THE SECOND TRIAL OF MIKHAIL B.

KHODORKOVSKY
Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky was arrested in October 2003 and sentenced in 2005 to an 8-year prison term for alleged fraud and tax evasion. In February 2007, when the former Yukos Oil Company chief had become eligible for release on parole, new charges of embezzlement and money laundering were brought against him. The second trial based on that indictment began in March 2009. Khodorkovsky and his co-accused business partner Platon L. Lebedev pleaded not guilty, while emphasizing that the charges against them were incomprehensible and unexplained. After 20 months of grave procedural violations throughout the trial, on December 27, 2010, both Khodorkovsky and Lebedev were found guilty by Moscows Khamovnichesky Court. On May 24, 2011, the Moscow City Court rejected the appeal lodged by Khodorkovsky and Lebedev against the Khamovnichesky Court verdict. With just months remaining before completion of their current prison terms, their overall sentences were extended to a total of 13 years, pushing their scheduled release from 2011 to 2016. The charges in the second trial were based on allegations that are incongruous with those of the first case against Khodorkovsky and Lebedev as well as the tax cases against Yukos. On one hand, the authorities imposed grossly punitive taxes on oil sold and accounted for by Yukos; on the other hand, the same oil produced by Yukos over a period of six years is alleged not to have been sold by Yukos but rather to have been embezzled by Khodorkovsky and Lebedev, with laundering of the proceeds. The trial was widely seen as a failure of President Dmitry A. Medvedevs pledge to end legal nihilism in Russia. The guilty verdict sent a damaging message to the Russian people, investors, foreign governments and international tribunals that the country is not ready to change. The outcome was resoundingly condemned by the international community, which saw the verdict as severely undercutting the countrys prospects for modernisation. KEY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE SECOND TRIAL COURT FAILED TO ANNUL CASE AFTER INVESTIGATORY ABUSES In the pre-trial investigatory phase, the defense catalogued a series of severe abuses of the Russian criminal justice system in the new case, and asserted that these abuses were so numerous and so severe as to be irremediable. Facing charges that were both factually and legally untenable, on March 6, 2009 the defendants petitioned to terminate the proceedings. On March 17, 2009, the court summarily rejected the petition and scheduled opening hearings for a new trial to commence on March 31, 2009. The court made no effort to cure the obvious procedural violations and allowed the case to proceed despite the investigation marred by illegalities.

CASE ASSIGNED TO COURT LACKING JURISDICTION Moscows Khamovnichesky Court in fact lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. None of the alleged acts was committed, initiated or concluded in the jurisdiction of the court. The legally-prescribed procedure that could have permitted a change in territorial jurisdiction to the Khamovnichesky Court was not followed, meaning that the court lacked competence prescribed by law for adjudicating the case. Despite numerous objections by the defence and attempts to recuse the judge, the court proceeded with the trial in violation of Article 47(1) of the Russian Constitution and Articles 6(1) and 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The issuance of a verdict by an unlawfully composed court is an unconditional ground for its repeal, directly prescribed by the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure.

BAFFLING CHARGES UNEXPLAINED Since the indictment was first issued in February 2007, in stark violation of the law, all pleas by the defendants and motions by their counsel to have the charges explained were rebuffed by investigators, prosecutors and judicial authorities. When Khodorkovsky entered his not guilty plea in April 2009, he emphasized that the charges were incomprehensible to him despite asking in vain for explanations and clarifications for over two years. Nowhere does the indictment set forth the elements of any alleged crime or succeed in connecting any specific evidence to the allegations. On the contrary, the charges are an artifice of criminalization of lawful and widespread business practices, ignoring legal and factual realities ranging from the fundamental definition of crime to the highly regulated structure and operation of verticallyintegrated energy companies. Throughout the trial, the judge brushed aside requests for explanations of

For more information on the second trial, please visit http://www.khodorkovskycenter.com/resources.

the allegations, claiming he has no power over the prosecution to compel them to explain the charges. As a result, the defense had to fight against multiple mutually exclusive allegations. Even the subject matter of the embezzlement charges was confused by the prosecution who could not make up their minds whether oil, oil proceeds or rights to oil sale contracts were allegedly embezzled by the defendants. Prosecutors never explained the method, time or place the alleged crimes were committed. THE PROSECUTIONS CASE Over the eleven-month period from April 21, 2009 to March 29, 2010, the prosecution presented the evidence intended to support its case. Yet rather than prove their case, prosecutors spent this time reading reams of seemingly random pieces of the case file, and presenting witnesses who proffered either no testimony germane to the accusations or testimony that actually contradicted the accusations. The prosecution was unable to explain any logical connection between the data they compiled or the witnesses they called, and the charges against the defendants. After having nearly a year to present their case, the prosecution showed no proof of embezzlement and no proof of money laundering despite their persistent assertions that both occurred on a grand scale.

DEFENCE EFFORTS FRUSTRATED The defence presented its case from April 5 to September 29, 2010. Through to April 30, 2010, Khodorkovsky personally presented a wide-ranging response to the charges. Yet Khodorkovskys submissions to the court and the defences subsequent efforts were exercises in frustration. Without valid legal grounds the court blocked the defence from introducing exculpatory documentary evidence, witnesses and expert testimony. Before and during the trial, investigators and prosecutors indirectly and directly threatened potential witnesses and experts to influence their testimony or to prevent them from appearing in court at all. The defendants publicly released their court submissions and extensive related materials, accessible online, demonstrating the absurdity of the judges handling of the case in the face of the failure of the prosecution to adduce evidence proving the charges.

THE COURTS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE Despite the obvious and documented impossibility of the allegations of grand-scale embezzlement and money laundering, the court ploughed through with the case rather than sending it back to prosecutors. The defendants had full confidence in their ability to exonerate themselves of the absurd charges if given adequate opportunities to do so; however the judge rejected or ignored material proof they sought to submit to the court, in favour of unsupported, erroneous or untruthful assertions by the prosecution. The judge also repeatedly ignored or unjustifiably rejected defence arguments about procedural violations, electing to be wilfully blind to the many violations that contaminated the process not only during the investigatory stage but also throughout the trial. Wrongly asserting that it is not within his purview to do so, the judge failed to exercise his authority to cure even the most egregious of the prosecutions abuses pointed out by the defence. The judges actions appeared to confirm, as insisted upon by the prosecution, that the case had effectively been closed from the outset.

HIGH-PROFILE WITNESSES UNDERMINED PROSECUTIONS CASE On May 24, 2010, Mikhail Kasyanov, former Prime Minister of Russia (from 2000-2004) appeared in court as a witness. He asserted that both the current and the previous trials of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev were politically motivated. On June 21, 2010, German Gref, the chief of Sberbank and the former Russian Minister of Economic Development and Trade (from 2000-2007) appeared in court as a witness. He stated that embezzlement of the scale Khodorkovsky and Lebedev are charged with could not have occurred without the government and his ministry detecting it. The following day, echoing Grefs evidence, Viktor Khristenko, Russias Industry and Trade Minister, testified at the trial that he is unaware of millions of tons of oil being stolen as alleged by the prosecution. Meanwhile, the defence asked the court to summon Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and other highprofile officials to testify as witnesses. The court refused to summon Prime Minister Putin, Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin and Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin to testify. In an article published in the UK Independent newspaper, Khodorkovsky outlined the questions he would have asked Putin:

For more information on the second trial, please visit http://www.khodorkovskycenter.com/resources.

Your prosecutors claim I ran Yukos not as an official chairman, but as the leader of an organised criminal group. When you discussed Yukos's problems with me, with whom did you think you were talking? Your prosecutors accuse me of stealing Yukos's production from 1998 to 2003. When you, in 2003, personally congratulated Yukos for its successes in commercial and social activities, is this what you were referring to? When you announced to the country in February 2003 that Yukos had no problems with the tax authorities, and that everything had been regulated, what taxes were you talking about, given that your prosecutors say that all the oil had been stolen? Your prosecutors say I stole Yukos's oil, while your representatives in Strasbourg [Yukos is suing Russia at the European Court of Human Rights] say Yukos sold its oil, but did not pay enough tax. Which is lying? Why is it Rosneft paid the same per tonne of production, but your tax authorities have no complaints about Rosneft?

STRICT CONDITIONS OF INCARCERATION FLOUT RECENT REFORMS From December 2006 to June 2011, Khodorkovsky and Lebedev endured harsh conditions of physical restraint imposed under pre-trial detention rules. With minimal exposure to fresh air and direct sunlight and inadequate opportunities for exercise, the pre-trial detention regime becomes extremely difficult physically and psychologically, particularly over extended periods. The situation was especially hard during Moscows 2010 heat wave, when cell temperatures hovered at 50 degrees Celsius. Pre-trial detention is considered to be an exceptional form of incarceration, which is why the judge presiding over the 2009-2010 trial had to rule every three months to extend the duration of the detention measures. The last extension expired on November 17, 2010. After that Khodorkovsky and Lebedev should have benefitted from comparatively relaxed conditions of incarceration, but they did not. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev remained in pre-trial detention until June 2011, when they were transferred from Moscow to northern Russian prison colonies after their failed May 24, 2011 appeal. Added to the 2 years spent in pre-trial detention before the end of their first trial and appeal, Khodorkovsky and Lebedev have spent a total of approximately 6 years detained under these strict conditions of isolation, compared to just approximately 1 year in the less restrictive conditions of incarceration in a penal colony to which they were sentenced. Because Khodorkovsky and Lebedev were concurrently serving their 8-year sentences handed down in 2005, the situation was described as double bars a compounded punishment not grounded in law. These detention measures were inconsistent with Russian criminal procedure law, the Russian Constitution and Russias international obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, as confirmed by Russias Constitutional Court, the Presidium of Russias Supreme Court, and the European Court of Human Rights. Furthermore, since April 2010, under amendments to Russias Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code, courts can no longer order detention as a pre-trial measure of restraint for allegations of certain economic crimes, such as those alleged against Khodorkovsky and Lebedev. The April 2010 reforms resulted from President Medvedevs efforts to make Russias criminal justice system more humane and to halt abuses by officials exploiting the criminal justice system to attack legitimate businesses. Politically it was notable that in the most high-profile and closely-watched trial in Russia, the court could so openly ignore the recently-amended governing law on the issue of pre-trial detention. This was an affront to President Medvedevs highly-publicized efforts to reform Russias criminal justice system and to address the countrys legal nihilism. Finally, on April 15, 2011, the Supreme Court of Russia handed a rare victory to Khodorkovsky and Lebedev, agreeing that the Khamovnichesky Court had acted unlawfully in prolonging their harsh pretrial detention conditions. With their trial over and their appeal just weeks away, the Supreme Courts ruling came too late to benefit Khodorkovsky and Lebedev after nearly 4 years in pre-trial detention, but it was an important moral victory and precedent for thousands of others detained in unlawful conditions in Russia. They had pursued the appeal on this issue to highlight and to oppose the widespread practice of corrupt authorities abusing powers of pre-trial detention.

THE END OF THE TRIAL: KHODORKOVSKYS FINAL WORDS TO COURT In his closing words to the court on November 2, 2010, Khodorkovsky spoke of his readiness to die for his beliefs, saying: "I am not at all an ideal person, but I am a person of ideas. For me, as for anybody, it is hard to live in jail, and I do not want to die there. But if I have to I will not hesitate. The things I believe in are worth dying for. I think I have proven this."

For more information on the second trial, please visit http://www.khodorkovskycenter.com/resources.

He went on to call for a new generation of Korolevs and Sakharovs under the protection of fair laws and independent courts that could change the country for the better and lambasted so-called patriots who so tenaciously resist any change that impacts their feeding trough. He showed his pride for the Yukos employees who stood by their principles, kept their dignity, and refused to become false witnesses despite being tortured, cut off from their families, and thrown in jail and he warned that the significance of our trial extends far beyond the scope of my fate and Platons, and even the fates of all those who have guiltlessly suffered in the course of the sweeping massacre of Yukos, those I found myself unable to protect, but about whom I remember every dayI will not be exaggerating if I say that millions of eyes throughout all of Russia and throughout the whole world are watching for the outcome of this trial. They are watching with the hope that Russia will after all become a country of freedom and of the law, where the law will be above the bureaucratic official.

PUTIN INTERVENES AS JUDGE DELIBERATES Following Khodorkovskys final words, the court was due to reconvene on December 15, 2010. Hundreds of people gathered at the court in the morning to hear Judge Viktor Danilkin read his verdict, but they arrived to find a piece of paper posted on the door, delaying the announcement of the verdict to December 27, 2010. No reason was given for the delay. Many believed the delay was to minimise attention and public reaction surrounding the case by ensuring the verdict landed between the Wests Christmas holidays and Russias extended New Years and Orthodox Christmas break. The next day, December 16, 2010, Prime Minister Putin essentially pre-empted any chance for acquittal and placed undeniable pressure on the court by stating, in response to a question on national television, that Khodorkovskys guilt had been proven and that a thief must sit in jail. The intervention was so deliberate that President Medvedev subsequently issued a statement declaring: Neither the president nor any other state official has the right to comment on this particular case before the verdict is passed.

VERDICT AND SENTENCE A DAMNING INDICTMENT ON RUSSIAN RULE OF LAW On December 27, 2010, the will of Prime Minister Putin and his associates was acknowledged by the judge as he read out his verdict and announced that both Khodorkovsky and Lebedev were guilty. On December 30, 2010, the judge sentenced them to a cumulative total of 14 years in a prison colony combined with their previous 8-year sentences amounting to exactly the duration of incarceration requested by the prosecution. The scheduled release of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev has therefore been pushed from 2011 to 2017 which will be 14 years after being arrested in 2003. Responding to the sentence, Khodorkovsky said: Lebedev and I have shown by example that you cannot count on the courts to protect you from government officials in Russia. The Churov Rule is alive and well. But we have not lost hope, nor should our friends. Khodorkovsky was referring to a statement made in 2007 by Vladimir Churov, chair of Russias Central Election Commission, who said that his first rule was that Putin is always right, and if he is not, it means I have misunderstood something. An analysis of the verdict released by the defence described the document as follows: The 689-page decision is a hodgepodge of texts setting forth unsupported factual and legal assertions that fail to validate the finding of guilt. The document is marked by obvious errors of fact and of law, unsupported leaps of logic, internal incoherencies, and major inconsistencies with the findings of other cases adjudicated by the Russian courts. Despite the closely-watched nature of the case surrounding the most high-profile prosecution in Russia, in the decision the court openly ignores applicable procedural and substantive laws as well as fundamental tenets of economics, established facts and common senseThe verdict is an embarrassment to the Russian judiciary and to those state officials who seek to portray it as a valid act of justice.

POST TRIAL REVELATIONS In an interview with Gazeta.ru released on February 14, 2011, Natalia Vasilyeva, an aide to Judge Viktor Danilkin and press secretary to the Khamovnichesky Court, spoke out about the guilty verdict in the second criminal case against Khodorkovsky and Lebedev. Vasilyeva stated that Judge Danilkins first draft of the verdict was reviewed and rejected by outside judicial officials, who replaced the text with their own, and that Judge Danilkin had to consult with those officials throughout the two-year trial. The Economist described Vasilyevas widely-reported comments as explosive, and quoted her as saying that everyone in the judicial community understands perfectly that this is a rigged case, a fixed trial. Judge Danilkin denied Vasilyevas account. According to Vasilyeva, the outside judicial officials who had Judge Danilkin under their total control are based at the Moscow City Court led by Judge Olga Yegorova, who oversaw the first

For more information on the second trial, please visit http://www.khodorkovskycenter.com/resources.

Khodorkovsky-Lebedev trial and who has been broadly accused of interference in the independence of lower court judges. It is Judge Yegorovas court that will be hearing the Khodorkovsky-Lebedev appeal. On February 21, 2011, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev called for an investigation into Vasilyevas statements, saying: I fully trust her. People cant stand it anymore she saw what was happening with her own eyes. He also spoke of the clear political nature of the Khodorkovsky trial, saying: Im really dismayed by many things in Khodorkovskys case, because it lacks a fair legal assessment. Politics shouldnt interfere [in the judicial process] but in this case it did, I think. On April 15, 2011, a second official who worked at the court during the trial corroborated Vasilyevas account. Igor Kravchenko, a former court administrator, stated in an interview with Novaya Gazeta that Judge Danilkin, speaking about the Khodorkovsky-Lebedev case, had admitted: I dont decide this. Referring to outside judicial officials who had no lawful basis to interfere in the trial outcome, the judge was quoted by Kravchenko as having said: Whatever they say, thats what will be. Kravchenko stated that Danilkin consulted with the Moscow City Court whenever questions arose on how to handle the case, and the judge frequently visited that court during the trial. On June 20, 2011, the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation rejected a request, lodged on May 17, 2011 by Khodorkovsky and his lawyers, that a criminal investigation be opened into those responsible for perpetrating and carrying through the second criminal case against him, including investigators, prosecutors and Judge Danilkin. On June 21, 2011, the three Moscow City Court judges who ruled on the Khodorkovsky-Lebedev appeal held an unprecedented news conference to justify their ruling. These coordinated actions by the Investigative Committee and the panel of judges sought to discredit the assertions made by whistleblowers Vasilyeva and Kravchenko.

APPEAL The first stage of the appeal was filed on December 31, 2010, supplemented with additional filings in early 2011 after the 689-page verdict was fully assessed by defence team. The courts record of the trial was a key element in the appeal process as the only official record of the proceedings that can be cited by the defence. Although the trial hearings ended in November 2010, the court did not make the complete official record of the proceedings available to the defence until March 2011, well after the December 2010 verdict and sentencing. This long delay casts into doubt whether the official record had been completed before the end of the trial, or whether it was really even needed by the judge in the preparation of a preordained verdict. The court had refused to make official audio recordings of the proceedings, despite defence concerns that the written record eventually produced by the court risked being heavily censored On April 25, 2011, the defence filed 1,060 pages of objections cataloguing the extensive inaccuracies and omissions in the official record of the trial released by the court in March. Among the objections: important motions by the defence were omitted from the trial transcripts; numerous admonitions and criticisms the judge directed to the prosecution during the trial were wiped from the record; statements spoken by the prosecution were misattributed to the defence; and non-objections by the prosecution were converted into objections. Judge Viktor Danilkin apparently breezed through and dismissed these defence objections in less than one day, standing by his official record of the proceedings and immediately sending the case to the Moscow City Court for scheduling of the appeal hearing. The appeal set forth irrefutable grounds for reversal of the lower courts verdict and for termination of the case. The core argument to set aside the contested verdict was that it did not identify any acts by the appellants that constituted criminal conduct. On that basis alone, the only outcome of the appeal if it were to be decided solely on an independent application of the law to the facts would have been acquittals for Khodorkovsky and Lebedev in the second case against them, clearing the way for their scheduled release in 2011. Although the trial courts failure to identify acts constituting embezzlement or laundering was a sufficient basis to reverse the verdict and to terminate the case, the appellants supplemented their appeal with clear examples of prejudicial due process violations. The trial court committed numerous fundamental and irreparable violations of Russian criminal and procedural law, culminating in a defective, unjust and unlawful verdict. The appellants further noted that the verdict contradicted rulings in prior Yukos cases in Russian courts as well as the Russian Federations defence at the European Court of Human Rights. Without any convincing arguments in response, on May 24, 2011, the Moscow City Court nonetheless rejected the appeal lodged by Khodorkovsky and Lebedev against the Khamovnichesky Court verdict of December 27, 2010. With the rejection of their appeal their scheduled release was pushed from 2011 to 2016. Khodorkovskys speech to the Moscow City Court was quoted around the world. He stated: o in what dusty cellar did they dig up that poisonous Stalinist spider who wrote this drivel? What kind of long-term investments can one talk about with such justice? No modernization will succeed without a purging of these cellars.

For more information on the second trial, please visit http://www.khodorkovskycenter.com/resources.

There is no way to correct this verdictI have nothing to talk about with criminals, even those in a judges robe. And indeed there is no reason for me to. I do not need mercy from criminals.

TRANSFER TO PRISON COLONIES IN NORTHERN RUSSIA On June 21, 2011, it was confirmed that Khodorkovsky had been sent to Penal Colony No. 7, near the town of Segezha in the region of Karelia, bordering Finland. The colony is located on the west coast of Lake Vygozero, on the route of the White Sea-Baltic Canal. The canal was constructed in the Soviet era by forced labour of gulag inmates, during which over 10,000 prisoners died according to official figures. Today, Penal Colony No. 7 has a capacity of 1,342 prisoners. Inmates at the Segezha FBU IR-7 penal colony are assigned to work daily full-time shifts in the plastics shop, wood shop, metal workshop or the prison farm. RIA-Novosti reported that Khodorkovskys initial assignment was to a maintenance team repairing toilets and windows. Platon Lebedev was sent to Penal Colony 14 in Velsk, in the Arkhangelsk Region, adjacent to Karelia. Like Khodorkovsky, Lebedev has been assigned to a regime of prison labour.

PAROLE DISMISSED BY MOSCOW COURT With their prison terms extended to 2016, in May 2011 Khodorkovsky and Lebedev submitted requests for release on parole to Moscows Preobrazhensky Court, having served more than half of their cumulative 13-year sentences since their arrests in 2003. Rather than decide upon the requests, the Moscow court engaged in delay tactics and ultimately rejected the submissions once Khodorkovsky and Lebedev were transferred out of the capital, forcing them to reapply for parole in the local courts close to their new penal colonies. These and any future requests for parole are broadly expected to be rejected, despite the eligibility for parole under Russian law.

PRESIDENTIAL HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL EXAMINING KHODORKOVSKY-LEBEDEV CASE In light of the significant national implications of the Khodorkovsky-Lebedev case, the Presidential Council of the Russian Federation for Civil Society and Human Rights announced on February 1, 2011 that it would proceed with an independent expert working group assessment of the second Khodorkovsky-Lebedev verdict. The participants in the expert working group are to examine compliance with Russian and international norms and the legal and economic impact of the judiciarys handling of the case. The observations and conclusions of the expert working group will have no legally binding effect. Council member Tamara Morshchakova, a former justice of the Russian Constitutional Court who has publicly criticized the failings of her countrys legal system, stressed that the experts conclusions will have no direct legal consequences on the verdict. Rather, she said, the findings will identify trends in judicial practice and form the basis for recommended changes to existing legislation on economic crimes. The expert working group is expected to make its findings public in the autumn of 2011.

For more information on the second trial, please visit http://www.khodorkovskycenter.com/resources.

INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT The case of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev has generated widespread support from around the world against their ongoing persecution. Business leaders and investors question the merit of the attack on Russias most successful and transparent company; public officials and international organizations note the political nature of the trial; human rights advocates and NGOs decry the abject trampling of Khodorkovskys and Lebedevs rights and the torture and mistreatment of their former Yukos colleagues. The recent verdict and failed appeal have been resoundingly condemned. Below are words from across the world commenting on the persecution of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev: AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL On May 24, 2011, following the rejection of the appeal against the December 2010 conviction, Amnesty International declared Khodorkovsky and Lebedev to be prisoners of conscience. For several years now these two men have been trapped in a judicial vortex that answers to political not legal considerations, said Nicola Duckworth, Amnesty International's Director for Europe and Central Asia. Prior to the failed appeal, Ms Duckworth had stated: "The Russian authorities' consistent disregard for due process in this trial only strengthens the impression that this second round of convictions has been politically motivated. All evidence points to a pattern of political motives and interference having obstructed justice in this case. The Moscow City Court must overturn this unfair conviction, to restore faith in the independence of Russia's legal system". Salil Shetty, Secretary General of Amnesty International, had stated: "Russia must overturn unfair conviction of Khodorkovsky!" HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH Rachel Denber, Director at Human Rights Watch, on December 30, 2010: "The sentence is a blow to the rule of law in Russia...Everything about the charges and the trial indicates that the case against [Khodorkovsky] is political." FREEDOM HOUSE In Freedom Houses January 2011 Report on rights across the world, Khodorkovsky is referenced as an example of Russias backwards slide on democratic reform. Arch Puddington, Freedom Houses Director of Research, said In Russia, an especially discouraging year was punctuated by the conviction and sentencing of regime critic and former oil magnate Mikhail Khodorkovsky on his second round of charges, which will force him to remain behind bars despite legal proceedings that were widely dismissed as fraudulent...In Russia, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin publicly declared that Khodorkovsky belonged in jail even as the court was nearing a verdict. UNITED STATES President Barack Obama, in a July 5, 2009 interview in Moscow with Novaya Gazeta, stated: "It does seem odd to me that these new charges, which appear to be a repackaging of the old charges, should be surfacing now, years after these two individuals have been in prison and as they become eligible for parole." Although he said it would be improper to interfere in Russia's legal processes, Obama affirmed his support for President Medvedev's "courageous initiative" to strengthen rule of law in Russia including "making sure that all those accused of crimes have the right to a fair trial and that the courts are not used for political purposes." US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated on December 27, 2010: "Today's conviction in the second trial of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev on charges of embezzlement and money laundering raises serious questions about selective prosecution -- and about the rule of law being overshadowed by political considerations. This and similar cases have a negative impact on Russia's reputation for fulfilling its international human rights obligations and improving its investment climate. We welcome President Medvedev's modernization plans, but their fulfilment requires the development of a climate where due process and judicial independence are respected. We will monitor the appeals process." Vice President Joe Biden, speaking at Moscow State University on March 10, 2011, expressed concerns about human rights, the court system, and civil society in Russia and in particular about the perception of corruption as an impediment to business investment. Citing the Khodorkovsky case, Vice President Biden stated that no amount of cheerleading would lure back wronged and nervous investors. Mark Toner, US State Department spokesman, stated on May 25, 2011: "The denial of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev's appeals, upholding long prison terms, affirms our concerns about serious due process violations and the use of the legal system for improper ends. Russia cannot nurture a modern economy without also nurturing an independent judiciary that serves as an instrument for furthering economic growth and modernization and ensuring equal treatment under the law. Russia has made great gains in the past decades to modernize its economy, to become a more modern state. But we've always said that human
For more information on the second trial, please visit http://www.khodorkovskycenter.com/resources.

rights issues are part of our bilateral relationship with Russia and we're not going to shy away from discussing those." EUROPEAN UNION EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission Baroness Catherine Ashton stated on May 24, 2011: The Khodorkovsky and Lebedev case has become emblematic for the lack of confidence in how the law is applied in Russia today. President Medvedevs decision to examine this case in the Presidential Human Rights Council is welcome. However, the EU calls on Russia to demonstrate its determination to establish a society based on respect for the rule of law. For genuine political, economic, and societal modernisation to take place, reforms should be undertaken in Russia toward establishing a transparent, independent and reliable judicial system, which inspires confidence and is free from political interference. President of the European Parliament Jerzy Buzek, on May 25, 2011, commented on the failure of the Khodorkovsky-Lebedev appeal the previous day: "I am very disappointedThis case was marred with alleged violations of due process and fair trial from the very start. It shows unfortunately that there is still a very long path for Russia to take to improve its rule of law and protection of human rights. Words should be followed by concrete acts. Modernisation of Russia can be successful only if it is based on establishment of a functioning system of rule of law, independent and impartial judiciary and a strong civil society. I would like to express my deep solidarity with Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Platon Lebedev and their families." During a visit to Moscow in 2010, Buzek raised the Khodorkovsky case with President Medvedev and other Russian authorities.

UNITED KINGDOM UK Foreign Secretary William Hague stated on December 30, 2010: "I am deeply concerned by the implications of this case concerning Mikhail Khodorkovsky for confidence in how the law is applied in Russia. The UK calls on Russia to respect the principles of justice and apply the rule of law in a non-discriminatory and proportional way. In the absence of this the UK and much of the international community will regard such a trial as a retrograde step." Chair of the UK Foreign Affairs Committee Richard Ottaway, on December 27, 2010 stated: "I am dismayed by reports that Mikhail Khodorkovsky has been found guilty of further charges of embezzlement. By all accounts, the rule of law in the conduct of this trial has been abandoned. This has serious implications for the confidence of overseas investors." Chair of the All Parliamentary Party Russia Group Chris Bryant stated on December 30, 2010: It is very disappointing that the Judge delivered the verdict exactly as the prosecutors requested and that Khodorkovsky was given the maximum sentence allowed for these ludicrous, trumped up charges. Medvedev and Putin have failed the key test which would have demonstrated the independence of Russia's criminal justice system." Minister for Europe David Lidington, on May 24, 2011 stated: The failure of Mr Khodorkovsky and Mr Lebedevs appeal has again highlighted concerns about the application of the rule of law in Russia. The UK believes that Russias people are best served by a fair and impartial judicial system which protects the legal rights of all individuals and ensures international investor confidence. FRANCE The French Ministry Of Foreign Affairs released a statement on December 30, 2010 stating: "We call on the Russian authorities to take full account of the concerns the conduct of this trial raised with regard to the necessary affirmation of the values in Russia that are part of our common heritage: rule of law, respect for fundamental rights and freedoms...As pointed out by President Dmitry Medvedev himself, the consolidation of the rule of law is a condition necessary for the success of the modernization of Russia." Former French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, on December 30, 2010 stated: "[This trial is important] notably for human rights promoters in Russia and elsewhere, and for all people attached to the principles of the rule of law." French Ambassador for Human Rights Franois Zimeray, on May 24, 2011, said of the appeal: It is a terrible mistake Former Minister of European Affairs and former member of the French Constitutional Court Nolle Lenoir, also on May 24, 2011 stated: "It was an opportunity for the Russian judiciary system to prove its independence; it has been wasted." GERMANY Chancellor Angela Merkel, on December 30, 2010 stated: "I am disappointed with the verdict against Mikhail Khodorkovsky and the harsh sentence. The impression remains that political motives played a role in this process. This contradicts Russia's repeatedly expressed intention to follow the road to rule of law."

For more information on the second trial, please visit http://www.khodorkovskycenter.com/resources.

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, on December 27, 2010 stated: "The way the trial has been conducted is extremely dubious and a step backward on the road toward a modernisation of the country. It is in the interest of our Russian partners to take these concerns seriously and to stand up for the rule of law, democracy and human rights." Federal Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, on December 30, 2010 stated: "The fact that the Kremlin critic was convicted again for the same facts, for which he was already seven years in prison, is absolutely unacceptable. The announcements of Russian politicians to respect principles of the rule of law in the future have proved to be meaningless. Verdict and sentence were clearly politically motivated." Human Rights Commissioner of the Federal Government Markus Loening stated, on December 27, 2010: "[I am] shocked and personally deeply affected." In Europe, it must be considered now "how, in future, we can better support Russian civil society, the people who fight for civil rights, democracy and rule of law." The trial, the conviction and the extent of the sentence "undermine the confidence in Russia's modernization towards rule of law." Marieluise Beck, Green MEP and Jrgen Trittin, Chairman of the Parliamentary Group of the Green Party in Germany, on May 24, 2011 said of the appeal: "The absurd verdict spoken in December 2010 documents the legal nihilism which is deplored by President Medvedev and was now basically confirmed by higher authorities. The reduction of the sentence of one year is just cosmetics.... Prime Minister Putin and his entourage in the Kremlin won. They apparently fear a Mikhail Khodorkovsky in freedom so much that they are up to every perversion of justice." Dr Andreas Schockenhoff, Deputy Chairman of the German CDU/CSU Parliamentary Group stated, on May 24, 2011: "Today's decision basically maintains the impression that it is a politically motivated trial. The coming into force of the verdict is a setback for the effort towards more rule of law in Russia. It contradicts President Medvedev's endeavour for modernisation and his goal to strengthen an independent Russian justice system.

ITALY President of the UDC Party and former President of the Lower Chamber, Hon. Pier Ferdinando Casini in an open letter to Prime Minister Berlusconi, on May 23, 2009 wrote: "...Respect for human rights and the right of defence in Russia represents an indicator of the degree of democracy of the country that cannot be underestimated. I urge you again, therefore, to take action personally and concretely, choosing the path of justice and legal certainty. The economic and trade relations are important and Russia is certainly a strategic partner for our country, especially on the energy front. But the respect and protection of human dignity have a much higher value. We know your personal friendship with the Russian Prime Minister and with President Medvedev. You openly talked with pride about this special relationship on several occasions and I believe this will help you to ask the Kremlin, the Prime Minister and especially President Medvedev to concretely and transparently commit to respect human rights and the right to defence for Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Platon Lebedev and for all Russian citizens. Mr. President, it is time that you follow the indication of the Parliament; it is time that the Government take a strong position towards this worrying ruling. I am sure that taking this commitment will honour you as Prime Minister and as political leader as well as it will honour Italy." On December 30, 2010 he said of the sentence: The new sentence to fourteen years' imprisonment for Mikhail Khodorkovsky highlights the extent of the political persecution against the former tycoon. Sentences of this kind tell us how far Russia is from modernizing its judicial system and ensuring respect for human rights and democracy. Every democrat must express concern and alarm for the numerous violations of the rule of law and legality in Russia. Therefore, following the protest coming from the Governments of many democratic countries, including Germany, France and the United States, our Government should also express indignation along with the international community. We thus expect that a clear and unequivocal statement arrives from Palazzo Chigi (i.e. the Government)." POLAND Spokesman for the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs Marcin Bosacki, on December 27, 2010 stated: "The course of Mikhail Khodorkovsky's trial is an evidence of where the rule of law is in Russia. This evidence obviously doesn't look too good" Poland and its EU partners "will have a lot more to say on this trial, once we know the final sentence and read its substantiation." Adviser to the Polish President, Professor Tomasz Nacz, also on December 27, 2010 stated: "I think we have to talk openly about those issues...We can't give up our judgment on the situation in Russia and must talk openly and critically about things that aren't democratic. The trial of Khodorkovsky wasn't an example of democratic conduct. I think that in Poland nobody has any doubts this is a bad sign for democracy in Russia. President of Poland Bronislaw Komorowski was fighting for freedom, values freedom, so its difficult for him not to think critically of this kind of situation. Even if he doesn't say anything, the President's critical opinion is an obvious result of his biography and system of values."

For more information on the second trial, please visit http://www.khodorkovskycenter.com/resources.