The “Kirovles Case.” Court video recording. Hearing 1

Yes.

This is mine, yours.

Right here, here, like this

let's go.

already, already

all right, the papers.

Oh, may I ask for something? So,

let's exchange signatures.

we will express our attitude toward the charges

please be seated.

The court hearing is open to the public.

The Leninsky District Court of the city of Kirov

continues its consideration of the criminal case

against Ofitserov and Navalny.

Today, as the secretary reported, the following appeared

at the court hearing: the defendants,

the public prosecutors. The composition has not

changed.

Defense counsel

for defendant Navalny, attorneys

Mikhailova

Kobzev.

The warrants

please pass them up according to the list.

And Pobelev, counsel for defendant Ofitserov,

attorney Davydova. Present is

the representative of the victim, Smerti, Pavel

Valeryevich. And he arrived together with

his counsel, attorney Glenov.

The warrant has been submitted to the court.

I announce to the parties that the court

hearing was adjourned until today

due to the motion filed for

the granting of

an opportunity for additional review

of the materials of the criminal case. The court

has been provided receipts from defense counsel

Davydova, Kobzev,

Kobelev, and Mikhailova stating that they

have partially reviewed the materials

of the criminal case. I also announce to the parties that

the defendants Navalny and Ofitserov did not appear before the court

to review the materials of the criminal case,

as confirmed by certificates on file.

Also, witnesses were summoned by the court

for today's hearing. These are

witnesses Bura, Zmeyev, Makoveyev,

Zagoskina, Kozlov. All of them have arrived at

the court hearing and are waiting in

a separate room. The court bailiffs have been

instructed to prevent their communication with

previously examined witnesses.

Accordingly, since new participants

have appeared in the proceedings,

I announce the composition of the court: the case

is being heard under the presiding

Judge Klinov, with the participation of the public

prosecutors, the head and prosecutor of the

state prosecution and appeals department of the

Kirov Regional Prosecutor's Office,

Bogdanov and Cheremesinov.

defense counsel for the defendants, attorneys

Mikhailova,

Kobzev, Kobelev, counsel for

defendant Ofitserov, attorney DV,

counsel for

the victim's representative, attorney

Blinov, as well as press secretary Korshnova.

Do the parties have any challenges to the composition of the court,

the public prosecutors, defense counsel,

or the court secretary?

Public prosecution, please.

No, none whatsoever.

And you, representative

and his counsel?

No. Do the defendants have any

at this stage? No.

And you?

At this stage, no.

Defense counsel Mikhailov, please.

Do you have any challenges at present?

At this stage? No.

And defense counsel

At this stage, no.

Defense counsel Kobelev, please.

No.

Defense counsel Davydova. At this stage,

we have no challenges. No challenges are raised.

Since not all participants

in these proceedings

were present at the previous

court hearing, the court explains to them that the

court hearing was adjourned

at the motions stage, and therefore

asks the parties whether they have any further

motions.

For the public prosecution, at this

stage there are none,

none.

Representatives of the victims, do you also have no

motions? Defense counsel?

Do the attorneys have any motions?

Yes, now, please.

On April 17, 2013, the Leninsky Court

of the city of Kirov adjourned the court

hearing until April 24 of this year, that is, until

today. The court stated that the adjournment

of the court hearing was necessary, among

other things, in order to provide me with time

to review the materials

of the criminal case. Thus, the court

gave me 4 days to

review the materials of the criminal

case, consisting of 31 volumes, that is,

almost 7,500 pages. This amount of time

is clearly insufficient to review

such a volume of documents.

As a result of being given such

a short period, I was unable

to review all the materials of the case,

therefore I ask the court to adjourn

the hearing until May 20.

for the consequences

Are there any motions from defense counsel

Kovdev and any opinions on the motion filed

now?

No, not now, therefore

Well, now therefore we, I, I support it, Your Honor.

Defense counsel Mikhailovich.

Yes, I support it and would like to note that

the defense has only partially reviewed

the materials of the criminal case.

You support it, defense? Yes, Your

Honor, I certainly support the motion

filed by my colleague. Moreover, I would like

to note that the four working days provided

were clearly not enough for him to review

the physical evidence as well.

I support it, Your Honor.

opinion on the motion filed.

Well,

Your Honor, in order to resolve

this motion, I ask that the receipts

submitted to the court and signed

by the court employee regarding attorney

Kobelev's review of the materials

of the criminal case be read out in full.

That is, I am interested in

the extent of his review and how much

time was spent on it

in hours.

The court reads out

the receipts and certificates from court employees regarding

the additional review of

the materials of the criminal case. Thus, there is

a receipt dated April 17, 2013 from attorney

Mikhailova. She stated that on April 17,

2013, she reviewed the materials of the criminal case.

There are no reservations

about partial review. Further,

there is a receipt from attorney Davydova.

She stated that she had reviewed the materials

of the criminal case.

There are no reservations about partial

review of the materials of the criminal

case.

There are no reservations about partial review of the materials of the criminal case.

Next, there is a receipt from attorney Kobelev,

stating that he reviewed the case materials,

the criminal case file from page

1 to page 126 in Volume One.

Next, there is a certificate from a court employee dated

April 17, 2013. The judge’s assistant,

Vitoshkin, as well as the court hearing secretary,

Ogorodnikov, were present in

the court building during the review, in the period

from 11:00 a.m. to 12:10 p.m., with defense counsel,

attorneys Mikhailova, Kobelev, and Davydova,

reviewing the materials of the criminal case concerning

Navalny and Ofitserov.

The defendants themselves, Navalny and Ofitserov, as well as

attorney Kobzev, did not appear to review

the case materials. After that,

attorneys Davydova and Mikhailova wrote

receipts stating that they had reviewed the case materials.

Attorney Kobelev indicated

in his receipt that he had reviewed

Volume One, from page 1 to page 126,

and also explained that he would appear in court by 6:00 p.m. on

April 18 at 9:00 a.m. for further

review. A similar certificate from

the secretary

Ogorodnikov follows. Next, there is a receipt from

attorney Kobellev stating that he

reviewed Volume One, from Volume One

through Volume One of the criminal case file, a receipt dated

April 18, 2013. Next, there is

a certificate

from the court hearing secretary

Ogorodnikov dated April 18, 2013. He

states that he was present from

9:00 a.m. to 12:20 p.m. during the review in

the premises of the Leninsky District Court

of the city of Kirov

by attorney Kobelev of the materials of the criminal case against

Navalny and Ofitserov.

The defendant and

attorney Kobzev did not participate in reviewing the case.

At the conclusion of

the review, attorney Kob... stated that

he had fully reviewed Volumes One through Twelve

of the criminal case and explained that

he would appear on April 19 at 9:00 a.m. Next,

there is a receipt

from attorney Koblya dated April 19, 2013,

according to which he reviewed Volumes One through

Nineteen in part. There is also

a certificate dated April 19, 2013 from the court hearing secretary

Ogorodnikov. He

states that he was present during

attorney Kobelev’s review of

the case materials from 9:00 a.m. to 12:05

uh, in the premises of the Leninsky District Court.

The defendant and attorney Kobelev did not appear

to review the case. In connection

with the lunch break, during the review,

Kobelev explained that he would appear after

lunch for further review.

Next, a certificate from the same day states that

attorney Kobelev reviewed the case materials

from 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

The defendants Navalny and Ofitserov, as well as

defense counsel Kobzev, did not appear for review of the case

materials. Attorney Kobelev indicated in his

receipt that he had reviewed Volumes One through

Nineteen.

Next, a certificate. Dated April 22, 2013,

from the court hearing secretary

Ogorodnikov, stating that attorney

Kobelev reviewed the case materials from

9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and from 2:00

p.m. to 5:00 p.m. the case

materials; the defendant and attorney Kobzev did not appear

to review the case. Attorney

Kobelev reviewed a total of twenty-

seven volumes of the criminal case and explained that

on the twenty-third there is a receipt from

attorney Kobelev stating that he partially

reviewed the materials of the criminal case

from Volume One through Volume Thirty-One and

was not limited in time.

There is a certificate from the secretary of the court

hearing dated April 23, 2013; he

stated that he was present during

attorney Kobelen’s review of

the criminal case materials from 8:30 a.m. to

10:30 a.m.

The defendant and attorney Kobzev did not appear to review

the case.

Attorney Kobelev partially reviewed

Volume Thirty-One of the criminal

case, as noted in his receipt. Next,

there is a certificate from the judge’s assistant stating

that on April 23, 2013,

he was present from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. during

the review of the criminal case materials by

attorneys Kobzev and Mikhailov,

Mikhailova.

The defendants did not appear to review the case.

Attorneys Kobzev and Mikhailova indicated

in subsequent receipts that they had partially

reviewed the case materials. Next,

there is a receipt from defense counsel Mikhailova and

Khzev and defense counsel Obziev stating that they

partially reviewed the materials of the

criminal division concerning the new one.

These are all the documents concerning the motion. Your

Honor, in this connection I ask that

the motion filed by defense counsel Kobelev

be denied,

because, as we can see, the court

provided

attorney Kobelev with the right to review

the criminal case materials in full.

He was not limited in time,

however, as we can see from the receipts

submitted by court employees, and from

the receipts also submitted by

defense counsel Kobelev himself, he reviewed them

during incomplete working days, that is,

from one hour to three hours. On one day

he reviewed the criminal case materials for 5 hours. As of April 22,

he had reviewed, out of thirty-two volumes of the

criminal case, Volumes One through Thirty-

One. Therefore, there are no grounds

for concluding that attorney

Kubelev did not fully review

the criminal case materials and

that the time provided to him

was insufficient at present.

I ask that the motion be denied

because they are abusing the right to review

the case materials; in principle, that is all,

for the prosecution.

>> I fully support my colleague.

I believe that the defense side of the defendants

continues to deliberately delay the consideration

of the criminal case, thereby

violating the requirements of

the criminal procedure

legislation of the Russian Federation.

>> As the representative of the victim,

I leave it to the court’s discretion.

]} }## Result to=final code sorry, I’ll provide the corrected JSON only.{

>> the opinion of his defense. Here is yours

consideration

the court heard the motion and the parties’ positions

on the motion and established that on April 17,

2013, during the court

hearing, the court granted the motion

of the defense for additional review of the

materials of the criminal case and set

a deadline for additional review until April 24,

2013. As follows from the certificates of the

court staff, on April 17 the defense lawyers

for Mikhailov, Davydov, and Kobelev reviewed the

criminal case materials from 11:00 a.m. to

12:10 p.m. Based on the results of the review,

the lawyers for Mikhailov and Davydov wrote

receipts stating that they had reviewed the

criminal case materials; they made no

reservations in their statements about

incomplete review of the criminal case

materials.

Further, as follows from the receipts and certificates of the

court staff, attorney Kobelev

reviewed the criminal case materials on

April 17, 18, 19, 22, and 23, 2013,

each time for less than a full working day,

and fully reviewed all thirty volumes

of the criminal case, as well as part of the

thirty-first volume, which contains only

the indictment. The statement

also indicated that the time for

review had not been limited. On April

23, 2013, at the request of attorneys

Mikhailov and Mikhailov and Kovzev, they were again

provided with all the materials of the

criminal case for review.

The attorneys reviewed the criminal case

materials for less than a full working day and

in their receipts indicated that they had reviewed the

case only in part. The defendants Navalny

and Ofitserov were not deprived

of the opportunity to review the criminal

case materials; no time limit on

reviewing the case during

the period granted for additional

review was imposed by the court. The defense

was provided with all volumes of the criminal case,

in connection with which they had the opportunity

to return to volumes of the criminal case

with which they had become acquainted earlier. And

from the foregoing the court also concludes that

the new motion to adjourn the court

hearing has no objective

grounds and, for the reasons stated,

rules to deny the defense

the motion to adjourn the

court hearing and to provide

the defense with the opportunity for

additional review of the

case materials during breaks between

court hearings in the course of the trial

proceedings.

The decision on the motion has been made. Are there

any other matters regarding attorney

Kobelev’s motion?

>> Attorney Kovzev, please.

>> Yes, Your Honor, there is a motion to

return the criminal case to the prosecutor.

The motion is signed by Navalny, his

defense lawyers, and Ofitserov, as well as his

defense counsel. It has been prepared in writing.

I will read it out.

clearly and audibly.

Please.

>> We believe that the criminal case

currently before you concerning

the accusation against Navalny of committing an offense

under Part 3 of Article 33

and Part 4 of Article 160 of the Criminal

Code of the Russian Federation, and the

accusation against Ofitserov of committing

an offense under Part

5 of Article 33 and Part

4 of Article 160 of the Criminal Code

of the Russian Federation, is subject to

being returned to the Deputy Prosecutor General

of the Russian Federation in

the manner established by Article 237

of the Criminal Procedure Code.

In accordance with Paragraph 1 of Part

1 of Article 237 of the

Criminal Procedure Code, a judge

upon motion of a party or on the court’s own

initiative may return a criminal case

to the prosecutor to remove obstacles to its

consideration by the court in cases where

the indictment, bill of indictment,

or indictment ruling

has been drawn up in violation of the requirements

of this Code, which excludes

the possibility of the court issuing a

verdict or making another decision on

the basis of this indictment, bill, or

ruling.

According to the legal position of the

Constitutional Court of the Russian

Federation expressed in Ruling No. 18-P of

December 8, 2003, in the case on

reviewing the constitutionality of the provisions

of Articles 125, 219, 227, 229, 236, 237, 239, 246,

254, 271, 378, 405, and 408, as well as Chapters 35 and

39 of the Criminal Procedure Code

of the Russian Federation, in connection with requests

from courts of general jurisdiction and complaints by

citizens, from Articles 46, 50, 52, 118, 120,

and 123 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and

the legal positions of the

Constitutional Court of the Russian

Federation based on them, it follows that a

court of general jurisdiction, in conducting

criminal proceedings, may upon motion

of a party or on its own initiative

return a criminal case to the prosecutor

to remove obstacles to its consideration

by the court in cases where substantial

violations of criminal procedure

law were committed in the pretrial

proceedings and cannot be remedied in the

judicial proceedings, if the return of the

criminal case to the prosecutor is not connected with

making up for the incompleteness of the inquiry

or preliminary investigation.

At the same time, eliminating the violations

committed presupposes carrying out the investigative

and other procedural actions necessary

for that purpose. Otherwise,

participants in the criminal

proceedings whose rights and legitimate

interests were violated in the course of the pretrial

proceedings on the merits would be deprived

of judicial protection.

Also according to the legal position of the

appellate court, from Articles 215, 220,

221, 225, and 226 of the Criminal Procedure

Code of the Russian Federation, in

accordance with which the indictment or bill of indictment as

the final documents of the investigation or

inquiry, issued upon their completion,

are drawn up when the investigative

actions in the criminal case have been carried out,

and the collected evidence is sufficient

to prepare the specified documents.

It follows that if, at the pre-trial stages

of criminal proceedings, there were

violations of the norms

of criminal procedure law, then neither

the indictment, nor

the bill of indictment can be regarded

as having been prepared in accordance with

the requirements of this Code within the meaning of

paragraph one of part one of Article 237

of the Criminal Procedure Code

of the Russian Federation

in conjunction with

paragraphs 2–5 of part one of the same

article, as well as with Articles 215, 220,

221, 225 and 226

of the Criminal Procedure Code

of the Russian Federation. The return of a case

to the prosecutor in the event of a violation of the requirements

of this Code in the preparation of the

indictment or

bill of indictment may take place

upon a motion by a party or on the initiative

of the court itself, if this is necessary

to protect the rights and lawful interests

of a participant in criminal proceedings

where a statement made at the court

hearing by the accused or

the victim, as well as their representatives,

concerning violations committed at the pre-trial stages

is confirmed, where such violations cannot be remedied

during the trial.

At the same time, grounds for returning the case

to the prosecutor, in any event, are

a substantial violation of criminal

procedure law committed

by the inquirer, investigators or

prosecutors, by virtue of which

the court is precluded from issuing

a judgment or other decision. Such

violations in pre-trial proceedings,

of the requirements of the Criminal Procedure

Code of the Russian Federation, which

cannot be remedied in the court

hearing, preclude the adoption in the case

of a judicial decision that meets

the requirements of fairness, and always

indicate, among other things,

the non-compliance of the indictment

or bill of indictment with the requirements

of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The said ruling of the Constitutional

Court of the Russian Federation, and therefore

the legal positions set out in it,

remain in force. The

constitutional-law meaning identified by the Constitutional Court of the

Russian Federation

of the provisions of Article 237

of the Criminal Procedure Code

is universally binding and excludes

any other interpretation of them in

law-enforcement practice.

In accordance with paragraph 14,

of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court

of the Russian Federation dated March 5, 2004,

No. 1, On the Application by Courts of the Norms of the

Criminal Procedure Code

of the Russian Federation, violations committed in

drawing up an indictment

or bill of indictment of the requirements

of criminal procedure

law should be understood as such violations

of the provisions set out in Articles

220 and 225 of the Criminal Procedure

Code that preclude

the possibility of adopting a judicial decision on

the merits of the case on the basis of the given

indictment or bill

In particular, the possibility is excluded

of rendering a judicial decision in cases

where the charge set out in

the indictment or

bill of indictment does not correspond

to the charge set out in the ruling on

bringing a person as an accused.

Where the indictment or

bill of indictment is not signed

by the investigator or inquirer, or is not

approved by the prosecutor, where the

indictment or

bill of indictment lacks an indication

of the accused’s prior conviction,

data on the accused’s whereabouts,

information about the victim, if he or she was

identified in the case, and so forth.

If it becomes necessary to eliminate

other obstacles to the consideration of the criminal

case specified in paragraphs 2–5 of part

one of Article 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code

of the Russian Federation, as well as in other

cases where substantial violations

of the law were committed in pre-trial proceedings

that cannot be remedied in the court

hearing. The elimination of such violations is not

connected with remedying the incompleteness

of the inquiry conducted or

the preliminary investigation. The judge,

in accordance with part one of Article 237

of the Criminal Procedure Code,

on his or her own initiative or upon

a motion by a party, in the manner

provided for by Articles 234 and 236

of the Criminal Procedure Code,

returns the case to the prosecutor

to eliminate the violations committed. In those cases,

where a substantial violation of the law,

committed at the pre-trial stage,

constituting an obstacle to the consideration of

the criminal case, is identified during the trial.

The court, if it cannot

remedy such a violation independently,

upon a motion by the parties or on its own

initiative, returns the case to the prosecutor

to eliminate the said violation, provided

that this will not be connected with

remedying the incompleteness of the

inquiry conducted or the preliminary investigation.

When rendering a decision to return

the criminal case to the prosecutor, the court should

proceed from the fact that a violation at the

pre-trial stage of the rights guaranteed by the

Constitution of the Russian Federation,

of the accused’s right to judicial protection

and of the victim’s right of access to justice and

compensation for the damage caused,

precludes the possibility of rendering

a lawful and well-founded judgment.

The defense believes that the criminal case concerning

the charges against Navalny and Ofitserov cannot

be considered on the merits by the

Leninsky District Court of the city of Kirov and

must be returned to the prosecutor for

the removal of obstacles to its consideration

by the court on the grounds set out below.

First.

The indictment in the present

case, volume 31, was drawn up in violation of

the requirements set out in paragraph

four and paragraph eight of part one

of Article 220 of the Criminal Procedure

Code of the Russian Federation. Since

the indictment, in violation of

paragraph eight of part one

of Article 220 of the Criminal

Procedure Code, does not state

the amount of damage caused by

the crimes. In accordance with paragraph

four of part two of Article 171

of the Criminal Procedure Code, the

decision to charge a person as an

accused must contain a description

of the crime, indicating the time and place

of its commission, as well as other

circumstances subject to proof

in accordance with paragraphs one through four

of part one of Article 73

of this Code. According to paragraph

four of part one of Article

73 of the Criminal Procedure

Code, in criminal proceedings

the nature and

amount of damage caused by the crime

must be proved.

In accordance with paragraph eight of part

one of Article 220

of the Criminal Procedure Code, in

the indictment the investigator indicates

information about the victim and the nature and amount of

damage caused by the crime. During the

pre-trial proceedings in the case, as well

as when drawing up the indictment,

the aforementioned legal provisions were

violated. From the text of the indictment

against Navalny, volume

31, pages 6

through 8 of the indictment, and Ofitserov, volume 31, pages

96 through 97 of the indictment,

it follows that, quote, during the period from 15

April to 30 September 2009 in the city of

Kirov, Opalev, using his

official position, and Ofitserov, acting

intentionally in coordination with Navalny and on

his instructions, ensured the performance

of the terms of supply contract No. 01/2009

dated 15 April 2009 and the appendix to

it. As a result,

KOGUP Kirovles shipped timber products

worth 16,165,826

rubles 65 kopecks

to the following counterparties of VLK. As a result, the total

volume of timber products supplied by Kirovles

to VLK's counterparties

amounted to 10,084

cubic meters.

During the period from 15 April

to December 2009, for the указанный объём

of timber products, funds in the amount of 16

million 3,880

rubles 28 kopecks were received into VLK's settlement account. Thus, Opalev, acting

jointly with Navalny and

Ofitserov, embezzled property in the form of

Kirovles timber products in the amount of 10,084

cubic meters worth 16,165,826

rubles 65 kopecks. Thus, in

the decisions to charge Navalny,

volume 28, case file page 79, and Ofitserov, volume 27,

case file pages 98–117, as accused persons dated

17 January 2013, and in the indictment,

volume 31, indictment pages

6–8 and 96–97, there appear two

different and mutually exclusive amounts

of damage caused to KOGUP Kirovles,

namely 163,880

rubles 28 kopecks and 16,165,826

rubles 65 kopecks. At the same time, the investigation indicates

the same volume of stolen

timber products: 10,084 cubic

meters. Based

on the requirements of paragraph eight of part

one of Article 220 of the Criminal

Procedure Code, the indictment must

clearly and unambiguously state

the amount of damage caused by

the crimes. In this case, this

requirement of the law has not been met,

since in the text of the indictment

against Navalny and

Ofitserov, as the amount of damage

caused by the crime, there appear two

different monetary amounts. Moreover, from

the narrative of the indictment it is not

clear how, given the theft of

10,084 cubic meters of timber products from

Kirovles and the receipt into VLK's account

from counterparties of funds for

the said timber products in the amount of

16,3.880

rubles, the damage caused to KOGUP Kirovles

amounted to 16,165,826

rubles 65 kopecks.

Based on the foregoing, the defense

concludes that the indictment

was drawn up in violation of, among

other things, paragraph eight of part one

of Article 217 of the Criminal Procedure

Code of the Russian Federation. This

ground in itself constitutes

grounds for returning the criminal

case to the prosecutor, since the indictment

was drawn up in violation of the

requirements of the Criminal Procedure

Code of the Russian Federation, which

precludes the court from rendering

a verdict or other decision on

the basis of this indictment. Paragraph one

of part one of Article 237. Moreover,

the defense notes that vague and

contradictory charges lead to

a violation of the defendants' right to a defense.

Second,

violation of the requirements of paragraph six

of part one of Article 220 of the Criminal

Procedure Code in drawing up

the indictment. In

accordance with paragraph six of part

one of Article 220

of the Criminal Procedure Code, the

indictment must contain

a list of evidence

relied on by the defense and a brief

summary of its contents.

As can be seen from the text of the indictment

against Ofitserov, volume 31,

indictment pages 179 through

181, the evidence

relied on by the accused Ofitserov and his defense counsel is the testimony of the accused

Officerov, Volume 27, case file pages 108–13.

At the same time, the indictment

briefly summarizes the text of the said testimony

by Officerov. However, contrary to the requirements

set out in paragraph 6 of part 1

of Article 220 of the Criminal Procedure

Code, the indictment

does not include all the evidence

to which the accused Officerov and

his defense counsel refer. In Volume 27, case file pages 108

–13, there is a record of the interrogation

of the accused Officerov dated January 18, 2013,

which the defense does indeed

cite in support of its position,

and which indeed constitutes one of the

defense’s items of evidence. As follows from

the record of the interrogation of the accused Officerov

dated January 18, 2013, Volume 27, case file page 110,

during the interrogation Officerov stated:

"I would particularly like to note that I do not understand

the essence of the charges brought, since

for all the timber products supplied to

VLK

payment for the goods was made

by bank transfer, as confirmed

by the copies attached to this interrogation

of payment orders on 74 pages.

The timber products supplied were paid for

at average market prices, and some items

at above-market prices; consequently,

there was no gratuitous seizure

of property from KOGUP Kirovles (a Kirov Region state-owned forestry enterprise)." The record of Officerov’s interrogation was

accompanied by payment documents

confirming the fact of settlements by VLK

with KOGUP Kirovles, to which he refers

in support of his position and which,

in his view, constitute evidence

in his defense. Volume 27, case file page 114, from page 114

to 187. As is apparent from the materials of the

criminal case, in Volume 27,

case file pages 114–187 contain copies

of the payment documents submitted by Officerov

that were in his possession,

confirming the possibility of a transaction between

VLK and KOGUP Kirovles, as well as payment

for KOGUP Kirovles products at their actual

market value. The defense particularly

notes that the payment documents located in Volume 27 on

case file pages 114 through 188

were submitted to the investigation as

defense evidence. Meanwhile,

the text of the indictment in

relation to Officerov, Volume 31, pages of the

indictment from ninety-one

to 2011, in the section "List

of evidence relied on by

the defense and a brief summary of its

contents," contains no indication that

the defense relies, in addition to the record

of the interrogation of the accused Officerov in Volume

27, case file pages 108–113, also on the attached

copies of payment documents

Volume 27, case file pages 114 through 187.

Consequently, in violation of paragraph 6

of part 1 of Article 220

of the Criminal Procedure Code, the

investigator did not indicate the defense evidence in the indictment

and did not reflect its brief content, although

the record of the interrogation of the accused

Officerov contains a direct reference to

evidence attached to the record

of his interrogation. Taking into account the circumstances

set out in this section,

the indictment cannot be regarded

as complying with the requirements of part 1

of Article 220 of the Criminal Procedure

Code of the Russian Federation. In

accordance with the requirements of Articles 236 and

237 of the Criminal Procedure

Code, the criminal case against

Navalny and Officerov is subject to

return to the prosecutor for the removal of

obstacles to its consideration by the court.

Since the indictment in

the present case was drawn up in violation of

the requirements of Article 220

of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Third ground. Violation of the requirements

of paragraph 3 of part 1 of Article 220

of the Criminal Procedure Code in

drawing up the indictment.

The defense notes that the indictment

in the present case does not

meet the requirements of paragraph 3

of part 1 of Article 220

of the Criminal Procedure Code,

since the indictment does not

set out the place and time of the commission of the

crime and the circumstances relevant

to the criminal case.

At the stage of the preliminary investigation,

repeatedly, including on January 17 and 18,

2013, the accused Navalny and Officerov

stated that the charges brought against them were non-specific and unclear.

The corresponding statements are reflected

in the records of the interrogations of the accused. In

accordance with part 5 of Article 172

of the Criminal Procedure Code,

when presenting charges the investigator must

explain to the accused the essence

of the charges; however, this was not done.

In particular, all of Navalny’s statements

made when the charges were presented to him,

were left unanswered by the investigation.

The investigation ignored and refrained

from clarifying the following circumstances,

to which Navalny referred in his

statement made during his interrogation

on January 17, 2013. What exactly

unlawful,

legally prohibited actions did I commit?

How, without conducting a forensic

financial and economic examination,

did investigators, who do not possess

special expertise, conclude that there was

the theft of KOGUP Kirovles timber products

in the volume of 10,084

cubic meters on the amount of 16,165,826

rubles and 65 kopecks

(about 16.17 million rubles)?

Why does the charge fail to take into account

the data available to the investigation

showing the absence

of signs of theft, as reflected in the

forensic accounting examination conducted

in this criminal case? In particular, the

expert opinion No. 79 dated December 12,

2011 states that LLC VLK in

the period from April 15, 2009 to September 30,

2009 transferred to KOGUP Kirovles (a Kirov Region state-owned forestry enterprise)

]}numerusform്analysis to=final 手机天天彩票Result code omitted since final already given above.}numerusform്final 大发彩票官网 大发云json{

result : [

timber for timber products 14.78

785.94

66 kopecks

As a result, the investigation ignored

and failed to reflect in the indictment the fact that

the criminal case file contains

payment orders and bank statements

confirming the transfer of funds

for the products from VLK’s account to

the settlement account of Kogubkirov Les in the amount of

more than 14 million rubles. Those violations that

were committed by the investigation at the stage of

the preliminary inquiry were not

taken into account by the investigators and subsequently

during the submission of the indictment

under Article 220 of the Criminal

Procedure Code. Thus,

in violation of paragraph three of part one of

Article 220, the indictment

against Navalny and Ofitserov does not

contain any specific information about

where, when, and under what

circumstances Navalny entered into

a criminal conspiracy with Sopolev and

Ofitserov, having conspired in advance to

commit crimes. Also, in

particular, the text of the indictment

does not contain any

specific factual information about how

Navalny’s role exactly

as the organizer of the crime was expressed, namely,

where, when, to whom, and in what form, and under

what circumstances, and what specific

instructions he gave regarding the commission of

criminal acts.

The absence in the joint indictment of

specific information concerning

the substance of the charges brought

against Navalny and Ofitserov, the allocation

of roles, the place and time of the commission of the

crimes, and the entering into a criminal

conspiracy violates not only the right to

defense of the accused, but also leads to

the need to return the criminal

case to the prosecutor under Article 237 of the

Criminal Procedure Code due to the

indictment’s failure to comply with the requirements

imposed on it by Article 220 of the Criminal

Procedure Code. If

the charges brought against Navalny and Ofitserov

are not properly

specified, this will violate

the defendants’ right to a defense, an

essential condition of which is the

right of the accused, provided for by Article 6.3(a) of the European

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms,

to know what he is accused of. Since

the charges brought against Navalny and

Ofitserov are unclear and

non-specific, the accused do not have

a full opportunity to object to

them, to present evidence of

innocence, including an alibi and other

evidence refuting the charges.

It is impossible to file motions

to request or attach to the case

additional evidence, or to ask for

verification of particular circumstances.

According to the legal position of the Plenum of the

Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, when

deciding whether to return a

criminal case to the prosecutor, the court should

proceed from the fact that violations at

the pretrial stage of the rights guaranteed by

the Constitution of Russia, including the accused’s

right to judicial protection and the victim’s rights

to access to justice and compensation

for damage caused, preclude

the possibility of issuing a lawful and

well-founded verdict. This is set out in

Resolution No. 1 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court dated

March 5, 2004.

Thus, the violations committed of

paragraphs one, three, four,

and five of part four of Article forty-

seven, paragraphs one and two of part

one of Article seventy-three, paragraph

four of part two and part three of

Article 171, and paragraphs three and

four of part one of Article 220 of the

Criminal Procedure Code

preclude the court from adopting a

decision on the merits of the case on the basis of

the indictment as drafted.

These violations cannot be

remedied by the court independently, and their

remedy would not be connected with

making up for any incompleteness of the

preliminary investigation conducted, which gives

the defense grounds to file

a motion to return the criminal

case to the prosecutor in accordance with

Articles 236 and 237 of the

Criminal Procedure Code.

The fourth ground is

a violation of the requirements of Article 221

of the Criminal Procedure Code when

sending the criminal case to court.

According to part one of Article 221

of the Criminal Procedure Code

of the Russian Federation, the prosecutor’s decision

in a criminal case is as follows: the prosecutor

reviews the criminal case received from the investigator

with the indictment and, within 10 days,

takes one of the following

decisions on it: to approve the indictment

and send the criminal

case to court; to return the criminal

case to the investigator for the conduct of

additional investigation, modification of

the scope of the charges or the legal classification of

the defendants’ actions, or redrafting of the

indictment and correction of the

identified deficiencies, together with the prosecutor’s

written instructions; or

to send the criminal case to a higher

prosecutor for approval of the indictment

if it falls within the jurisdiction of a

higher court. In accordance with

part one, paragraph one of Article 221 of the

Criminal Procedure Code, in

the event of complexity or a large volume of the

criminal case, the period established by

part one of this article may

be extended, upon a reasoned motion,

by a higher-ranking prosecutor to 30

days.

The criminal case against Navalny and

Ofitserov was received with the indictment by the Prosecutor General’s Office

of the Russian Federation on March 20, 2013.

And on that same day, by 4:30 p.m.,

Navalny was summoned there to be served with it.

Navalny was summoned there to be served with it.

Navalny was summoned there to be served with it.

Navalny was summoned there to be served with it.

a copy of the approved indictment

report. According to the receipts

available to the court, this is volume

32, pages one and two, the indictment

report was received by the defendants

Navalny and Ofitserov on March 20, 2013.

As can be seen from the cover letter,

which is contained in volume 32

of the case file, page 8, on March 20, 2013, the criminal

case was sent to court. Given

that on the same day, March 20, 2013,

the criminal case received by the Prosecutor General’s Office

of the Russian Federation,

consisting of 31 volumes, was reviewed.

The indictment report was also

reviewed and approved. The defendants were

served with copies of the indictment report.

And on that same day, March 20, 2013,

the criminal case was sent to

the Leninsky District Court of the city of Kirov.

The defense concludes that in

reality neither the criminal case against

Navalny and Ofitserov, nor

the indictment reports, were reviewed.

The indictment report was approved

formally. The fact that

the criminal case together with the indictment

report was only formally

considered by the prosecutor led to the fact

that the indictment report,

drawn up in violation of the requirements

of Article 220 of the Criminal Procedure

Code, was approved, and the case together

with it was submitted to the Leninsky District Court

of the city of Kirov.

Fifth ground.

Contradiction between the charges brought

against Navalny and Ofitserov and the requirements

of criminal law and the position of the Supreme

Court of the Russian Federation.

Navalny is charged with

committing crimes

provided for by Part 3 of Article

33, Part 4

of Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian

Federation; Ofitserov is charged with

committing crimes

provided for by Part 5 of Article

33 and Part 4 of Article

160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian

Federation.

As stated in the text of the indictment

report,

the crime imputed to Navalny

and Ofitserov was committed under the following

circumstances. I quote: "Opalev V.N.,

realizing that as a result of creating

this enterprise, meaning VLK,

and further work with it, as

Vyatka Forest Company, property damage would be caused

did not take any actions aimed at

preventing Navalny’s unlawful actions,

and agreed to

the latter’s proposal, thereby

entering into a prior criminal conspiracy

with Navalny and Ofitserov,

aimed at embezzling the entrusted

timber property of Kirovles in an especially

large amount. According to paragraph 22

of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court

of the Russian Federation of December 27, 2007,

No. 51, on judicial practice in

cases of fraud, misappropriation and

embezzlement, theft of entrusted property

should be considered committed by a group of persons

by prior conspiracy if

two or more persons participated in the crime

who meet the indicated characteristics

of the special subject of misappropriation or

embezzlement. For example, the head

of an organization in whose possession

the stolen property is located, and an employee who bears

financial liability under a contract

for that property, who

agreed in advance to jointly commit

the crime.

As follows from the indictment report,

in the commission of the imputed

act imputed to the defendants

only one person participated

who meets the characteristics of the special subject

of embezzlement. This is Opalev.

At the same time, the defendants Navalny and

Ofitserov are also alleged to have entered into

a prior criminal conspiracy

aimed at embezzling the property

of Kirovles. And as a consequence,

committing the crime provided for in

Part 4 of Article 160 of the Criminal

Code. Although they,

Navalny and Ofitserov, do not meet the characteristics

of the special subject, as stated in

the explanations of the Supreme Court of the Russian

Federation set out in the Resolution

of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of December 27, 2007,

No. 51 on judicial practice in

cases of fraud, misappropriation,

embezzlement, which directly contradicts

criminal legislation.

This violation, committed during

the preliminary investigation, cannot

be remedied by the court and excludes

the possibility of the court making a decision on

the merits of the case on the basis of the prepared

indictment report. Sixth

ground.

Non-conformity between the indictment report

with respect to Navalny and the decision on

bringing Navalny as

an accused person dated January 17, 2013.

On January 17, 2013, Navalny was

presented with the decision to charge

him as an accused person in its

final version.

Comparing the text of the decision to charge

Navalny as an accused person dated January 17,

2013 and the text of the indictment

report, the defense concludes

that these two procedural documents do not

correspond to each other. In particular, in

the decision to charge Navalny as

an accused person dated January 17, 2013,

there is an indication that

Navalny acquired the status of attorney on

October 15, 2009 and is currently

a member of the Moscow City Bar

Association and has registration

number 77/991

in the register of attorneys of the city of Moscow. In

the indictment report, volume 31 of the case, page 1,

this specified text fragment is absent.

In the period between the bringing of

the said charge against Navalny and

the drafting and approval in the case

of the indictment, that is, from 17

January 2013 to 20 March 2013,

no charges in any other wording were

brought against Navalny, which is fully

confirmed by the case materials. Moreover,

both during the stated period

and at present,

Navalny had and continues to have the status

of a lawyer, that is, this circumstance

has remained unchanged.

It should be emphasized that from paragraph

four of part two of Article 171

of the Criminal Procedure Code

it follows that the decision

to charge a person as an accused

must contain descriptions

of the crimes, indicating the time, place

of their commission, as well as other circumstances

subject to proof in accordance with

paragraphs one through four of part one

of Article 73

of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The decision to charge

dated 17 January 2013, after

the words on page one there appeared

grounds for changing the charges brought

by setting them out in a new

wording, and from the words on page eight

"on the basis of the foregoing and","guided by" contains

the charge formulated by the head

of the Main Investigative Directorate of the

Investigative Committee of Russia, Major General

of Justice Shchukin, against Navalny based on

the results of the review of the materials

of the criminal case, that is, the wording quoted

above: "Navalny acquired

the status of lawyer on 15 October 2009 and

is currently a member

of the Moscow City Bar Association

and has registration number 77991

in the register of lawyers of the city of Moscow," is an

integral part of the charge brought

and falls within its scope. Taking into account

the above circumstances, the defense comes

to the conclusion that the investigator,

when presenting the indictment,

arbitrarily changed the factual basis

of the charge brought against Navalny on 17

January 2013. It should be noted

that when an investigator

comes to the conclusion that it is necessary

to amend the charge, he is guided by

the requirements of Article 175

of the Criminal Procedure Code and, in

accordance with Articles 171 and 172,

issues a new decision to charge

a person as an accused and presents it to

the accused. In the period from 17 January 2013

to the present, the investigator has not

issued any decisions under Article

175 of the Criminal Procedure Code. At

the stage of drawing up the indictment

under the procedure provided for by

Article 220 of the Criminal Procedure

Code, amendment amendment of the charge is not

permitted. Thus, the defense

comes to the conclusion that the investigator,

having changed the charge brought against Navalny

at the stage of drawing up

the indictment, by excluding from

the charge the indication that Navalny

acquired the status of lawyer on 15 October

2009 and is currently

a member of the Moscow City Bar Association

and has registration number 77/9991

in the register of lawyers of the city of Moscow,

violated the requirements of Article 220

of the Criminal Procedure Code, which

entails the necessity

of returning the criminal case to the prosecutor

to remove obstacles to its

consideration by the court on the basis of

part one of Article 237

of the Criminal Procedure Code. On

the basis of the foregoing, in accordance with

the requirements of Articles 47, 53,

237, and 271 of the Criminal Procedure

Code,

we ask that the criminal case on the charges against

Navalny of committing the crime

provided for by part three of Article

33 and part four of Article

160 of the Criminal Code, as well as on

the charges against Ofitserov of committing

the crime provided for by part five

of Article 33 and part four

of Article 160 of the Criminal Code, be returned

to the Deputy Prosecutor General

of the Russian Federation

for the removal of obstacles

to its consideration by the court.

Navalny, Ofitserov, Mikhailova, the arguments

at present the lawyers and the court

support the motion as stated, voiced by

counsel

support

>> Counsel Mikhailov, please, do you wish

>> I support it in full

>> Counsel Vydav,

>> yes, of course I support it, I believe it

should be granted

>> support Ofitsia

>> I support it in full

>> is it necessary to hear the opinion, time for

preparation

>> yes, Your Honor, in connection with the motion received

from the defendants and their

defense for returning the criminal case

to the prosecutor under Article 237 of the Russian Federation

time is necessary. We ask that a recess be declared

for the study of this motion, the formulation

of positions, and the preparation of our arguments.

How much time?

>> Half an hour, I think, is sufficient.

supporting

you support

also receive a copy and

>> granting additional time

>> the court declares a recess in the court

session until 10:30

deposit

of the recording.

Quieter.

Don’t shake your head.

I do not remember, this situation is of the utmost importance,

because we believe that the indictment in

this case does not withstand any

criticism and it cannot be considered

now. That is, there it is not at all

to be heard

listen

>> Your Honor, having studied the motion,

we believe that the mo motion for

returning the case to the prosecutor under 237

of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is

unfounded and should be denied

by a subsequent ruling, contrary

to the arguments set out in the said motion by defense counsel,

The indictment in full corresponds

to the relevant decision on

bringing as an accused

of Navalny, which is contained in

in the criminal case, on pages 798 of the case file

it is located in volume twenty-eight, as

both in the amount of damage caused, as the press has suffered,

and in the information about the status

of Navalny. In accordance with Article

seventy-three

of the Criminal Procedure Code

of the Russian Federation, in a criminal case

the following is subject to proof: the event,

the crime, including the time, place,

the method of its commission, as well as other

qualifying elements. The indictment,

contrary to the arguments of the defense motion,

complies with the requirements of Part

One of Article 220 of the Criminal Procedure

Code of the Russian Federation. It

states the substance of the charge, the place and

time of its commission, the methods, motives, as

well as the consequences of the caused

material damage. These elements, in

principle, are what must be proved during

the judicial examination of this

criminal case. In accordance with

the requirements of Article 221

of the Criminal Procedure Code,

the prosecutor reviews the criminal case with

the indictment submitted to

him within 10 days. Criminal

law, criminal law does not

provide for a minimum

period for familiarization with the materials

of the criminal case. Thus, in this

case as well, the motion in this part

is unfounded. In accordance

with Part One of Article 220

of the Criminal Procedure

Code of the Russian Federation, the indictment

must indicate, along with the evidence

for the prosecution, and

the evidence relied on by

the defense, which was done. In the list of

evidence in the indictment,

the record of the interrogation of the accused

Ofitserov is indicated, which is located in volume 27 on

pages 108113 of the case file, with a brief summary

of the arguments that were made by him

during his interrogation. Further

specification of the content of those arguments,

including references to other documents

relevant to the materials

of the criminal case, is not required in the indictment.

For these

reasons, we ask that

the motion be denied and

the consideration of the criminal case

on the merits be continued.

Please,

>> Your Honor, I fully support

my colleague. By way of addition,

I would like to state that, in general, part of

the arguments

of the defendants and the defense regarding disagreement with

the refusal, at the preliminary

investigation stage, of a number of their motions,

are not currently subject to consideration. I believe that

this could be done after the presentation

of the substance of the charges and the examination

of the evidence, that is, at any

subsequent stage of the trial

>> at the court's discretion

>> to resolve the motion, the court retires to the

deliberation room; the decision on the motion will be

announced today

at 2:00 p.m.

>> Please do not remove the papers.

It is simply easier to assess than to do something.

Ruling of April 24, 2013, city of

Kirov, district court of the city of Kirov

composed as follows: presiding

judge, with the participation of the state

prosecutors, head of the department of state

prosecution and appeals of the prosecutor's office of the Kirov

Region, Bogdanov, prosecutor of the department

of state prosecution and appeals of the

region, Cheremesin,

the representative of the victim and his defense counsel,

attorney

the defendant Navalny, his defense counsel,

attorneys Mikhailova and Kobalev, the defendant

Ofitserov, his defense counsel, attorney

presiding secretary Poshin, the court considered at the hearing

the materials of the criminal case

against Alexei Navalny

Anatolyevich, accused of committing

the offense предусмотренного by Part

Three of Article Thirty-Three and Part

Four of Article 160, and Pyotr Yuryevich Ofitserov,

accused of committing an offense

under Part Five of Article 33 and Part

Four of Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and established that

during the court hearing, the defendants and their

defense counsel filed a motion to return the

criminal case to the prosecutor in accordance

with Part One of Article 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation on the

following grounds: the indictment does not indicate

data on the amount of damage

caused by the crime, given

that two different sums appear in the indictment:

16,380

rubles kopecks and 16,165 rubles 165 5,826 rubles 65

kopecks. The indictment does not

set out, as evidence,

the defense documents

confirming the fact of payment under VLKAS

Vybrovlesk; the indictment does not

reflect information about where, when, and under

what circumstances Navalny

was particularly involved and Ofitserov was not

specified, nor is it stated what exactly Navalny's role

as organizer of the crime consisted of.

The indictment was approved

by the prosecutor only formally, was received by the prosecutor,

approved by him, and sent to court in one day.

The charge presented, the charge brought

against Navalny and Ofitserov, contradicts the

requirements of criminal law and the position

of the Supreme Court. Thus, the indictment

states that Navalny, Ofitserov, and OOO

entered into collusion. However,

Navalny and Ofitserov are not

special subjects of the crime

provided for by Part Four of Article

160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The charge brought

against Navalny in the decision to bring him

as an accused does not correspond to the

charge set out in the indictment,

because the first document

states that Navalny acquired and has

the status of attorney, while in the second document

this information is not indicated.

The state prosecutors stated that

the motion should be

denied, as it is unfounded.

The representative of the victim and his defense counsel

did not express their opinion on the motion.

stated. Having heard the parties' views, the court

comes to the following. In accordance with

paragraph 1 of part 1 of Article 137

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court, upon a party's motion or on

its own initiative, returns

the criminal case to the prosecutor to remove

obstacles to its consideration by the court if

the indictment has been drawn up in

violation of the requirements of this

Code, which excludes the possibility

of the court passing a sentence or

issuing another decision on the basis

of that indictment. Such grounds

have not been established by the court. The defense's arguments

that the case file does not specify

the amount of damage caused as a result of

the crime are unfounded.

Indeed, the indictment states

several different amounts, which

are given in describing the event of the

crime. However, the amount

of damage caused by the crime is stated

clearly and understandably in the following phrase. Thus,

accordingly, Oplyu acted jointly with

Navalny, who organized and directed

the commission of the crime, and the accomplices

acted using their

official position as general

director of Kirovles and from selfish

motives, unlawfully embezzling

another's property in the form of

forest products of Bukberov Les in the amount of

10,000

84 and 277,000 cubic meters on the amount of 16,165,826

rubles 65 kopecks. That is, on an especially large

scale, for the benefit of third parties, the participants

in the crime and the property damage caused to the owner

of this property, controlled by Rin under

VLKCHIN, namely Kirovles.

The court does not discern any contradictions in stating

the amount

of damage caused

or any violation of paragraph 8 of part 1

of Article 220 regarding the certification of the indictment. The defense's arguments that

the indictment does not set out

as defense evidence

documents confirming the fact of payment for

OBLK 14 years old, I ask for quiet

are also unfounded. The indictment

sets out the evidence

relied on by the defense, including

the testimony of the accused officer in

volume 2, sheets 18-113,

from which it follows that the entire volume

of forest products purchased from UKRS was

paid for by OOP VLK by bank transfer

through IKB Vetkabank. Indeed, after

setting out the said testimony in

the indictment there is no

list or description of the

uncertified copies of payment

orders attached to the accused

officers' inspection and interrogation report

in volume twenty-seven at pages of the case file

114187.

However, in setting out the evidence for the

prosecution, the payment

order, properly seized and

certified, is cited as

evidence. Its contents are set out in

volume thirty-one at pages of the case file

141-142.

The Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation does not prohibit the defense

from relying, in support of its arguments, on

evidence collected by the

preliminary investigation authorities and

set out in the indictment

as prosecution evidence. In this connection,

the court does not find any violation of paragraph

6 of part 1 of Article 220 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in

drawing up the indictment.

The defense's arguments that the

indictment does not reflect

information about where, when, and under what circumstances

Navalny entered into a criminal

conspiracy with Sropolev and

Ofitserov, and that it is not indicated

what exactly Navalny's role

as organizer of the crime consisted in, are also

unfounded. In accordance with paragraph

3 of part 1 of Article 220 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the

indictment must state

the substance of the charge, the place and time

the crime was committed, its methods and

motives, aims, consequences, and other

circumstances relevant to

this criminal case. All these

circumstances are set out in the indictment adopted

in sufficiently specific

form, to the extent that they were established

by the investigation. The court sees no grounds

on which the defense would be unable

to object to

the charges brought, to present

evidence of innocence, including

an alibi and other evidence

refuting the charges. In addition, the court

takes into account that, in accordance with Article

14 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the duty

to prove the charges and rebut

the arguments advanced in defense of the accused

lies with the prosecution. All doubts

as to the guilt of the accused are interpreted in their

favor. The court is not entitled to prejudge these

issues at the stage of resolving motions.

The defense's arguments that the indictment

was approved by the prosecutor

formally are regarded by the court as far-fetched and

unsupported by law. No

evidence confirming that

the prosecutor who approved the indictment

did not study the criminal case has been

presented to the court. The prosecutor made

the decision to approve the indictment

and to send the criminal

case to court, which is confirmed by his

signatures on the indictment and

the accompanying documents dated March 20, 2013.

At the same time, Article 221 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation,

which regulates this stage of the proceedings,

does not provide for minimum time limits

for prosecutors to make a decision on

a criminal case with an indictment submitted by the investigator

to the investigator.

The defense's arguments are also not based on the case

materials that the

charge brought against Navalny and

Ofitserov contradicts the requirements of

criminal law and the position of the Supreme

Court, since Navalny and Ofitserov

are not special subjects

of the crime provided for in part

4 of Article 160 of the Criminal Code, as follows from

of the charges brought against Navalny, he

is accused of having organized

the commission of the crime and directed

the execution of the embezzlement, that

is, the theft of another person’s property,

entrusted to the convicted person, on an especially large

scale. His actions have been classified by the investigative authorities

under Part 3 of Article

33 and Part 4 of Article

160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. As follows from the charges

brought against Ofitserov, he is accused

of having aided and abetted

the commission of embezzlement, that is,

the theft of another person’s property entrusted

to the guilty party, on an especially large scale by

providing information and means

for committing the crime. His actions

have been classified by the investigative authorities under

Part 5 of Article 33

and Part 4 of Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Thus,

the defendants are not charged with

co-perpetration in the commission of

the crime. At the same time, the court takes into account

that in accordance with Article

14 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the burden of

proving the charges, including that

the accused is a proper subject

of the crime imputed to them, rests with

the prosecution. The court has no right

to prejudge this issue at the stage

of deciding motions. The arguments of the

defense that the charges

brought against Navalny, as set out in the

decision to bring him as an

accused, do not correspond to the charges

set out in the indictment,

because the first document states that

Navalny obtained the status of a lawyer. In

the second document, these statements are not

mentioned. The court also finds

these arguments unfounded. Indeed,

the decision to bring Navalny as an

accused dated January 17, 2013,

volume twenty-seven of the case file, page 86,

states, after setting out the circumstances of the

crime, information to the effect that

Navalny obtained the status of a lawyer and

is currently a member of

the Moscow City Bar Association.

This phrase is not in the indictment. In

accordance with paragraph 3 of part

1 of Article 220 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the indictment

must state the substance of the

charges, the place and time of the

crime, the methods and motives,

goals, consequences, and other

circumstances relevant to

this criminal case. The stated

requirements for the preparation of the indictment

have been complied with. At the same time, the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation does not

contain a requirement for mandatory

word-for-word correspondence between the decision

to bring a person as an accused and the

indictment. Proceeding from

the fact that the information that Navalny

obtained the status of a lawyer is not

set out in the indictment,

the court concludes that this

circumstance is not imputed

to the defendant, since the court has not established

circumstances that would preclude

the possibility of the court issuing a

judgment or another decision on the

basis of the indictment drawn up in

the case, the motions of the defendants and

their defense counsel to return the criminal

case to the prosecutor must be denied on

the basis of the foregoing and guided by

Articles 237, 256, and 271 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the court ruled

to deny the motion

of the defendants Navalny and

Ofitserov and their defense counsel, attorneys Mikhailova,

Kobzev, Kobelev, and Davydova, for

the return of the criminal case to the prosecutor in

accordance with Article 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The ruling

has been signed. This ruling itself

is not subject to separate appeal. Please

be seated.

Are there any other motions from the

defense? Oh, defense, Your Honor, we

have a statement,

>> please.

>> A joint statement from the defense and from

both defendants.

On April 3, 2013, Judge Blinov of the Leninsky

District Court of the city of Kirov

refused to hold a preliminary

hearing in this criminal case. On April 17,

2013, the court refused the defense

sufficient time to familiarize itself with the materials of the

criminal case, placing the defense

in clearly unequal conditions compared with

the prosecution, which had been

investigating this criminal case

for 2 years. On April 24, 2013,

the court denied the defense

motion to return the

criminal case to the prosecutor, placing

the defense in conditions in which it is necessary

to defend itself against vague,

contradictory, far-fetched,

politically motivated charges.

The position taken by the court in this criminal case

casts doubt on

the impartiality and independence of the court.

This is confirmed by the following. All

the accused and their defense counsel

clearly and understandably expressed their

wish for a preliminary

hearing to be held due to the existence of grounds

provided for in points one, two,

and three of part 2 of Article 229

of the Criminal Procedure Code, and

carried out all actions предусмотренные

by criminal procedure

legislation that were necessary

for holding a preliminary

hearing, as reflected in the materials of the

criminal case. There were no lawful

grounds to doubt the necessity

of holding a preliminary hearing, much

less to refuse to hold it.

However, the court took a position

contrary to the provisions of Article 229

of the Criminal Procedure Code,

having before it motions from the accused and their

defense counsel for a preliminary

hearing, and instead of unconditionally scheduling

a preliminary hearing, the court issued

]} }numerusformassistant to=final 】【。】【”】【Result 大发快三开奖结果 code 429 more than 1 line?{

result

:[

a decision in which it stated that no grounds

for holding a preliminary hearing

in the case were apparent and therefore

the motions of the defendants and their defense counsel

should be denied. Such a position

of the court cannot be accepted. The law

does not vest the court with the authority to give

any assessment of a motion made

at the pre-trial stage for

holding a preliminary hearing.

Nor does the Criminal Procedure Code

of the Russian Federation

contain any requirements whatsoever

as to the form in which a defendant must express

the wish to exercise the right to

a preliminary hearing, or as to

the need to provide any special

justification for that wish. This is all

the more so in circumstances where the defendants and their

defense are being unlawfully restricted during

their review of the materials of the criminal

case and are making the corresponding

application in that connection.

Accordingly, in these circumstances the court could not

engage in assessing the merits,

necessity, or expediency

of holding a preliminary hearing, and

still less consider the question of whether to order

or not order a preliminary

hearing. Thus, among the

powers of a federal judge there is no place for

assessing a defendant’s wish

to exercise the right to a

preliminary hearing, nor for refusing

such a motion.

It is entirely obvious that, by refusing to hold

a preliminary hearing in

these circumstances, the court not only

prematurely, without the participation of the parties,

undertook an analysis of the defense motion,

but also completely eliminated the possibility

for the defendants to exercise their rights

provided for by Chapter 34 of the

Criminal Procedure Code.

At preliminary hearings, in particular,

they may file motions, present

additional arguments, request

additional evidence,

and seek additional time

to review the materials of the

criminal case. By its actions, the court

restricted the defense in the very right

to file motions and, as

a consequence, in the right to a fair

trial under conditions

of adversarial proceedings and equality

of arms.

Thus, even before the start of

the trial, by failing to hold

a preliminary hearing, the court expressed

its interest in the outcome of this case

and demonstrated that the parties

would not be afforded equal

procedural opportunities, and that the court

would not be fair. Equally

indefensible is the court’s refusal to

provide sufficient time for

the defendants and their counsel to review

the materials of the criminal case and

the physical evidence. Four

working days, granted by the court to attorney Kobelev, who had only recently

joined the case, for

reviewing the materials of the criminal

case, consisting of 31 volumes and

numerous items of physical

evidence, cannot in any way be regarded

as reasonable or conducive to the exercise

of the right to a defense.

In addition, the court’s desire

to review the materials of this criminal case

within an extremely short period,

despite the fact that they contain vague, contradictory,

and non-specific charges, gives rise to

serious concern and bewilderment. By rejecting all

arguments of the defense regarding the existence of obstacles to

the court’s consideration of this case and

the need to return it to the prosecutor, the court

completely deprives the defense

of the opportunity to exercise its rights to defend itself against

unfounded charges.

We believe that the court’s refusal to hold

a preliminary hearing, its refusal to

provide sufficient time for

reviewing the materials of the criminal

case and preparing the defense position, its refusal

to return the criminal case to the prosecutor,

despite the existence of obstacles to

the court’s consideration of the case,

indicates that the judge had already formed,

before the start of the judicial investigation (trial on the merits),

an opinion as to the defendants’ guilt,

that the judge had adopted a prosecutorial stance and,

as a consequence, that the judge is not objective

and not impartial.

Part 1 of Article 120 of the Constitution

guarantees that judges are independent

and subject only to the Constitution

of the Russian Federation

and federal law. A judge’s independence also includes

his or her impartiality.

Part 4 of Article 15 of the Constitution

guarantees that the generally recognized principles and

norms of international law and

the international treaties of the Russian

Federation form an integral part of its

legal system. The principles

of unimpeded access to justice,

and of judicial independence and impartiality,

are recognized by the international

community as fundamental.

According to Article 10 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights, everyone,

for the determination of the validity

of any criminal charge brought against him or her,

is entitled in full equality

to a fair and public hearing

with all the guarantees of fairness

by an independent and

impartial tribunal.

Developing these provisions further, the Convention for

the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,

and the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights, established that

everyone, when charged with a criminal offence,

has the right to a fair and

public hearing within a

reasonable time by an independent,

impartial, and competent tribunal

established by law, with

the principle of equality before

the courts being observed.

The Basic Principles concerning

the Independence of the Judiciary, adopted

by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of

offenders, approved by a resolution

of the UN General Assembly 40/32 of 29

November 1985, provide for the

following guarantees. The judiciary

shall decide matters before them impartially

on the basis of facts and in accordance with

the law, without any restrictions,

improper influence, inducements,

pressure, threats, or interference,

direct or indirect, from whatever

quarter and for whatever

reason. The principle of the independence of the judiciary

entitles and requires the judiciary

to ensure the fair conduct

of judicial proceedings and

the observance of the rights of the parties.

The requirements for judges’ application of

principles establishing standards

of judicial ethical conduct, including

the principles of independence and

impartiality, are set out in the resolution

of the UN Economic and Social Council

of 27 July 2006. Strengthening

the basic principles of judicial conduct.

The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct.

According to this international legal

instrument, the independence of the judiciary

is a prerequisite for ensuring

the rule of law and the fundamental guarantee

of the fair resolution of a case in court.

Consequently, a judge must uphold and

put into effect the principle of judicial

independence in both its individual and

institutional aspects. A judge must

perform judicial functions

independently, based solely on

an assessment of the facts in accordance with

a conscientious understanding of the law,

independently of any external

influence, inducement, pressure, threat,

or interference, direct or

indirect, from any

source and for any purpose.

A judge must not only avoid any

relationships or influences

incompatible with judicial office from the

executive and legislative

branches of government, but must also do so

in a manner that is apparent even to an outside

observer.

In addition, Resolution No. 12

of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of 18

September 2002 on the establishment of the

European Commission for the Efficiency of

Justice, adopted by the Committee of Ministers

on 18 September 2002 at the 808th meeting of the

Ministers’ Deputies, requires

states, members of the Council of Europe,

to create and maintain a judicial

system that ensures

the hearing of cases by an independent,

impartial, and competent court

capable of effectively exercising its

powers.

A similar position was set out by the

Constitutional Court of the Russian

Federation in its ruling of 19 April

2007 2010 No. 8-P in the case concerning

the review of the constitutionality of paragraphs

two and three of part two of Article

thirty and part two of Article 325

of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection

with complaints by citizens Znaguddinov,

Kudayev, Fayzulin, Khasanov, Shavayev, and

a request from the Sverdlovsk Regional Court.

The ruling of the Constitutional Court

of the Russian Federation of 8 December 2003

No. 18-P in the case concerning the review of the

constitutionality of the provisions of Articles 125,

219, 227, 229, 236,

237, 239, 246, 254, 271, 378, 405, and 408, as

well as Chapters 35 and 39 of the Criminal

Procedure Code of the Russian

Federation, in connection with requests from courts

of general jurisdiction and complaints by citizens,

set out the following legal position. From

the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian

Federation and the corresponding

provisions of Article 6 of the Convention for

the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,

it follows that justice, by its very

nature, may be recognized as such only on

condition that it meets the requirements

of fairness and ensures

effective restoration of rights. In

order to protect the rights and lawful

interests of such participants in proceedings as

the accused and the victim,

they must be given the opportunity to bring

to the court’s attention their position on the merits of the

case and those arguments which they consider

necessary to substantiate it. This

rule finds its expression in Article

13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms, according to

which everyone whose rights and

freedoms have been violated must have the right to

an effective remedy

before a state authority, even in

cases where such a violation

has been committed by persons acting in

an official capacity.

By virtue of Articles 46–52, 118, 123, 126

of the Constitution of the Russian Federation,

the judicial function of resolving a criminal

case and the function of prosecution must be

strictly separated. Each of them

is assigned to the corresponding subjects.

The court, however, exercising judicial power

through criminal proceedings

on the basis of adversarial procedure and equality

of the parties during the proceedings, may not

take the side of either

the prosecution or the defense,

replace the parties by assuming their

procedural powers, but must

remain an objective and impartial

arbiter.

Imposing on the court duties in one form or

another to perform the function of prosecution

is inconsistent with the provisions of Article

123 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and

hinders the independent and

impartial administration of

justice, as required by Articles 10,

118, and 120 of the Constitution of the Russian

Federation, Article 6 of the Convention for

the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and

paragraph 1 of Article 14

of the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights.

As a guarantee of the procedural rights

of participants in criminal proceedings,

the constitutional principles of justice

presuppose strict compliance with

criminal prosecution procedures.

Therefore, if procedural violations

committed by the inquiry bodies or the

preliminary investigation authorities

are identified, the court is entitled,

independently and autonomously,

in administering justice, to take

measures in accordance with criminal

procedure law to remedy them for the

purpose of restoring the violated rights

of participants in criminal proceedings

and creating the conditions for a full

and objective consideration of the case

on its merits. In this way, persons

participating in criminal proceedings,

above all the accused and the victim,

are guaranteed by Article

46 of the Constitution of the Russian

Federation the right to judicial

protection of their rights and freedoms,

as well as other rights enshrined in its

Articles 47–50 and

52.

However, in this case the court took the

side of the prosecution, refrained from

restoring the rights of the defense

side violated at the pretrial stage of

the proceedings, and considered it

possible to examine a clearly unlawful

and arbitrary charge.

In a number of judgments, including

Kyprianou v. Cyprus and Pabla Ky

v. Finland, the European Court stated

the following: "In a democratic society

it is important that the courts inspire

public confidence, and, if it is a

criminal trial, the confidence of the

accused. To that end, Article 6 of the

Convention requires judicial bodies

falling within its scope to observe

impartiality."

Impartiality usually means

the absence of prejudice and

interest in the outcome of the case.

However, in this criminal case, all

the above requirements of Russian

and international legal instruments, as

well as the legal positions of the

Constitutional Court of the

Russian Federation and the European Court

of Human Rights, were ignored by the

judge.

In a truly fair trial, the court should

not have restricted the defense in its

right to hold a preliminary hearing,

should have provided sufficient time to

review the materials of the criminal

case and coordinate the defense

position, and should have properly

assessed the arguments regarding the

impossibility of this case being heard

by the court and the need to return the

criminal case to the prosecutor. However,

even before the trial began,

ignoring the requirements of laws and

legal acts and violating the rights of

the accused, who were deprived of the

opportunity to defend themselves against

a non-specific charge, the court took

the side of the prosecution and in fact

acted as counsel for the prosecution,

which had failed to properly conduct the

preliminary investigation and formulate

the charges.

The court, like the Investigative

Committee of the Russian Federation,

which publicly stated on April 12, 2013,

that the proceedings against Navalny,

who was irritating the authorities,

should be accelerated, and the Prosecutor

General's Office of the Russian

Federation, which in less than a day

examined 31 volumes of the criminal case

and reviewed

one box of physical evidence, is making

every effort to finish this political

trial, which is inconsistent with the

purposes of justice, as quickly as

possible. The position taken by the

judge of the Leninsky District Court of

the city of Kirov before the examination

of this criminal case on the merits

proves that the judge is not free from

outside influence, is not independent,

impartial,

or objective, and is incapable, when

rendering judicial decisions,

of being guided solely and exclusively

by the law. On the basis of the above,

guided by Articles 61,

62 and 64 of the

Criminal Procedure Code,

we move to recuse Federal Judge

Blinov. Please pass it on,

please. Counsel Kubelev, your view?

I suppor

I support it. I support it.

I believe that the motion for recusal is

properly reasoned and has been made in

accordance with the law. I

support it.

I support it.

For the state.

We object to this. Yes, right now,

for the beginning of the court hearing, we

agreed with the court's side. We do not

The position of the victims' representative.

Counsel will state it,

please.

Your Honor, as far as we were able to understand

from the considerable volume of information

that was voiced,

in support of its arguments the defense

relies on those arguments that have

already essentially been the subject of

judicial consideration, namely, directly

in the court hearing and pursuant to Part

2 of Article 256,

with withdrawal to the deliberation room and

the issuance of a separate ruling. And

from this it follows that, in essence, the defense

interprets the court's refusals, all

the court's refusals of the motions filed,

as the court's interest in the case. With this

position we cannot agree.

We believe that there are no real grounds in

this situation.

The issue of recusal of the judge shall also be

resolved in the deliberation room. The court

withdraws for deliberation. The decision on

the motion filed will be announced

today at 3:00 p.m.

I ask everyone to rise.

No, I mean

place. Guys,

give me the first one again.

Ruling of April 24, 2013, city of

Kirov—the Leninsky District Court of the city of

Kirov, composed of presiding judge

Blinov, with the participation of the state prosecutors, head of the department of state prosecution and appeals of the Kirov Region Prosecutor's Office, V. N. Bogdanov, prosecutor of the department of state prosecution and appeals of the Kirov Region Prosecutor's Office, Cheremisinov, representative of the victim's death, his defense counsel, attorney Blinov,

the defendant Navalny, his defense counsel,

attorneys Mikhailova, Kobzev, Kobelev,

the defendant Ofitserov, his defense counsel,

attorney Davydova, and press secretary

Korshinov, having considered in open

court session the materials of the criminal

case against Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny,

accused of committing

an offense under part three of

Article 33 and part four of

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

accused of committing an offense

under part five of Article thirty-

three and part four of Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,

found as follows: "During the court hearing,

the defendants and their defense counsel filed a motion to recuse

the presiding judge on the grounds

that in the case their motion for a

preliminary hearing had not been granted, they had not

been given sufficient time to

review the materials of the criminal

case, and their motion for the

return of the criminal case to the prosecutor under

Article 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation had not been granted, which casts

doubt on the court's impartiality and

independence." The state

prosecutors stated that the motion for

recusal should be denied.

The victim's representative did not

state a position on the recusal. Counsel

for the victim's representative objected

to the recusal of the judge. Having heard the opinions of the parties, the

court comes to the following. The grounds for

recusal of judges are governed by part

one and part two of Article sixty-

one and Article sixty-three

of the Criminal Procedure Code

of the Russian Federation, according to

which a judge may not participate in

proceedings in a case if he is

the victim, civil plaintiff,

civil defendant, or witness

in the given criminal case,

has participated as a juror,

expert, specialist,

interpreter, attesting witness, court

session secretary, defense counsel,

legal representative of a suspect,

accused person, representative

of the victim, civil plaintiff, or

civil defendant, as well as

in the capacity of an inquiry officer, investigator,

prosecutor in the proceedings in the given

criminal case, is a close

relative or relative of any

of the participants in the proceedings in the given

criminal case, and also in cases where

there are other circumstances giving

grounds to believe that he is personally, directly

or indirectly interested in the outcome

of the given criminal case; repeated

participation of a judge in the consideration of a

criminal case is impermissible.

The stated grounds

preventing the presiding

judge from considering the criminal case

are absent; the assertion of a lack of

independence and impartiality

of the judge due to the fact that he adopted the

decision to schedule the court hearing

without conducting a preliminary

hearing is unfounded.

In accordance with part two of Article

229 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, a preliminary hearing

is held if there is a motion by a party

to exclude evidence, filed

in accordance with part three of this

article; if there are grounds for

returning the criminal case to the prosecutor in

the cases provided for by Article 237 of the

Code;

if there are grounds for

suspending or terminating the criminal case;

if there is a motion by a party to conduct the

trial in the manner

provided for in part five of Article 247

of this Code; to resolve the issue of

considering the criminal case by a court with

the participation of a jury; if there is a judgment not yet entered into legal force

providing for a suspended

sentence for a person in respect of whom the court

has received a criminal case for a previously

committed offense. In

accordance with part three of Article 229

of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, a motion for a

preliminary hearing may be

filed by a party after familiarization with

the materials of the criminal case, or after

the criminal case has been sent with

the indictment or

charging instrument to the court, within three

days from the date the accused receives a copy of the

indictment or

charging instrument. In the materials of the

criminal case there are records

of familiarization with the materials of the criminal

case by the accused Ofitserov and his defense counsel

Davydova, volume thirty, case file pages

4170, as well as by the accused Navalny,

his defense counsel Mikhailova and Kobzev, volume

twenty-nine, case file page 1922,

in which in the column regarding motions for the

holding of preliminary hearings in

the cases provided for by Article 229 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation,

it is stated: I wish to. Similar brief

requests for a preliminary

hearing in the case are contained in motions

by the accused and defense counsel to terminate the

criminal case, addressed to the

head of the investigative group, volume

thirty, case file pages 15 and 7991, and not to

the court. In accordance with paragraph seven of the

Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court dated

December 22, 2009, No. 28, on

the application by courts of the norms of criminal

procedure legislation

governing the preparation of a criminal case

for trial. If

a party's motion does not contain

reasons and grounds for holding a

preliminary hearing, the judge, in

the absence of such grounds, adopts a

decision to deny the

motion and schedules the court hearing.

Since, when adopting the decision to

deny the motion

of the accused and defense counsel for a

preliminary hearing in the case, the court

took into account the stated

requirements of the guiding explanations.

guiding clarifications

as expressed by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation,

the motion for recusal based on allegations of

the presiding judge’s dependence and bias

in the outcome of the

case is unfounded. Moreover,

all motions whose consideration

is possible at a preliminary

hearing may, if there are

grounds, also be filed and considered at

the court hearing when

the criminal case is being heard on the merits,

when the criminal case is considered

on the merits. Thus, in accordance with Article

271 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, during the court hearing on 17

April 2013, the court explained to the parties

their right to petition for the summoning of new

witnesses, experts, specialists, for

the production of physical evidence

and documents, or for the exclusion

of evidence obtained in violation

of legal requirements. No such motions from

the defense side have to date

been received. The court also considered

the motion for the granting of additional

time to familiarize themselves with the materials of the

criminal case. This motion

was granted both during the court

proceedings on 17 April 2013 and

on 24 April 2013. The court also accepted

for resolution the motion to return the

criminal case to the prosecutor and issued a

procedural decision on it. Under these

circumstances, all the arguments of the defense side

that the court restricted their rights and clearly

are manifestly unfounded. Moreover, the

defense side, by seeking the recusal of the

presiding judge,

is in fact expressing disagreement with the court’s

decisions on their motions. At the same

time, the defense side has failed to take into account that, in

accordance with Part Two of Article 389

point 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, rulings on

granting or denying motions

of participants in the trial and

other court decisions issued during

the trial,

are appealed in appellate proceedings

simultaneously with the appeal of the final

judicial decision in the case. In view of the

foregoing, the motion

of the defendants and defense counsel for the recusal of the judge

should be denied. On the basis of the

foregoing and guided by Articles 266,

256, and 271 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the court ordered to deny

the defense side’s motion to recuse the presiding

judge. The court ruling has been signed.

Please be seated.

>> Does defense counsel Kobelev have any

other motions?

>> Does defense counsel Kobzev have any

motions? Does defense counsel

Mikhailova have a motion

>> at this stage? No.

>> Does the defendant Navalny (Alexei Navalny) have any

motions?

>> At this stage, no.

>> Does defense counsel Davydova have a

motion

>> at this time? No.

>> Does the defendant Ofitserov have any

other motions?

>> No.

>> No.

>> As has already been reported by the court,

witnesses for today’s hearing were summoned

to the court hearing

from the prosecution side.

Bura, Zmeev, Makaveev, Zagoskina,

Kozlov.

All the above-mentioned witnesses are in

a separate room.

The bailiff has been instructed

to ensure that the questioned witnesses do not communicate

with witnesses who have not yet been questioned.

Therefore,

all participants in the proceedings

who were summoned to

the court hearing are currently present.

On these grounds, the court proceeds to

the judicial investigation. The floor for reading out the

charges is given to the

public prosecutor, please.

>> Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny (Alexei Navalny) is charged,

born on 4 June 1976, with committing

the following crime.

Navalny, while in the city of Kirov,

wishing to enrich himself by criminal means,

organized the commission of the theft

of property belonging to the Kirov Regional

State Unitary Enterprise

Kirovles. Further, he stole Kirovles property by

embezzlement on an especially large scale under

the following circumstances.

Approximately in late December 2008 and early

January 2009, in the building of the government

of Kirov Region, the governor of Kirov

Region, Belykh, at a meeting with

heads of major enterprises in the

region, among whom was the general

director of the KOGUP Kirovles, Opalev,

introduced his future unpaid advisers,

including

Navalny, officially appointed to

that position by order

of the governor of Kirov Region dated 21 May

2009. In accordance with the temporary

regulations on an unpaid adviser to the governor

of Kirov Region,

approved by the said

approved order of the governor

of Kirov Region dated 14 July 2000,

No. 887, an unpaid adviser to the

governor, in exercising

his powers, provides the governor with

advisory assistance free of charge,

holds an identification card

of the established form, and is also vested

with authority to participate in working

meetings under the governor and the sectoral

committees of the regional administration

with an advisory vote, to cooperate with

legislative and executive authorities

in preparing draft

legislative and regulatory acts of the

region, to participate in developing programs

for the socio-economic development of the

region, in forming and implementing

regional procurement in strategically

important areas of life support for the

region, in developing programs for the

restructuring and reorganization

of inefficiently operating enterprises

of various forms

In 2009, Navalny, knowingly aware

of the possibility of influencing

the activities of state

through the powers of an unpaid adviser to the governor,

formed the intent to

steal property belonging to KOGUP

Kirovles, Navalny, acting from

for selfish motives, as the

organizer of the crime,

while simultaneously planning to direct its

execution together with his acquaintance

Ofitserov, brought in as an

accomplice, developed

a criminal plan to embezzle

the property of KOGUP Kirovles by

misappropriating it in favor of a newly created and

controlled organization, which

Ofitserov was to establish and head.

In accordance with the order

of the Governor of Kirov Region No. 492

dated November 12, 2007, the Kirov

Regional State Institution

of the Kirov Administration of Agricultural Forests

was reorganized into the Kirov Regional

State Unitary Enterprise,

based on the right of

economic management, Kirov-Les.

By order of the director of the Department

of State Property of Kirov

Region No. 07-158 dated 07.12.2007,

as well as in accordance with the employment

contract of December 12, 2007, Opalev

was appointed to the position of генерального директора KOGUP

Kirovles on December 12, 2007. In

accordance with Clause 5.2 of the charter of KOGUP

Kirovles, approved by the director

of the Department of State Property on December 6,

2007 and also agreed with the head

of the Forestry Department,

the general director of the enterprise acts on

behalf of this enterprise without

a power of attorney, in good faith and reasonably

represents its interests on the territory of the

Russian Federation and beyond its borders.

acts on the principle of sole authority and

bears responsibility for the consequences of actions

accordingly

of Kirov Region as well as by the charter

and the employment contract concluded with him, by virtue of his official duties and labor

relations of office

of Kirov Region, the enterprise

general director Opalev on December 12, 2007

organizational

managerial

at the said enterprise, located

at the address: Kirov Region,

Kirov, Avtotransportny Lane, Building 4.

After that, Navalny introduced

Ofitserov to General Director Opalev and gave

the latter instructions to provide Ofitserov

with information about the structure of KOGUP Kirovles,

the range of extracted and

processed forest products, as well as

other necessary data, which Opalev

did. Around February-March of the year,

the exact time has not been established. Navalny,

continuing to carry out his criminal

intent aimed at stealing the property of

KOGUP Kirovles, while directing the commission of the

crime, being in the building of the

Government of Kirov Region,

located at the address: Kirov Region,

Kirov, Karl Liebknecht Street,

Building 64, informed Opalev about the

forthcoming creation by Ofitserov of an

enterprise for providing intermediary

services for the sale of extracted and processed

forest products of KOGUP Kirovles for the purpose of

subsequently misappropriating

the property entrusted to Opalev. Under

these circumstances, Opalev,

realizing that as a result of the creation

of this enterprise and further work with

it, KOGUP Kirovles would suffer

property damage, took no action

aimed at preventing Navalny’s unlawful

actions and

agreed to the latter’s proposal.

Thus he entered with Navalny and

Ofitserov into a prior criminal

conspiracy aimed at misappropriating the property

entrusted to him, that is, to Opalev, namely the property of KOGUP

Kirovles on an especially large scale.

Ofitserov, for the purpose of implementing Navalny’s criminal

plan, acting jointly and

in concert with him, in March 2009

ensured the creation and state

registration in the territory of Kirov

Region of a limited liability company

controlled by him and Navalny,

Vyatskaya Timber Company, hereinafter VLK LLC,

as well as the opening of a bank account, thereby

facilitating the commission of the

crime by providing

information and means for its commission. On March 18,

2009, the Inspectorate of the Federal

Tax Service for the city of Kirov

carried out the state registration

of VLK LLC. Its sole participant and

general director was Ofitserov, who

also opened on March 25, 2009, for VLK

LLC a settlement account with Vyatka Bank.

Around March to the first half of April

2009, in the city of Kirov, Kirov

Region, Ofitserov, carrying out the instructions

of the organizer of the crime, Navalny,

continuing to aid and abet

the commission of the misappropriation, prepared

the drafting of a contract that was knowingly unprofitable for KSUP

Kirovles, a supply agreement with

VLK LLC, and signed it on behalf of VLK LLC.

Under this agreement, KOGUP

Kirovles assumed the obligation to

supply forest products exclusively at

its own expense to consignees,

that is, legal entities and individuals, including

those who in fact

were already active buyers

of forest products from KOGUP Kirovles, in connection with

which the refusal to conclude direct

supply contracts with them had no

economic sense and entailed

damage to KOGUP Kirovles. In addition,

the said agreement initially

lacked information about the price

of the forest products that would correspond to and

equivalently compensate, on the part of VLK LLC,

the market value of the forest products supplied by

KOGUP Kirovles. Further,

Ofitserov handed over for signature

the said agreement to Opalev, who on

April 15, 2009, while in the building of KOGUP

Kirovles at the address: Kirov Region,

Kirov, Avtotransportny Lane,

Building 4, acting intentionally and in concert

with Navalny and Ofitserov, being

the general director of KOGUP Kirovles and,

]} }numerusform]} }assistant to=final 码中特 񟙵json 全民彩票天天送

using his official position,

signed the said supply contract

No. 01/2009

with LLC VLK, providing for the execution

of appendices to it defining the main

terms of the timber supply, including

its cost. At the same time, Opolev,

having received an oral negative opinion

from employees of Kagub Kirovles, responsible for

timber sales, regarding the said draft supply contract,

fully understood the public danger of his

actions and the inevitability of socially

dangerous consequences resulting