Khodorkovsky & Lebedev Communications Center

Morning Session.

The trial resumed to a fully packed courtroom. Judge Danilkin came out and, after officially re-opening the proceedings, began reading his decision on whether to disqualify Mr. Kevin Dages. In a hint of where the court decided to land on the issue, Judge Danilkin reread Mr. Lakhtin's arguments almost in their entirety, while providing one sentence summaries of the counter arguments offered by Messrs. Rivkin, Schmidt, Lebedev and Khodorkovsky. Mr. Dages' lengthy statement in support of his competence merited four sentences, two of which were taken from Mr. Dages' answers to Mr. Lakhtin's questions.

The court, taking the prosecution's side, ruled that Mr. Dages was not a specialist in Russian corporate law, and knows the Russian Accounting Standards generally, because he is a Certified Public Accountant in the United States. Following the prosecutor's "logic," the court determined that the fact that Mr. Dages was not asked by the investigators to participate as a specialist during the preliminary investigation and did not analyze all of the case materials which the investigators included in the case materials meant that "there [were] grounds to doubt Mr. Dages' professional competence."

Although Mr. Khodorkovsky argued that any analysis of YUKOS should contain examination of the company as a multi-national company and any accounting should be examined from the international as well as Russian accounting laws perspective, the court distorted Mr. Khodorkovsky's arguments, writing that "Khodorkovsky's arguments that YUKOS was a multi-national company and its accounting [was not] based on Russian Accounting Standards are not based on the criminal case materials."

The court concluded by stating that the complaint did not allege violations of any foreign laws, therefore there was no need to hear opinions prepared by a specialist in economics and finances of the United States. The court found that Mr. Dages was not competent to testify about any of the circumstances requiring proof in the criminal case before it.

After a short break, Mr. Khodorkovsky filed an objection against the actions of the presiding judge. He told the court that these will brief, with the defense preparing lengthier and more detailed objections to be filed at a later date.

Mr. Khodorkovsky told the court the court's reasoning, used to support it granting of the prosecution's motion, showed a fundamental lack of understanding or willful ignorance of the case materials. Entire Volume 7 of the case materials consisted of the government analyzing YUKOS US GAAP financial reporting. Also, the court stated that Mr. Lebedev and he are not accused of committing actions on the territory of other countries, while the indictment is replete with exactly opposite assertions.

Mr. Khodorkovsky noted that all of YUKOS foreign subsidiaries were registered in foreign jurisdictions. The court ignored this, stating that YUKOS was not a multi-national company. The government, in the complaint on pp.141-143, stated that YUKOS assets were located on balance sheets of various foreign companies, with the companies being indentified explicitly.

Mr. Khodorkovsky concluded by telling the court that neither the court nor the prosecution were experts in US GAAP, and the government failed to engage such a specialist during the preliminary investigation, despite the fact that copies of YUKOS US GAAP reporting were found in the case materials. According to Mr. Khodorkovsky, all of this pointed to the fact that the court was not interested in the substance of the case before it.

Mr. Lebedev asked to add a few words. He told the court that it was inadmissible for the court to distort, along with the prosecution, clearly established legal norms, of which the court and the prosecution have a very murky understanding. Mr. Lebedev told the court that there was no "system of accounting," with the phrase being invented by the prosecution. Accounting was the system of collecting and registering facts. The system was the same in all countries, and did not originate in Russia. Mr. Lebedev expressed regret that, despite examining complex professional questions, the court was drifting further into "vulgarisms" which have nothing to do with legal norms.

After another short break, Mr. Rivkin, after being handed Volume 190 by the court, informed the court that the defense will enter into record a deposition transcript of Mr. Jacques Kosciusko-Morizet, former member of the YUKOS Board of Directors. An immediate objection from Mr. Lakhtin followed, with the prosecutor arguing that the deposition was not part of the case materials. Mr. Rivkin told the prosecutor that the deposition was in the case materials, citing the volume and page numbers. Mr. Lakhtin would not relent, telling the court that this deposition made its way into the case materials as an attachment to some motion and, in his opinion, the court should never include such documents in the case file. Mr. Lakhtin demanded for the court to preclude Mr. Rivkin from reading the document in question.

Mr. Rivkin told the court that the deposition, according to Section 86 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 6 of the Law on Attorneys' Activity, had evidentiary significance. This was affirmed by numerous decisions of the Supreme Court. The deposition, indeed, was included by the court in the case file as part of a number of documents in support of one of defense's previous motions. Now the deposition was part of the case materials and the defense had a right to read it into record. The court asked for the volume back and called a five minute recess.

After the hearing resumed, Judge Danilkin handed the volume in question back to Mr. Rivkin and told him to proceed. Mr. Rivkin began reading Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet's deposition.

Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet was deposed by Mr. Klyuvgant on February 5, 2009. Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet confirmed that he read the complaint against Messrs. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev. He gave a brief description of his education and work history.

Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet testified that he met Mr. Khodorkovsky in early 1998, when he was working as the head of the International Division of Credit Lyonnais. Because of the relationship with YUKOS - Credit Lyonnais provided pre-finance loans - Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet met with Messrs. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev, and other senior management approximately 3 or 4 times per year. During their discussions about YUKOS, Messrs. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev shares their vision of YUKOS as a vertically integrated oil company patterned after international oil majors with corresponding efficiencies and complete transparency.

Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet testified that in 1997 Credit Lyonnais led a consortium of banks that loaned YUKOS $500 million USD for the acquisition of the majority stake in VNK. In 1998, after the oil price collapsed, Mr. Khodorkovsky contacted him and let him know that YUKOS was unable to repay the loans in a timely fashion. However, unlike other Russian oil companies which chose to default, Mr. Khodorkovsky contacted the bank and requested to discuss a restructuring plan, in order to avoid default and preserve the international reputation of the company. The work out plan was a success, as the crude oil prices began to recover in 1999. Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet testified that this episode was an important contributing factor to the trust he developed in Mr. Khodorkovsky during the following years.

Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet testified that another clear signal that Mr. Khodorkovsky was serious about implementing professionalism at and bringing international experience to YUKOS was the hiring of Mr. Michel Soublin as the company's CFO. Giving an international expert, with an outstanding reputation, power and access to company financial records was very positive. Thus further demonstrated Mr. Khodorkovsky's commitment to modernize and improve YUKOS.

After Mr. Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet's decision to retire from Credit Lyonnais became publically known, Mr. Soublin contacted him and asked whether he would be interested in sitting on YUKOS Board of Directors. Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet had an in depth conversation with Mr. Khodorkovsky, telling him that he would join the YUKOS Board only if he could contribute to the effort to professionalize and westernize the company. Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet testified that, as a matter of principle, he always pushed for more disclosure and transparency, because such policies help a company in terms of internal discipline, corporate image, and inspire investor and analyst confidence. Mr. Khodorkovsky told him that he had every intention of making YUKOS into efficient, vertically integrated operation.

Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet joined the YUKOS Board in June of 2000, along with Bernard Loze and Raj Gupta. The addition of independent international directors and the creation of board committees chaired by them led to a quick transformation of the Board's work. Despite the initial pushback from the company's management, Mr. Khodorkovsky, who anticipated this kind of reaction, offered his full support to the efforts to transform the company. The Board's efforts had a very positive effect and were recognized by market analysts. YUKOS increased its market capitalization and even briefly overcame OAO Gazprom in that respect.

Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet testified that upon joining the YUKOS Board he gained an even better appreciation of Mr. Soublin as the company's CFO. Mr. Soublin immediately recognized the need to know and to be able to track cash flows in order to centralize management of liquidity. He focused on those activities that generated money, where the money was held/invested, and how the money should be allocated too maximize efficiency. After stepping down as the CFO, Mr. Soublin joined the Board and became the Chair of the Finance Committee.

Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet testified that he was very impressed that only a few years after Mr. Khodorkovsky was sitting at the Credit Lyonnais headquarters and discussing options for resolving a pending default by YUKOS, YUKOS and Mr. Khodorkovsky were being applauded by the financial analysts' community. Companies like ING, Renaissance Capital, Brunswick UBS and Merrill Lynch gave YUKOS management high marks for operational excellence and efficiency, especially for taking central control of management and for reducing costs and providing shared services for all subsidiaries. Furthermore, Mr. Khodorkovsky was receiving awards for his accomplishments and vision.

Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet testified that in addition to centralized control of cash and financial reporting, management and the Board promoted, and YUKOS employed, other operating practices to advance efficiency and maximize efficiency. For example, YUKOS stressed planned drilling and the utilization of international oil service companies which provided considerable expertise.

Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet testified that the Board did not always agree with Mr. Khodorkovsky and management's recommendations, particularly in the area of major acquisitions. In these instances the relevant issues were freely discussed and one side or the other often changed its position. Mr. Khodorkovsky was true to his word that he did not want a passive Board. Discussions between Board members and with Management were not confrontational. Rather, decisions were the result of consensus building. This approach was primarily due to the tone established by Mr. Khodorkovsky and his openness with, and willingness to listen to, differing points of view and to embrace new, and better, practices.

Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet testified that perhaps the best compliment for what YUKOS accomplished was that the company name become a verb in Russian business circles -- to "Yukosize" a company became synonymous with making it efficient through the use of professional leadership and international standards. YUKOS was willing to make the hard decisions and focus on long-term growth and return on investment as well as short-term rewards. Thus, YUKOS became an industry leader in Russia and more efficient through enhanced corporate governance and transparency.

Mr. Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet testified about his work on the YUKOS Board of Directors. After joining the Board, he headed the Audit Committee of the YUKOS Board of Directors. Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet explained that inn July 2000, as a result of a long effort led by Mr. Soublin, YUKOS produced consolidated GAAP compliant accounts. This was a significant step toward YUKOS operating consistent with international practices and contributed to the value of YUKOS stock increasing by 50%. Ultimately, YUKOS became the first Russian oil company to generate quarterly GAAP statements.

The Audit Committee developed and presented the Board of Directors with recommendations on the internal accounting, internal and external controls and the auditing of the Company's business activity. The Committee also reviewed the activity of the Company's auditor, ZAO PricewaterhouseCoopers Audit, ("PwC"), including its fees for auditing services. Mr. Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet testified that in 2001 the Committee's meetings were regularly attended by PwC's representatives Doug Miller and Enrique Munoz and members of YUKOS management including: Michel Soublin (when he was still CFO), Bruce Misamore (when he was CFO), Peter Zolotaryov, head of the consolidated financial reporting and planning of section of YUKOS finance department, Elena Britkova from the internal audit department, and Elena Malinovskaya, the Committee secretary.

In 2002, the members of the Audit Committee were Raj Gupta, Alexey Kontorovich and Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet. The meetings were regularly attended by PwC representatives Doug Miller, George Gramatke, and Kieth Rowden, as well as Yukos management: Bruce Misamore, CFO, Frank Rieger, Financial Controller, Galina Antonova, head of the internal audit department, Lyudmila Sakharova, head of the consolidation department, Elena Britkova, from the internal audit department, and Yulia Zherdeva, the Committee secretary.

In 2003, the members of the committee were Raj Gupta, Alexey Kontorovich, himself, and later in 2003 we were joined by a new Board Member, Francois Buclez. The meetings were regularly attended by PwC representatives Doug Miller, Kevin Connolly, and later joined by Don Kingsley. YUKOS management and staff attending the meetings in 2003 were: Bruce Misamore, CFO, Frank Rieger, Controller, Galina Antonova, head of internal audit department, Lyudmila Sakharova, head of the consolidation department, Elena Britkova from the internal audit department, and Yulia Zherdeva, the Committee secretary.

Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet testified that initially, YUKOS consolidated financial reports under U.S. GAAP were mostly prepared by PwC consultants, with limited participation by the Yukos accounting department. Therefore, one of the Committee's first efforts was to pursue the improvement of the capabilities of the Yukos in-house accounting department. The YUKOS staffers responsible for the consolidated financial reporting regularly attended the Committee meetings and reported on their progress.

Another topic regularly addressed during the committee's meetings was the follow-up on prior recommendations. One of the first main issues the Committee addressed, pursuant to a PwC recommendation, was the creation of an integrated financial reporting and information system. PwC recommended that Yukos develop a five-year plan to create gradual improvements in the quality of the data provided for management decisions by year.

Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet testified that his interaction with PwC was not limited to the Audit Committee meeting. Occasionally, he would visit them to get an informal opinion of their assessment of the company's progress. Also, according to standard international practice, at every audit committee meeting, there was a session with PwC without YUKOS management, so that PwC could independently make comments directly to the committee members.

Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet provided more detail on the interactions with PricewaterhouseCoopers. He testified that PwC representatives were always invited to attend meetings of the Audit Committee and did so. Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet testified that he interacted mostly with Doug Miller, and his senior partner George Gramatke, Don Kingsley and later with Mike Kubena. During my entire interaction with PwC, no one from that firm ever raised any issues which were problematic.

Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet explained that generally accepted auditing standards require that the external auditors communicate to the audit committee certain items related to their audit. While such communications can be made either in oral or written format, PwC elected to make them in writing for the Committee. With respect to the accounting policies, the auditors informed the Committee about the initial selection of, and changes in, significant accounting policies or their application, the methods used to account for significant unusual transactions, and the effect of significant accounting policies in controversial or emerging areas for which there was a lack of authoritative guidance. Additionally, they also had to inform the Committee about the process used by management in forming particularly sensitive accounting estimates and about the basis for the auditors' conclusions regarding the reasonableness of those estimates.

PwC also was required, by their own standards, to report to us all significant adjustments arising from the audit, whether or not reported by the entity. In 2001, PwC noted certain ongoing YUKOS difficulties in the preparation of consolidated financial statements. They attributed the difficulties to the limited information system capabilities and personnel resource constraints.

Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet testified that PWC also had to report if they believed the management of the company was not complying with its duty to adhere to the required accounting principles adopted by the company. PwC consistently assured the Committee of the consistency between the accounting policies and their application and that there was no issue with the clarity and completeness of the consolidated financial statements, including disclosures. The auditors also had to report on any difficulties encountered in performing the audit. PWC reported no such difficulties.

According to Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet, Pursuant to its audit standards PwC was also required to report any significant deficiencies in the design or the operation of internal control which would come to their attention during the audit. George Gramatke stated in a letter: PwC "had no reportable conditions or material weaknesses to report in connection with the audit."

As any external auditor, PwC was also required to report any illegal act, material error, or evidence of theft or wrongdoings identified during their audit. In particular, PwC was required to communicate to the Audit Committee any theft or wrongdoing involving senior management and theft or wrongdoings (whether caused by senior management or other employees) that causes a material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements. Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet testified tat throughout the years PwC assured the Committee in writing that they were not aware of such theft or wrongdoing.

Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet testified that, as required by auditing standards generally accepted in the United States, PwC made specific inquiries of management and others about the representations and information contained in the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. United States GAAP also required PwC to obtain written representations from certain members of management regarding the audited consolidated financial statements. These letters were drafted with the help of PwC's personnel. Throughout the years, PwC never reported any disagreements which it thought were material to the Company's consolidated financial statements.

Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet testified that he was familiar with the statements reported in the media and on websites concerning PwC's current position that YUKOS provided disinformation to them which caused them to retract the audited financial statements they prepared. He found this change of heart completely disingenuous and totally contrary to their actions during his interaction with them. During his service on the Board, PwC never made negative statements about YUKOS or its operation, never raised any issues or concerns other than normal suggested improvements, and never complained about receiving improper or incomplete information. Based on his communications with them, PwC was entirely satisfied that YUKOS was taking a proper, legal course, well beyond what was usual in most Russian companies. Moreover, in many areas PwC was essentially partners with YUKOS, providing strategic advice as consultants as well as outside auditing services. This was especially true in the area of tax minimization and financial reporting. PwC knew everything, put in place substantial audit controls, and was the primary outside consultant to the Audit Committee. PwC represented it was in all respects completely satisfied with their interactive relationship with YUKOS as well as the resulting progress.

Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet testified that, contrary to the investigator's assertions, Mr. Khodorkovsky was one of the most ardent supporters of the Level III ADR listing on the NYSE. This was despite the regulatory burdens that would be imposed on YUKOS as well as on him, as a majority shareholder in Group MENATEP.

Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet testified that after Mr. Lebedev was arrested he was asked to head a special committee of the Board to asses the impact of Mr. Lebedev's arrest on YUKOS. The special committee concluded that the charges did not implicate the company in illegal activity and that business should continue as usual with the company drilling wells, producing oil and selling petroleum products. The special committee believed that growth of the company should proceed. The special committee viewed the problem to be solely for GML and its shareholders.

After Mr. Khodorkovsky was arrested, the Board retained the international law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP, to investigate whether the charges implicated the Board's prior actions and whether any prior representations to the shareholders or submissions the government regulators had to be amended. They already were quite familiar with the Company's organizational chart, books and records as well as its auditing, accounting and financial reporting practices and its tax strategies based upon its prior due diligence in connection with the enhanced ADR program. Akin Gump had been retained to represent YUKOS in that matter. Akin Gump never informed the Audit Committee or the Board that it identified any illegal activity connected to the operations of, or financial controls at, YUKOS. Furthermore, they joined in the conclusion expressed by Russian tax counsel that YUKOS's domestic tax strategy was lawful. Although the current embezzlement and money laundering charges were not known at that time, Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet testified that he would have expected Akin Gump to alert the Board if it found evidence of such conduct during its investigation.

Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet testified that the current charges as he understood them were contrary to the facts as he knows them. Neither Mr. Khodorkovsky, nor Mr. Lebedev, nor anyone else comprising the so-called organized group at YUKOS embezzled the oil. The oil moved from the production companies through the downstream marketing companies in a manner consistent with the best industry practices and was sold by the production companies at a fair and reasonable price in light of its intended usage and destination. YUKOS increased its revenues and profits by becoming a more efficient and better operated company that better managed its assets in the field and in the treasury.

Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet concluded his testimony by stating that he would like to testify on behalf of Messrs. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev, but preferred not to travel to Russia for personal reasons. He was willing to appear by video conference to testify under oath and re-affirm the information provided in response to Mr. Klyuvgant's questions.

Mr. Rivkin was ready to proceed with reading another document from the case file, but the court recessed for a lunch break.

Afternoon Session.

The trial resumed with Mr. Rivkin telling the court that he wanted to enter into record documents which were attached to Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet's deposition. These were minutes from meetings of the Audit Committee and a PwC letter to Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet, in which Mr. Gramatke informed the latter that, aside from several minor issues, the auditor did not have any complaints about the Company's accounting policy, its application and completeness of information, including the Company's transparency. The auditor noted that PwC did not encounter any difficulties in conducting the audit or material disagreements with the Company's management. Mr. Rivkin highlighted that portion of Mr. Gramatke's letter where the latter wrote that PwC did not encounter any fraud by the Company's management or employees.

Mr. Lakhtin, who was attempting to file a motion even before Mr. Rivkin completed reading of Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet's deposition and supplements, was granted a chance to voice his objections. Mr. Lakhtin told the court that the prosecution was moving to find Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet's deposition inadmissible. Mr. Lakhtin argued that the court never heard arguments about adding Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet's deposition into the case materials and that the fact that Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet was deposed in a foreign country made his deposition inadmissible a priori. Mr. Lakhtin insisted that the deposition was not a document but a statement containing information provided by a person who knew about circumstances of crimes being committed and that person had to be in court to testify.

Mr. Rivkin had to remind the prosecutor, once again, that defense attorneys were allowed to use any means available to defend their clients, so long as not prohibited by law. The deposition was one of such means, because defense has a wide leeway to gather evidence, so long as no laws are violated. Also, Mr. Rivkin told the court that the defense acted exactly the same way as the prosecutor who, when filing motions to extend defendants' arrest, never asked that an individual ruling was made on admissibility of each and every document they were referencing, although majority of those documents was not contained in the case materials. The defense, relying on "the equality of parties principle," used the same procedure. Finally, Mr. Rivkin reminded the prosecutor that Section 53 of the CCP, which Mr. Lakhtin was so fond of referring to, explicitly applied to the government only and had no impact on defense attorneys. In addition to the explicit language, this was affirmed by the Constitutional Court.

Mr. Lebedev further explained that every section of the CCP prosecutor Lakhtin referred to in his motion was addressed to and was applicable to the courts, prosecutors and investigators. Mr. Lebedev reminded the court that evidence in the criminal case can be any information, based on which the court can establish the circumstances in the case.

Mr. Klyuvgant reminded the court that the defense previously filed motions arguing inadmissibility of certain documents used by the prosecution. Those motions were denied, because the court found that at the stage of evidence presentation there were no grounds to find those documents inadmissible, as the court will evaluate all evidence in its entirety upon the conclusion of the hearings. Mr. Klyuvgant told the court that "with the established tradition" the presentation of evidence was not over. Neither the court nor the prosecutors knew how the documents presented by defense were interconnected with other evidence.

Judge Danilkin ruled that at this stage the court found to reason to exclude Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet's deposition. All evidence will be evaluated and weighed when the court will be writing the verdict. However, looking over at the defense attorneys, the court noted that Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet's deposition was not offered into evidence individually, but as a supplement to defense's motion asking the court to terminate the criminal case.

Mr. Rivkin motioned to enter into evidence minutes from YUKOS Board of Directors Finance and Audit Committee meetings, which were added to the case file as supplements of defense's motions asking the court to initiate mutual-legal assistance requests and to depose Messrs. Misamore and Soublin.

Mr. Lakhtin objected, telling the court that prosecution had the same arguments used in the motion concerning Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet's deposition. According to the prosecutor, there were no grounds for admitting and entering into evidence the depositions.

Mr. Rivkin noted that the prosecution included a number of minutes from Board of Directors meetings. He did not understand why the prosecution wanted to limit the defense from adding similar documents. Next, Mr. Rivkin noted that defense was allowed to gather and present documents to the court, to be added into the case file as evidence. Defense did just that, except that the documents were added to the case file as part of defense's motion, and not individually.

Judge Danilkin denied Mr. Rivkin's motion to announce and to enter these minutes into evidence. According to Judge Danilkin, the court never ruled on adding these materials as evidence.

Immediately, Mr. Rivkin motioned to add the aforementioned minutes to the case materials the documents already found in the case materials. The prosecution asked for a recess in order to examine the documents and to formulate their response.

After a 20 minute recess, Mr. Lakhtin, addressing Mr. Rivkin, demanded to know by what means defense was able to obtain the aforementioned documents. "Who conducted the search? The seizure?" Mr. Lakhtin demanded to know. Mr. Lakhtin insisted that the prosecution had no reason to trust any of the information found in the documents. Mr. Lebedev demanded that the prosecutor address his questions to the court, not to his defense attorney.

Mr. Rivkin explained to the court that the aforementioned materials were used by Messrs. Soublin and Misamore to illustrate certain points in their responses to questions posed by defense attorneys. Mr. Rivkin, heading off prosecution's earlier criticism, showed the court that Messrs. Soublin and Misamore's depositions, to which the minutes were attached, were apostilled.

Mr. Lakhtin was unsatisfied by the explanation and insisted on hearing it once again. The court repeated what Mr. Rivkin just said. Mr. Lakhtin asked for more time, but was interrupted by Mr. Smirnov, who told the court that prosecution did not need any more time. Mr. Lakhtin, with a sullen look on his face, sat down.

Mr. Smirnov began told the court the prosecution was requesting that Messrs. Soublin and Misamore's depositions should be found inadmissible. The court reminded the prosecutor that the depositions were no at issue. Mr. Smirnov told the court that the supplements were an integral part of the depositions. According to Mr. Smirnov, the supplements were of unknown origin, and were obtained in France and the United States, and should be found inadmissible. "And these documents were provided by inappropriate persons!" Mr. Lakhtin saved the last word for himself.

After a 20 minute recess, the court denied defense's motion to add the aforementioned materials to the case file as evidence. The court ruled that it could not be certain of the documents' authenticity.

Mr. Klyuvgant renewed defenses motion for inclusion into the case file of the Specialist Report of Mr. Wesley Haun, in view of new circumstances. First, Mr. Klyuvgant reminded the court that it denied defense's motion, explaining that inclusion of a specialist's report into evidence should be part of decision on whether the specialist will be allowed to testify. Defense was not provided an opportunity to explain that Mr. Haun was ready to testify, which he did during the following two days.

Next, Mr. Klyuvgant argued that the report was a necessary component of Mr. Haun's testimony. The report contains the full details of the analysis conducted by Mr. Haun, as well as supplements which contain information that he was asked during questioning. Furthermore, the report contained information supporting Mr. Haun's qualification.

Finally, Mr. Klyuvgant told the court that when it refused Mr. Haun's request to include the working papers he used during the testimony - copies of power point slides - into evidence, it ruled that they were not independent evidence. Mr. Klyuvgant explained that Mr. Haun's working papers were to supplement his verbal testimony. However, in order to remedy the misunderstanding, defense was offering to include Mr. Haun's report. He added that the prosecution referred several times to the report during Mr. Haun's cross-examination and asked questions related directly to the report. This only reinforced defense's arguments that Mr. Haun's report had evidentiary significance.

After a 15 minute recess, Mr. Smirnov objected. He told the court that it already ruled on this motion and there were no new circumstances to allow the court to reconsider. Mr. Smirnov insisted that defense obtained Mr. Haun's report in violation of Russian and international laws. He insisted that Mr. Haun's report could not be apostilled, because it was a private document.

Judge Danilkin was brief. He denied defense's motion, ruling that there were no new circumstances which would cause the court to reconsider its earlier decision.

Mr. Lebedev took a moment to tell the court that prosecutor Smirnov "blatantly lied to the court" when arguing that an apostille on Mr. Haun's report violated international laws. Mr. Lebedev assured the court that he will provide the court with appropriate excerpts from the [Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents], to show that Mr. Smirnov was misrepresenting the Convention to the court.

The trial will resume on Tuesday, June 08, 10:30 Moscow Time.