The Supreme Court does not rock the boat of Chita justice.

The Supreme Court today decided not to reverse the decision of the Chita Regional Court to extend Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s period of custodial detention to 2 May. The defence had claimed that the disputed decision was illegal, unfounded in law, and quite simply off-the-cuff. On the third page was a formulation which the Chita judge had given up on in mid-formulation.

For some time the Ingodinsky District Court of Chita was responsible for granting extensions of the custodial detention of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev. The Chita Regional Court served as the appeal instance but invariably agreed with its Ingodinsky colleagues. The law does not allow a district court to remand accused persons to a pre-trial detention facility for more than one year, so on 30 January 2008 it was the Chita Regional Court which did so. This mean that the attorneys’ appeal against this decision had to go to the Supreme Court.

“They really aren’t much bothered about legal argumentation,” attorney Karinna Moskalenko said today, criticising the ruling of the Chita Regional Court. “The court produced no argumentation whatsoever as required by Article 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code.”

Article 97 enumerates the factors to be considered when choosing and extending modes of detention. Prosecutors usually state that the accused or suspect will abscond or engage in actions prejudicial to the investigation. The court generally accepts this without requiring any hard evidence to justify custodial detention. Even though the Constitutional Court in 2005 expressly condemned this practice (one of the instigators of the appeal to the Constitutional Court was Platon Lebedev), the courts continue to regard extending the period of detention as a formality. In this case the Chita Regional Court did not even bother with the formalities. The judge merely noted that “the grounds for detaining him (Khodorkovsky) remain valid”.

Karinna Moskalenko today argued in court that there were no grounds whatsoever for extending Khodorkovsky’s custodial detention: “if evidence had been collected in a correct and legal manner, nobody could reject it and there would be no need to worry about the integrity of the evidence. As regards the claim that Khodorkovsky might flee the investigation and the court, this man has already demonstrated his conscientiousness. When the criminal case was first brought he returned to Russia from abroad, and stated publicly that he had no intention of becoming a fugitive and considered it essential to return even if he was likely to be arrested”.

Karinna Moskalenko went to great lengths today to explain to the Supreme Court how exactly the actions of the Russian state authorities in this matter were in conflict with the legal approaches of the European Court of Human Rights.

“I do not know how many more dozens of decisions will have to be taken by the European Court before we finally understand that custodial detention is depriving a person of something really very important and precious. It is depriving someone of their freedom before guilt has been established,” she urged the three judges. “The European Court is tired of repeating that custodial detention should not become a form of waiting for a guilty verdict”.

The judges were disinclined, however, to be told about the European Court’s decisions. It was as if that court did not exist for them today.

“Our legal system is not based on precedent,” the female presiding judge announced.

“We are guided by the legal precedents of the European Court of Human Rights,” the attorney parried.

Be that as it may, on 21 April the further extending of Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s period of custodial detention will be considered in Chita, and even if our law is not based on precedent, it is more than likely that today’s Supreme Court decision will inspire the Chita Regional Court to scale new heights.