Khodorkovsky & Lebedev Communications Center

Today was a day of firsts. Mr. Lakhtin would be absent for the entire hearing. Yesterday everyone observed that Mr. Lakhtin was walking with a heavy limp and it seems it may have gotten the best of him. Also, after the first ten minutes of today's hearing had passed, Mr. Anilionis departed the witness stand after telling the court that he was not emotionally ready to continue to testify.

The hearing resumed with Mr. Lebedev telling the court he would continue to go over some of the statements Mr. Anilionis made during the January 18, 2007 interrogation conducted by Mr. Karimov. Mr. Lebedev was going to ask additional questions about Mr. Samuelson and his involvement with South Petroleum and Baltic Petroleum, but Mr. Anilionis, prior to answering, asked the court to make a brief statement.

With a note of nervousness, Mr. Anilionis told the court that it was important for him to explain what was on his mind. Mr. Anilionis told the court he realized, after being repeatedly questioned by Mr. Lebedev about his testimony in the Basmanny Court, that any doubts that may arise during testimony were very important. Mr. Anilionis told the court that he began having some doubts in this process and wanted to share them with the court. What happened next came as a bit of a surprise for everyone present. Mr. Anilionis told the court that yesterday, when he left the courtroom, he went to his office, but was unable to get any work done. He tried to relax, but was unable to do that, either, because he was very emotional, as he was being right now, as well. "Yesterday, [Mr. Lebedev] called me 'Karimov's friend'. These are not just words - this is a particular position," Mr. Anilionis continued, taking deep breaths. [Mss. Ibragimova and Kovalihina stared intently at the witness, having perked up at the mention Mr. Karimov's name. -Eds.] Mr. Anilionis told the court that everyone, including members of the press, after hearing Mr. Lebedev's words began forming a certain opinion about him, something, he insisted, he did not need. "When Your Honor asked me on February 24 whether I felt any enmity towards the defendants, and what I say applies to both of them because I understand that they have the same position, I truthfully answered that I did not. However, after yesterday's events I can no longer say the same. Therefore, when I have to answer additional questions, I can no longer guarantee that my testimony would be the same it would have been prior to what was said [by Mr. Lebedev]," Mr. Anilionis concluded.

Judge Danilkin asked if Mr. Anilionis was able to continue to testify, needed some time to calm down, or preferred to postpone continuing to testify until a later date. Mr. Anilionis replied that he would continue to testify, if he must, but his testimony would be affected, as he's described in minute ago. Judge Danilkin asked if he needed some time to be able to calm down and to continue to testify later today. Mr. Anilionis replied that he was unable to continue and told the court that he would be able to continue not earlier than next Tuesday. Regardless, Mr. Anilionis warned, his position about what he said earlier, will remain unchanged and will stay that way for a long time. [Mr. Anilionis's statement raises a question of how much weight should the court accord to any of his forthcoming testimony. Mr. Anilionis's credibility was already undermined yesterday - now it seems the court may have additional reasons to consider carefully the witness's words. -Eds.]

Judge Danilkin asked for each side's opinion. Ms. Ibragimova told the court that based on what the witness said, the prosecution agreed that the witness gave ample grounds for postponing his testimony. However, Ms. Ibragimova explained that next week the prosecution planned on calling a witness (or witnesses) who did not live in the region, and asked the court to coordinate that aspect with setting the date of Mr. Anilionis's return.

Mr. Rivkin told the court that the defense understood the witness needed some time. Mr. Rivkin inquired if the witness, based on his statement, may have changed his mind regarding some of the prior testimony. "No, that's not correct," Mr. Anilionis replied. Meanwhile, Mr. Rivkin reminded the court that there was the matter of the third audiotape containing Mr. Anilionis's interrogation, which the defense wanted to have resolved prior to the date of Mr. Anilionis's return. Finally, Mr. Rivkin, using the opportunity, told the court that the defense had a motion to file in connection with Mr. Anilionis's testimony.

Judge Danilkin granted Mr. Anilionis's request. After some back and forth with the prosecution and Mr. Anilionis, Judge Danilkin set March 15 as the expected date of Mr. Anilionis's return to the courtroom.

After a short break, Mr. Miroshnichenko filed a motion asking the court to obtain additional documents contained in the Malahovsky/Pereverzin case file, currently in the Basmanny Court. He explained that Mr. Anilionis, while testifying at the Malahovsky/Pereverzin trial, was shown contracts for purchase of crude oil, signed by Mr. Anilionis on behalf of South Petroleum. Mr. Miroshnichenko explained that these documents contained information about the disposition of the allegedly embezzled crude oil. The defense considered it necessary to be able to present these documents to Mr. Anilionis and to question him on their substance. According to Mr. Miroshnichenko, the equities of an adversarial process and effective representation required defense to be able to have access to these documents.

Ms. Ibragimova asked the court to allow the prosecution until Thursday to respond to Mr. Miroshnichenko's motion. She explained that the prosecution wanted to ascertain whether the crude oil contracts defense requesting were relevant to this trial. [As our readers know, on March 1, 2007, Messrs. Malahovsky and Pereverzin were found guilty on allegations of crude oil embezzlement and money laundering, while being members of an organized criminal group. Messrs. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev are alleged to have led Messrs. Malahovsky and Pereverzin. It is difficult to imagine how crude oil contracts examined during the Malahovsky/Pereverzin trial in the Basmanny Court may be irrelevant to the current proceedings, particularly because defense is planning to question the same witness. -Eds.]

Prior to adjournment, Mr. Lebedev filed motion asking the court to add to the file a small treatise defining and explaining the meaning of Incoterms. Reminding the court that Mr. Anilionis was unable to answer any questions on the subject, Mr. Lebedev explained that it would be beneficial for the court to have an explanation as part of the case materials.

Ms. Ibragimova told the court that prosecution would respond to this motion on Thursday, as well.

The trial will resume on Wednesday, March 3, 10:00 Moscow Time.