Verdict in the case of the “defamation of deputy Lisovenko”

Case No. 1-14/14 JUDGMENT IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION April 22, 2014 Moscow The Court, composed of presiding Justice of the Peace A.A. Nekryach of Court District No. 329 of the Losinoostrovsky District of Moscow, acting as Justice of the Peace of Court District No. 332 of the Babushkinsky District of Moscow, with court session secretary N.V. Fomina, with the participation of: the private prosecutor (victim) — L***, the representative of the private prosecutor (victim), who presented ID No. ***, and warrant No. ***, the defendant A.A. Navalny, - - attorney F.N. Trusov, defense counsel, attorney O.O. Mikhailova, who presented ID No. ***, and warrant No. *** - , defense counsel, attorney V.D. Kobzev, who presented ID No. ***, and warrant No. *** having considered in open court the materials of private prosecution criminal case No. 1-14/14 against: A. A. Navalny, with *** education, having *** *** year of birth, native of ***, citizen of , *** *, registered at: *** *** *** , , accused of committing the offense предусмотренного by Part 1, Article 128.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, FOUND: A.A. Navalny committed libel, that is, the dissemination of knowingly false information defaming the honor and dignity of another person or undermining that person’s reputation, under the following circumstances. or ***, *** *** year *** Specifically, from an unidentified location and using unidentified technical means providing access to the Internet, at approximately *** hours *** minutes, acting with intent to disseminate knowingly false information defaming the honor and dignity of L*** and undermining his business reputation as ***, he posted on the webpage of the online service at the Internet address: a message with the following content: “believes that only one person may have access to LiveJournal and Twitter” with a direct hyperlink in that message to the webpage ***, by following which on the Internet one opens a webpage containing published information about statements by *** L*** under the headline “*** accused Navalny of using the Internet.” Thus, ***, *** 1

the defendant A.A. Navalny, in the above form and using cross-links on the Internet, disseminated information that L*** is ***

When questioned at the hearing, the defendant A.A. Navalny did not admit guilt in the offense charged. He explained that in another criminal case a preventive measure had been imposed on him in the form of house arrest, together with a number of restrictions, including a ban on using means of communication and the information and telecommunications network “Internet.” Therefore, he had not posted any information on the Internet and had no right to do so by court order; accordingly, it had been announced that other people would post information on social media on his behalf. He stated that he had not previously known the private prosecutor (victim) L*** personally, had no motive to commit the above offense, and therefore had no reason to disseminate information about L*** defaming his honor and dignity. He also stated that he had committed no crime, that the charge brought against him was absurd, and that he believed L*** was seeking publicity in this way.

Despite the defendant A.A. Navalny’s refusal to admit guilt, his guilt is confirmed by the following evidence.

*** *** ,

At the hearing, the private prosecutor (victim) L*** supported the accusation on the grounds set out in the complaint. He explained that he is employed as ***. He had not previously known A.A. Navalny personally, had no relationship with him, and bore no ill will toward A.A. Navalny. In *** year, from a letter from *** K***, he learned that on *** year K***, while at *** at the address: had become acquainted with a message reading as follows: “believes that only one person may have access to LiveJournal and Twitter...,” posted on the Internet on Alexei Navalny’s Twitter account, and therefore asked that the situation be looked into, since such statements, posted in open access on the Internet, defame L***’s honor and dignity and also undermine his authority as ***. He also learned of the said message from an internal memorandum by staff members of the office of *** L***, A***, B***, N***, dated *** year No. ***. The memorandum stated that during the period from *** year, the office began receiving numerous calls from district residents asking whether L*** really was ***. All callers referred to the social network Twitter, where, according to the residents, a message had been posted in which A.A. Navalny called L*** ***. In this connection, the staff members decided to verify the information, and on *** year, using their work computers while at the address ***, they found in open access for all Internet users a message with the following *** *** *** - *** from *** year until *** *** *** content: “believes that only one person may have access to LiveJournal and Twitter,” and therefore asked that the situation be resolved, since the numerous calls and provocative questions from residents were distracting the staff from carrying out their direct duties. 2

In addition to the foregoing, the guilt of the defendant A.A. Navalny is confirmed by the written case materials examined at the hearing: - *** *** by the record of inspection of written evidence prepared by notary ***, according to which on *** year, at the notary office located at: *** ***, *** *** dated *** year, drawn up at *** hours *** *** notary *** minutes in the office premises, conducted an inspection of written evidence located on the Internet. On the “page,” textual information and images were found. In the center there was text under the heading “believes that only one person may have access to LiveJournal and Twitter ***.” The symbols *** were highlighted in color and constituted a “link,” by “following” which she discovered another “page” with text and images under the heading “*** accused Navalny of using the Internet,” with attached texts and images (case file p. ***); record of inspection of written evidence - *** by notary , according to which on *** year at *** ***, at the notary office located at: - *** *** *** *** dated *** year, drawn up at *** hours *** minutes in the office premises, notary *** *** H*** addressed to *** *** *** *** on *** year at *** conducted an inspection of written evidence located on the Internet. On the “page,” textual information and images were found under the heading “***) with attached texts and images (case file p. ***); internal memorandum of employees of *** L***, A***, B***, dated *** year No. ***, according to which during the period from *** year to ***, telephone calls were received from district residents asking whether *** L*** really is ***. All callers referred to the social network Twitter, where, according to the residents, a message had been posted in which A.A. Navalny called L*** “***.” In this connection, the staff members resolved to verify this information, and on *** year, while at the address ***, using their work computers, they found in open access for all Internet users, on A.A. Navalny’s Twitter account, a message with the following content: “from ‘***’ believes, ***’ that only one person may have access to LiveJournal and Twitter,” and therefore asked that the situation be resolved, since the numerous calls and provocative questions from residents were distracting the staff from carrying out their direct duties (case file p. ***); - by letter at the address: *** , *** - by the medical certificate regarding L***’s health status, issued by ***, according to which no signs of *** illness were found at the time of examination (case file p. ***); *** K*** addressed to *** *** L***, according to which, on *** year K***, while at *** became acquainted with a message reading, “believes that only one person may have access to LiveJournal and Twitter...,” posted on the Internet on Alexei Navalny’s Twitter account, with reference to the media outlet ***, which reported that L*** had applied to the prosecutor’s office requesting a review of the conditions of A.A. Navalny’s house arrest. She asked that the situation be looked into, since such insulting statements, posted in open access on the Internet, mislead people, defame L***’s honor and dignity, and also undermine his authority as *** (case file p. ***). 3 ***

In assessing the evidence presented, the court finds it reliable, since it is consistent, corroborates itself, and is admissible, as it was obtained in accordance with the requirements of criminal procedure law and is relevant to the case under consideration.

***

***

-

The court sees no grounds to exclude from the body of evidence the record of inspection of written evidence from *** year, prepared by notary ***, and from *** year, prepared *** *** dated *** the record of inspection of written evidence by the notary, as having been obtained in violation of the requirements of criminal procedure law, as argued by the defense and the defendant. These records were obtained in accordance with the requirements of criminal procedure law and constitute relevant and admissible evidence in the case.

-

The “Internet” is a publicly accessible worldwide system of interconnected computer networks created for storing and transmitting information to an indefinite circle of persons. The Internet service Twitter is a service for the public exchange of short messages; on an account profile, above the name, there appears a symbol consisting of a white check mark on a blue background, which confirms that the blog in question is maintained using the Twitter service in accordance with that service’s rules; such a symbol confirms the authenticity of the account. The above information (“‘***’ believes that only one person may have access to LiveJournal and Twitter...”) was disseminated on the webpage at: the message was posted in the microblog *** — the microblog of the defendant A.A. Navalny, as confirmed by the written case materials examined at the hearing. The defendant A.A. Navalny did not apply to the relevant authorities responsible for oversight in the field of communications and mass media with any complaint regarding unlawful actions committed against his (A.A. Navalny’s) Twitter service account (account hacking).

***

-

DATED *** *** *** year, ,

As follows from the medical certificate regarding L***’s health status contained in the case materials, issued by *** No. *** on *** year, according to which, based on the results of the medical examination conducted, no signs of illness were found at the time of examination. The court has no grounds not to trust the medical certificate, which was properly executed; it therefore follows that the message posted in the microblog contains knowingly false information defaming the honor and dignity of L***.

***

The copy submitted by the defense of the ruling of the Basmanny District Court of Moscow dated February 28, 2014, imposing on A.A. Navalny a preventive measure in the form of house arrest in another criminal case, neither confirms nor refutes A.A. Navalny’s involvement in the commission of this offense, since it does not relate to the subject matter of the present criminal case. The court views the defendant’s arguments concerning his non-involvement in the charged offense critically and regards them as a means for A.A. Navalny to avoid criminal liability. 4

There is no information in the case materials, and none has been presented to the court, indicating that the private prosecutor (victim) L*** had any reason to falsely accuse the defendant A.A. Navalny.

Taking the above circumstances together, the court concludes that A.A. Navalny’s actions contain the elements of a criminal offense, and classifies his actions under Part 1, Article 128.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as libel, that is, the dissemination of knowingly false information defaming the honor and dignity of another person or undermining that person’s reputation, since he intentionally posted defamatory information concerning L*** on a webpage in the social network Twitter, which later became known to the latter at the address: ***. These fabrications by A.A. Navalny contain information defaming the victim L*** and undermine his reputation in society from the standpoint of compliance with the law, rules of communal life, and the principles of universal morality and ethics.

The defendant A.A. Navalny knowingly understood the falsity of the information he was communicating, as well as the fact that his dissemination of that information on the Internet to a wide circle of persons defamed the honor and dignity of *** L*** and his business reputation.

And

In imposing sentence on the defendant A.A. Navalny, the court takes into account the nature and degree of social danger of the offense committed, which falls into the category of minor offenses, the factual circumstances of the act, information about the offender’s personality, his family and financial situation, and his health status: he is not registered with a psychoneurological or narcological dispensary, he has a prior conviction that has not been expunged or spent, his attitude toward the act committed, taking into account his active conduct related to the dissemination of knowingly false information, as well as the effect of the imposed punishment on his rehabilitation, and concludes that a fine should be imposed.

***

At the same time, on the basis of Part 4, Article 74 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the court considers it possible to preserve A.A. Navalny’s suspended sentence under the judgment with the imposed punishment in the form of *** year amended: on the basis of Article 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the imposed punishment in the form of from ***.** ***, ** , year judgment ** . **. ** ** - to be executed ,

Thus, the punishment imposed by the judgment amended: on the basis of Article 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the imposed punishment in the form of shall be executed independently.

The court has established no circumstances mitigating or aggravating the defendant’s punishment.

On the basis of the foregoing, and guided by Articles 303, 304, 307–309, and 322 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation,

HEREBY SENTENCES:

A. A. Navalny is found guilty of committing the offense provided for in Part 1, Article 128.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and is sentenced to a fine in the amount of 300,000 (three hundred thousand) rubles.

5

The punishment imposed on A.A. Navalny by the judgment of ** year in case **; ** ** year amended: on the basis of ** - shall be executed independently.

No preventive measure shall be imposed on A.A. Navalny. This judgment may be appealed to the Babushkinsky District Court of Moscow within ten days from the date of its pronouncement. In the event of an appeal, the convicted person has the right to petition for his participation in the consideration of the criminal case by the appellate court.