Retrial of the "Kirovles Case." Court video recording. Hearing 11. Part 2

s

not

uh

[music]

Reading date

A

s

uh Ja

H

K

s

s

from uh

s

K

uh uh

s

what

uh

chu

und uh

when yes

H

Ja

and

I ask everyone to stand

[music]

Ruling of July 1, 2016, city of

Kirov, the Kirov District Court of the city of

Kirov, presiding judge with the participation of

the state prosecutor, head of the department

of the state prosecution department of the Kirov Region

region, Bandam, senior officer of the department for the execution of

anti-corruption measures of the Kirov Region, Chereva

representative Zolotoy

Sinichnik, lawyer Mikhail, for the officer

enik

the lawyer, materials of the criminal case

regarding

Navalny, commission of a crime

provided for by Part 3 of Article 160

of the officer

the ruling, submission of deputies of the regional duma

investigator

1334, ruling, part components

state, volume

13536, ruling of the regional court

of 2009 granting permission for

conducting operational-search activities

telephone, 137, inspection report on listening to

audio recordings of conversations

of the normal officer

966, report on the inspection of items dated the 17th

of April 2012, Volume 12, p. 279, conclusion

of the phonoscopic examination, Volume

13150, ruling of November 2012

on ordering a comprehensive psychological

and linguistic forensic examination, Volume 13

19518, conclusion of the code-logistical

expert examination by Fedey

260 state

support

the criminal case statement concerning the court's statement

is located, not subject to

decision to provide

results of July 19, 2012

124

Ida state

of 2012

12356 was issued by an authorized official

head of the usk

of the region within the scope of his committee in accordance

with August 12

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

activity, paragraph de

instruction of operational

activity, investigator, prosecutor, in the rulings

specific Kirov measures and information are indicated

subject to classification and attachment to the criminal case

of the Kirov Regional Court dated August 3

2009, decision on telephone conversations, Volume

1237 was issued by a proper official

person, by the session of the regional court

court and may be appealed in the prescribed manner

4718, ruling of November 28, appointment

of the examination

psychological expert examination, Volume 13, pages 95 to 98, was issued

by a proper official, the senior investigator

for especially important cases of the investigative department

investigation of especially important cases

crimes against state authority

in the sphere of economics of the main dep

procedural certification and the basic

requirements of the law are contained as provided

by the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, by the Prosecutor General, petitions were disclosed

to the population. Moreover, by virtue of Article

of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, it is not evidence in

a criminal case, it merely confirms the grounds

for conducting operational-search measures

Let us examine the inspection report made while listening

to the audio, Volume 12, pages 168–206, inspection report of 1

October 2012, Volume 12, sheets 27–29

conclusion of the endoscopic examination

Volume

13218, conclusion of the comprehensive psychological

examination, Volume 13, case 20142, from the standpoint of

admissibility, by personal types of inspection

of the examination of the audio recording conducted on the following date, the 8th

of August 2012, in the presence of

under Article 164

6677, during the inspection and at its conclusion, remarks

from the participants were not received; personally, the contents

of the inspection report state that

inspection

form, as well as the existing

recording

disk made available to the court, containing on it

video recordings, fully confirms the information

in the report, including the secret attachment

regarding the contents of the audio, and the defense's claim that

the reliability of the content

of the information is recognized as unfounded and

was refuted during the court hearing

also the defense

its receipt due to expiration

of the regional

court, p. 4

no remarks whatsoever from the persons participating personally

by direct observation, reliably, and in accordance with

the protocol; no report was received upon entry

the defense argues that the discrepancy in the number of items

actually received by the expert institution

and the number actually indicated in the protocol, which they

consider to be independently established as

a discrepancy appearing in various different

documents, to be a technical error, since

the case materials also

directly indicate the number of discs

it has been reliably established that they contain

discs

established

salting

case materials, ruling

materials

4641

kopecks

the expert examination is based on and corresponds to

Ruling dated the 24th

of the year. Basis for qualification

Yes, the appointment of the expert examination and the experts

the experts' rights

psycholinguistic

13

14, the corresponding ruling and the examination

basis for qualification

experts from the expert center with extensive

experience

cia

premises

accepted under Article 57

signed

of the conclusion. Under the Criminal Code, this examination was carried out

see page 27 of the descriptive part of the conclusion

the terminology that was used

by the experts in the text under examination; after that

there are the experts' signatures on the psychology section

on each page of the conclusion there are

the seal of the expert institution and the experts' personal stamps

the experts have them according to their own records

these questions, and therefore it will be

put to the experts and clarified by the experts orally

it follows from the materials that the commission generally suffices

from the expert conclusion it follows that

each of the experts had either another

conducted the examination and did not assess

the results independently, which the defense finds

to be a violation of part 2 of Article 21

thus, no violations of the law

in obtaining and providing the specified

documents have been established; there are no grounds

it should be under the article

[music]

256 3134, ruling concerning Lis Grech sine

constituting a state... volume 12 of the case file

135–136, ruling of the Kirov Regional Court

dated August 3, 2009

granting authorization to conduct

wiretapping of telephone conversations

937, record of inspection and listening to the recording

of conversations... volumes 168–206

record of inspection of documents dated October 1

201, volume 12

... conclusion ... volume 13, page 8

ruling of November 28 of that year on

the appointment of a comprehensive psychological

forensic examination, volume 13 of the case file

1958, conclusion of the comprehensive

psychological... 14 presented

[music]

the court hearing continues

the hearing on establishing

the procedure; before I propose

to the court the order of examination

of the evidence that the defense

will present, are there any further motions requiring

procedural resolution?

A motion to exclude evidence is at issue

concerning the ruling appointing a comprehensive

psychological and legal expert examination dated the 28th

of November 2012, volume 13 of the case file

19518, and the conclusion of the comprehensive

psychological forensic examination No.

02/1 dated January 8, 2013, volume 13, page

of the case file

24260. Before I turn, Your Honor, to

the reasoning for the motion filed

I would like to note that the defense puts forward

grounds for declaring these

items of evidence inadmissible that are different

from those previously presented by attorney

Mikhailo in the general motion to

exclude

evidence related to operational-search wiretapping

of telephone conversations; here

the grounds are indeed entirely different

the issue concerns procedural

violations; at that time you had also filed

a motion regarding evidence, and I will resolve it

after the expert examination

So, the defense insists that the aforementioned

ruling and the experts' conclusion

constitute inadmissible evidence

in accordance with part ... and paragraph 3

of part 1 of Article 75 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, are not subject

to examination at the court hearing and must

be excluded from the list of evidence

submitted by the prosecution. According to part

1 of the article of the Criminal Procedure Code, a comprehensive examination is

an examination in which the conduct of which

involves experts of different

specializations. The ruling states

a psycholinguistic examination dated November 28

2012, volume 13

19518, and the conclusion of the comprehensive psychological

and linguistic examination of the указанного

number and reference details, volume 13

214–216. In conducting the expert

examination, the admissibility of which is disputed

by the defense, two experts took part

of different specialties: a psychologist and a linguist

as provided by law

the rule that applies to

the conclusion of a comprehensive forensic

psychological examination, namely, that in the conclusion

it is mandatory to indicate which

examinations were conducted and to what extent

Each expert, what facts they established in their part

of the examination, and what conclusions the expert reached

each expert arrived at

Each expert who participated in conducting the comprehensive

forensic examination signs only that

part of the report

and bears responsibility specifically for that part

of the report. As is evident from the report

of the comprehensive psychological forensic

examination No. 02/1 dated January 8, 2013

Volume 13 of the case file

24260, the requirements are set out

of criminal procedure law, namely

the requirements set out in Part 2 of Article

201 of the Criminal Procedure Code. When preparing the report, they were not

complied with, in particular, in violation of

Part 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the report does not indi-

cate what examinations and in what specific volume were

conducted by the linguistics expert, and what

specific examinations, and in what volume, were

conducted by the forensic psychologist. From

the report of the panel of experts

it follows that the comprehensive psychological

and linguistic

examination was conducted by an expert

panel of the Southern Expert Center in

the composition of psychologist expert Kisko and

a linguistics expert

and this is stated on

Volume 13, page 21, where the following is stated

verbatim: "The panel conducted

an examination of the submitted materials

of the criminal case file, listened to

the audio recording, and studied specialized

literature on the psychology of communication

legal psychology, and linguistics

an audio analysis was conducted."

Article 201.1, the report does not contain

information about which specific examinations

and in what volume were carried out by the psychologist expert

and which specific examinations were carried out by the expert

linguist

Thus, the defense's argument that the report

contains an undifferentiated research section

between the psychologist and the linguist experts

in violation of the requirements of Article 20 of the Criminal Procedure Code

is confirmed by the description of the methodology

of the examination set out on page

217 of Volume 13 of the case file, verbatim quote:

"Submitted for resolution by the panel of experts was a list

of questions within the competence of the psychologist and

linguist experts." End of quote. At the same time, the

report does not say that the submitted

list of questions relates to the competence

of the psychologist and the competence of the linguist to

an equal degree. But even if

the submitted list of questions did relate

equally to the competence of both

experts, the requirements of Article 201.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code

are such that even in that case each

expert separately must indicate the list

and scope of the examinations that were

conducted specifically by him or her within this

report

Further, the description of the examination methodology

states verbatim: "Each member of the expert

panel conducted a full examination of

each question submitted for

the comprehensive examination." This also

contains... The defense draws the court's attention to

the fact that the violation of

the article lies in that each member of the expert panel

did not specify which exact examinations, in

what

scope, were conducted. The linguist should not have studied specialized

literature on the psychology of communication

or legal psychology, and did not apply

psychological analysis of the audio recordings when

conducting the examination; likewise

the psychologist expert did not study specialized

literature on linguistics and did not apply

linguistic analysis in the examination

because the use by the linguist expert

of specialized knowledge from the field of psychology

and by the psychologist expert from the field

of linguistics is impossible, since it lies

outside their

competence. In substantiating the

circumstance that both the psychologist and

the linguist did not each separately indicate

what examinations, and in what volume, they

conducted, what facts in their respective part

of the examination each expert established, and what

conclusion he reached, the panel of experts on

page 217 of Volume 13 stated

verbatim: "In accordance with

paragraph 12 of the Resolution of the Plenum

of the Supreme Court dated December 12, 2010

No. 28, On Forensic Examination in

Criminal Cases, the panel conducting the comprehensive

examination formulated general conclusions

on the questions posed."

At the same time, the Resolution of the Plenum

of the Supreme Court to which the

panel of experts refers, dated

2010, No. 28, On Forensic Examination in

Criminal Cases, and in particular paragraph 12

of that Resolution, does not отменate the requirements

of Article 201 of the Criminal Procedure Code and does not

contradict them. That Resolution states in

paragraph 12 that in necessary

cases, when the examination goes beyond

the competence of a single expert and

a panel of experts

may be appointed to conduct

a comprehensive

examination

carried out by several experts on

the basis of using different specialized

areas of knowledge. In such a case, the experts draw up

a joint report. The experts' report must

state what

examinations each expert conducted, what

facts each personally established, and what conclusion

he or she reached

as an expert

As a result of the comprehensive examination

he or she is entitled to give a single conclusion on

the issue examined by him, the expert opinion from

his own name, on the basis of the studies

conducted by him in accordance with his

specialized knowledge. He is not responsible for

the opinion in the manner established

by law.

When conducting a comprehensive expert examination, it must

contain information about which

studies were carried out by each of the experts,

what facts he established, even in the event

that the expert signs the joint

opinion. Moreover, as follows from

the legal position of the Supreme Court, only in the

case of a comprehensive expert opinion

may it fail to distinguish in

the research and factual parts when

the comprehensive examination

are necessary for conducting a comprehensive

study. But in this case, one

expert must possess specialized

knowledge both in the field of psychology and in

the field of linguistics; accordingly,

the existence of such specialized knowledge must

be documented.

Documentarily. As for the defense's arguments

that in the opinion

of the comprehensive psychological and linguistic

forensic examination it is not stated which

facts each expert established in his part of the study,

and what conclusions he reached,

as well as that each expert

who participated in conducting the examination

did not sign his part of the study, then

these arguments are confirmed by the part

of the expert opinion entitled

"Study of the materials of the criminal case,"

Volume 13, case file page 218,

221; by the part of the study of the audio recording, page

221–229 verso in the same Volume 13;

and by the study on the questions submitted for

resolution by the panel

of experts, Volume 13, case file pages 229 verso–255

verso. According to the 2001 Federal Law

On State Forensic Expert Activity

in the Russian Federation, namely

the requirements set out in Article 2

of the said Federal Law, within a panel

of experts entrusted with conducting

a forensic examination, each expert

independently and autonomously conducts

research, evaluates the results

obtained by him personally and by the other experts,

and formulates conclusions on the questions posed

within the limits of his specialized

knowledge. When conducting a panel or comprehensive expert examination,

within the limits of his specialized

knowledge, the opinion shall indicate, for each expert participating

in the examination, which

studies were carried out, to what extent by each

expert, what facts he established, and what

conclusions he reached. Each expert

participating in the conduct of a comprehensive

examination signs that part of the opinion

which contains the description of the studies carried out

and bears responsibility for it

as conducted.

Given these arguments,

the opinion was prepared in violation of the requirements

of Article 201 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and Article 23 of Federal Law No. 73, and

of the requirements of the Supreme Court set out

in Resolution No. 28 of December 21,

Consequently, it must be recognized

as inadmissible evidence by virtue of

Part 1 and Clause 3 of Part 2

of Article 75

of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

[music]

We also have other arguments in

support of this motion.

The order appointing the comprehensive

psychological and linguistic examination

states that the investigator had at his disposal

two optical discs

containing audio recordings of telephone

conversations involving Navalny and

Ofitserov as part of the investigation

of the criminal case. A comprehensive forensic

examination was conducted, as a result of which it was

established what the conversations

between Navalny and Ofitserov contained, as further stated in

the order.

The conduct of a repeat forensic psychological

and linguistic examination, Volume 13,

pages 55–96. Thus, from the order

appointing the examination it is clear that both

the subject matter and the object of the study

were two optical discs

containing audio recordings of telephone

conversations between Navalny and Ofitserov. At the same time,

as follows from the order

appointing the comprehensive forensic psychological

and linguistic examination and from the experts' opinion,

together with the investigator's order

appointing the examination,

the experts were also provided with

the following materials, among others:

a copy of a letter from the administration

of the Government of Kirov Region addressed to

OOO; a copy of the order bringing Oplev as

an accused person; a copy

of the record of the interrogation of the accused Oplev, dated

16.02.2; a copy of the record of Navalny's interrogation;

copies of the records of Ofitserov's interrogations; a copy

of the record

of interrogation; a copy of the interrogation record;

an interrogation record of Bast. Information about this

is contained in Volume 13 on case file pages

195–218, 216

verso. These materials were submitted

together with the order appointing

the examination and were reflected in the part

of the opinion entitled "Study

of the materials of the criminal case." We draw

the court's attention to the fact that

the comprehensive forensic psycholinguistic

examination, as stated in the order,

was appointed for the examination of

audio recordings containing a recording

of the telephone conversations between Navalny and

Ofitserov, without repeating the arguments about the inadmissibility

of conducting an examination on the basis of these audio

recordings, as previously set out by the defense. We

note that providing

experts with materials

from the criminal case that relate neither

to the subject matter nor to the object of the

expert examination is inadmissible

and unlawful.

from the administration of the government of Kirov Region

addressed to JSC Lekam, a copy of

the order to bring

Opalev as an accused person, a copy of the interrogation record of

Opalev, a copy of the interrogation record of

Navalny, copies of the interrogation records of

Ofitserov, a copy of the interrogation record of

Arzamasov, and a copy of the interrogation record of Rva and

Bastrygin, support the defense’s argument that

an expert may not familiarize himself with

materials from a criminal case that do not

relate to the subject of the examination.

This is confirmed by the requirements of Part

of Article 57 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states that an expert has the right

to review only those materials

of the criminal case that relate

exclusively to the subject matter of the forensic

examination. The fact that

the experts reviewed

materials from the criminal case that do not

relate to the subject of the expert

examination—they were listed above—

means that the defense considers the conclusion set out in the expert

report to contradict its

analytical section and to amount

to a rewriting of the investigator’s question

in affirmative form. Moreover, the defense

insists that the expert’s conclusions were determined

not by the examination of the audio recording

itself, namely the voice, and the conclusions of the

phonoscopic examination of the text

of the conversations, but by information contained

in the interrogation records of the accused, Opalev,

and of witness Bastrygin. To support

its position, the defense draws the court’s attention

to

to the answer to Question No. 10, from which it is not

clear which of the experts exactly

conducted which part of this examination

and, accordingly, which of them is responsible for this

examination.

Both. Thus, the experts’ conclusion on

Question No. 10, pages

255 verso to 260 of the case file, is worded

as follows:

quote: based on the linguistic and

paralinguistic features of the conversations, which

indicate an interest and

an agreement between Navalny and Ofitserov in

obtaining benefit from the activities

of Kirovles management in favor of LLC

Vyatskaya Forest Company. In the course of the conversations

Navalny and Ofitserov indicate that they

have common goals and objectives, plan and

carry out joint actions with respect

to Kirovles, including

discussing the rebuttal of accusations by

Kirovles against VLK (Vyatskaya Forest Company)

regarding the appropriation of a significant portion of contracts

of Kirovles and the purchase of timber products, uh-huh,

at reduced prices.

End quote. Turning to the analytical section

of the forensic psychological

expert report on Question No. 10, the defense insists that in the analytical

section the experts do not cite any fragment

of a conversation between Navalny and Ofitserov

that would confirm, in particular, the conclusion

of the experts that Ofitserov and Navalny discussed

the subject of purchasing timber products

at reduced prices. Under the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, as well as Article 25 of Federal Law No. 73-FZ of May 21,

2001, No. 73-FZ,

an expert’s report or a commission of experts’ report

must reflect an evaluation

of the research results, the reasoning for

and formulation of conclusions on the questions

posed. In violation of these requirements,

in the experts’ report on Question No.

10, the analytical section on Question

No. 10 does not set out the reasoning for the conclusion

on the question posed, whereas

the expert should have provided the factual

data of the examination.

In concluding that there was discussion of rebutting

claims regarding

the acquisition of products at reduced

prices, therefore the stated assertion

by the expert is unsubstantiated and is not supported

by the analytical section. Consequently, the expert’s

conclusion is speculative

in nature. On the basis of the foregoing, we ask

that it be declared inadmissible and subject

to exclusion from the list of evidence:

ruling

Volume 13

19958, the report of the comprehensive psychological

forensic examination dated January 8

of that year, Volume 13, case file pages 242–260, signed

by attorneys Mikhailov.

[music]

Yes, so the party

[music]

of the

defense.

I support it, Your Honor, and I would also like to add

in addition that all

the conversations submitted for this examination

took place only after the conclusion

of the contract. Therefore, they could in no way

[music]

be connected with it.

[music]

[music]

Yes.

[music]

[music]

Yes.

[music]

Now, compared with the past, things were not like that either.

interesting

culture

with

must

on

Let's

yes

ra

-ian

A

at

[music]

SE mo

S

with

uh, uh

Thank you, uh

[music]

e

B

[music]

Does anyone know how to turn the function on?

Please turn it on, because I can't do it with this thing.

[music]

I ask everyone

please rise

[music]

Let me remind you once again

shooting with flash

is prohibited. Please do not forget, I will

remove

please

the defense, regarding the evidence, the ruling

of the comprehensive psycho-

expert examination of 2012 and the corresponding

opinion

dated January 8, 2013, we believe that

the objection is well-founded. Further,

the examination was conducted on the basis

of the investigator's order

in accordance with the Criminal Procedure

Code; all materials necessary for the examination were provided

for conducting it from the criminal case

and the questions were properly formulated

before the experts. The experts were warned in writing

about criminal liability under Article

307 of the Criminal Code of Russia

In opinion No. 00213, a list is provided

of the scientific and methodological literature used

by the experts in their study of both issues

of psychology and linguistics; at the same time

there are signatures of both experts on

every page of the opinion, certified by the seal

of the expert institution, the Center for Forensic Examinations

as well as the experts' personal seals and signatures. Also

there is

information on the experts' qualifications

As for question No. 10,

which is reflected in the experts' conclusions,

this question concerns the fact that Navalny

discusses, among other things, issues

of refuting claims on the part of Kirovles

the company, regarding a significant portion

of contracts for products with clients and

the purchase of products at reduced

prices. These data

were reviewed and are set out in the opinion; they

are contained in the file

9782, and there are corresponding

references to it in the experts' introductory and concluding parts of the opinion

In addition to the aspects mentioned above,

the company's goals indicated above were also

reflected in their conclusions on

questions No. 2 and No. 3 of opinion

No. 2/13. Taking the above into account,

I believe that there are no grounds

to find that the order appointing the

comprehensive forensic examination

or the opinion itself is inadmissible

evidence; this evidence

is relevant

and admissible. Your Honor, if I may, I have

well, I have

not

an addition. I have heard the prosecutor's position clearly

and, generally speaking, once again at

this stage of the first

court hearing, the first day of trial,

a question arises, namely:

Why is the prosecutor not addressing the defense's arguments?

When the defense spoke about the inadmissibility

of this evidence, namely

the expert opinion and the corresponding

appointment order, it did not say

that it had any complaints about the list

of methodological literature. Moreover,

the defense did not say that

the relevant list was missing. We

were talking about something entirely different. We were talking

about a violation of Part 2 of Article 201, namely

that each expert did not sign his or her own

part of the study and his or her own part of the conclusions

in violation of this provision. Moreover, I do not even

dispute the fact that on every page

of the expert opinion there are

the signatures of both experts, that is,

the experts' signatures appear

under the linguist's section and the psychologist's section

What this means is that in this opinion

both the psychologist and the linguist bear jointly

responsibility, shared responsibility, for

the linguistic and psychological parts

of the study, which they cannot do

because there is no evidence confirming

that the psychologist has linguistic training, and

vice versa. In this

way, they sign the entire opinion

whereas Part 2 of Article 201 states

that experts must

distinguish their own part of the opinion

their own part of the study and, accordingly,

this concerns the division of

responsibility, because a linguist cannot

be responsible for the psychologist's opinion

and a psychologist cannot be responsible

for the linguist's opinion. In the opinion they refer to

the Plenum of the Supreme Court (the full session of Russia's highest court)

its details are specified in the motion. But

Even the Plenum of the Supreme Court says that

a situation is possible in which one

specialist signs the entire opinion and

it is called a comprehensive examination

But that is only if they possess

specialized knowledge in several

fields; in this case, they must possess

specialized knowledge both in the field of

linguistics and in the field of psychology, one

and the other expert, so that together they can

sign this opinion, both one part and

the second, both in the analysis and in the conclusions

That is exactly what I was saying, and moreover

the prosecution also says

the expert’s qualifications, I do not qu-

the experts’ qualifications. I have no

grounds to doubt them; I merely

said that a linguist does not possess

the knowledge of a psychologist, and vice versa, and here I

believe I am right, because the data

indicating otherwise were not

attached to the expert examination. I simply very much

ask that you pay closer attention to

what we are actually saying, and object

specifically within the scope of the motions submitted, and

not invent arguments of your own and

then answer them yourselves

[music]

I support the position

of the prosecution. The ruling to which

the defense refers states that the expert has the right

to sign, and as for the fact that

it is delineated—this wording again

the problem is that it is not there

that delineation. It should be, it should be

Easy, come on

[music]

no When the court retires to the deliberation room, at least

half an hour. All rise

Well then, let’s go

If they allow it, I’ll bring it; if not

if they don’t, do you have

it, ah

[music]

so, we’re continuing

on—yes, no

me about de-

Yana did it

36

that’s all, son

now that’s good

oh, honestly, generally the best

prozi taktu

lectu-

you won’t make it in an hour

finish it, we’ll see

zra

really, in general

[music]

I consi-

yes

[music]

but

on / by

[music]

day

something like that, guys, you

to photograph for now, not

Uh-huh, okay. Well then, that means

that’s it, yes, thank you

ah

Yes, ah, okay, that’s all

yu

eh

I don’t know, I don’t want to continue

B

voi

with / from

everything is possible

at / by

kra

[music]

in / into

well, good luck

[music]

de

what / that

Why are you barki-

still / mo-

with wh-

perhaps

ho

che

[music]

ko

on / by

oh / about

Circle / Kruzh-

yes

B

ah

you can’t, grief-

zh

thief / speaker-

sorry, sorry

on / by

ni

maybe kzh

[music]

yes

refusal

[music]

I don’t know what the difference is. Well, there it’s no longer

ri- I think 15

Nava, well look, what I meant was this bit hangs

there, where I say not a shout, not

a shout—there, again, he’ll open it now and

close it

the hall / courtroom

[music]

so it turns out, sure, a little stack

Dag, let’s suggest at least today

rare not his now

it’s not allowed. Okay, this is

additional

actions so that they come here

for who

today, and in the evening hay

[music]

[music]

from

uh

[music]

yes

Do you think it’s really that important? I don’t

know. Well, I’m saying yes, I think, it seems there

since there are many different things there

well, he’ll probably still go on there anyway

say, talk about the detention, several

detentions, use footage from different ones, all

the videos are in the post, and there isn’t a big

problem there. Then decide, because the conditions

of detention

Well, at least

how can there be more of it

In general, that’s how things are

it’s unclear, Moscow

a lot

work—they even wrote tables showing how many

hours

went... Before, before, we did this because

because they used to have a rule like that, not

they didn’t give the remainder because

more Moscow

uh

until then at some point they stop

Very successfully, how they

work 90 hours—that’s 200 hours of studying

materials on a paid basis. Moscow won’t

outdo English, yes, English

now one by one

case, talking with the secretariat

of the European Court for 40 minutes of delivery

some kind of, who knows what

just sat there in the library

come on, 2000

...work

[music]

legislation for

it

for a long time—specifically the English and American

legal profession. It doesn’t rest on that. Why?

when you arrive in almost any country

some expensive district with

beautiful

houses, while about

badly, it’s necessary

I don’t know how

what I’m saying for 20

I’m saying, I put all my effort into these requests for

compulsory appearance

2,000 people are watching, looking at us right now

at our

the backs of our heads

203 may turn around... not, not very

good

No, it’s just that I have

see? Turn now

don’t turn your head, the delay is...

...YouTube. I’ll tell you now, and here

do this for the camera

there is

there, the sound is...

the sound is coming through, it is. I really don’t know. Can you hear

does You... hear

yes, uh

the sound, so from here

[music]

right now the phone all the time... hospitals

[music]

by itself

why is there such a delay at all?

with

so

how

Uh-huh, and now, now free...

Yes, I just really wanted to tell you, wanted to

Andrei Vasilyevich, discuss some

situations, so

if I now, I don’t know, maybe

telegraph that I got in touch directly

right now if it will be

possible. I think that you, I think that you

Yes

go ahead

say it, what about

they wrote that...

in the foreground, Princess Leia or something

like that

quite

Mm-hmm, okay, but that’s a jok...

some kind of... okay

listen, actually

sorry, how long ago was it, an hour ago?

somewhere. What do I know

about

go and what

happened

lawyer, uh

what

[music]

Well yes, you can when he

comes back, tell...

when reading

the broadcast can’t be heard. Well, he’s just speaking quietly

he says thank you

very much, yes

uh

send it

also, as I understand it, animation work...

I see

what

of course, that too, of course

I forgive

also sends regards, writes that you

are a competent professional. Yes, there too

... no

yes

[music]

these are discs

[music]

about... from the first

Yes, not yet for now

Maybe—and here is minimally valuable information

something is not...

[music]

[music]

The balloons are gone now, so you can't play anymore.

Please be seated. I ask everyone to rise.

restoration of state growth

with the participation of state...

the enforcement department...

anti-corruption legislation

materials concerning the commission of a crime

provided for in part

Okay.

officer

... the court session, the defense side...

... evidence establishing...

two psychological...

psychological expert examinations

... objected to the motion filed...

... of the criminal...

case

I am reading out the ruling dated November 28.

appointment of a forensic psychological examination

volume 13 of the case file... properly...

by an official, a senior investigator for especially...

important cases of the investigative...

for the investigation of especially important cases

... of the economic department...

responsible

... is reasoned and justified. In addition...

moreover, all 74...

... under criminal procedure legislation, and...

this is confirmed... the actions were assessed...

admissibility... conclusion of the comprehensive...

expert examination

12

1460. According to the following...

Under the Criminal Procedure Code, for an expert opinion, experts participating in...

the conduct of a comprehensive forensic examination, the experts indicate...

... each expert conducted... What factors...

each person arrived at separate parts...

the conduct of a comprehensive... includes...

a conclusion containing a description

of the examinations conducted and bears responsibility for it

based on the...

from the stated goals and tasks adopted...

expert examinations... paragraph 21 of...

No. 28 of 2010 on forensic examination in

criminal cases, each expert has the right

to sign a general conclusion... psychological...

... on the basis of the relevant...

the ruling... grounds for qualification...

tests

experts of the expert center and very...

a great deal of work... all...

specialized official knowledge in the conduct of...

by the expert

the right to ask...

conclusion

concludes

expert conclusions, and in this matter the examination...

were posed

the commission formulated generalized...

on the questions in the examination report

the expert about the assessment...

this constitutes a violation of part one and part two...

article... of the Criminal Procedure Code... experts...

audio and video recordings of behavior... under the law...

... the conclusion was set out on...

the basis

the stated signs in the ruling

...tic

examination

that comprehensive psycho...

So they took into account that according to...

You have the floor.

...

Because of the cuts, I didn't hear anything at all. Could you...

speak a bit louder?

the defense motion, which...

initially concerned Melanie...

the argument about inadmissibility concerned...

the provision of operational...

activities, including that we...

spoke about the need to request

information and...

from the Pervo... region, since the data on...

... there was no need to request it, because...

the materials of the criminal case contain

sufficient data that affected

those circumstances which are already...

being proven, so we should not request...

there is no need. Moreover, there is material...

... an expert examination which...

that is, based on the results of the examination

of the audio recordings of the conversations

the officer concluded that

that

the representative, I support...

the position, and this can probably be done in the courtroom

of course, allow it

Yes, I'm already worried, Your Honor, we see so little of you...

today

day

[music]

So, it turns out...

Having heard this, deny the motion, since what was requested...

...

[music]

very timely...

the issue is being raised in a timely manner, but if

we would have considered everything, why raise it?

How could we have considered everything? Why...

raise it then? Have we finished

considering it? And what is the court guided by

when it raises the issue of a preventive measure?

May I ask? It has the right

to raise it, yes, but the decision

must be reasoned, and on what basis does the court...

reach that conclusion, considering that

during the court procedure, at two court hearings...

the issue of the preventive measure...

decision, decision

preventive measure

Registered in which city? All right, now...

we will

discuss yours... yes, yes, that's all correct

the court has received documents in response to his

request

of course

One moment, one moment, yes.

Here.

The request—I don't think there's any point in sending it a second time.

For the defense to review it? Uh-huh, yes.

A response from a limited liability company.

investment and construction

an investment and construction company

No, you don't know? No, none at all. What connection does it have...

does it have to the construction company?

As I understand it, it's a trademark.

Trademark.

reports the check-in date

Good Lord, the 3rd...

of the year. Thank you for...

letting me know. Pyotr didn't...

inform...

I apologize—through February 2 of this year.

inclusive. The gentleman's check-in date

officer

to the hotel was on the 31st of the year; room number was somehow...

of the year

to respond to your request simply in good faith. Well...

I don't know—your supervisor is writing to you directly.

The request was made, and a response was sent.

[music]

The request was sent. I want to take a look, in principle, at the response.

the response, basically

Right now. Listen, this has turned into such a mess.

Correspondence with the hotel—I'm asking the court to inform them.

that I waited 40 minutes for my syrniki (Russian cottage cheese pancakes) today.

ago

[music]

I think you can handle it yourselves.

Please, don't rush.

Turn it off. You told me that...

they responded.

...

I don't know, after all.

Probably...

Your Honor, I still haven't really

understood what's happening here. You're putting up for discussion

some question about whether

something should be...

guided by, in connection with the fact that

that today's hearing...

whether or not there is a need to impose

a preventive measure in the form of a recognizance not to leave and

proper conduct.

What exactly will

be discussed, and what will the result of that discussion be?

Do you have an option, Your Honor? It seems to me

there is no

need for this. Let's first give the floor

to speak.

So that no one repeats themselves.

Agreed, but could the prosecution please speak

more clearly, more understandably, and louder, because I will be

taking notes, and then let the prosecution

say right away what it means by

"proper conduct," so that I understand

what's going on, if they support it.

Please. Maybe we should clarify

what period is actually being discussed

and your...

opinion—my

opinion? Or the court's initiative?

I can't decide this issue in advance.

The prosecutor is hinting to you that since it was your

initiative, you should make the decision, and he doesn't

want to state his position. Yes, we are not yet

ready to speak. Let's...

Let the defense do the prosecutor's work for him.

for the prosecutor. May I, Your Honor? Please.

Not to state... what are you going to... well...

[The prosecution] declined to discuss this issue, that's all.

Then shall we remove it from

the agenda? The proposal is to continue the court hearing

without that. By the way, yes, we do have

such a proposal. We still have

motions that can all be resolved

right here in the courtroom. Maybe we can deal with them now

and then tomorrow we really won't need

to place anyone under a recognizance; we

might be able to finish everything

very quickly.

Maybe the prosecutor needs time to prepare

the position regarding the return trip...

and accordingly, we have neither

train nor plane tickets back.

No, what is necessary here is to...

...

[music]

I'm simply saying: let's consider the issue.

...

a phone...

Actually, we need 10

[music]

minutes to discuss the issues.

Costs under the...

[music]

verdict. All right, one second.

propo...

Come on.

How would I know? I myself don't know what happened. Well,

that is, I can't comment on

what happened, because I don't understand

what happened, and for some reason the judge raised

the issue of a preventive measure, and the prosecutors

turned out not to be aware, and therefore

they ran off to confer. He called—it's not very

clear.

Preventive measure

because they appeared at

the previous two hearings, and before this he

...

Usually this is done by the prosecution, that is,

the prosecutors apparently—they...

[music]

themselves—they didn't understand what

their

position was. So there you have it.

Uh...

[music]

...

[music]

Which one? For what period?

They called them.

They responded to the request.

They are ready to raise it.

such conc...

for the third, fourth, fifth, and there the sixth, seventh

eighth, ninth, tenth, another one—what

do everything starting Monday

I, uh...

good intersection

for the homework

maybe after the negotiations

replace everything

[music]

Support by...

not

[music]

Al, hi

I don't know, m...

me

[music]

go

what

how

yes, yes

[music]

[music]

But Sweet Kiev-style

protocol A

some kind of such ones, exactly such ones

more

[music]

stand

scary in itself

those, I...

yes

not

look... Denka's wife

know

[music]

request

please, since earlier the party

the prosecution repeatedly stated, yes

...tive

to bring them in connection with their appearance at the court

hearing, and without a valid reason, in

our opinion, the prosecution

supports the court's initiative and believes

it possible to impose, with respect to Navalny

and Ofitserov, a preventive measure in the form of a written undertaking

not to leave and to maintain proper conduct, and the place

of execution of this preventive measure

the duration of its effect and other restrictions

we leave for the court's statement

the court still wishes to express

[music]

just a moment

now, please, Your Honor, I ask

to postpone

consideration of this issue and before that

to make

requests, accordingly, to send requests to

the airline Pobeda and the airline RusLine

regarding whether return

tickets were purchased for citizen Navalny and Ofitserov on

the Kirov–Moscow route, and if so, for what dates

for the period from

January 30 to February 1, 2017

and accordingly the same request to

Russian Railways, whether Ofitserov, Navalny, or

other persons purchased, in the names of Ofitserov and Navalny,

railway tickets on the Kirov

to Moscow route starting from February 1, 2017

also... RZD and Aero... RZD and

the airlines. Yes, the airlines all—No, I

already said, it's RusLine that flies, not Pobeda, no...

Ah, and... yes, can you also provide the addresses

name them? Well, if you give me time

then of course I will. So once again, Rus... I

looked

...avia, right

next I

request

request from the Department of Medical Statistics

Information and Organizational-Methodological

Work of the Archive of the Emergency Medical

Medical

Care Station at the address: Moscow, ulitsa (street)

Alexei Sviridov Street, building

4A

information

confirming the call-out and arrival

of the ambulance

to the patient, Pyotr Yuryevich Ofitserov

on January 27, 2017

the call was made in the period from 10

to

10:30 at the address

city of

Moscow, Pervomaysky

district, village of

Zhukovka, building

75A; the ambulance call was made

from

telephone number plu

+7 905

712

48

04. This is direct evidence of a valid

reason for the failure to appear

of Ofitserov at the court

hearing. I immediately

drew the court's attention to the fact that Ofitserov

was feeling unwell due to

his existing medical conditions. I personally

informed the court

by notice on January 26, 2017, and at

the request of your assistant, your assistant, I

duplicated this notice on the 27th

of January 2017 by sending it by fax to

the Leninsky District of the city of Kirov

accordingly, I ask that this information be requested

because it is necessary for the defense

in order to

substantiate its objections

regarding the application to Ofitserov, or indeed any

preventive measure whatsoever. Now I will

look up the airline addresses; I am already

looking them up and will

dictate them to you. As for

the airline Rus...

so, the contact...

The phone number—well, as for the phone number, you can send a request regarding it.

You can send it by phone. And by phone—

I know, just a moment.

Oh, excellent, Your Honor, there is a phone number here.

For the duty representative in the city of

Kirov: +

7 905 8

71

7042. So.

The second one is as follows.

The company, that is.

Phone: +7 495

— 7 8

7 8 6 38.

Fax: +7

495 786—sorry—7

87 86.

14. So, the central office is located at

the address:

4101, Saratov

Zhukovsky Street, building

25A. And Pobeda has already—

no longer—

Zhukovsky Street. So, we have now clarified that

Pobeda Airlines has, since February 1,

no longer been operating. I will tell you now.

The Russian Railways (RZD) representative office.

So, well, Google shows here

the address:

RZD representative office in Kirov, city of

Kirov.

61001, Komsomolskaya Street, building

24.

Moving on, then.

So, fax: +7

4999—this is the central off-

262

9095. The mailing address is the same as

the legal address:

107

174, Moscow

Novaya Basmannaya Street, building

2. All right, one moment.

Just a second. Well, that is essentially all the information that

I have.

And I ask Your Honor to make

the appropriate inquiries. For you, this can be done very

quickly, and to obtain responses, which,

as we can see, also happens

quite quickly, and after that

to return to discussing the issue of

the application of a preventive measure.

Accordingly,

I believe this is important information.

We will need it

when deciding the issue raised in the motion.

And—

I support the motion, I support it.

I support it.

The present matter submitted for the court’s consideration was

initiated improperly.

As for the discussion here, we would like to note

that, well, the information that is being

requested from the ambulance service does not

have any significance for the consideration of this

issue, since instead of information about

the impossibility of participating in the court

hearing by Ofitserov, this fact—these

materials will confirm facts

—

And I disagree. I will explain why. First of all,

Your Honor, from the ambulance station

we will obtain information about the reason for

the ambulance being called,

what was diagnosed in Ofitserov’s case,

and what recommendations were given to him.

For my part, I can say that I am aware

that the ambulance doctor who arrived in response

to the call for Pyotr Yuryevich diagnosed him with

the relevant illness, information about which

is already at the court’s disposal,

contained in Volume 3, and

confirmed by the medical record

of Ofitserov. Moreover, the ambulance team

recommended that Ofitserov urgently

see a specialist.

Moreover, the ambulance team

placed a call to

the hospital, of course, at his place of residence,

thus informing the doctor of

the need to admit this patient.

The court will be

provided with

the form sheet filled out by the ambulance

service; it will contain all

the relevant information, and in fact it also states,

among other things, the sequence—how should I put it—

the chronology of the course of this illness and

the circumstances that led to calling the doctors.

It contains the most detailed

information, as far as I know.

It is precisely this information that does not

confirm the reason for Ofitserov’s inability to appear

at the court

hearing. Moreover, Your Honor, I would like

to note that

on January 31, Ofitserov

— it was the first working day — was

on his way to see his

specialist doctor.

He simply was unable to get there because

he suddenly became acutely unwell, and for

that reason he was hospitalized in

the nearest hospital to the place where, essentially,

he happened to be at that moment.

And the information showing that

Ofitserov had grounds for hospitalization

is already before the court. Moreover, I can say,

Your Honor, that the ambulance was dispatched to

Ofitserov in connection with one of the illnesses

listed in this letter; in particular,

it is identified there as a concomitant

illness. It also states there that Ofitserov

was discharged in a stage of medication-induced

remission of this concomitant

illness. This means that he felt

better after Ofitserov was given a high

dose.

...tablets, and that's it.

That's all.

...from the airline. Why is this even...

This confirms the fact that neither Ofitserov nor

Navalny are planning in the near future

to leave the city of Kirov. They have no

intention of failing to appear when summoned.

They intend and wish

to participate in the court

hearing, defend their innocence

and present

evidence. Moreover, we have a hotel

booked, and this fact once again speaks

in favor of the defense's arguments, which we will later

set out. Well, in general, we can

state our position now: that we...

and proof of the seriousness of the intention

of Ofitserov and Navalny is precisely

the fact that there was no booking or purchase

of tickets in the name of Ofitserov or Navalny

by Ofitserov or Navalny themselves, or

by any other persons acting on their behalf...

Your Honor, it's just that I'm slightly

confused. Are you now going to rule on

Davydova's motion, or—that is, at least

may I explain how

you intend to resolve this motion?

On our own, we cannot obtain the documents

for certain

reasons, because the fact that

this motion had been initiated became known to us

only just now. If we had known about it

earlier, or at least in advance, we would have

done it—well, at least a week or two

earlier—because responses to attorneys' requests

take a very long time.

May I make a proposal

and speak, Your Honor?

[music]

So, we move on to...

...already expre...

Let's begin.

The request, given that

the court record does not confirm the fact of any intention

to parti... and inclu...

...after the court hearing.

I consider this...

[music]

[music]

that, uh...

[music]

[music]

on...

[music]

So, uh...

...

[music]

[music]

Considering that, pursuant to the article... on January 26

of the seventeenth year (2017), the defense was offered...

to submit to the court... by the defense...

on January 27 of this year, and

she was aware that such a request would be sent to

the district court; accordingly, she knew

of the need for this information for the court's review

upon request.

Your Honor, but how am I supposed to provide you with

a valid excuse if Mr. Ofitserov...

Please tell me,

just a second—on January 26, when on the 27th

of January I was supposed to

be

at the ambulance service picking up the document that

...

they issue. All right, in that case, if

the ruling has been issued, and since

the prosecutors leave it to the court's discretion,

then the following necessary details—the period

for which the preventive measure is to apply, the place, and

the restrictions—since the court has already

initiated this, since the court has decided

to impose a preventive measure on Ofitserov,

then please, be so kind as to

disclose to me the details of what exactly we are

discussing regarding the preventive measure, and in which

city.

Do you have any proposals, or not?

Do you or do you not?

Then please hear me out: a preventive measure is imposed

with respect to

the accused.

When a person insists on

the imposition of a preventive measure, that person must explain

to the parties, including the defense,

so that the defense has an opportunity

to refute those arguments or at least comment

on them in some way, at least.

[music]

A travel restriction from what address? From which city?

What exactly is being discussed, and what restrictions may

be applied to my

client? What are you asking me now—

to tell you what restrictions

I want imposed on Ofitserov? None. What

period of travel restriction do I want? None.

Do I want a travel restriction at all? No,

I do not, especially not from Kirov. Therefore, since

we are putting this question up for discussion,

and the prosecutors said that as for all

the essential points

of the measure, then please be so kind

as to explain them to the defense, to inform us

of the necessary details

concerning the imposition of this preventive measure—

a travel restriction and proper conduct—

because I cannot speak about something abstract, about

some abstract measure,

since that would prevent me from speaking properly because it

would violate my client's right

to a defense and would substantially limit me

in my ability to provide that defense and to

fully perform my function as defense counsel...

then subtract...

post...

I am asking: for what period are you proposing

to impose the preventive measure, in relation to what

place, and what restrictions do you want

to apply?

after regarding the issue raised for discussion

the issue. The prosecutors also believe this

to be the case

and if the court needs time, I am ready

to wait

You are proposing something abstract

to comment. All right, a travel restriction undertaking

a travel restriction undertaking is what you are proposing

to comment on. For what period would this measure apply?

of restraint

In the ruling, you will have to specify the period

for which the preventive measure will remain in effect. So I will hear you out

and listen to your position. But right now it was not you

who initiated discussion of this issue, and

since the prosecutor's office has refused

to discuss the question of the duration of the measure, the place where it applies, and

the restrictions under this measure, then it is you who

have initiated this discussion. I consider it

impossible at present to resolve this

issue. Well, I do not agree. I believe

that under such circumstances it is impossible to speak of

some abstract preventive measure

without it being clear for what period of time, without it being clear

for what place, or do you want me to suggest

that place to you, or the period of its

validity, if even the prosecutors are not

proposing that? But if even our

prosecutors are not proposing that, then they

simply do not want to discuss this, this issue of yours

I cannot express a view on this issue

because I do not have sufficient

information

All right

Right now it is starting to seem as though I am

speaking in different languages here

This is roughly the same as if

you had put up for discussion

the issue of detention in custody without

specifying where, why, and for what period

so to speak, yes

Well

They say there are situations when, in populated areas

there are no

detention facilities, but if you have no answer, we

that settles the matter for us. We all wanted

to let counsel Dadov speak. I am ready as well

Okay, let the defense speak. Your

Honor, first of all, this seems strange to me

this issue cannot be decided. You want

us to comment on the issue of a preventive

measure, yet it is unclear in which

city and for what period. That is the first point. I can

limit it to the city of Moscow. So we have

either one thing or another. I live in Moscow. I do not have

a place of residence here, and this is very

unclear. But, for example, the weekend

although our trial should clearly be over before the weekend

should I spend it in Moscow or

in Kirov? That is of significant

importance to me. As for my conduct, you may

take that into account, yes, allow me

Nevertheless

Your Honor, first, it is difficult for me

to comment fully because I do not

understand what exactly I am supposed to comment on. That is

the first point. Second, I

believe

that we should not be considering this at all

because everyone had valid

reasons, and each time I notified the court

that I would not come on a particular date

because the court hearing would not

take place, and each time it indeed did not

take place. Objectively, it could not have

taken place. If you make an inquiry to the

airline, you will find that there were

many times when, for example, we bought

tickets and those tickets went to waste because

the dates of the court

hearings were not on the

schedule that we

had expected. That is the second point

Third, even during the first trial we did not

have any preventive measure. The first trial

ended with a suspended

sentence. So why is a preventive measure needed now?

That is the fourth point. We came here

we came here

in order to bring this trial to

an end, and I came here through Friday

inclusive. It seems to me that, given the fact

that we have until Friday inclusive, we

will quite certainly finish everything. If it does not

finish, then on Monday, or whenever you

schedule it, I will come as well. Perhaps the court

misinterpreted this hotel reservation

as ending

on the first. It does end on the first

so as not to pay at once for

the room, so as not to pay immediately for

three or four days, since anything might

change. That is why we always make the reservation

for only one day at a time. And lastly, Your

Honor, what I want to say is this: I do not know what

decision you will make, but I want to inform

the court in advance that I will refer to the relevant

rules as we understand them

and the information being entered

right now. Why were we not allowed

to present evidence in

today's

proceeding? And I believe

that in this case there is, of course, a violation of

the norms, first and foremost of Russian

law, because in order to impose

a preventive measure, grounds are required

and those grounds are clearly

listed in the relevant article

of the Criminal Procedure Code: namely, that

the person may abscond from the inquiry

preliminary investigation, or the court

may continue engaging in criminal

activity, may threaten a witness

or other participants in the criminal

proceedings, or otherwise obstruct

the conduct of the criminal case, and so

on. Not one of these grounds has been

stated. What exactly are we supposed to object to?

It is unclear. In addition, I would like to note

that there are no grounds whatsoever for imposing a

preventive measure, since the failure to appear

at the court hearing was

for a valid reason;

the court was provided with notices and medical documents.

There are no grounds to doubt that

the defense in any way attempted

to obstruct the judicial proceedings.

There are none. And if the court has decided to impose a

preventive measure in relation to Navalny, then I

would again like to remind the court of

the Tokyo Rules, which were mentioned today

by the speaker.

They are called the United Nations Standard Minimum

Rules

for Non-custodial Measures

and

paragraph 3.11 of those Rules provides

that

defendants, when alternative preventive measures are applied to them

instead of

detention

in custody,

must have such measures applied

with respect for the right to privacy of both

the defendant himself and members of his

family. Given that Navalny lives in

Moscow and his family is in Moscow, then

if the court is going to violate the law and

decides to impose a preventive measure in the form of

a travel restriction requiring him not to leave Kirov, it should take

this fact into account and state in the ruling itself

that Navalny may meet

with his family and may

accordingly, at least on weekends,

travel. I have a motion—a

compromise solution. Let us do

this: tomorrow we will provide a document from the

hotel stating that the room, or rooms,

are booked through Friday only and

paid for, for example. That way the court will have

confirmation. But you made an inquiry and found that

everything is booked only until today. Fine, ours is

until the third, and theirs is also until

the third. All right, so as to me there is

a suspicion that because I have not paid through

Friday, I may leave.

All right, let me bring such a

document tomorrow, and let us postpone this issue until

tomorrow. The court will see that no one is going anywhere

and that we are all here.

[inaudible]

That is all, I suppose.

[music]

We came here in order to

finish the trial as quickly as possible,

because the defense plans to take no

more than two days, even including all

questioning and, well, our

statements and all the rest, that is,

what comes next. Therefore, if we finish on Friday,

then if there is a verdict

it could be on Monday, precisely on Monday, because

both Navalny and I

have an interest in concluding the proceedings as soon as possible.

Therefore, we intend to do everything possible

to ensure that the trial ends. Moreover, I

would support Alexei's proposal

that tomorrow we can simply

bring paid invoices from the

hotel confirming payment for the rooms,

which will also be non-refundable,

so accordingly, where would we

go? Therefore, I would propose this:

postpone the matter until tomorrow; we will bring them, and you will see

that in any event we are here until Friday.

The court is not planning to work on

Saturday anyway.

I object.

For my part, I would also like to draw

attention to the fact

that the legislature, in Article

99 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation,

has clearly, plainly, and unambiguously

established that a preventive measure may be

chosen—any preventive measure, including

a travel restriction—may be

imposed exclusively where there are

grounds provided for by Article

97 of the Criminal Procedure Code. As my colleague

Mikhailova correctly noted, in Navalny's case not a single

one of the grounds for imposing a preventive

measure listed in Article

97 of the Criminal Procedure Code is present in this case. That article of the

Criminal Procedure Code

contains an exhaustive list that is not

subject to broad interpretation, of the

grounds on which any

preventive measure

may be imposed. In particular, one of the

grounds

is that

the court has sufficient reason

to believe that the accused may abscond

from the court, may continue criminal

activity, or may threaten a witness

or other participants in the proceedings, or by some other

means obstruct the conduct of the case.

As I understand it now, from the not very

clear position of the prosecution and the not very

clearly formulated request

by the court to discuss a preventive

measure,

the reason why we are now

discussing this completely vague

issue

is the fact that my client did not

appear, allegedly without valid reasons, at two

court hearings.

But I believe, Your Honor, that you have already

ruled on this matter: on January 30 you already

issued an order for

compulsory appearance, and that order

has been executed. I believe that by that

order, the issue of Ofitserov's appearance

should be considered closed. I would draw the court's special

attention to the fact that the order

the compulsory appearance order for Ofitserov dated the 30th

of January, as of today

as of today

has been served neither on me nor on my client

Ofi

to Pyotr, accordingly, this

ruling. We cannot even

appeal it. And we believe there are grounds

and reasons to appeal it. We believe

that this ruling has not entered into

legal force, because we have the right

to appeal it, and the law does not

prohibit us from doing so

doing that, which, I repeat, neither to me

nor to my principal has been issued to this day

up to the present time. Although yesterday I very much

asked the bailiffs, who

were pounding on my office door, I cannot give

me a copy, a copy of this ruling

accordingly, we have not

missed, Your Honor, we have not missed

the procedural deadlines for its

appeal. Accordingly, you have not yet received from us

any appellate complaints, but already

it is being presumed that this is a finalized

judicial act that has entered into legal force

and on the basis of this judicial act

which in fact has not entered into

legal force, in my opinion you are now

raising the issue of a preventive

measure. I believe this is impermissible

impossible and

unlawful, because if we appeal this

ruling, it is entirely possible that it will be

overturned, but in any event it has not yet

entered into legal force. And how can we

choose a preventive measure for Ofitserov now

on the basis of circumstances established by you

in a matter that has not entered into

legal force? In my view, legally

this is

impossible. This is

the first point

Second, in paragraph 1 of part 1

of the article, as grounds for

the imposition of any preventive measure

it is stated that the court must have

grounds to believe, and those grounds

must be supported by specific factual

data. These grounds must not be

abstract or illusory. So, grounds

to believe that the accused will abscond from

the court—I would

emphasize, from the court. We had a ruling

for compulsory appearance issued by you due to

Ofitserov’s failure to appear at the court hearing

there was no information that Ofitserov was hiding from

the court available to you at that time, and

I am certain that

there still is no such information. In my view,

such information would be, for example,

data from the border service, for example, or

evidence that Ofitserov purchased a ticket to leave the Russian Federation

or a ticket to the territory of the Union State

for example

Belarus, or you might at least have some

operational data, reports, or

something of that kind, or data from

recorded monitored telephone conversations

of Ofitserov showing that he was discussing with someone

that he did not intend to wait for

the court’s verdict

and, disregarding everything, buy a ticket and

leave for Honduras—or at least

for Belarus, or at least for Tambov Region

switch off his phone and stay there hoping

that no one would

find him. Such data, for example, could be

testimony from a witness who came

to court—say, for example, a bailiff as well—and

yes, and

said

that he intended to evade justice and in every possible way

obstruct it: persuade a witness

to change testimony, persuade an assistant

to burn documents, persuade experts

to come to court and repudiate the conclusions they had previously given

earlier, and so on. Such

data the court does not have. I repeat, these data

must not be abstract; they must

be

real. And in light of the fact that the court does not have such data

and the compulsory appearance order

I am now

stating my intentions, and the compulsory appearance order

will be appealed both by me and by

attorney Mikhailova, and we have the right

to appeal it, and we will do so. And if

we do not have, so to speak, an effective

prejudicial ruling or preventive measure

I am not repeating your point. I still have

a serious question now

regarding the place

of residence. I am not sure that the hotel

"Honen" in the city of Kirov can be considered

a place of residence

for Ofitserov, even a temporary place

of residence. It may be considered a temporary

place of stay for Ofitserov, or

a temporary overnight stay for Ofitserov, but

by no means a temporary place

of residence. And Article 102 states that

a written undertaking

consists of a written obligation not

to leave one’s permanent or temporary place

of residence. Ofi’s permanent place of residence

is in Moscow, at the address known to you

and Ofitserov has no temporary place of residence

including in the city of

Kirov. You cannot, by ruling, oblige

Ofitserov not to leave

the hotel. First of all, staying in a hotel

costs money; secondly

on

accommodation

I understand that you have explained this; I also

want to state my

position very clearly: there is a desire to impose a measure on me, but as it were, I

I understand that perfectly well. You have a desire

to force [someone] to write systematically

a motion: Please let me go to

my wife, and what kind of nonsense is this

a right, a constitutional right, which we

still have written into the Basic Law (the Constitution)

the right to respect for private

life. So far, no one has yet

abolished that right. Now, Ofitserov's private life

is in Moscow: Ofitserov has his family there

many children there, including

young children. Ofitserov also has work there

that requires his

attention. I believe that already

because the court, at one point,

arbitrarily changed the schedule of court

hearings, Ofitserov has already suffered

financial losses because he

could not properly and fully

carry out his

work obligations. Excuse me, and you are

now

on Ofitserov

imposing a period of additional

losses. I am sure that all these

circumstances taken together indicate

that, forgive me of course, but you are

now being guided by something else, something that

differs substantially from the interests of

justice as I

understand them. Right now, in the interests of

justice, it would be best for the defense

to continue resolving procedural

issues so that we could move on already to

the examination

of the evidence. Therefore, Your Honor,

I understand, of course, that you have already

made your decision, and that whatever we may

say to you now, nothing will change, but I ask

you nevertheless to think it over and not to impose a preventive measure on

Navalny, and still less on

Ofitserov

Your Honor, Ofitserov has young children, and

I have election campaign headquarters

and it is not yet clear—sorry, Ofitserov—which requires

more attention. And to be honest, I do have

a definite thought that this whole

suddenly imposed travel restriction

is connected with my plans, specifically

to open a campaign office in St. Petersburg on Saturday. Then give me

if you want to impose a travel restriction

for the weekends

you are referring to

Well, if that is what is intended, then let us do it this way:

on weekdays, a travel restriction in the city of

Kirov, and on weekends, permission to travel

anywhere. Is that how it will work? It will

be considered; I think the answer will be favorable. And

if there is no court hearing on a weekday,

Your Honor,

look, let us take this slowly. Yes, well

if it is imposed, and there will or will not be a hear-

partly because you did not state specifically

what you want, it is unclear to us. I

said: if, say, a weekday

comes and the prosecution asks for

a recess for, I don't know, a week or something

then what, are they supposed to sit in

Kirov on weekdays and wait until the state

prosecution deigns

uh, to proceed? Y-you should submit that to me in writing

Apply in writing, yes, and I will issue a resolution

But why should I? I very much hope that in the

absence of court

hearings, with you, my dear

friend, you

Your Honor, Your Honor, it seems to me everything is much

simpler. If we were not discussing all this

we would still have had me and

Ofitserov questioned today. We have two

or three motions left which, once you resolve them,

the presentation of evidence will begin here

for me and Ofitserov, briefly

there is not much to say. The closing

statement will be short: Long live the Soviet

court, the most humane court in the world (a well-known ironic Soviet slogan), and that is all

Therefore I would still propose, and I ask,

that you grant my motion

as a compromise: that we postpone the question of

the preventive measure until tomorrow, when we will be able

to provide you with the hotel documents, and in

any case, well, well, on Friday we will

have the closing statements

so why all this fuss

is not very clear. Then we

can even, when you

schedule the next hearing, we can

even buy tickets right away and book a hotel

pay for it and bring it in simply

as proof that we too will be here, and

then fine. Well, it is clear that if

docu- well, you say a travel restriction

and I say I will not sign it. Well, then what?

Will you keep me under house

arrest in a hotel?

Well, I am just curious. I am not exactly

trying to needle anyone, but I

am simply saying that this whole

situation, this whole legal collision, is connected with

the fact

that the court, it seems to me, incorrectly

interpreted the hotel documents

which we will bring, and the court also incorrectly

interpreted our failure to appear, which was

due to valid reasons

therefore I once again inform

... that by Fri-

this week. Although it seems to me we will manage everything

in time. Schedule a court hearing, and we

will most definitely come. We want

for all this to end more quickly, and for all

of us to go our separate ways, wherever we may have

to go after your

verdict. The motion to postpone

consideration of the issue is under discussion. Does anyone

wish to speak?

postpone the issue until tomorrow, so that we can present

the documents

the stops, taking into account that

material

[music]

since February

there is a difference

if the question concerns

execution

Danni Pesha would like to say something

on

the court finds it necessary to deny the request

to allow

[music]

no questions

when he returns, it will be

it's unclear whether it will be ready

please

[music]

you go ahead

Raste too, filmed

well, come on

well yes, yes

Dakha, who among us wants to

leave, yes

The reports are very, very

interesting and very

seriously, right now I don't know

I don't want to

[music]

uh

What, what, what needs to be done with the car?

that he came back, I don't even know—come back, come back

Kato

right now I don't even understand at what

point it will be halfway

you'll climb up, so we can

just raise the camera, yes

look, right now we're raising the camera up to the

ceiling, then you stand here in front of the camera

you just climb out, it would be

not bad, we could do it like that

raise it—do you think it can be heard there?

ready

Yes, we need to take a screenshot, funny

it really took off, yeah

then we'll

oh

on

Let me just go over to him, and you tell me

which one—yes, it's faster this way, just tell me

tell me which one is the latest

the latest? I don't see the latest one, then later

I have it, I have it on

the page, and you?

you, you too? Ah

that's it, I said it for half an hour and

just a mountain of it

uh

look

they've already started playing the game even now

good

we begin

it works

it works

which, when

will be, and that's his

you have 340,000

views, seriously

right now, according to the statistics

when

Yes, well, I mean, there isn't

anything like that

well, yes

sh

bu

I think, please

how much then

with

Sasha was supposed to

do it, Sasha should have

cha

no, one person is not enough

every request must be looked at

it was exactly

in my opinion

for now, go somewhere

Come on, the second one already, the second

Uh-huh

turn it on

the main thing is, it's possible

Yes, so, the general one, sitting, sitting because

damn it, you never see your own anymore

in no case

more

possible

yes, let's do it in

here you go

right now and

All right, okay for you

honestly, it sounds

already

I ask everyone

[music]

on January 1, 2017, the Lensky District Court

of the city

with the participation of the state department head

of the department

of the regional prosecutor's office departments

for supervision over compliance with legislation

against corruption in culture

also

his defense attorney, lawyer Mikhailov

Ofitserov and defense attorney

having examined in court the materials of the criminal case

regarding charges of a crime under Part 33

part, against Officer Yuryevich, concerning the commission of

a crime under paragraph p of Article 33

part of the article

160; on January 25, 2017, but

the city court, in the court session of 201

would

of the court hearing of the criminal case in 2017

year, 27, 2017

the hearing, with a signed undertaking of proper conduct

the defense did not object

to the choice of the preventive measure, since the choice

of the measure

for now, the grounds

considers

...the court takes into account that Nava accepted...

the commission of an intentional serious...

the opening of the court hearing

which took place

272 On January 30, 2017, he failed to appear...

properly notified of the time of the hearing in relation...

...the court previously made a decision to hold the hearing in his...

defense counsel, his lawyer, by way of official notification to him

reading aloud

the legal basis is also...

receives... indicating that he is obstructing...

notification to him of the next...

court hearing is regarded by the court as...

a deliberate obstruction of the court hearing...

grounds for conducting the hearing...

According to

...and the court's ruling...

hearing

conducting the review

located in the city...

[music]

...Alexei, born in 1976

born in the Kirov Region, from February 1...

from 2012 until February 10, 2017, under a written undertaking...

...an obligation not to leave without permission from his place of...

residence

Kirov, located at the address: Kirov Region

city avenue 145, building 1

to appear before the court

before the court

ruling of ... 2017, city of

Kirovsky

district

state...

region

defense counsel

lawyer, materials concerning...

part

...

official... committed

part

...on January 25

2017, which was adjourned to ... 2017, about which

the person present at the hearing had been notified in advance

hearing of the federal...

case of 201... year

...was...

the issue was raised by the defense side

...and by the prosecution

the court considers that

officers

...that took place

documented in the court...

hearing of 2017

year, appeared at the court hearing

[music]

...

7556, March 4

25, 2017, until the 10th of ... 2017

the above temporary place of residence

...located...

you must appear, please, before the court...

Presiding Judge

present

please... this is part of the parties'...

in addition

in court... your place of stay above has been established

please refrain

leaving once again — if I am absent for more than 12

hours from the territory of the region

it will be regarded as having left

the region, whether directly or...

...or the city of Kirov — from Kirov to Malmyzh

you may travel to Malmyzh

Your Honor, I have a brief

statement and a couple of questions, if I may, in order for

you to clarify briefly

statement. Have you seen the film *Brother 2*? There was a line there...

...something like: “I respect you, but...”

“...I won't drink.” It's the same here: I respect the court very much,

but I inform the court that I will not

sign this undertaking not to leave.

That is first. Second, I simply have

a question for clarification: who is going to pay if...

I am evicted from there tomorrow and I have to...

Is the court placing on me an obligation

to start an ugly fight in the field, in...

the hotel, when security throws me out of there?

While I am being evicted, will I be fed in

the hotel? I mean, well, it is a hotel

and actually quite expensive. What

am I supposed to do in that connection? Please just explain

your decision to me then. You literally

stated at the court hearing that you have

funds available in order to

pay for the room until Friday. But on the weekend, when...

you said until December 10 — December 10...

multiply it until the 10th — sorry, yes, until the 10th

of February, February 10. Multiply that by 4,000 rubles (about US$65 at the time)

and that will be a substantial

sum, especially with lawyers as well. Yes, probably.

The defense says that for them to leave for the

weekend, no permission is required. For whom?

For the lawyers? Well then...

And I have to stay here in Kirov for the weekend?

Fine, I went to a museum — what next? Come on,

give me a guided tour of Kirov

what else then? You have left me here

invite me over for tea, I don't

know what else. How is this supposed to work in

practice? Yes, Friday — I said at the hearing

that I have money for the weekdays

but on weekends I will be staying... and

in general, let's proceed as follows...

the money has not come in, the funds have run out, there is no money

we have not finished — no, the question really is

a serious one: where are the bills supposed to be sent?

Sent where? To what address? Who

is paying them? Is the minibar allowed or not?

And breakfast? We are already getting into questions like

without a minibar it's difficult, very difficult...

It is nevertheless proposed that a copy be received

of the ruling, with a signed receipt acknowledging receipt

in the records. About...

What? About receipt of a copy of the ruling? No.

I will not sign. Your...

The ruling will be appealed; it has not entered into

legal force. So what kind of undertaking is this? This is...

not detention, which takes effect immediately

it will be appealed in accordance with the procedure established by law

SRO

d

please, please, we will receive a copy

we will receive it; at the same time, we would also like to immediately

receive the order for compulsory appearance as well, and accordingly

everything that you issued today as well, right now. Excuse me

this is not

all right, Navalny (Alexei Navalny), please as well

one more question: well, simply, if we

finish on Friday, and you

accordingly, under the protocol, go

to the deliberation room to prepare the verdict

correct? That

means that, as it turns out, you are planning for February 10

to come out

I think that in this case, until

the last

word. Who among us will give it?

submit a motion, and I will

consider it

so, that is, are you promising that you will consider it?

we are not promising that we will let you go, of course

I said I would consider it—that is all I said

then there will be... no, it’s just that last time

that is exactly how it was: we agreed on the date

and then something changed. And now I

because of the date on the sign-up list, they

were howling, although, by the way, I have

valid reasons, really. All right

I will get a copy

those... Oleg, who took it? Please tell me

please

criminal case

can I not?

well, either we sign it, or let’s

just leave it at that

I will serve the ruling

regarding me, yes? Uh-huh. And дальше what?

the date is written

the signature is written... oh

what is the ruling about?

everything that...

not

definitely move everyone in there

Let’s also take the recognizance from the prosecutor

all the rulings will be prepared

about the cooperative

the numbers have been assigned

[music]

so that

tomorrow

internet outage, maybe the Wi-Fi is in some mode

video streaming is not possible

that’s all from us then, see you tomorrow

by 9 o’clock we

[music]

whether or not... no one understands that

understands. I mean, it is not in effect—we did not

give it. That is, neither of you signed a paper

saying that you undertake not to

leave

tomorrow. This is

well, this is

they refused something regarding it. Well, the recognizance itself

was signed because it was half... with...

Let’s perhaps arrange some kind of approach

somehow. Well, stand however is most comfortable for you

comfortable. I

then—Pyotr, where did you go? Let me do it alone

I will start

the documents were not

signed. Well, you all witnessed this

strange spectacle, which once again proves

only one thing: that all these

restrictions and this entire process

are connected solely with the election campaign

we publicly announced the schedule for opening

campaign headquarters. On Saturday I was supposed to open

the first headquarters in St. Petersburg, and immediately

suddenly the judge

comes out with a recognizance order

carefully... lawyer Davydova simply, from

indignation, could not stay on her

feet, and right then the judge comes out with

the initiative of imposing a recognizance not to leave, which

was not even part of the first trial. It is clear

what this is for: so that I simply cannot

travel around the regions, and then there will be

a recognizance not to leave until he delivers

the verdict, and then there will be a recognizance

not to leave until there is a decision

from the appellate court, and thus

for several months I will have to

either stay at the Hilton hotel in

Kirov—which is simply ridiculous—or else

at home

but

I officially refused to sign any

travel restriction. I gave no such undertaking. I do not believe that

I should be required to remain

here in Kirov. I believe this

decision is unlawful, and I do not intend to comply with it

and I plan to be on Saturday in

the city of St. Petersburg for the opening of

my campaign headquarters

Thank you. And we all witnessed this strange

spectacle, which has proven

now we need to

Is this yours?

charger? Koga, fix the video for me too