Fifth Meeting of the Opposition Coordination Council

What

You... Well, no, sort of...

Before we move on to discussing the agenda,

first of all, I would like to congratulate Sergei

Udaltsov on his birthday. Let's congratulate him.

He turns 36 today.

Sergei is in a very difficult situation, as you

know. There are endless, completely insane

developments there. So, at Sergei's suggestion,

of Sergei

his representative on the Coordination Council

will be

Alee. As you know, just the other day we

voted in favor of a statement regarding

Ser... I asked

the agenda

for the floor. Thank you for your support.

...house arrest was synchronized with what

is happening to our

comrade, who, as you probably know,

was

cut off from any contact with the outside world

in Irkutsk.

Again, for a week, no one was allowed to see him,

not even his lawyers. He was attacked,

and he was not allowed

[music]

to

...and the investigators' aim was to extract from him

testimony by the end of next week, because

even the Russian investigation does not have

unlimited powers to keep him until

that terrible

trial. Fortunately, he is in a very... condition

His lawyer saw him and says that he is all

[applause]

...more or less brought into

shape. We are very grateful that you

promptly supported the statement in

support of Sergei. We quickly found

a compromise on the wording and everything

else. We would like this

statement to be signed by the remaining 15 who

did not manage to vote in time; they have no principled

objections.

We invite everyone, both signatories and non-signatories,

to join us today. The right, together with

the power of attorney to represent Sergei, has also

come to us. Today we will

be celebrating his birthday at the address of

his registered residence: 12 Zatonnaya Street,

building O. Come, and bring red

ribbons. Let the whole courtyard there be covered in

red

ribbons. You can bring a white ribbon too;

it will run like a white thread through

this whole story.

Yes, we have... I don't know, probably

more details

later within the agenda. We have

a proposal for a human rights action.

That's on the agenda; right now we are discussing Sergei's

birthday and the statement.

Which... Thank you very much. One more point:

today's

meeting was supposed to

be... as you know, but unfortunately he is now under

house arrest. Still, I understand

that this is an absolutely force majeure

situation, and I propose, outside the agenda,

that we nevertheless vote for the next

chairperson.

So I propose

Alexei as chairperson,

Gaskarov, who is present here.

If there are any other proposals for

the next chairmanship...

You are absolutely right, but there are simply

some ethical

considerations, so I propose

no further motions. Who is in favor of

Alexei Gaskarov chairing the next meeting?

Please vote. Who is in favor?

...meeting in March. Now let us move on to the agenda.

Who has proposals regarding the agenda?

On the agenda, the representative of Daniil

Konstantinov. Dear colleagues, at the

previous meeting it was supposed

to discuss a resolution on political

prisoners and prisoners

of conscience. This resolution

is for the consideration of the Coordination Council, and it

was submitted by five members

of the Coordination Council. It will now

be handed out to those present. I ask that

this issue be included in today's

meeting agenda. Thank you. Thank you. Any others? Yes,

please. I ask that the agenda include

Please include in the agenda

a brief report on participation in the formation of

precinct election commissions.

All right.

Yes, we discussed the same resolution that we

already went through at the meeting.

To amend

because

it says there, 'if he is convicted,'

so let us change it to 'convicted' — a one-word amendment.

All right, yes.

Alexei

And I propose that item number nine,

the most important political issue that

will be considered today, be moved up

in the agenda and placed fifth or sixth.

Fifth or sixth. Well, to be honest,

even before the programmatic statement. Yes, why...

I think fourth. No objection to making it

fourth? No objection, supported. All right, yes.

So, colleagues, as is our custom, let us

first adopt the agenda as a basis. Who is in favor

of adopting it as a basis? Please

vote. Any against? Any abstentions?

Excellent. Now we have a number of

proposals. One proposal — let us start with

Navalny, because I think it is unlikely to

cause any

discussion: the report of the working group on

international affairs on the Magnitsky List.

Move item number nine to

fourth place. Any objections? Who is in favor of

putting it there?

Thank you. Next, Ilya's proposal.

Konstantinov's resolution on poli-

tical prisoners and prisoners of conscience, which has not yet been

distributed to us. It was prepared on instructions

by a group of members of the commission for the protection of

vote.

Against? Abstained? Come on, let's keep moving.

We're working efficiently. Next, the report on

the work on participation in precinct

election commissions. Yes, Georgy

proposed it. Who is in favor of including the report

in the agenda? Please

vote. Against? Abstained?

Then in favor.

What? Ah,

Bondarik. This is the issue Bondarik—yes,

Andrei proposed excluding it.

The twelfth item, since it has already been

discussed. Bondarik objects. Who is in favor of

also including the civil society plan

... In general, it seems to me

we can read. Let's vote.

No, wait. It's simple: the author

who put the item on the agenda—he moved it

as the basis, yes. There is an amendment, an amendment

to remove the item. He has the right to do that.

That is the question. Now I will put the amendment to a vote.

Who is in favor of excluding

the twelfth item from discussion? Who

is in favor? It did not pass, obviously. We will not vote against.

So, the agenda as a whole

has been approved.

Who is in favor of adopting the agenda as a whole?

Please

vote.

Against? Abstained? None. Excellent. So,

the first item is on holding

spring protest actions. The speaker is Pyotr

[music]

Tsarkov. Usually Ulov reports, but

since you started with this, he took part

in the work of our group. Therefore, in

general, our views largely coincide.

The working group has already met

twice.

We have already begun work on preparing

the upcoming events. Now I will briefly

talk about our activities. First of all,

I would like to note that almost

all members of our group agree that

the upcoming event must be

made

as well prepared as possible—well, prepared well—and make

it as large as possible. Well,

of course we need to aim for

the number of people who come to these

events to be no less than

on the thirteenth

of January. That is exactly how we can

increase pressure on

the authorities; otherwise, the actions

may be regarded by our, so to speak,

opponents

in the Kremlin. And of course, first

and foremost, by combining our

efforts, we must hold mass

actions so that they are successful. That is one

side of it. But since our friends are

in prison—friends with whom

we stood in pickets

and rallies—we are obliged to seek the

release of our comrades right now,

and not wait for a favorable moment in order

to hold a large-scale major

action. As is well known, the Investigative Committee

continues to fabricate criminal

cases. And in the Bolotnaya case (the prosecution over the 2012 Bolotnaya Square protest), there recently

appeared a new defendant, Ilya Gushchin.

Therefore, we must work actively,

organize a protest action, and now I will

speak about this

in more detail. At the previous meeting

of the Coordinating Council, a decision was made

to hold

a protest action with the working title March

Against

the Executioners. Our working group believes that

such a protest action should have been

timed to coincide with the start of the trials in

the Bolotnaya case. But since we recently

received information that

the investigation in the Bolotnaya case has been extended

until April 6, it turns out that such an action

would take place probably at the end of April

or perhaps even in May, and thus

the other action that we

planned as a major event

which will take place on the

anniversary of the events at Bolotnaya, that is,

somewhere around May 4 or 5, would practically

coincide.

Therefore,

we

continue to discuss the date. Perhaps

today

on this

issue, in my view, it is still too early

to fix this

date definitively. Nevertheless, perhaps in the course

of the discussion we will, so to speak, come to an understanding

of the need to hold the March Against

the Executioners at the end of March, perhaps at the

beginning

of April. I repeat, I have already spoken about this earlier,

but it seems to me that at this upcoming

action it is necessary first

of all to try to name everyone who

is involved in

the persecution of activists,

participants in

rallies, specifically the rally at Bolotnaya on May 6, and

these executioners, of course, are

the investigators of the Investigative Committee,

who fabricate cases, the OMON riot police officers who have already testified,

and the judges handing down unjust

and

Dnieper, uh

let's, so to speak, present them

society, the optimal format is

this was discussed in our working group, for this

event, we believe that holding

a demonstration and a small, brief

rally at its conclusion, a rally

uh

seems important because

the lawyers will have the opportunity

to speak and talk

about the events taking place

perhaps

representatives of those being held in the pretrial detention center

will also be able to take part

And as is well known, right now

a public investigation is underway

a public investigation into the events of May 6

so of course it also makes sense

to speak publicly about this and explain

what conclusions

the organizers of this investigation have reached

Well, apart from this

action, of course it is important to hold an action

a major protest action on the anniversary

directly on the anniversary of the events of May 6

I think it is still too early to talk about this now

so for now it is important simply

to establish

that the peak of the protest should be precisely

on this anniversary of the events, and for that

it is necessary to use different forms

of activity, recalling for example

the actions that took place at the monument to

Abai (Kazakh poet Abai Kunanbayev) last year at Chistye Prudy

we can talk about walks with white

symbols on Red Square; in the lead-up

to the anniversary, we must hold

various actions

so now we will be working on this

further; it is known that

it is drawing serious public

attention; the issue of corruption is already

now the upcoming Olympics are being called nothing

less than a festival of corruption because

massive embezzlement is taking place, and the 50

billion that will be spent on this

Olympics

are such an enormous sum that

having no

no Olympics in history have had such costs

Of course, all of this

is an unbearable burden on the budget

and this issue of corruption

is increasingly, so to speak, causing people

to want to somehow express their

protest. Therefore, I believe that one could

speak of the need to hold

a separate action devoted to this issue, and

as a working title, for example, I can

suggest

an anti-corruption march

I would also like to draw

the attention of the members of the Coordinating Council to this important

issue. In addition

to that, in the working group we discussed

other formats, for example an action for

motorists; we would also like

some kind of one

to propose one; we are working on that, and in the

near future we will already propose some

well-thought-out options. And since

to deliver a serious blow to the власти

of bandits, crooks, thieves, and so on, we

must, of course, through protest actions

not only in Moscow but also in

other

regions, begin preparing for this

upcoming actions already now. At the

last meeting of the working group, we

identified a number of areas in which

preparations have already begun: the information

track, coordinated by, uh,

sorry, as well as

Semyon; for coordination with the regions

Andrei Pivovarov is responsible for this

area; for work with volunteers

Georgy Aro, and the administrative-technical

which

[music]

traditionally I

handle separately. I would like

to speak about the regional

track; I ask that

already now we need to coordinate our

actions. We will of course help

with information, provide legal

support; administrative and technical

issues we will be able to resolve jointly

much more effectively. And the most

important thing

is coordination, so that the actions, the actions

we have coming up really turn out

Representative Konstantin, I would like

to understand the situation with the social

march on the ___ of March

Does the Coordinating Council support this action

If not, then why not

and who is organizing it? Thank you

protest actions, decisions on which are made by the

Coordinating

Council; if the Coordinating Council

supports this action in one form or another

then of course we will try to take

part in the work of preparing it

let's ask Alexei Snin

whether the microphone is working

What

happened there

Technically, fine. I actually wanted

to respond to Pyotr's proposal and

reach out and establish contact with the regions through him

because the social march is being prepared

in several places at once; yesterday, for example, in

Moscow, the Social March committee met

and specifically adopted a decision that

to

to propose providing informational

support

to that internal constitution of ours which

we are planning to adopt today, there are

wonderful words there, because

the Coordination Council's position is to

fully promote the unification

of civil society's resources for

supporting specific thematic and

local protest campaigns, and this is

a specific thematic and fairly

large protest campaign

therefore, the activists of the Social March in

the Moscow region

the urban coalition of social initiatives

and various political activists there

are grateful for such informational

support. That is the first comment, and

as for the second comment, we would

ask, we would propose timing the march

of executioners to the last and second-to-last

weekends of March, say March 2

March, about

the issue that was separated into a distinct

proceeding. And the third comment: we

propose preparing for May 4–5, as it were,

a kind of summary

broad action that would combine

democratic and social demands

set out in the resolutions of the July and

September, uh, September

actions, and would at the same time

be a high point in the history of our protest

movement. And this initiative with the

anti-corruption march, it seems to me, could

become an interesting kind of conclusion

to the protest season there at the end of May

or beginning of June; we could

prepare it thoroughly and well. That is

our proposal, these are the solidarity

proposals of the left wing. Thank you

Another question is that if the coalition

council supports and, so to speak,

supports, approves this action, yes,

and takes an active part in it, then I would

then propose, specifically for

the St. Petersburg region, creating a group of

three or four members of the council who are from

St. Petersburg. Yes, I don't know, there is

Anatolyevna, probably from St. Petersburg, or not

from St. Petersburg. Right now, well, I think

that they are also more or less St. Petersburg-based, yes, that

is, from among those council members who are from St. Petersburg

some kind of group to coordinate actions

because, say, in St. Petersburg already, unfortunately,

two applications have again been submitted for

the social

march. Yes, naturally, first the Civic

Committee submitted one, then therefore let's

let's, look, several proposals have come in here

several proposals. First of all, from

Tsarkov: there is no draft decision yet, for now these are

being discussed

live. One is simply about providing

informational support to the social

march, correct?

As I understand it. I think there are no

objections; everyone present here

can provide that support, so

let us record that the Council, the members of the

Council, provide informational

support to the social

march in blogs, there on Echo of Moscow, there

everywhere. This would not be about Navalny, as I understand it

So, can we refrain from voting on this?

voting? He himself, thank God,

is an adult and understands everything. But all the

others do too, for that matter, but let us

write down the decision that I proposed

that is, the members of the commission council

are to provide informational support

to the social march on March 2

just to recommend it, yes, recommen— well

all right, yes, fine. No objections

just one small clarification regarding

Echo of Moscow. Let's simply be aware

that Echo of Moscow is an independent mass

media outlet and publishes what it

considers necessary, including widely read blogs, so

once again, the Echo of Moscow website takes

from other blogs—Navalny's, yours, and

various others—whatever it considers

appropriate in accordance with the views

preferences, and calculations of its editors

Come on, Boris, just a small amendment on this

issue. Boris, I propose wording that is

still somewhat more binding, that is

the Coordination Council of the Russian opposition

supports this action and recommends

that its members provide informational

support. That, it seems to me, would be— understood

let's first vote on my

proposal, since it came earlier

and then yours

Okay, so I propose adopting

the following decision regarding March 2

to recommend that members of the council

provide informational

support to the social march on March 2. Who

is in favor of this proposal, please

vote. So, votes

no, 22 votes for adopting the decision. And how many

of us are present? This is only a recommendation

to recommend

procedural matters are adopted by vote, so we can

hold the vote once again

did you vote? No

I voted

to recommend that members of the constitutional

council provide informational

support to the social march on March 2. Who

is in favor of this proposal, please vote

in 10 minutes

call back in a minute

[music]

now look

Rko spoke about two substantive things, he

spoke about a human rights action, I call it

March against the executioners. Yes, we already

discussed this and made a decision.

By the way, in our protest group

the idea was to hold an anti-corruption rally or

an anti-corruption march; that had not been raised

here earlier at the Coordinating Council. We have not

made decisions like that before, and in this

connection I have a proposal: if no one wishes

to speak on the matter, then simply

support the very idea of holding two

such events—without wording, without dates, and even without a format.

One human rights action, the other anti-corruption.

...

A human rights action. I would like to clarify:

again? No.

I'm proceeding carefully; after all, I'm an experienced

official, I know how to do this neatly.

Let's not discuss that now. Just this: who is in favor

of supporting Tsarkov's proposal

to hold two such actions? First

question—the proposal for an action against the executioners,

then we hold an action in May.

[music]

I suggest discussing that later; for now

we are discussing themes. One moment—not formats, not even

formats. I'm not discussing formats; we are discussing themes, themes.

Two.

One is a human rights theme—against the executioners.

The second is an anti-corruption theme. Only

the themes for now—we are discussing themes. We want

to approve the themes, understood? Yes. The next

question will be about dates. Let's first

deal with the themes. Let's simply add a third theme.

What third theme? The one that we are holding

a democratic mar...

[applause]

Fair elections—that, that is not a theme. I told you

the themes: corruption and human rights.

Those are the themes. And the fact that on some date we

hold something—that is the date and format. That is a different

matter. So I propose we record

that the Coordinating Council intends to hold

two actions, at least two actions: one

human rights action and a second anti-corruption one.

Who is in favor?

A substantive proposal. The substantive question

The substantive question is

that this decision should not be overshadowed

by the need to conduct, in sequence,

a campaign that would have

direct continuity with

the March of Millions and those other

large rallies of ours that took place

last year, and whose demands

were set out in the resolutions

of June and September. One second, if I may—here is why:

why on

that point... And we said that the main spring action would be

in May.

There's no need to force an open door; we have already

made a decision on this matter.

We have already made a decision. Once again, I

ask you.

Come on, dear colleagues, if I am not

mistaken, there are two proposals, and the second proposal

concerns the actions. I think that in the order in which

these proposals were submitted, for now we should not even

get sidetracked. Let's first decide on the number, then on the themes.

Since this discussion has come up,

let's vote on each of these

proposals, and only then move on to

the question of formats, yes, and all the other

questions. It seems to me that the agenda should be

streamlined, and we should focus on preparing

for one large protest action at the end of

April or the beginning of

May. Holding two, let alone three, protest actions

will require an enormous expenditure of

effort, and there is a feeling that we will not be

able to mobilize a significant

number of people. If there are few people, it

will be perceived as a failure. Therefore, it seems to me

that we need to focus on

one protest action and direct all our efforts

all our resources to making it truly

massive, so that people come out in large numbers.

And in this connection

I propose one

action, apparently in early May and at the end of

April, depending on

events.

But Alexei's proposal is for actions.

The proposals that

[music]

will determine the public's interest

in this event, the number of participants, the

nature of the action, the format of the action itself, and so on.

Therefore I ask you

please, one moment—there was an objection. Everyone's attention,

one person at a time, please. Let's first

record that two themes will form the basis

of the future

main actions: a human rights

theme and an anti-corruption one. Who is in favor of the proposal?

Please vote.

It did not pass.

All right, now Arе's proposal.

[music]

Not about the themes—the actions will be held under

the auspices of the Coordinating Council. He proposed

putting it to a vote. The proposal consists

only in voting on the two

proposals that have already been voiced. One

proposal, if I understand correctly, from Boris,

is to hold two actions. The other

proposal, from Alexei, was to hold three

actions, and

therefore even in a single vote

this could be done as a ranked vote, for example, and

then afterward decide on the name, on

the theme, on

the format.

We are deciding. Look, there is a date that we have already

already

voted on, voted on; we cannot vote

on that anymore. Now a different

proposal is under discussion: how many actions

should be held under the auspices of the Coordinating Council.

Council, numbers 1, 2, 3, time period.

What year—guys, these are simple things. 20.

Just figure out this simple thing: the number of rallies over...

What period of time—from May 6 to 6...

May, up to May 6. Well, here, on the agenda in general...

of the day, I draw your attention to the question.

It is worded as follows: the question of holding spring

protest rallies.

That is, we are talking about dates up to the end of

May. How many?

Let's decide: are we counting May 6 or not?

Not counting it? That is, in the month with May 6—Boris, may we...

Colleagues, let's focus and

be serious. The point is that on May 6

we will in any case have a rally.

Therefore, right now there is only one question left: do we need

to hold one more rally in the middle of

May—say, on May 15—or only on May 6, that's

it.

That's all. Um, amendments?

Clarifications?

...says precisely that one rally

in any case is already supposed to take place, and

essentially, what we are discussing now is how many

rallies, in addition to this one already...

Either none—the proposal of our colleague Yashin

or one—the proposal of Boris Nemtsov

or two more—the proposal of Alexei Sokhn...

Thus, since everyone is nodding

in agreement, right, then we can

put it to a vote either as the first

option—there, 2, 3, 1—or, more precisely,

how many rallies, besides the rally

that we are planning for May 6: 0, 1, or 2. Clear?

So, does everyone understand?

what exactly we are now going to—what we are now

going to vote on? I think everyone understood

what we are about to vote on. But this is

a somewhat mechanistic approach, and we

cannot simply hold a rally

just for the sake of holding a rally. The idea

of holding an anti-corruption march,

for example, appeals to me. It seems to me this

topic is relevant in connection with the Olympics,

and our anti-corruption march, in

principle, encompasses everything else.

Because all these corrupt officials do not

commit these terrible acts in the area of

human rights violations for any reason other than that they are

corrupt.

If we decide to hold a rally, then we will...

...be asking: what, then, is the theme of one more rally?

There is really nothing specific to discuss here; a person...

has voted—what can I do about that?

Listen, there is a proposal from Andrei Ri...

In my opinion, it is quite reasonable. Look, we

at the previous

meeting...

...there was one proposal in addition to that

rally—two more. And then there was Yashin's proposal not

to hold them, and there was one more proposal

to hold one in March. The proposal—who was for March 2?

March 2?

Someone mentioned March 2, I don't

remember who. Who was it?

Who said it? I see. Therefore, I propose a ranked

vote.

A small addition: the point of holding

a rally on March 23 is that precisely at that

time the trials over Bolotnaya Square on May 6 (the Bolotnaya case protests of May 6, 2012)...

That is impossible. The information we have

from the lawyers is completely

different: the lawyers say that

there will be no trials on March 23. I draw

your attention to the fact that when we discussed

this issue at the previous Council meeting,

everyone...

the rights-defense march, the march against the executioners, should

be timed to coincide with the start of the court

proceedings. I can tell you that in March there will be no

court proceedings. They extended the

term of detention, as you know, by another month. Yes,

it is obvious that they are not

managing to get something done there, and so on. There will be none.

Therefore, if you now want to

set a date, then by doing so you are fixing

a low turnout. If you want my

opinion about this event, then

nevertheless I will not pressure anyone. I will simply

put it to a vote.

Right.

The proposal is simply to hold a rally.

To be specific, a date was named—to hold

the rally on March 2, correct? Well, all right.

No matter, a date was named.

A proposal was made to hold the rally on that date.

Who is in favor of this?

The proposal, понятно, did not...

pass. A technical request: since

the broadcast audio is very hard to hear, what is happening with

the sound—everyone is asked to turn off

their microphones when others are speaking, and to check

simply that everyone has their microphones turned off.

Microphones. Next, Alexei, you also

proposed something for the end of May as well, right?

To hold it—that was a response to the proposal

from Pyotr to expand the set of issues that

the Council is working

on.

The anti-corruption campaign—we believe that this topic

is important and deserves a separate campaign, and that

we should not abandon the package

of political, democratic,

and social demands that already existed. So you

want a human rights rally to take place on May 5?

An event in May—the one we had earlier...

...

Let's discuss that separately.

...

May. So, once again, your proposal amounts to the following:

there should be a large rally

in May, a general civic one. Understood. And there should

also be a separate anti-corruption rally,

correct? Who is in favor of the proposal?

Let's vote for a separate anti-corruption

rally.

It

did not pass.

Thus, we have the following:

we reaffirm as unshakable the decision adopted at the

previous meeting of the Coalition Council,

that the main action of the spring is the action on May 5–6.

Yes, please. I have

a proposal that I think will suit everyone:

to formulate the decision as follows:

to instruct our group responsible for

organizing the action to prepare the main event

for May 6; to instruct the group to work out

the issue of holding an anti-corruption

march—well, to determine what our

organizational and technical capabilities are,

where to hold it, when to hold it, and whether everyone

in the group is at least ready for it; and

third, to instruct our human rights

group, taking into account the possible start or

change in the timing of the court

proceedings there, to possibly make

an emergency decision on holding an action if

such circumstances arise. Yes, we already agreed on that.

We already adopted that earlier, we already adopted

that the situation may change, and that we would

adjust the date depending on

the changes. So, to give an instruction as well—

shall we vote to give the instruction?

Give the instruction—fine, the normal procedure. Well,

that’s fine. Yes, to give the instruction,

to work it out, please. Any objections?

No objections. We won’t even need to vote.

Yes, to give the instruction. So, in this way—

look at what we have recorded:

we recorded the CC’s position on March 2, and we

confirmed that the main action is in

May. Yes, yes.

The protest group is to work out

the form

fo-

of the May action, in what format the

anti-corruption

By the way, this does not exclude the possibility that it may

also take place on May 5. Any objections? Abstentions?

Excellent, adopted.

Very good. The appeal—next question.

An appeal to the participants in the May events in

connection with the public investigation of these

events.

Sergei, you have the floor. Dear colleagues,

you have a handout with the f-

last time, but that text concerned

only the collection of witness statements

directly for the court. In the time since

the previous meeting,

a public investigation campaign has unfolded,

within the framework of which

testimonies are being collected; there will be a kind of

public hearing, and an

objective

independent verdict will be delivered, assessing all

the circumstances of the events on Bolotnaya Square

on May 6. For this, since

there is little hope for the investigation,

it is very important that as many

people as possible provide information about what they

personally saw and know. In this connection, it is very

important to spread this information. If

we adopt this

statement, I ask all colleagues

to make an effort to disseminate this

information so that it reaches all

participants in the events on Bolotnaya. And

besides that, at the very end we repeat the

appeal

for a public campaign

for testimony. Any questions?

Are there any?

Nikolai, everything is fine, except that

I propose removing the following from the paragraph:

“the investigation is organized by the May 6 Committee

and the RPR-PARNAS party.” Mentioning the party

RPR-PARNAS in a document like this

is, well—let’s not engage in

political advertising. The May 6 Committee is genuinely

engaged in the investigation, yes, so

let’s leave that, but the party, I think, here

really has no reason to be mentioned

at all.

A proposal, an editorial proposal:

first, to change the order of the use of

the terms—“demonstrated disregard for

truth, justice, and

the law.” In fact, the investigation is being conducted

by many people: RPR-PARNAS is conducting one, and the People’s

Alliance is conducting one, and the Anti-Corruption Foundation

is conducting one. Therefore, I propose

wording it simply as “is being conducted by a number of

public organizations,” and in addition

to that, without naming them. Well,

without any names at all. Yes, don’t mention names.

The latest data that were

revealed in the course of covering those

preliminary proceedings that are underway

over May 6 force us to look a little differently

at how this whole May 6 provocation

was originally organized. In Svetlana’s article,

which even reprinted

case materials, it is stated that the Moscow police department and the Moscow mayor’s office

simply admit that

yes, they changed the deployment scheme of forces on

the square; yes, they

blocked access to the territory of

the Bolotnaya Square park. All of this is already in

the case materials, and therefore it seems to me

that now it is already completely, completely

obvious and legally easy to prove

that the Moscow police department and the Moscow mayor’s office committed an outright

crime: they organized this

provocation. Colleague Sobol and I

have prepared a crime report. I

believe it would be very proper if

all 45 members of the CC—it is already practically

ready, but we would like to coordinate it

with all the lawyers and all

interested parties, which is important—

and if we here either make or

separately issue a formal instruction in the minutes

for me to prepare such a crime

report that the CC would officially

will send it, and then we will, well, so to speak,

counterattack in terms of this process, and

all the witnesses, including those... Let's

separate them. Let's separate the appeal and

what I think is a good idea, because

these are, after all, different formats. Yes, let's now

I really like this idea. I think

many people will sign this statement.

Let's first deal with the appeal now. Those who

are in favor of adopting the appeal as a basis

please vote. As a basis; there were amendments. Who is in favor

of adopting it as a basis?

Against? Abstained? Excellent. Moving on.

There was

an amendment by Bandari and Navalny. If

Bandari agrees with Navalny's amendment,

then I will withdraw his amendment.

Withdraw it. The amendment

Navalny's joint amendment would read as follows:

to write

publicly and

Vote. Against? No. Adopted. And

it's a proper amendment. Ilari, I will vote

I will not... No objections? Yes, then let's have those

who are in favor of adopting the appeal as a whole

please

vote.

Against? Adopted. Now, the assignment:

for Navalny to prepare a statement about

a crime committed

by law enforcement agencies there, as I understand it,

and by the mayor's office, yes.

On May 6, this is the assignment we are giving him.

We will not vote

on it.

Golosov, I just want to tell you about

one idea connected with

this, and with this initiative in general. What we

wanted—I'm just informing you, I'm not

putting it to a vote, just informing you—what we

wanted. We wanted that when the

court

proceedings begin, parallel to these

fabricated, show-trial proceedings,

there would also be, in another room,

public hearings on the very same

issues, where those witnesses whom

they refuse

to call—Judge Danilkin and Judge Syrova,

so to speak—

so that they could give testimony

at our public, public hearing.

It seems to me that, in parallel,

[music]

it would expose the corruption of the judicial system, and secondly,

it would help establish the truth. Therefore, this is

a very important appeal, and it is very good

that we have so

promptly adopted it.

Yes, I would like to... I am a participant in this

commission, and I would like to make one

important comment for those who will be writing about

this. It seems to me that there are two

important circumstances with which there is no need

to overload this statement, but they absolutely

must be mentioned. I very much ask everyone to

do this, if you... Stas,

there are two

circumstances. The people who

want to provide their testimony—of all kinds—

on this matter, it could be

a photograph, something captured accidentally,

video, oral testimony, anything at all—they

are given the right to choose the, so to speak,

status and the degree of openness that

they can manage.

They may do this under their own name; they may

show their face and provide their

contact details, or not show them and not provide them. They

may say that they are ready to appear in

court, or that they are not ready to appear. Each person

determines for themselves the extent of their involvement.

Whatever they can give to the

investigation, that is what they give. That is the first point.

Second: it is very important and, in my view, very

wisely conceived by the organizers of this public

investigation that they came up with

this structure. Well,

that is the procedure; nothing more is needed, no

need to go into all that. Yes, so also

it would be a big mistake not to mention that this

commission consists of

two

groups: one collects this information and subjects it

to an initial analysis, simply so

that it is, well, somehow

organized and easy to read, while

the other

group evaluates and analyzes it

and prepares a report and acts in

the role of, as it were, jurors on this

matter. It seems to me this is a very precise and

correct design, so as to

separate these two powers, separate these

functions.

Please mention this

and explain it in detail.

It is not there now, and there it

really does not need to be spelled out fully. Thank you.

More than that, let us move on to the most important issue

on today's agenda: the report

of the working group on international affairs on

the Magnitsky list. The presenter is

[music]

Kasparov. As for speakers, I simply ask that I be

put on the list. The international group

met twice. We discussed the

Magnitsky list and the actions that could

be taken in order to promote

it both in the United States and in Europe. But before

I set out, as it were, the

proposals we are making, I would

like to dwell on the situation, because

it seems to me that there is a fairly

serious misunderstanding of how these

mechanisms work in America and in Europe,

and I would like, right away, as it were,

to speak about what, in our view, are somewhat inflated

the expectations of those who think that the list

of the Magnitsky Act

the law that was

in America, signed by President

Obama on January 14

this law does not automatically

imply the inclusion of hundreds and

hundreds, even thousands, in general,

of corrupt Russian officials

criminals in uniform, people in judges’

robes, who

violate, on a daily basis, almost hourly,

the rights of Russian citizens. Unfortunately,

bureaucratic machines work

quite slowly, and in this case we

are dealing with a completely

unprecedented campaign,

a Kremlin lobbying campaign, both at

the official and unofficial levels. And it is

no coincidence that on May 7 Putin signed, as

a key foreign policy directive,

a directive specifically to oppose the

Magnitsky Act. And although this law was passed

in

in America, the appearance of specific names on

the list is the result of a very difficult

bureaucratic procedure. Unfortunately,

at the moment the law was adopted, as it were,

minimal changes were made that

made it harder to add names to the list through

the United States Congress. As of

today, this is being handled

specifically by the White House and the National

Security Council. In addition, although

there is a subtle bureaucratic loophole

that was inserted, I want to note that

at the last moment, the lists of agencies

that are supposed to approve

the list of

those who may be included in this list

made the creation of a new

commission inevitable, which naturally delayed the

approval process itself. So, as of

today, the situation is as follows: by April 15

the White House must submit to

this relevant commission specific

names. The review of these names will be completed by

the end of next week.

The criteria under which these names may

be included are of the strictest possible

kind, and it is perfectly obvious that

the administration, naturally under pressure

from Moscow, will do its utmost

to resist the inclusion of the most high-profile

names. Nevertheless, the U.S. administration

is quite sensitive to campaigns and to

the press and public

opinion in the United States,

so we are demanding, to the fullest extent possible, the inclusion of those people

who are directly responsible for

their crimes against human rights

in our country. Now, as for

Europe, of course the most painful scenario for

the Putin regime is the adoption of

this

law

by the European Parliament. I think that is quite likely.

But I want to say right away that what interests us

in this case is not so much

the European Parliament as a specific

European country, because

restrictions on visa entry can

ultimately be adopted only by

the decision of a single country. It is a very difficult

situation, because the pressure is

truly unprecedented, and for now it is not

clear which country will decide, will dare,

to step forward as the pioneer, the standard-bearer,

so to speak, in this matter, because

the Kremlin, officially, literally I think

just two days ago, once again warned

European countries against such a

decision. And I can say that

that

there is

a very

harsh, aggressive lobbying

campaign underway, when behind the scenes they explain to everyone

— politicians and people involved in

the process — what consequences may await

the countries, the European countries,

that follow the example of the United States and

adopt such a law. I say this, as it were,

in order, it seems, to cool somewhat

those hotheads who are now

running around with lists of hundreds

of names. And nevertheless, we believe that all

the same, public opinion, which

is entirely on our side, must

play its decisive role in the countries of

Europe and, first and foremost, in the United States,

and therefore our proposal is specifically

to limit it to several of the most

high-profile names

— and that list exists.

We will defend this proposal, taking into account the fact that

besides us, these lists are also being submitted by

various organizations, and the overlap

of the same names in these lists

will of course work

to the benefit of the cause. I will also say

that if on April 15 some names

appear on the White House list, that does not

mean the story ends there. Then

after that, we can begin work

in the U.S. Congress, although, I repeat, there it

will be quite difficult because of

bureaucratic complications again. Nevertheless,

in my view, overall this process

will continue continuously; that is,

there will be resistance from the administration,

which does not want, over this issue,

to spoil relations with the Kremlin, and there will be

pressure from public opinion. So we

will simply

naturally keep

pushing these proposals. Well, they have a kind of

comprehensive character, as it were.

There is a list

of violations that we constantly

encounter: election fraud,

the fabrication of criminal cases,

the falsification of court verdicts, and, so to speak, three

symbolic figures who simply

embody all of these

violations. Well, rather, the cornerstones

of Putin's regime. Namely,

the chair of the Central Election Commission,

the head of the Investigative Committee, and

the chair of the Moscow City Court.

We believe that these names should

be on the list. Although it is fairly obvious

that, of course,

say, in Churov's case,

taking into account those requirements, the very strict requirements

and criteria being imposed

now by the White House and this commission,

it will not be easy there. Nevertheless, we

must, it seems to me, move in this

direction. That was our

proposal, and another proposal was made

to consider—we can discuss it here—

including in this worthy

list the President of Chechnya, Ramzan

Kadyrov. As for the European countries,

we will continue our work. We have

several ideas about holding a

conference.

Gennady spoke there with them.

I believe that again the situation this

year

will turn in our favor.

After all, that company certainly has

a very convenient ability for us to

discredit itself. And I very much hope

that the process of the regime's self-discrediting

will continue actively in 2013 as well. So,

these are the commission's main proposals.

Yasha, you also asked about whose names, that is,

Colleagues, open the resolution.

The resolution is very short, since we

moved Navalny's proposal into the question

where it says: the Coordinating Council

of the Russian opposition proposes to

U.S. officials that they include

the following Russian officials on the list

as persons responsible for violating

Russian laws in the area of justice and the rule of law.

who was explaining how

As for this,

several members of the Coordinating Council

spoke on this today, by the way, and at the same time

if you look at the appendix, then you

will see there a text drafted by Lyubov

Sobol. It is more or less this kind of text,

they have just changed the wording slightly now, but

this is the format required for

basically

the consideration of specific

names, with references there accordingly

and with testimony. Yes, no, we will vote on this.

We will vote for it. No, let me add, then, as

an additional proposal,

we could simply consider the question of

including one of the most

odious investigators in the Bolotnaya case (the prosecution over the 2012 Bolotnaya Square protests),

although, I repeat, we have rather little

time because we

must—well, we are talking about a specific

investigator. Simply taking into account the fact

that at the first stage the acceptance of these

candidacies

ends in a week, on Friday,

so we do not have much time. All right,

so, let's proceed. I wanted to speak,

and then Bondarev also raised his hand.

Sobchak, Vinokurova.

May I? Well, colleagues, I of course

fully support the idea of international

sanctions against judges and investigators who

bear responsibility for political

repression and election fraud. However, I

am categorically against the wording

proposed in the draft resolution.

Listen, we are not a group of dissidents, nor are we

Novodvorskaya's party, nor a human rights

organization. I am absolutely convinced that we,

as a national opposition, cannot

allow ourselves this kind of statement

when we appeal to foreign

governments—a direct appeal to

foreign governments, it seems to me,

discredits us as an opposition

political organization. We should

appeal to our own people, not, as

proposed in the resolution, to the

relevant authorities of the United

States of America. It seems to me that this

is an absolutely wrong style.

And while fully sharing the speaker's logic

regarding the persons mentioned in the draft

resolution, I propose changing this very

part of the draft resolution and

formulating

it in such a way that the Coordinating

Council considers that these individuals should

be on the list, refraining from a direct

appeal to foreign governments.

I would very much like to avoid parallels and

associations with the Bolsheviks

and the German General

Staff, as

Bondarev put it. Yes, by the way, I fully

support that. In fact, we

also believe that this would be an improper

appeal, I agree. And secondly,

we of course support adding

Kadyrov there. On my own behalf, I would like to add

that let us not forget one more

symbolic figure: our former Minister

of Internal Affairs. As for me, I am in favor

of adding him, because under his direct

leadership they carried out absolutely

horrific beatings at the Dissenters' Marches. Yes,

you should all remember that perfectly well.

I simply remember that right before my eyes

That was what was happening there, basically, and that was it.

This was happening during his tenure. Therefore,

I believe this scoundrel must not be forgotten.

Let's include Liev; he is, so to speak, a person

for whom, if we vote now, I guarantee it.

...

Yes, first of all I wanted to express

my gratitude to Kimovich and to those colleagues

who took on this difficult work.

Second, I would like to support the proposal

made by Ilya. It seems to me that we should appeal

not to the government, but to the people—well,

that is, to the public, both in Russia and

abroad. In that sense, there are no

boundaries for us, and we have

[music]

a proposal.

namely, proposing not only the list

of the Magnitsky list, but also the list of people, including one who

of course was not a lawyer for the

Hermitage Capital fund, but was instead taken around in

handcuffs and tortured there, and continues to be tortured

now. Therefore, it seems to us that

Razvozzhayev, as the most egregious case in

the whole story surrounding May 6,

could become the symbol of a new kind of

list, and there

is a long series of people involved in this

list. For our part, we are ready

on behalf of those civic

organizations that deal with this

to join in this work—on May 6 and so

on.

I just wanted to say regarding

the appeal to the United States. But besides that, I

also have a question. Perhaps this was

done but not stated here. It seems to me

that the adjective 'odious figure' is not

a legal category, and therefore if

we are talking about these people, it is clear that we

all understand what is meant, but I would like

to see a breakdown of the crimes

being referred to, explanations, and so on.

Because here I see only a list

of surnames. I think this was probably

done already. And where is the word 'odious'? No, it's just

that colleague Kasparov has just spoken about this.

There is the oral statement.

Yes, but there is also the document. Where is that word there?

The issue is not the word; I am talking now about

something else. I am saying that it seems to me not

entirely correct

to list these people's names without

any facts that we are relying on. That is,

it seems to me there should be behind this

some information that we can refer to,

explaining what exactly is at issue. It is clear that for

a narrow circle of people it is obvious why

we are listing these names.

So that it does not look populist or unfounded,

there must be specific things behind it: what

these people are accused of, and on what

grounds they should be included in this

or that list. It seems to me this is

fundamentally important. Understood. Yes.

Navalny, then Kasparov.

Then.

Thank you. Taking Yashin's proposal into account,

which was enthusiastically supported by everyone, I would

then probably propose a tougher

version: to say plainly and directly that

the Coordinating Council considers these persons

state criminals

responsible for rigging elections,

extrajudicial reprisals, the organization of torture, and

the fabrication of criminal cases, and that

the Coordinating Council will take action

to ensure that these people—the Council believes that

the assets of these persons abroad should

be frozen, and they should have

their freedom of movement restricted.

The Coordinating Council will take measures to ensure

that they end up on the Magnitsky list. As for

the wording, I, Alexei,

since the wording is long, I can

write it down. Yes, I would ask you to write it down

so that we can vote on it already

in the author's version. A short break, and he

can write the text in the meantime. Wait, a break—

did you write it down or what? The speaker hasn't finished, yes.

Kadyrov—let's put it this way: until we finish discussing Magnitsky,

there will be no smoke breaks.

And Kadyrov—Kadyrov I fully

support. As for this—this is a bad

phrase from Navalny.

As for including Kadyrov among the villains, I support it. It seems to me

of course there can be no two opinions here.

As for what Alexei

Sakhnin said, it echoes what

Garry said. We probably need

indeed to include some

key villain from the Bolotnaya case.

We can simply assign someone—me,

for example—to add perhaps some

head of the investigative group, but we need

to speak with Razvozzhayev's lawyers,

because Razvozzhayev is literally

being tortured right now; he is being held

in detention, and what is happening to him is

of course beyond the pale. We must include someone,

but this needs to be worked through carefully. And

to conclude, a brief comment

regarding what Ksenia said.

If you look at the appendix to

item nine, regarding Bastrykin, Lyubov Sobol

has provided exactly such an example. This should be

prepared in relation to each person.

When we name a person

responsible for the torture of Razvozzhayev, there

will be references to the opinions of Razvozzhayev's lawyers,

media publications, reports by independent

commissions, and so on.

This has been done. But the problem we are facing

[music]

is that this turns out to be somehow meaningless

and discrediting, because the American

administration does not want to include anyone.

They are generally treated as some kind of outsiders.

maybe

literally, they do not want to include many from the FGU

they do not want to, and therefore now one can say whatever

one likes

is not enough. This is regarding the new lists

and, as it were, who can be included. Either

fine, the necessary information is needed

taking into account the position of the administration

of the United States, which, I repeat once again, is in

this matter our direct ally, and

our ally is precisely

American public opinion and

European public opinion. In my view, at

the present time we simply do not have enough

capacity. Right now, this first

list could hardly be included because

a detailed explanation will be required of why

he is on Bastrykin’s list, apart from

the actions of the Investigative Committee in

relation to the opposition, there is also a very

interesting history of relations with

the press, which of course very much

helps advance this

candidacy for the Magnitsky list, both in

America and in Europe. Now, as for

the insistent proposals of our

colleagues that we cannot

appeal—fine, then I propose

forbidding our colleague Kara-Murza from taking these

lists to the State Department, because

he will be doing it on our behalf. Let us simply

state right away: lists do not go anywhere by themselves

If someone wants, with clean

hands, simply to pretend that this

does not concern them, then let us immediately make it clear

that the Council is not participating in this if such a

decision is adopted, colleague Kara-Murza

will not take anything anywhere on Friday, and

because pretending that we are for this, while

appealing to some kind of ethical

public opinion that may

exert pressure but still does not include

anyone on the lists

It seems to me that this is, shall we say, not very, not very

correct. I understand perfectly well what

problems we are facing now

Andrei, then Vladimir. Dear colleagues,

simply on the question, as regards

information, it has already been said here, there is

a memorandum here

on Bastrykin; here there is an account of specific

actions with references, indicating who

did what. The relevant memoranda

have obviously been prepared regarding Chu, regarding

regarding Eva, therefore when

the relevant appeal is prepared and

submitted, then naturally behind each

surname there goes the corresponding

background memorandum. Second, as for

appeals—appeals to the Russian

people, appeals to the world

community, and so on—communication with

American society, public opinion, or any

other, including our own, is

not a subject of legal action. The subjects

of legal action, having some

and sometimes legal consequences, are

the relevant bodies, including

state bodies, both

the state bodies of the Russian

Federation and the state bodies

of other countries. If we

really want and intend to achieve

the point that

some result from our own actions, then

we must interact with those

bodies that exist in this world

We had a major discussion, and we

will return to this repeatedly

regarding the legitimacy or

illegitimacy of the authorities, but in

some cases, for example when

rallies and mass actions are being approved, and

if we want this to happen, we

are compelled, uh, to communicate with those

state authorities that

exist, even if we do not regard them

the way they regard themselves. This is the second point. Consequently, if we

ourselves—this is the second point. Consequently, if we

want any decisions to have

at least some

chance of being adopted by

the American administration, we must

appeal precisely to it. And finally

lastly—I beg your pardon, give me 15

seconds to finish this

statement. It seems to me that we need to

gradually outgrow the short pants of this kind of

kindergarten mentality that says: here we are, so

wonderful; we will say something, and everyone

will listen to us. There is nothing wrong in

making

an appeal to foreign

state authorities

of foreign states; this does not make us either

anti-national or unpatriotic

as a Coordinating Council. Parliaments and governments appeal to

parliaments and governments appeal to

other parliaments, to other

governments with one appeal or another

This in no way diminishes either

their sense of dignity, or their sense of honor, or

the fact that these state

authorities defend national interests. And the

Coordination Council of the Opposition

represents, in essence, to a certain

degree simply a parliament; we have said this

before. Therefore, we need gradually to

wean ourselves from the feeling that we

were somewhere else, in some other

places. This is a serious body; it has as

its partners other

serious bodies, regardless of how

we relate to these bodies

Vladimir, yes

respected

assembly, we

must remember the words of Alexander III (Emperor of Russia):

who said that Russia has no allies at all

except for its army and navy, of course

To be categorical, the ally of the Coordination

Council that we can truly rely on

is first and foremost, indeed the only one,

the public opinion of the citizens

but I emphasize

that the U.S. State Department

the European Court of Human Rights, and other

respected organizations deal with

the Coordination Council, or with individual

members of the Coordination Council, and

the structures of the Coordination Council

exclusively

because

the Coordination Council is a public

must

first be addressed to Russian public

opinion, and only

then, as a second line, can one appeal to

other institutions

with some lower-level documents

of a lower rank

a letter from some committee or something

else of that kind, but at its core this

must be an appeal to Russian public

opinion. Therefore, I do not agree with

the respected Garry Kasparov

that if Mr. Kara-Murza this

Friday does not bring this letter to the embassy

of the United States of America, then horror of horrors, everything

is ruined, all is lost. I assure you that

the fate

of Russia does not depend on whether Mr. Kara-

Murza goes this Friday to the U.S. embassy

or not

walks in; we are speaking about history

I believe that this resolution

has been prepared insufficiently effectively

it needs to be rewritten, that is, it is necessary

to create a permanent institution

to investigate the cases of Mr.

Bastrykin, Churov, Yegorov, and others

It is necessary that this resolution not

take on the character of a judicial

verdict before any investigation

restriction of freedom, such as restriction

on

movement, temporary

temporary restriction, temporary restriction on

the disposal of property, inclusion in such a

preliminary sanctions list

A preliminary sanctions list is already

a sufficient restriction, and then let

these people deal with that further. I believe this

list should be as

broad as possible and should begin, of course, with Mr.

Bast- Churov, Yegorov; the blow should fall first

of all on the executors, on the second

tier, or on people who have already gone into

retirement

This is serious work, and it cannot

be resolved right now at the level of a single

short resolution. Therefore, I propose

to instruct the relevant committee

to prepare another version

Excuse me, first of all I wanted to draw attention

to the fact that Vladimir Tor's speech

lasted more than a minute, and I ask

the chair

that

something be done—turn off the second microphone

for whoever is speaking from there

specifically, and

namely, sanctions lists are the beginning of the process, I

understood it that way. Anton, that was on a point of order

Colleagues, do we want the decorative checkers or do we want to drive?

Of course, we need to appeal to

Russian public opinion

precisely

But who will make the decision?

The decision will be made there by

the State Department

and the Administration. In this connection, I very much

liked Alexei Navalny's proposal

that he expressed; I hope

he has already put it in writing, and there in absolutely

correct, sharp, concrete phrases

we are indeed appealing to public

opinion, but at the end of the resolution I would consider it

both expedient and necessary specifically

to call on

the U.S. presidential administration to include

the persons we have listed in the sanctions list

because it is precisely this legal action that, as

has already been noted, will be carried out by specific

individuals, and therefore we must

address them with the appropriate

statement. I think they are waiting for it from us

Yes, in the eyes of some citizens

of Russia we will look

like traitors to the Motherland, perhaps. But once again

I repeat: do we want the decorative checkers or do we want to drive? I love my country, I

am not a traitor, and an enormous amount of

work has been done by us

Konstantin, then Alexander, and that's it, and

we are wrapping up because

[music]

because, excuse me, in this case I will

engage in casuistry. The point is that

the following task now stands before us

on the one hand, indeed

the proposed text, unfortunately,

is unacceptable not only for the reasons

that have already been stated. But the point is

that for Americans, when it

says that the Coordination Council

proposes to the relevant U.S. authorities

the question arises: who are these guys? Who

are we to be proposing anything to them?

Frankly, it sounds like an order

What can the Coordination

Council actually say?

This looks bad and will only provoke

irritation. The correct wording is:

the Coordination Council expects from

the relevant authorities—note, this is not

an invitation, this is not a proposal, and so on

Next, this is the expectation that, by acting,

in accordance with their principles, they will nevertheless

decide, so to speak, to include in this

list the relevant individuals, I think. Uh,

the wording is successful. Thank you, Konstantin.

Alexand- and Navalny, then I will have

proposals regarding the procedure for adopting the decision.

Yes, please. Dear

colleagues, please be brief. Any kind of pathos

about traitors to the Motherland and appeals somewhere else

is unnecessary. We are appealing to an official institution.

We are appealing on the basis that the territories

of foreign states are being used

by criminals to conceal income

stolen from Russia. They may

use the territory of these states, uh, to

evade justice. When in Russia there comes

a period of justice, I believe the Coordinating Council

has the right, and must not delay or

invent some kind of waiting period there.

There may be some wording like “please consider,” but rather

we should make an official appeal. We file a statement;

if we are robbed, we go to the

police and file a report, even though we may

not trust the police, and therefore money,

property, and the territories of other states

are being used by criminal elements

who are listed here in order to

escape justice in Russia in the future.

Therefore, we need to appeal directly now;

there is no need to wait, this is a lengthy process. I

understood. All right, Navalny, and

let’s wrap up, colleagues. I propose this: what is the

Magnitsky list? The Magnitsky list and

the Magnitsky Act are a kind of declaration

whereby certain countries say that

they will not allow various crooks and

organizers of torture into their countries and will freeze their

assets. The task of the Coordinating Council

now is simply to say that such-and-such

people are precisely among those

crooks and organizers of torture. That is all

the procedure is. In the amendment that I

submitted, it says that we are beginning this

procedure. I believe that the CC is obliged today

to adopt a statement and name the individuals. We

cannot do otherwise when we know

that Razvozzhayev is being tortured right now, and if even

the Coordinating Council cannot find within itself

the ability

or unity to say that the people who

organized these acts of torture will be

prosecuted, and on the territory of Russia

of course—but for now, at least, we demand that

if they have accounts somewhere there,

in Switzerland or the United States, they should be frozen.

We are simply obliged to do this. Thank you. Yes,

colleagues, let’s do it this way on the second round.

Colleague,

Navalny, literally 20 seconds. It’s not just that

this same colleague, Navalny,

who has just spoken, has repeatedly

informed the Russian public

and, naturally, members of the Coordinating Council about

the assets and property of Mr. Bastrykin

on the territory of the Czech Republic. Addressing

the public

the Czech public has no

legal consequences whatsoever, nor

will the Russian public, or the Czech public, regarding officials

take any action; they will not and cannot.

This can only be done by

the state authorities of the Czech

Republic. If we want this to have

the appropriate consequences, we must

appeal to the state authorities

of the Czech Republic, the United States

of America, the European Union, and whatever

other state bodies. This discussion leads me

to think that if we do not adopt the amendment to point one,

then the resolution—

may I, Nikolai, this is important—

this resolution will not pass, which will cause

us enormous damage, unfortunately. Therefore I

propose, in this somewhat unusual way,

to reword and amend the point

using Navalny’s wording, setting it out as follows:

namely, the Constitutional

Council will take all necessary measures

for

the inclusion of Alexander Bastrykin

Vladimir Churov and Olga Egorova in

the Magnitsky list.

Well, for now let’s do names—let’s do persons first, then

the surnames as well. The Magnitsky list—

those responsible for organizing falsifications in

elections, fabricating criminal cases,

sentences, and extrajudicial reprisals. The Coordinating

Council believes that the assets of these persons abroad

must be frozen and that they

must be barred from entry to

the territory of civilized

states. The wording needs to be changed, you understand, yes.

In principle, I don’t know how the author feels about

this.

Well, all right, let’s put it to the commission.

Well, the author says that this is how he likes it.

Navalny’s proposal—yes, I’m just now

understanding the basic idea.

Still, that proposal which

Alexei proposed, and which you have just now

tried to formulate, would be better submitted in

writing, because, for example, there

the phrase “state criminal” seems to me, to me,

unsuccessful, because the wording

presented here

is successful because it clearly

identifies those aspects of

the violations of law that were committed.

Whereas “state crimes”

takes us into a different era. That is incorrect.

Whereas here, in fact, the text of the resolution

proposed is legally quite

precise and careful. Therefore, when we

revise this statement, it is important

to preserve legally correct wording.

Well, look, Andrei has quite reasonably

proposed printing all this out and distributing it, yes.

Well, so that people... Yes, we'll come back, or else...

Let's do that then.

A break? Yes, it just seems to me that if

we announce a break now, then everyone

will scatter, and we won't adopt anything.

Before the break, while it's being printed,

we can discuss it.

The following amendment.

The wording should, of course, include it.

That is correct. I simply have

a structural suggestion: the first sentence

should be reversed. The last of these

three—that is, first: the Coordinating

Council considers them such-and-such

criminals—this should be phrased

properly. Second: they are guilty of such-and-such

crimes, and in this connection

the Coordinating Council considers it necessary

and so on, to include...

their inclusion...

Then, taking the discussion into account,

still, I think it's risky

to announce a break, and Andrei Nikolaevich will agree

with that. Let's—after all, this isn't such a

long text.

No, the item—item one.

To set it out in the following wording, taking into account

Parkhomenko's subsequent remark.

The Coordinating Council considers Alexander

Bastrykin—well, the persons, yes, these persons—

responsible for organizing torture,

election fraud, fabrication

of criminal cases and sentences, and extrajudicial

reprisals.

The Council believes that the assets of these persons abroad

should be frozen, and they should

be barred from entering countries that have adopted the

Magnitsky Act. Yes, the Council will undertake all necessary

actions for this.

This...

As for the names, then...

Right, we can vote now.

To adopt this

document as a basis. Who is in favor of adopting

this as a basis?

The document.

Great. Who is

against? The document is adopted as a

basis. Look, we have

[music]

In his report, Ryzhkov proposed

adding to the list of three that we

have just voted to adopt as a basis.

Kadyrov. So, do we need a discussion on this

topic or not? Who is in favor

of adding this name to the list?

The surname.

Kadyrov.

Remarkable. Who is against?

Now then, Nikolai Bondarik proposed

including Nurgaliyev in the list, correct?

Nikolai? Yes, please, a comment. The point is

that on Kadyrov, human rights

organizations have already compiled a huge amount

of information, whereas as for Galiyev,

we can vote, but I think that simply

by next Friday, physically, we will not be able

to do it in time. I would not like

simply to give instructions that are obviously

impossible to carry out. I repeat,

with these lists of names, when the White House submits them

to Congress for approval, that is not

the end of the story. In principle, we

can continue adding names; we just need

to prepare well for it. Therefore, if we do not

expand this list now, it is because

otherwise, say, it may not pass now.

[music]

Suppose your proposal to include

Galiyev does not pass—Galiyev will say to you,

"thank you"? Well, we're unlikely to see him

any time soon. Well no, he won't say it in person, but

in absentia he will. Excellent. Maria, may I

express my point of view on this? I simply

propose the following. On the one hand, of course,

I agree with Garry that we have

a specific situation. Yes, in this specific

situation we are submitting to a specific place

specific names, on the one hand. But on the

other hand, it seems to me that any

more or less normal person on either side

of the Atlantic understands what was happening

there, I think.

What happened with the march and

with other protest actions by the opposition, how they

were dispersed brutally and completely

senselessly.

That is my proposal, and the list that

our friends will submit to the well-known place

should simply not include it for now. That happens. But

why not?

That happens. We are working for Russian society,

for Russia, for our Russian

people.

Colleagues, each of us can take

a sheet of paper and, in neat handwriting, write on one

side and the other the names of people to include

in the Magnitsky list. There is, I don't know,

investigator Gabdulin, who is leading

the investigative group in the

Bolotnaya case, and Shiv, who personally

transported Razvozzhayev out of Ukraine, and Judge

Borovkova, and so on. It's simply that

one can sit down and write a compact list.

Then Nurgaliyev for now? Agreed.

Agreed. You see, on Nurgaliyev, please...

It's already withdrawn, withdrawn. I understand. Nevertheless,

it's very good that it was withdrawn, but I

think that to the first point, in connection with

this discussion, we need a final

fourth sentence, with the following meaning:

the Coordinating Council will continue

to compile this

list.

That is an amendment, because this is an excellent

proposal. I very much

like it. I don't yet know which names exactly, but if

we manage in time, of course.

Friends, the best is the enemy of the good, so...

what was proposed means that we have such a

option. It would be correct, as in the Bolotnaya case (the Bolotnaya protests in Moscow),

to say: the investigator is a scoundrel, and so on.

And so on.

And the last thing...

about the Magnitsky list. By the way, I’ll also tell you, for example,

Surkov’s name is not on this list.

Did you notice? This is the person who imposed censorship in the

country and also organized all the fraudulent

elections from the very beginning, I should note. His name is not there. But

we are not, after all, trying to force that name in. Although

it is obvious that he deserves to be

included there. He is exactly the kind of person meant by this, so there are

many dissatisfied people, but let’s...

What? Wait.

Please, let’s proceed properly. I ask you, in

connection with Parkhomenko’s remark and

the discussion—well, let’s continue our work. Turn it on.

All right. Are there any other amendments that

people

insist on? I would suggest the following in

connection with the latest discussion and

the proposal to

expand it: to do something slightly different with the

title, possibly as a working

title: the Russian Magnitsky List, or whatever

else it may be called, in order to distinguish it from the

Magnitsky list that is being expanded,

compiled, and adopted by the authorities of the

government of the United

States of America, as well as other countries

that will make corresponding

decisions, and our own Russian list

which is being created and formed,

expanded by the Coordinating Council and

also by Russian human rights

organizations, political groups, and others,

which is maintained by us ourselves and which we

propose for the consideration of all other

state bodies in other countries. These

lists may coincide, or they may not,

but this is the list we are compiling

ourselves; that other list is one they may adopt

taking our considerations into account, they may

react in some way. But this

will be our own list. This is precisely

the answer to the proposals that were

voiced here: we are going ourselves, we believe

that

this is partially

contained in the proposal by Parkhomenko that we have already supported.

Parkhomenko’s proposal.

Moreover, thank God, the international commission

will continue to work, and calmly

it can absolutely include what was proposed

as a resolution.

We are in complete agreement. Although

it turned out that it would not be there. Therefore

let us adopt this resolution. All the more so since

there are no more amendments

left, and

then, taking into account Parkhomenko’s amendment—an addition,

rather, the first part. Yes, who is in favor of

adopting the Magnitsky resolution as a whole?

As a whole.

This can be called a historic

[music]

vote. Excellent. So, I congratulate all of you.

Let us, before the most important

and very lengthy discussion of our

statement, announce a break for... We

are working on this statement—do we need a break

or not? Five minutes? A five-minute break? Well,

friends, let’s be honest. Ilya, five minutes?

Yes, five minutes.

A smoke break—for the first time in history. Yes, in

five minutes we resume. For the first time

in the entire history of the Coordinating Council, a

break has been announced. Only

an hour has passed—they had never announced one before, ever.

Uh...

said that

would

under

the agreement, this is

...stories, anecdotes...

In

general, the new series has video capture via

I have

one like that.

Where there isn’t one? Ah...

I saw it online. I got it not for

recording; I need it specifically for

real-time

work. For recording I have another one, kind of

larger. So you take it from

this here,

this port. But you don’t even have that kind of connector, and you

must have different

connectors. No, no—this one here, this is

HDMI. From that one. So you take

this connector, which is basically

intended for a television, as it were.

Basically, yes.

Capture via

a video capture card.

If necessary...

It has six SDI cameras and via HD

MI—there it is, small and compact.

It’s controlled from a laptop; it has a full

panel, the full functionality of a professional

control console. It’s just not always convenient; it’s

big. The compact one has essentially the same effect. I

already use it for broadcasting.

That’s all.

It works with 4DI. It costs 40,000 Russian rubles (about US$430).

Well, 40,000 “American” rubles—

to spend that kind of money, you know,

you need to be earning properly, with a budget that doesn’t

fall short.

Personally, I didn’t have anything like that. Exactly.

It was a new product six months ago—really just

you know, exactly what I

Yes, you know, the price—the price

is 300,000 rubles (about US$3,200) for something like this.

The console is good, but there is nothing especially

remarkable about it... at Panasonic’s level...

Rolandov? Yeah, you...

Yesterday... Well, I kind of don't have that kind of...

income.

constantly.

Maybe it's just that he simply has more...

more output.

I don't have composite, and sometimes, you know...

somehow... Well yes, well yes. And...

where to, if it's equipped with different...

cameras, you know, the switching should...

have scaling. One camera...

can, well, input 1820, another can't. But mine...

my camera, my control panel only works

with one resolution, while some cameras can handle different...

can't do it, and there is scaling that still...

takes any resolution anyway.

Resolution, it...

Samby, plus also about, you know, that...

I've heard it happens.

Combing—well, понятно, the combing artifact appears.

There.

It cleans it up. Yes, it cleans it... there's hardware for that. Well...

you can remove it powerfully, I mean, there are such...

there are software products, but they remove it...

but it's still slightly noticeable. And this...

is hardware based on a chip, di-rectly... a lot...

you know where it shows up? Say, for example...

an indicator like that, you know, keeps blinking constantly.

It keeps blinking all the time, and if you look...

when, when you look at it through...

the internet, if it's all... like this. But...

if not... about...

you know that? Yeah, I just know it like...

Deeply.

Deeply.

The form is when...

they, they go every other one, first through...

one, then the other—you notice it.

I...

know more, but...

While the others are gathering, I'll say this: we have

adopted the statement on Magnitsky (Sergei Magnitsky case).

We adopted the statement on Magnitsky, but the text

in printed form is not available yet.

It will arrive shortly.

Dmitry will come, and we'll ask him so that maybe

by the end of our meeting this text

will be ready, since the vote... well...

since it was voted on, we could look it over so that

there wouldn't be any...

inaccuracies. Now there is a problem with the...

it was supposed to be—that is, to what extent... Raise

your hands, members of the CSN. Repeatedly doesn't count, it

is counted by registration: one, two...

three. Right now, not a single decision of ours will

pass. Well, first we won't be deciding, we'll be

discussing. It affects the vote. As you...

know, 20 people are here now; more will come, and the quorum

is counted by registration... so it is possible that...

well, with 20 people, not a single decision will...

Well, we're not voting on anything right now.

directly, we'll... No, well, we...

are going to vote now because

Excuse me, we have the next item.

Well, then we're waiting, as I understand it, until the whole...

report is given, as...

such.

to vote on... but not immediately with...

the voting. Konstantinov, who said

that in 5 minutes he'd come—he's come.

Konstantinov. What

objections? So, how many

people are there? Good.

I just knew this would take a long time.

So...

How many? Well, I'm saying 20. With 20 we can't...

we can't. Could someone call people from the corridor?

Well, let's do it with the Communists...

we'll make up the numbers... on the left it's dropping.

Can we... okay...

two.

Twenty-two, terrible. And Tosh, look...

Excellent, now it's 23. Yes, now we

can make decisions only

unanimously. All right, look, on our

agenda there is an important issue. This is already the third

meeting at which we are

discussing it: the

adoption of amendments to the programmatic statement

on the goals and tasks of the ... council.

Since this is a very large volume

of amendments, we must not make a mistake with the

procedure for adopting a decision on this

issue. I will first give the floor

to Andrei Larionov, and then perhaps to other

members of the program group, so

that we can now determine how we are going to

vote on this document.

Address... Dear colleagues, I will briefly

tell you how the program

group worked

and I will speak about the documents that have now been

to you...

distributed. Before you are four

documents. Two of the documents are called

"Draft Programmatic Statement." The first

draft you can identify by the first page, without

blue bold highlighting,

and the second text has highlights

in color and a detailed explanation of what this

means—which draft of the program

statement it is.

The first text, without this bold

blue type, is the text of the draft

programmatic statement that was

voted on and discussed at the meeting

on January 20. Some of them were

rejected, and some of them were adopted,

but since they had been proposed by members

of the Coordinating Council, they were

included in this text. Thus, this is

the text, that version, which

was adopted by the Coordinating

Council. In addition, at the previous meeting on January 20, the Coordinating Council

was unable and did not have time

to consider several more

dozen amendments that had already been

submitted by the 20th.

in January of this year. In addition, during

the past month, a number of members

of the Coordination Council submitted

additional amendments, which

the program group considered overall.

The program group reviewed approximately

50 amendments, and some of them

were supported by the program group, while some

amendments, uh, were rejected by the program group.

For ease of work, we divided the amendments

into two tables: supported and rejected. You

have these two tables in front of you; before your

eyes is the table of amendments

supported by the program group as of

February 13. This list contains 17

amendments. As you can see, there is also a document

titled “Table of Amendments

Rejected by the Program Group as of

February 13”; it contains 29

amendments. A few words about those

amendments that were supported

by the program group. The point is that, as

you can see, this table does not include

the column that was present in

the other amendment tables and is also

absent from the table of amendments rejected

by the program group. This is because

in the course of the work, some

proposals and some amendments were supplemented

and modified; the program group

worked on versions of the wording, uh,

changed the order, and in fact

the authors of these supported

amendments, of the amendments supported

by the program group, were often a whole number

of people, and establishing authorship

presented a certain

difficulty. Therefore, one can say that

those 17 amendments that were included in

the table of amendments supported by the program

group—in general, to a certain extent, for

these amendments responsibility is borne, and overall

the program group as a whole, because these

amendments were supported either

by the program group in full or

by a majority. Given that

the chair proposed first of all

to focus on the question of

how we should proceed in our work, I would like

you, at least for the moment,

to keep in mind the draft program

statement of the council as of January 20,

that is the one we adopted without

bold type and without blue highlighting,

and keep it as a reference document

so that you can compare what

has resulted with what there was before; and

as the main document, we would take

the text of the draft program statement

as of February 13, 2013. That

is, this is the draft program

statement that was voted on

with the amendments that were voted on and

supported by the program group as of

February 13. That is the first

document. And the second document, at least

as a first step, would be

to look at the table of amendments

supported by the program group as of

February 13—the 17

amendments. Then, after we go through

this part, we could turn to the table

of amendments rejected by the program group,

and if the authors of these

amendments, as members of the Coordination

Council, still

have the intention and desire to defend

the proposals they submitted

to the Coordination Council and to the program

group, they should say so, and then in the full

composition, as the entire Coordination

Council, discuss those amendments that were

rejected by the program group. In the full

composition of the Coordination Council, we could

vote. As for

the amendments supported

by the program group, within the program

group there was discussion of how

to bring these amendments up for discussion

by the Coordination Council. Two options were proposed:

one option was to put

all 17 amendments to a general vote; there was

another option—to vote on each

amendment individually. Opinions in the group

were divided; both views were represented. The other point

of view was that earlier we discussed each

amendment individually, and we can apply

the same approach here. But that

already depends on the decision of the entire

Coordination Council. Therefore, as

a first step, I would turn to

the chair

and ask colleagues to speak on

how we are going to discuss this, and then

depending on that, move on to

the next discussion. And one final word

before I finish: I would like

to draw your attention to the fact that

the program group discussed, uh,

voted, and made decisions on

rejecting an amendment or supporting

an amendment as of

February 13, 2013, when we had

the second

meeting of the program group. After

that, other amendments

comments, and proposals continued to come in. However, since

there were no meetings of the program group after

February 13, and there was no time for the program group

to make further decisions,

those amendments, comments, and proposals were not

included in these documents. And all

members of the Coordination Council who did not

manage to submit

the relevant amendments by February 13 naturally have

every right and every procedural opportunity

to bring these

amendments forward for discussion at the plenary session.

of the Coordination Council today, thank you

So, ... you

we are now discussing the procedure

in fact, the overwhelming majority of the amendments

that are being proposed

for approval or rejection by the program group

were accepted by the program group...

unanimously; among those that prompted

serious debate, I know of two, and I would

propose

[music]

for the members of the working group now to identify

the amendments they want to discuss

at the council, and vote on the rest

as a package, to save

time. In principle, there are no objections

naturally

no, then we... sorry for...

let's do it this way: we have not... nothing...

adopt it now. Excuse me, let me just

clarify: of course, not only members

of the working group may propose amendments

for individual discussion, but also all

members of the Coordination Council. I just

said: then let's do it like this

look, there are two groups of amendments

there are the supported ones, two pages, you see? Yes.

And here are the rejected ones, clipped together like this

joined together here, you see? Yes.

the simplest option would be this: we would

now simply approve the supported ones

No, I heard what you said about

except for those on which there are

objections. Here is what I want to say. I

therefore propose first that we

move ahead briskly

listen to comments on the supported ones

and vote

those on which there is discussion, which should be

we need to understand which deserve

separate discussion. So I want to know

which ones. Name them. Who will name them? I

proposed discussing amendment number fifteen

the Coordination Council creates a permanent forum

understood, I would simply ask now

simply

to announce the amendments whose titles

whose numbers

are causing exactly this—that is the point, that's how I see it

you know. So, the fifteenth one, and what else?

which one should be voted on separately? The fifteenth?

Which one?

Anything else? That's all? Only the fifteenth among the accepted ones?

Excellent, excellent. Then let's do this

let's now vote on

adopting all the amendments supported

by the working group, with the exception of

the fifteenth. Wait, wait, wait

wait, don't throw me off, otherwise nothing will get adopted

so, we are adopting 16 amendments on which there are no

comments, from the section marked accepted

by the program group, with the exception of

the forum. The forum separately. Who is in favor of

supporting the amendments supported

by the working group, except for amendment

number 15? Who is in favor?

A brilliant proposal. Who is against? Are there any?

There are 22 of us. Let's stay calm, everything will now

will

all right, what does your word actually mean

Everyone voted unanimously? There are two... well, come on

Let's count. Come on

Count it. Let's see who is in favor of

supporting all the amendments except number 15, who

is in favor

what are you...

in favor. Excellent. Now regarding the amendment

the amendment reads as follows: The Coordination Council creates

a permanent Forum of Free Russia

a special electronic platform

for discussing current political

issues. There is debate on this; I propose

that we speak on amendment number 15. Who

will

speak? Mikhail Sergeyevich, Ilya. Who else

else? Is that all? No, wait. How many of you are there

will all speak at once? Let's do it this way: Konstantin

Nikolai, Ilya, and Mikhail Sergeyevich

Let's go one by one. Mikhail

Sergeyevich on

number 15, while our colleagues sort out what exactly

they are going to

argue about. So, I would like to note

the following circumstances. First,

Forum of Free Russia, each word with a

capital letter, is the only

entity that is named explicitly in

the text of the program statement. And in the

past, we were engaged in exactly

the opposite activity: we

sought to ensure that the program

statement was sufficiently general and

did not mention specific entities

second, this entity is nowhere explained in the program

statement

accordingly, there will need to be

an additional document that

explains what it is. And third, we

have two items on today's agenda

where this very Forum

of Free Russia is mentioned. It seems to me it would be

natural to discuss this amendment in

the context of that discussion rather than

preempting that discussion with a

vote that is, generally speaking, technical

a technical vote on an amendment. Therefore I

propose rejecting this amendment. And if

the Coordination Council creates this forum

then it can simply be added to

the appropriate place. No one can

prevent us from changing the program statement. I

understood. Konstantin, Ilya, and

Nikolai. I would generally like to say

roughly the same thing I said at the working

group, namely

indeed, the idea of creating

a Forum of Free Russia is extremely popular

this issue has already been clarified: to create it

Certainly we should, but I am absolutely not

sure that it absolutely has to be called

by that exact name in this particular document.

By precisely that title. I think one could

quite calmly say that it

creates a permanent

electronic platform for discussing

current political issues concerning the form

of a Free Russia, and adopt a separate document

under that exact title.

I see. So you are in favor of rejecting

this. Dear

colleagues, the representative of Daniil

Konstantinov. I would like to say a few

words.

First, the name "Forum of Free

Russia" is already fairly well established; it

is known not only to members of the Coordinating

Council, it is known to our supporters, it is

known to participants in the protest movement. This

is very important. I constantly hear from

voters of the Coordinating Council that

feedback between the

Coordinating Council and the protest

movement has broken down, that

the Coordinating Council has become detached, that

the Coordinating Council is floating somewhere

in the clouds, turning into an elite

discussion club.

Links with our supporters, with

the voters of the members of the Coordinating

Council. And if today we decide

to include it in the main programmatic

document, then automatically all

subsequent decisions that the respected

Mikhail Sergeyevich was speaking about will

be made with that in mind. I ask you

to support the amendment. Clear.

Nikolai, in general I have said everything; I also

agree that it is necessary.

As for the point, regarding the consideration

expressed by the colleague, this is of course

the only

entity

mentioned in the draft programmatic

statement, although the term "entity" itself

does allow for a very broad

interpretation. Moreover, the second

point contains an explanation of this

entity there—a special explanation:

an electronic platform for discussing

current political

issues. So that is exactly what is meant here.

Discussion of any other issues in

other places, on this topic or another, does not

cancel or exclude the possibility that such a

term, such a provision, could

be included in the draft programmatic

statement. To this I would like to add

that members of the Coordinating Council

voted on the creation of a Forum

of Free

Russia. Twenty-four people voted in favor of creating

the Forum of Free Russia, and finally on

the public voting resource, the vote on the Forum

of Free Russia shows 90 to 94%

support for creating such a Forum of Free

Russia.

Coordinating.

Sergei, I completely agree with the

representative

of Daniil, in the sense that

forms of communication with

broad circles of our voters, and so

on, are needed. What is unclear is only why this has not

been done so far. There is a group of members of the

Coordinating Council—we can all clearly

see them before us—who over the course of

many months have been actively, so to speak,

emotionally and

thoroughly advocating for it.

If it is important and necessary, then

do it. When there is a Forum of Free

Russia, we will all gladly

make use of it. You presumably know what it

is. You have not troubled yourselves, over all these

months, to explain to us, apart from this

phrase about a platform, how a forum differs

from another platform, which is also a platform

but not a forum. But you probably know how this

is done, you probably know what is needed for it.

You probably know what the difference is.

Well then, do it yourselves.

Understood.

In my view, the issue is not the specific

word, but simply the force of the already formed

understanding of the intended meaning of the Forum

of Free Russia: first and foremost it is a sign and

a symbol.

This is serious, major work that cannot

be carried out without a decision. A lot can

be written on the fly, autonomously, but we as

a unified body act and represent,

and it is extremely important that the intention to

interact with voters in this way

be included in the programmatic

declaration.

On this issue, because I really

do not quite understand whether this is a platform or

a symbol, whether it is a functioning body,

but I will support this decision because it seems to me

that we should be friendly

to one another. If someone wants to

organize something, we should not, for no reason,

simply put up obstacles. So, well,

if our colleagues really want to organize

some kind of forum, then they should probably be given

that opportunity and not be blocked.

[music]

Who is in favor of supporting the amendment?

The number of votes was

insufficient; it did not

pass.

Moving on.

Do you insist on separate consideration of the rejected

Yes, please. For now, Mera...

Call it item 29; actually it is one and the same thing.

I did not understand.

Why 27 and

Well, now we’ll put everything together, 27

29, understood. There is also—I insist on discussing it.

the rejected amendments except 27 and 29, excellent

so everyone agrees that the amendments

REJ, these are the ones we

reject. Discussion, understood.

Yes, so, discussion on 27 and 29, please.

Let’s first vote on

rejection. Yes, who is in favor of rejecting

all amendments rejected by the program

group, with the exception of 27 and 29. Who

is in favor of vot-

I’m asking you very much

Vote.

It passed, now

27.

First, it’s a meaningless set of words

because it’s unclear exactly what kind of

development of events is being proposed to call

by this phrase. What exactly should

happen for us to call it a peaceful

anti-criminal

And second, in any case this is not

the only possible way or scenario

for transforming the system, and with such a statement

we cut off the possibility of discussing

other

ways.

the number of potential supporters and

allies of the Coordination Council of the opposition

movement. No matter what epithets you attach to revolution,

the connotation of this term is still

standard. And besides, I ask

forgiveness for the personal jab, but this term

has been seriously compromised by the journalistic

activity of some members of the CC (Coordination Council). It simply

creates associations in very many people that

are very unpleasant.

[hesitates] Sorry.

I propose not removing this expression; to me

it seems, on the contrary, very

successful. Again, I’ll repeat what I

said in the group: the word “revolution,” if you

want to check even on Wikipedia,

means nothing more than

a fairly serious transformation

accompanied by a decisive break with

the previous state. That’s all; there’s nothing

frightening about the word. The word “peaceful” very clearly

indicates that we reject violence

and removes exactly those concerns that

Mikhail Sergeyevich spoke so well about. And the word

“anti-criminal” points to the goal, since

our claims against the regime are that

it is unlawful and, broadly speaking,

criminal. Besides, this expression is

journalistically, on the contrary, quite successful

it is, I would say, the punchiest part

of the document. It will be quoted. I would even

say that it is the only phrase in the

document that, from the point of view of an

outside reader, attracts attention

.

And colleagues, it seems to me this is a fundamental

fork in the road; here it is important to take a clear and

firm position. In essence, this is about answering

the key question that our

supporters—and our opponents too—put to us. They

formulate the question: what do you want? And in

that sense, the term “peaceful anti-criminal

revolution” is, in my view, entirely successful and

appropriate. Attention.

criminal revolution is evolution

A peaceful breaking of the authoritarian regime may

be—it may happen in some other

way, yes, maybe

some, I don’t know, cannibals will come and suddenly become

vegetarians, the regime itself will somehow start

to evolve. That’s unlikely, but in any

case, a radical, radical

restructuring, a radical break, the dismantling

of this regime—that is in fact a revolution

peaceful and

.

I fully agree, because

the positive point here, in fact,

is the other side of the coin. As we know, after all,

Udaltsov and his comrades are accused of

having prepared something or other there, something