Yury Schmidt on Radio Liberty

Radio Liberty, 22.08.2008

A district court in Chita on Friday rejected the parole application of Yukos’ former head Mikhail Khodorkovsky. His lawyer Yury Schmidt believes that the policy which Dmitry Medvedev announced earlier of guaranteeing real independence of the courts could in certain circumstances, over time, bring about a positive change in his client’s fate. Mr Schmidt talked to Radio Liberty about his initial response to the news from Chita.

We were prepared for such a ruling. We entertained no illusions. And up to the start of the court hearing, there remained practically no hope, as we had received a whole range of unambiguous signals attesting to the fact that our opponents (that’s what we’ll call them, they are the people who in their time had Khodorkovsky arrested, and later were behind the second criminal case) continue to follow his fate attentively and do everything they can to extend his stay in prison for an indefinitely long period. These people have kept sufficient power to be able to continue exerting illegal pressure on our entire law-enforcement system, including the agencies involved in punishment, public prosecution and the courts.

What will the defence do next?

Mr Khodorkovsky, when asked whether he would appeal against this ruling, said today that he will think about it. Naturally, all his lawyers will insist on appealing against this ruling. Not because we are under any illusions, but simply because one has to fight to the end. Well, as for our main comment… For several months we did feel a certain hope, encouraged by the very good words repeated on a number of occasions by the president about the need for radical reform of the judicial system, the need to guarantee genuine opportunities to defend citizens’ legal rights and interests, guarantee real independence of the courts. There began appearing certain signals that something is beginning to change, but when put to the test, they turned out to be the proverbial swallow which didn’t make a summer. And judging by everything, the president’s entire team still has a great deal of hard work to do in order for judicial reform actually to lead to the declared result. If, of course, we are to believe that this is indeed his objective.

Ludmila Alexeyeva, who heads the Moscow Helsinki human rights group, thinks that, in the context of the growing disparity in the Russian economy which citizens are already feeling, the authorities are afraid of freeing a person who has put himself forward as a competent manager.

They have acted very foolishly, because whatever the outcome, he would have had to remain in custody, as there are new criminal charges against him. It is another matter that those charges are even sillier than the first. Nevertheless, smart lawyers say that this is what they would have done to save face: they’d have granted the petition for release on parole, insofar as Mr Khodorkovsky most likely has grounds for this, over half the sentence has already been served and there has been no infringement of the regulations. And they could have taken him into custody in preparation for the new trial. But, you know, it’s a case of brawn instead of brain. They simply rejected the parole application most likely in order to show what big shots they are. We’ve been seeing for the past eight years, now it’s already the ninth year, what “big shots” they are.

What are they afraid of?

Failures in economic policy are already in evidence, to start with there’s inflation and runaway price rises for the most saleable goods, for foodstuffs. Soon there will also be new signs of the insane policy of nationalisation of what was in private use. Moreover, the state is nationalising not those businesses which have shown themselves unable to survive in the private sector, they are nationalising those which are bringing in income, in order personally to pocket that income. As soon as they become nationalised, they lose their profitability. Our oil industry has already gone into decline. The other spheres taken into state ownership will follow suit. Whereas Khodorkovsky has a reputation for being a production management genius. They are simply afraid of his popularity – his public and political popularity.

Does Khodorkovsky have any prospect of being released?

Now I am afraid the answer is no. I’d like to hope that the second case will fall apart and upon expiry of this sentence he’ll be let free. Perhaps earlier, if our state administration becomes more reasonable and stops fearing him as a competitor. But not just now. I thought they would grant him parole but wouldn’t release him on the grounds of the new case and they’d try to draw things out – the investigation, the trial and so on. But alas, not even that happened.

Interviewed by Olga Vakhonicheva