Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s lawyer guesses why new charges were recently brought against his client

Yury Schmidt offers his interpretation in an interview with Selected (Izbrannoye), the Internet daily newspaper

Are reports correct — that the investigation, instigated on 30 June 2008, is already complete? Is it possible to start and finish the preliminary investigation of a case within three days?

Nevertheless, it’s true. Today our client was formally told that investigative activities linked to the new accusations have been completed. Of course, they simply did not take place. Sixteen new volumes of evidence have been added to the case. The prosecutors invited him to start getting acquainted with their contents.

Which is logical, since the investigation is now complete.

You have failed to consider one of the circumstances. By law at the end of an investigation the defendant, Khodorkovsky, has the right to help from his lawyers, those whom he has chosen for the purpose. He decided that he needed our aid, my help included, and informed the investigators. Our client, let me remind you, is in Chita and I am in St Petersburg. The law takes such situations into account and allows the defence five days to become involved in the case. But here is the inconsistency: myself and my colleagues, those who were named by Khodorkovsky were not even informed of his request. That is a direct violation of the Criminal Procedural Code.

What is the meaning of these events? In what way could your participation threaten the investigation?

In no way, of course. However, on 2 August Khodorkovsky’s present [three-month] term of detention in custody expires. The prosecution should have presented him with the new case 30 days before that date in order for him to familiarise himself with its details. Otherwise on 2 August the court would change the measure of restraint imposed on him. Now the prosecution declares that 16 new volumes of evidence have appeared and we must study them. That will serve as justification for extending the term of Khodorkovsky’s detention in the Chita remand centre.

That’s as may be, but what lies behind all this subterfuge? If the purpose is to sentence Khodorkovsky to a second period of imprisonment where’s the sense in dragging things out?

There is a reason. The first time the investigators introduced new documents to the case files was in January 2008. The purpose was clear: the trial must not begin before the presidential elections were over. On 30 June this happened again. This was, I think, because the prosecution found themselves in an awkward position: they did not know what to do in the new political situation. I suppose that the guaranteed support the prosecution enjoyed earlier is no longer there. Possibly they are now getting no instructions from above. How should they behave in such a situation? Just play for time — which is what the investigators are now doing.

According to that logic they could have handed the case over to the courts in order to relieve themselves of the responsibility.

But to which court? The Constitution says that the case should be transferred to a court in Moscow. It was with good reason, however, that the prosecution insisted that the investigation was proceeding in Chita, although that’s also in violation of the law. What are they are to do now? It’s not clear.

The period of political uncertainty could go on for some while. Can the investigators submit “renewed” accusations for a third time?

And for a fourth, and a fifth ... Though that is all in violation of the law. In our Criminal Procedural Code it says that after the evidence has been submitted for familiarisation no further investigative activities may be performed. Can you believe that 16 volumes of evidence were assembled in only three days? I don’t. Moreover, I know that all this time a secret, parallel investigation is being carried out. Formally, it is beyond the framework of our case. In a certain other case file, however, “Yukos documents” are being gathered and, when needed, they will be parachuted into our case as “of relevance to the charges”.

Will the new documents submitted by the team of investigators substantially complicate the work of the defence?

I don’t think so. A preliminary analysis by the defence team has shown that these are, in general, a quite haphazard and disparate selection of documents which have only the most indirect bearing on our case. In my view, this reveals the traces of a definite haste and confusion. As has been evident in all the actions of the prosecution over the past few days. The new head of the Investigative Committee’s main investigative department Sergei Markelov suddenly announced that his colleagues were investigating the theft by my client of 38% of the shares in the Eastern Oil Company (VNK). It would be interesting to know why he did so. Khodorkovsky has already been incriminated with this offence. Or is Markelov saying that he has several cases on the go which concern theft within Yukos? I would remind him that the accusation has already been made that all the oil produced by Yukos was stolen and, consequently, so were all the profits derived from that offence. If one believes the accusation then there can be nothing else to steal ...

(Yury Schmidt was talking to Ludmila Vasina, Izbrannoye, 3.07.2008)