Khodorkovsky & Lebedev Communications Center

Morning Session.

The trial resumed with Mr. Rivkin asking the court to permit them to question a foreign specialist who was present in the courtroom. He explained that Mr. Kevin F. Dages and Ms. Laura R. Sekhar, who was also present in the courtroom, conducted a joint analysis based on a question posed by the defense. Mr. Rivkin explained that Mr. Dages is a specialist in economics and finances and the defense contacted the organization he works in with a request to examine several conclusions found in the complaint.

Mr. Dages, along with Mr. Somov, approached the witness stand. Judge Danilkin asked whether the prosecution had any reasons to ask for the translator's dismissal. [This was a surprising request, considering that just two days earlier the court denied the prosecution's motion to dismiss Mr. Somov. -Eds.]

Mr. Lakhtin told the court that the prosecution will seek to dismiss Mr. Somov. The prosecution wanted to ensure that Mr. Somov was qualified and wanted to examine his documents. Mr. Somov reminded the court that earlier this week the court saw his documents, but was interrupted by prosecutor Lakhtin who told the court that "this was today and not earlier this week."

Mr. Lakhtin was handed copies of documents by the court secretary. After examining them, he expressed his dissatisfaction, telling the court that he needed documents verified by official seals. The court reminded the prosecutor that these documents were already verified by the court. Mr. Lakhtin, ignoring the court, informed everyone that there were no documents establishing the translator's qualifications. "It's possible that they were verified by the court...." Mr. Lakhtin began, but was interrupted by the court with "It's not ‘possible' but VERIFIED by the court!" Mr. Lakhtin insisted that the issue of allowing Mr. Somov to participate as a translator was being re-evaluated today - and today Mr. Somov did not present any documents. "Those earlier documents may no longer exist today! May be he lost his qualification and the documents disappeared!" Mr. Lakhtin was adamant.

Mr. Somov offered to bring necessary documents. Twenty minutes later the prosecutor was examining originals. Judge Danilkin swore in Mr. Somov, then asked whether any of the parties had reasons to ask for Mr. Somov's dismissal.

Taking a different track, Mr. Lakhtin told the court that the prosecution needed to confirm if Mr. Somov is who he says he is before deciding on how to proceed. The court informed the prosecutor that the court already established the translator's identity. Mr. Lakhtin asked to see the passport, but was reminded by the court that it was the court's sole authority under the Criminal Procedure Code to examine the document establishing the person's identity. Mr. Lakhtin insisted. The court denied him.

Mr. Lakhtin told the court that he had some clarifying questions to ask "of this citizen who is allegedly invited here to be a translator." The court allowed the prosecutor to proceed.

Mr. Lakhtin demanded to know how Mr. Somov was invited to come to court today. Mr. Somov told the court that he was retained to help translate for foreign specialists and since he expected additional specialist were going to be questioned, he was back, as well. Mr. Lakhtin insisted that this meant Mr. Somov knew what was going to be happening in court. Mr. Somov explained that this was incorrect - he translated for one specialist, but was retained to translate for several, so he was back in court to await the next ones.

Mr. Lakhtin told the court that he had "a feeling" that the translator was working in close cooperation with the defense and defendants. The judge told the prosecutor that he was not interested in his feelings and asked whether the prosecution had any reasons to doubt the translator's competence. Mr. Lakhtin demanded to know who invited Mr. Somov or whether the latter was summoned by the court. Mr. Lakhtin demanded to know if Mr. Somov knew the "citizen standing next to him," pointing a finger at Mr. Dages.

Mr. Rivkin objected, demanding that the court strike the question. He told the court that the prosecutor was conducting an outrage, shaming his professional status and that of the Office of the General Prosecutor. Mr. Lakhtin insisted that he was "increasing the rating of his agency." Mr. Lakhtin insisted on knowing if Mr. Somov knew Mr. Dages and on what basis he was performing translation services for him and when. Mr. Somov told the court that he performed translation services but three minutes ago, on collegial basis.

Mr. Khodorkovsky asked the court to strike these and further questions, but the prosecutor shot back that "Khodorkovsky has no idea what I will ask." He insisted that he was being interrupted and was being thrown off psychologically, which was taking away from his efforts to compose himself. The courtroom was bursting with laughter.

Mr. Khodorkovsky continued. He told the court that he carefully examined the Criminal Procedure Code and did not fins any grounds for allowing the prosecutor to question the translator when defense was questioning a specialist while presenting its evidence. According to Mr. Khodorkovsky that was secondary. The primary question which needed answering was whether the prosecutor, based on his insistence that a person needed to re-establish his qualifications during every court hearing, retained his qualifications to represent the Office of the General Prosecutor. Mr. Khodorkovsky expressed doubt that the prosecutor had any documents to verify his qualifications.

Mr. Lakhtin was allowed to continue. His question about what Mr. Somov "thought the process was about" was struck by the court. The court reminded the prosecutor that only two days ago it ruled that a translator's participation in other proceedings was not grounds for disqualification. Mr. Lebedev asked the court to strike these and similar questions, as already asked and answered by Mr. Somov two day prior.

Mr. Somov sought to remove most the doubts about his capabilities and bias by reminding the court that in 2006 he helped to translate Rosneft prospectus. Furthermore, returning to Russia, he purchased Rosneft's shares. He asked the prosecutor, with this information in mind, where his bias may lie in this case.

The court asked whether the prosecutor had grounds for Mr. Somov's disqualification. "I'll have them in a moment," the prosecutor told the court without lifting his head from the notebook's screen. The courtroom broke out laughing.

Mr. Lakhtin demanded to know who was paying Mr. Somov's for his services in the courtroom. Then, the prosecutor jumped to asking whether Mr. Somov indeed provided translation services to Messrs. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev, as well as their attorneys. Mr. Somov reminded the court that he already testified that two years ago he participated as an approved translator in Hague, by both parties.

Mr. Lakhtin asked about the United States and what the translator did there. The court told the prosecutor that he was abusing his rights. Mr. Lakhtin demanded to know what rights he was abusing. "We are put at a disadvantage. Defense has all the time it wants to prepare with the specialists, but we have a few moments to prepare out questions. This is a case about economic crimes, not some murder!" Mr. Lakhtin shot at the court. [We remind our readers that the prosecution, after spending three days examining the specialist's report of Mr. Haun, vehemently argued against it being entered into record. -Eds.] "You are asking the very same questions that the court addressed and ruled on two days earlier!" The court wasn't buying Mr. Lakhtin's complaints. Mr. Lakhtin asked whether Mr. Somov affirmed all of his previous answers. He did. The court asked whether anything changed during the last two days. "Your Honor, as you can see even my diploma's color remains the same," Mr. Somov replied, accompanied by appreciative chuckles from the gallery.

Mr. Lakhtin told the court that the prosecution was moving to disqualify Mr. Somov in view of his direct interest in the outcome of the proceeding. The translator should be invited by the court and paid from "the independent government budget." The translator previously offered "legal services" to the defense, "as was evident from his testimony that he met with organized group members Brudno and Ivlev." Mr. Lakhtin insisted that the fact that the translator offered his professional services to the defense on previous occasions was an automatic ground for his disqualification. "Since the translator has already been questioned as a witness during this and the previous court hearing, he is no longer able to participate in the trial as a translator!" Mr. Lakhtin sunk to new lows of his profession.

"What testimony?! He wasn't even informed about criminal liability under Section 308 of the Criminal Procedure Code! What testimony?!" The court was utter bewilderment at the prosecutor.

Mr. Lakhtin insisted that he should be allowed to fully present his position, as the court allowed defense attorneys to do. He concluded by telling the court that the prosecution was requesting to disqualify Mr. Somov.

Judge Danilkin asked the prosecutor to explain why the latter considers that the translator was questioned in court and about what circumstances.

Mr. Lakhtin told the court that Mr. Somov was questioned about his direct participation in the process, about offering translation services to the parties. He insisted, once again, that Mr. Somov's meetings with Messrs. Brudno and Ivlev was the clearest evidence of his bias. Mr. Lakhtin insisted that Mr. Somov often translated ahead of Mr. Haun. "It was as if the translator was testifying!" Mr. Lakhtin was insisting. Mr. Lakhtin demanded that the court appoint another translator, because this one was "completely un-objective."

Mr. Klyuvgant asked the court to confirm whether Mr. Lakhtin's long speech reflected a unified position of his colleagues. With visible reluctance, Mr. Lakhtin's colleagues confirmed that Mr. Lakhtin's position reflected their position.

Mr. Klyuvgant reminded the court that it already ruled on allowing the translator into the proceeding, without a caveat that it was only for one hearing or one day. The translator was appointed, allowed to participate and there was absolutely no reason for what just happened to happen. Mr. Klyuvgant told the court that the motion to disqualify Mr. Somov was, once again, filed by the same person and, once again, using the same arguments as two days earlier. There were no legal grounds to even examine the issue of the translator's qualification.

Next, Mr. Klyuvgant told the court that the defense was asking the court to submit an official report to the Office of the General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation, detailing gross violations and abuse of rules and procedures, including blatant disrespect shown to the court and other trial participants, by prosecutor Lakhtin. Defense told the court that the court could and should react to this conduct.

Mr. Klyuvgant directed the court to what he called "a provocation" by the prosecutor, who, under the guise of asking questions meant to discover whether Mr. Somov was qualified and had any interest in the outcome of the case, intended to use the questions as grounds for arguing that Mr. Somov was questioned as a witness and was thus disqualified from the trial. Mr. Klyuvgant asked the court to deny Mr. Lakhtin's motion.

Mr. Khodorkovsky asked the court to note that in this process, where the federal government was the opponent - represented by RFFI, the fact that it was paying the translators working on the case did not serve as grounds for their disqualification. Mr. Khodorkovsky told the court that he found strange, and the prosecutor did not provide any support, the prosecutor's position that the translators should only be paid by one side - the federal government.

Mr. Schmidt told the court that his colleagues, who are present in the courtroom regularly, may have grown immune to the prosecutor's actions. He, on the other hand, hadn't adapted to the prosecutor's "schizophrenic musings," and felt ashamed that he needed to object to the prosecutor. Prosecutor Lakhtin immediately demanded a warning for Mr. Schmidt and threatened to leave the courtroom if one wasn't issued. Mr. Schmidt told the court that the prosecutor will have a full transcript of what Mr. Haun said and what Mr. Somov translated. If there are discrepancies - the defense will apologize. The translator participates to facilitate the proceeding, but the prosecutor has nothing to offer but scurrilous statements, delaying the trial, while arguing that it was the defense who was impermissibly delaying the proceedings. Mr. Schmidt told Mr. Lakhtin that all of the latter's words and actions were accounted for by hours and minutes and defense will present a serious account when it was time to discuss the delays.

Mr. Lebedev asked the court to note that Mr. Lakhtin did not present a single piece of evidence which confirmed the prosecutor's "feelings" about incorrect translation. Mr. Lebedev told the court that the CCP did not require the court to make arrangements for the payment of translator's services. Translators are paid by the parties. Mr. Lebedev reminded the court that defense never posed questions about how much prosecution's investigators were paid. The issue is and always was the competence of these translators. The prosecutor did not present any evidence to show that Mr. Somov was incompetent.

Mr. Somov told the court that he understood that there was an audio recording which could be examined and he had his personal responsibility for purposefully inaccurate translation. No one was insured against all mistakes. Mr. Somov, telling the court that he will look straight in the prosecution's eyes, promised the prosecutors that he would not distort any of their words when translating into English. Mr. Somov told the court that he did not know whether he was the best translator available, but he was certain that the court would spend a lot of time looking for another one. Turning to prosecutor Lakhtin, Mr. Somov said that he did not know why the prosecutor disliked him so, but he liked Mr. Lakhtin when he first saw him a few days ago. The gallery chuckled.

The court went to write the decision on Mr. Lakhtin's motion.

Afternoon Session.

The trial resumed with Judge Danilkin reading his ruling on the prosecution's motion to disqualify Mr. Somov. The court found that the prosecution failed to provide any evidence of Mr. Somov's incompetence during his translation of Mr. Haun's testimony. The court found no grounds to support assertions that Mr. Somov was biased or was interested in the outcome of the case, and denied the prosecution's request.

Mr. Dages was invited to the witness stand. Mr. Dages introduced himself. He is a Senior Vice-President of Compass Lexecon. Mr. Dages showed the court his diploma from University of Notre Dame. The prosecution was handed the diploma for examination.

The court asked the defense what the specialist will be testifying about. Mr. Rivkin told the court that, as he's already explained, Mr. Dages was a specialist in economics and finances. He was asked questions, conducted an analysis, and provided conclusions which defense wanted to present to the court. The court asked whether these were general questions and conclusions, but Mr. Rivkin assured the court that the questions were strictly based on the indictment, although there may be some general questions in order to lay the groundwork for the specifics.

Mr. Lakhtin asked who Mr. Dages was, but the court asked him to examine the diploma lying on the prosecution's table. Mr. Lakhtin, after examining the diploma and the translation, confidently informed the court that the translation was incorrect.

Mr. Smirnov asked the court's permission to ask a couple of clarifying questions. Mr. Dages testified that in the university he majored in accounting. Mr. Dages explained that in addition to his diploma, he included his certificate of Certified Public Accountant. Mr. Dages, answering Mr. Smirnov's questions, provided his employment history. Mr. Dages testified told the court that for the last 20 years he provides consulting services in connection with judicial proceedings. Mr. Dages testified that he participated as an expert in two law suits connected with the oil and gas industry. He never consulted for Russian companies or provided consulting services in Russia, but provided consulting services for companies which have business interests in Russia. Mr. Dages told the court that he was familiar, in general terms, with Russian accounting standards.

Mr. Dages told the court that he knew in what capacity he was invited to participate in the trial. He told the court that he prepared a number of slides to demonstrate the analysis which was conducted. He told the court that Mr. Rivkin asked them a number of specific questions, provided access to the indictment and the case materials, and an analysis was conducted using these materials. Mr. Dages told the court that using these materials a presentation was compiled with answers along with the evidence from the prosecution's case materials to support those answers. Mr. Smirnov asked what specific case materials were provided. Mr. Dages told the court that the very first slide in the presentation contained a bibliography of each of the piece of evidence used.

Mr. Smirnov asked whether Mr. Dages remembered any documents that were used. Mr. Khodorkovsky objected and asked the court to strike the question. He explained that the prosecutor began asking questions which defense planned to ask the specialist. The question was stricken.

Mr. Smirnov asked whom Mr. Dages meant by "we" when discussing the work on the conclusions. Mr. Dages explained that he is the author of the opinion, on which he worked on with a team of other specialists. One of those specialists was present in the courtroom. Mr. Dages told the court that when it saw the volume of the report it would understand that it was a team effort to go over the amount of the detail, bit he was the author of the opinion.

Mr. Smirnov asked where the opinion was created. Mr. Lebedev objected, telling the court that Mr. Smirnov was asking questions which were within the purview of the defense to ask. Mr. Rivkin told the court that while the prosecutor was eager to do his work for him, his questions had nothing to do with establishing Mr. Dages' competence as a specialist. The question was struck.

Mr. Lakhtin asked who requested Mr. Dages' presence in court. Mr. Rivkin objected, telling the court that this question had nothing to do with Mr. Dages' qualification, either. The question was stricken. Mr. Lakhtin demanded to know if Mr. Dages knew Russian criminal, corporate, civil law. Mr. Dages told the court that he was not an expert in Russian law, but he was provided with a copy of Section 58 of the CCP which was explicit about his duties as a specialist. He told the court that what was written there perfectly aligned with his understanding of his duties as a specialist in this or any other court.

Mr. Lakhtin began arguing with the court about what Mr. Dages was going to base his verbal conclusions on. He insisted that the prosecution did not have the case materials - those materials were forwarded to the court in February of 2009. Mr. Lakhtin demanded to know whether it was some other criminal case materials that Mr. Dages was basing his conclusions on. Mr. Dages told the court that his opinion was based on the case materials in this case, with the presentation containing a reference to the volume and page number.

Mr. Lakhtin, turning furious after the court told him to move on, began arguing that he still did not understand what materials Mr. Dages was basing his conclusions on. Mr. Smirnov was observed attempting to calm his colleague down. Mr. Lakhtin demanded to know whether Mr. Dages provided previous services to Messrs. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev, or their attorneys. Mr. Dages answered that he did not. The court told the prosecutor that his questions should be limited to competence of the specialist and if he was going to motion to disqualify the specialist, eh should do so.

Mr. Lakhtin continued. Mr. Dages told the court that he was present in the courtroom on Monday and Tuesday of this week. Mr. Lakhtin demanded to know whether Mr. Dages was present during Mr. Haun's testimony. Mr. Rivkin asked the court to strike the question, explaining that questions about presence during testimony applied to witnesses, only. The question was struck, as was the following question on how Mr. Dages was being paid.

Ms. Ibragimova asked whether Mr. Dages, while examining the case materials, also examined oil and gas regulations of the Russian Federation. Mr. Dages testified that he did not. Mr. Dages testified that, while he never participated as an expert or a specialist in any proceedings within the Russian Federation, he participated in more than 25 foreign court proceedings. Mr. Dages told the court that what he heard Mr. Haun testify about would not have any impact on his objectivity.

Mr. Lebedev and Ms. Ibragimova participated in a verbal exchange. The court ordered a short break.

Mr. Lakhtin asked whether Mr. Dages worked in any oil companies. Mr. Khodorkovsky objected and, despite Mr. Lakhtin's attempts to interrupt him, told the court that the prosecutor was purposefully delaying the proceeding, because Mr. Dages already identified the companies he worked in. Furthermore, Mr. Rivkin already explained why Mr. Dages was invited into the proceeding. Mr. Lakhtin's question was struck.

"And you think that you, having testified in the United States and some European countries, not having any knowledge about the working of Russian oil companies, are competent to provide any opinion here! When Khodorkovsky and Lebedev, in accordance with Russian laws, are accused of committing serious crimes?! Aren't you afraid for your reputation in the United States?!" Mr. Lakhtin directed his concerns to Mr. Dages. The courtroom broke out in laughter.

Mr. Rivkin asked the court to strike the question and asked the court to allow the defense to proceed with questioning Mr. Dages. Mr. Lakhtin insisted that Mr. Rivkin's actions were inappropriate for Russian courtrooms, but was interrupted by Mr. Smirnov, who told the court that the prosecution had no more questions and asked for 15 minutes to prepare a statement.

After the break, Mr. Lakhtin informed the court that the prosecution required additional time to examine some "complex questions." The court inquired whether the prosecutor meant that he needed more time to prepare a request asking the court to disqualify the specialist. That was it.

The trial will resume on Friday, June 04, 10:00 Moscow Time.