The Kirovles Case. Court Video Recording. Hearing 9

Thank you.

Please be seated.

The court session is open to the public.

The court continues hearing the case against

Navalny and Ofitserov. At the court session,

the parties have appeared; the composition of the court has not

changed.

So, at the previous court session

we concluded with the defense filing

a motion to have

the evidence declared inadmissible. At the present

court session, the position of

the prosecution on the filed

motion will be heard, after which the court will retire to the deliberation

room and make a decision. Please.

Your Honor, having studied the defense motion of

May 21, 2013, seeking to have

the evidence in the case declared inadmissible,

we believe it is not subject to

being granted for the following reasons.

The order on the submission of

the Results of Operational-Search

activities to the investigator, dated June 13, 2011,

and the report of the operative officer on

the execution of the investigator's instruction for

conducting operational-search measures

were prepared in accordance with the requirements

of Federal Law of August 12,

1995, No. 144-FZ, On Operational-Search Activities,

and in

accordance with paragraph 10 of the

Instruction on the Procedure for Submitting

the Results of Operational-Search

Activities to an inquiry officer, body of inquiry,

investigator, prosecutor, or court. Contrary to

the arguments set out in the defense motion,

the order on the submission of

the results of operational-search

activities dated June 13, 2011, and

the report of the operative officer of the FSB of Russia

for Kirov Region, Mashkovtsev,

were submitted on the basis of the relevant

instruction of the investigator of the Investigative

Directorate of the Investigative Committee for

Kirov Region, Sosnin. The said

documents contain all the necessary

details, including a registration

number and the date of issuance,

as well as information about the established

circumstances,

are signed by authorized officials

and constitute reports on

the results of operational-search

activities. Responses were received from

the mobile operators MTS, Kirov branch,

the Ural branch of MegaFon, as well

as the Kirov branch of Intel(?). Contrary to

the arguments stated in the motion, they also

comply with the form established by law

and were obtained pursuant to requests

sent by the investigator on the basis of the

decision of the Leninsky District Court of the city of

Kirov dated June 21, 2011. The attachments examined

at the court session to

the responses of the said communications operators,

in the form of CD discs, have

individual identifying features in the form of

specific numbers, are properly

packaged, supplied with explanatory

notes and the seals of the relevant

operators. The said information was reflected

in the record of their inspection

by the investigator dated August 2, 2011,

conducted in the presence of attesting witnesses. During

the inspection, it was established that

the integrity of the envelopes containing the CDs

containing information on the telephone

connections of subscribers Navalny

and Ofitserov, including those received

from VympelCom, had not been broken; the seals

were intact and showed no damage, that is,

they complied with the requirements of Part 3 of

Article 186.1

of the Criminal Procedure Code

of the Russian Federation. During the inspection and

upon its completion, no comments or statements from

the participating persons were made. Thus,

we believe that

it is necessary to deny

the defense motion of May 21, 2013

to have the evidence in the case

declared inadmissible, and to continue consideration of

the criminal case on the merits. I ask that the written

objection to the said motion be

added to the materials of the criminal case.

Pet

>> I fully support Prosecutor Bogdanov's position

and that of my colleague; our position

here is unified.

>> The court is retiring for deliberation to render a decision

on the motion filed. The decision will be

announced today at 9:25.

>> Ruling of May 29, 2013, city of

Kirov. The Leninsky District Court of the city of

Kirov, presided over by Judge Blinov,

with the participation of the state prosecutors,

the head of the department of state

prosecution and appeals of the Prosecutor's Office

of Kirov Region, Bogdanov, and prosecutor

of the department of state prosecution

and appeals of the Prosecutor's Office of Kirov Region,

Cheremesinov; defendant Navalny,

his defense counsel, attorneys Mikhailova and Kobzov;

defendant Ofitserov and his defense counsel,

attorneys Dani and Davydova; with secretary

Koshinov, examined in an open court session

the materials of the criminal case against

Alexei Navalny

Anatolyevich, accused of committing

an offense предусмотренное by Part 3 of

Article 33 and Part 4 of

Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; Pyotr Yuriyevich Ofitserov,

accused of 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;

has established that during the court session

defense counsel for the defendants, Mikhailova, Kobzov,

and Davydova filed a motion to have

inadmissible evidence

the order on the submission of the results

of operational-search activity to the investigator dated June 13, 2011

the report of the senior operative officer of the Economic Security Directorate of the Federal Security Service Directorate

for Kirov Region, Senior Lieutenant

Mashkovtsev, dated June 13, 2011, and the request for

the provision of information on subscriber

numbers belonging to Navalny, to the officer

of VOMTS, the reply from OJSC MTS, and the request for

the provision of information on subscriber

numbers belonging to Navalny

to the officer at the Kirov branch of MegaFon

the MegaFon reply, the request for the provision of

information on subscriber numbers,

belonging to Navalny, to the officer

the VimpelCom reply, the VimpelCom response, and the record

of the inspection of items and documents dated August 2,

2011, on the grounds that

the order on the submission of

the results of operational-search activity and the report of June 13, 2011

were obtained in violation of the federal

law on operational-search

activity and the instruction on the procedure for

submission

of the results of operational-search

activity. Accordingly, the evidence obtained

on the basis of these documents, and the other

evidence set out, are

inadmissible. In addition, the defense lawyers

point out that the responses of the mobile

operators do not contain all

the necessary data, or contain

contradictory information, which raises

doubts as to their reliability. The defendants

supported the motion filed.

The state prosecutors objected:

"They opposed granting the motions filed,

stating that there had been no violation

of the requirements of the law in the collection and

preservation of evidence. Having heard

the parties’ views and examined the materials

of the criminal case relating to the motion

filed, the court finds that the motion is not

subject to being granted."

The order on the submission of the results

of operational-search activity to the investigator dated June 13, 2011, and

the report of the authorized officer on the execution

of the investigator’s instruction to carry out operational-search measures

were drawn up in accordance with the requirements

of Federal Law No. 144-FZ of

August 12, 1995, on

operational-search activity, and paragraph

10 of the Instruction on the Procedure for

Submitting the Results of Operational-Search Activity

to an inquirer, an inquiry body, an investigator,

a prosecutor, or a court, approved by the joint order of

the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, the FSB of Russia, the Federal Protective Service of Russia, the Federal Customs Service of Russia,

the Foreign Intelligence Service of Russia, the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia, the Federal Drug Control Service of Russia,

and the Ministry of Defense of Russia, dated April 17,

2007, No.

368/15/164/481/32/184/97/

147. Contrary to the arguments of the defense,

the order on the submission of the results

of operational-search activity dated June 13, 2011, and the report

of the senior operative officer of the FSB of Russia for

Kirov Region, Mashkovtsev, dated June 13,

2011, were submitted on the basis of

the relevant instruction of the investigator

of the Investigative Committee for Kirov Region, Sosnin

The said documents contain the necessary

details, including the registration

number, the date of issuance, and information on

the established

circumstances, and, being signed

by authorized officials,

constitute reports on the results of

operational-search activity.

The requirements set out in the said federal

law and the instruction as to form and content

and the procedure for submitting the results of

operational-search activity to the investigator

were complied with. There are no obstacles to verifying

the reliability of the information set out in the said

materials. The responses

were received from the mobile operators

MTS, the Kirov branch of the Ural

branch of OJSC MegaFon, and the Kirov branch

of OJSC VimpelCom. Contrary to the arguments set out in the motion,

they also comply

with the requirements established by Part

3 of Article 186.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and were

obtained pursuant to the investigator’s requests

made within his competence

and sent on the basis of the rulings of

the Leninsky District Court of the city of Kirov

dated June 21, 2011. The responses contain

the necessary information allowing

the submitted

information to be identified and contain no contradictions

The attachments to the responses of the said

mobile operators in the form of CD discs

have identifying features in

the form of specific numbers, were properly

packaged and supplied

with explanatory notes and seals

of the relevant operators, which was reflected

in the record of their inspection

by the investigator on August 2, 2011,

conducted with attesting witnesses in full

compliance with the requirements of Part 5

of Article 186.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. During

the inspection, it was established that

the integrity of the envelopes containing the CD discs

with information on the telephone

connections of the subscribers had not been compromised.

The seals were undamaged, that is,

this complied with the requirements of Article 186

1 of the Criminal Procedure Code. During the inspection and upon its

completion, no comments or statements were made by

the participating persons. Thus,

the documents and evidence

which the defense seeks to have declared inadmissible

fully comply

with the requirements of current

legislation, contain the necessary

details, are duly certified,

and were issued by the proper procedural

officials. There are no grounds for granting

There is no motion. Based on the foregoing,

guided by Article 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation,

the court ruled to deny the motion

of defense attorneys Mikhailov and Kobzev

and Davydov to declare inadmissible

as evidence the ruling

on the submission of the results

to the investigator dated June 13, 2011

the report of an operative officer of the FSB Directorate for

the Kirov Region, Senior Lieutenant

Mashkovtsev, dated June 13, 2011; the request for

the provision of information on subscriber

numbers belonging to Navalny; the officer's

mobile communications unit response; the request for

the provision of information on subscriber

numbers belonging to Navalny; the officer's

request to the Kirov branch of MegaFon; the response

from MegaFon; the request for the provision of

information on subscriber numbers

belonging to Navalny; the officers' request to

VimpelCom; the response from VimpelCom; the record

of inspection of items and documents dated August 2

2011. The ruling has been

signed. Please be seated.

>> The consideration of the criminal case continues.

I report that at the court hearing

the previously unexamined

witness Knyazev has appeared.

Witness Baranov did not appear at the court hearing,

and the prosecution

um, stated that it would present

the necessary evidence of proper

notification of Razamassov

regarding the need to appear in court

or that he

has in fact absconded and is on

an international wanted list. Therefore, the court

proposes

to consider the issue of the further order

for the court's examination of the case materials,

please.

In connection with the appearance of the prosecution witness, we

propose changing the previously proposed

order of examining the evidence and

to question witness Knyazev at this hearing

and, of course, resolve the issue regarding the witnesses

Baranov and Raz...

>> Two what?

>> Your opinion?

>> The defense's opinion on changing the order of

the examination

of evidence, please. Defendant

Ofitserov, your opinion?

>> No objection.

>> No objection. Defense attorney Mikhailov?

>> No...

>> Defense attorney Davydov?

>> No objection.

>> Navalny?

>> No objection.

>> Defense attorney?

>> Defense attorney Kobelev: no objection.

The court grants the change in order and

invites witness

Knyazev into the courtroom. What?

Good afternoon.

>> Good afternoon. Please state your name.

>> Vladimir Matveyevich Knyazev.

>> When and where were you born?

>> June 30, 1968, in the town of Belaya Kholunitsa

in Kirov Region, Russia.

>> What is your nationality/ethnicity?

>> Russian. Citizenship

of Russia.

>> Russia.

>> Your education?

>> Higher education.

>> Marital status?

>> Married.

>> Where do you work, and in what position?

>> Uh, I work at UK Leskhoz as the head

of the Belaya Kholunitsa division.

>> At what address are you registered,

and where do you live?

>> Belaya Kholunitsa, Sovetskaya Street,

67.

>> And you are registered and reside there?

>> Yes.

>> You have been called to court to be questioned as

a witness. I am explaining to you your

civic duty and obligation to tell everything

you know about the case. At the same time,

I explain that you have the right to refuse

to testify against yourself,

your spouse, or other close

relatives. If you agree to testify,

I warn you that your testimony may

be used as evidence

in the case, including

in the event of your subsequent

retraction of that testimony. You also have the right

to testify in your native language or

a language you speak, to use the assistance

of an interpreter, to challenge

that interpreter, to make motions and

to file complaints about the actions,

inaction, or decisions of the court, to appear for

questioning with a lawyer, and to request

the application of security measures if

necessary. In addition, I explain to you the

liability предусмотренную

by the Criminal Code for unjustified

refusal to testify and for giving

knowingly false testimony.

Liability for this is provided for

by Articles 308 and 307 of the Russian

Federation. Are your rights and

liability clear to you?

>> Yes,

>> yes, clear. Please sign to acknowledge this.

Please approach the clerk.

>> Tell me, do you have any grounds

for refusing to testify?

>> No.

>> Please answer the prosecutor's questions first,

then the defense's.

>> Vladimir Matveyevich, please explain,

>> whether you know the defendants Ofitserov and

...va?

Well, the only thing is that I’ve heard of

them, but I don’t know them personally.

>> I see. Do you currently bear any

hostility toward them?

>> No.

>> Please explain where you worked in 2009

...?

>> In 2009, I worked

at the Belaya Kholunitsa timber enterprise branch of KOGUP

Kirovles.

>> Who was your immediate supervisor?

>> One moment. In what capacity did you work there

?

>> Director

Vyacheslav Nikolaevich Opolev.

Please explain. In 2009, was the managed

enterprise, the Belaya Kholunitsa branch,

vested with the right

to independently search for counterparties for

selling its forestry products, and was it granted

the authority to set prices for

the forestry products it sold

by product range?

The right to search for

counterparties was granted, but all contracts

were concluded subject to approval by the head

office in Kirov. Prices were approved

by Vyacheslav Nikolaevich Opolev.

How exactly was the approval of

prices carried out? Could you explain in more detail?

>> Were there minimum or

maximum prices?

>> Minimum prices did exist,

naturally, I mean, let’s say

they were approved as minimums,

>> that is, minimum prices were approved annually.

Those minimum prices, yes. But in any

case, when preparing

to conclude a contract, whatever the price may have been,

that is, regardless of what it was, it

still had to be approved at the

head office,

that is, in the commercial and economic

departments.

>> Are you familiar with the company Vyatka Forest

Company LLC?

>> Yes.

>> Where did you first hear about it?

>> Well, probably at the head office.

>> About the fact that contracts had been concluded with this

company. The head office of

KOGUP Kirovles.

>> Yes, KOGUP Kirovles.

>> When and under what circumstances did this

take place, as far as you remember,

and were any meetings held in connection with it?

Uh,

>> well, I can’t say specifically. That is,

there were some meetings, uh,

at which, perhaps, the name of this

company was mentioned.

That’s all. Well, I probably can’t say

anything more specific.

>> Mm-hmm. Did your enterprise directly

interact with that company?

Uh

>> Our enterprise did not interact with it.

Uh, as far as I remember, we had

only one single

delivery

of poles; that is, there was

an order to prepare this product

in a small volume. There, well, if memory serves,

about 30 cubic meters.

Who placed the order?

From KOGUP Kirovles.

>> So in any case, we received, as it were,

instructions from KOGUP Kirovles.

>> So am I correct in understanding that

KOGUP Kirovles and the Vyatka Forest Company

had some kind of contractual relationship?

>> Uh, I can’t confirm that, because I received

the instructions

from Vyacheslav Nikolaevich Opolev of

KOGUP Kirovles.

>> And specifically, what did Opolev determine regarding the shipment?

The assortment, volume, price,

or something else? The commercial department provided us

with a specification according to which

we had both the specification and the deadlines by

which the products had to be prepared.

We fulfilled it.

That’s all.

>> This type of specification—was it

provided in relation to some

specific enterprise, or was it

drawn up for some specific

period of time,

that is, for a month, for a week,

specifically with respect to that

counterparty? Uh, since we had

just this one single delivery of this

material, I can’t really go any further

in somehow

explaining it, so to speak. That is, we

specifically received it,

we were told that it had to be completed by

a certain deadline. Right now

I can’t say what it was anymore either. We

completed it, the shipment went out, and that was it.

for the delivered products. As far as you

know, did the forest company pay

Kirovles for it?

Well, apparently it did pay. As far as I can remember,

I have the impression that

payment was made. That is,

>> on time or late?

>> I can’t say anything about that.

>> Apart from your enterprise, were shipments to

VLC made by any other branches?

As far as I know,

>> I can’t say anything about that either.

>> You explained that poles were shipped

to VLC. Had the enterprise previously shipped this kind of

product to any

counterparties?

>> No.

The Ukholokholunitsky forestry enterprise had

the necessary production

capacity to manufacture

enough?

>> There was no need to add any

production capacity. That is, well, the actual

manufacturing process required additional

operations. That is, there was preparation, there was

sorting by diameter, and preparation there

it was necessary to debark

those logs. Right. But it did not require any

additional production facilities

of that kind.

>> I see. How was

the delivery of the poles to the final

recipient handled? Were they picked up?

>> I do not know how, so to speak, the loading

onto the Euro truck took place, and that is all.

That is, we issued the waybills from the town of

Belokhnits. Beloynits.

>> The transport belonged to which organization?

Who provided it?

>> As for the questions you were unable

to answer—what is the reason? Is it due to

the passage of time?

Well, probably because of how long ago the events were,

basically, so to speak, once we received

the instruction to ship, our

forestry enterprise fulfilled the requirements of KOGUP

Kirovles.

So, at that time, well,

we were probably given information

about which vehicle was being loaded, how

we were to ship it, and how to prepare the documents.

That is, we did all of that.

>> I see. Did the director of the Vyatka Forest

Company ever introduce himself to you

at any point?

>> No.

So you do not know who it was?

>> Well, I heard it was Ofitserov.

>> And in general, do you know anything about the circumstances of concluding

the contract with VLK?

>> No.

>> Have you been questioned in connection with this criminal

case?

Apparently not, because, well,

so to speak

>> No, or not

>> No.

>> Your Honor, given that the list

of essentially clarifying questions, including

those for the prosecution witness,

has been exhausted, there are a number

of contradictions between the testimony he gave

in this court hearing and

the testimony the witness

gave during the preliminary

investigation, specifically regarding

the circumstances of his acquaintance,

his initial acquaintance with the timber company,

that is, the circumstances of the meeting held

at KOGUP Kirovles, as well as

the circumstances of payment for

the timber products supplied.

Therefore, we move for the reading into the record

of his testimony from the preliminary

investigation stage. This is volume twenty-four,

pages 114–117 of the case file.

And, in addition, it is necessary to present

the interview record to the witness himself for review,

since he claims that

in the context of this case he was not

questioned.

114, 100, 117

in the part concerning the excerpts about the meeting and

the payments

the opinion of the state

the defense's objection has been stated further

proved.

>> Who will begin on your side?

Our position has not changed; it

remains the same. We consider

it inadmissible to read out the witness's testimony.

First, until

the questioning of the witness by both

parties has been completed, because the defense also

has a number of questions for the witness, a number

of questions for the witness. And, uh, until the questioning

has been carried out, the testimony cannot

be read out. Moreover, as for the

contradictions the prosecution

is referring to, I have the testimony of this

witness in front of me. I do not see any

major contradictions that could not

be resolved through his

questioning. So in that respect as well,

reading out the testimony is also

inappropriate.

The defendant Ofitserov's position: I think the

prosecution simply needs to ask more

questions, formulate them more precisely,

because there are no major

contradictions. I think the witnesses will answer

all the questions.

The defendant's position.

>> I support defense counsel

Davydova's objection, and I also have before me

the interview record. And I can see that just as

at the time of questioning the witness remembered little,

so too now; and what he does

remember is not at all in

contradiction with what he is saying

now. Overall, I do not object to

the reading out of his written testimony, but

I ask that this be done after our questioning.

Thank you.

Yes, I support that and believe that even before

the testimony is read out, if such a decision is made,

it is necessary to determine which testimony

will be read out. Especially if

the witness says that he did not give any

testimony. These circumstances must be

clarified.

Clearly, I support the defense

the defense.

>> The court has heard the parties.

The court has received a motion from the prosecution.

A motion to read out the witness's testimony

given during the preliminary investigation

due to significant

contradictions. Witness, you are being shown

the interview record on pages

114–117 of the case file. You have just stated that

you did give some testimony. Please

look and tell us whether these are your signatures

on the record. The signature is mine.

>> So were you questioned or not?

I was questioned once, but I don't know.

Right now I simply can't say

which case it was in. That is,

>> you don't remember which case it was, but this

record,

>> well, it does bear my signature.

>> Look at the other pages

>> as well

the signatures

>> are yours.

If I may, a question to the witness specifically about

the record?

>> About the record, please. Tell us,

please, witness, do you remember where

the FSB building is?

>> So, do you remember or not?

>> One moment. Which building?

>> On Lenin Street.

>> And in what city?

>> The city of Kirov.

>> Can you give an example, yes?

>> Well, only what I have just seen

in the record. It's from 2011.

To clarify the question: you were questioned once,

questioned,

>> yes,

>> and at the FSB office on Lenin Street,

correct?

>> Well, yes, if I'm not mistaken.

Well,

the prosecution will read it out.

Here in the record it says that

the witness was questioned

>> and on these issues as well, another

>> after the testimony given by the witness is read out,

during the preliminary investigation, there will be

questions. Volume twenty-four,

excuse me, case file pages 114

to 117, record of the questioning of witness Gennady

Vladimir Matveyevich, dated June 28, 2011,

questioned in the town of Belaya

Kholunitsa by an investigator of the Slobodskoy

Interdistrict Investigative Department

of the Investigative Directorate of the Investigative

Committee for Kirov Region, Captain of Justice

Kras... that is, was questioned in

office No. 309 during the period from

10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

...with significant...

contradictions

of the case file

116

Investigator's question:

Did the supplies from VLK generate income for the forestry enterprise?

If not, for what reasons? Answer

of the witness: The contract for the supply of poles, as well

as other products supplied by

Vyatka Timber Company, was supposed to

bring income to the Belokholunitsky

forestry enterprise. However, LLC "Vyatka Timber

Company" did not fully pay for the supplied

products. At present

I cannot state the exact amount of the debt

at this time, but I am ready to provide

a separate document on the amount of the debt,"

owed by LLC "Vyatka Timber

Company." Your Honor, the question from the other side

was whether the contract

with VLK and VLK's supplies brought any

profit to this forestry enterprise, which

the witness headed. The question was of a different

kind. So, perhaps you should speak one at a time

after all. And

>> if the prosecution is in fact

speaking of some contradictions, then

presumably, besides whether

VLK paid for the supplied products,

the questions should have been formulated

as they are set out in the record. And

it turns out that the prosecution

does not even bother to properly

formulate the question. Yet you

grant the motion to read out

this testimony. I ask you to take note of

the objection, please.

>> Your Honor, we object, because

it was asked, and among other things it was stated

in the motion to read it out, in connection with

a contradiction specifically regarding the amount

of the debt, because the witness, as we

heard from the testimony that was read out, explained

that for the supplied products there was

a debt owed by VK to the forestry enterprise, including

to the forestry enterprise. Whereas during

this questioning he explained that such

debt did not exist. I have heard the parties.

Indeed, such a question was asked

to the investigator, including as to whether

payment had been made by VLK, and

also whether there had been any delay, whether

payment had been made on time, whether there was

any debt; there are contradictions,

the testimony is to be read out.

>> Also page 117 of the case file, in the part concerning

the meeting that was held. The question was

from the investigator: were meetings held

of forestry enterprise directors regarding the work of LLC

Vyatka Timber Company? Witness's answer:

When one meeting was held, at it

I and the other forestry enterprise directors were

introduced to the director of LLC Vyatka Timber

Company, Ofitserov. It was also announced

that LLC VLK would be the new partner

of KOGUP (a regional state-owned enterprise), with which

contracts for the supply of products had already been concluded. Any

specific issues were not

discussed at the meeting.

>> Vladimir Nikolaevich, please explain.

>> One moment. There was another inconsistency. You

asked whether you were aware of

whether a contract had been concluded between the KSUE

and VLK. That was also addressed. Was testimony

given on that?

>> There is information on page

116 of the case file.

In 2009, the Belaya Kholunitsa forestry enterprise

supplied products to

Vyazka Timber Company. In particular, under

centralized supply contract

No. 1/29, concluded between KGUP

Kirovles and Vyazka Timber Company.

On August 5, 2009, there was a delivery of

poles. There were also two deliveries of

spruce-fir pulpwood

on June 26, 2009, and July 4,

2009. However, there are no supply contracts for this

product at the Belaya Kholunitsa forestry enterprise

on file. Under supply contract

1/2009, poles were supplied in the volume of

29.2

cubic meters for a total of 68,643

rubles and 50 kopecks. The assortment, price,

and delivery сроки were established by

KGUP Kirovles. The poles were manufactured in

the town of Belaya Kholunitsa. And the shipment of

the poles is not reflected.

Where were the poles manufactured, and how were they

delivered? If there is no inconsistency,

then what are we talking about?

>> Shall we read out the same thing five times,

to remind the witness?

>> The witness has answered. All right, we are finished

with that. Please ask questions regarding the

inconsistency.

>> Vladimir Alexeyevich, please explain,

please, based on your interview,

the place where it was conducted was the town of

Belaya Kholunitsa. And you were questioned by

an investigator, apparently an investigator

from the Investigative Committee,

is that correct?

Well, apparently yes, that is,

I suppose so.

>> Just a question from the defense. You answered that

the questioning took place in the FSB building in

the Kirov Region on Lenin Street. Well,

>> Are you perhaps confusing the circumstances and the interviews?

>> Well, that is why I initially

answered no, because what stayed in my memory

was one particular interview. Most likely,

that may have been in connection with some

other matter, well, the questioning was done differently,

so,

>> So, in other words, you confirm that

you were indeed questioned specifically

in Belaya Kholunitsa by an investigator of the

regional Investigative Committee,

>> correct?

>> Uh, based on the testimony that was read out, the

inconsistencies because of which it was

read out—you confirm that in

fact that is how it was. That is,

your answers to the investigator’s questions were

more truthful and accurate than your present answers in

this court hearing. I remind you, you were questioned

in 2011.

Well, basically, uh, what

I said today, I also

did not really see any difference from that

testimony; it was just a little more

detailed there, yes. That is, I remember

attending, for example, a meeting. I do not

remember—you asked whether the officer was

introduced to me personally, as it were,

that is, he was not introduced to me personally.

That is, at the meeting they may have

mentioned it.

That is entirely possible. Well, that was 4 years

ago.

>> As for the settlement with VLK,

>> As for the settlement with VLK, uh, regarding

the products delivered, there was

a debt; it did arise,

let us say, a current operating debt,

but I cannot say for certain now

whether it remained outstanding for the entire

period or whether it was settled.

Regarding the circumstances of concluding the contract

between Probov Rapres and, in particular, regarding

the interview, we clearly stated the number of this

contract: 01/29.

It is being shown to you.

>> Well then, apparently this contract

must have been available at the time.

>> That is, according to the plea agreement

thank you.

Does the prosecution have any questions, Your

Honor?

>> No, Your Honor. Does the party have any

further questions?

Please tell us, witness, whether the

price for the timber products that

your forestry enterprise supplied to LK, in particular

the price for those timber products,

was in line with the market average?

Uh,

>> Given that we had only one

one-time delivery of this product and,

let us say, in the preceding period and

in the subsequent periods we had no similar contracts

and no similar deliveries.

I cannot economically assess it now.

That is, at that time

there were no losses

from carrying out this particular

delivery, but as to how

it was, so to speak,

justified by the market, I cannot speak

to that now.

>> So you cannot say anything about the prices?

?

>> No.

Please tell us, witness, after all,

how many times were you questioned as a

witness specifically regarding those circumstances,

which you are now explaining to the court

and to the parties in these proceedings?

>> Well, it turns out there was only one.

>> Well, then please decide after all where this

where this only interview took place: in

your, uh, town of Belaya Kholunitsa or, after all,

in the city of Kirov on Lenin Street?

Well, after they showed me

the documents, it reminded me, basically, as it were,

yes, the conversation in, well, let's say, the questioning

took place in Belaya Kholunitsa.

And

>> Please tell us, after

your interview was conducted, were you given

the record to read?

>> Yes, I signed it.

>> Mm-hmm. Did you read the introductory part of the record,

where the place of the interview is indicated?

>> Well, I don't remember now.

Tell me, is it possible that you did not pay attention

to that part of the record and simply did not

read it?

>> The part about where the interview was conducted,

>> yes? The place, time,

date?

>> Well, I don't think so. Well, I mean, no,

naturally I paid attention to it.

>> Please tell us, can you recall

what volume of timber products was supplied

to VLK?

Well, as far as I remember,

I only remember one, this one

delivery of these poles

from our forestry enterprise,

I don't remember. That is, just now there was talk

about the delivery of pulpwood.

I can't really say that with

certainty, because I simply do not

remember the details,

And regarding this delivery you are

talking about, did your forestry enterprise bear

the transportation costs?

Again, I can't say for certain, but

I do not recall that. That is,

a truck would arrive for loading, so

we bore the costs of loading

that truck itself. As for transportation costs, I

can't say right now. That would require

checking the documents.

Your Honor, I have a motion in connection with

the witness's testimony.

>> Due to contradictions in the witness's testimony

given in the present court hearing

and during

the preliminary investigation, I ask

that the record of the witness interview in volume

24, pages 114-117, specifically on page

116 of the case file, and the part of the interview record

concerning transportation costs and

market prices for the supplied

timber products, be read into the record,

since, in my view, these parts contain

a material contradiction.

No objection.

I support defense counsel.

>> I support it.

>> Defense counsel's position.

>> I support it.

>> Defense counsel Pozdnyakov's position.

>> Defense counsel Khobil's position.

>> I support it.

>> The prosecution's position.

>> I leave it to the court's discretion.

Granted.

>> The defense's motion.

The record of the witness interview is being read out

from the preliminary investigation, on

page 116 of the case file.

Which paragraph?

>> I'll tell you in a moment.

Investigator's question: Did the price for the supply of

products to VMLK correspond to the average

market price? Witness's answer.

Go on.

One moment.

Ah, and the paragraph begins: 'Under supply contract

No. 129.'

Ah, poles were supplied in a volume of 29

m³. The last sentence of that

paragraph.

To the investigator's question whether the price of the supplied goods corresponded

— Your Honor, there are

two passages I ask to be read out here.

So, the first is the question

about the average market price, let's do that,

>> and the next one concerns transportation

costs. The paragraph begins: 'Under supply contract

No. 1/29.'

Thank you.

Record of the interview of witness Knyazev

Vladimir Matveyevich, volume 24, pages 114-117.

A portion of the testimony dated June 28, 2011, is being read out

from page 116 of the case file.

The poles were manufactured in the town of Belaya

Kholunitsa. The poles were also shipped

from the town of Belaya Kholunitsa. Delivery

was carried out either by transport belonging to LLC

Vyatka Timber Company or by transport of

Kogubkerovles. Information about this should

be contained in the waybills. The Belaya Kholunitsa

forestry enterprise did not bear the transportation costs.

Next, the investigator's question.

Did the price for the products supplied to

LLC VLK correspond to the average market price? Answer

of the witness: As for the supply of poles, I

cannot answer that question, because

I do not know the market value of this

product. As for the supply of pulpwood,

the price of the supplied products was not

lower than the minimum price for

timber products that had been approved

for 2009.

Please tell us, witness,

the testimony of yours that I have just read out,

your testimony,

in the part concerning the prices of timber products,

and in the part concerning transportation

costs,

they correspond to the facts.

Well, I think I’ve basically already answered this question,

more or less, by saying that the rates

for the poles, well, you essentially stated them, that is,

it’s practically the same thing.

>> No, in the testimony you gave during

the pre-trial investigation, you said that

this price corresponded to the minimum, that is,

it was not lower than—was lower than the average market, I

mean to clarify, the price was not lower than, uh,

the established minimum.

Well, as far as I understood, this was

said with regard to the loading balance,

not the poles, but specifically the balance,

>> Yes, I was probably proceeding

precisely from those prices that had been

set somehow.

>> Regarding transportation costs,

does your testimony correspond

to the facts? Uh, just as I said,

I don’t remember exactly now, but

the testimony, apparently, was then

based on the documents presented, that is,

they were on hand, accordingly, so,

they do correspond, well, in a sense

>> more precise information about the testimony.

>> No further questions.

Ah, good afternoon. Please tell me, what

are poles? Uh, please explain in more detail,

because the question arises, well, what

exactly poles are, more specifically, that is,

what kind of product is this? To install

cables. Uh,

we received a specification, and there,

there were

certain lengths, if memory serves me right,

I think they were 8–9

>> uh, and 11 meters—something like those lengths.

Right. Then also, necessarily, by the top-end

and butt-end parts, the required diameters

had to be sorted, that is,

so that they matched the specification, so to speak. And,

uh, this product had to be

debarked, that is, the bark had to be removed and

any protruding

bits cut off. And please tell me, do I understand correctly

that in fact

poles, yes, are almost no different

from sawlog blanks,

except for the length and the fact that the bark is not removed

there. But otherwise, basically, it’s the same

log

selected to specification.

Basically, yes. As I already said,

it was necessary here to carry out

several additional operations, that is,

for an ordinary log, corresponding sorting

additional

so

>> by diameters, by lengths, and to carry out

the work of removing the bark.

>> Mm-hmm. And when you supplied sawlogs, did you

never sort them to order?

>> By diameter? Well, apparently,

there were individual orders, but in general,

that’s how we tried to work. They took

all volumes from us. So, do I understand correctly

that poles actually differ

by two operations. The first operation is

uh,

>> sorting by length, and the second, as it were,

well, is bark removal,

>> right?

>> So that’s all

>> the main things, yes.

>> And was the bark removed with special tools, or just there

with an axe? Uh,

>> at that time it was done manually.

>> Well, with axes, yes. Yes, and, well,

they used chainsaws

with certain attachments in order

to make the work easier.

>> I see. And do you know where these

poles were shipped?

>> Well, was this a Russian order or

for abroad?

>> Uh, I think it was for export, but I don’t have exact

information.

>> Mm-hmm. All right. And a question about prices. Where did your

minimum prices come from?

The minimum prices were approved

by General Director Upol Vyacheslav

Nikolaevich, based on market prices

in the given region.

>> And where did they come from? That is, was there some kind of

algorithm? That is, did you

send calculated prices to Kagub, and if

they were minimum, they would either approve them for you

or not approve them, correct?

Not exactly like that. That is,

there was, so to speak, a minimum market

price.

>> And it was this same minimum price that we, so to speak,

agreed on. If we had any,

let’s say, deviations from the prices, then

we had to, let’s put it this way,

justify them, but only in those

cases. Were there ever cases when, so to speak,

you were told that this price, for this kind of

product, needed to be made lower, yes, because

of, uh—or on the contrary, that he would raise the price

for you

>> above your minimum?

>> No. Uh, as for a lower price,

>> that never happened.

>> So Kagub accepted your recommended price

or even raised it.

>> Yes.

>> Mm-hmm. All right. And one more question: you

said that what the prosecution read out showed

that the contract with Vyka was

beneficial for the forestry enterprise, but if all

the money for your products had gone to your

account, correct? Do you confirm

the testimony that was read out by the prosecution?

>> Well, I didn’t say it that specifically. I

was speaking specifically about this product,

the one that was supplied, which in these

the poles, that, uh, it was not

below cost, so it

was produced at a profit.

>> When they read it out, they believed that

these deliveries would have been profitable if

the money had come in.

>> Well, that is exactly what was meant, that

we operated, uh, profitably, uh,

the issue of payment remained, perhaps

there was some delay in payment. Well, I

mean that, well,

>> Well, that is, if the work had continued

then you would have received, well, a profit,

correct?

>> Theoretically, yes?

>> Mm-hmm. All right. Now a question. How

could you monitor the receipt of money from

VLK into KAGUP's account?

>> Personally, I could not. So in that way you could not

know for certain, yes, whether

money for your products was coming into

KAGUP's account.

>> Well, as of today, yes. That is,

>> But at that time could you know

At that time, all of our

reconciliations of settlements were carried out by the parent enterprise

with KAGUP, and our accounting department always

could.

>> Could you know for certain that the money for

your products had arrived in KAGUP's account? Not

that it came to you from KAGUP, but that VLK sent it

to KAGUP specifically for your poles and

then KAGUP sent it to you, or did you simply know all this

from KAGUP's accountant?

>> No, that was according to our accountant.

Belo

>> And where did he get the information?

>> He was already working with the parent enterprise.

>> Well, from KAGUP's accountant, because he

did not have access.

>> From the reconciliation statements

>> He did not have access to the systems,

correct?

>> Probably, yes?

So if I say that you could not know for certain

for which products

the money was coming in, and when, and in what

amount, as to KAGUP, then that

would be true,

>> yes?

>> Mm-hmm. That's all, thank you.

>> You're welcome,

>> Lazir Matveyevich, let us still

clarify,

>> who questioned you and when. Are you often

questioned by the FSB (Federal Security Service) or the Investigative

Committee?

>> No.

the regional FSB office, by FSB officers

of the FSB. Then it turned out that you were

questioned in the town of Belaya Kholunitsa. Well,

it is hard to confuse, right, the FSB in Kirov and

the police or the Investigative Committee in Belaya

Kholunitsa. How many times were you questioned?

Well,

from, from what follows from my testimony

today, that I

simply forgot the moment of the

questioning in Belaya Kholunitsa, it turns out that

there were two. That is, there was questioning in Kirov,

but, as I say, I attributed it to this

case, or rather, did not attribute it

at first I said, as it were, that no, I had not been

questioned, then

I decided that that questioning was connected with

your case.

So it turns out it was twice.

>> So you were questioned twice. Once

at the FSB in Kirov, once at the

Investigative Committee in Belaya Kholunitsa. You

simply forgot the second one. Please tell us,

at the FSB, were you asked about this

case?

As far as I am now trying

to somehow recall those past times,

most likely, probably, it

concerned a somewhat different case.

>> Was the name Navalny mentioned there?

>> Well, probably yes. The name Navalny

was mentioned.

>> Although I also cannot say that for certain now.

>> Please tell us, and the officers of the

FSB

>> No, no, I beg your pardon. No.

Not the name Navalny.

I am recalling there, well, something completely

different was at issue.

>> Vladimir Matveyevich, if the FSB officers

made you sign a non-disclosure undertaking or something, you

can tell the court about it, and it

will simply drop the question.

>> No, no, nothing like that happened.

>> So, to be clear, at the FSB you were not forced

to give testimony?

>> No.

And you were not pressured, not asked to give

testimony specifically about me.

>> No.

>> They did not ask you to keep secret the very fact of the

questioning?

>> No.

>> So this FSB questioning, as you now recall it,

was not related to this case

after all.

>> Yes.

>> All right. And please tell us, in response to the prosecution's

question you said that you had never

seen me. Do you confirm that

statement?

>> Yes.

>> Have you ever spoken with me

by phone?

No.

>> Were there any instances where perhaps someone

called you or came to see you,

claiming to be some representative of mine

or bringing some sort of message like that,

saying they were acting on my behalf?

>> No.

>> At that meeting you mentioned,

with the forestry enterprise directors, perhaps

that was where I met you, or

where I spoke, or where you saw me somewhere?

>> I don't remember that, I can't say.

>> Ah, all right. Please tell me,

after all, what is a centralized

contract? You mentioned it in response

to the prosecutor's question, and in your testimony

you said there are your own contracts,

and then there are certain centralized

contracts. What is a centralized

contract?

Well, basically, that referred

to those contracts that

were concluded by the commercial department of Kirovles

directly, and

it distributed the volumes among all branches.

>> So am I right in understanding that there was

a practice at Kirovles whereby

the central head office

of Kirovles, through its commercial department,

would conclude contracts with various

companies, and then simply send the specifications

out to the forestry enterprises, correct?

Well yes, probably like that.

>> So this was normal practice,

or was there something extraordinary about it?

>> No, it was normal.

>> This was standard practice, when

Kirovles would conclude a contract and

send the specifications out to the forestry enterprises.

All right. And you mentioned that, similarly,

as a centralized contract, as I understand it,

one of them was the contract with VLK.

Probably, apparently, yes.

And please clarify: you said,

in response to the prosecutor's question, that

the minimum price was determined as

the market price, which you

determine and which is then approved

by Kirovles's central office.

Correct?

>> We don't determine it ourselves; we base it on

the market price in the given region.

>> So you take the market price,

send it to the office, and say: "This is

our minimum price." They then

approve it for you. Correct?

Yes,

>> Did I correctly understand your statement that

you did not sell anything to VLK at a price

below the approved one, as meaning that

everything you sold, you sold at

the market price?

>> The contract was concluded by Kirovles.

The price was determined by Kirovles. I

mean pulpwood now as well—here, you are also

indicating that we sold the pulpwood

at a price higher than the approved

minimum price. That was just read out

a moment ago.

Yes, so that is, well, as you yourself just

said, you classified the contract with VLK

as exactly the same kind of ordinary centralized

contract.

>> Accordingly, we received the specification and

it is entirely possible that there were shipments of

that pulpwood.

>> And as for poles,

you had not supplied them before?

>> No.

>> Am I right in understanding that this was some kind of

new contract that came in? This was

a new product and an increase in sales

volume.

>> Well, for our forestry enterprise, it was

I don't know overall how it was for Kirovles

as a whole. I can't speak to that right now.

I don't even know the volumes that were

supplied for this type of

product. For us, given that this was,

let's say, a one-off shipment and

a minimal one, it did not really affect

anything. It did not have an impact, but nevertheless it was

not some old client; it was a new

product, new poles, new sales, even if

insignificant on the scale of the

forestry enterprise, correct?

>> Well, if you look at it from that angle,

yes.

>> Mm-hmm. And please tell me,

if someone were to

ask you to ship products at a price

below those minimum approved

prices, what would you do?

Someone meaning

>> Well, a customer came to you and said:

"Vladimir Matveyevich, please sell me

pulpwood at a price below

the approved minimum prices."

>> Well, I would refuse.

>> You would refuse?

>> I had no right to sell to them on those terms.

>> And you did not sell anything to anyone at prices

below the approved market prices, including

to VLK,

because otherwise that would have been a violation.

Yes, yes, that would have been a violation.

>> Please tell me, did you ever ship products

to anyone free of charge?

>> No.

>> And did anyone ever approach you with such

requests, asking you to ship products

free of charge?

>> No.

>> And did VLK ask you

to ship products free of charge?

>> No. And was there ever a situation in which

someone from the regional government,

from Kirovles, or anyone

else asked you to ship products

to anyone, specifically to VLK,

free of charge?

>> No,

>> that never happened. Yes.

>> And

And if, hypothetically, there had been a case

of products being shipped free of charge, and if

you had learned about it, what actions

would you have taken?

Well, I can't comment on that.

>> Well, I would have gone to the police or

reported it to head office.

>> Within the scope of work at the branch, so to speak,

that is, I supervised the branch's operations, but

did not interfere in the work, let's say,

of the parent company, Kirov Les.

Therefore,

>> Well, as far as your branch, your

area of responsibility is concerned, there were no free-of-charge

shipments. There were no shipments at a price below

market price, and there were no such requests

either. Am I understanding correctly? Thank you very much.

No further questions.

>> Counsel for Mikhailov.

>> No questions.

>> Counsel for Kobelev?

>> Counsel for Kobelev. A question: please tell us,

during the questioning about the FSB (Federal Security Service),

which you mentioned, was the surname

Olya mentioned?

Yes, probably yes.

>> Are you aware at all of any

criminal cases that were initiated against

your superiors?

Well, not in much detail, but I do know, so to speak,

that there is a criminal case, and I know

that he received a suspended sentence, so to speak.

>> And about other criminal cases?

>> No.

>> No further questions. May we

release the witness? Any objections?

>> From the defense?

>> No objections.

>> No objection.

>> No objection.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you.

We sent a request to the Main

Investigative Directorate of the Investigative

Committee

of Russia, addressed to Major General of Justice

Alyshev, in which we asked him to report

on the results of operational-search

measures aimed at locating

the prosecution witness Arzamastsev in connection

with the need to question him at the court

hearing on May 28, 2013. Under outgoing

number 2011/4 460 713

12, a reply was received from the Main

Investigative Directorate from the authorized

procedural official, stating that

at present

Arzamastsev's whereabouts cannot

be established. There is no information

that Arzamastsev is being held in a pretrial detention center

or in medical institutions or morgues.

It is also reported that on March 7, 2013,

with respect to Arzamastsev, the Basmanny

District Court of Moscow, in absentia,

ordered a preventive measure in the form of detention

in custody, and that he was placed on

the international wanted list, and the documents are

attached directly

to the information provided. Therefore, I ask

that these materials be added to

the materials of the criminal case.

>> Do you support the motion?

>> Yes, Your Honor.

I have a defense objection regarding the inclusion

of the specified document in the case

materials of the criminal case. Your Honor,

may I speak?

>> All right, please do.

Counsel, you asked to look at the

documents, and you are copying them right away. I am not

copying them; I am just writing down what I

will now say in response to the motion

that has been made, Your Honor, so that you do not

accuse me of making unsupported

assertions.

There is a discrepancy.

Mm-hmm.

I'm listening,

if you're ready.

Your Honor, we object to the reading into the record of the testimony

of witness Arzamastsev.

>> For now, the issue raised was the inclusion of

the materials.

>> The defendant's position, please.

>> Well, I support the defense's position.

>> The defendant's position on

>> I do not object to their inclusion.

>> Counsel for Mikhailov, your position.

>> No objection.

>> I object to its admission.

The court grants the motion by the prosecution

and adds to the case materials

the information

submitted regarding the search for witness

Arzamastsev. In this connection, what

motions will the prosecution make? Your Honor,

given that at present

all possible measures aimed at locating him

by the authority that initiated the search,

have been taken, as confirmed by

the relevant information, which was also

presented at previous

court hearings, including on May 14.

Therefore, we move for the reading into the record

of the testimony given by witness Arzamastsev

at the pretrial investigation stage,

volume 26, pages 263-30...

Before ruling on this motion,

the court will read out the submitted documents. These are

first, the request

from the First Deputy Regional Prosecutor

Akatyev for information regarding

the search for Arzamastsev; second, the reply

to Deputy Regional Prosecutor Akatyev

to that request

from the Investigative Committee of the Russian

Federation, the Investigative Committee of Russia.

It is reported that,

that on December 17, 2012, the Main

Investigative Directorate of the Investigative

Committee of the Russian Federation

initiated a criminal case on the grounds of

an offense under Part 1

of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation against the former

director of the Department of State

Property of Kirov Region

Arzamasov, on charges of abuse of official

powers in the privatization of a 25.5% stake in OJSC

Urzhum Distillery. On January 15

2013, the Main Investigative

Directorate of the Investigative Committee

of the Russian Federation initiated

a criminal case on the grounds of an offense

under Part 4 of Article 160

of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation against Arzamasov and other

unidentified persons in connection with the theft

through embezzlement of 25.5%

of the shares in OJSC Urzhum Distillery

Plant. On January 16, 2013, the said

criminal cases were joined into one

proceeding. On January 29, 2013,

Arzamasov, due to the failure to establish his

whereabouts, was charged in absentia

with committing an offense

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

On January 29, 2013, Arzamasov was placed on

the federal wanted list. On March 4, 2013,

Arzamasov, in connection with his departure beyond

the territory of the Russian Federation, was placed on

the international wanted list, which was assigned to the NCB

of Interpol. On March 7, 2013, the Basmanny

District Court of the city of Moscow

ordered, in absentia, in respect of Arzamasov, a measure

of restraint in the form of detention in custody.

At present, the whereabouts

of Arzamasov cannot

be established; there is no information about

Arzamasov being in a pretrial detention center, temporary holding facility, or

medical institutions or morgues.

In the course of operational-search

measures, information was obtained that

Arzamasov may be hiding in the territory

of the following states: Lithuania, Latvia,

Estonia, the Czech Republic, or Finland. And

attached to this response is a copy

of the order to search for the accused, a copy

of the order declaring the accused

on the international wanted list, and a copy

of the order imposing a measure

of restraint in the form of detention in custody. These documents

are also being read out

in relevant part from the orders.

From the order on the search for the accused dated January 29, 2013

it follows that the accused, Arzamasov

Konstantin Vyacheslavovich, was placed on

the wanted list,

which was assigned to the Main Directorate for Economic Security and Anti-Corruption of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia.

Further, from the

order

declaring the accused on the international

wanted list dated March 4, 2013, it follows that

Arzamasov Konstantin Vyacheslavovich,

whose details are specified,

was declared

wanted internationally for the purpose of his extradition

the search is to be conducted in the territory of all member countries

with special attention to be given by

the law enforcement authorities of Lithuania,

Latvia, Estonia, the Czech Republic, and Finland.

Prepare and send to the NCB of Interpol

the materials necessary to organize

the search for Arzamasov

in these states.

And further, attached is the

order imposing a measure of restraint

in the form of detention in custody dated March 7

2013, by the Basmanny District Court

of the city of Moscow, which issued a ruling

according to which, in respect of Arzamasov

Konstantin Vyacheslavovich, born November 26, 1971,

a citizen of the city of

Krasnoyarsk, a measure of restraint was chosen in

the form

of detention in custody

These documents have been read out. The court heard

the opinion of the defense regarding the motion filed

Please state your position.

If the request is to read out the testimony

of the witness, we believe that

reading out the witness testimony

would substantially violate the defendants' right to

a defense, because the defendants are deprived

of the right to question the witness under the same

conditions in which he gave

testimony to the investigator. The defendants are deprived

of the right to ask the witness the questions that interest them.

And perhaps we would have agreed

to the reading out of this testimony in the event

that during the preliminary

investigation, between the defendants, in particular

my client Pyotr Ofitserov and

the witness Arzamasov, there had been conducted

a confrontation, since in their testimony,

there are

contradictions between their statements. The investigators did not

eliminate this gap. And now, by reading out

the testimony of witness Arzamasov and

thereby depriving my client Ofitserov, as well as

the defendant Navalny, of the opportunity

to ask the witness the questions that concern them.

The court would thereby violate the defendants' right

to a defense and place the defendants in conditions

unequal to those of the prosecution. Moreover,

among other things, Article 276 does indeed

provide for the reading out of witness

testimony, but it contains a strict

list of circumstances under which such

reading out is possible.

Such circumstances include, in

particular, the death of the victim

or witness, and also where the person holds

citizenship of another state and refuses to appear

for questioning at the court

hearing, a serious illness

preventing appearance in court, as well as

a natural disaster and other comparable circumstances.

circumstance, extraordinary

circumstances. I believe that the fact that

the prosecution was unable

to secure the appearance of witness Arzamastsev in

court does not constitute an extraordinary

circumstance equivalent to

a natural disaster. And this is not,

Your Honor, from the documents that

were presented today, it is in no

way apparent that there were

undertaken, as the prosecutor put it,

comprehensive measures to locate this

witness. From the documents that

were presented today, it appears that

yes, the witness has a certain

procedural status. Yes, he has been subjected to

custodial measures in absentia. Yes, he has been placed on

the federal and international wanted list, but from

the documents submitted it does not

appear what comprehensive

measures were taken. And since, in particular,

March, when the international search for him was announced,

to locate this

witness, to establish

his whereabouts and secure his appearance at the court

hearing in the criminal case against

Navalny and Ofitserov. Apart from the fact that

certain measures were taken,

related to the fact that a trip was made

to the city of Zheleznogorsk, to the city of

Krasnoyarsk, no other measures were taken.

As for the documents submitted earlier,

with respect to them

the defense also states that

this is a very meager set of

actions that merely simulated, uh,

activity connected with an attempt

to secure the witness's appearance in court. In

reality, no actions

related to establishing

the witness's whereabouts, related to

trying to have the witness

brought to the court hearing and questioned

were undertaken by the prosecution.

Moreover, from the submitted

documents, uh, it is clear to us from the documents

that the witness may be located

in a number of countries.

We have no documents indicating

that efforts to locate him and attempts to bring him

from those countries were made.

Further, we do not even have information

that the prosecution—and we have

two prosecutors—that either of them even

called this witness, established

the phone numbers he might

be using, identified the circle of people with whom

he might be in contact, and so on.

Therefore, I believe that the witness's

testimony cannot be read into the record because

this would violate the defendants' right to

a fair trial with respect to

examining the witness under the same

conditions as the investigator had. And

reading out the witness's testimony

contradicts the requirements of Article 276 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure.

Your Honor, I am also opposed, because

the actions that were presented in the

form of documents are, in my view,

purely formal in nature. Nor did

the prosecution take the necessary

measures to find and bring this

witness. Therefore, I object.

>> Your Honor, I support the opinion

of defense counsel Davydov. Indeed, in

the materials that you read out at

this hearing and the previous one, there is only

information that a trip was made

to the city of Zheleznogorsk. The case materials

do not even contain, for example, information from

the border service that would unequivocally

confirm that the witness

left the territory of the Russian Federation.

Surely the border service could at least, uh,

have been asked about this. That was not

done. The countries mentioned—

the Baltic states, Finland, and so on—

are small countries. Since our

expenses for this trial have in any

event already many times exceeded any

possible damage, I propose

contacting the Foreign Intelligence Service and

the Main Intelligence Directorate so that

they, in these small little

countries, also carry out work to

determine

the possibility, uh, that witness

Arzamassev may be there.

>> Yes, I support that as well.

I would like to add that from the order

placing him on the international wanted list, dated

March 4, it follows that the officials

were supposed to prepare and send to

Interpol the materials necessary for

search efforts in Interpol member states for

Arzamastsev. However, no

supporting materials showing that this was

done were provided to the court. Nor were

any materials provided from

those countries—from Lithuania, Latvia,

Estonia, the Czech Republic, and Finland—showing that they

received such documents from the Russian Federation,

that any actions were taken,

and, well, essentially,

the fate of those documents is unknown.

Accordingly, I think that

the motion, as always,

has been filed prematurely by the prosecution. There is no basis for it.

>> I support the position of Mikhailova,

Davydova, and our clients. In addition,

I would like to note that I consider it

at least at this moment

premature to read out his testimony,

since the proceedings have not yet

been completed; the process of presenting

the prosecution's evidence has not

been completed. We have already repeatedly

changed the order—sometimes documents, sometimes

witnesses, and so on. I’m saying this because

what if next week

or even tomorrow, so to speak,

Arzamasov is found, or appears

before the Investigative Committee with a confession, then we

will have that opportunity. And if we

read out his testimony now, and then he

shows up tomorrow, then it will turn out that

his testimony has already been read out. And even if we

question him, it will already be after it has been

read out. So at the very least, let’s

put this issue off until later.

>> No objection from Kobel’s defense.

>> We object to the reading out of the testimony.

The court has heard the parties’ views for the purpose of

ensuring compliance with

the defendants’ rights

and the need to maintain a balance of

private and public interests. In view of the fact that

the defendant/accused person

in another criminal case,

who is a witness in our case, has already

for a long time been on, among other things,

the international wanted list. However, there is no

information indicating that he is currently

in the Russian Federation, um, no.

The information submitted to the court is dated the 28th

of March—that is, as of yesterday, 28 May, that is,

as of yesterday. The court believes it is

necessary to grant the motion

of the prosecution and read out his

testimony, the testimony he gave during

the preliminary investigation. But as for

the situation where this witness

is located, if the defense

becomes aware of this, then presumably the defense

may invite him to court for

questioning as a witness on its side.

Therefore, volume/case file page twenty-

six is being read out. Case file pages 26–30

of the upper section overall

examined: pages 26–30, in which

the questioning of witness Zamastsev

was conducted on August 16, 2012, in the city of

Kirov, during the period from 18:25 to 19:50

sharp; he was questioned by an investigator for

particularly important cases of the Main Investigative

Directorate of the Investigative Committee

of the Russian Federation, Akhmetov.

His rights and obligations were explained; there are

corresponding signatures. At the request

to read it in the first person, on the substance

of the criminal case I can state the following:

On March 26, 2009, I began performing the duties of

director of the Department

of State Property of Kirov

Region. Before taking that position, I was engaged in

business activities in

the Krasnoyarsk Territory. I was invited to the city

of Kirov by the governor

of Kirov Region, Belykh, with whom I was

acquainted through party work in the Union of Right

Forces (a Russian political party).

I was confirmed in that position by

the Legislative Assembly of Kirov

Region in July 2009, and I worked in

that position until May 29, 2011,

during which time I held the above-mentioned

position. My official duties

included overall management of the department,

including oversight of the work of

state enterprises of Kirov

Region, which included KOGUP

Kirovles. The general director of KOGUP

Kirovles was Opalev. Most likely, I met

Opalev when I began

performing my official

duties and started getting acquainted with

the heads of the enterprises subordinate to me.

After starting work, I began

familiarizing myself with the enterprises of Kirov

Region. I also studied how

work was organized at KOGUP

Kirovles and what needed to be done for

the enterprise in terms of its further

development. As a result, I concluded

that KOGUP Kirovles was in a

state of bankruptcy, since it had

very large debts. In my opinion,

this situation at the enterprise was caused by

various reasons. For example,

the enterprise had a fairly large

forest leaseholding that it was unable to

process, while at the same time it had to pay

for the lease.

Unsatisfactory policy

in managing the enterprise

led to even greater debts at

Kirovles.

Opalev and I quite often discussed

various issues related to

the need to restructure the work of

the enterprise and search for possible ways

out of the difficult economic

situation in which

Kirovles found itself. I tried to convey to the leadership

of Kirov Region that the enterprise

needed to be reformed,

the workload redistributed, and attempts made to

reorganize its operations. I learned of the existence of

the limited liability company

Vyatka Timber Company (VLK) and its general

director, Ofitserov, after

an initiative audit was conducted of

KOGUP Kirovles. This audit was carried out

at my initiative and was prompted by

my need to understand the true

state of affairs at a fairly large

enterprise such as KOGUP Kirovles.

After the auditing company

reviewed the enterprise’s operations, under

Deputy Governor Shcherchkov,

a working meeting was held

to discuss its results. At that

meeting, representatives were present

of the working group that had been created by

order of the governor of Kirov

Region. This working group also included

Navalny was among them, and after hearing him out,

having listened to the results, began to question

his conclusions and tried to secure

a repeat audit by firms that

hold fairly strong positions in

the market and are part of the Big Four. Although,

in my opinion, the audit that had been conducted was

quite objective. While I was speaking

during the meeting, I became aware of

the existence of

VLK and Ofitserov. It emerged that between

Kogubkirovles and VLK there had been concluded

a contract that was disadvantageous to

Kogubki Rafles. After the meeting

I spoke about this contract

with Sopolev, and he explained to me that

Ofitserov had promised him to bring in new

contracts and expand the sales market

for timber products of Kakrov Les. And, believing

him, he signed this contract. As for whether

any pressure had been exerted on him

when signing this contract with VLK,

Oplev said nothing. After that, I ordered

an internal review, which

revealed that Opliv had committed

a number of shortcomings in organizing the work of

the enterprise, including the conclusion of

an unfavorable contract with VLK. Based on the results

of the review, Ople was subjected to

disciplinary action in the form of

a severe reprimand. At the same time, for the

duration of the review, he was suspended from

his position.

Investigators' question: Were any meetings held with

your participation at which

Smertin, Perminova, and the chief

accountant of Kogubki Rafles took part, where the issue

of Navalny's unlawful actions at

Kogubkera Rafles was discussed? Answer: I do not recall

such a meeting taking place.

Most likely, it was held in my

absence, when Smerten was my

deputy and was carrying out my duties.

I allow for the possibility that he may have reported

the results of the meeting to me. I may have instructed him

to go to the enterprise and

speak with its representatives.

Question from the investigators: What kind of

relationship developed between you and

Navalny during your work in Kirov Region?

Answer: There were no friendly relations of any kind

between us; they were

strictly professional. We had different

visions for the development of Kirov Region, including

the development of Kirovles. That is,

they were directly opposed, as

I stated above. The record

of the witness interview was signed; no

remarks were made during it or after its conclusion by

the witness.

The witness Baranov also failed to appear at the court hearing

.

On this issue, the prosecution stated:

>> Your Honor, given that witness

Baranov was also summoned repeatedly to

the court hearing starting from April 17

and up to the present, the court had

information that he had been properly

notified, and the court was also provided with

information that Baranov

is quite frequently away on business trips

and is absent from his place of residence.

In this connection, in order to avoid

violating the victim's right to a reasonable

time frame for the consideration of the criminal case, we also

move to have his testimony read into the record,

as given by him during the preliminary

investigation.

Volume seven, page 109.

>> Volume seven, case file pages 109-113.

For the defense, I would remind you that this

testimony is derivative of

the testimony of his deputy, who was

questioned again at the court hearing.

Volume what?

Seven, case file pages 109-100.

>> Your Honor, we are categorically opposed to

the reading out of the witness's testimony, and besides

that, we have not seen

any documents confirming, um, as

the prosecutors have just confidently asserted,

the proper notification of witness Baranov,

or repeated proper notification

of witness Baranov of the need to appear

at the court hearing. And on top of that, we

have not seen any information showing that Baranov was

on business trips, or any schedule of those work

trips.

Therefore, the claim that these documents are in

the court's possession is, for the defense,

a great mystery. And I want to note that

witness Baranov, unlike

witness Arzamastsev, is not wanted

either federally or

internationally. The place of residence

of witness Baranov is known to everyone. The information

about this is contained in the record of his

interview. The contact phone number of witness

Baranov is also known to everyone. The information

about this is contained in the record of his interview.

I believe there are no grounds whatsoever for

reading out this witness's testimony,

because there are

other means of securing this

witness's appearance in court, apart from

sending the witness, perhaps, uh,

summonses or telegrams. I believe

that a witness being on a business trip,

especially since we do not know whether he is actually

on a business trip, and we do not know

the dates of these trips, but

still, a witness being

on a business trip is not grounds for

reading out his witness testimony.

Of course, I understand that the state

prosecutor is showing

great concern for the interests of the victim

and for ensuring that, uh, the court

the proceedings would not be prolonged. But

let us also remember the rights

of the defendants, who, I would stress once again,

have the right to question

a witness, regardless of whether

his testimony is derivative of the testimony

of his deputy or not

such testimony. Therefore, let us question

the witness, ask him all the questions

that concern us, and do so

directly, in the courtroom hearing.

I believe that if the court

grants this motion,

if it is granted, once again,

with such a mocking wording, namely

"for the purpose of safeguarding the rights of the defendant and

private-public interests," then I

believe that this position of the court will

once again violate the defendants’ right and

their defense’s right to examine witnesses and, more broadly,

their right to a fair judicial

proceeding.

>> The opinion of defendant Ofitserov. Your

Honor, I believe that the prosecution

has the resources and ability to bring

witness Baranov to the courtroom. This is not

Arzamasov; he is not hiding all over

the world, but lives at his registered address.

Therefore, I think the prosecution

should make an effort and bring

the witness whom they themselves

called. Therefore I object to

the reading out of his testimony.

>> The opinion of defendant Navalny. I do not

[inaudible argument]

>> Defense counsel Mikhailov’s opinion.

>> Yes, I fully support that.

>> Defense counsel’s opinion. Kobzev.

I would also like to note that I find it somewhat

hard to understand the prosecution’s logic, when we

first changed the order of examination—for example,

Knyazev had not been questioned, so we changed

the order and began, uh, reviewing documents.

Then Knyazev appeared, and we questioned him,

that is, we waited for Knyazev until he

arrived. Why are we not prepared

to wait for Baranov? And why does this need

to be done right now—agreeing to have his

testimony read out? That is, I do have an answer to that question.

As for me, I am against it. Kobzev is against it as well.

>> The court denies the motion filed by the

defense. The reading out of the testimony

of witness Baranov

>> May the prosecution

proceed?

>> Prosecution side,

please continue.

>> Well, Your Honor, in view of the fact that our motion has been denied,

we do not insist on

calling witness Baranov; that is, we will not

make any further attempts

because, in our view, he does not have substantial

importance for resolving the issues

raised in this case, and we move

to proceed to the examination of the written

materials of the criminal case. I remind the court that

we stopped at volume twelve,

case file pages 133–134—this is the ruling

on submitting the results of operational-search activities (investigative surveillance measures). Next.

Therefore, closed. Open.

Let us continue examining the indicated materials.

>> In this connection, we have a motion.

The motion is in writing; I will

read it out.

To the federal judge of the Leninsky District

District Court of the city of Kirov, from

Navalny, Ofitserov, and attorneys Mikhailov

and Kobzev, Davydova. In accordance with

Article 75 of the Criminal Procedure

Code of the Russian Federation,

evidence obtained in violation of

the requirements of criminal procedure

law is inadmissible, lacks

legal force, and may not

be used to prove any of the

circumstances provided for in Article

73 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Part 3 of Article 7 of the Code

provides that a violation of the provisions

of this Code by a court, prosecutor,

investigator, inquiry body, or

investigating officer in the course of criminal

proceedings entails

the recognition as inadmissible of evidence obtained in such a

manner. The prosecution has moved

for the examination at the court hearing of the following

materials of the criminal

case: a ruling on

submitting the results of operational-search activities

to the investigator, volume 12, case file pages 133–143.

A ruling on classifying information

constituting a state secret, volume

12, case file pages 135–136.

A ruling of the Kirov Regional Court

dated August 3, 2009, granting permission for

the interception of telephone

conversations, volume 12, case file page 137; a record

of the inspection and listening of the audio recording

of conversations between Navalny and Ofitserov, volume 12,

case file pages 168–206.

A record of the inspection of items dated October 17,

2012, volume 12, case file pages 207–209.

A ruling dated August 24, 2012, on

the appointment of a comprehensive phonoscopic

expert examination, volume 12, case file pages 210–211.

The phonoscopic expert report,

volume 13, case file pages 2–158.

A ruling dated November 28, 2012, on the

appointment of a comprehensive

psychological and linguistic forensic

expert examination, volume 13, case file pages 195–198.

The report of the comprehensive

psychological and linguistic forensic

expert examination, volume 13, case file pages 214 and 260.

We believe that all of the above-listed

materials are inadmissible

evidence obtained in

violation of the requirements

criminal procedure

legislation and therefore cannot be

announced and examined in court

hearing on the following grounds.

On August 3, 2009, by the presiding judge

of the Kirov Regional Court, Barmin, there was

issued a ruling granting permission

to conduct wiretapping of telephone

conversations involving Navalny

and Ofitserov; in Volume 12, Case File 137, this

ruling constitutes inadmissible

evidence, because in issuing it

the provisions of

criminal procedure

legislation were violated; this is confirmed

by the following. As follows from the text

of the court ruling, to the Kirov

Regional Court applied the head of the FSB

of Russia for the Kirov Region,

who submitted some kind of order for

the interception of telephone conversations,

conducted by Navalny and Ofitserov. During

the consideration of this order

the head of the FSB of Russia for the Kirov

Region, the court established that in the

FSB Directorate of Russia for the Kirov

Region there were operational review materials

regarding the head

of the project for the regional targeted program

for the development of the timber industry complex

of the Kirov Region for 2009–2015

Roman Borisovich Shipov, who

extorted from the director of Nepi and Lesprom, Moscow,

Burdin, money in the amount of

approximately

1.5 million rubles for approval,

of the program developed by the institute and

payment under the contract. On this fact, on June 23

2009, by the Investigative Directorate

of the FSB of Russia, a criminal case was opened against Shipov

criminal case No. 320-32

on the grounds of an offense

provided for by Part 3 of Article

30 and Part 4 of Article 159

of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Having noted in the ruling the fact of the existence

of an initiated criminal case, the court

ignored the provisions of

criminal procedure

legislation governing the procedure

for obtaining judicial authorization for

the interception of telephone conversations,

thereby violating the procedure for obtaining

judicial authorization to conduct

the interception of telephone conversations,

established by Articles 165–186

of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; in granting the moti-

the court was guided not by the provisions

of Articles 165–186 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but only by Articles

6 and 7 of the Law of the Russian Federation on operational-search

activity. Moreover, the fact established

by the court of the existence of a criminal case initiated against

Shipov, criminal case No.

320-32

indicated that in this

case a preliminary

investigation was being conducted, and therefore, under Article

165 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a motion for authorization to

the interception of telephone conversations,

conducted by Navalny and Ofitserov, should

have been submitted to the court, with the approval of

the head of the investigative body,

by the investigator in charge of

criminal case No. 320-32

and not by the head of the FSB Directorate of Russia for the Kirov

Region, who did not have the authority

to apply to the court to obtain

judicial authorization for carrying out

the interception of telephone conversations within

the framework of an initiated criminal case.

However, the court completely ignored

the lack of authority of the person

who initiated the obtaining of judicial

authorization for the interception of telephone

conversations.

We note in particular that, in accordance with

Articles 38 and 186 of the

Criminal Procedure Code, after

the initiation of a criminal case and its acceptance

for proceedings, it is specifically the investigator who

is authorized independently to direct

the course of the investigation, make decisions on

conducting investigative actions and,

if deemed necessary, to conduct

the interception of telephone conversations,

submits the corresponding motion,

which is then presented to the court. Part One

of Article 186 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where

there are sufficient grounds to believe

that telephone and other conversations

of a suspect, an accused person, and other persons

may contain information

relevant to the criminal case, their

monitoring and recording are permitted in

criminal proceedings on the

basis of a court decision

adopted in the manner established by

Article 165 of this Code. In turn,

Part One of Article 165

of the Criminal Procedure Code, in

conjunction with paragraph 11 of Part

Two of Article 29 of the Criminal Procedure Code, provides

that only an investigator, with the consent

of the head of the investigative body, has

the authority to petition the court

for the conduct of such an

investigative action as the monitoring and

recording of telephone conversations. In the

ruling of the Constitutional Court

of the Russian Federation dated January 24, 2008,

No. 104

on refusal to accept for consideration

the complaint of citizen Dmitry

Yuryevich Bukhrov concerning the violation of his

constitutional rights by Part Four

of Article 21 and Articles 84, 86, and 89

of the Criminal Procedure Code

of the Russian Federation, Articles 2 and 6

of the Federal Law on

operational-search activity

the following legal position is set out:

both criminal procedural actions

and operational-search measures

may be carried out only by specific

authorized persons where the specific

grounds and conditions established by law

are present. At the same time, the conduct, in connection with

the conduct of the preliminary

investigation in a criminal case, of

operational-search measures cannot

replace procedural actions for which

the carrying out of which

the criminal procedure law

establishes a special procedure. Nevertheless,

in violation of the above-mentioned

provisions of criminal procedure

legislation and the legal position of the

Constitutional Court of the Russian

Federation, and in breach of the established

procedure, the court considered the order of the

head of the FSB of Russia for Kirov

Region, who lacked the authority to

apply to the court seeking the issuance of

authorization for the interception of telephone

conversations involving Navalny

and Ofitserov, and issued an unlawful

order authorizing the carrying out of

telephone interception.

In addition, in authorizing the interception of

telephone conversations, the court completely

failed to examine the issues

regarding the lawfulness of bringing before

the court the request for the necessity of

intercepting the telephone conversations of

Navalny and Ofitserov. As is apparent from the

court order, the court was not

presented with, and accordingly did not examine,

the materials,

as well as the lawfulness and substantiation

of the order of the head of the regional FSB office

for Kirov Region on the interception of

telephone conversations involving

Navalny and Ofitserov. In addition,

in authorizing the carrying out of interception of

telephone conversations, the court in its

order gave no assessment whatsoever to the

fact that, in accordance with

Article 151 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code,

the investigation of criminal cases concerning offences

provided for by Part 4 of Article

159 of the Criminal Code

of the Russian Federation is carried out

by investigators of the internal affairs bodies

of the Russian Federation, and not by investigators

of the Federal Security Service.

Thus, in authorizing the interception of

the telephone conversations of Navalny and

Ofitserov, the court completely abdicated its task

of assessing the lawfulness of the proceedings in

the criminal case within the framework of which

the head of the FSB for Kirov

Region submitted the order

for the interception of the telephone conversations of

Navalny and Ofitserov.

Moreover, the court order does not

contain specific data

confirming the need to intercept

the telephone conversations of Navalny and

Ofitserov. The order merely states:

According to operational information received regarding

the stated facts of unlawful

activity, namely that of Shipov,

information is possessed by the adviser to the

regional governor, Alexei Navalny,

Anatolyevich, and the director of LLC Vyatskaya Lesnaya

Kompaniya, Pyotr Yuryevich Ofitserov.

Considering that, for the documentation and

suppression of the stated unlawful

acts of Shipov, it is necessary to intercept the

telephone communications of Navalny and

Ofitserov, the FSB Directorate of the Russian Federation

for Kirov Region is to be authorized to carry out

the interception of telephone conversations

involving Navalny and Ofitserov, on the

telephones they use, for a period of 180

days.

At the same time, the court did not cite a single

specific circumstance

supporting the assertion that

Navalny and Ofitserov might possess

any information regarding

Shipov's activities. Moreover, Navalny and

Ofitserov were never participants in the

criminal proceedings in the

criminal case within the framework of which

authorization was granted for the

interception of their telephone conversations.

Thus, the judge's order does not

state what materials were

submitted in support of

the need to conduct interception of

the telephone conversations of Navalny and

Ofitserov. What factual information about

Navalny's and Ofitserov's awareness of

Shipov's activities was brought to the

court? Is it possible, on the basis of these

materials, to conclude that the

operational-search measure was lawfully

conducted?

Nevertheless, in the absence of the necessary

information objectively confirming

the need to conduct interception of

the telephone conversations of Navalny and

Ofitserov, the court authorized this

operational-search measure

not only without specifying the numbers of the

telephones to be intercepted, but also

by setting the maximum permissible period

for such interception at 180 days.

It is entirely obvious that all of the

foregoing demonstrates the unlawful nature of

the order adopted on 3

August 2009 by the Kirov Regional

Court granting authorization for the

interception of the telephone

conversations of Navalny and Ofitserov. This

the court ruling is inadmissible

as evidence, since it was issued not

only in violation of the provisions of

the Criminal Procedure Code

of the Russian Federation, but also in violation of

Article 23 of the Constitution and Article

8 of the European Convention for the Protection of

Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and

therefore it cannot be read out at

the court hearing or used

as evidence in this

criminal case. We believe that all

information and materials subsequently obtained,

including rulings,

issued by the head of the FSB Directorate

for Kirov Region, Tryasov,

Volume 12, case file pp. 13–34

and Volume 12, case file pp. 135–136.

Records of the inspection of items and

listening to audio recordings. Volume 12

case file pp. 168–186

and Volume 12, case file pp. 207–209

cover letters forwarding

materials, Volume 13, case file p. 1; Volume 13

case file p. 213

ruling ordering comprehensive

pp. 210–211, Volume 13, case file pp. 195–198

report of the comprehensive forensic audio and

psychological-linguistic examinations

Volume 13, case file pp. 2–18,

Volume 13, case file pp. 214–260, which are based on

data obtained from the interception of

telephone conversations, authorization for

which was unlawfully granted

by the Kirov Regional Court on August 3, 2009,

also cannot be read out at

the court hearing, since they are

inadmissible and cannot be used

as evidence in this

criminal case.

In addition, there are other violations

committed by the investigation that make

it impossible to read out and use in

the evidentiary process the above-mentioned

materials submitted by the prosecution

for examination at the court

hearing.

Thus, according to the ruling of July 19,

2012, by the acting head of the FSB of Russia for

the Kirov Region, Colonel Tryasov,

Volume 12, case file pp. 133–1434,

the following were sent to the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation:

the ruling granting authorization for

the operational-search measure of intercepting telephone

conversations No. 1309/45

dated August 3, 2009, as well as two

CD-R optical discs containing audio

files, which were obtained

allegedly during the course of

the interception of telephone conversations of

Navalny and Ofitserov. In violation of paragraph

17 of the Instruction on the procedure for

submitting the results of

operational-search activity

to an inquiry officer, body of inquiry, investigator,

prosecutor, or court, the ruling does not

specify the individual characteristics

or identifying features of the forwarded

optical discs. There is also no

information about the time and circumstances

in which the attached optical

CD-R discs were obtained, or the measures taken for their

preservation and integrity. Protection against

deformation,

protection against deformation, demagnetization,

fading, erasure, and other risks. Moreover,

the audio recordings were submitted by

the investigation in violation of the provisions of Part

7 of Article 5 of the Federal Law

On Operational-Search Activity,

which provides that

audio recordings and other materials

obtained as a result of intercepting

the telephone and other conversations of persons against whom

no criminal case had been initiated,

must be destroyed within 6

months from the termination of

the interception, and a corresponding

record must be drawn up. Given that

the first criminal case against

Navalny and Ofitserov was initiated

only on May 10, 2011, while authorization for

the interception of telephone conversations

had been issued by the court on August 3, 2009 for

180 days, that is, until January 30, 2010,

then by July 30, 2010 the obtained

audio recordings of the telephone conversations of

Navalny and Ofitserov should have been

destroyed.

Thus, the audio recordings transferred by the FSB for

the Kirov Region to the Main Investigative

Directorate of the Investigative Committee

of the Russian Federation should

have been destroyed in accordance with

the law back in 2010. They

cannot be used as evidence

in this criminal case.

Nevertheless, the unlawfully retained

audio recordings were transferred to the Main

Investigative Directorate of the

Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. As

follows from the record of inspection and

listening to the audio recording of the conversations

between Navalny and Ofitserov dated August 8, 2012,

Volume 12, case file pp. 168–26,

investigator Platonov of the Main Investigative

Directorate of the Investigative Committee

conducted an inspection and

listening of audio recordings obtained

by officers of the FSB Directorate of Russia for

the Kirov Region in the course of carrying out

operational-search measures

for the interception of telephone conversations,

conducted on the basis of a certain

ruling of the Kirov Regional Court

dated August 4, 2009. The materials of

this criminal case do not contain

the ruling of the Kirov Regional Court

dated August 4, 2009, authorizing

the interception of telephone conversations

of Navalny and Ofitserov. Thus,

the investigators examined and

listened to audio recordings obtained without

judicial authorization. In addition, the

inspection and listening record dated August 8

2012 contains information about

audio recordings stored on compact discs,

in electronic folders titled

050829,

060829,

10829,

11829,

120829, 130829, 15082908290829

260829

0209 929 9 0129

021 10 2009

24129

040210.

At the same time, the order granting

access to the results of operational-search

activities dated July 19, 2012 contains no

information whatsoever indicating that these

electronic folders were present on the compact discs,

which also calls into question

the reliability of the audio recordings

examined and listened to by the investigator.

We particularly note that the case file

contains no confirmation whatsoever of the

proper storage of the audio recordings and

telephone conversations of Navalny and

Ofitserov before their first inspection on August 8,

2012, which gives rise to

well-founded doubts as to their authenticity

and makes any further

use of these audio recordings in this

case impossible.

Moreover, in the order on

the submission of the results of

operational-search activities dated

July 19, 2012, in the inspection and listening record

of the audio recording of the conversations

of Navalny and Ofitserov dated August 8, 2012,

and in the record of inspection of items dated October 17,

2012, differing

descriptions are given of the discs and their individual

features, which cast doubt on

the authenticity of the discs examined by the investigators

and the reliability of the information stored on them.

The case materials

contain no information indicating that

officials of the body

conducting operational-search

activities, as well as the investigation, took

all necessary steps

aimed at preserving the information

contained on the CD-R discs in

its original form, excluding

the possibility of any

alterations or deletions.

Given that the discs are merely

storage media onto which information was copied from another

device, the investigation did not

identify the device on which

the original information is stored.

The order on the submission of

the results of operational-search

measures. In all records of

investigative actions, as well as in the

expert opinion, differing

descriptions are given of the appearance, individual, and

identifying features of the optical

discs containing audio recordings of the telephone

conversations of Navalny and Ofitserov, which

also makes it impossible to present

and examine these materials in court.

The criminal case file contains

only selective fragments of audio recordings

submitted by the investigation

of conversations. The complete audio

files of the telephone conversation recordings are

absent from the criminal case file,

which places the defense in an unequal

position in relation to the prosecution

and gives rise to well-founded

doubts as to the admissibility of the submitted

fragments as evidence in

this criminal case. A full