Courtroom Report: February 12, 2010
At 13:00 courtroom #7 was fully packed with spectators. Around 13:45 the prosecutors entered. Five minutes later Judge Danilkin ascended the bench.
Judge Danilkin announced his decision. After restating the trial's procedural history, he summarized each side's arguments. Recounting Mr. Lakhtin's oratory, Judge Danilkin mentioned the Criminal Procedure Code, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Russian Constitution. Judge Danilkin did not neglect to mention the prosecution's two key arguments - that Messrs. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev were accused of committing very serious crimes and if the pre-trial arrest was lifted the defendants would obstruct the investigation by threatening witnesses.
Spending considerably less time on summarizing the defense's arguments, Judge Danilkin mentioned their arguments on illegality of keeping Messrs. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev under pre-trial arrest.
Judge Danilkin granted the prosecution's motion and extended Messrs. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev's pre-trial arrest custody until May 17, 2010. Judge Danilkin considered the prosecution's arguments to be well-founded, because the defendants were alleged to have committed serious crimes.
After reading his decision, Judge Danilkin asked whether the prosecution was ready to call the next witness. According to Mr. Lakhtin, the prosecution's witness could not come to court due to "technical reasons." The trial was adjourned.
The trial will resume on Monday, February 15, 10:30 Moscow Time.
After the hearing, defense attorneys commented on the court's ruling. Ms. Terehova noted that Judge Danilkin's decision did not differ substantially from previous similar decisions. The prosecution's arguments were summarized in more detail than those of the defense attorneys. However, Ms. Terehova noted that the court chose to skip some of what Mr. Lakhtin argued - that the defendants had to stay under pre-trial arrest because of ongoing investigation in case #18/41-03 and because foreign YUKOS shareholders and managers filed claims in various courts and the ECHR.
Echoing Mr. Khodorkovsky's words, Mr. Krasnov described the court's ruling as "a ritual." According to Mr. Krasnov, the ruling completely ignored the Russian Constitution and the Russian Supreme Court. Noting that the defense response was 2 hours long, Mr. Krasnov noted that the court did not explain why any of the defense's arguments were without merit. According to Mr. Krasnov, in this situation the court's decision cannot be considered as meeting any legal standards.
Ms. Moskalenko said that, after hearing the court's decision, it was as if the defense did not say anything the day before. It was as if the prosecution did not argue either Russian law or International legal norms. According to Ms. Moskalenko, the court paid lip service to the European Convention on Human Rights and ECHR decisions and completely ignored the defense highlighting that the selection of pre-trial arrest was one of the main issues Russia faced at the ECHR.
The defense will appeal Judge Danilkin's decision.