Moderator: Maria Ordzhonikidze
Ladies and Gentlemen: Let us begin our press conference. The topic is Case of Platon Lebedev and Mikhail Khodorkovsky: Comments on Hearings. The press conference participants are the following: Yury Schmidt represents Mr. Khodorkovsky's defence counsels and Evgeny Baru, Elena Liptser, Vladimir Krasnov, and Konstantin Rivkin represent the majority of Mr. Lebedev's defence counsels. We also have here Alexei Kondaurov, a Deputy in the Russian State Duma (Communist faction). You are welcome to ask questions after the press conference participants have made their statements.

Evgeny Baru:
I would like to remind you that on Wednesday last week, at the request of the Principal Directorate for Corrections and Ministry of Justice officials, some journalists, including those who may be present here, were invited to Matrosskaya Tishina for a press conference. In addition, as far as I know, the investigation ward administration showed the journalists their hospital's medical facilities and patients who were fast asleep during the visit. You already know about the conclusions reached by the Ministry of Justice officials at the end of that press conference. I would remind you that they concluded that conditions at the hospital were perfect. Mr. Lebedev might have been suffering from some chronic ailments but, at the time of the press conference, the officials finally determined that he needed no medical treatment.

The goals of the Ministry of Justice and investigation ward officials are absolutely clear as they recognized the importance of Mr. Lebedev's state of health for the defence as a whole. The defence counsel team is in fact concerned about Mr. Lebedev's state of health and consistently raises this issue before the court. In order to forestall our actions and remove this issue in general, they conducted that press conference. Quite frankly, our appeal on the following day was not connected to that press conference. It was a pure coincidence.

For a long period of time, regarding the lack of action by the investigation ward administration including the doctors, we had to appeal for assistance to various Russian and foreign specialists. We have obtained a more than sufficient number of documents and medical reports based on the diagnoses and documents that were gathered in connection with Mr. Lebedev's case. All of the specialists are absolutely conscientious people who, from the very beginning emphasized the fact that they had been unable to examine Mr. Lebedev in person and made their conclusions on the basis of the available medical records. The most important thing is that all of them expressed their unconditional willingness to join any independent medical commission in order to of determine [the state of Mr. Lebedev's health] and issuing their conclusions.

Moreover, they suggested that the court should question them as attestors on these circumstances, indicating their understanding of the scope of responsibility; [the foreign specialists] emphasized that they appreciate the Russian legal requirements for specialists and attestors. In addition, our appeal [to the court] included a letter from our lawyer colleagues abroad defending their interests, including those of Mr. Lebedev, as they also took part in appeals to foreign specialists and were interested in obtaining objective information on the state of his health.

Furthermore, understanding the threat to Mr. Lebedev created by this lack of action, and in fact leaving him in danger, Mr. Kondaurov wrote me a letter asking me to inform the court of his wish to act as [Mr. Lebedev's] personal guarantor if the court considers the issue of a medical examination of Mr. Lebedev, changing his form of detention, and suspension of the proceedings. Those of you who were present in court on that day know that Mr. Kondaurov 's request was clearly interpreted by us that if we appealed [to the court] to change Mr. Lebedev's form of detention, it would be very helpful if such a well-known person undertook certain obligations and guaranteed that Mr. Lebedev would abide by all such obligations imposed by the court if the form of detention were changed.

Therefore, I remind you that the court had received a motion quoting the opinions of independent Russian doctors, Canadian and British specialists, and expressing the concern of well-known European legal professionals and human rights activists, and a deputy of the Russian State Duma. As a result, in the course of discussing this issue in court, we, the defence counsel were granted an opportunity to ask the court to call for an ambulance in view of the defendant's state of health. This was not a staged situation, and we had not rehearsed this in advance. The actual events of this trial, the hearings, and the prosecutor's allegations that Mr. Lebedev was in good health, in other words restating what had been said the day before by the Ministry of Justice officials, made Mr. Lebedev so agitated that his elevated blood pressure became absolutely obvious to us who work with him on a daily basis. The ambulance arrived. Please do not be confused by these seemingly insignificant numbers. In fact, as Mr. Lebedev said, his normal blood pressure is 100/70. No medical records including those made in the investigation ward by its doctors have ever registered that pressure. Mr. Lebedev's blood pressure ranged from 130, 120. At the Basmanny Courthouse, the ambulance medics registered [blood pressure] at 165. The most worrisome thing is the increase in his lower blood pressure. His blood pressure reached the level of 100. This unstable arterial blood pressure is viewed by all specialists as the principal danger threatening Mr. Lebedev. The consequences can be extremely grave, even fatal. In addition, we drew the court's attention to the fact that when meeting Mr. Lebedev in the detention center during the preliminary investigation, we used all possible means to stop his nasal bleeding.

The ambulance arrived, the medics gave him an injection and in forty minutes, as you heard, the [courtroom] secretary reported that [Mr. Lebedev's blood] pressure had been taken and it had stabilized. But the very fact of increased blood pressure was established. I would like to remind you that Mr. Lebedev himself was against calling for an ambulance. A recess was announced. Do you know why? The reason was that he personally is not aware of these [blood pressure] fluctuations. An increase of 20-30 is no longer a threshold that he is aware of. That is the danger. As Dr. Harris wrote in his conclusion, this is a silent killer. This is hypertension without any external manifestation. The most threatening thing is that Mr. Lebedev no longer senses it. You could see the external signs [of hypertension] in that the skin on his face changes; the ears become crimson and his speech which you heard when the hearing participants were discussing the appeal by counsel for the defence -- his speech changes and, moreover, he loses his coordination, he cannot stand steadily and needs to grasp the bars. Despite the combination of all the materials presented together with the fact that the court could see that Mr. Lebedev was ill, the court rejected our appeal.

We regard the issue of the state of Mr. Lebedev's health as one of the most important and actually the most important. The defence will return to this issue again and again as much as needed. No [positive] changes in his health condition are possible under existing conditions. I do not exclude the possibility that the investigation ward medics may claim [that they have conducted] a medical examination [of Mr. Lebedev]. In that case, firstly, this would be a involuntary examination, which is illegal, as medical treatment in Russia is voluntary, while compulsory treatment can only be applied to mentally ill patients. Secondly, it will be regarded as not objective if undertaken within the walls of the investigation ward. We are now ready to answer your questions.

M. Torocheshnikova, Radio Liberty:
My question is not really about the condition of Platon Lebedev but in general about the days of court hearings when the first prosecution witnesses were examined. What is your general impression of these witnesses after they were questioned?

Evgeny Baru:
Mr. Rivkin, Can you respond, giving our reaction to what we heard from the witnesses? Is it appropriate to do this at this stage?

Konstantin Rivkin:
This is the very beginning, the stage of the trial when the prosecution witnesses appear and therefore it is quite difficult to assess the situation objectively. As for the days when the prosecution witnesses came to the courtroom, my opinion - and I hope my colleagues will support it - is that we are satisfied with the testimonies we heard. In my opinion, they are giving evidence that was objective enough. If we consider the essence of their evidence, it would be clear that there had been no instance of fraud. What is fraud? It applies to cases when people knowingly commit embezzlement. Based on the evidence of witnesses who varied greatly, including the former Director General of Apatit and the former governor of Murmansk Region, the fact is that the investment program was being carried out. The Murmansk Region governor said he is grateful to Khodorkovsky because he prevented social conflict in the region. I believe if other witnesses in this case say similar things, we should be optimistic about the court decision specifically with regard to the charge that our clients acquired Apatit by fraudulent means.

Question:
How does the defence view an attempt by Mr. Shokhin to attach to this case the materials of another criminal case, for instance the minutes of the Pozdnyakov interrogation? Do you consider this as a legal threat, a dangerous precedent in which the prosecution continues to use new evidence obtained in the course of investigations of other cases? What is your reaction to the fact that the judge dismissed the motion of the prosecution on formal grounds, without going into details?

Evgeny Baru:
I think Vladimir Nikolaevich [Krasnov] can tell you more about this event and how it should be treated given the fact that in the course of preliminary investigation the prosecution similarly used the evidences that we had all grounds to treat as inadequate and illegally used.

Vladimir Krasnov:
In fact, the trial participants have come across a quite unusual approach by the prosecution. I shall get back to this issue shortly. Initially, there was Mr. Shokhin's inquiry to the Special Investigation Directorate under the Prosecutor General's Office. He simply wrote that if there is something new and that would be of interest to him, it should be sent to him. Needless to say, the defendants Michael Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev were the first to recognize the danger of such a precedent. Later on, Genrikh Padva and Yuri Schmidt, who is present here, based on their analysis of applicable law, called the court's attention to the fact that such an attempt is not legal. Firstly, we will probably have to review this issue in more detail. Secondly, the [Shokhin] attempt proves the fact that, from our point of view, the prosecution is trying to fill the gaps and weak points of the investigation that will probably become more and more obvious for the state prosecutor who somehow is trying in favor of Karimov and the company. To be clear about it, if things keep going on this way, and we already see that is doing so as there has been a second attempt to include another document into the case on the basis of the "to all and everyone" principle. The attempt has also been formally dismissed by the court. For today, the judge or, to be precise, the court has produced no judgment on our legal arguments. The court may consider this matter later on.

As of today, we believe this very dangerous situation exists and is being repeated, and probably sooner or later the court will have to give its judgment of the prosecution's actions. And that judgment will be based not only on formal, but also on substantive grounds.

Question:
And what is the danger?

Vladimir Krasnov:
The danger is that this case may be endless. Thousands of criminal cases are investigated in Russia and if they keep on sending new documents from various criminal cases that are somehow related to Yukos, MENATEP, Khodorkovsky, and Lebedev it will be a) illegal and b) our defendants will no longer have a clear understanding of the charges against them.

When the trial began, the prosecutor presented an indictment and said that all the evidence was already in the case and that in due time he would disclose it, and make it available. It has been mentioned during the trial that Lebedev's defence had in due course requested asked to run an that an additional investigation of the case be conducted by the prosecutor's office as, in our opinion, the investigation was handled in violation of the law. The court dismissed the appeal based on the prosecution's request. We were told that all that evidence was in place and was indisputable, as the state prosecutor likes to emphasize. It turns out now that there is something missing.

Evgeny Baru:
I would like to add something here. You may remember that when the preliminary investigation was over, together with Mr. Lebedev we began studying the materials of the criminal case. Many other volumes with materials containing other charges were given to us in violation of established procedural order. We were obliged to study these other volumes and then unexpectedly, under a ruling by the Basmanny Court, our access to these materials was restricted. In other words, Mr. Shokhin is doing bit by bit what the Prosecutor General's Office tried to do on a grander scale. And it did exactly that. This answers your question about the consequences of adding documents at this stage of the trial.

Furthermore, how can Mr. Lebedev prepare himself for the defence? First and foremost, he is an independent figure in the proceedings with the right to participate actively in the court trial, and Mr. Lebedev is not renouncing that right. On the one hand, his state of health does not allow him to work on the case even with his counsel. Just look at what goes on during recess. The defendants have to be taken out of the courtroom as they need to have some rest and they also need to discuss a range of issues with their defence counsel right away. How can they do it in the presence of the guards and while they are denied the opportunity to exchange documents? By the end of the day's trial, they have had neither a reasonable rest nor lunch, nothing at all. This goes on day after day. How can the defence work with them when Mr. Lebedev's health condition is no longer a secret to anyone? Meanwhile, various documents are filed in the case. These require close attention and scrutiny with respect to where these documents shall be attached and how the defence should react and find counterarguments in respect to the documents and appeals. This is simply intolerable.

Question:
Do we know why the guards refuse to hand the defendants' notes to their counsel?

Evgeny Baru:
We have a double game going on here. On the one hand, the guards say that in the courtroom any communication with the defendants, including passing of documents, shall be allowed by the court. On the other hand, the court says that it is de facto not responsible for this matter and establishes that the principal individuals in this courtroom are the guards and their supervisor. This is like throwing a ball back and forth. As a result, neither Mr. Lebedev nor his defence is able to work properly under such conditions. At a certain point, we will have to react to these actions and submit that it is impossible to work in this way. We may also file a request for additional time for confidential discussions.

Why haven't we done that? The reasons are the allegations that Mr. Lebedev and his counsel and Mr. Khodorkovsky and his counsel are attempt to take up time. It is impossible to work under such conditions. Similar restrictions exist in the investigation ward. It is impossible to pass any documents to Mr. Lebedev for him to study. They say the documents will be handed to the prison administration and they will consider the possibility of passing the documents to the defendant. Confidentiality of relations between defence counsel and the defendant is out of the question! Furthermore, when Mr. Lebedev is taken to meet his counsel we do not know what happens to the documents left in his cell. What sort of confidentiality can there be and what position should be prepared by the defence?

I would like to ask you to listen to two more people. One of them is our esteemed colleague Yuri Schmidt, a counsel for Mr. Khodorkovsky and strong supporter of our requests regarding Mr. Lebedev's state of health. I do not mean that Mr. Schmidt is alone. I simply wanted to emphasize that he is deeply concerned about the arbitrary actions being taken. The second person is Alexei Kondaurov who would like to express his opinion on the current situation as he appealed to the judge in person and asked me to read his appeal to the court. I believe it is necessary to speak about this as the court did not give the reasons for its dismissal and rejection of the request by the Russian State Duma deputy in its decision. It seems to me that it would be interesting for you and this may be even useful for us. Yes, Alexei [Kondaurov] you are welcome to give us your thoughts and the reasons for your appeal to the court, and what is your reaction to what happened?

Alexei Kondaurov:
It is well known, and I never made it a political secret of this, that for a decade I worked at MENATEP and Yukos alongside with Khodorkovsky, Lebedev, Nevzlin, Brudno, and Dubov until I was elected deputy of the Russian State Duma. I have already said this and I confirm this now that I regard them as my close friends and deeply respect them for their positive, personal and professional qualities. I must say that my professional experience in the past and my personal experience allow me to produce specific personal evaluations of each of them. That is why people say I regard them highly - and I confirm this and take full responsibility [for my statement]. So, when I was allowed to attend the court hearing on June 12 for the first time, when court proceedings were declared open, I was surprised by many things [I observed] as a citizen and a deputy.

First of all, I generally believe that justice has to be both humane and moral. Handcuffs do not fit my view of justice [in this case]. I was not born yesterday and I can remember the old [Soviet] days. As far as I remember, handcuffs were put on people who committed especially grave crimes. For economic crimes of this nature, people were never handcuffed. This is beyond by understanding. We have taken something from the American system; they are all in handcuffs there and we are mindlessly absorbing their customs. When I see Khodorkovsky and Lebedev being dragged around in handcuffs, it only makes me rebel inside. This does not fit into my understanding. Yes, I have not been to a courtroom for a long time but this cage is beyond my comprehension too. Back in the Soviet times, which we now criticize, there was a barrier there, even for the most dangerous criminals. And here we have a cage.

That most shocking thing for me was, definitely, Lebedev's condition - its external signs. I knew him. I worked alongside him for ten years. You don't need to be an expert to realize that this man is ill. This unnatural pallor, the hand reaching for a bottle with some liquid, is it kefir or milk? Lebedev is not an actor or a Hollywood star, he will not pretend. I know him well, he is a strong man and pretending to be ill is not in his nature. He tries to stand upright by holding the bars of the cage tight when answering the judge. I understand that prison is not a sanatorium but it takes great skill to reduce the man to a state like this. At the same time, the court rejects the request of the counsel to conduct an independent medical examination and release Lebedev from custody.

Here again comes the issue of the humane nature of justice. We speak about the presumption of innocence while all the actions of investigators - on the prosecution side and on the court side - shall be based on the presumption that a man is not guilty, and we have to prove this. There is a presumption of innocence. The prosecutor clearly assumes [that the defendant] is guilty. Long before the trial began, the prosecutor made a speech and said that everything had been stolen by criminals. His position is clear. In the courtroom, the defence counsel make an appeal, produce reports by independent specialists, express their opinion emphasizing that if the court releases Lebedev from custody it will only improve his condition and save his life, and will not in any way affect the trial proceedings. The brief response, which shocked me, says that Lebedev will flee and place pressure on the investigation. For no reason, this response was accepted although the court should have determined otherwise. Shokhin says that the defendant's personality gives reason to believe that if he were released from custody, he might influence the court. What sort of personality is meant here? Shokhin does not even bother to produce explanations. Has Lebedev ever been sentenced, is he a convict, a rapist or a killer? I have known Lebedev for ten years and I have a totally different impression of his personality. I believe I am not a less experienced or professional person than Mr. Shokhin. This is very depressing for me. I decided that it is my duty as a citizen and a deputy not to ignore the situation.

On the following day, I wrote a very respectful letter to presiding Judge Kolesnikova. I wrote that I respect the court's decision and do not want my appeal to be interpreted as pressuring the court, but with due respect to the court I might have objections with regard to the arguments that served as a basis for its decision. I expressed my disagreement with the prosecution's arguments based on the assumption that all medical students take the Hippocratic Oath. I understand the ethical element of this oath but I do not understand how it relates to their specialization. Medical doctors say that he needs a gastroenterologist and serious examination with the use of specialized equipment. I do not doubt the qualifications of the Matrosskaya Tishina prison doctors. But we all understand that the prison fulfills other public functions and is not a specialized medical facility. When a gastroenterological examination is required, it is serious. He has problems with the liver. Though the man poses no danger to society, while there is a danger that his health can be irreversibly damaged and this is a question of life and death, the court supports such a decision disregarding the presumption of innocence. I simply asked [the court] to consider my request. I once again repeat that this was not an attempt to influence the court.

Another argument made me laugh when the daughter and the brother were presented as guarantors. The court dismissed this approach saying they are not reliable. If his brother and daughter are unreliable, I have never had any problems with my reputation. None of my former colleagues or my present colleagues can say that I am good for nothing, that I am a suspicious man carrying out someone's instructions, and that my guarantee means nothing. I wrote that I would like the court to review my request to act as a personal guarantor for Lebedev because his health is in such bad shape.

I did not write that I was shocked by Khodorkovsky's state of health. He is certainly not in perfect shape but not as terrible as Lebedev's. Therefore I requested the court to consider my appeal as a guarantor for Lebedev as I know him personally and professionally, and I am convinced that he, as well as Khodorkovsky, values his reputation. It would be ridiculous to imagine that if they are released from custody they might take a plane and fly away. They are not homeless people, the whole world knows them. Where can they go to hide? Will they join the partisans in the forests of Belarus? Where can they disappear to, and why should they do that? They will not do that, they are not interested in hiding. Khodorkovsky has said this millions of time and everyone heard him.

When Komarov said that Khodorkovsky came and relieved the social tension, I do not know where these prosecutor's guys were and what they were doing, but I know the situation at Apatit and how we resolved that situation by fulfilling our obligations. They are not interested in hiding for a whole number of reasons. When all these arguments were disregarded, I wrote my appeal to release [Lebedev] from custody, offering my word and guarantees.

The world is laughing at us. You put our country in such a situation! I am indignant about this. This is backwardness in its worst manifestation.

I wrote a letter to Khodorkovsky on my official letterhead and put it in an official deputy's envelope. I also wrote my appeal to the chief of the investigation ward using a regular sheet of paper. I expressed my view of the political situation, nothing to do with the criminal case, just my political vision of the situation. So what? I asked him through the defence counsel at the Khodorkovsky trial, have you received my letter? The answer was that he did not receive anything. Then where may it be? If you believe I should not have sent it to you than return it through the defence counsel. I do not know if my ideas are being investigated now. But, in fact, these are the property of the deputy and are inviolate. I warned them of this on a separate cover page: Do not open. This makes me furious. Therefore, I am convinced that this trial should be closely watched by the public. If we do not break this cycle of this total disregard for public rights now, just imagine how it will affect other people. I think this is the moment of truth. And it is now. We should not allow ourselves to be indifferent. This is my position as a man who is not indifferent.

Reuters:
A few questions on the proceedings. Clearly, it is pointless for me to ask you how this will progress as the trial accelerates or slows down. We heard that the prosecution plans to call 150 witnesses. What have you heard about that? How long might it take to question 150 witnesses? What will happen next in the proceedings? This was the first part of my question.

The second part: Previously, you often said that the hearings are being delayed. Do you still think that the prosecution is delaying the trial? If yes, how long will it be delayed? Until when would they want to do so? Do you have a feeling that it will be until August 30?

Evgeny Baru:
Let us assume that each of the parties, including the prosecutor's office, is using certain tactics to achieve certain goals. As the law allows the prosecution to present their evidence to the court, depending on their tactics that we do not know about, the trial will be delayed or accelerated. You probably saw how much time was spent in questioning Pozdnyakov. The prosecutor who summoned him to court asked him two or three questions at the beginning and then said he had no further questions, thus allowing the defence to work with the witness. The prosecutor reserved the right to sum up the results or to intervene during the questioning at any time. A lot of time was spent on Pozdnyakov. Konstantin [Rivkin] has just described what we will do with the people who have already been questioned. It looks like these witnesses produced no grounds for accusations against Mr. Khodorkovsky and Mr. Lebedev. Now to your question as to whether the prosecutor may interrogate 150 witnesses or be satisfied with a lesser number. I do not know. It will depend on many factors including political ones.

If there is an order to end it [the proceedings], the prosecutor will say he has more than enough witnesses, or somebody will be fired from his position, or there could be other circumstances. Therefore, it is difficult to predict how things will go. IN the same way as Alexei [Kondaurov] I am concerned whether after a week of such work, will Mr. Lebedev be in a condition to work for another month or two? If we interrogate Pozdnyakov for at least two full days, how long might it take to question another 150 people? Consider the state of Mr. Lebedev's health. I want to remind you that the defence also has the right to introduce evidence. Here we should understand whether we need witnesses for the sake of witnesses, or we should be guided by humane thinking and not abuse our rights [as defence lawyers] just to ease the lives of the defendants.

Sometimes we do not take action that is to our own advantage, so that we do not provide grounds for being accused of prolonging the proceedings.

In fact, Alexei [Kondaurov] said the most important thing. Mr. Lebedev will never claim that he is ill. He is a fighter by nature and, as a matter of fact, one of the top experts in the area of which he is accused of criminal activity. He is ready to respond at any time to any Shokhin or any specialist. What would be the outcome of all this for Mr. Lebedev himself if the mere discussion of the defence appeal raises his blood pressure to a high risk level and we have to appeal to the court with a request to call an ambulance? Various specialists who have studied the case in detail attend the hearing. The question of how much time the court needs to question the witnesses is not an easy one. For me the most important question is a different one. That is, whom will they listen to as a result of all these examinations? Will they want to listen and reach proper conclusions? If Pozdnyakov is a witness for the prosecution and there will be many such witnesses, will the prosecution side be stronger as a result of these examinations?

Any more questions please? If you have no further questions, I would ask you to listen to our colleague, Yuri Schmidt, who has had certain determined position in the trial, especially with regard to the appeals that we are filing at this stage.