As soon as she landed in Moscow on February 7 after her ordeal in Chita airport earlier that day, Mikhail Khodorkovsky's lawyer Karinna Moskalenko rushed to the "Echo Moskvy" radio station to give an exclusive interview on what had just happened with her:

ECHO: Hello. Karinna Moskalenko, lawyer for Mikhail Khodorkovsky

MOSKALENKO: The only thing that absolves me is that I came to you right from the airport.

ECHO: Oh come now, there is much that absolves you. We are not those who intend to accuse or adjudge you for something.

MOSKALENKO: You don't say!

ECHO: Please, tell us everything in the order it happened. Because we're already getting questions from listeners. First the basic facts. What happened there? What did they force you to sign.

MOSKALENKO: First a small preamble. I consider that there are exactly two serious problems with respect to this case. One problem is the Procuracy General's. The Procuracy-General doesn't under any circumstances want that these, as we say, mad, absurd, groundless (to say it more diplomatically) charges become known to our population. They've told our population that he's guilty of grave crimes, but they don't want to say what these crimes consist of. They don't want to give us the opportunity to refute them rationally.

ECHO: What do you mean, they don't want? They named the articles [of the Criminal Code under which Khodorkovsky has been charged].

MOSKALENKO: Yes.

ECHO: Theft plus laundering.

MOSKALENKO: You said that, not I.

ECHO: I said that, but illiterately.

MOSKALENKO: No, you said what they said illiterately, they accused him before all of Russia. And now we want to tell all of Russia from what substitutions - that's what I call it - these charges are put together. But they're not letting us. How can you keep lawyers from doing this? They're free people. In a free, democratic country. In that case you need to artificially introduce some kind of prohibition. The prohibition is set forth in the code of criminal procedure for a specific category of cases, and when the secrecy of the investigation demands the silence of the participants in the processes, it gives the opportunity to obtain a signature of non-disclosure of the data of the investigation. It is rather difficult to fight against this; Article 310 about criminal liability for this act is quite vague. It really ought to be given some thought in the context of the constitutionality of this norm; indeed, to demand through the Constitutional Court. But there's no time. For us, for the defense. They're already now starting to press us, indeed press us this way: It would seem that it is within their capability to force us to sign [a non-disclosure statement] with respect to the case for which we have been invited to Chita. And, in general, to do so at least lawfully, at least creating the appearance of the law, let's put it that way. But what do they do? They make a substitution. They say: Here, sign that you won't disclose information with respect to case number - and there we notice a long number that we have never seen before.

ECHO: This is an unknown [case] number?

MOSKALENKO: An unknown number. But there must be a dozen of these numbers, probably. Not only did we not know about this number, we were warned and invited to the city of Chita with respect to another case number that was known to us. And we came. But here they're telling us: not knowing what, not knowing about what, sign here that you will not disclose this. But my friends, I don't know what it is I'm not supposed to be disclosing. This is simple human logic talking: Karinna, wait. You're not signing about yourself; the man you are defending is behind you. You have a duty, this is your professional duty, to act in his best interests. If they shut your mouth in the case about which you don't even know what it's even about, then you'll not only cause yourself harm, you might even accidentally find yourself criminally liable. Because there won't be any delays at the Procuracy-General. They've been threatening me a long time. If you recall, in this very studio in the next room we talked about how they've been promising for a long time to take away my high calling of "advocate" [i.e. disbar me] which it was not they who had given me. And here, can you imagine, criminal liability plain and simple. Signing a document obliging me not to leave town and various frightening bloody boys. And so, in order not to do this, in order not to cause harm to myself as a lawyer, because I'm needed in the case after all, and not to cause harm to my client, because, in my opinion, he's already had so much harm caused to him anywhere and everywhere that you've simply got to take pity on the person. And I decide for myself: I am not going to sign a document that in essence represents a counterfeit document. Fabricated. And I state this position, I state it yesterday, on the 5th, and Yuri Markovich Schmidt states pretty much the same thing, that this case number is unknown to us, and we can't sign. On the 6th they don't touch us with this. Although we're being taken around practically like a prisoner convoy, because those same convoy guards who escorted us into the security zone don't give us the opportunity to go out onto the street, but demand that we go to through to the chief of the institution. The chief of the institution has nothing against us. This is a calm, decent lieutenant-colonel person. But there we meet the investigative group, which, firstly, is running around like it owns the place, there in the investigative isolator. You remember how much we fought for the independence of the penitentiary system from the organs of investigation. So, we lost, becasue we had somehow managed to attain this for them, but they absolutely don't know how to hold on to their independence in their own hands. They're walking around like servant girls, serving the interests of the Procuracy-General. And not even legitimate interests of the Procuracy, I might add. The Procuracy-General is in command there, step up here, put your signature there. Sign here to receive this. We say: Excuse us, but maybe after all you'll do this not after 6 PM in the evening, someplace in some office, where we can have a seat and review the documents. In general, the character of the documents is incorrect. Let's discuss. You put your signature right there or we'll file a report right now that you're refusing to sign. Okay, file away, no problem, you've already filed so many anyway.

ECHO: And what's this?

MOSKALENKO: That we are acting wrongfully and are disturbing the conduction of their actions with respect to taking signatures from us. So that's how it all was. We were escorted there, we spent some time there, eventually did get copies of these document, eventually they filed, probably, some kind of papers about how we're nothing but a bunch of refuseniks. And that seemed to be the end of that. And in the evening I get a call from an investigator, a lady, she's sweet, she always behaves so daintily and politely, she says: so you're leaving tomorrow at 9:30. Okay, everything's clear. I tell her at this time that I've got a seriously ill child, that I have already finished work with my client. I also add that he's already written that he does not need my participation in these actions, I'm going to continue work on my way with the European Court. So I say, as they say, have a nice stay.

ECHO: By the way, how are things there?

MOSKALENKO: That's no "by the way" question. Let's get to the end of one question. So, yes, she says: I'll call you back. And she calls me back in a very bizarre manner. The littele bell rang today at 8 in the morning, when they came up to me after passing through security, I finally got to the Chita airport, that is by car. After going through all kinds of screenings. Shoes off, overcoat off, without suitcase, with suitcase, without purse, with purse. They went through everything, even when they had doubts, I say: I'd better open the suitcase for you. Everything was very polite.

ECHO: Just like terrorists.

MOSKALENKO: No, today this was very polite, this was an ordinary security screening. Excuse me, I fly 2-3 times a week, and I know how they treat you at Domodedovo on February 4th and how they usually do it. This was ordinary treatment. Somehow they let me slip through. Apparently they had planned this whole campaign again with undressing, with peering at all kinds of little papers; after all, that time they'd made an investigation record of everything, all my papers dossier, they photographed everything. And to argue with this, I, when I pushed away his camera, oh how they started to yell in their little microphones; apparently they say all kinds of stupid things, they then revel in them, what do you think you're doing, this is manhandling, write, write everything, register, record. In general, like with terrorists. And so, I'm sitting in the lounge, and as luck would have it, guys from a film crew from one [Moscow TV station] are returning to Moscow, they're asking me questions. They don't understand; apparently they knew that I would be alone. But because they understand everything, that I must for all these reasons fly out quickly, they go ahead and put me in the following situation. And so, Chita airport, an airport employee comes up to me and says for the whole lounge to hear: Who's Moskalenko? Looking right at me while he's doing this. Of course, he's never seen me before, but he'd already been shown the investigation record. By the way, an investigation record isn't such an innocent thing. I'm still going to try and prove that our rights were simply totally violated. And so, I respond sluggishly. He says: Well, come on, come on, let's go for a walk. I say: And where is it we're taking a walk to?, what do you mean?, you must have made some kind of mistake. I'm sitting here just fine. Everything's in order. I don't owe anybody anything and, more importantly, you don't owe me anything. No, no, I have to take you, you're being awaited, you need to be re-screened. I say, what do you mean, I've checked in all my luggage. I checked it in intentionally; apparently these tortured lawyers really do have intuition. Ah, but what about your purse. I say: you take the purse, there's nothing valuable in it, go ahead and screen it. Just don't forget to bring it back. And if you don't bring it back, then, well, what can I say. He says: But no, they gave you a boarding pass incorrectly there. I say: I've got a great boarding pass, everything's on it, the seat number. He's cringing and squirming, this isn't comfortable for him, he can't think of anything more. And the guys from the film crew start up immediately, it's just that we'd just been discussing the Domodedovo situation with them. They call right away on their telephones to the International Commission of Jurists, where I'm a commissioner, they call right away to "Echo Moskvy". You know, guys, how your moral support feels. Thank you. It is in these airports and under all the muzzles of some kind of cannons (I don't know anything about them); it's not a help, but it's a real moral support. And so, when he understood that he no longer has any arguments, he comes out and declares to me: okay, then, it's only the worse for you. We'll take you off the flight. Now that is a threat I take very seriously, I'll tell you. I was in no mood for jokes, I had to fly out immediately, and it's not like I won't ever need to fly again. I need to be able to keep on flying. I don't know what the situation will be like there; if anything happens, I'm calling you. You won't let me down. And I say: you know what? Someone's playing a really bad joke on you. I'm a lawyer, and I'm telling you that your actions are unlawful. This is arbitrary treatment. And I will not stand for it. And you know what? Don't humiliate yourself. Make it so that those who have provoked you [to do this], let them take on themselves the responsibility for this wrongful act. Let them come here. And the whole lounge, you understand, everybody's looking, I'm being called for a screening and I'm just sitting there and not getting up, not complying with the demands that he's calling lawful. And so he disappears. By the way, glad for my suggestion, apparently he really did decide to let those people who had thought up this not legal operation do it. They appear in a little while. And I recognize one of the investigators among them. And those police officers, of whom there were many, I noticed them. They simply told me that there are very many police officers now in Chita and indeed when I was coming out of the oblast procuracy building, I would alwasy see some kind of helmets, some kind of frightening hats being worn...

ECHO: They deny that a reinforcement took place there.

MOSKALENKO: You're kidding. At every step. All the drivers are telling me about this, everybody on the street is talking about this. You can see this with the naked eye.

ECHO: What are they so afraid of?

MOSKALENKO: Come on, come on. What about Khodorkovsky? In their opinion, he's very dangerous.

ECHO: They're afraid of orange snow.

MOSKALENKO: Okay, let's call it that way. I was in Grozny here, in December I was conducting a conference for young lawyers, there simply wasn't such a quantity of these helmeted ones (they walk like robots).

ECHO: Even there?

MOSKALENKO: Yes. And so, among them is a young investigator, very pleasant even, I don't want to give his name. I know his name. I see that he's uncomfortable. But he says: Karinna Akopovna, you forgot to sign something here. I forgot? You don't say! And you consider that now at a bit past 8 in the morning you can disturb me here in the airport in this regard? He's all confused, of course. Next to him is a middle-aged person of unpleasant aspect; I don't know who he is. I say: Who are you, an investigator, a lawyer? You could introduce yourself, you know. Here, I'm lawyer Moskalenko. And who are you? See, I've got nothing to hide, but you, why are you hiding? Here you are, following orders. You know, I say, I don't even talk with people who are afraid to introduce themselves. Usually it's criminals who don't introduce themselves. People who are violating the law. You're pretty much the same thing to me. So step aside, please, I'm going to speak with the investigator. I don't get up from my chair. Why did you refuse to come [with the airport employee]? I say: You know, the method, you can deliver [me] with force. I'm not going anywhere voluntarily. But because everybody's standing here, in the big scheme of things I'm already in practice restricted in movement. That is, consider it as they do in the West - arrested. In our country we like to report: so-and-so was arrested here-or-there. What is meant is arrest. In our language it's detention. So let's consider it in Russian, that I've been detained. And so he tells me: you will please sign, here are two documents. No, first one document, and then the other document. The first document is very funny. I brought it with me. It says that even my very refusal to sign certain documents in particular obligations, even my simple refusal it can be under certain circumstances assessed as the commission of a criminal offense. And I look at this paper and I can't laugh, because you understand that it's tragic, you can fly into Chita only once a day and once a day not fly back to the "mainland". And it's no laughing matter for me. I'm thinking what I should do. And then here I realize that without a signature I won't fly out, but that I can't put my signature [on these documents]. I'm a lawyer after all. Then I do this: I say: patience, then. And the whole lounge is looking. I wasn't feeling uncomfortable. Because I considered that it isn't I who am committing wrongful acts, but that gross arbitrariness is being committed with respect to me. I even wanted it to be the other way - for the people, the people to start looking at what's going on. I'm thinking, there will be many witnesses. Not to mention the members of the film crew. And so, I write. Place your signature right here. I say, no, before I place my signature, I will write out what you're perpetrating here in detail. He thought it over, he understood that if they're demanding a signature out of him, and it will be there, then it's better to wait for what I write. I wrote in detail what kind of arbitrariness is being raise, that I am being coerced under threat of being removed from the flight, and after that I write that detailed objections will be sent immediately to the address of the Procuracy-General. After this I place my signature.

ECHO: You [do this] on that same document?

MOSKALENKO: Yes, when I was earlier invited for consultation on the radio, television, on how people can protect themselves, I always advised them, try to obey the demands if possible, but always record the violations that are taking place with you.

ECHO: Karinna, continue. You're writing this in detail, you're writing in what circumstances it's taking place, they're demanding a signature from you, and you place this signature.

MOSKALENKO: And I place a signature. And what do I attain from this? I consider that any signature obtained under threat, under pressure, it makes the document itself illegitimate.

ECHO: Only you need to prove that it's under pressure.

MOSKALENKO: But that's all written there. I have witnesses.

ECHO: That's an answer for Diana from Saratov, who asked.

MOSKALENKO: Those practicums that I read for people on television and radio helped me a lot.

ECHO: That is, in teaching others, you understood yourself how you're supposed to behave?

MOSKALENKO: Yes. I simply never thought that I would find myself in such a situation. But as it turned out, nobody's secure in today's Russia. And that really got me, that it's even with respect to me, a person highly protected by her callings, insignia...

ECHO: And knowledge.

MOSKALENKO: Yes, and knowledge too. If if they're allowing themselves to behave that way with respect to me, then how are they going to behave with respect to people who are unprotected, not confident in themselves?

ECHO: Unprotected people consider that they're not involved in any affairs, that they didn't do anything like that. They're not associated with any Khodorkovsky, who robbed all of Russian blind, and right they did that he's now locked up. That's why they're protected.

MOSKALENKO: Oh, what a delusion that is. And people are beginning to understand this, when suddenly, unexpectedly, they find themselves in a situation that they had never suspected for themselves. It's Khodorkovsky who's the exception, actually. That is why we know, some are starting to guess why, the power has decided to lynch him like this. And when they lynch ordinary simple people in our country, you come to our center - folders with thousands of appeals: someone got beaten up here, someone got detained there, someone else got served for something without justification, someone got thrown to the ground here, someone died there. This is frightening, this concerns all of the absolutely most ordinary Russia. Khodorkovsky is an exception among my clients.

ECHO: Karinna Akopovna, how might what took place with you reflect on the consideration of Khodorkovsky's application in Strasbourg?

MOSKALENKO: Not at all, I hope. Although I do intend to bring certain data to the attention of the European Court. But in addition to its other tasks, I think that the Procuracy-General is pursuing only one other goal. If they consider that the signature that I was forced to make today, and I've explained why this is not a signature, this is a coerced signing of a document with an explanation of the reasons, as this was done. So, if they consider that after this I don't have the right [to give] any information, and sometimes it is needed even for the European Court, although it is not considering the case on the merits, but it could be needed. If I make even some kind of information the property of international organizations, not only the European Court, I'm often at the PACE, speak at committees on issues I'm involved with, our organization is an expert organization for very many international organizations. And so, if I dare to do this, then in this case they will consider that they can hold me criminally liable. The reason I make this stipulation, they consider, is because I will be deeply not in agreement with them. But it is they who will be deciding the question of whether or not to initiate a criminal case. And this will be lawlessness. Sometimes I think that maybe to defend even the members of my team in the Khodorkovsky case, maybe let them do this with respect to me, because I can just imagine what will start to happen after this. Well, let them try. Let them.

ECHO: Now you can ask questions of Karinna Moskalenko.

LISTENER: Good day. Roman. From Moscow. I have a very simple question. I personally am not in agreement with the whole situation, I empathize. What can I do that depends on me? So as to maybe help to some extent Mikhail Borisovich personally or this whole case in general.

ECHO: Thank you.

MOSKALENKO: You know, for me personally it will be difficult to answer this question. Because in my time, having taken an active life position - true, this was many years ago already - I chose for myself the method of struggle in the law. That is, people come to me with respect to violation of human rights, I know, as it seems to me, how to help them and if I can not attain a result using all the means of legal defense within the country, I even try to use international means of legal defense. But this is my path, the path of the jurist. I am not a person of public actions, I will not come out and demonstrate, simply because, maybe, I might just come out, and there have been such situations. But I'm more likely to be a spectator there. And what do I organize? I organize the work of a center that actively helps people. And by the way, we already have fruits of our actions. Because we have been in existence for 12 years and for the last year, even more than a year, our organization is being persecuted, and they're persecuting it in the most not lawful and most indecent manner.

ECHO: Hello?

LISTENER: Good day. Valentina Grigorievna disturbing you. Imagine if you will, listening to all this, how is a simple person to live?

ECHO: Do you have a specific question?

LISTENER: No question.

ECHO: Thank you very much. I'm begging you, questions; understand, we can sigh together with you and be outraged together, that for some reason you're defending him and all those others, but [please limit yourself to] specific questions. Make use of the fact that we've got lawyer Karinna Moskalenko here, and ask questions.

LISTENER: Good day. Vadim Sergeyevich, Moscow. Here's my question: Echo Moskvy, Karinna, this is for you, reminds me of the senate. Three... of our era, the period of the invasion of the cannibals...

ECHO: What a memory.

LISTENER: Here's my question. Do you remember when they were debating in the senate and...

ECHO: No, I was young then. [Joke: the listener is referring to the Roman Senate--Trans.]

MOSKALENKO: Nobody remembers.

LISTENER: No matter how it might end, it always says: Carthage must be destroyed.

ECHO: Yes, and so?

LISTENER: So today, no matter what is said, but Khodorkovsky is in first place in our country. Thank you.

ECHO: You're welcome. Absolutely brilliant. What a memory that man has. Hello? Good day.

LISTENER: They call me Denis. I'm from Samara. Here's my question. Concerning the case in the European Court. Please explain what's taking place, how things are going. And another question. Let's say the court adopts some kind of decision. Does the government, or rather do the judicial organs of Russia have to carry it out without fail?

ECHO: Thank you, Denis.

MOSKALENKO: Thanks for the question. A very good question. I'm not going to tell you much about what's going on with the case that's being considered by the European Court. Because my reserved client Mikhail Borisovich Khodorkovsky has asked me very emphatically not to discuss this case prior to the adoption of a decision or prior to the consideration of the case, if it will take place publicly. The European Court will say everything. We will not anticipate its decision, do anything in advance of it, speculate about it, in the sense of holding discourse about that which has not yet taken place. But as to whether or not the decision of the European Court will be binding on all Russian authorities, yes it will. It is another matter that the decisions of the European Court are multi-faceted, they prescribe: a) measures of an individual character. Most often compensations of some sort, material payments. Measures of a general character. This is already very serious, the country obliges itself not to allow such violations in the future. And finallly, it sometimes happens that they even raise the question about changing domestic legislation. Because the jurisdiction of the European Court for Human Rights, it is binding on Russia and on the other 45 states of the Council of Europe.

ECHO: Tell us, Russia didn't ratify Protocol 14 about streamlining the activities of the Strasbourg court. How does this threaten the activities of the court itself and our participation in it?

MOSKALENKO: Why don't you ask our parliamentarians, who were at the PACE last week. I heard this disgrace, and I, of course, was deeply ashamed for my country. True, our parliamentarians were highly praised, because they had allowed themselves to go against the Duma majority and voted for ratification of Protocol 14. Few are saying anything about this, while the PACE welcomed our deputies and declared that we must help our Russian colleagues convince the rest of the Duma, because if Russia goes along the path of blocking Protocol 14 - and without it consideration of the pile of cases that have accumulated in the European Court will be impossible - then in this case Russia is going to be defying a principle that is mandatory. The principle of unanimity – 45 states for, only Russia alone against, and this is very bad. And this is bad for the Strasburg court, as they said, for the very heart of the idea of the Council of Europe. And for Russia. Because by the way, one fifth of this pile of cases that haven't been considered yet are Russian cases. It is we who have accumulated such a quantity of cases there. This is understandable: it's a big country. But of course, the disillusionment with the Russian system of justice is great. This is why people turn to Strasbourg, that is there are many reasons. But that's we who have accumulate such cases along with other record-breaking countries. And this is why we can not unilaterally block it like this. There are other principles in existence in the Council of Europe.

ECHO: We've gotten a text message: In your opinion, is the Procuracy-General independent with respect to M.B. Khodorkovsky?

MOSKALENKO: I don't know. How could I know? I'm not going to invent anything. How things seem to me has no significance. I see that they're acting lawlessly. And I see that some of them are ashamed to act that way.

ECHO: That is, you're accepting the procuracy as a procuracy. And not something else. It's not your business to engage in reflection...

MOSKALENKO: Analysis of the political situation, who is under whose influence. The procuracy should not submit to this influence. They will bear their responsibility some day, maybe quite soon for their own actions. And they won't be able to plead that they were just following orders, because these orders were not recorded anywhere, they can not be recorded, they can not be written down. They were absolutely contrary to the law. And that means they don't exist. But why is it acting this way? History will answer all of these questions. I know this for sure.

ECHO: We'd like it to be the history of the near future. We're such news fiends, we absolutely want us to be the ones who broadcast about how history judged. Hello?

LISTENER: Hello. My name is Tatiana Ivanovna. I'm also an empathizer. Here's my question. The defendant [in a case I'm the victim in] involving an automobile accident managed to sign himself out [of the hospital?] and escape to the Ukraine. What do you think? Is it impossible to bring him to justice?

MOSKALENKO: Quick answer: There is a treaty on legal assistance between Russia and Ukraine; go to our Procuracy-General, and let them handle it. But if this is a civil case and there's a civil defendant there, not an accused, than this is a lot more difficult of course. Although the treaty on mutual assistance applies even in this case. And you're going to have to go through our organs of justice. Although one could for manhunts, it's very complicated to help you, but one needs to know the circumstances. Maybe you might even have an idea where he might have disappeared to. Then it will be much simpler. But it's quite difficult to answer in the abstract.

ECHO: Sergey writes us: Even if Khodorkovsky is a thief, the power is stretching the rules. That's why the precedent of resisting lawlessness is very instructive in any case.

MOSKALENKO: Yes, and I'll add to this that he is not a thief. And he made use of those laws that existed, and he used them lawfully. And if the laws weren't right, well, then let those who created these incorrect laws or those for whom they were advantageous answer for them. At any rate, Khodorkovsky didn't create them. And a rather large quantity of people made use of them along with Khodorkovsky. But they all just had some sort of gathering, yesterday I believe.

ECHO: The meeting of the RSPP [Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs--Trans.] with the president of the country.

MOSKALENKO: Yes. But Khodorkovsky is where he is.

ECHO: By the way, how's his mood?

MOSKALENKO: You know, had just thought of him now, his outer appearance, everything that I saw these two days, and you've asked me about this. He is a very nice person. And you can't avoid feeling empathy for him. You've come to work, you're a lawyer, shedding tears and sniffling have no place in your life. And still you empathize so much with this person. I'm a woman, after all, I just feel sad that we - no, I feel sad in a strictly human sense, of course - that a person has to be in such horrible conditions for nothing, about nothing. Just on someone's whim. I can't even imagine this, and the most important thing is how sad this is for the country. And for him. He often says: how I want to be doing something important. Being useful for my country. You know what a patriot he is? He wants so badly to be useful for his country. And to not waste time behind these bars. He writes, he gets published, he's looking for some kind of solutions. Especially now for this region - the Far East, Siberia - he sees what potential this region has and he says that it's even good that I've become so familiar with these problems, I'm now writing on this subject. He's very interested in questions of local self-administration [municipal government--Trans.] He's so full of activity. An exceptionally smart person.

ECHO: Tell us, are you guided by feelings or legal principles? Because there are criminals who have repented and who are justly behind bars, writing wonderful books about fixing the country and humanity. I'm speaking without any irony here, really. Here the function of the defender is somewhat different too.

MOSKALENKO: You had asked what kind of impression I have of him.

ECHO: Understood. But we're moving on.

MOSKALENKO: Not broken, alive, very full of activity. Now, as concerns a legal assessment, that's all in our documents. How strong our arguments were! So strong that even the Moscow City Court left practically nothing from the charges. And these years of imprisonment, yes, but violation of the law never was proven anywhere. And the new charges, my friends...

ECHO: What kind of sentence are we talkig about?

MOSKALENKO: A big one. [For me,] As soon as I tell you what sentence, what article, what part of what article [of the Criminal Code he is being charged under]. Let me first challenge all these warnings and signatures of theirs; don't lead me under an article!

ECHO: And what about what we're hearing all the time from various sources and which articles and what charges. Do we continue doing this?

MOSKALENKO: I don't know. Only if they get the whole country to sign a non-disclosure statement. Now that would be know-how.

ECHO: It's been done.

MOSKALENKO: Legally speaking, if you're asking me as a lawyer, lets talk in the cold language of facts. As soon as they give us the opportunity to talk on this subject, we immediately say: here is the indictment, here are two substitutions, that add up to a third substitution. From this crawl out some unthinkable billions, and this then is a lie. Well, let us say this. No, they say to us, we're going to announce to the whole country that he's a criminal, but we're not going to let you [speak]. This is presumption of innocence and equality of arms, Russian style. This is a side in a trial which is equal to me. And I won't let this equal side dictate rules of behavior to me – and unlawful ones at that.

ECHO: Tell us please, this is probably an idiotic question, the one that takes up more than all the rest. Why has all of this appeared now, all of a sudden? You know, there is one straightforward hypothesis that the investigation really has found something new.

MOSKALENKO: Oh, come now. They've been talking about these charges for a year and a half. They had already notified - how long ago, I think at the end of 2004 - that such a case is being investigated. True, by the way, it wasn't the same [case] number as the one they're shoving at us now. And so, both then and now. And so, this is why, of couse, they didn't just find something now. A year and a half ago we were warned that charges would be filed tomorrow, we all ran and flew from various corners of the earth. In order to participate in this action, to see what it was that they had concocted. But when I imagined what they had concocted, I somehow said to my colleague on the phone that if this construction is what we see tomorrow, this is such madness that I need to run like the wind with this to Europe and show everyone and laugh at this. And I'm being warned against doing this, too, by the way. And so, why now? Some say - I'll say yet again, I'm not going to be an expert on all this. These are all no doubt political questions, and I don't do politics. Everybody's got to do what they do. I'm a lawyer. Some say it's because certain stages of work on the case are coming to an end in Strasbourg. This probably piques the power to some degree. From certain documents I could come to such a conclusion. Some say that the elections are coming up. I am an apolitical person, of course; I won't go vote, I am completely uninterested in participating in this farce, just like Mikhail Borisovich isn't interested in participating in this farce that goes by the name of new criminal charges. But I don't know what reasons. There could be many reasons. Somebody wanted to destroy Russia's image again. There's a hypothesis like that. I don't know, and I'm not going to talk about what I don't know. Lawyers don't like to talk with respect to what they don't know, in general.

ECHO: Or, on the contrary, to fix it. You add another 2-3 considerations, and maybe, all together, they give some kind of a picture of why it is happening now. Tell us please, what further events are expected in which you will be taking part and the other lawyers?

MOSKALENKO: The other lawyers took part in a court session today. Then they intend to fly out to Moscow, because we hadn't been notified in time about the investigative actions on Saturday the 10th. Then they intend to prepare for the next stage of work on this case. As concerns me, Mikhail Borisovich wrote me a statement against which the investigation and the Procuracy-General can't do anything at all, that not familiarizing herself with the case materials, lawyer Moskalenko at my request is continuing to engage in work with the Strasbourg court. We have a supplement there too, new papers, new replies. And he is letting it be known, he is informing the investigation that they should not summon me to these investigative actions for now until the supplementary application. And he emphasized that he is handing this statement over to the investigation prior to the commencement of Moskalenko's familiarization with the case materials. That is, in actuality I can speak about whatever I deem necessary. I'm exaggerating. But I'm not exaggerating, because they ccould, since they're warning me about liability, they could decide to play this card. And you know from all the recent actions what kind of cards they've got in court.

ECHO: From all appearances, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, just like Platon Lebedev, will be staying in the Chita SIZO for now. This could be for a very long time.

MOSKALENKO: I don't know the answer to this question either. Because when we ask them a question, you know, we need to estimate our efforts somehow, our work. No, they don't give an answer to this question. And they talk in riddles all the time. I'm afraid of only one thing. My colleagues will now be flying from Chita, tomorrow, the day after, and inasmuch as every day we have some kind of incidents taking place from this general chain of intimidation, threats, and provocations, then I am very afraid about how they're going to be treating my colleagues. In connection with this, I would like to mention the press release...

ECHO: Here the International Commission of Jurists has issued a press release. We'll familiarize our listeners on the website. I think that you'll be able to see it on the organization's website. We'll definitely have a link. To be honest, I agree with our listener Natasha. I would not say definitively, for example, that I won't go vote. Because elections, no matter what, and we definitely have to fight for the cleanness of elections and for our participation in them. If we even stop going to vote, then someone will get the idea: you see, nobody's going; that means they're not needed at all. And we'll be fine without that. And let's also amend the Constitution another 25 times, and it'll be really great, and there won't be Karinna Moskalenkos appearing on any radio stations.

MOSKALENKO: Thank you for having said this to me.

ECHO: Everything will be quiet and peaceful. So think about it.

MOSKALENKO: Your opinion is very important to me.

ECHO: We're always mulling this over, and will be mulling it over with our listeners right on up to the elections themselves. Thank you.

(Echo Moskvy, 07.02.2007)