The Kirovles Case. Appeal Hearing in the Regional Court

Good day to everyone present in

the courtroom and to those watching

via the online broadcast.

The court session is now open,

and the criminal case is being considered on

the appeals filed by the convicted persons

Navalny, Ofitserov, and by defense counsel

attorneys Mikhailova, Kobzev, Kobelev, and

Davydova against the judgment of the Leninsky

District Court of the city of Kirov dated July 18,

2013. Court clerk,

please report appearances.

Present at the court session are the convicted persons

Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny and Ofitserov

Pyotr Yuryevich. Defense counsel for the convicted

Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny are attorneys

Olga Olegovna Mikhailova, Vadim

Dmitriyevich Kobzev, Sergey Vasilyevich Kobelev,

and defense counsel for the convicted Pyotr

Yuryevich Ofitserov, attorney Svetlana

Viktorovna Davydova.

The state prosecutors are Petelina

Larisa Gennadyevna and Chermesinov

Yevgeny Nikolayevich. Not present at the court session are

the representatives of the injured party,

Pavel Valeryevich Smertin and Maksim

Vladimirovich Grinov. They were duly

notified and submitted a motion for the case to be considered

in their absence.

>> Thank you. The identities of the convicted persons are now being established.

Convicted person Navalny, please stand.

Please.

Please state your surname, first name,

patronymic, date, and place of birth.

>> Navalny, Alexei Anatolyevich, June 4,

1976, the village of Butyn

in Odintsovsky District, Moscow Region.

No prior convictions. According to the documents in

the case file, you were notified of the date,

time, and place of the court session on September 20,

2013, and of the adjournment of the

court session to October 4, 2013.

Is that correct?

>> Yes.

>> Very well. Please be seated. Convicted person

Ofitserov, please stand and state

your surname, first name, and patronymic.

>> Ofitserov, Pyotr Yuryevich.

Born May 4, 1975, place of birth

the city of Kansk. According to the documents in

the case file, you were notified of the date and time

and place of the court session on September 20,

2013, and of the adjournment to October

4. Very well,

>> please be seated.

>> Defense counsel and the prosecution were notified on those same

dates as well.

>> Defense?

>> Yes, Your Honor, yes.

>> Everyone has been notified for today.

>> Good.

The composition of the court is announced. The case

is being heard by the Judicial Panel for

Criminal Cases of the Kirov Regional

Court, consisting of Judge Albert

Aleksandrovich Rytkov,

Judge Nikolai Vladimirovich Sichikhin,

and Tatyana Nikolayevna Mazyuta; court clerk

Natalya

Viktorovna Prokhorova; state prosecutors Petelina

Larisa Gennadyevna and Cheremesinov Yevgeny

Nikolayevich; defense attorneys Mikhailova

Olga Olegovna, Kobzev Vadim Dmitriyevich,

Kobelev Sergey Vasilyevich, and Davydova

Svetlana Viktorovna. The parties are hereby

advised of their rights and obligations in

the court session. The parties have the right

to participate in the proceedings,

to challenge the composition of the court or

any of the judges, as well as other

participants in the process, on the grounds

provided by law; to file

motions, including motions for the examination of

evidence; to submit to the appellate court

additional

materials; to address the arguments of

the appeals, and also to present

objections to them; to participate in

the examination of evidence; and to speak in

oral argument. A convicted person has the right

to the assistance of defense counsel and the right

to make a final statement. The parties also have the right

to review the record of the court

session and submit comments on it,

as well as to receive a copy of the court decision and

appeal it by way of cassation.

The parties are required to observe the rules of

the court session.

Convicted person Navalny, please stand.

Please. Do you understand your rights?

>> Yes, I do.

>> Understood. Uh,

please sit down for now,

convicted person Ofitserov. Are your rights clear?

>> Yes, they are clear.

>> Understood. Parties, please be seated. Parties,

are your rights understood?

>> Understood. Understood.

>> Understood. Are there any challenges to the court?

Convicted person Navalny?

>> No.

>> None. Convicted person Ofitserov?

>> No.

>> None. Defense?

>> The defense has no challenges.

>> None. Prosecution?

>> The prosecution has no challenges.

>> None. Good. The parties are hereby informed

of the use of technical means

for online broadcasting

in the conference hall of the Kirov Regional

Court for those who have come to attend the hearing,

as well as on the internet. Also present at the court

session are representatives

of the mass media. Accordingly,

accreditation is being verified

based on the information available to the court. Thus,

uh

The Center has appeared for the court hearing.

RAPSI Legal Information Agency. Present here?

Representatives of RAPSI.

So, how many of you are there? There are three of us.

Camera operator.

>> Please state your surnames.

Labazov.

>> All right, once again. Labanov.

>> Andreev, Krivko.

>> Andreev.

Krivko. Good.

NTV.

Present or not?

>> NTV. Please state the surnames of those present.

>> Romanov, Verikov.

>> All right, photo and Tartaz.

>> Present.

>> Surname?

>> Lakhadze.

>> Mm-hmm.

All right, the Moscow representative of the agency...

France-Presse.

>> Present.

>> Present.

>> Surnames, please.

>> Maksimovshe and Annas.

Mm-hmm.

Good. The online publication Russian Planet.

>> Here.

>> Who is present?

>> Malyshe. Aurora Media...

news.

>> Submitted.

>> Present. All right. TV company, Reuters agency.

>> Present.

>> Present. Who?

>> Novik.

>> Novik.

>> Kotelpel. Shemetov and Bachinskaya. Mm-hmm.

European press photo agency.

>> Present, the news agency...

press.

>> Lovetskovdotov.

>> Present.

>> All right. BBC Moscow.

>> Lomatda.

>> All right. Mm-hmm.

>> No. Interfax.

Polzhi.

>> No.

>> RNTV television company. Bugaev, Samolov.

Mikhailov.

>> All right, thank you. Reporter newspaper.

>> Here. Yes.

>> Kotelnikov, Novaya Gazeta.

>> Good. Maria FM radio station.

No.

Channel One.

>> Here.

Kiyanovsky, Ivanov.

>> All right, good.

L

No.

>> Present.

>> Present.

>> Good.

>> Kommersant.

>> Walking around. I’m walking around.

>> Good. Forbes magazine.

>> Present.

>> All right, Nov...

>> All right, Blyokh, Novikov.

Radio Svoboda (Radio Liberty).

>> Luchnikova, Tatarski.

>> Good. Uh, the First City Channel in...

Kirov.

No.

The Vesti program, State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company.

Nazar already.

>> All right, good.

GTRK Vyatka.

>> No. Shvetsov, Okhotnikov.

No. RIA...

>> Novosti.

This is again...

>> the internet portal gorodkirov.ru.

All right, do the parties have any objections to...

the work of representatives of the mass media,

the introduction of an online broadcast,

and media coverage of the proceedings? Prosecution?

>> No, Your Honor, there are no objections. The court hearing...

is open to the public.

>> Convicted defendants,

if you are asking about media coverage, then we...

would like Channel One and, secondly,

NTV to cover this more objectively.

Thank you.

>> No objections?

>> No objections.

>> The defense has no objections. No, no...

objections.

>> Very well. The judicial panel authorizes...

photo, video, and audio recording

during these proceedings. Accordingly, the issue is permitted...

regarding the possibility of hearing, uh,

the case in the absence of representatives

of the injured party. That is Pavel Valeryevich Smertin

and Maxim Vladimirovich Blinov.

Opinion of the state prosecution?

Your Honor, I believe that it is possible, given the present attendance,

to begin consideration of

the criminal case on appeal,

since the injured party was duly

notified in the proper manner and did not wish

to participate in the court hearing.

>> All right, the opinion of the convicted defendants?

>> I do not object.

>> No objections.

>> Defense opinion?

>> No objections. I object.

>> Very well. So,

the parties are informed that, along

with the supplements to the appeals,

motions have been filed by defense counsel to summon

witnesses to the court hearing and

to order expert examinations. Accordingly, these

motions are subject to consideration during

the judicial investigation. In addition,

the motions indicated, any other

motions from the parties, are there any from

the prosecution?

>> No, there are none. there are

>> at this time we do not have any, Your Honor

>> none, the convicted person

the other defense counsel have none, good

we proceed to the judicial examination

thus, by the verdict of the Leninsky District

Court of the city of Kirov, dated July 18, 2013,

Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny

whose identity was established at the present

court hearing, was convicted under Part

3 of Article 33 and Part

4 of Article 160 of the Criminal Code

of the Russian Federation, and sentenced to five years

of imprisonment with a fine of

500,000 rubles (about 500,000 RUB) payable to the state, with

the principal sentence to be served in a

general-regime correctional colony.

Pyotr Yuryevich Ofitserov, uh, by the same

verdict, was convicted under Part 5 of Article

33 and Part 4 of Article

160, and sentenced to four years of imprisonment with a

fine of 500,000 rubles (about 500,000 RUB) payable to the

state, with the principal

sentence to be served in a correctional colony

of general regime. The preventive measure with respect to

Navalny and Ofitserov was

changed in the courtroom from a written undertaking

not to leave and to maintain proper conduct to

detention in custody. The term of punishment

for both convicted persons was ordered to run from July 18

2013. By the appellate ruling

of the Kirov Regional Court

dated July 19, 2013, the decision to

change the preventive measure for Navalny and Ofitserov

to detention in custody

was overturned. Until the verdict entered

into legal force, the convicted persons retained the preventive measure

in the form of a written undertaking not to leave and

proper conduct, with release

from custody in the courtroom. The previously imposed

seizure of Ofitserov's property was maintained,

as was the prohibition on carrying out registration

actions with Navalny's property. In

the event Ofitserov lacked

sufficient funds,

it was ordered that recovery be levied

against the seized property toward payment

of the fine. The disposition of

the physical evidence in the case was also determined.

Navalny was convicted for organizing and

directing the commission of embezzlement, that is,

the theft of another's property

entrusted to the offender, on an especially large

scale, and Ofitserov for aiding and abetting

the commission of embezzlement, with the same

qualifying element, by means of

providing information and means

for committing the crime.

Under the circumstances set out in detail in the verdict,

Navalny, being

an unpaid adviser to the governor of Kirov Region,

as the organizer

and leader of the crime, together with

Ofitserov, whom he involved as an accomplice,

decided at the beginning of 2009

to steal property belonging to Kirovles (a state-owned timber enterprise).

According to the plan they developed, Navalny and

Ofitserov, in February-March 2009, in

Kirov, under the guise of carrying out the powers assigned

to Navalny, which included, among other things,

the task of

developing programs for the restructuring

and reorganization of inefficiently operating

enterprises of various forms of

ownership, studied and

analyzed the operations of KOGUP Kirovles

(a regional state unitary enterprise), the structure of the enterprise,

the range of harvested and

processed products, after which

they informed its general director,

Opalev, that

the enterprise's products would thereafter be

sold through an intermediary.

Having obtained the consent of Opalev, who understood

that damage to Kirovles was inevitable,

Ofitserov, in order to create the appearance

of civil-law

obligations arising and of the lawfulness of the actions,

registered a company controlled by

Navalny, a limited liability company

called VLK, opening a bank

settlement account, and prepared and signed

on behalf of the company a supply contract that had no

economic purpose and

entailed causing damage to

KOGUP Kirovles. On April 15, 2009, this

contract was signed by Opalev, and in the

period from April 15 to June 13, Ofitserov and

Opalev, with Navalny's participation, signed

36 appendices to it establishing

prices for products that were knowingly disadvantageous to KOGUP Kirovles.

Further, Opalev, acting on

Navalny's instructions, used his

official position in order to increase the

volume of the enterprise's property. By order

dated May 19, 2009, he prohibited

the enterprise's forestry branches from

independently selling products.

After Ofitserov concluded supply contracts

with a number of buyers, in the period from

April 15 to September 30, 2009,

by embezzling property entrusted to Opalev on the basis

of state contracts,

with Navalny organizing and directing

this and with Ofitserov's assistance,

the counterparty, VLK LLC, was shipped

timber products in the amount of 10.84

10,084

277,000 cubic meters, for a total amount of 16,165,826

rubles and 65 kopecks, which constitutes an especially large

amount and resulted in

property damage to KOGUP Kirovles. In

their appeals, the convicted persons

Navalny and Ofitserov, and defense counsel, attorneys

Mikhaylova, Kobzev, Kobelev, and Davydova

They express disagreement with the verdict, considering

it unlawful, unfounded,

unjust, and issued in violation of

criminal and criminal-procedural

law, as well as due to the inconsistency of

the court’s conclusions with the actual circumstances

of the case. In support of this, they point to

the absence of any crime having occurred,

since no theft, with the mandatory elements

required under criminal law,

was committed by Navalny and Ofitserov,

and what took place was

a civil-law transaction between KOGUP

Kirovles and LLC VLK on the basis of a supply contract

and its appendices, which has not been

challenged and, from the standpoint of civil

law, is valid. The court

did not refute this circumstance.

The witness testimony cited in the verdict

from Bastrygina, Bur, Merkusheva,

Makaveev, and Opolev in this part consists of

value judgments, while other information regarding

amendments to the contract does not

indicate otherwise.

Confirmation of the absence, in the actions of

Navalny and Ofitserov, of any unlawfulness

is provided not only by the supply contract, but

also by the court-examined decision

of the commercial court ordering recovery from VLK

of funds for products supplied by

Kirovles on the basis of the

above-mentioned contract. They consider

the court’s conclusions untenable regarding

damage caused to the owner on the grounds of

the theft of property with

its simultaneous replacement by something of lesser value,

since no such replacement took place,

and for the products supplied, Kirovles

received payment, which

refutes the court’s conclusions about

the uncompensated taking of property.

They consider unsupported by evidence

the total value of products sold through LLC VLK

to be unproven. The court failed to take into account the provisions of

the law guaranteeing freedom of

economic activity, freedom of contract, and

the determination of contract prices in

conjunction with the fact that prices for

timber products are not regulated

by the state. The court did not seek to establish

the actual market prices for timber and

timber products in Kirov Region

in 2009, and instead made

an unfounded conclusion that products were transferred to LLC VLK

without equivalent and

adequate compensation. The verdict

contains no assessment of the opinion submitted by the

defense, prepared by a timber-products specialist,

with an analysis of prices in

the appendices to the supply contract and

the delivery invoices, which

show that more than 70% of

the total volume of products was purchased by LLC VLK

from KOGUP Kirovles at prices significantly

higher than the average market prices for comparable

products charged by other

producers in Kirov Region. The court

denied the motion for

the appointment and conduct of a repeat

financial, economic, and

merchandising forensic examination,

instead basing the verdict on expert opinions

obtained during the period of

the preliminary investigation, which

are incomplete and answer only an extremely

limited range of questions concerning

the overall turnover of LLC VLK and

the financial position of KOGUP Kirovles, but

do not determine the cost price of

timber products. They also consider untenable

the court’s conclusions that selfish intent

was proven. The case file contains no information about any payments

made in favor of Navalny or

Opolev, while Ofitserov merely received

a salary, nor is there any evidence of

any of the three receiving any other

material or non-material

benefit. It was not established that LLC

VLK incurred expenses not directly connected with

its core business. The court also gave an incorrect

assessment to the fact that

the loss-making operations

of LLC VLK, referring to Ofitserov’s management of

the company’s financial

activities and the distribution of

profits at his own discretion. All

actions of Navalny, who was

an adviser to the governor of Kirov Region

with relevant authority over

the socio-economic sphere, as well as

the actions of Ofitserov in conducting

entrepreneurial intermediary

activity, are not prohibited by criminal

law and therefore cannot

be regarded as criminal. The appeals further

state that the court violated

criminal procedure law,

by refusing to schedule and hold

a preliminary hearing despite

a motion having been filed, which the law does not require to be

supported by any special justification.

In such circumstances, in the opinion of

the convicted men and their defense lawyers, the court had no

right to delve into an assessment of the

reasonableness, necessity, and

expediency of holding

a preliminary hearing. By doing so, the court

demonstrated a lack of

impartiality.

The court violated the right to a defense by granting

an obviously unreasonable amount of time to review

the case file to Navalny’s newly retained defense lawyer,

attorney Obelev. Attention is also drawn

to the insufficiency of time

for the defendants and their lawyers to familiarize themselves with

the case materials, from which the court restricted them on

contrived grounds.

The convicted men and their defense lawyers believe

the court’s refusal to return the case was unlawful

to the prosecutor in order to remedy

the violations committed in drawing up

the indictment, in which, when

setting out the circumstances of the committed

crime, the amount

of the damage caused was not specified.

Two different amounts appear

for the damage allegedly caused to Kirovles.

The defense evidence was not set out.

The charge itself

was vague and unspecified. And the text

of the decision to bring [him] as an ac-

of bringing Navalny in as

an accused person, dated January 17, 2013,

does not correspond to the text

of the indictment. The court

ignored the defendants’ and

defense counsel’s statements that the charge was vague and

that they did not understand its substance, contrary to

the requirements applicable to a judicial

verdict. Violations were committed during

the questioning in court, as a witness,

of Opalev, who had previously been convicted and who

was deliberately not warned about

criminal liability for refusing

to testify, which allowed Opalev

to evade answering a number of questions

that were of material significance to the case,

and allowed the court to disallow questions, answers to

which would have helped establish that Opalev falsely implicated

Navalny and Ofitserov. Another

violation consisted in reading out, at the request

of the prosecution, in full

rather than only the contradictory parts,

Opalev’s testimony given in the context

of another case as an accused person, and

before his direct examination by

the defense and the court. Before the questioning,

the parties read out the testimony of

witnesses Burashutova, Kuznetsov,

Kiselyov, Koritnyuk, Osapov, Bulatov,

Barantsev, Vkursov, and others. The court deprived

[them] of the opportunity to obtain answers from

witnesses Bura and Opalev to Navalny’s

questions regarding circumstances having

significance for the case. There was a violation of the provisions

of Article 121 of the Criminal Procedure

Code. The court did not immediately rule on

the defense motion for

the exclusion of a number of inadmissible

items of evidence, thereby allowing

the prosecution to present them and

subsequently use them as the basis

for the verdict. The motion was denied

to obtain from the regional FSB office (Federal Security Service)

evidence that could not be

obtained independently by the defense,

namely audio files of telephone

conversations between Navalny and Ofitserov, the operational

surveillance file concerning them,

and information that would have made it possible

to establish the lawfulness of the wiretapping of

their telephone conversations. It was also denied to re-

quest accounting documentation

on settlements between LLC VLK Kirovles

and its forestry branch offices for the period from

April 2009 through February

2013 on the grounds that

this did not fall within the subject matter to be proved.

At the same time, an earlier

motion to attach to the case copies

of those documents obtained through

an адвокатский request (formal attorney inquiry) was not granted on

other grounds. Also denied were

defense motions for

the production of minimum prices approved by the directors of

Kirovles and its branches

for products, physical evidence,

and copies of procedural documents in

the case against Opalev, as well as

documents from the bankruptcy case of Kagub

Kirfles. The court ruled formally and, on

contrived grounds, refused and declared

inadmissible as evidence the materials of

operational-search activities concerning Navalny and Ofitserov,

which had been transferred to the

preliminary investigation authority with

violations of the federal law on

operational-search activity.

Documents concerning the obtaining of information from

mobile network operators about subscriber

numbers, the forensic voice and

psychological-linguistic expert examinations,

inspection records of physical

evidence, as well as the judgments in

the case against Opalev. The convicted men and their

defense lawyers believe that the judgment in

Opalev’s case could not have been examined

in court, because the case was considered

under a special procedure, and it had already predetermined

the guilt of Navalny and Ofitserov. The court

unlawfully left without satisfaction

the reasoned motion by the defense

to summon and question witnesses examined during

the preliminary investigation,

Akhmadulin, Klimov, Stalypin,

Kryuchkova, Atipolikhin, Kashin, Makarova,

Shchstlivtsev, Potappinko, as well as

experts Kislyakov, Ionova, Rykova, and

specialist Ratova, thereby depriving [the defense] of the opportunity

to have the statements of the above-mentioned persons read out,

thus violating the adversarial principle and

equality of arms. The appeals also

point to a violation of

the rights of the accused provided for by Article 198 of the Criminal

Procedure Code

when expert examinations were ordered and conducted in

the framework of a criminal case that was initiated and

later terminated under paragraph “b”

of part 3 of Article 165 of the Criminal

Code of the Russian Federation, the results

of which were used as the basis

for the appealed judgment. Attention is also drawn

to the untimely preparation

of the record of the court

hearing and familiarization with it.

The convicted men and their defense lawyers ask that the verdict

to overturn it and issue an acquittal

judgment. In addition to the appellate

complaints, defense attorneys Mikhailov and Davydov,

citing the testimony of the victim's representative,

all witnesses, and

the written evidence as set out

in the judgment, point out that this

testimony and evidence refute

the court's conclusions that Navalny and

Ofitserov were guilty of embezzlement in the form of

misappropriation, and confirm the position

of the convicted men and the defense that there was no

criminal act and that Navalny and Ofitserov were

objectively imputed with

committing the offense

provided for in Part 4 of Article

160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian

Federation. In the defense attorneys' view,

the testimony of the persons questioned in the case

indicates only alleged

additional costs for the production of

the forestry enterprises' products. Witnesses Opolev, Bura, and

Bastrygina testified that the supply contract

met the basic requirements, and that

the inclusion of penalty clauses in it did not

contradict civil

law.

The contract between Kogutirov Les and VLK LLC did not

bear the hallmarks of a sham transaction and was not

gratuitous. And the court's subjective

conclusion to the contrary on this point

is contradictory and unsupported by anything.

The difference in the price of the products after

the contracts were re-executed with

the consignees does not indicate

that the transaction was invalid, while possible

lost profits, as described by a number of

witnesses, do not constitute the elements of a

crime. Attention is drawn to the fact

that for the former counterparties of

Kogubkerafles, the prices and terms after

the contracts were re-executed did not change.

They consider the court's conclusions

regarding the determination of a price corresponding to

the actual market value of

timber products to be unfounded. The written evidence set out in the judgment

shows

that VLK LLC

paid for the shipped

Kogubtirovles timber products,

and that the price difference constituted equivalent

compensation. They regard as wholly unsubstantiated

the court's conclusions that the products were sold

at knowingly understated prices.

The text of the order establishing the procedure for

the sale of Kogubtirovles products does not

state any aim of creating for VLK LLC

the most favorable conditions. The content

of the email correspondence relied on as a basis for the judgment

indicates

Ofitserov's intention to conclude a contract.

Attention is again drawn to

the inadmissibility of the results of the wiretapping of

telephone conversations involving Navalny and

Ofitserov, the inspection of those recordings, and the experts'

conclusions. The court did not properly substantiate their

evidentiary value, nor did it

take into account that the allegedly established intent to

commit the crime arose and was

carried out during a period different from the one covered by the wiretapped

period

conversations. In the defense's view,

the court misinterprets the clarifications given in

the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court

regarding the indicia of gratuitousness and

the taking of property and the causing of damage

to the owner.

Defense counsel consider it unlawful and

unreasoned for the court to have ruled

that the following evidence was inadmissible:

information on the operating results of Kirovles

for the first half of 2009, and

the explanatory note to the accounting

statements, since such a step is not

provided for by criminal procedure

law at the stage of rendering a

judgment without taking the parties' views into account.

This violated the provisions of Part 2 of Article

307 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure. The court did not assess

the evidence submitted by the defense to rebut the claim of gratuitous taking,

namely

payment orders and

a payment order showing the transfer by VLK LLC of

funds to Kakbrovles.

The judgment was based, as evidence, on

a report on the examination of

documents concerning the prices of the supplied

Koguptirov timber products, in the part

that was not read out in court. The judgment contains no assessment of

the absence in that report of information confirming

the transfer of money to Navalny or to other

individuals or legal entities.

In the defense's view,

the court committed substantial violations of

criminal procedure law and failed to take into account

the clarifications set out in the resolution

of the Plenum of the Supreme Court on judicial

judgments, by issuing a conviction

based on assumptions,

and on conclusions about the proven guilt of Opolev, in

respect of whom the case was severed into

separate proceedings, and also despite the presence of

unresolved doubts and

the failure to prove the guilt of Navalny and

Ofitserov. In additions to the appellate

complaint, defense attorney Kobelev points to

Navalny's non-involvement in the act

that the court found criminal, because

no evidence was presented that he was aware

of the underpricing of Kogubkirovles products

before the results of the company's audit

were available, nor was there evidence

of a prior conspiracy between

Navalny, Ofitserov, and Opolev specifically

to steal property by way of embezzlement. He also considers unfounded

and unsupported by the evidence

the court's conclusions regarding

the awareness of all three of

the inevitable infliction of damage

on the enterprise, since at the time

the supply contract with VLK LLC was signed

the prices for the products had not been determined. No

evidence has been presented

confirming that Navalny

organized the preparation of a knowingly

loss-making contract and knew of his

ability to influence

the activities of state-owned enterprises

in the region. In connection with this, uh,

considers the court's conclusion unfounded that

Opolev could not have been mistaken about

Navalny's lack of authority to give him

any binding

instructions. Contrary to the arguments

of the appeal, it expresses

disagreement with the court's finding on

the unreliability of Kirovstat data and

the expert opinion on average prices

for timber products. Defense counsel considers

the conclusions speculative regarding the absence

of any need to sell the products

of Kirovles through VLK LLC, since

the enterprise's profit from sales

of products to newly engaged

counterparties was not established. With

reference to an incorrect understanding

of the clarifications set out in the resolution

of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian

Federation, in the supplement to the appeal

the arguments are again set out in detail concerning

the absence of all elements of theft, the

validity of the supply contract, and

disagreement with the conclusions set out by the court in

the judgment to refute

the defense position. In written objections,

the state prosecutors, the head

of the state prosecution department

for appeals of the criminal judicial directorate

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

prosecutor Cheremisinov of the same department, with

a detailed presentation of their position

regarding the arguments in the appeals

of the convicted persons and their counsel, ask that

they be denied. So,

the floor is now given, please,

to the convicted persons and the defense on the arguments of the

appeals. So, before that

let us determine the order of speaking on the

appeals. At the same time,

the court draws attention to the fact that

the contents of the appeals and

the supplements to them contain the same

arguments. Uh,

whether it is advisable to repeat them

in each of your statements.

All right. So, the order of speaking on the

appeal arguments: first, counsel for

Navalny, and then counsel for,

respectively, Ofitserov.

>> All right, please. No objections, your hon-

>> No, there are no objections.

>> Please, we are listening.

>> Then we will begin. Actually, I will

start.

>> So, we believe that the appealed

judgment, issued by Judge

of the Leninsky District Court of the city of Kirov

on July 18, 2013, does not comply with

the requirements of criminal procedure

law, is unlawful,

unfounded, and unjust.

The judgment was rendered contrary to the current

criminal law, in the absence

of both the event of a crime and the elements of a crime,

with glaring distortions of the factual

circumstances of the case, with the gravest

violations of the law, and not only

of Russian law, but also

of international legal instruments.

Such a judgment is unquestionably subject to

reversal. And the first thing I wanted

to draw attention to is that the text

of the appealed judgment, from page two through

page fifty-two, completely

repeats the text of the indictment

drawn up by an investigator

of the Main Investigative Directorate

of the Investigative Committee of the Russian

Federation.

Even the witness testimony, excluding

the first five,

is presented in the judgment in the same

order as in the indictment.

Only minor changes were made by the court,

and the testimony given by witnesses

in court was not taken into account.

Thus, uh, Judge Blinov

simply copied the indictment

and, uh, called this

document a judgment.

And the court found Navalny and Ofitserov

guilty of committing a crime, in

the absence of both the event and the elements

of a crime.

We believe that these conclusions of the court are

completely unfounded,

and contradict the requirements of both Article 160

of the Criminal Code and

Note 1 to Article 158,

which require the presence

of a certain number of qualifying

elements in order to find a person

guilty of committing the offense

provided for by that article.

And when

rendering the judgment, the court failed to take into account that

the defendants' actions must be

unlawful,

and the owner must suffer

actual damage. Property must be taken from the owner

without compensation,

and another person's property must be converted to the

benefit of the guilty party and other persons. But these

circumstances were not

established by the court.

Uh, at least in our view, and

This is clear from the judgment, because

the court, in its judgment, did not provide a single

convincing argument based on

documents examined during the trial

documents,

that would confirm the existence of

the above-mentioned elements necessary for

classifying the actions as theft of

property.

Moreover, the evidence in the case

confirms the lawful, rather than

unlawful,

nature of the actions of both Navalny and

Ofitserov.

Nevertheless, in its judgment the court

repeatedly refers to, as an

established fact, that in entering into the contract

between Kirovles and VLK, Opalev,

Navalny, and Ofitserov acted

in accordance with a common purpose aimed

exclusively at creating the appearance

of Kirovles incurring

civil-law obligations to

VLK, allegedly on a compensated basis, to

transfer timber products

to the consignee.

And in support of this conclusion, the court

cites the testimony of a number of witnesses, which

contains only evaluative

assertions.

And there is no data indicating

how the court could have reached such a conclusion,

anywhere else in the judgment.

In addition,

the defense submitted to the materials of the criminal

case, and they were examined at the

hearing, the decisions of the Arbitration Court

of the Kirov Region, by which the contract

between Kirovles and VLK was recognized as

valid, duly concluded,

and not contrary to civil

law.

Moreover, as was clear from these

decisions, funds were recovered from VLK through civil proceedings

for

the timber products supplied.

However, all of this was

ignored by the court, and, uh, in its judgment the court

states that

Kirovles's property was transferred for the benefit of

VLK unlawfully and against the will of the

owner.

In addition, I would like to note that

the court, in asserting in its judgment that

the owner suffered damage,

refers to the Plenum Resolution of the

Supreme Court on judicial practice in

cases involving fraud, misappropriation, and

embezzlement,

and, uh, states that there was

a substitution of valuable property for less

valuable property.

However, as we know from the case materials,

for the 10,000 cubic meters of timber supplied.

Well,

Kirovles did not receive some substitute property.

There was no substitution of property in this case,

rather, money was transferred.

Clearly, funds in the amount of

14,785,000 rubles

cannot possibly be regarded as less valuable

property, since these were monetary

payments, and what was transferred was specifically

money. Nevertheless, in its judgment the court

states that the result of the unlawful

actions of the accomplices to the crime

was the transfer for the benefit of VLK of

timber products in the amount of 10,000 cubic meters

worth 16 million rubles, and says that

the compensation was inadequate.

Moreover, the trial court

completely withdrew from an objective

examination of this case and did not

seek to establish or assess in

its judgment the actual market prices

at which, uh, timber products

were purchased and sold in the Kirov

Region in 2009.

At the same time,

despite the clear and obvious

need in this criminal case for

expert examinations that should have

analyzed comparable

prices on the timber market,

the court denied the defense's request for

such examinations. No such

expert reports are contained in the case file. And

how the court arrived at conclusions about

whether the value was equivalent,

whether the compensation was adequate, and so on,

is completely unclear. All such

assertions are entirely unsubstantiated and

are not supported by anything, including

the case materials. On the contrary, the

defense submitted to the court

an expert opinion showing that

VLK, uh, purchased timber products from

Kirovles not merely at non-discounted prices,

but at prices that were

many times higher than the prices that

prevailed in the Kirov Region at that time.

For some items, uh, the excess of

the prices at which the products were purchased

from Kirovles reached 200%.

And in addition, I would like to note that

all of Navalny's and Ofitserov's actions

were examined in detail during the

trial, and they are

entirely lawful

and

not criminally punishable.

Nevertheless, the court concluded otherwise. And

despite the fact that

Navalny had

the opportunity

to familiarize himself with Kirovles's activities,

this was entirely a lawful part of his

activities, since his authority

specifically included, uh, monitoring the work

of financially loss-making enterprises

in Kirov Region, he put forward his own

ideas and principles for development, but nevertheless

for some reason the court concluded that such

activity was unlawful.

The court withdrew from upholding the rule of law

in this criminal case and violated

the provisions

of Article 8 of the Criminal Code,

which establishes that the basis

for criminal liability is

the commission of an act containing all

the elements of a criminal offense. And in addition

to this, we believe that such a

position taken by the court runs contrary to the provisions of

Article 7 of the European Convention,

which provides

that punishment may be imposed only

strictly on the basis of law, in

accordance with the general principles of law

recognized by civilized nations.

As for violations of the

Code of Criminal Procedure,

that were committed by the court. The reporting judge

has already set them out in considerable detail

I would like to focus on

several of them. Indeed, from the outset

from the very first days of the trial

in the Leninsky District Court, the court adopted a position under which

the defense was clearly restricted

in its ability to exercise its rights

as provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure

.

On a contrived pretext, the court refused

to hold preliminary hearings,

refused to provide sufficient

time to review the case materials,

which in turn gives rise to

a violation of Article 6 §3(b)

of the European Convention.

It refused to return

the criminal case to the prosecutor, despite

clear violations of the law, and

committed numerous violations during

the questioning of witnesses, in particular

Mr. Opolev, not allowing

the parties to ask questions or fully

exercise their rights, while, uh, allowing

the prosecution to read out the testimony

of witnesses before they were examined by the defense.

Under such circumstances, despite

objections, the testimony of

a large number of witnesses was read out, including

in particular Opolev, Bura, Shutova,

Kuznetsov, Kiselyov, Koretnyuk, Osapov,

Bulatov, Barantsev, Furtsev, and others.

And, of course, such violations

constitute, in addition to violations of Russian

law, also a violation

of the provisions of Article 6 of the European

Convention.

In addition, the court violated

the requirements of criminal procedure

law when considering our

motions. The motions were not

considered

without delay.

All of this concerned motions

seeking the exclusion of evidence. And

the court

would spend several days considering

a motion, thereby allowing

the prosecution to present that

evidence and have it examined in court. And

only after that would it rule on our

motion, 7 to 8 days after

it had been filed, and would rule on our

motion concerning the inadmissibility

of the use in the proceedings of inadmissible

evidence.

In addition, the court denied our

motions seeking

the production of materials important to the case.

In particular,

it refused to request materials

relating to the prosecution of Opolev

on criminal charges. The court also

refused to request the case file on

the bankruptcy of Kagubkerov Les, documents

from the Federal Security Service (FSB) and

materials from

the criminal case against Opolev,

which was heard in the Leninsky

District Court.

And in addition, the court

rejected all of our numerous

reasoned motions concerning

the exclusion

of evidence obtained improperly.

As a result, during the trial

audio recordings were played

and relied on in full as the basis

for the verdict: recordings of telephone

conversations between Navalny and Ofitserov,

which, under the applicable

law, should have been

destroyed back in 2010. This

is a requirement of the law, specifically

the federal law on

operational-search activities,

which requires such materials to be destroyed

after 6 months if no criminal case has been

opened. And that is exactly the situation

that arose in this case, when

court authorization was obtained for

the wiretapping of Navalny's

and Ofitserov's phones within another criminal

case, in which they were not involved

in any capacity whatsoever, even as witnesses; that

is, they were not participants at all.

Accordingly, if such authorization

was obtained, but no criminal case

was opened against them, then such

audio recordings should have been destroyed.

They were not destroyed, but were instead used

in these court proceedings, despite the clear

a violation of the law in obtaining them.

Moreover, the court based its verdict on

the judgment against Opolev,

who had entered into a pre-trial cooperation agreement.

In this judgment, in violation of the norms of

current Russian

legislation, as well as the provisions of

the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights

and Fundamental Freedoms, the court

used wording that directly

indicated the establishment of guilt

not only of Opolev, but also of Navalny and

Ofitserov. At present, on this matter

we have filed a complaint with the European Court

and hope that in the near future

there will be some result on that complaint.

In addition, we believe that it is impossible

to regard as fair any trial

in which the defense

was denied the right to call and question

witnesses, including experts. And

such a violation of the provisions of, uh,

Russian legislation also constitutes

a violation of the provisions of Article 6(3) as well. Uh,

I believe that we have submitted such a motion

and that the court will ultimately rule on it.

And furthermore, by stating in the judgment

that timber products were purchased by Sukhoguzhles

at allegedly reduced, non-equivalent

prices, the court completely refrained from

examining timber prices. I

said that the defense was denied

its motion; we believe that this

was the key motion, for the conduct of

a financial, economic, and

commodity valuation expert examination. It is entirely

obvious that the nature of the charges

considered by the court

required such an examination. Yet

no analysis or comparison of timber prices

for timber products

was carried out. And the prices on the timber market

were not compared with the prices at which

VLK Kirovles products were sold

to Kirovles in any way

whatsoever.

We believe that in the absence of this kind of

expert opinion from specialists possessing

specialized knowledge in the field of

economics, all of the court’s assertions about allegedly

non-equivalent prices are entirely

unsupported and contrived.

We, uh, believe that during the trial

the court, uh, in addition to violating

Russian legislation, also violated

a number of provisions of the European Convention on

Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,

in particular Article 6, which guarantees

the right to a fair

trial, as well as Articles 7,

8, 13, and 18.

We believe that such a verdict must be

overturned. And taking into account the circumstances

of this case, we ask that our clients be

acquitted. That is all.

>> Thank you.

>> Your Honor, I fully support the arguments in the appeal.

I support them in full.

I believe that no crime took place.

The elements of a crime are absent in

the actions of both Navalny and Ofitserov.

They are absent.

An entirely lawful and ordinary

civil-law transaction was deemed by the judgment

to be

a crime by Blinov. In effect, in the view

of the trial court,

the purchase and sale, the purchase and sale of goods

is a crime. I consider this

absurd.

the verdict, in view of its unlawfulness,

lack of foundation, unfairness,

and lack of reasoning.

And I ask that the conviction of Navalny

be overturned and that he be acquitted.

Counsel.

Your Honor, I fully support

the arguments set out in the appeal,

which were presented quite fully and

in detail by the reporting judge.

I also support the positions of my colleagues and

support

the arguments set out in the supplements

to my appeal. In

particular, this is the argument that

Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny was not involved in

the act described in the judgment.

Uh, Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny did not

know the prices at which the company’s products were being shipped,

the products of the Kirovles enterprise, and

therefore he could not have organized the shipment

of those products at reduced prices. And

I also support the second argument

set out in the supplements to the appeal,

which is that

the circumstances established

by the trial court do not constitute

a crime, because they do not contain

all the mandatory elements of theft,

such as unlawfulness,

gratuitous taking, and the existence of damage.

Therefore, I ask that the judgment of the Leninsky

District Court of the city of Kirov be overturned, and that

Navalny and Ofitserov be acquitted.

>> Your Honor, first of all, I would like

to join all of the arguments

presented by my defense. Second,

I would like to say that I consider the decision of

the Leninsky District Court of the city of Kirov

to be unfounded, unlawful, and unsupported

either by law or by the factual

circumstances of the case. In fact, Judge

Blinov simply, uh, turned into a judicial

decision that fabricated indictment prepared by the Investigative

Committee,

which was drafted in Moscow and which

was prepared with an obvious political

motivation. And it seems to me that the political

The motive behind this case is obvious to any

observer. And clearly, even from here in the

Kirov Regional Court, since it was precisely here that

rather

unprecedented and unique events unfolded regarding

my sudden, our sudden

release, and so on, which of course

I was pleased about, but nevertheless

the uniqueness of these strange

events, when a person is arrested and

sentenced to five years in prison, and the very next day, at the request of

the prosecutor's office, is released,

obviously after surprising and

sudden instructions from Moscow,

the political motivation behind this case

was completely obvious. I would like

to draw the court's attention to the fact that in

the case materials, in the indictment,

in the verdict, on every

page there is mention of damages being caused,

prices being understated, and so on, and so

forth. But there is no evidence of this whatsoever.

Despite our repeated demands for

a financial, eco-

nomic, accounting,

and commodity valuation examination, none of them were carried out.

And this is absolutely crucial.

It is impossible to examine in court

questions of price understatement or

causing damages without any materials

or documents. But who among us is qualified to judge

timber prices? A senior investigator for especially

important cases from the Investigative Committee,

sitting in Moscow? Of course not. And in

the Leninsky District Court, this issue was not

examined either.

The entire case is essentially built on the false testimony

of Mr. Opalev and his

daughter, his chief accountant. These are exactly

the people against whom I

repeatedly tried and demanded

that criminal proceedings be initiated. I fired Opalev.

And the materials from those criminal cases

exist in the possession of law enforcement agencies.

The judge of the Leninsky District Court also refused

to request all of those materials.

I believe that the court, the Leninsky District Court of the city of

Kirov, completely distorted the meaning of

the official duties of absolutely any

public official. Yes, although I

was not formally a public official, I was

an adviser to the governor of Kirov

Region, but I said it then and I want

to insist now that, broadly speaking,

90%

of the time of any official, any adviser

to a governor, any deputy

governor, any department head—90%

of their time is spent

in negotiations with various

business representatives. A public official does little else

but communicate with representatives

of contractors, with companies

that deal with housing and public utilities (communal services), and other

sectors. All day long he is on the

phone talking to representatives

of business. And under the perverse

logic applied by the Leninsky District Court

of the city of Kirov, any official at all

would have to be arrested immediately for

discussing prices for timber, gasoline,

kerosene, utilities, heating, or water. That is,

after all, how the system

of governing the country works. In other words, officials

interact with business entities.

And during the proceedings, the question was not examined at all:

what, exactly,

was the personal gain for me or even

for Ofitserov? Where, exactly,

did those 16 million rubles go that someone

supposedly stole? Where are they? Into whose accounts were they

deposited, where did they disappear to? None

of this exists at all. And despite the fact that

we repeatedly demanded

that an expert examination be conducted, that we

carry out an audit. After all, from the bank

statements it is absolutely clear where

every kopeck of those notorious

Kirovles funds went. This issue was not

examined at all, for a very

simple reason: because if

a financial or

economic examination of all this had been carried out,

the case would have had to be dismissed immediately.

Not only should the case have been

dismissed, a new criminal case should have been opened

instead, but this time against

the investigators of the Investigative

Committee who fabricated

and unlawfully initiated this case.

And

no commodity valuation examination was conducted,

despite the fact that

the issue of prices for this

timber was constantly discussed, and it is quite easy to examine.

Kirov Region is a timber-producing region,

a region with a huge number of

forestry enterprises. A comparison

of the prices at which

Kirovles and VLK dealt, with other prices, or

a comparison of the prices at which the same

Kirovles, during the same period,

sold its products to other

counterparties, would unequivocally have shown

that during that same period VLK was not

buying anything more cheaply. It was buying

at exactly those prices, or even

sometimes higher. This was not

examined at all. In the matter of the

commodity valuation examination, we were also

refused for precisely the same reason,

because comparing these figures

would instantly have led to the dismissal of

this case.

was not questioned

the bankruptcy administrator of Kirovles. This is

astonishing, because yes, not

the formal owner, the department

the property of Kirov Oblast (a region of Russia), but

the insolvency administrator of the company

Kirovles, who is handling

the bankruptcy of this company, could have

provided comprehensive information about

which companies did or did not cause

damage. In fact, this same insolvency administrator

when approached by

members of the media,

said in every interview

that this was nonsense, and that in the overall scale of

Kirovles’s problems, in terms of the losses

suffered by Kirovles, VLK’s share was

negligible, and no one bought anything

at artificially low prices. But,

despite this, the court for some reason did not

take any interest in that testimony.

Therefore, I would like to say that

consideration of this case at first

instance or here on appeal

is absolutely impossible without

conducting expert examinations

in financial economics, accounting,

and merchandise valuation. I believe such

examinations must be carried out during

these proceedings. I believe that

no outcome in this case other than

my acquittal and the acquittal of

Pyotr Ofitserov, who is in fact

an incidental person and an incidental

businessman, whom this case

dragged in merely to

manufacture it—no other outcome

in this case is possible. Thank you.

>> Thank you.

The floor is given to Ofitserov’s defense.

>> Attorney Davydova, counsel for Ofitserov.

Dear colleagues, I respectfully ask that you

grant the appeal that has been filed.

I maintain that

the new judgment issued against my

client is

unlawful, unfounded,

and unjust. Moreover, I note

that both in rendering the verdict and in

the conduct of the case, that is, during

the trial proceedings, the requirements of the

Criminal Procedure Code were violated. And these are precisely the

violations that must, without question,

result in the reversal of the

verdict. I do not consider it necessary

to repeat all the arguments set out in my

appeal. I believe they were

presented quite fully by you, and

in addition,

my colleagues also spoke at sufficient length. But I want

to say to the honorable court that, unfortunately,

in rendering the verdict

under the presiding Judge Blinov at the

Leninsky District Court of the city of Kirov,

Judge Blinov in effect

set aside the requirements of the presumption of

innocence. In my view, the presumption

of innocence means that unproven

guilt is equivalent to proven

innocence.

I believe that in this case the innocence

of my client has been fully and conclusively established.

And all doubts,

contrary to Judge Blinov’s position,

as set out in the verdict, must

be interpreted in favor of my client.

It is very troubling to me that,

as is clear from the verdict that was issued,

as is clear from its text, instead of

applying the requirements of the presumption

of innocence, Judge Blinov

applied a presumption of reliability

to the materials of the criminal case, and all

the doubts that existed in the

evidence presented by the prosecution,

instead of

interpreting those doubts in favor of my

client, Judge Blinov interpreted those doubts

in favor of the prosecution,

which, in my view, is impermissible and

contrary to the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code and

the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

And I believe—and we have all read the verdict,

we have all read the appeals and the objections to them—

that with the evidentiary record as

it is presented even in the text of the verdict, there can be no

question whatsoever of

finding my client guilty of

embezzlement. I believe that this

contradictory evidentiary record

can serve only as the basis for

an acquittal. In addition,

I would like to draw your attention,

dear colleagues, to the fact

that again, as is clear from the text of the

verdict,

Judge Blinov,

in fact, cannot himself

determine what exactly constitutes

embezzlement: whether it is the purchase

of timber products by VLK from Kirovles at

non-equivalent prices, or whether it is

non-equivalent compensation, or whether it is

a purchase at knowingly

below-market prices. But then

let us determine what constitutes

non-equivalent compensation, and whether the concept of equivalence

applies at all to

contracts of this kind. Because we all

know that the universal equivalent

in sale-and-purchase transactions, in

contracts of sale, the universal

equivalent is money. And replacing

goods with money can no longer be

non-equivalent.

And I want to say that, again, when speaking

about the presence of the element of gratuitousness,

Presiding Judge Blinov relied on

Resolution No. 51 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court

of the Russian Federation, dated 27

December 2007. But again, that

reference is incorrect and inapplicable here.

to this case, because in

this reference to the Plenum resolution

point 25 concerns the replacement of property

with less valuable property. And perhaps

this requirement of the Plenum

applies to a different category of cases. But

for example, when the accused was entrusted with

certain property, misappropriated it,

converted it to his own benefit and replaced it with some

other property whose value was substantially

lower. But that is an entirely different

category of cases.

If, however, we are talking about the acquisition of

property at a price knowingly below market value,

then it would be appropriate, properly speaking,

to prove, once again, that this

property was acquired at a price

knowingly below market value. And I stand by my

position; it has not changed in the slightest. Namely,

that this element—proving this

knowing disadvantage of the acquisition—

must be established not by witness testimony, but by

documentary evidence; there must be

reports, expert opinions; it is necessary

to calculate and assess at what price

this product, or products similar to it,

in this particular region

could have been sold as of

April, May, June, and July-August 2009

.

And I want to say that one cannot substitute

this statement about a knowingly

below-market price with what

some witnesses said, for example,

about imposing on the forestry enterprises of the branch

Kogubkerovles the obligation to bear

additional expenses. Because those

additional expenses either

should have been included in the cost of this

product, or, as can be seen from the

materials of the criminal case,

which were examined by the court

of first instance, these additional

expenses were reimbursed by the limited liability company

Vyatskaya

Forest Company. And we examined these

documents. This includes, in particular,

a payment order which, if I am not

mistaken, is contained in volume 27

of the criminal case file.

If, however, we are talking about some alleged lost

profit, then that lost profit

does not constitute an element of embezzlement; it is not

embezzlement. Lost profit is

still something else.

In addition, I want to draw attention,

colleagues, to the fact that

again, when the judgment was issued,

the requirements of

Article 90 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code were violated; that is, there was no

recognition of the prejudicial effect of the decision

of the Arbitration Court of Kirov Region (a state commercial court in Russia).

These arguments are set out in detail in the

appeal. I do not want to dwell on them

again, but I ask that they be

taken into account when deciding

this case.

And, of course, I maintain my

appeal. I ask that the judgment rendered

in this case, which is being appealed, be set aside. I ask

that in respect of my client

an acquittal be entered.

>> Thank you.

Ofitserov.

>> Your Honor, as for the proceedings,

well, the sentence handed down by the district court,

is astonishing in a number of respects. First of all,

because, as my

colleagues said, in this

economic case there is not a single

economic expert examination; that is,

questions of price, questions of

equivalence and non-equivalence—neither

Judge Blinov, nor the respected prosecution,

and certainly not the investigators of the

Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, could

properly assess them, because they do not have

the relevant education or

competence to give a

correct assessment. And yes, no such

assessment was provided to me either. The overall impression from

the investigation and the court was that

"good enough as it is" would do. In childhood I watched a

cartoon called *Good Enough As It Is* (a well-known Soviet animated short).

And in it, all the characters strove

to make things worse for those around them,

for the positive characters, and also to make

everything turn out badly. Because

"good enough as it is" is always bad. Because

if everyone does their job

well in their proper place, then everything around us

becomes better: the roads,

education, healthcare. But in these proceedings,

again I repeat, there was not

a single expert examination, and all

the conclusions, both by Judge Blinov and by the prosecution,

were made based on gut feeling.

For some reason, it seemed to them that this

was probably so. And of course I can

assume that they are

clairvoyants, but they are legal

professionals and representatives of the state. Therefore

the matter of feelings, I think, should

be dealt with in a different

room, and not on behalf of the state.

And so I want to remind you once again that

in the course of these proceedings, the witnesses who

testified for the prosecution, for the most

part—apart from three people, namely

Opalev and his associates—gave testimony

in our favor. They said that this

transaction was ordinary, and that the sales were at

the same prices as for other clients.

Moreover, some of the forestry enterprise directors

said that if it had not been for VLC,

they would have had nothing with which to pay wages, and that

VLC's work helped them through a difficult, hard

period when there were no sales at all.

Therefore, uh, what took place during the proceedings and

the verdict that was handed down, they

at the very least contradict each other. And

the second thing I would like to say in

conclusion is that the Leninsky District Court

did not pass sentence on Navalny and Ofitserov.

The Leninsky District Court passed sentence on

the Civil Code of the Russian

Federation, which permits free

economic activity, within the framework of which

trade is just as legitimate.

Incidentally, trade is one of the

revenue-generating

sectors of the economy. But

Judge Blinov, in his verdict, prohibited

this activity. Because he

considered that buying and selling, uh,

is unlawful,

and compensating goods with money is

non-equivalent. Thus, all people

who buy in stores everything from

household appliances to bread, are engaging in

non-equivalent transactions, and they all

are potential criminals.

Either Judge Glenov, in the verdict, got something

wrong

wrongly decided and wrongly wrote, or

the Civil Code needs to be rewritten.

Therefore, I believe that the motion

of the defense and the appeal against the verdict should, I ask, be

granted and accepted with regard to our

agreement.

>> Thank you.

The floor is given to the state prosecutors.

Order. Decide among yourselves who will speak.

Your Honor, we believe that the arguments

of the convicted Navalny and Ofitserov

set out in their appeals, as well as the arguments of their

defense counsel, presented in the appellate

complaints, are not subject to satisfaction.

A more detailed position of the prosecution, then,

we will set out during the parties' closing arguments.

Your Honor, I object to

the appeals of the convicted persons and their

defense counsel; in more detail, the prosecution's position

will be presented during argument.

>> Very well. The parties are advised that

the arguments set out in the appeals and supplements

to them may be examined both during

the appellate court's review of

the case materials and by means of

direct examination in

the court hearing of all or отдельных

individual items of evidence that were examined by the court

of first instance, if, in the opinion

of the parties, there is a need for this. So, at

this moment we are moving on to the consideration of

those motions that were filed

together with the supplements, that is, to

the appeals. And there are two

motions. The first motion is to summon

to the court hearing witnesses,

experts, and a specialist. And the second

motion is for the appointment of two expert examinations.

Uh,

I believe the parties will not object

if the defense states both

motions. On both motions

the prosecution will state its position, and the court will

decide these motions in

the deliberation room, since with regard to

the appointment and conduct of an expert examination, this is

a mandatory requirement. As for the summoning of

witnesses to the court hearing,

since the microphones are on and

the confidentiality of judicial deliberations

cannot be ensured, this motion will also be

decided in the deliberation room.

Please, the floor is given to the defense

regarding the motions that were

identified at today's court

hearing.

>> Ah, Your Honor, I did not quite catch

the procedure. May I present both motions

at once?

>> Yes, that is, both motions, and

the parties will speak.

>> And once again, Your Honor, they

were submitted in writing. I believe that

the prosecution has reviewed them.

Is there a need to read them out in full

or is it enough simply to make the request?

>> The prosecution has been familiarized with these

written motions; it is familiar with the contents of the stated

motions and believes that

there is indeed no need to

read them out.

Therefore, at this point, attention,

>> therefore, only the substance of the motion and

a brief justification, so that not only

the prosecution, but also those persons

who are present in the courtroom

and are observing the proceedings

via the online broadcast, know what

the motion concerns and what grounds it is based on.

>> Mm-hmm. All right. Motion for the appointment of

a forensic examination to the Judicial Panel

for Criminal Cases of the Kirov Regional

Court, from attorneys Mikhailova and Davydova,

counsel for Navalny and Ofitserov.

Unfortunately, the court of first instance

refused to conduct such an

examination, and this served as

the basis for renewing the

motion already at the stage of

appellate review of the case.

The need to conduct the examinations

is due to the following. We request

the conduct of a forensic financial,

economic, and commodity examination.

And as is clear from the charges brought

and the verdict rendered, the Navalnys

and Ofitserov are accused of having, uh,

entered into a supply contract and signed 36

proposals that specified

the type of timber products, as well as

the price, which was deliberately

undervalued.

Moreover, as is evident from

the judgment that was rendered,

this timber product was taken from

Kogubkerovles without appropriate

equivalent compensation for its market

value.

And the prosecution did not conduct

an analysis of market prices for timber products, nor did it

engage experts possessing

special financial and economic

expertise in pricing and

valuation; nor did it examine

the prices for timber products specified in the 36

appendices to Supply Contract No.

012009 dated April 15, 2009, and in the goods

delivery notes. And it is entirely

obvious that the absence of an expert

opinion based on an analysis

of market prices at the time of the alleged

commission of the offense, and the assertion by the

prosecution that the prices were improper, are

clearly contrived. The same applies to the

conclusion that a crime was committed,

as provided for by Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

And

in this connection, we insist on

the conduct of a forensic

forensic accounting

and forensic financial-economic

and commodity evaluation examination.

And we ask that the following questions be put to the experts

for determination.

Thus, what was the average market

price of the timber products that

UVLK purchased from Kogubkerovles under

Contract No. 0129 dated April 15, 2009?

Did the price at which

UVLK purchased timber products

from Kogubkerovles under Contract No. 012009

dated April 15, 2009 correspond to the average market

price for similar timber products

as of April, May, June, and July 2009

as established in Kirov Region?

In addition,

furthermore,

was Contract No. 012 dated

April 15, 2009 between OVLK and Kogubki

RFS a contract for consideration? In what volume did Kogubki

RFles sell timber products to OVLK under

Contract No. 012009 dated April 15, 2009?

Did OOVLK make payment for

the products purchased from Kogubkefles under

Contract No. 012009 dated April 15, 2009,

and if so, when, in what amount, and at

what price did UVLK purchase timber products

from Kogubkerovles in April-May, June, and July

2009? What financial result

did OOLK obtain from the sale of

the timber products purchased from Kogubkerov

les under the said supply contract,

and sold to counterparties? What was the

cost of the timber products

sold by Kogubkefle in accordance with

the appendices to the said contract? Were

the prices at which

OOVLK sold the products lower than the prices at which

Kagub Kerofles sold

similar products under comparable

delivery terms to other buyers in

April, May, June, and July 2009?

Did the price at which

OOVLK purchased timber products

from Kogubterovles under the contract, the details of which are indicated,

correspond to the average market price for similar

timber products as of April, May,

June, and July 2009 established in

Kirov Region? What were the sources

of funds credited to

OVK’s settlement account? What were the

directions of expenditure of funds

from the settlement account

of OVLK?

And did any transfer of funds take place

to the account of the convicted officer? This

examination, we ask, be ordered and

its conduct entrusted to the Federal Budgetary Institution of the Russian Federation, the Center

for Forensic Examination under the Ministry

of Justice of the Russian Federation. Uh,

that is essentially

all.

>> All right, good. One second, uh,

convicted officers, please stand up,

please. Do you support the defense motion

? All right.

>> Do you have any other questions that

you would like to submit for the experts’

consideration?

No,

>> no.

Please sit down. Uh, convicted person

Navalny, Navalny’s defense.

>> I support it. No further questions.

>> No additional questions.

>> Yes, we support it. We have no questions.

>> We simply support it.

>> Understood. Good. Now let us move to

the second motion, concerning the calling of

witnesses to the court hearing.

>> Your Honor, we also filed

a similar motion during the consideration of

this criminal case on the merits. And

since that motion was denied,

we are submitting it again

before the appellate court, and we ask

that the witnesses listed

in the attachment to this motion be summoned to court.

Its only difference is that

the only difference from the previous motion

from the one submitted to the judge of the first

instance is that specialist

Ratova is not listed there, since she was questioned

at the defense’s initiative in the court of first

instance; the need to question these

witnesses,

with the exception of the expert specialists

named in the list, is

due to the fact that these persons

were questioned at the stage of

during the preliminary investigation, and their

testimony was recorded in the case materials

of the criminal case. Moreover, I would like

to note, and I ask the court to take into account, that in light of

this testimony, the investigators made

a decision, or rather, issued a ruling on

refusing to initiate criminal proceedings against

Navalny and Ofitserov. I note

that the testimony of the witnesses, which may

be given by them during the court

proceedings, has a direct

and immediate bearing on the subject

of proof in this criminal case.

I believe that the defense, in order to fully

exercise its defense function and its right

to present evidence,

must nevertheless be given the opportunity

to question these witnesses. Again,

the list, surnames, and addresses are set out in

the motion. As for the experts,

the psychologist-linguist, as well as the specialist

in market matters, the economist, the defense also

has a need to question these

witnesses. I believe that only

by obtaining the right to question these persons

and to present their testimony as

evidence will the defense’s right

to present evidence

and to have equal opportunities

as compared with the prosecution in

the proceedings be realized. In addition, the defense

has argued that it is inadmissible

to submit as

evidence the findings of the

psychological and linguistic expert examination. And,

indeed, among other things, for the purpose of

substantiating the defense’s arguments on

this point, it is also necessary to question

the psychologist and linguist expert, whose details

are indicated in the defense’s motion.

The defense also insists

that the above-mentioned persons must be

questioned, since there are questions for them

regarding how exactly

this examination was conducted. And the defense would like

to receive answers to questions regarding

how, after all,

the experts arrived at the conclusions

set out in this report. Because

in my view, and my position

coincides with that of my colleagues, from the

descriptive and reasoning section of this

expert report, broadly speaking,

some of the conclusions set out in this

expert report—or rather, as

the expert wrote in the reasoning section—

contradict the conclusions

stated in this expert report. And

the need to question economist

Rykova is again обусловлена тем, что

during the judicial examination we still have not

questioned, in essence, a single person

possessing specialized knowledge in

this field. And I do not believe that

for the proper resolution of

this criminal case, the testimony of

the auditors, Ratova and Zagoskina, is sufficient.

What is necessary, in my view,

what is necessary, in my view, is the testimony

of an economist, a person

with specialized knowledge. Because

again, I consider it

inadmissible to substitute

judgments about market prices with the testimony

of witnesses who are employees of forestry branch offices

of KOGUP Kirovles, and not to question

a person who has specialized

knowledge in this area, that is,

economist Ratova—Rykova, rather,

who conducted three

studies in this criminal

case.

>> Thank you. Are we understanding you correctly? In

the part of the motion concerning the summoning and

questioning of Ratova, are you withdrawing it?

>> Ratova was not listed there, if I am not mistaken.

>> We

>> No, she is listed.

>> Yes, we are withdrawing it. Ratova was questioned

withdrawn.

>> She was questioned at the end of the judicial examination.

In that connection, in this part

you are withdrawing it.

>> Mr. Ofitserov, do you support

the motion as stated?

>> Yes, Your Honor.

>> You do support it. Ms. Sudinva.

>> I do.

>> Defense.

>> I support it.

>> Do you support

>> the position of the state prosecutors on the motions submitted?

motions.

Your Honor, the materials of the criminal

case under consideration today contain

sufficient information to resolve

the issues raised in the appellate

complaints. In addition, during the consideration

of the case on the merits by the court of first instance,

the court, including

the defense and the prosecution,

examined the reports contained in volume seventeen

of the criminal case: the accounting

expert examination dated December 12, 2011;

the financial expert examination dated March 6, 2012;

and

the economic expert examination dated April 9,

2012. The reports were prepared

by experts with sufficient professional experience

and adequate

knowledge in this field. They

considered and resolved all issues

relevant to the subject of proof

and other matters to be established in

these proceedings. At present

the prosecution sees no

grounds, just as it saw none at the time of

the consideration of the case by the court of first

instance. In this connection, the motion for

the appointment of a repeat

financial-economic

and commodity evaluation expert examination, in our

view, should not be granted.

>> Your Honors, esteemed colleagues, I support

my colleague's view that there is no

need to conduct, in the form of a

forensic financial examination,

or a commodity evaluation examination regarding

the defense's motion to

summon witnesses whose appearance it

insisted on. I also believe that it

should not be granted for the following

reasons. The witnesses may know

about the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of the supply contract

between KOGUP Kirovles

and the Vyatka Timber Company only

from the words of Opalev, who was questioned by the parties at

the trial court regarding the extent of

Navalny's participation in the activities of KOGUP

has been established, among other things, by other

evidence, including the testimony

of the persons examined: Chekov, Belykh, and Gaidar

whose statements are also contained in

the materials of the criminal case. Moreover,

the extent of Navalny's involvement

in the activities of KOGUP Kirovles

is also confirmed by audio recordings

of telephone conversations and materials

from electronic correspondence between the convicted persons.

The circumstances on which the

defense seeks the examination of Klim, were

fully explored during the court

hearings, including with respect to the participation

of Navalny in the work of the working group

on evaluating the effectiveness of the activities of

KOGUP Kirovles. The results of the audit

were the subject of examination, including

during the questioning of witness

Zagoskina. Employees of the Vyatka Timber

Company—Stalypin, Kryuchkova, Tipalikhin,

Kashina, Kashin, Makarova, Slifov, and

Potapenko—regarding circumstances connected with

the conclusion of supply contract No.

01/2009 concluded between KOGUP Kirovles

and the Vyatka Timber Company. They do not

have knowledge of this, as the convicted person himself explained.

Further, the financial relations of

KOGUP Kirovles and the Vyatka Timber Company

were studied during the examination of

physical evidence,

financial and accounting documentation, as well

as during the questioning of Bura, Bastrygina,

Ovsyannikova, and others, whose testimony

is contained in the case materials. Other issues

identified in the defense motion, under which

it asks to summon the indicated

witnesses, are not included in the scope of the charges against Navalny

and do not fall within the subject matter to be proven,

as provided for by Article 73

of the Criminal Procedure Code.

In addition, as

was rightly noted in the defense's motion,

the statements of the indicated persons are also

contained in the materials of the criminal case, and the judicial

panel has the opportunity to

review them in order to

form its own opinion.

As for the need to question

experts Kislyakova and Ionova regarding

clarification of the report of the panel

psychological and linguistic examination,

I believe that summoning them is also not

necessary, since

the experts' report was examined by the judges

of the trial court, volume fourteen, pages

214-260.

This report is complete,

well-reasoned, and contains no

ambiguities or doubts requiring

clarification or elaboration. There are no grounds

to doubt the qualifications or objectivity

of the experts, who possess sufficient

specialized knowledge. As

was also rightly noted by the

defense, witness Rykova conducted several

studies and reports in this case,

which were also examined at the court

hearings, and for the stated reasons

I also believe there is no need for

her questioning. Therefore, I ask that

the motion to summon these persons also be denied.

May I add something, please? Your

Honor, I would like to add, in response to

the defense's statement, which

indicated that the case file contains

accounting expert examinations and

economic expert examinations. These examinations

were ordered by an investigator of the

Investigative Committee here, in the city of

Kirov, within the framework of a case opened under

a different article of the law—not embezzlement, as

it is now,

what is now being imputed to me, but rather

causing damage without signs of theft.

I want to draw the court's attention to the fact that

the case was discontinued three times by the Investigative Committee, by the department of the

Investigative Committee for the Kirov

Region. And in the end

it concluded with my receiving

official notice that I had been

fully rehabilitated and had the right to

an apology from the prosecutor. And only after

the case was taken to Moscow

was it reclassified there.

Therefore, references to the expert examinations

contained in the case file are, in this sense,

completely unfounded, because

under those examinations—all of those examinations

support our position. They

were conducted under a different article,

a different legal classification, and there

entirely different questions were posed there,

not the questions that now require

answers within the framework of this case. Thank you.

>> Your Honor, if I may, I would just like

to clear up a few things now.

inaccuracies, if you will allow me to do so

to do that,

>> Please. And simply

the representative of the prosecution,

in responding and objecting to the granting

of the motion to call witnesses, said

that indeed, as the defense correctly noted,

the testimony of these

witnesses is contained in the criminal case file,

and may be examined by the court.

But, you see, Your Honors, they cannot

be examined by you for one

simple reason, namely during the trial

proceedings. And they cannot be

presented by us as evidence.

They cannot be examined by you for

one simple reason, because that is

precisely the point: these witnesses have not

been questioned. And we can examine their testimony

only if there are

material contradictions between what

they said orally, directly at

the court hearing, and what they

said at the preliminary investigation

stage. We cannot simply examine them now

just like that. It is unlawful. And again,

I want to clear up some

inaccuracies. I also want to say that,

you see, they were questioned during the investigation,

but we have for them not only

the questions that the investigator

put to them. We have questions

that the investigator simply did not

ask them. And we cannot be deprived of this

right to ask them those questions. And if

we were already denied in the court of first instance

the opportunity to question these persons, then I ask, Your Honors,

not to refuse to grant our

motion, at least at this stage.

>> Thank you. The panel of judges is retiring

to deliberate.

The ruling is announced.

The Judicial Panel for Criminal Cases

of the Kirov Regional Court, composed of

presiding judge Predkov,

judges Sechikhin and Mazyuta, with secretary

Prokhova, considered at the court hearing

the motions of defense counsel, attorneys

Mikhailova and Davydova, representing the convicted persons

Navalny and Ofitserov, and found as follows:

Defense counsel Mikhailova and Davydova,

along with filing supplements to

the appeals against the judgment in

relation to Navalny and Ofitserov, also

submitted written motions.

The first motion sought to summon to the court hearing

for questioning as

witnesses Akhmadulin, Klimov,

Stolypin, Kryuchkov, Akipalikhina,

Kashin, Makarova, Shchastlivtsev,

Potappinko, as well as experts Kislyakov,

Ionova, and Rykova. The second motion sought

the appointment of a repeat

financial-economic, as well as

merchandise valuation examination. A number of questions

were submitted in writing for the experts to resolve.

The motion to call

witnesses was justified by the fact that all

of the above-listed persons had been questioned during

the preliminary investigation and that their

testimony is of substantial importance to

the case and falls within the scope of proof.

The request for the examinations was justified by

the need to refute the substance of

the charges brought against Navalny and Ofitserov

and the factual circumstances

established in the judgment of the court

of first instance. Having heard at the appellate court

the opinions of

the convicted persons Navalny and Ofitserov,

defense counsel, attorneys Mikhailova and

Kobzev, Kobelev, and Davydova,

who supported the motions and the arguments

set out in support of them, and the prosecutors Petelina

and Cheremesinov, who considered that

the motions should be denied,

the judicial panel finds

that the motions are not subject

to being granted for the following reasons.

A review of the case materials showed that

the testimony of Akhmadulin, Klimov,

Stalypin, Kryuchkova, Tipovitina,

Kashin, Makarov, Slivtsev, and Potappinko, in

the form in which it is set out in the interview records,

does not have substantial significance

for the case. No sufficient and convincing

grounds showing that the said

witnesses could answer other

important questions were presented by the defense.

The summoning to the appellate court

of experts Kislyakov, Ionova, and

Rykova is also not necessary,

since the judicial panel does not

discern in the opinions any

ambiguities or doubts that would

require clarification. The arguments

in the appeals and supplements to them, with

detailed references to the evidence examined

by the court of first instance, including

the conclusions of the forensic

accounting, financial, and economic

examinations, are entirely clear and allow

the judicial panel to make a decision on

the merits. The defense's disagreement

with the experts' conclusions and the court's findings

is not grounds for ordering

a repeat financial, economic, and

merchandise valuation forensic examination.

On the basis of the foregoing, and guided by

Articles 271 and 389.13 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation,

the judicial panel ruled:

to deny the motions of defense counsel

Mikhailova and Davydova to summon to

the court hearing for questioning as

witnesses Akhmadulin, Klimov,

Stalypin, Kryuchkov, Tepalikhina, Kashin,

Makarova, Shchastlivtsev, Potappinko,

and experts Kiskova, Ionova, and Rykova.

and also to deny the request for the appointment of a commodity expert examination and

a repeat financial and economic

expert examination. Please, take a seat.

The court hearing

is resumed.

Moving on. Do the parties have any

motions for a renewed examination

of the evidence examined by the court

of first instance? Other than those on which

the judicial panel has already made a ruling,

uh, or those which the parties agree

may be omitted from examination in considering

the case. Defense?

>> Yes. Your Honor, I will state the general

position. We do not insist on a full

examination of all the case materials. I

believe they were thoroughly examined in

the court of first instance. Besides, the respected

colleagues had sufficient time

to review them before appearing in court.

>> The convicted defendants support this position.

>> Yes, I support it. I believe that after

the rejection of our motion, this no longer

makes the slightest sense.

>> Yes, I support that.

>> I support it, yes.

>> The prosecution

considers it possible to consider

the case without a repeated examination

of the evidence.

The court may conclude that there is no

need to re-examine those

items of evidence that were examined by the court

of first instance and are contained in the case

file.

>> Very well. Do the parties have any additions

to the judicial investigation? Convicted defendants, defense?

just a moment, just a moment

none?

None from the prosecution?

>> No, none, Your Honors. Very well.

Are the parties ready for closing arguments?

Debate.

>> Yes, ready?

>> Yes, we are ready.

>> Defense side, convicted defendants, are you ready?

>> Everyone is ready.

>> The side is ready.

>> What? The judicial investigation is declared

concluded. We now proceed to closing arguments.

The floor for closing arguments is given to the defense.

The order of speaking in closing arguments: as before.

>> As before, please. We are listening.

Your Honor, we have already set out in detail

our appeals, and I would like, as it were, to

sum things up. We believe that

the verdict of the Leninsky District Court

was delivered with the most serious violations

of criminal procedural

law.

The Navalnys and Ofitserov were found guilty

in the absence, in the complete absence,

of both the elements of a crime and the criminal act itself.

In considering the case, the court violated such

fundamental principles as

adversarial procedure and equality of arms. And

in addition, the court committed numerous

violations of the right to defense

and deprived the defendants and

their counsel of the right to question

witnesses. And furthermore, the court based its conclusions

on inadmissible evidence obtained

in violation of the law,

which is absolutely

unacceptable.

Moreover, the court showed clear

partiality and took the side

of the prosecution. And all these, uh,

violations, I believe, can lead to only

one result: the reversal of the unlawful

verdict. And accordingly, we ask the court

to issue an acquittal.

>> I ask that the verdict be overturned and the convicted persons

be acquitted.

I fully support all the arguments set out in

the appeal and the supplements to it.

I would especially like to support the argument of my

client, Alexei Navalny,

Anatolyevich,

>> that his criminal prosecution

is connected to political motives. I

believe that absolutely everyone understands this,

including all participants in these proceedings.

>> I see no point in taking part in the closing arguments.

I do not understand at all what the court will later

be examining, what it will rely on,

and

what circumstances it will take into

account, given that our motion for

an expert examination and for calling witnesses was

denied.

Thank you.

>> Yes.

Your Honor, I want to say that

today all of us, myself and my colleagues,

have been given the rather honorable duty

of defending innocent people. I have always

given due credit to my client's courage,

his bravery, his honesty,

but that has never prevented me from objectively

assessing the evidence

that was presented in the criminal

case and during

the trial.

And I believe that everything that was

presented during the judicial

examination on the merits in

the consideration of this criminal case at first

instance objectively and indisputably

demonstrates the innocence of my

client and the need, of course,

for his unconditional acquittal in view

of the absence of any criminal act itself.

I believe that the case contains a great deal of

evidence of this. And a detailed analysis of my

position, an analysis of the evidence,

and, in essence, why I express

disagreement with the decision rendered in this case

the verdict, as set out in the appeal filed by the defense.

I do not consider it advisable or

necessary to repeat all of that. I

believe that the court has reviewed the case materials

and has examined our appeals.

I only ask the court

to treat with understanding what is written there.

I ask the court not to disregard those

arguments set out in them, because

in my view, they are substantial

and weighty enough for this honorable

court to reach a unanimous decision on

the need to overturn the judgment issued in

this case, because that verdict

is indeed unlawful,

unfounded. And, most importantly for me,

this verdict is

unjust, because an innocent

person should not be in prison.

An innocent person must not be declared guilty,

because that undermines faith in

justice itself.

That is all.

Your Honors, I support my

lawyer, and

I will speak briefly, as I consider the agreement

unlawful, because it is not only illogical,

but also contrary to the laws of our country, and I

ask that it be overturned and that the case be

remanded.

>> So, has everyone for the defense spoken?

>> Yes.

>> The floor is given for closing arguments. The prosecution, please.

>> Honorable judges, I fully

stand by my objections in full,

submitted in response to the appeal

of the convicted persons and their defense counsel. I would like

to focus only on the following, that is,

to be more specific. In my view,

the Leninsky District Court of the city of Kirov

in considering this criminal

case correctly established both

the factual circumstances of the case and

also correctly assessed the legal classification of

the actions of the convicted persons themselves. It was correct

to classify Navalny's actions under

Part 3 of Article 33 and Part

4 of Article 160 of the Criminal Code

as those of a person who organized the crime and

directed its commission, that is,

embezzlement on an especially large scale, and

Ofitserov's actions were correctly classified

under Part 5 of Article 33

and Part 4 of Article 160 of the Criminal

Code of the Russian Federation as

aiding the commission of embezzlement on an especially

large scale by providing

information as well as the means for committing the

crime. The court's conclusion as to the guilt

of Navalny and Ofitserov in committing

the said crime is confirmed by

the totality of evidence collected in the case and

examined during the court hearings,

evidence that was obtained

in compliance with the requirements of the law and

objectively set out and assessed in

the verdict in accordance with Article 88

of the Criminal Procedure Code. They

are consistent with one another both as to

the factual circumstances of the case and do not

contain contradictions, and therefore

were rightly recognized by the court as admissible,

reliable, and taken as the basis

for the verdict. The court's conclusions regarding

the object, subject matter, and method of committing

the crime, the form of guilt, and other

data provided for by Article

73 of the Criminal

Procedure Code, also

received proper legal assessment in

the verdict. The court also examined

the version advanced by the defense of the convicted persons,

which we heard again today. All of it was given

a proper assessment in the verdict, which

explains why some evidence

was found reliable and why other

evidence was rejected. Moreover,

the arguments set out in the appellate

complaints have repeatedly been the subject

of judicial review. And no

new circumstances affecting the conclusions

of the court of first instance have been presented

by the defense. Contrary to the defense's claims,

the requirements of Article 217

of the Criminal Procedure Code were not

violated. The time for reviewing

the materials of the criminal case was not

limited. Defense counsel were provided with

all volumes of the criminal case, both during

the preliminary investigation and in the course of

the consideration of the criminal case, and therefore

they had the opportunity to return to

those volumes and review them

again. Moreover, during the court

hearing, the defense's motion

for additional review

of the case materials was granted. There were no

grounds either for returning

the criminal case under Article 237

of the Criminal Procedure Code

to the prosecutor, since the indictment

states in sufficiently specific terms

the substance of the charge, the place and

time of the crime, its

methods and motives, its consequences, and other

circumstances relevant to

the resolution of the case, which fully

complies

with the requirements of Article 220

of the Criminal Procedure Code. The argument

that the right to defense was violated by the court's

refusal to call new witnesses to the hearing

is unfounded and is not

supported either by the materials of the criminal

case or by the provisions of current

legislation. From the provisions of paragraphs 1

and 3(d) of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection

it follows from human rights law that all

evidence must be presented at

public hearings, in the presence of

the accused, in order to ensure

the adversarial nature of the proceedings. At the same time,

the accused must be afforded

an adequate and full opportunity

to summon and examine persons

testifying against him. During

numerous court hearings,

all prosecution witnesses were examined

who had been called to testify at trial, with

the exception of witness Baranov, whose

appearance and examination the parties did not

insist on, as well as witness Arzamass,

whose testimony given during

the preliminary investigation was

read into the record, but was not taken by the court into

account when rendering the verdict.

Acting within the law, in accordance with

Article 274 of the Criminal Procedure

Code, the prosecution was granted,

as the party examining the witness, the right to be the first

to obtain the information it sought, including

by reading out witness statements

given earlier. After

the statements were read out, the court also did not

prevent the parties from putting questions

to those persons, and therefore both the

defense and the prosecution were afforded

equal conditions during the examinations, as is

evidenced by the transcript of the court

hearing, including in the part concerning

the testimony of witnesses Opol, Bur,

Bastrygina, and others. Given the requirements

of the law that a criminal case be considered

only on the basis of the charges brought, the trial court

reasonably disallowed

questions from both the defense

and the prosecution to witnesses, including

those specifically identified as not

relevant to the subject matter to be proved,

as established by Article Seventy-

Three of the Criminal Procedure

Code, which is a necessary

condition for ensuring the lawfulness of

the trial proceedings. Nor was there any

violation of criminal procedure law

in the rendering of the verdict.

According to the charges brought,

Navalny and Ofitserov committed

the crime in complicity with Sopolev,

who was convicted by the judgment of the Leninsky

District Court of the city of Kirov on December 24,

2012. Therefore, when appearing as a

witness in this criminal case,

in accordance with the requirements of Articles 47

and 56 of the Criminal Procedure Code,

he was entitled to refuse to give

testimony against himself and

was not warned under Article 308 of the Criminal Code

in court, since the guilt

of Oplyav in committing the crime had been

established by a judgment that had entered into legal force.

by a court judgment. In accordance with

the requirements of Article 252,

of the Criminal Procedure Code,

the court reasonably identified him as a

co-perpetrator of the crime, giving his

actions the appropriate legal assessment.

Contrary to the arguments in the appeal, restrictions

on the defense in exercising its rights

provided for by Articles 47 and 53

of the Criminal Procedure Code were, by the court,

in accordance with Article 271

of the CPC. The parties were informed of their right

to file motions and challenges, which

the defense actively exercised throughout

the entire

trial, submitting and examining

financial documents, and calling

witnesses and contesting evidence.

Thus, in the case, the following defense witnesses were examined:

Merkusheva, Ovsyannikova, Ratov,

Gaidar, and Ofitserov, whose testimony formed part of the

basis for the verdict; financial documents were examined,

including report

No. 4/2011

dated April 5, 2011, as reflected in

the trial transcript. At the same time,