The new charges pressed against Mikhail Khodorkovsky on his birthday contain nothing new

On Thursday, 26 June 2008 Mikhail Khodorkovsky received official notification that he and his defence lawyers would not be able to continue acquainting themselves with the case materials “since new charges will be brought against him and other investigative activities will take place”. The document bore the signature of V.M. Alyshev, head of the team of investigators. There was no reference in the document to any factual or judicial basis for such a decision or to the procedural document that constituted the grounds for this decisions.

Nowhere in the Criminal Procedural Code is an investigator given the right to end the familiarisation of the defendant with the materials of the completed investigation into a criminal case. The only circumstances under which investigative activities may be performed in a case that has been completed and submitted for familiarisation is if a petition lodged by a participant in the judicial proceeding is upheld; moreover, those activities do not exclude the ongoing familiarisation with the case materials. Therefore, there are no legal grounds for ending familiarisation with the materials and the termination of that process violates the constitutional right of Mikhail Khodorkovsky to be defended and his other rights as a defendant as provided for in the Criminal Procedural Code.

On 30 June 2008 the new charges were announced. After subjecting a closely typed document of 145 pages to several hours of attentive scrutiny the defence were unable to understand what was “new” about the accusation. It contained the same selection of absurd and unproven allegations about the supposed theft and legalisation of all the oil produced by Yukos during the six years of the company's operations. There are no new episodes; the qualification of the defendant’s actions has not changed. The text of the previous 3 February 2007 decree has undergone minor alteration and almost all the factual contradictions and juridically trivial assertions that it contained have been preserved.

In our attempt to understand what hidden thought lies behind this procedural enterprise the defence can find no other explanation than the uncertainly of the team of investigators and, in view of the changes taking place in the upper echelons of the Russian power structure, its desire to play for time in the expectation of receiving new instructions and confirmation of support “from above”. Our client was informed that new charges were being brought on his birthday, which is indisputable evidence of the petty and vindictive character of those who stand behind this criminal initiative. No matter what legal ingenuity may be involved, we remain sure that such a case will result in the total collapse of this fabricated charge, if it ever comes to court.