The “Kirovles Case.” Court Video Recording. Hearing 13

All rise.

Please be seated.

>> Today's hearing is declared open.

The court continues hearing the case against

Navalny and Ofitserov.

The composition of the court has not changed. However, appearing before the court today

at this hearing are the defendants

Navalny, defense counsel, attorneys Mikhailova and

Kobzev. Does attorney Kobzev know

where your client and

the other defense lawyers are? Yes, Your Honor,

I have a written statement from

Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny. I will summarize

its substance and ask that it be entered into the record.

Navalny addressed a statement to the Leninsky

District Court of the city of Kirov, in which

he informs the court that he

and his defense lawyers received summonses

requiring them to appear on July 12 and 13, 2013,

before the head of the investigative team

Main Investigative Directorate

of the Investigative Committee, Nesterov, in connection with

criminal case No. 2011/

4607112.

These summonses were attached to,

that is, submitted to the Leninsky

District Court. Navalny also

states that officials of the

Main Investigative Directorate

of the Investigative Committee had

authorized his travel to the city of Kirov

to participate in court hearings at the

Leninsky District Court of Kirov.

However, no changes to those permissions allowing him not

to appear in response to summonses from the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation

to investigators

have been granted to him.

Navalny believes that his failure to appear in response to

the demands of the investigator from the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation may

be regarded as a violation of his

pretrial restraint measure.

In view of the above, Navalny

considers it necessary to appear with his

attorney Mikhailova in response to the summons

of the investigator of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation on June 12 and 13,

2013, at the premises of the Main

Investigative Directorate of the Investigative

Committee of the Russian Federation,

located at the following address: Moscow,

Tekhnichesky Pereulok, Building 2.

Navalny also asks that in the future

a real opportunity be ensured for his

participation, and that of his defense lawyers Mikhailova and

Kobzev, in hearings of the Leninsky

District Court of Kirov, without creating

an artificial pretext for changing his

measure of restraint on the grounds of allegedly improper

compliance with the conditions of his being under

a recognizance not to leave and of proper

conduct in various criminal cases

being investigated in different regions of the

Russian Federation.

In addition, Navalny believes that

the scheduling on June 11, 2013, of court hearings

for June 13 and 14

was intended to obstruct

Navalny's nomination as

a candidate for the office of Mayor of Moscow,

as has been widely covered by the mass

media.

Navalny also informs the court that on June 14,

2013, at 19:00, at the address

Moscow, Pyatnitskaya Street, Building 14, Structure 1,

a general meeting of the Moscow branch

of the political party PARNAS will be held

for the purpose of nominating Navalny

for the office of Mayor of Moscow.

This meeting will take place

in accordance with a previously adopted decision

of the federal and Moscow political councils

of the PARNAS party.

Notice of the date and place of the

aforementioned general meeting, in accordance with

the law on political parties, was

submitted in advance to the Moscow

City Election Commission, which

precludes any change in the date of the

general meeting. Uh, Navalny also

asks that the court hearing be adjourned.

In addition, I have statements

from attorneys Mikhailova and

Kobzev, in which they inform the court

that at the request of their client,

Navalny, they are today

going, that is, accompanying him to investigative actions at the

Main Investigative Directorate

of the Investigative Committee.

I ask that they be entered into the record.

The statement is dated June 12, 2013.

I received it only late today.

Did you discuss this statement with your

clients?

>> Yes.

Tell me, as for the PARNAS party, on June 14

the defendant Navalny is also asking that no

court hearing be scheduled because

a general meeting of the Moscow branch

of the political party PARNAS will take place. So

does that mean his measure of restraint would also be changed there

if he fails to appear?

Here, in this

>> In this statement, I asked counsel

whether these issues had been discussed. Since the statement says so,

that is why I asked that question.

>> No, we did discuss it, but I answered that

question not...

>> I understand. Thank you.

The court is therefore deciding the issue of

whether it is possible to consider the criminal case

in the absence of the defendant, as well as

defense counsel.

The opinion of the prosecution on this

issue?

>> Your Honor, we believe this issue

should be considered somewhat later.

It is necessary to examine the documents submitted

by counsel, and therefore we request

time to review them. Perhaps if we were given...

our position,

please.

In addition, I would like to inform you that

the court, as it

promised at the court hearing, sent

to Investigator Nesterov and the investigators

there was received

a message with the following content.

The court informs you that during

the consideration of criminal case No.

1225/2013

on charges against Alexei Navalny

Anatolyevich for committing an offense

provided for by Part 3 of Article 33 and Part

4 of Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and Pyotr Ofitserov

Yuryevich for committing an offense

provided for by Part 5 of Article

33 and Part 4 of Article 160

of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the defendant Navalny and his defense lawyers Kobzev

and Mikhailova submitted a letter stating that

on June 13, 2013, they were summoned to take part

in an investigative action at the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation

we inform you that, according to the previously established schedule

for holding the hearing in this case,

a court hearing was scheduled for June 13, 2013

with the participation of the defendant

Navalny, as well as counsel Kremenkov, Kobzev,

and Mikhailova; we ask for your understanding

and request that the investigative actions involving

the defendant and the defense be moved to another

day. At the same time, we inform you that in accordance

with the court hearing schedule, the next

court hearing was planned

to be held on June 17, 18, 24, and 25, and since

by attorney

Davydova there was also submitted

information that she was occupied

with an investigator at the Eastern Investigative

Department for Transport on June 14, 2013, and to the

attention of Investigator Vyatkin

a letter was also sent

with similar content. That

is, well, with attendance like this, naturally, the

court hearing cannot be continued.

As for the issue that in

relation to Navalny in this

criminal case a preventive measure was chosen in the form

of a written undertaking not to leave and to behave properly.

He was informed of the need to appear at

the court hearing by 10:30 a.m.

specifically on June 13, 2013. That is,

today there must be resolved, I would even

say somewhat belatedly, the need

to verify the information that he

wishes to appear before Investigator Nesterov in

another criminal case, in which

a preventive measure has also been imposed on him,

similar to the one imposed

in the present criminal case, therefore I

request time until 2:00 p.m.

Dear colleagues, in my view, the defense has no possibility

of continuing with the attendance as it currently stands.

With this attendance, we cannot continue the proceedings.

I support that position; I believe we cannot

propose

>> I also believe that it cannot be proposed

>> that the court, indeed, the judge may

continue in the absence of the defendant

and his defense lawyers; however, in order to clarify

the matter of whether the defendant and his

defense lawyers did in fact appear before Investigator Nesterov,

I believe it is necessary to make an inquiry

to the investigator, and in this connection

a recess is declared until 2:00 p.m. today.

So.

Please be seated.

The court reports that from the

Investigative Committee of the Russian

Federation, from the investigator for especially important

cases, Colonel Nesterov, there has been received

a message with the following content. In response

to your inquiries of June 11, 2013, and June 13,

2013, I inform you that on June 10

2013, the accused in criminal

case No. 2011/460711-12, Navalny,

as well as attorneys Kobzev and Mikhailova, were

notified by the preliminary investigation authorities

to appear at the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia on June 13, 2013,

at 12:00 p.m. to participate in an investigative

action in the said criminal case. On June 11,

after receiving your notice

about the court hearing scheduled in advance

for the same date, I

made a telephone call to attorney

Kobzev for the purpose of notifying him of the rescheduling

of the investigative action. However, attorney

Kobzev did not answer the phone call.

On June 13, 2013, at 12:00 p.m., the accused

Navalny and his defense lawyers Kobzev and Mikhailova

appeared at the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia to participate in

investigative actions in the criminal

case, in the above-mentioned criminal case.

At the same time, I inform you that

investigative actions on June 17, 18, 24, and 25

2013 in the above-mentioned

criminal case are not planned.

The prosecution.

Your Honor,

>> I would like to know now your

>> having examined the documents submitted by Navalny and his

defense lawyers,

we have come to the following view, and we have

a motion.

In criminal case No. 2011/71368

which is being considered at the present court

hearing, in accordance with the requirements

of Article 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, with respect to

the defendant Navalny, a preventive measure was chosen

in the form of a written undertaking not to leave,

and to behave properly. The substance

of the said preventive measure is

that Navalny is obliged not

to leave his place of residence without

your permission and to appear in a timely manner

at court hearings at your

request. The period of validity of the undertaking not

to leave is not limited by law. It

remains in force up until it is changed or revoked by

for the enforcement of a court judgment that has entered into legal force

of the court verdict. When changing or

imposing a preventive measure in the form of a written undertaking

not to leave and to maintain proper conduct

Navalny was informed that in the event

of its violation, a more stringent preventive measure

could be applied to him.

Such violations include, among other things,

failure to appear, without valid reasons, in response to

a judge’s summons at the appointed time,

as provided for in paragraph 2 of Article

102 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Under part 2 of Article

247 of the Code, the court has the right to change the defendant’s

preventive measure if he fails to appear at

the court hearing without valid

reasons. On June 11, 2013, at the conclusion of

the court hearing in the criminal case

you, the participants in the criminal proceedings, including

the defendant Navalny and his

defense counsel, were informed that

consideration of the criminal case had been adjourned until

10:30 a.m. on June 13, 2013. The parties

to the court proceedings, including

Navalny, were instructed on the

need to appear in the courtroom

at the specified time. At the same time,

despite the requirement for

timely appearance addressed to

Navalny, and despite the defendant’s awareness

that a preventive measure had been imposed on him

in the form of a written undertaking

not to leave and to maintain proper conduct,

which he had no right to violate.

The defendant Navalny today, that is, on June 13

2013, did not appear in the courtroom

for the hearing. No information

indicating valid reasons

for his absence was presented to the court

proceedings.

At the same time, the statement that Navalny

and his defense counsel needed to appear before

an investigator in another criminal case is not

a valid excuse, since

a similar argument was raised by Navalny’s defense

on June 11, 2013. And the court

took this circumstance into

account, and the defendant was informed that

appearance in court was mandatory,

and that the investigator would be notified,

accordingly, of the date of the court’s

consideration of the case.

The information available to the court,

which has just been stated aloud,

indicates that the court’s information

was received by him, that is, by Navalny,

on June 11, 2013, and therefore on June 12

2013 he repeatedly—that is, the investigator repeatedly—

made attempts

to contact Navalny and his defense counsel,

wishing to inform them of the postponement of

the scheduled investigative actions.

However, the latter avoided speaking with

the investigators on June 12.

These circumstances indicate

the defendant Navalny’s clear disrespect

for the court and a violation of

the imposed preventive measure in the form of

a written undertaking not to leave and to maintain proper

conduct.

Accordingly, pursuant to

the requirements of part 1 of Article 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code

of the Russian Federation, we request that the preventive measure in the form of

a written undertaking not to leave and to maintain proper conduct with respect to

Navalny be changed to a preventive measure

in the form of detention in custody.

State prosecutor,

your position.

>> Well, Your Honor, yes, I fully

support the motion. Indeed, we

believe that the preventive measure imposed

on Navalny in the form of a written undertaking

not to leave and to maintain proper conduct was violated. That is,

having been notified of the date of the court

hearing, he evaded appearing in court

and no valid reasons

for his absence exist.

>> The defense has something to say, so a question,

please.

>> Would it be possible, before the defense speaks,

to look at the message that

was received?

>> I have read it out in full.

Please.

Please read it below. Mm-hmm.

Please.

So, Your Honor, naturally,

I continue to oppose the granting of this

motion. I would like to say that,

first, the issue of changing the preventive

measure must be decided in the presence of

the defendant himself.

A preventive measure in the form of detention in custody

is inadmissible. Second, from the response

that you have just read out,

it follows that

Navalny was summoned to take part in

procedural actions both at

the Investigative Directorate, the Main

Investigative Directorate, and at

the Leninsky District Court. In essence,

Navalny was placed in a situation of

procedural uncertainty,

when he was simultaneously summoned to two

state bodies.

Therefore, failure to appear either at the Investigative

Directorate or in court cannot be regarded as

disrespectful.

And I repeat that such an issue, in any

event, must be resolved in the presence of

the defendant, so that he can give his explanations

on this matter, and only then can one

draw a conclusion as to whether the failure to appear was

for valid reasons or

>> Your Honor, I am categorically opposed to

granting the motion filed by the

prosecution. I believe it is unlawful,

unfounded, and not properly reasoned.

As my fellow defense lawyer correctly pointed out

On Navalny's behalf, Kobzev stated that the law does not

allow the court to decide issues concerning

changing a preventive measure to a more

restrictive one — in this case, to the most

severe preventive measure, namely

detention in custody, in the absence of the

defendant himself at the present court

hearing. I believe that

Navalny has taken no actions

that could give the court or

the prosecution any reason to doubt

that Navalny is properly

complying with the terms of his travel restriction

and good behavior undertaking. I believe that

conditions were artificially created for Navalny

under which he was indeed

forced to choose whether to appear

at the Leninsky District Court of

the city of Kirov, or to take part in

investigative actions at the Main

Investigative Directorate of the

Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. Navalny's defense

and Ofitserov's defense, before the start

of the substantive consideration of this criminal case,

filed a motion to

change territorial jurisdiction. As

one of the grounds for

changing territorial jurisdiction,

the defense pointed out that Alexei Navalny

in another criminal case,

which is being handled by

investigator Nesterov, had already been placed under

the preventive measure of a travel

restriction. Thus, with respect to

Navalny, two preventive measures have been imposed in the form

of travel restrictions and good behavior undertakings,

which he has no right to violate

under threat of having his preventive measure

changed to a harsher one.

And in support of the motion we also filed

to change

territorial jurisdiction, we said

that, of course, sooner or later

such a situation could arise — just as it

has arisen at the present court hearing —

where Navalny could simultaneously be assigned

investigative actions at the

Main Investigative Directorate of the

Investigative Committee of the Russian

Federation and proceedings at the Leninsky District Court

of the city of Kirov. And as we can see,

the defense was right. This situation,

colleagues, has indeed arisen.

I believe that,

first, this issue cannot be decided in absentia,

and second,

the fact is that Navalny

notified the court in advance that

he did indeed have investigative actions scheduled for June 13.

Attorney Kobzev

submitted the relevant

supporting documents. I carefully

reviewed investigator

Nesterov's response, and here is what struck me as

strange. Indeed, investigator

Nesterov writes that on June 11 he

tried to notify attorney Bobzieo by

telephone that no investigative

actions would take place, but in my view

this is, first, not proper

notification. Second, the defendant Navalny was not

notified that

the investigative actions concerning him

would not take place. Third,

attorney Mikhailova was not notified that

the investigative actions concerning

Navalny would not take place. And fourth,

in his

remarkable letter, investigator Nesterov does not even

state the phone number from which he

called attorney Kobzev. Based on

this, we can neither confirm

nor refute that this call

actually took place. In my

view, if investigator Nesterov

really did call attorney Kobzev,

he could have documented that call

in an appropriate report, or in this

letter that he sent to the

Leninsky District Court of the city of Kirov,

at least indicated the phone number on which

he unsuccessfully tried

to reach Navalny's attorneys and

properly notify them that

the investigative actions would not take place.

And besides all that, I would like to note

that the existence of two criminal cases against Navalny

running in parallel,

one of which is being heard on the merits,

while the other is under investigation, and the fact that

Navalny is under preventive measures

in both criminal cases in the form of travel restrictions

and good behavior undertakings. In the event

that these dates truly overlap,

if the court is not willing to accommodate

the defendant and in some way take into account

the conduct of investigative actions in

the other criminal case, then time and again

we will face the situation

where the defendant simply risks

either violating the travel restriction in this criminal case

or in the other one.

But again, I note

that in this case there are no violations whatsoever

of the travel restriction, nor can there be,

because the reason for Navalny's failure to appear at

today's court hearing

is valid.

And the fact that Navalny is currently at the

Main Investigative Directorate of the

Investigative Committee of the Russian

Federation is, in particular, confirmed by

the statement of Mr.

Nesterov. Navalny is not currently strolling around

the city of Moscow. He is not attending to personal

matters; he is at investigative

actions in another criminal case.

Accordingly, his failure to appear at the Leninsky

district court, it is, it is a valid reason. And

this episode cannot serve

as grounds for changing the preventive measure

of restraint. And I repeat once again that

the court cannot decide the issue of changing

the preventive measure, of imposing a preventive measure

of restraint in the absence of the

defendant himself in this case.

Moreover, I believe that if the court nevertheless

grants the motion from the

prosecution, which, in my view,

is completely unlawful and unsupported, apart from

the requirements of procedural

law, this will also violate

the fundamental rights guaranteed

by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, as well as

the right to liberty and personal

inviolability, guaranteed

by Article 5 of the European Convention on

Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. That is

all I have to say.

>> Please, your opinion. Your Honor, I

fully support the defense's position and

believe that, well, in this case there is no

particular urgent need

to, well, to impose detention

in respect of Navalny, because

he is not refusing to appear, he

will appear, but in this case

he found himself in a bind, with a choice of either

being there or there. Therefore I believe that I also

support the defense's position.

No.

The court retires to deliberate in order

to issue a ruling on the submitted motion.

The ruling will be announced today at 3:00 p.m.

>> Yes.

Ruling of June 13, 2013, city of

Kirov. The Leninsky District Court of the city of

Kirov, composed of presiding

Judge Blinov, press secretary Korshunova,

with the participation of the state prosecutors,

the head and prosecutor of the department of

state prosecution and appeals

of the Kirov Prosecutor's Office, Bogdanov,

Cheremisina, counsel for the defendant

Navalny, attorney Kobidov, the defendant

Ofitserov, and his counsel, attorney

Davidova, having considered in an open court

hearing the materials of the case against

Navalny, charged under Part 3 of

Article 33 and Part 4 of

Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and Ofitserov, charged under

Part 5 of Article 33 and Part 4 of

Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, established: Navalny

is accused of, while being in the city of

Kirov, by criminal means, while serving as an adviser,

having organized the commission of the theft

of property belonging to the Kirov Regional

State Unitary Enterprise

Kirovles by way of embezzlement on an especially large

scale. In this criminal case, Navalny

was assigned a preventive measure

in the form of a written undertaking not to leave and to maintain proper

conduct. On June 11, 2013, during

the consideration of this criminal case in

the Leninsky District Court of the city of Kirov,

the first recess in the court hearing was announced

until 10:30 a.m. on June 13, 2013, of which

the defendant Navalny, who was present at the hearing,

was personally notified

and directly. At the appointed time on June 13,

2013, Navalny did not appear at the court

hearing in the Leninsky District Court of the city of

Kirov and, through

attorney Kobelev, submitted a statement to the court that

the court hearing could not

proceed due to his summons for 12:00 p.m. on June 13

2013 to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation in

the city of Moscow, where in relation to him

a preventive measure had also been imposed in the form of a written undertaking

not to leave and to maintain proper conduct. During

the court hearing, the state

prosecutors Bogdanov and Cheremisina filed

a motion to change, with respect to

the defendant Navalny, the preventive measure

to detention in custody, stating that

the defendant, by failing to appear at the court

hearing, had violated the previously imposed preventive measure.

Counsel for the defendant

Navalny, attorney Kobelev, the defendant

Ofitserov, and his counsel Davidova

objected to the motion,

stating that changing the preventive measure with respect to

the defendant Navalny in his

absence would be unlawful. They also stated that

there were no grounds for changing the preventive measure,

since Navalny did not

appear in court because he had been summoned

to an investigator in another criminal case,

where a preventive measure had also been imposed on him

in the form of a written undertaking not to leave and

to maintain proper conduct. Having heard the parties

and examined the case materials, the court comes to

the following. By ruling of the Leninsky

District Court of the city of Kirov dated April 3,

2013, with respect to the defendant

Navalny, the preventive measure chosen during

the preliminary investigation in the case, namely

a written undertaking not to leave and to maintain proper

conduct, was left unchanged. In

accordance with Article 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, a written undertaking

not to leave consists of the obligation

of the accused, including, at the appointed

time, to appear when summoned by the court and not otherwise

to obstruct the conduct of

the criminal proceedings. The defendant Navalny

violated the preventive measure imposed on him

in the form of a written undertaking not to leave and

to maintain proper conduct, since he did not appear

at the court hearing when summoned.

The court finds the reason for the failure to appear at the court

hearing of the defendant Navalny

to be not valid, since at the

court hearing on June 11, 2013, it was

announced that the court would send a letter to the investigator

of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation

requesting that the summons be rescheduled.

an investigative action involving

Navalny. The said letter was

sent by the court on June 11, 2013, and

received by the investigator the same day.

The defendant Navalny ignored both

the court’s notice that a letter had been sent to the investigator of the

Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation,

as well as the summons to the court hearing for

June 13, 2013, at 10:30 a.m.

Despite this, the court finds that

the motion by the state prosecutors to

change the preventive measure for the defendant

Navalny to detention in custody

is not subject to approval. Under

Part 3 of Article 247

of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the court has the right to subject a defendant

who fails to appear without valid reasons

to compulsory appearance, and likewise to apply or

change the preventive measure imposed on him. Under

Part 1 of Article 108

of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, detention in custody as a

preventive measure is applied by court

order where it is impossible to apply a

more lenient preventive measure. Until June 13,

2013, defendant Navalny had not violated the

preventive measure. From the note

of the investigator of the Investigative

Committee of the Russian Federation, it follows that Navalny and his

defense attorneys Mikhailova and Kobzov did indeed

appear on June 13, 2013, by 12:00 noon at the

Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia. Under these

circumstances, the court has no grounds

to believe that the defendant Navalny’s future

appearances before the court will

be impossible under the preventive measure chosen for him.

Based on the foregoing,

guided by Articles 97, 99, 108, 110,

Part 3 of Article 247, and Articles 255 and 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the court

rules to deny

the motion of the state prosecutors to

change the preventive measure with respect to

the defendant Alexei Navalny

Anatolyevich. This ruling

may be appealed to the Kirov

Regional Court within 10 days of its

issuance; appeals shall be

filed through the Leninsky District

Court of the city of Kirov. The ruling

has been signed. The court also announces

the order for compulsory appearance dated June 13, 2013.

City of Kirov. The Leninsky District Court

of the city of Kirov, presided over by the judge

with the court clerk present,

with the participation of the state prosecutors,

the head and prosecutor of the department of

state prosecution and appeals of the

Kirov Region Prosecutor’s Office, Bogdanov

Bogdanov and Cheremesinov, defense counsel for

defendant Navalny, attorney Kobelev,

defendant Ofitserov and his defense counsel,

attorney Davydova, having considered in open

court session the materials of the criminal

case against Navalny, charged under

Part 3 of Article 33 and

Part 4 of Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,

and Ofitserov, charged under Part 5 of Article

33 and Part 4 of Article

160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, established: on June 11, 2013,

during the consideration of this criminal case

in the Leninsky District Court of the city of Kirov,

a recess in the court hearing was declared

until 10:30 a.m. on June 13, 2013, of which

the defendant Navalny, who was present at the hearing,

was notified. At the appointed time on

June 13, 2013,

Navalny did not appear for the court hearing at the Leninsky

District Court of the city of Kirov,

submitting to the court a statement that

he could not appear at the court hearing

because of his summons for

12:00 noon

on June 13, 2013, to the Investigative Committee

of the Russian Federation in Moscow, where in relation to him

a preventive measure had also been imposed in the form of

a written undertaking not to leave and to maintain proper

conduct. However, the court finds the reason for defendant

Navalny’s failure to appear at the court

hearing to be disrespectful,

since at the court hearing on June 11,

2013, it was announced that the court would

send a letter to the investigator of the Investigative Committee

of the Russian Federation requesting that

the investigative action involving

Navalny be rescheduled. The said letter

was sent by the court on June 11, 2013,

and received by the investigator that very

same day. Despite this, the defendant

Navalny ignored both the court’s notice

that a letter had been sent to the

investigator of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation,

as well as the summons to the court hearing for

June 13, 2013, at 10:30 a.m.

In accordance with Parts 1 and 2

of Article 113 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, in the event of failure to appear

when summoned without valid reasons, an accused person

may be subjected to compulsory appearance, that is,

forcible conveyance to court. Based on

the foregoing, guided by

Article 113 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the court rules

to subject defendant

Alexei Navalny Anatolyevich, born June 4,

1976, a native of the village of Butyn

in the Odintsovsky District of Moscow

Region, registered as residing at

the address: Moscow, Lyublinskaya Street, building

175, apartment 15, holder of passport

450805257

issued by the Department of Internal Affairs

of the Maryinsky Park district of Moscow on July 20,

2005, to compulsory appearance before the Leninsky District Court

of the city of Kirov on June 17, 2013, at 9

a.m. A copy of this ruling

shall be sent for execution to the Office of the

Federal Bailiff Service for Moscow

The ruling has been signed.

The court hearing is adjourned

until June 17, 2013, at 9:00 a.m.

>> Ah, perhaps a question for the 21st and the 20th

to the Senate or to...

>> The court ruling has been issued, it has

been announced. Uh, Mr. Kobelyov, counsel, we will now

serve you with a summons in the event that

the court ruling does not reach

Moscow, to the bailiff service. Here,

we will send this letter there. We will

serve you with a summons to pass on to your

authorized representative...

Judge, clos...