The Main Department of the Federal Registration Service for Moscow:
Reports from the General Prosecutor’s Office and the Moscow City Court have reached the department, advising that lawyers E. Levina, D. Dyatlev and A. Drel, appearing for Khodorkovsky in the court of the cassational instance, conspired together with the purpose of disrupting the legal proceedings. Their actions run counter to the aims and tasks of the Bar and to the standards of the Code of Conduct of Bar members. The main department of the Federal Registration Service has started looking into the information received.

Natalya Vishnyakova, official representative of General Prosecutor’s Office:
The General Prosecutor’s Office has forwarded a letter to the Ministry of Justice in which it has requested the disbarment of Levina, Dyatlev, Drel, Mikheev, Moskalenko, Schmidt, Mkrtychev, Sergeev and Artyukhova.

In its letter the General Prosecutor’s office has given concrete examples of the flouting of justice by these lawyers.

Advised in due time of the date of the trial of M.B Khodorkovsky in the court of the cassational instance, lawyers Padva, Levin, Mikheev, Drel, Moskalenko, Schmidt, Mkrtychev, Sergeev, Dyatlev, Artyukhova did not appear in court. None of the lawyers, except for lawyer Padva, gave reasons for their absence from court on day 14, fully demonstrating their total contempt for the court and their negligence of the law.

Agreement was reached with all of the lawyers; and each of the lawyers mentioned by me had a warrant to participate in the legal action involved. When a lawyer takes on certain responsibilities, he is obliged to carry out all of them - I repeat, all of them.

Dmitryi Shokhin, public prosecutor for the case:
… to speak in the court of primary jurisdiction, in the court of the cassational instance and in the court of supervisory instance. And the lawyers who do not have their mandates foreclosed - and Khodorkovsky, as is known, did not foreclose his mandates with any of his lawyers - or who in their turn did not break any of their agreements, are obliged to speak in the courts of cassational and supervisory instances. They cannot refuse to speak in these courts. The accused himself in a written form may state his refusal to have one or another defence lawyer involved in his legal action. But such refusal has to have a reason, and it is not obligatory for the court to accept it since the court has to guarantee that the rights of the accused are not violated.

Anton Drel, lawyer:
First, I wouldn’t overestimate the importance of these persons who act publicly, particularly those from the General Prosecutor’s Office. Since every person does the work that brings him satisfaction and is confined to reasonable limits, I don’t believe we should personify this problem. A person has a certain task and he carries it out to the full. But by way of a concrete example, today at the press-conference, if we accept the credibility of the information agencies, then the data given to us is a total, a blatant and an outrageous lie. In particular, it was said that the lawyer during a legal action cannot refuse to speak for his client in court. First the lawyer has the right to do so if the client is not willing for the lawyer to speak for him, particularly in the court of cassational instance, if he hasn’t reached an agreement. Second, in accordance with Article 52 of Penal Code, it is clearly stated that the refusal to use a lawyer’s services may be invalid, but it is written further – for the Prosecutor and investigator who state that there is nothing said there about the court - it is obligatory for the court.

As far as Robert Amsterdam is concerned, the situation is dead clear: it is true that he has no right to act as a solicitor on Russian territory and he cannot speak in court as a defence attorney without the appropriate license, lawyer’s status and so on. Meanwhile Robert Amsterdam has an agreement with Mikhail Khodorkovsky to appear for him, including at the Strasbourg Court. And it is exactly in this capacity that Robert Amsterdam attended.

Elena Liptser, lawyer:
To appear for his client in the court of the cassational instance, a lawyer has to reach an agreement with the accused and accordingly obtain a warrant. Without the warrant a lawyer has no right to speak in the court of the cassational instance even if he files a cassational complaint.

Yuri Schmidt, lawyer:
The thing is that a lawyer obtains a warrant for the actions defined in the agreement with his client. This agreement is made at every stage of the legal process. All of the lawyers involved in the legal action had agreements enabling them to participate in the action at the stage of the preliminary hearing and in the court of primary jurisdiction. The agreement to participate in a court of the appellate jurisdiction wasn’t reached with any of the lawyers mentioned.

Denis Dyatlev, lawyer:
I didn’t have an agreement to speak for Mikhail Khodorkovsky in the court of cassational instance, nor did I have the appropriate warrant to participate in this court.

Karinna Moskalenko, lawyer:
I didn’t have a warrant to speak for Mr. Khodorkovsky in the Moscow City Court. I have a warrant to speak for Mr. Khodorkovsky in the Strasbourg Court.

As far as Robert Amsterdam is concerned, what’s happened now is an act of deterrence. This is simply unprecedented hooliganism, for lack of a better word - to mistreat a respectable person who’s been welcomed in the houses of presidents and prime ministers. They broke into where he was living at night; five people attacked one person. Mr. Amsterdam called me and I came immediately. But these gentlemen didn’t want to introduce themselves. And since it is unclear against whom we should file a complaint, we are going to apply to the court with a complaint concerning the unlawful actions of senior staff of the Passport and Visa Service.

Robert Amsterdam, lawyer:
I cannot identify plain-clothes people by their appearance and work out what special services they work for. But years ago I was questioned by the KGB, and the people who arrived at night looked like those people, so my guess is they came from the FSB (The Federal Security Service). I’m leaving Russia today. If the authorities didn’t want my presence in the country, they could have acted less insultingly - they didn’t, for example, have to break into my place at night.

Genrikh Padva, lawyer:
They (the public prosecutors) are simply taking revenge on the defence team for carrying out their duty. This is outrageous. It’s ugly nonsense.