Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s reflections on vengeance, forgiveness and lustration (and the future of Vladimir Putin …), made during a speech at London’s Open Russia Club on February 18, provoked a lively response from various members of the audience.

“The discussion catalysed by my remarks on the granting of political immunity to opponents who haven’t personally committed any criminal offence, serves to underscore the relevance of this issue for certain of my potential allies; a detailed exposition of the issue is therefore required.

“1. I plan to play a significant role in the changing of the regime, and am already assembling fellow-thinkers for future collaborative endeavours. This is precisely why I am expounding my views, which I shall seek to put into practice and to defend. People need to decide who they’re for.

“2. As I understand it, the ultimate goal for any regime is to ensure dependability and security via the mechanisms of a state governed by the rule of law. The state’s laws must be legitimate, and their execution unconditional.

An independent judiciary and universal human rights safeguards are sine qua non requirements for me.

“3. An independent judiciary and universal human rights safeguards are sine qua non requirements for me. Judicial independence hinges on the right of any defendant to a jury trial. A criminal sentence cannot be imposed in the absence of fair and just legal proceedings.

“4. Unshakeable human rights safeguards will ensure sufficient protection from political persecution. As far as it depends on me, I will not allow these safeguards to be violated beyond the domain of military action (if any such ensues).

“5. It is necessary to distinguish between criminal responsibility for specific crimes, and overall political responsibility for crimes committed by the regime. The overall political responsibility shouldered by the president, prime minister et al (for Kursk, for Beslan, for the Nord-Ost siege, for the Donbass war, for MH17, and so forth) does not simply translate in to criminal responsibility, until personal guilt has been established by an independent court (which is far from easy to accomplish and requires a great deal of time and resources).

“6. In a huge country dominated by mutual grievances, and one where a significant chunk of society has been in the employ of the current regime for decades, total lustration is possible only in the wake of a civil war, which I intend to avoid.

“7. As a humane alternative to criminal prosecution, it may be possible to ban from office particular regime figures suspected of having committed a criminal offence. As for what ethical requirements should apply to individuals seeking public office in the future – well, that’s a separate topic.

Total confiscation is unacceptable, as this would undermine the institution of private property.

“8. Public assets illegally transferred into private hands as a result of corrupt deals must be returned, following the requisite legal proceedings or on the basis of an amnesty. Total confiscation is unacceptable, as this would undermine the institution of private property.

“9. The amnesty may be subject to a preliminary agreement regarding the bloodless replacement of the current regime. It would appear that a trial of the regime, and of key figures within the regime accused of criminal offences, is now inevitable.

“10. Laws passed by concrete individuals for the specific purpose of avoiding liability – and passed, moreover, in their own self-interest, and in a manner incongruous with the prevailing legal norms of democratic countries – will undoubtedly be declared null and void, alongside analogous pseudo-laws.

“And finally: if you, who have such a score to settle with the current Russian regime that you’re prepared to lay down your very life for the sake of revenge, you can always attempt to realise your intentions (either before or after the regime is replaced) – and then pay for your actions in a court of law. That’s a path any “avenger” may go down. But we mustn’t sit back and incite others to lay down their lives in pursuit of such a cause. That would be unconscionable.

Dmitry Gudkov: “I agree with Mikhail Khodorkovsky when he says that the president and former elite should not be prosecuted.”

“I would even consider an amnesty in respect of a whole gamut of crimes, whether economic or otherwise, but with the exception of brazen criminal offences (miscarriages of justice, as in the Ildar Dadin case, the murder of Nemtsov). I understand that it’s difficult to agree with this position immediately: you do, after all, want to exact punishment and restore justice, but…

“But then no regime change would actually ever happen. Just think how desperately these people are going to be defending themselves if they’re know they’re facing reprisals as soon as they’ve left office. Not only will they not be ‘coming out to talk,’ they’ll be scared of even peeping out for a second.”

Boris Vishnevsky. “The only guarantee the elite should enjoy is the guarantee of a fair trial.”

“State Duma deputy Dmitry Gudkov has backed Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s suggestion that the president, prime minister and former elite should not be prosecuted after the current regime is replaced, and that “forgiveness” should take the place of lustration.

“Just think how desperately these people are going to be defending themselves if they know they’re facing reprisals as soon as they’ve left office. Аnd because we need to carry out reforms in the country rather than busy ourselves with the settling of scores, it is necessary to ensure that one elite is replaced by another in the full knowledge that there won’t be any need to fight for their lives. And we have to offer our current leaders the following: a guarantee of their safety, in return for a peaceful transition of power.”

“With all due respect to Dmitry, I cannot agree with him. Firstly, lustration-free reforms have already been carried out in Russia – and with well-known results.”

Roman Dobrokhotov. “The trial of Vladimir Putin (a response to Khodorkovsky)”

“Khodorkovsky does not deny that any crimes that may have been committed by the president must be investigated, and that the question of guilt must be determined in court.

“This raises the following question: which of the charges brought against the president might potentially entail criminal prosecution, and which ones would not?

“First of all, you can immediately forget about any charges linked to Putin’s activities prior to his election as president – during his time in the St Petersburg administration, for example (connections to the Tambov criminal syndicate, embezzlement, money laundering, etc.). The limitation period has now passed in all these cases.”