PRESS CONFERENCE December 13, 2000

Ponomarev L.A.(executive director of All-Russian public movement "For Human Rights"): Today our press- conference is devoted to the case of Valentin Moiseyev, former Russian diplomat accused of high treason in the form of espionage.

The participants of a press-conference: Ponomarev L.A., the lawyers Moskalenko K.A., Yablokov A.Iu., and Gervis Iu.P., Moiseyev's wife - Denisova N.M.

Our press conference for the first time passes after fourth, I underline - fourth, returning of judicial proceeding of this case to the beginning in the Moscow City Court. The lawyers'll explain it in more details. Our Movement began to support Moiseyev. We were right, when put a question that the case should stand in one line with cases of Pasko and Nikitin. Now these names sound together. The importance of this case is great for our Russian judicial system, for quality of its work. And for the future. The finish of cases of Pasko, Nikitin and Moiseyev is important for the future of democracy in our country.

Gervis Iu.P: the situation has developed in such a manner that the court presiding by judge Gubanova has not executed the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the verdict or other decision determined by the law has not been passed. Having referred to ostensibly available illness of presiding judge Gubanova, acting chairman of the Moscow City Court Korzhikov has directed the case to a new consideration. I should like to attract your attention that in the the Code of the Criminal Procedure of Russian Federation there is no norm, based on which the case could be transferred because of the illness of one of the members of court or presiding judge. The method of transfering the case from one to another staff of court is illegal. Acting chairman of the Moscow City Court had no right to do it, as the court should pass a verdict, to determine the destiny of our defendant. Then the Court of Cassation should come into force. In our CCP there are no norms, which would regulate this situation. The constitutional right to consideration of the case by an appropriate court does not work in this situation completely. There is a mockery at the man, who can not receive due proceeding of the case, which would find out if he is guilty or not.

In spite of the fact that the case was transferred to a new staff, the measure of suppression for Moiseyev has not been changed - keeping under the guards. In spite of the fact that the mentioned delay of the of judicial proceedings is not explained at all by any investigative or judicial necessity, the man will continue to stay in prison. FSB's pressure upon the court continues, again at doors of our hall the FSB employees are on duty. The FSB investigator of Moiseyev's criminal case is present in the Moscow City Court.Constantly we meet him there. We consider, that he presses upon the court, that he can come into direct contact with the judges in order to convince them to pass verdict of "guilty".

I can't explain with confidence, why judge Gubanova has refused to consider this case, but I can assume, that there is a real conflict in criminal case (illegal methods of conducting investigation and obtaining the proofs) and FSB pressure upon the Moscow City Court.

Yablokov A.Iu.: I would like to begin with part 4 of art.47 of the Russian Federation Constitution.It says: nobody should be deprived the right to consideration of the case by that court and that judge, which according to the law should consider this case. We have met with the situation, when the third staff of court is changed, the fourth staff of court begins to consider this case. The most shocking is how the third staff of court, presiding by judge Gubanova, has been replaced. The case has been considering from September 5 till November 29 of this year. The court examination has been carried out completely. Practically everything has been made on this case. Public prosecutor asked to recognize Moiseyev guilty and to sentence to 12 years of deprivation of freedom. The defense taking into account newly received proofs proposed to justify him completely. The military prosecutor has not taken into account the reasons mentioned in the Definition of the Supreme Court, which had cancelled the judgment of the Moscow City Court. All these reasons were analysed in details and stated in discharging statements of the lawyers in this judicial session. After the defense's proposal to justify Moiseyev a long break has been taken.There was an only one thing left - to hear Moiseyev's final speech.

November 29, instead of this after several delays a new staff of the court presiding by judge Koval began judicial proceeding from the very beginning. It's already the fourth staff of the court. The replacement of the court has been explained by judge Gubanova's illness. A week later we meet her healthy in the Moscow City Court. She refused to talk with us.

According to judicial practice only judge's steady impossibility to carry out the process permits to replace her. It can be illness, after which the judge will not work any more as judge, or death. In other circumstances the break is taken or the hearing of the case is postponed.

Under the law (art.240, 242) if the presiding judge is ill, only she is replaced, but the rest staff of court does not vary. In this case all staff of court, including two lay assessors, who had an opportunity to continue his work, was replaced. However they absolutely unreasonably have been replaced by new lay assessors.

The most important thing is that during this judicial session practically all witnesses have changed their testimony. It concerns not only employees of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs but FSB employees as well.

It was necessary for a new staff of court to have a protocol of the previous judicial session as it is an only document reflecting everything that had happened at trial. It was necessary to make the protocol of judicial session and only after a new staff of court would familiarize with it, to begin hearing of the case.

It has not been done.

The reason of complete replacement of court was not explained in any way to us, no medical informations or other documents were produced. Only after defense's motion to challenge against full staff of court, presiding judge declaired that it was the decision of the acting chairman of the Moscow City Court. Certainly, he is the chairman of court. But why he has interfered in the judicial activity of staff of court? All activity of court is regulated by RSFSR CCP. But there are no norms, which allow administration of the court to interfere in this activity. It is illegal and unreasonable decision. All this has compelled us to address with the private complaint to the Supreme Court of Russian Federation about this rough violation of the law.

Staff of court, presided by judge Kuznetsova, has not been prevented by anybody to pass a verdict of guilty on December 16, 1999. When a staff of court presiding by judge Gubanova was ready to pass verdict, it has been replaced. It compels us to assume, that we shall not get a fair decision in Moscow City Court. That's why we have addressed to the Supreme Court with the request to consider this case on the first instance not by the Moscow City court but by the Supreme Court of Russian Federation.

Moskalenko К.А. (lawyer, director of the International Protection Centre): Dear friends, let's call the spade the spade. It is nothing but disrespect for court.

In this case disrespect for court shows the court itself. It does not respect neither high judicial activity, nor the time, which has been spent on consideration of the case or principle of independence of judicial authority. The judge has appeared in a hard situation. When journalists asked me when the verdict would be passed, I spoke them: Wait, it might be so, that instead of passing a verdict the court will come to a decision to renew a judicial consideration. It is possible. It is impossible only so disgracefully conduct itself and to pretend to independence, to submission only to law and to other high principles. In this situation, especially taking into account, that madam Gubanova is not sick as she comes to the court, it is possible to speak only about one simple thing in administering the law: evasion of it. It is a heavy sin, the roughest infringement.

We have accepted rather courageous decision to address to the European Court. Everybody knows, that for this it is necessary to exhaust all means of internal state legal system. And we have not exhausted. We have not received a verdict. In the complaint we explain to the Secretariat of the European Court, that we are deprived of opportunity to exhaust internal means of legal protection. The Supreme Court has evaded in its own way of administering the law. In Definition of the Supreme Court is written down, that the guilt of the man is not established, more correct is not proved. So it is necessary to justify a man or to stop criminal prosecution against him. Anyway, if the Supreme Court needed something else to be considered by a Moscow City Court, it could free the man from the prison. Because Moiseyev and his defense are not guilty, that the court has not established something. Moiseyev is kept under the guards, and the Supreme Court evades of administering the law.The Moscow City Court court evades of it for the third time.

Certainly, we sent the Application to the European Court with the large shyness. We waited for the very sharp answer, that there is no such basis that we, maybe, have hurried.

I consider the fact, that the Supreme Court has expressed its rather critical attitude to verdict of court of the first instance, speaks for itself. What will be with the second verdict, it is completely impossible to understand now.

The European Court has not answered us that it is necessary to exhaust means of internal legal protection. It means that our reasons explaining why it's while impossible, probably, were accepted. Our complaint was registered of November 15, 2000. The complaint will be considered as dated November 1, 2000.

It is desirable that the verdict would be "not guilty" because nobody of us has doubt of innocence of Moiseyev. In the case of another decision - our complaint is already registered and we shall continue to work in this direction.

Denisova N.М.: I believe, that the pressure upon the court, does not give an opportunity to pass a verdict "of not guilty", and there is no basis for a verdict "of guilty".

Moskalenko К.А.: I absolutely have forgotten to tell you about one essential detail. When we have received the first precedent, that it is possible on this stage to address to the European Court, we immediately have met with G.Pasko and have prepared with him the similar application.

The precedent is created. From my point of view it is very important. Certainly, we always explain: do not hasten to go to the European Court. The reasons should be rather valid. UN procedure (The committee of human rights) has the direct indication: if the exhaustion of means of legal protection is unreasonably delayed through the state fault, in this case they should not be exhausted. In the European Court such norm is not present, but there are rules 39 and 40, which allow at this stage to address to the European Court.

"Izvestia": How the decision of the European Court can influence Moiseyev's destiny?

Moskalenko K.A: It is a very interesting question. The European Court never pass verdict of the case. The decision will concern violation of human rights protected by the European Convention. If the rough obvious infringements of human rights (such as unfair court, illegal arrest, tortures) entail unfair verdict the person can receive indemnification and it can entail change of the internal law of the country. The country shows a good will and legislation is changed. If the country does not change the legislation, then it will be punished each time, and, maybe, even more strictly from time to time.

"Еxpress-chronicle": Who signed the complaint to the European Court on human rights?

Moskalenko К.А.: I was the Moiseyev's attorney and we have coordinated our complaint in June, this year, when we wanted to be ready to send the complaint immediately. In this case we worked from his name, his wife has his authorizing letter. Soon there will be ready his authorizing letter for my name.

You know that Moiseyev is kept in FSB investigative prison.

When we entered the Council of Europe we have given the obligation that penitentiary system would be completely handed over to the Ministry of justice. It has been done except FSB investigatory prisons. The man appears to be in hands of accusatory authority. This is a rigid violation of principles of state functioning in accordance with the law. One of our arguments is that Moiseyev's life is not in safety. As Moiseyev's wife has such impression and she has right to think so that there is a threat of influence - direct or indirect, mental or psychological - we mentioned our anxiety in the complaint to the European Court. The fact that in violation of the law the investigatory prison has departmental belonging to FSB objectively helps us.

"Izvestia": How often do you have appointments with the husband?

Denisova N.M.: According to the law appointments should be permitted not oftener than two times a month. The first appointment has been permitted in 10 months after detention. And in general we can see him very seldom.

Moskalenko К.А.: This infringement we qualify as infringement of art..8 of the European Convention " the right to a personal life ".

Denisova N.М.: I have a feeling that Moiseyev's case is unique for some reasons. The equipment of unknown purpose was established in the trial hall. The defense's motion to produce the sanitary certificate to it has been rejected by court. It is not known what this is, it is not known, whether it has any influence on health. If everything is lawful then there is no reason to hide what it is. Therefore, certainly, I worry for husband's health.

Ponomarev L.А.: Our organization made inquiry concerning this equipment. Any answer we have not received.

We have met with a real problem. There is any device, which whistles. What for it is put, we are not answered. It is possible to suspect everything.

"Express-chronicle": What was officially spoken about the health of judge Gubanova?

Gervis IU.P.: Nothing was told.

As for health of Moiseyev I can tell, that during for more than two years, while I defend him, he has lost more than 16 kgs, there was an aggravation of a number of chronic diseases, strong nervous tention, now he is on the verge of nervous failure. Within half a month he was about to tell his final word, to receive the decision of the case but instead of it - again all from the beginning.

We have got in a vicious circle of our justice, when the court can not release the man in connection with his innocence and can not condemn him as there is no lawful ground for it. I speak about it with confidence, because the situation with Nikitin's case, which has been solved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russian Federation for the benefit of Nikitin, shows that the precedent is created. How many years we shall expect the fair decision of our case, is not known. If the court does not take liberty of passing verdict of "not guilty", I think that this decision will not be the last one.

NTV: What were the changes of the witnesses' testimonies?

Gervis Iu.P.: Their testimonies were deformed in the protocol of previous judicial session. Calling the spade the spade, it is possible to tell, that they were forged.

The FSB witnesses tried to introduce the new proofs, from their point of view, which could confirm Moiseyev's guilt. For example at the previous judicial session one of the FSB employees who participated in a search, said that he did not see seven envelopes, which were withdrawn. At this judicial session he confirmed, that he have seen them. There is a question of the responsibility for false testimony as the witness has been warned about it

Interfax: What kind of help the family apply for?

Denisova N.M.: A financial one. We need it to support Moiseyev, for medicine, for different measures connected with his defense.

Moskalenko К.А: In Definition of the Supreme Court is told, that the verdict is not neither lawful, nor reasonable. The Supreme Court should take into account, that all lacks of a verdict, lacks of proceeding have appeared not by fault of the defense party. Therefore it was necessary to accept a judicial decision. It turns out, that the verdict is cancelled, and Moiseyev's punishment is lasting for the third year. When the verdict is cancelled because of somebody's low quality of work, why should the man actually serve punishment?

In Definition of the Supreme Court all reasons of defense are listed, I even was delighted, that it was made so detailed. Each of the lawyers based his reasons on the block of questions. But the Supreme Court has not answered all of these questions, it has answered and cancelled a verdict on the basis of only one question. All other ones have remained without any reaction. The judicial body should really carry out justice. The judicial body is obliged to answer all such questions.

Yablokov А.IU.: The Supreme Court continues practice of evasion from passing the decision. September 5 this year, when all petitions of defense were rejected, including challenge of the military public prosecutor, about change of a measure of suppression, we have addressed with the private complaint to the Supreme Court. According to the law it should be considered by the Supreme Court. Two months have passed and in the beginning of November this complaint has returned to the Moscow City Court to define whether this is an appeal or not.

There was a complaint to qualifying board of the judges concerning infringements of the law made by judge Kuznetsova. For a long time it is not considered either.

Ponomarev L.А.: Thank you for attention.

CONTENT | top