The Chita Region Court took months to reach its decision

On Thursday the Chita Region Court turned down an appeal against the decision by the lower Ingodinsky district court concerning the action (inaction) of the investigators. However, the defence lawyers say they will continue the battle for “essential documents of fundamental importance” to be added to the case materials.

The complaint by the lawyers was initially submitted to the Basmanny district court in Moscow. At the end of January 2008 Judge Mushnikova transferred the complaint to Chita, referring to rules of territorial jurisdiction.

The hearings began on 11 March 2008 in the Ingodinsky district court. On 13 March the sides declared their positions and on 14 March the court ruled that the systematic and flagrant violations of which the defence accused the team of investigators did not exist. The complaint was rejected.

The defence lawyers appealed. On 18 June a panel of judges at the Chita Region Court concluded that the court of the first instance had not given due consideration to the arguments of the defence in issuing its decision. The complaint was returned to the Ingodinsky district court for re-examination.

The new hearings began on 8 July. The defence again drew the court’s attention to the inclusion in the criminal case against Mikhail Khodorkovsky of materials from other criminal cases. It also demanded that the electronic data bases containing the financial and budgetary records of Yukos and its subsidiaries be added to the evidence in the case files. The financial accounts contained in these records, declared the defence lawyers, would put an end to all the accusations being levelled at Mikhail Khodorkovsky. On 9 July the court announced a three work recess in its examination of the complaint.

When hearings resumed on 29 July Mikhail Khodorkovsky declared that “the data in the expert assessment” of the financial records of Yukos “have been provided either by a non-specialist or by someone who has falsified the facts. Not one figure corresponds to those in the company accounts.”

On 1 August the Ingodinsky district court in part upheld the complaint by the defence lawyers. It recognised as unlawful and unfounded: the absence of a contents list in 16 volumes of the case materials; the presence of unread pages in two volumes; and the failure to inform the two accused that the deadline for concluding the preliminary investigation had been extended. The court did not respond to the remaining, more serious violations committed by the investigators.

The defence also appealed against this decision by the Ingodinsky district court but on Thursday the Chita Region Court turned down their complaint.

“The courts are playing a game of cat and mouse,” commented Yury Schmidt on Thursday’s decision. “Sometimes they create the impression that they are conducting an objective examination. Overturning a decision by the court of the first instance they instil the hope that when the case is reconsidered it will be examined objectively. However, the decision is re-examined and everything is repeated. The case again comes before the regional court but this time that court is in full agreement with the court of first instance. I do not understand the logic. Perhaps this nerve-wracking situation is being deliberately created to constantly unsettle us? Or perhaps the judges themselves sometimes want to reach a just decision, and even try to do so, but a threatening command then puts them back in their place.”

On Thursday the defence lawyers said they would not back down and intended to continue to press for the investigation to meet their demands.