Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
We are convinced that this is crying injustice.
It stands out because the court did not simply give the wrong assessments,
as it used to happen previously,
but openly ignored a legislative prohibition
without any assessments and without even mentioning the existence of such law.
This legislative prohibition has appeared
because such was the will of the president;
it is a question of strategic
and political level.
The president is trying to put an obstacle
on the way of mainly corruption-motivated repression
against entrepreneurship,
and such a response of the judicial system
is a problem that by far exceeds the bounds
of a specific case
and specific fate of Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
All the more so since he would not go home anyway,
regrettably,
because of the first sentence;
therefore, there is nothing else to comment here.
This, unfortunately, is an extraordinary situation
a crying and a very threatening one
as a precedent.
It is known that this case serves
as a pattern to multiply lawlessness
and distribute it throughout our country.
Precisely because of this problem
and for this reason,
he [Khodorkovsky] has written to the Supreme Court Chairman
and, among other things,
made a statement about his hunger strike.
It is necessary to stress again and again
at this is not an attempt
to achieve a personal easing for oneself;
nothing of the kind is present here.
All the more so, let me repeat,
since he would not find himself free.
I would say that this is an extreme,
extraordinary attempt,
made through much effort,
in order to attract the president's attention
or controlled by him react to law
and to his will that has become law.
As for the disqualification [of the judge],
we could not fail but react,
even when Mikhail Khodorkovsky reacted so severely,
and leave without consequences
such procedural conduct of the judge,
because, as I said speaking at the hearings today,
this is a very serious element of hypocrisy.
The procedure is made look like justice is being served,
while in reality it is such a play.
We have been invited to play
in such a game without rules;
we cannot take part in it;
this is against our objectives,
let alone the law.
If we had kept silent,
having accepted by default such rules of the game,
that would have meant
that we simply fail to carry out the mission entrusted to us
by the Constitution and law
and connive at this sham justice,
by analogy with sham transactions,
when the objective is something other than justice.
And if it is something different,
then there can be no trust in a judge who,
on behalf of the state,
under the cover of one objective pursues a different one.
As for the arguments
that the prosecutors had against our move
for disqualification,
I do not know what can be commented here.
That was a blunt lie and a lie off the mark.
Again, they did not say a word
about the new law and about the failure to apply it
in spite of the fact that it had to be applied.
They spoke about anything
at all and did not stop short of blunt misrepresentation of facts,
but not one word was said
about the essence of the matter.