On Friday 18th May the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed the appeal of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev. The decision to dismiss the complaint was handed down on 15th May; however, the legal teams of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev were informed about it only three days later.

The decree signed by the Judge Voronov of the Supreme Court of Russia stated that, “There are no reasons for withdrawal or change of court’s decisions.”
It is important to note that at first the verdict was posted on the official site of the Supreme Court of Russia. The surnames of the witnesses were blacked out with an electronic highlighter along with the cost of the deal, the companies’ names and even the cost in roubles of the oil per ton. Later, the verdict had disappeared from the site altogether.

Voronov is also the only Judge of the Supreme Court who is a member of the Military Board, which means that he is a military judge.

On 24th February 2012 Khodorkovsky and Lebedev’s lawyers filed a joint complaint against the verdict of Judge Danilkin and acts of the Moscow City Court legalising this verdict. The complaint pointed out the main flaws of the prosecution: Yukos’ subsidiaries (from which Khodorkovsky and Lebedev “stole” the oil) and provided the official proof of revenues and sales of oil in 2000-2003 showing no shortages. Such documents demonstrated that there were no “victims” as well as no theft. It didn’t have any impact on the outcome of the case which was explained by the authors of the complaint. In order to compensate for these inconsistencies, the investigation built up the conviction on “lost profits”- so that the ‘daughter companies’ could have earned more but didn’t due to the actions of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev.

Former managers of the Yukos’ subsidiaries denied the facts of the oil theft, shortages or any “lost profits” but, nonetheless the court “didn’t agree” with them, referring to their “lack of information”.

The authors of the complaint were asking for a cancellation of the verdict, but the Supreme Court, namely Judge Voronov, ruled in the favour of Judge Danilkin and others and upheld their verdict.

“Even after a brief skim of the document signed by the military Judge (!) Voronov and published today, but backdated, one is left in no doubt: it is impossible to comment on this document both in terms of the law and according to the criteria established by the same law”- comments Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s lawyer Vadim Kluvgant.

Lawyers comment in full on the Supreme Court refusal to grant their supervisory appeal against the verdict.

BFM.ru, 18.05.2012

“Why was such a decision made? This questions should be addressed to those who made it,” Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s lawyer Vadim Klyuvgant told BFM.ru. “But I have reasons to doubt that a Supreme Court judge exercising his authority freely and independently could have written what is written in this document. And in general, all of this once again looks like a special operation, even as concerns how this decision was released. Because as recently as 1pm today the Supreme Court web-site contained no information, and then around 3pm information appeared dated the 15th [of May]. That is, the information posted was three days old.”

The lawyer also pointed out that the decision was made with violation of the deadline. “Even in terms of the release there was no transparency or clarity. By law, they should have considered [the appeal] within a month. All of this says that it was not the law that was at work here, as sadly as it sounds, but completely different mechanisms,” summarised Klyuvgant. He admitted that he had not yet studied the judge’s judgment in detail. “But it is clear in advance that it justifies the arbitrariness that is already clear to the entire world and to all more or less competent people,” said Klyuvgant. “If they found the verdict to be lawful and well-grounded and did not even find it possible to open supervisory proceedings, it goes without saying that this is mutual cover-up. Nothing more than that.”

Platon Lebedev’s lawyer Vladimir Krasnov said that he was dumbfounded by the decision of the Supreme Court judge. “I am full of emotions. This is horrible,” he said to BFM.ru. The lawyer believes that the judgment will “go down in history”. “This document can only be commented on using terminology from the criminal and criminal-procedural codes. Because this is a prime example of unscrupulous and malicious ignoring of the law. I have nothing else to say about it,” Krasnov added. He called the part of the document concerning the sentence “the most outstanding” one. The lawyers noted that under the law, the Supreme Court was obligated to reduce the sentence in view of the amendments to the Criminal Code adopted last December, if not repeal the verdict completely. However, the court did not do this, but at the same time agreed that the Moscow City Court correctly reduced the sentence for the businessmen by half a year. Let us remind you that the cassation board took into account the amendments that were in force in May 2011, when the appeal of the convicts against the verdict was heard.

“In my opinion, the Supreme Court creates a very dangerous precedent”, Krasnov concluded. “In sum, this is a document that confirms not only that something is rotten in the State of Denmark but that everything will stay the same with the arrival of the new old president. Or will be even worse.” The lawyer called the judgment of the Supreme Court judge “a verdict for Russian justice”.

The lawyers are not yet saying what actions they are going to take in the nearest future.

“For nine years, Khodorkovsky and Lebedev have not surrendered; there are no grounds to assume that after this decision they will suddenly start crying and asking the guy to forgive them”, Vladimir Krasnov noted with irony.

Radio Liberty, 18.05.2012
“In my opinion it is not an accident that this document should appear now. Obviously, our judges, even the most supreme ones, waited for the final movement of eyebrows from the person who has been steering this case for as long as it exists,” believes Platon Lebedev’s lawyer Vladimir Krasnov.

Kommersant, 19.05.2012
“There are two routes remaining for us now,” explained Mr Klyuvgant, “to file a request to open supervisory proceedings on the appeal to the Presidium of the Supreme Court or directly to its Chairman, Vyacheslav Lebedev.”