therefore we do not consider it possible

to add them to the materials of the criminal

case.

As the defendant, Your Honor, I support that.

I support my defense counsel. This is important to me as the defendant.

>> I support that.

>> My counsel is Mikhailov.

>> Yes, I support that. I would also like to note

that the ruling

that has been submitted by the prosecution

concerns a different

criminal case. And it is entirely unclear why

they want to attach it to our

criminal case, since we

were challenging the wiretaps contained

in our criminal case, whereas whatever

exists in Opolev's criminal case

really should not concern us.

And all the more so, procedural documents from

that case—how exactly they

intend to use, as evidence in the criminal

case against Navalny and Ofitserov,

materials from the Lopolev case

is completely unclear. Why

this document has been submitted is also unclear

perhaps they will explain.

>> What is the defense's position? At this point I

support it. And I would also like to add

that it is unclear how these

documents were obtained at all. I do not think

that these people are following our

trial, and that upon seeing the defense motion, they

suddenly ran off and filed an application with

the Leninsky District Court, which then passed it on to

the Investigative Committee of Russia, which sent them here.

Most likely, they were summoned. By whom

were they summoned? For what purpose were they summoned?

If they were summoned and statements were taken from them,

then they should have given those statements

to investigator Akhmetov or

Chernykh or someone else, because then

it would not be to the Leninsky District Court. And why

did they suddenly start obtaining certificates,

producing passports, and so on, and so

forth. So the origin of these documents

is highly questionable.

Your Honor, I support that as well. I would like

to add that written statements

cannot be admitted, because that would violate

the principle of direct examination of

evidence. If the prosecution wishes,

it may exercise its right

to bring these persons in and question them

in the manner prescribed by law.

Any objections?

None from me, Your Honor, we have said everything. In

principle, as regards, uh,

attorney Kobz's statement that

it was necessary to summon them and take

statements from them—well, our procedure does not provide

for, so to speak, such a procedural form

for taking statements from them.

The applications were submitted directly to the court,

because, uh,

the identities of those very

attesting witnesses are being established. As for their place

of residence, I would also like to add to

what was just said that they

explained

that they did not report their actual place of residence

to the investigator. The investigator

involves these persons in order to

certify the legality of the investigative

action being carried out. The investigator

brings in a disinterested person.

Our task in this case consists only

in, so to speak, verifying

their identity, that such

people really do exist, which we

have done. That is confirmed both by

certificates from the institutions where they

study, and also by their

statements, which are in turn confirmed by

a copy of the passport, which has been

submitted. Therefore, in our view, everything is

lawful and well-founded. The faxed copies

have been duly certified. Yes, unfortunately

the originals have not yet arrived at present,

but as soon as they do arrive,

we will, of course, add them to

the materials of the criminal case, but I do not think

the defense has grounds to doubt

the authenticity of the submitted

documents, which have been duly

certified, including with the official seal

of the prosecutor's office. Your Honor, we

do have grounds to doubt

the authenticity of these documents as well,

because, as you can see, in the certificate

provided for Tarasyan, it is stated

that while on barracks status he is located

at 3/4 Volochaevskaya Street,

building 3/4.

As we can see, in the inspection report,

the reliability of which we challenged,

Tarasyan's address is listed as Moscow,

22 Yunatov Street, apartment 49.

So this is yet another piece of evidence that

false information

is being presented to the court again, uh,

by the prosecution, just as in the report.

Now we also have, uh, one more

document showing that

the information is false. Volochaevskaya Street,

building 3/4, is listed in both

certificates—for both one and the other,

for both attesting witnesses, Yankovich and Tarasyan.

Whereas in the report

one of them was listed as living at building 4/3 on

on Volochaevskaya Street, while Tarosyan's address is on

Yunatov Street. As for Yunatov Street, there is not a single

document. As of today, there has been no

evidence presented that such people lived there

or ever did, or have

any connection to that address

listed in the inspection report.

>> And, Your Honor, from the data, from these

documents, it is unclear why, after all,

such addresses appeared in the report. That

is, they lied to the investigator. It is unclear

why they gave these addresses if they had

different addresses. In other words, they misled

the investigation, or something of that sort.

That does not follow from the explanations

provided.

>> Yes, I would draw the court's attention to the fact that building 4/3

is listed on Volochaevskaya Street. In the

report and the documents submitted, however,

a different building already appears, also on

Volochaevskaya Street: building 3/4.

I see.

Can the prosecution state

where this information was obtained from?

This information was obtained from the Main Investigative Directorate

of Russia, that is, from the Investigative Committee,

because we sent them an

request. The request has been submitted together with

the original documents concerning the provision of

passport copies with respect to the indicated

attesting witnesses, since it is located in the city of

Moscow, and for reasons of practicality

and to save time, we did not

attempt to do this independently

requesting important identifi...

>> The court heard the parties' positions and ruled

that the order on recognizing

and attaching to the criminal case

physical evidence dated October 19

2012 shall be added to the materials

of the present criminal case, since it was

submitted to rebut the arguments

of the defense seeking to have the evidence

declared inadmissible.

The certificates and copies of passports

as well as the application, the court also finds

should be attached to the case materials.

The court will assess these documents in

the deliberation room when deciding

the motion to have the evidence

declared inadmissible.

These documents were then read out by

the prosecution.

Do you have anything further in rebuttal

to these arguments? Here

we have a reasoned objection regarding

the motions filed on May 29 and May 30, 2013

.

In the course of hearing the case against

Navalny and Ofitserov, from

defense counsel Davidov, Mikhailova, and Kobzev

there were motions filed seeking recognition of

certain evidence in the case as inadmissible, namely:

the order on providing

the results of operational-search activities to the investigator;

Volume 1, pages 133-134; the order on

declassifying information constituting

a state secret and its media; volume

12, pages 135-136; the ruling of the

Kirov Regional Court dated August 3

2009 granting permission to conduct

wiretapping of telephone conversations; volume

12, page 137; the report of inspection and

listening to audio recordings; volume 12, pages

168 and 206; the report of inspection of items

dated October 17, 2012; volume

1, pages 207-209; the order

appointing a comprehensive phonoscopic

forensic examination; pages 210-211;

the expert opinion of the comprehensive

phonoscopic forensic examination.

Volume 13, pages 2 through 158;

the order appointing a comprehensive

psychological and linguistic forensic

examination; volume 13, pages 195-198; and

the expert opinion of the comprehensive

psychological and linguistic forensic

examination; volume 13, pages 214-260.

Having reviewed the arguments in the motions, we believe that

they should not be granted for the

following reasons. The operational-search

measure, hereinafter the wiretapping of

telephone conversations, hereinafter WTC, specifically

with respect to Navalny and Ofitserov,

was carried out by officers of the FSB of Russia for

the Kirov Region on the basis of

the relevant ruling

of the presiding judge of the Kirov Regional Court

authorizing this operational measure.

The court ruling was not appealed by the defense

in the manner prescribed by law.

The order on providing

the results of the operational-search activity to the investigator, the report,

and the order declassifying the information were

drawn up in accordance with the requirements of

Article 11 of

Federal Law No. 144 on Operational-Search Activity and

paragraph 10 of the Instruction on the Procedure for

Providing the Results of Operational-Search Activity

to inquiry bodies, investigators, prosecutors, and the court.

The inspection and listening to the audio recordings

dated August 8, 2012, as well as October 17,

2012, were carried out

by the investigator in compliance with

all the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code and in the presence of

attesting witnesses, including with respect to the inspection of

October 17, 2012; the passport details of the

attesting witnesses were provided, and their statements

were submitted to the court by the prosecution.

No comments of any kind from those participating

who personally reviewed the relevant

report or reports during the inspections were

received. The comprehensive phonoscopic

forensic examination No. 246,

as well as the comprehensive

psychological and linguistic examination

No. 202/13,

and were also carried out on the basis of

the relevant rulings

by the investigators and in full compliance with

the applicable criminal procedural

legal requirements. When appointing

the expert examinations, the experts were informed of the rights

and duties provided for by Article

57 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian

Federation, and they were warned about liability

for knowingly giving a false opinion under Article

307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

in particular, in the analytical section

of opinion No. 202/13, a list is provided

of academic and methodological literature that

the experts used; its text

examines issues of both psychology and

linguistics, and it bears the signatures

of both experts on every page

of the opinion, certified by the seal

of the Southern Expert Center. The personal seal and

signatures of the experts also appear beneath

their conclusions in volume thirteen

of the case file, page 260. There are no grounds to doubt

the qualifications of the experts or their conclusions

Thus, the documents listed above

which I mentioned earlier, in terms of

form and content comply with

the requirements of current

legislation. On the basis of

the foregoing, we consider it necessary

to deny the motion

of the defense to declare this evidence

inadmissible, and to continue consideration

of the case on the merits.

The court retires to deliberate on

the motion to declare

the evidence inadmissible. The ruling

will be announced today at 1:00 p.m.

Yes.

Yes, I still have a few more

very important ones.

later

Ruling of June 11, 2013, city of

Kirov, Leninsky District Court of the city of

Kirov, composed of presiding judge

Blinov, with the participation of the state

prosecutor, head of the department of

state prosecution and appeals

of the Kirov Region Prosecutor's Office, Bogdanov

prosecutor of the department of state

prosecution and appeals of the prosecutor's office

of the Kirov Region, Cheremesin, defendant

Navalny, his defense counsel, attorneys

Mikhailova and Kobzev, Kobelev, defendant

Ofitserov, and his defense counsel, attorney

Davydova, press secretary Koshny

considered in open court

the materials of the criminal case against

Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny

accused of committing the offense

provided for by part 3 of Article 30

and part 4 of Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

Pyotr Yuryevich Ofitserov, accused of

committing the offense provided for by part

5 of Article 33 and part

4 of Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, established that during

the court hearing, defense counsel

for the defendants, Mikhailova, Kobzev, Daudova

and the defendants Navalny and Ofitserov filed

a motion to declare inadmissible as evidence

first, the ruling on

the submission of the results

of operational-search activity to the investigator dated July 19, 2012

Second, the ruling on declassification

information constituting a state

secret, and of its media, dated July 18, 2012.

Third. The ruling of the Kirov

Regional Court dated August 3, 2009

granting permission to conduct

wiretapping of telephone conversations.

Fourth, the record of inspection and

listening to the audio recording dated August 8,

2012. Fifth, the record of inspection

of items dated October 17, 2012.

Sixth, the ruling dated August 24

2012 appointing a comprehensive

forensic phonoscopic examination.

Seventh. The opinion of the comprehensive

forensic phonoscopic examination.

Eighth, the ruling of November 28, 2012

appointing a comprehensive psychological

and linguistic forensic examination.

Ninth. The opinion of the comprehensive

psychological and linguistic forensic

examination. In the opinion of the defendants and

their defense counsel, the requirements of the law concerning

the collection and preservation of this

evidence were violated. Attorney Kobelev supported

the motion filed. The state

prosecutors Bogdanov and Cheremesnov objected

to granting the filed

motion, stating that there were no violations

of the requirements of the law in collecting

and preserving the evidence. Having heard

the parties' positions and examined the materials

of the criminal case relating to the stated

motion, the court finds it not subject to

being granted. The procedural decisions of the bodies

of inquiry, investigation, and the court, namely

the ruling on the submission of

the results of operational-search activity to the investigator dated July 19,

2012, the ruling on declassified

information constituting a state

secret and its media dated July 18, 2012

the ruling of the Kirov Regional Court

dated August 3, 2009 granting permission

to conduct wiretapping of telephone

conversations, the ruling of August 24

2012 appointing a comprehensive

forensic phonoscopic examination

the ruling of November 28

2012 appointing a comprehensive

psychological and linguistic forensic

examination, were issued by the authorized officials

of the said bodies and by the court within

their competence, are reasoned, and are based on

the requirements of the law, and contain the attachments specified in

them, signed by the persons concerned.

issued in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and the federal

law on operational-search

activities. This information

These procedural documents are not

evidence in the criminal case

as provided for by Article 74 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation,

but merely confirm the grounds for conducting

operational-search measures

and investigative actions. Set out here are

the defense's arguments regarding the assessment of the said

orders. As evidence

in the criminal case, the court does not, does not conduct

At the same time, the court notes that most

of the defense's arguments indicate their

disagreement with the ruling that has entered into legal force

of the Kirov Regional Court

dated August 3, 2009, granting

authorization to conduct wiretapping of

telephone conversations. However, the court, the

court of first instance lacks

the authority to review a ruling

issued by another court. In assessing

the inspection and listening record of the

audio recording dated August 8, 2012.

The record of inspection of items dated October 17

2012. The report of the comprehensive

forensic phonoscopic examination.

The report of the comprehensive

forensic psychological and linguistic

examination, from the standpoint of admissibility,

the court proceeds as follows. The inspection and

listening to the audio recording were conducted

by the investigator on August 8, 2012

in the presence of attesting witnesses, in full

compliance with Articles 164, 176, and 177

of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. During the inspection and upon its

completion, no comments were received from the participating persons

and they personally familiarized themselves with

the contents of the record. The record

of inspection states that the following were inspected:

two paper envelopes with

accompanying inscriptions reading 'results of'

operational-search activities, containing compact

CD-R discs, as well as the audio recordings of

telephone conversations stored on those

discs. It was noted that access to

the contents of the packaging at the time of inspection

was not possible, and no damage to the packaging

was found. During the court's examination of

the said discs and the audio recordings contained on them,

the information set out therein was fully confirmed

as stated in the inspection record,

including the accuracy

of the record's description of the contents of

the listened-to audio recordings. In view of this,

the defense's arguments that

the authenticity of the discs and the reliability of

the information contained on them

as well as the absence of information about measures to protect

the information from deformation, demagnetization,

preservation issues, erasure, and the like, are, in the court's view,

untenable and

refuted during the court

hearing. The inspection of items dated October 17

2012 was also carried out

by the investigator in compliance with all

requirements provided for by Articles

164, 176, and 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, in the presence of attesting witnesses

No comments from the participating persons,

who personally familiarized themselves with the relevant

record during the inspection, were received.

The fact that attesting witnesses were present during this

inspection is confirmed by their

handwritten signatures in the record,

and by the information about their identities set out

in the record. In addition, the court was provided with

copies of the passports of the said attesting witnesses,

Yankovich and Tarosyan. In this connection, the court

concludes that the identities of the attesting witnesses

were verified by the investigator, and that these

persons are not fictitious.

The discrepancy between the registered addresses of the attesting witnesses

as stated in their passports and the addresses indicated

in the inspection record does not, in the court's opinion,

cast doubt on the fact or the results

of the investigative action carried out.

The items inspected in this record—

the optical discs and the employment contract—

were presented to the court and examined during

the hearing, as a result of which

the court concluded that the information set out in

the record of inspection of items dated October 17

2012 corresponds

to reality. The discrepancy in

the number of optical discs

received from the expert institution

The number of discs indicated on

the packaging in which they were contained and in

the cover letter from the expert

institution is regarded by the court as a technical

error, since the case materials, as well as

the court's direct examination of

the said optical discs during the hearing,

reliably established their number,

the contents of those discs, and the proper

packaging; that is, it was established that

their integrity and authenticity were

properly ensured. The separation and

attachment of one of the discs to the materials

of the criminal case against Opolev

is confirmed by the relevant

order from the materials of criminal case

No. 2011/460674-re12.

The comprehensive forensic phonoscopic

examination dated October 15, 2012, No.

246-64f, was conducted on the basis of

the relevant order of the

investigator dated August 24, 2012, in

full compliance with the requirements of Chapter

27 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. There are no grounds

to doubt the qualifications and objectivity

of the experts of the Main Directorate of

Criminalistics of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation

who possess sufficient specialized

knowledge to conduct

a phonoscopic examination

there is no basis to do so. When appointing the forensic examination,

the experts were given various

the rights and duties provided for

by Article 57 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. They

were warned about liability for knowingly false

expert conclusions under Article 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The comprehensive psychological and linguistic

expert examination dated January 8, 2013, No.

202/13 was conducted on the basis of

the relevant investigator's order.

There are no grounds to doubt

the qualifications and objectivity of the experts

of the Nonprofit Partnership Southern Expert Center, who have

extensive professional experience,

and possess sufficient specialized

knowledge to conduct forensic

examinations. When the examination was ordered,

the experts were advised of their rights

and duties provided for by Article

57 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. They

were warned about liability for knowingly false

expert conclusions under Article 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. This

examination was conducted in accordance with

the requirements of Chapter 27 of the

Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. In the analytical section

of the report, a list is provided

of the scientific and methodological literature that

the experts used. Its text

examines both issues of psychology and

linguistics. At the same time, there are signatures

of both experts on each page

of the report, certified by the seal of the Nonprofit Partnership Southern

Expert Center. The personal seals and signatures

of the experts appear under their conclusions in

Volume 13, case file page 260. At the same time,

the questions were put by the investigator

specifically to the panel

of experts, a psychologist and a linguist.

The experts examined the same

materials. The panel formulated joint

conclusions on the questions posed. The text

of the experts' report does not indicate that

either expert had any

dependence on the other or conducted

the research or evaluated the results other than

independently. Therefore, the court does not

find any violation of the requirements of Part

2 of Article 201 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The submission for

the experts' examination of other documents

in addition to optical discs with audio recordings,

in the court's view, could in no way

have affected the lawfulness of the examination itself

or the objectivity of its conclusions

set out in the report. The defense's arguments that

the experts' conclusions were not based on

an examination of the audio recording of the telephone

conversations are found by the court to be contrary

to the text of the experts' report. The experts' conclusion

on question No. 10 contains

a discussion that Navalny and Ofitserov

discuss, among other things, issues of

refuting accusations by KOGUP

Kirovles against OOO VLK of appropriating

a significant portion of the contracts

of KOGUP Kirovles with clients and purchasing

KOGUP Kirovles timber products at

below-market prices. This fragment of the conversation

between Navalny and Ofitserov is contained in file

B978202.

There are corresponding

references to it by the experts both in the introductory and in the

analytical sections of the report.

Moreover, the experts' conclusions about the underlying

purposes of the conversation between Navalny and Ofitserov in

this file are also reflected

in the conclusions on questions Nos. 2 and 3

of the report. Based on the foregoing,

the court concludes that there are no grounds for

granting the motion of the defendants and

their defense counsel to declare the evidence

inadmissible, and it must be denied. On

the basis of the foregoing, and guided by

Article 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the court ruled to deny

the motions of the defendants

Navalny and Ofitserov, and their defense counsel

Mikhailova, Kobzkov, and Davydova, to declare

the following evidence inadmissible:

the order on the submission of

the results of operational-search activities to the investigator dated July 19,

2012; the order on

declassifying information constituting

a state secret and its media, dated 18

May 2012; the ruling of the Kirov Regional

Court dated August 3, 2009,

granting permission to conduct

wiretapping of telephone conversations;

the record of inspection and listening to

the audio recording dated August 8, 2012; the record

of inspection of items dated October 17, 2012;

the order dated August 24, 2012,

appointing a comprehensive forensic phonoscopic

examination, and the report of the

comprehensive forensic phonoscopic

examination; the order dated November 28, 2012,

appointing a comprehensive

psychological and linguistic forensic

examination; and the report of the comprehensive

psychological and linguistic forensic

examination. The ruling has been signed.

A recess is declared in the court session

for fifteen minutes, until 13:20.

>> Your Honor, may I have a copy of this

ruling?

>> Of course,

give me the sheets.

>> Sergei, I'm in court too.

Give me

I gave it. And I seem to have lost it somewhere. What, is that a problem?

Give me

>> a pen

>> for that reason.

the expert examination exper

>> No, Krasnovets, I just want to read this

read everything

>> I just want to read it first, and then when

we've read it

it's premature now

interesting

3,000

>> So, well, we're giving it for review now, right?

Uh-huh. Thank you.

Olya, later you’ll probably ask him for it too,

ask for it

one.

There are some systems.

>> Well, I see.

9

100,000

Thank you.

>> Mm-hmm. All right. Thank you.

what time frame

if they are seasonal

when called

This means that the police have 48

in the event,

if

they

compel

figures, they do not break in and they can

[inaudible]

very gently

for now in Moscow

more.

Next.

that was the case with

the revolution

that is, his arrest

And can the air conditioner be fried

the suspect

accordingly

the commission, apparently

They can now

if not a suspect

it turned out

two days

and the court hearing, or to extend the time

days

5 days, after which a preventive measure is imposed

Then for several more days, and maybe within

another 10 days.

can you make a table, maybe, or

write something, and here it’s rubles, and so on.

Well, look, the selection of a preventive measure

in the proceedings,

when, let’s say, we ask there

they could not vote at first

to give him

further

finish it.

Well, they’ve announced everything. Now, as I understand it,

our side still has something they want

to announce from the materials or request

to announce

[inaudible].

>> Well, I don’t know whether we’ll move on today, but

starting from the next hearing, most likely

it will be our questions.

Your questioning

the motion, and possibly also the reading out

of some written materials,

so that it won’t be a surprise for you.

>> Well, of course, award medals

to journalists.

I see. And,

>> and then, then

the Investigative Committee (Russia’s main federal investigative authority) and I

there’s something there again

maybe, I don’t know,

maybe all of it.

Well, and this is the priority we have

that everything will still work out

now.

Agreed

for the next one

and

we can issue certificates right there on the spot,

right?

Now

still

Seems like taking

>> we’ll need a template at the office

more.

And you

once again

an obscene word three times

>> [obscene word]

period.

700

also

>> I missed it.

heard

>> your final statement

>> I [used an obscene word]

I agree, period.

And this is your

fed up with it

>> there.

When will you take a look?

Here, look in each

>> 209

168 206

same

Try it.

sit down.

Please, the other side may continue.

>> Your Honor, since the written

materials have been examined, we propose

to proceed in the following order

with the evidence that will be

presented to us, and move on

say that

Your Honor, a motion in connection with

the latest documents that were

read out by the party.

What kind of

>> a motion to secure evidence?

>> We invite you.

>> They’re inviting you.

>> From the lawyers

Mikhailova, Kobzeva, and Davydova, as well as

from defendant Navalny and Officer.

A motion to exclude evidence is being submitted.

Part 2 of Article 50

of the Constitution of the Russian Federation

guarantees that in the administration of

justice, the use of

evidence obtained in violation of

federal law is not permitted. In accordance with

Article 75 of the Criminal Procedure

Code of the Russian Federation

provides that evidence obtained in violation of

the requirements of criminal procedure

law is inadmissible, has no

legal force, and may not

be used to prove any of the

circumstances provided for in Article

73 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Part 3

of Article 7 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation provides that

a violation of the provisions of this Code by a court,

a prosecutor, an investigator, an inquiry body,

or an inquiry officer in the course of

criminal proceedings entails

the recognition as inadmissible of evidence obtained

in this manner.

Contrary to the defense's objections, at the

court hearing, the judgment was read out and examined

of the Lensky District Court of the city of

Kirov dated December 24, 2012, in which

the former general director of the state enterprise KOGUP Kirovles

Opolev, who had entered into a pre-trial

cooperation agreement, was found

guilty of committing the offense

provided for in Part 4 of Article

160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; Volume 26, case file pages 289–294.

We believe that the judgment of the Lensky District

Court of the city of Kirov dated December 24, 2012

cannot be used in

this criminal case as

evidence for the following reasons.

First. In the judgment issued under a special procedure

by the Leninsky District Court of the city of Kirov

in respect of Opolev,

who entered into a pre-trial cooperation

agreement, the rights and

lawful interests of Navalny and Ofitserov

are affected, as guaranteed by Article 14

of the Criminal Procedure Code and Articles 46, 48, and 49 of the Constitution of the Russian

Federation, as well as by the provisions of paragraphs 1

and 2 of Article 6, the right to

a fair trial, of the

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights

and Fundamental Freedoms. In the judgment,

rendered without examining and assessing

the evidence presented by

the investigation, while finding Opolev guilty of

committing the offense

provided for in Part 4 of Article

160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the court repeatedly used

wording indicating that

the offense was committed by Opolev

jointly with Navalny and Ofitserov, namely:

namely,

Governor Belykh of Kirov Region, at a

meeting with the heads of major

enterprises of the region, among whom was the

general director of KOGUP Kirovles,

introduced his future unpaid advisers,

including

the person officially appointed to that

position by the governor's order of May 21,

2009, No. 60-k.

Next quotation. Approximately in

January–February 2009, knowingly aware of the

ability to influence the activities of

state unitary enterprises

of Kirov Region by virtue of

the actual exercise of the powers of an

unpaid adviser to the governor,

acting out of self-interest

as the organizer of the crime,

while also planning to direct its

execution, together with an acquaintance of his,

whom he involved as an accomplice

to the crime, he devised a criminal plan

to embezzle the property of the state enterprise

by dissipating it in favor of a newly

created organization under their control,

which was to be established and headed by O.

Next quotation. While preparing

for the forthcoming embezzlement, approximately in

February 2009, while actually performing

the above-mentioned powers of an adviser

to the governor on an unpaid basis,

acting on the instructions of the

leadership of Kirov Region,

which was unaware of the crime being

committed, together with O., allegedly for the

purpose of studying and analyzing the efficiency of

the enterprise's operations, arrived at KOGUP

Kirovles, located at the address:

Kirov Region, the city of Kirov,

Avtotransportny Lane, building

where he introduced O. to the general

director, Opolev, and instructed the latter

to provide information on

the structure of the state enterprise, the range of harvested

and processed forest products, as well as

other necessary data, which Opolev

did.

Next quotation. Approximately in

February–March

of that year, the exact time not established,

continuing to carry out his criminal

intent aimed at embezzling the property

of KOGUP Kirovles. While directing the commission of the

crime, while being in the building

of the Government of Kirov Region,

located at the address: city of Kirov,

Karl Liebknecht Street, 64, he informed Opolev

of the forthcoming creation of an enterprise for

providing intermediary services for the sale of

harvested and processed KOGUP Kirovles

timber products for the purpose of subsequently

embezzling the property entrusted to Opolev

.

Opolev, realizing that as a result of

the creation of this enterprise and

further dealings with it, KOGUP Kirovles

would suffer property damage,

took no actions aimed at

preventing the unlawful acts and did not

undertake any such measures, and agreed to the proposal

of the latter, thereby entering with N. and O. into a

prior criminal conspiracy

aimed at embezzling the property entrusted to him,

namely the property of KOGUP Kirovles entrusted to Opolev, on an especially

on a large scale.

In addition, there are the following quotations.

O, with the aim of carrying out the criminal plan,

N, acting jointly and in coordination with

him, in March 2009 ensured the establishment

and state registration in

the territory of Kirov Region,

of LLC Vyatskaya

Forest Company OOVLK, controlled by him and RO, as well as the opening

of a bank account, thereby organizing

assistance in the commission of the crime

by providing information, means

and instruments for its commission.

Opulev, acting intentionally and in concert

with N and O, being the general director

of the enterprise and, using his

official position, signed the said

contract

supply agreement No. 01/29

with SOLK, providing for the conclusion of

appendices to it defining the main

terms for the supply of timber products, including

their price. Another quotation.

Opulev, N, and O knew for certain that

VMRK would pay for the goods on

the terms established by the contract and

its appendix, at a knowingly

undervalued price compared with the one

that Kartik Les could have received from

buyers without using

OVLK's intermediary services. And the said

contracts were aimed exclusively at

creating the appearance that

Kirprez had civil-law obligations

to OVK, supposedly on a compensated basis

to transfer timber products

to the consignee. In reality, however,

these goods would be transferred without

equivalent and appropriate

compensation from OVLK.

In the period from April 15 to June 13, 2009,

in Kirov, in furtherance of the joint

criminal intent, Opolev, using

his official position as general director

of RPles, as well as the general

director of OOLKO,

acting intentionally and in coordination with

Sochai,

who organized the commission of the said

crime and directed its

execution, signed 36 appendices to

supply agreement No. 0129

dated April 15, 2009, which

specified the names of timber products,

the volume and terms of supply, as well as the price,

which, without any

economic necessity, was

deliberately understated by all participants in

the crime compared with the price at which

the products of Rykles could have

been sold directly to OVLK counterparties

.

The next quotation: for the purpose of increasing

the volume of property of Kogubki Rafles

subject to embezzlement, as well as creating

conditions for OVLK allowing it alone

to supply and sell the produced

timber products.

Opolev, acting on M's instructions, intentionally

and in coordination with him and O, using

his official

position as general director, issued

Order No. 76, which introduced

a ban on forestry branches of Pogubki Rofles

from independently entering into contracts

for the supply and purchase and sale of timber products with

legal entities and individuals, as

well as sole proprietors.

At the same time, N and OO were aware that Oleg

was unlawfully depriving Kogubkirov Les of

the ability to independently sell

the timber products it produced at market

prices, thereby transferring these

timber products to the disposal of OOV VMLK

without corresponding and equivalent

compensation for their market value.

In addition, the following quotations

were also used in the verdict. In the period from 15

April 2009 to 30 September 2009

in Kirov, Opole, using

his official position and acting

intentionally, by prior conspiracy with

and on his instructions, ensured the performance of

the terms of supply agreement No. 0129 dated

April 15, 2009, and its appendices,

as a result of which Kogubkeryfles shipped

timber products worth 16,165,826

rubles 65 kopecks to the following

VLK counterparties. What follows is a list.

In the period from April to December 2009,

for the stated volume of timber products, into

the settlement account of LLC VLK, controlled by OO and NO,

opened with VKB Vyatkabank,

located at the address: Kirov

Region, city of Kirov, Chapaeva Street, building

7, funds were received in the total

amount of 16,380,880 rubles 28 kopecks. Thus,

Opolev, acting by

prior conspiracy jointly with N and

O, using his official

position as general director of Kogo

Kiroles, out of mercenary motives,

unlawfully embezzled property under

his control belonging to another, namely

timber products of Kagubke Kerovle in the volume of

10.84

cubic meters, in the amount of 16,165,826

rubles 65 kopecks. That is, on an especially large

scale, in favor of third parties, participants in

the crime, and OVLK controlled by them,

thereby causing property damage to

the owner of this property, Kavuts.

As can be seen from the above quotations from the

verdict, the court, without examining

the evidence available in the case,

found guilt for the embezzlement of

Kogulkirov Les property not only on the part of the

former general director of this

of Opalev’s enterprise, but also of the former

volunteer adviser to the governor on a public, unpaid basis

N, which Navaly clearly was,

Navalny, as well as the former general

director of OVKO,

namely, Ofitserov.

In accordance with the Resolution of the Plenum

of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated

April 29, 1996, No.

1, in a court judgment

the constitutional provision that

every person accused of committing a

crime is presumed innocent until

his or her guilt has been proven in the

manner prescribed by federal law

and established by a court judgment that has entered

into legal force,

defines the significance of a court judgment

as the most important act of justice and obliges

courts to strictly comply with the requirements

of the law applicable to

judgments. Paragraph 7 of this

resolution provides as follows.

Bearing in mind that the trial of a case in

court is conducted only with respect to

the defendants, the court must not allow in

the judgment wording

indicating the guilt in

the commission of a crime by other persons. If

the case against some of the accused

has been separated into a distinct proceeding, then in

the judgment it should be stated that the crime

was committed by the defendant together with other

persons, without mentioning their surnames.

However, contrary to the requirements

of the law, the court in its judgment

used wording that clearly

indicated, leaving no room for any

doubt, that the crime imputed to

Opalev had been committed by him together with

Navalny and Ofitserov. In accordance with

the requirements of Part 1 of Article 49 of

the Constitution, and Part 1 of Article

14 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, every person accused

of committing a crime is considered

innocent until his or her guilt is

proven in the manner prescribed by federal

law and established by a

court judgment that has entered into legal

force. Under Article 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

a judgment that has entered into legal force may not

predetermine the guilt of persons

who did not previously participate in the criminal case under

consideration. Under such

circumstances, the judgment rendered in

relation to Opalev clearly and unambiguously

affects Navalny’s rights and interests,

violates the principle of the presumption

of innocence guaranteed by Article 14

of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 49 of the Constitution, and therefore

cannot be used as

evidence in this criminal

case. Moreover, the criminal case against

Opalev was examined by the court

under a special procedure. At the same time, Navalny and

Ofitserov did not take part in the court proceedings

themselves. Subsequently,

Navalny, whose rights and lawful interests

were affected by the judgment rendered in

relation to Opalev. This

judgment was appealed to the Judicial

Panel for Criminal Cases of the Kirov

Regional Court. Navalny was

denied consideration of his

appeal against the judgment of the

of the Leninsky District Court of the city of Kirov

dated December 24, 2012.

Thus, on February 11, 2013, Navalny and

his defense counsel received a notice from Judge

of the Leninsky District Court of the city of Kirov

Kolosov dated January 17, 2013, which

stated that the appeal

had been received by the Leninsky District

Court of the city of Kirov. However, given that in the

criminal case considered against

Opalev, you were not

a party. At the same time, the judgment rendered

does not affect your rights and lawful

interests. The appeal, as well as the