The trial of Natalya Sharina, the director of the Ukrainian Literature Library, has begun in Moscow.

The investigation has gone on for almost a year, and Sharina is now being accused not only of “having created the opportunity” for readers to “familiarise themselves” with the works of Ukrainian nationalists, but also of embezzling over two million rubles. The defendant’s lawyer, Ivan Pavlov, believes that another count has been added to the charge sheet for the sole purpose of exerting pressure on his client. Natalya Sharina could face up to ten years in prison.

A few minutes prior to the start of the court session, Natalya Vidineyeva, the new director of Moscow’s Ukrainian Literature Library, was on the phone to friends and relatives:

“They’re going to be asking me questions, and I’m not properly prepared for anything… Yes, there’s an absolute ton of journalists… No, we’ve not got started yet and I don’t know when we’ll be done.”

In the trial of former director Natalya Sharina, the new director is acting as the representative of the aggrieved party – that is, the library itself, deemed by investigators to have suffered damages totalling 2.2 million roubles.

Sharina’s lawyer Ivan Pavlov believes there were no damages to speak of, but that it was felt necessary to prolong his client’s house arrest. Sharina was initially charged only under Article 282 (“actions aimed at the incitement of hatred or enmity”); individuals charged under this article may be remanded in custody to await sentencing for a maximum of six months. A charge of large-scale embezzlement, meanwhile, could see the accused remanded for three times that long.

The first criminal case involving “extremist materials” at the Ukrainian Literature Library was initiated back in 2010, also under Article 282. Natalya Sharina was charged in summer 2011, but the charge was withdrawn a month later. Yet the case itself is still open, and it is in furtherance of the initial investigation that the library was once again searched a year ago. The trigger for the search came when Dmitry Zakharov, a member of A Just Russia and a municipal deputy of the Yakimanka District, informed the police that he’d “been alerted to the fact that the library possessed Banderovite materials.” According to library staff, Investigative Committee operatives produced a “small stack” from a cabinet containing second copies and editions of books that enjoyed little demand; this “stack,” staff insisted, was nothing to do with the Ukrainian Literature Library – and yet it came to form the crux of the new criminal case.

Among the confiscated materials was just a single proscribed book – War in the Crowd by Dmitro Korchynsky (one of the founders of UNA-UNSO, an ultra-nationalist Ukrainian organisation banned in Russia), which made it onto the state list of extremist literature back in 2013. The remaining materials – 24 books, pamphlets and periodicals, all perfectly legal – were also deemed likely to “incite inter-ethnic strife and hatred” by Yevgeny Tarasov, head of the department of psycholinguistics at the Linguistics Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, who was commissioned by investigators to conduct an expert examination into the matter.

According to Yevgeny Tarasov, fascism and Russophobia lie at the very heart of Ukrainian nationalism

According to Yevgeny Tarasov, fascism and Russophobia lie at the very heart of Ukrainian nationalism, and he implies that, when used in conjunction with words such as “Russia”, “Russian”, “Soviet” and “Muscovite”, virtually any terms with negative or disparaging connotations serve to fuel enmity and hatred. Examples include combinations such as “Russian/Soviet empire,” “Kremlin parasites,” “Muscovite-Bolshevik barbarians,” and Moskals [an ethnic slur meaning “Russians”].

Natalya Sharina has been indicted four times over the past year. The final version of the indictment being over 120 pages long, prosecuting attorney Balandina confined herself to reading out a number of excerpts.

“Sharina […], knowing full well what she was doing, cognisant of the public danger generated by her actions,  and intent on inciting hatred and enmity […], acquired from a source unknown to the investigation, and made freely available to […] the library’s readers, a book by Dmitry [sic]… err… Konchinsky [sic] entitled War in the Crowd  […], which had been declared an extremist publication on March 14, 2013 by Moscow’s Meshchansky District Court…”

Balandina went on to reference another handful of books and pamphlets before concluding with a description of some confiscated CDs.

“In addition, the song entitled ‘The UNA-UNSO March’ features direct incitements to armed struggle and foments an atmosphere of hostility to Russians, since Ukrainian nationalism is necessarily predicated on an opposition between the Ukrainian and Russian ethnoses…”

Judge Yelena Gudoshnikova then asked the defendant whether she understood the charges made against her. Sharina’s response was “No, your honour”

Judge Yelena Gudoshnikova then asked the defendant whether she understood the charges made against her. Sharina’s response to this formality of a question was very much unexpected. “No, your honour,” she said, and requested clarification from the prosecutor: how exactly had she incited enmity and hatred?

Balandina struggled to formulate an answer; Sharina, she stated, had “acquired literature and used her powers of office to make it freely available…” And what about the details, then? Details? Yes, well, these could be checked with the lawyers.

The judge announced a fifteen-minute break so that Sharina’s two lawyers could enlighten her as to the nature of the charges she was facing. After the break, however, they both admitted that they, too, were very much in the dark.

The defence counsel drew the judge’s attention to the fact that investigation team had never been able to identify what concrete actions Sharina had undertaken to incite enmity and hatred, or by what means she’d been distributing illegal materials, or whether she even had a direct motive to incite anything whatsoever. And then, all of a sudden, everything became as clear as day: the prosecutor declared that the ex-director had lined the library’s shelves with forbidden books, even though there isn’t a word about this in any of the thirteen volumes of the case file.

“We believe that this case has long since left the legal domain and entered a political one”

“We believe that this case has long since left the legal domain and entered a political one, and we think it a great shame that someone is deliberately attempting to draw the court into politics,” said lawyer Ivan Pavlov. “The charges are vague and amorphous from beginning to end. If they were to make them more concrete, I believe the whole case would simply crumble way. That the court is refusing to recognise this fact seems strange to us, which is putting it mildly.”

The next court session is scheduled for November 23. Natalya Sharina remains under house arrest.

This article was first published in Novaya Gazeta