Interviewer: Well Lev, then you... will continue.

Lev: Aha.

Interviewer: So, if possible, let's go back a bit specifically to the commission.

Lev: Uh-huh.

Interviewer: So, a public commission was created.

Lev: Uh-huh.

Interviewer: And... well, a bit then if you can tell about these deputies who participated.

Lev: All deputies were from democratic factions, liberal factions, to be more precise. From SPS - Union of Right Forces, Nemtsov was at the head of the faction. And Yabloko - Yavlinsky's faction. All those who joined the commission. Well, it can be clarified that during the commission there were various contradictions within the factions for completely different reasons, and Sergei Nikolayevich Yushenkov, Viktor Pokhmelkin and Yuly Rybakov, the three of them, left SPS, became independent deputies. But that's not fundamental. At the time... because there was an attempt to create an alternative party, Liberal Russia.

Interviewer: I see. And they... compared to... if... well, you already said that it was not possible to create a parliamentary commission.

Lev: It wasn't possible.

Interviewer: And let's... Lev, you say it now, you said the wrong number of deputies then. Start with which of the deputies joined the commission.

Lev: Ah, yes, once more... five.

Interviewer: Five, you forgot Mikhail Iola then.

Lev: Yes, well, I already explained this before filming. Well, let's repeat it again.

Interviewer: Before filming, but you didn't say it on camera.

Lev: Let's repeat.

Interviewer: Please, you said it badly then. Well, it might be... well, let's be brief.

Lev: Well, let me repeat in one phrase, one phrase, yes. The public commission, which was eventually created headed by Sergei Adamovich Kovalyov, included only five deputies: Sergei Adamovich Kovalyov, Sergei Nikolayevich Yushenkov, Viktor Pokhmelkin, Yuri Shchekochikhin and Yuly Rybakov. All of them were from... were from the Union of Right Forces and Yabloko factions.

Interviewer: And compared to the official parliamentary commission, what... well, what power does such a public commission have? It's a less formal option.

Lev: Of course, but it has a kind of double power. It relies on powers, on the one hand it relies on the powers of deputies. That is, every deputy, he still possesses certain powers greater than an ordinary citizen. This helped. This makes it more productive after all, obliges, for example, to answer within a certain period, to provide information, up to information containing state secrets. An ordinary person cannot, for example, request a task plan, for example, what we talked about, conducting exercises in Ryazan.

Interviewer: Well, in principle, then, this commission had some powers.

Lev: Of course. Even if there wasn't a single deputy there, according to the Constitution, the activity of public associations is free. Citizens participate in the management of the state. Interference in the activities of public associations is not allowed. And citizens have the right to appeal to state authorities with their statements, to express their political position openly, publicly. All this together, all this gives rights to each citizen individually, and even more so to citizens gathered in some public association, regardless of whether it is formally recognized as a legal entity or not. That is, citizens have rights. Another thing is that the authorities have long been accustomed to violating the rights of citizens and are not very worried about it. But a deputy, after all, you can't not give a deputy an answer at all. But you can send an answer that will be a formal refusal of what he is asking for, of course. Which is what we often received.

Interviewer: Good. And how do you think, all these deputies, they came to this from what considerations? They came... they already had a certain feeling, a certain concept of what actually happened, or did they just approach it with an open mind and just wanted to clarify?

Lev: Well, of course there was. Because in 2002, what was happening in the country, what the vector of the country's movement was, was already clear. But regarding the explosions, we wanted an honest investigation. So that it wasn't conducted by us, but by the authorities: the prosecutor's office, investigative bodies, courts. Because we cannot replace them. The main task of the commission, in essence, was not to establish who blew up the houses. Well, we can't do that, it's not our competence. Even if we write it somewhere, it still won't be a legal fact. Even if we find someone there who tells us on camera that I received an assignment personally from Vladimir Putin or from, I don't know, personally from Nikolai Patrushev. There. Therefore, our task was to force the authorities to speak openly about it, to provide information not only to us, the commission, but also to society. And then to conduct a formal, that is, according to the whole procedure, a procedural investigation with operational measures, interrogations, searches there, well, everything that is required. And this was not, naturally, done.

Interviewer: It wasn't done.

Lev: Well, of course, yes.

Interviewer: And why? What... what hindered you?

Lev: No, as for us... we did what we could. But we didn't achieve a result, that kind of result. There was a trial of two citizens, two Karachays from Karachayevsk, residents of Karachayevsk. That's what we talked about, Adam Dekkushev and Yusuf Krymshamkhalov, possibly participating, quite possibly participating as executors, they bear a certain part of the responsibility. But, firstly, most likely only for Volgodonsk, specifically these two. And secondly, of course, they are neither the initiators of this crime, nor the leaders, nor the organizers, but part of that scheme that was... was thought out by those who organized these terrorist acts, these crimes.

Interviewer: And when... when the commission was working, did you feel that someone was specifically trying to interfere? As the expression goes, putting a spoke in the wheel. Was there such a feeling?

Lev: Yes, it was, of course, not so much opposition as sabotage. To keep silent in every possible way - that was the position. Whatever they said there, we were silent. They came to the courts, repeated there these completely formal, not based on the law, the same objections against our... our position. That's what it all boiled down to. Moreover, I told an episode yesterday with the Prosecutor General. This machine worked so flawlessly that even the Prosecutor General himself does not control, could not control his personal signature. He refused on paper, and then called and said: "I'm fine, please come, I'll give you everything." And he gave it. Well, it wasn't a decisive victory, because we wanted to get the document after all.

Interviewer: So he had to get permission to do it first.

Lev: He could take some part of the responsibility on himself. He understood that little depended on this paper. We sued not because this paper would immediately bring clarity, but simply because we wanted to receive information in full and then, based on this information, make our own conclusions. And when they told us: "No, we won't give it, because it's there... it's not provided for by our regulations of some kind." But there is the law, there is the Constitution, and the status of a deputy, and therefore here we stood for being allowed to work freely according to the law. That's basically it.

Interviewer: And those witnesses who refused to talk to you... well, you told yesterday how you came to Ryazan, and that crowd that spoke out loudly right after this event, but then by the time you arrived, they had already fallen silent and refused. Why do you think, why did they refuse?

Lev: Firstly, they were worked with. We found this out, it's absolutely certain, it could even have been assumed in advance. To each of them, to every resident of the house - the house is a single-entrance one, there aren't that many people there - representatives of either the local FSB or some other bodies came to each one. Some people, they... it's just hard for us to say who came. But it's clear that representatives of the authorities, let's say. And they said how to behave. That on this topic with no one, not only the commission... they stopped receiving journalists. At first, they were swarmed, they certainly talked in '99, the first months, when there was a wave, they communicated actively, and there were interviews with one, another, mostly, of course, already in the foreign, not the Russian press. There. But then at some point, in any case by 2002, they had already fallen completely silent. They were intimidated by the authorities to such an extent that they didn't even open the door. Not because they are such supporters of the regime, but simply people were already completely differently inclined than...

Interviewer: Were they just scared or were they promised something?

Lev: Both. Of course, primarily scared. But secondly, they kind of thought that "you're using us..." - that was also a position, but that's secondary, most likely they were told that in case of anything, this was also suggested to them. Well, maybe someone thought of it themselves. That you say that we don't see any benefit from you, we don't need anything from you, but you need something from us. You want to arrange your affairs on us, write your articles, participate in your elections, engage in politics, but we are simple people, we don't need anything, we've already suffered enough from this business as it is. That was the position.

Interviewer: Well, in the end in Ryazan, you told yesterday, you talked there, there was one old lady who was ready to talk to you. You talked about a store where you went and...

Lev: Not in a store, in a cinema.

Interviewer: No, in a hunting store.

Lev: Ah, the store where the cartridge was sold, yes. Yes.

Interviewer: And where else did you say?

Lev: Cinema.

Interviewer: Cinema, yes. And... and also the police.

Lev: Yes, of course.

Interviewer: Besides them, were there any other witnesses?

Lev: I also spoke about the former head of the FSB department for the Ryazan region, General Sergeev. We were there too, talked with him. But he was no longer in that position at that time. He was removed immediately after these events, for which he was very offended by the leadership. But he was left in the position of the presidential representative in the Ryazan region. A position not very high, actually, in fact.

Interviewer: And he was removed as if because he himself played a role in this or...

Lev: It's not... he says it's the machinations of enemies.

Interviewer: Well, but in fact?

Lev: Well, in fact, well, I think for being too good instead of being rewarded, in his opinion. Because he worked, in general, according to his position. If these were indeed terrorists, then thanks to his instructions to block roads, control long-distance calls if there were unknown people through the post office, fix everything there on the streets, control in the city, surveillance there, well, all such operational things, involve agents. And yes, they indeed detained these people, who turned out to be FSB officers. In a sense, the version of exercises arose with Nikolai Patrushev, in the central apparatus of the FSB, possibly because they were caught. If they hadn't been caught, then maybe Nikolai Patrushev wouldn't have come forward and wouldn't have said about the exercises. Since those caught couldn't be tried and how to officially where to put them? Especially since it had already been announced, printed in the newspapers, that persons suspected were detained. There. Well, of course, it could have been said that these were not the people, we released them. But somehow it was already seen by them as not convenient. Here such a scenario could be different. Either it was intentionally exercises against Vladimir Rushailo, I spoke yesterday about Vladimir Rushailo, it was planned specifically when they... when it became known about this, how events turned in Ryazan, that these bags were found, that all this happened that happened, then perhaps the idea was born to use this... this moment as a blow to Vladimir Rushailo.

Interviewer: Yes, yes, you said.

Interviewer: So. So, they worked... and suddenly Sergei Nikolayevich Yushenkov was gone. Tell us there, please, a bit... well, what was before that, how he died and... and how it affected the work... well, in general I think it affected the commission on an emotional level, well, and also the work of the commission.

Lev: Sergei Nikolayevich Yushenkov was a convinced, very purposeful and brave politician. He was a deputy from the first Duma, all three Dumas. Generally, he was military by origin. In the Soviet years he taught at a military academy, a colonel. In the first State Duma, he even headed the defense committee. He was the chairman of the Duma. He was a very well-known person in society in those years, because he actively participated in the work of parliament. And he was the main motor in the commission. Therefore, of course, what happened... according to the version that was accepted by the court, he was killed not because of... not because of work in the commission, of course. Although this was mentioned in court, I was even called there as a witness. Well, I spoke about what happened. But convicted was... there are controversial points, probably we won't go into them now. Convicted was his fellow party member from the party they were creating, the head of one of the branches of Liberal Russia, a person named Mikhail Kodanev. Also, in general, a well-known politician in his district then, who allegedly wanted to eliminate him as a competitor in order to head the party instead of him. Since the party existed on Boris Berezovsky's money, was created on Boris Berezovsky's money, this Liberal Russia, Boris Berezovsky's figure also played some role here. And the Russian court, the Russian court accepted this version that Boris Berezovsky was the initiator of the murder, and Mikhail Kodanev was the organizer and the one who hired specific criminal people to commit this... this crime. But since there are doubts that everything was exactly like that...

Interviewer: What do you think?

Lev: I think that Mikhail Kodanev most likely has nothing to do with it at all. And... but regarding Boris Berezovsky, there are doubts here. Because Boris Berezovsky is a man with a double or triple bottom. And he played political games, organized his own... well, in the end, the model of politics that killed him too, which included the possibility of eliminating competitors. Not with his own hands, of course. The fact that he might be involved, and that he possibly continued cooperation with the Kremlin, many in society expressed this then. I don't have an exact answer to the question of whether Boris Berezovsky played a role in the murder of Sergei Nikolayevich Yushenkov. But Sergei Nikolayevich Yushenkov came into conflict with him. There was a conflict, Sergei Nikolayevich Yushenkov didn't hide it, and Boris Berezovsky didn't say anything about it, but Sergei Nikolayevich Yushenkov spoke about it here in Russia. Because he said that the party had money, had Boris Berezovsky's support, but we won't make a party for Boris Berezovsky. We will make it with money that we find in business, that we find in other sources, we will make a party without Boris Berezovsky. Although at first he seemed to accept his support. But then he, realizing that Boris Berezovsky's party would get zero percent in Russia, he began to make a shift quite noticeable for society, for... for his PR, well, PR is necessary for a politician, that Boris Berezovsky, in general, is not our political partner. And perhaps this was important for Boris Berezovsky, because he wanted to have his own party and influence politics through it.

Interviewer: So you think that... well, I wanted to ask, if Sergei Nikolayevich Yushenkov's death was connected with a certain disclosure of the commission, you think not?

Lev: Well, in all honesty, still unlikely. Although if... if Boris Berezovsky acted in concordat with the Russian authorities, then their joint decision to eliminate Sergei Nikolayevich Yushenkov could have had these motives. I don't think that our... our commission was considered so dangerous that they had to deal with it directly. They... they perfectly understood that it was absolutely safe for them. That we wouldn't get any evidence, and that... well, at that time, at that time this state machine had not yet been turned like it is now. If we started this now, they would hardly kill us either, but they would imprison everyone. Because now you can blow up houses anywhere already.

Interviewer: So, very soon after the death, after the murder of Sergei Nikolayevich Yushenkov, Yuri Shchekochikhin was also killed.

Lev: Yes, well, there is an investigation conducted after his death, well, let's assume it was indeed a murder, by Novaya Gazeta. And, in general, the general quite well-founded opinion is that the main reason was his investigation into the very large corruption and, in essence, not only corruption, but also simply connected with banditry, the Three Whales case. This was a major furniture corporation where many people from the authorities were involved, many people from the agencies: the police, the FSB. And he basically uncovered, published many materials on these Three Whales in the same Novaya Gazeta. Well, that's how it turned out, it's actually indicative that for... for a brave civic position, for their, in general, socially significant undertakings... those people who were killed for doing some dangerous... well, and unnecessary for the country business, they were members of the commission. That is, they joined the commission because they were not afraid. There. And the fact that they were not afraid is confirmed by the fact that one broke with such a powerful oligarch as Boris Berezovsky, the other was not afraid to bring a criminal group, in general, into... into the light.

Interviewer: So, in quick succession, two members of the commission were lost, two members of the commission. Well, what happened after that? How did the commission continue its work? Did anyone else join?

Lev: Well, there were... some of the commission members, for various reasons, could do little. But in principle, it was enough that the commission had certain names, well-known in society, authoritative, having a good reputation. Here, first of all, the reputational moment was important in the composition of the commission. That people with an impeccable reputation, who are known as public figures. Well, and there were mostly politicians, human rights activists, several lawyers, deputies of previous convocations, also well-known people in society. Not everyone sat there constantly, wrote some requests or traveled. Some did nothing, but gave their name as... as participants of this...

Interviewer: And besides the deputies, how were people recruited for the commission? Did they want to themselves or did you yourselves...

Lev: We ourselves, we made a list, called around. Well, someone said that I... well, practically everyone we offered... but we offered to those we knew, with whom we worked, were friends, who were known in society. I was looking only, sorry, I was looking only for residents of the house. We found one. One was a member of our commission until the end.

Interviewer: Who participated in the commission?

Lev: Yes, he participated. Well, no one excluded him later, the commission just stopped working. From around 2004, we were no longer working in this direction. But after the murder of Sergei Nikolayevich Yushenkov, this did not stop the work of the commission.

Interviewer: Well, you said that Sergei Nikolayevich Yushenkov was the main motor.

Lev: Well, yes, but then it became Sergei Adamovich Kovalyov. Then yes, but Sergei Adamovich Kovalyov and I took it upon ourselves. Well, and while Sergei Nikolayevich Yushenkov was there, we also worked in this direction, did everything we could. And traveled... Sergei Nikolayevich Yushenkov helped in the organization, found money for the trip. When we went to Ryazan, he provided a car with a driver. There were three of us, we went with Karinna Moskalenko. Sergei Adamovich Kovalyov, Karinna and I.

Interviewer: And who financed it?

Lev: No one financed it, except for such purely organizational expenses. Well, there weren't that many of them. We had one trip to London. Well, the tickets were paid for, to be honest, by Boris Berezovsky. There. But this... we didn't consider it shameful, because we were going to interview him. There. He can't come here, because he would have been grabbed here, most likely even then they could have imprisoned him for something. Well, presumably.

Interviewer: So, different actions participated, different...

Lev: Yes, well, otherwise it was a purely public initiative, on which no one earned a single kopeck.

Interviewer: I understand you didn't earn. But, for example, you had like your own day job for which you were paid, right?

Lev: Well, yes, well, it all somehow combined.

Interviewer: This work of the commission replaced...

Lev: Well, for me it was part of my work, because I worked as Sergei Adamovich Kovalyov's assistant. I was paid for that, that I was his assistant, the state paid money for that.

Interviewer: Well, because it was part of your... it was just your...

Lev: Well, yes, of course, a deputy doesn't only engage in legislative activity. I also engaged in it as Sergei Adamovich Kovalyov's assistant, and besides that, in many laws. But that goes without saying, and here it's a representative function. A deputy has a legislative and a representative function. As a representative of the people, of his voters, he protects their rights, every deputy should do this. And the assistant helps, and it's up to the deputy himself to decide what the assistant does, what he assigns to him.

Interviewer: Tell me, and when... well, Sergei Nikolayevich Yushenkov was killed, Yuri Shchekochikhin was killed, do you think that... well, then maybe you felt how much you were in... well, just participating in the commission, maybe it's a dangerous occupation?

Lev: Well, no one among the commission members, among those who attended our meetings, seemed to stop attending. Didn't stop participating, didn't declare their withdrawal, there was nothing like that. Well, it was generally a time, the end of the 90s - beginning of the 2000s, when a whole series of quite noticeable, well-known cases of murders of politicians began, major politicians of the front line. Galina Starovoytova was killed. There was a deputy named Golovlev, also Union of Right Forces, it was also a political murder. Well, and then what followed: Sergei Nikolayevich Yushenkov, Yuri Shchekochikhin.

Interviewer: So, you continued for... well, it turns out the commission worked for about another year. Why... and why did you stop working then?

Lev: Well, firstly, because not a single deputy in the next... 2003 was the last year of the third State Duma's work. None of those who were on the commission made it into the next convocation. There. Without such parliamentary support, at least one person had to be in parliament, it became much more difficult to do anything. And then we did what we could. We received all the refusals. Everything that could be talked about with anyone, we talked about. Everywhere we could go, we went. Well, it wasn't clear what else the commission could do.

Interviewer: So you think that by this time you had already taken all the information you could take?

Lev: Well, probably more could always have been done, but it would have been a quantitative rather than a qualitative result. We didn't write a report. We were often asked, yes, Sergei Adamovich Kovalyov was asked, I was asked: "Well, how can it be, the commission must somehow summarize its activities?" We gave interviews, back then it was still possible to write on this topic in the same Novaya Gazeta, in other publications there were materials where we spoke, well, in some more, perhaps, condensed forms... well, they turned more to Sergei Adamovich Kovalyov, of course. We talked about what we thought about the results. Well, roughly in the spirit in which I'm telling you now.

Interviewer: And why did you... well, so the commission worked, let's say, for about about two years?

Lev: Yes, about two years.

Interviewer: And you probably collected during this time... well, maybe not all the information you wanted, but still a large volume of information.

Lev: We didn't want to publicly criticize the position of people who seemed to also be in the ranks of those who fought against the police state, against the construction of a police state in Russia. The matter was further complicated by the fact that Alexander Litvinenko, a former FSB officer, was also killed shortly after, killed in London, as you know.

Interviewer: Who is that?

Lev: Alexander Litvinenko.

Interviewer: Ah, of course.

Lev: The murder... and Alexander Litvinenko was the author of a book with which we disagreed, with this book.

Interviewer: You... so, I also wanted to ask about Alexander Litvinenko. So, he... you say that you disagreed with his book.

Lev: Well, we all disagreed. Well, everyone to a different degree, we didn't conduct a survey like "how do you feel about the book." But it was clear from our general decisions. Sergei Adamovich Kovalyov, in general, also held the same position as I did. We didn't differ with him on this, that the book was irresponsible in many ways. Although there was interesting material collected there, very important and useful. They, in general, did a lot of important work on... which if we had worked together, it would have been a joint result quite significant. We collected something, they collected something.

Interviewer: They - who is that?

Lev: Well, Yuri Felshtinsky and Alexander Litvinenko. There. But after Alexander Litvinenko's murder, he was killed I don't remember now when, in 2002 too, it seems...

Interviewer: Third.

Lev: Third. Third, not second, third. In 2003, that is, when the Duma was still working, our deputies were all deputies. Here it was completely wrong already, and we couldn't support this position either, because it diverged from our position. And just to publish materials without making any conclusion... and it wasn't clear, and it wasn't clear who would do it. I... I just refused to write. I was suggested, like maybe something needs to be written. I thought it would be a wasted effort.

Interviewer: Alexander Litvinenko's version, it was... well, do you think it was based on some evidence or... well, still there was something.

Lev: So everything we're talking about was there. Nothing beyond that... well no, there were all these sleeves, all sorts of backstories were traced, the various general picture was, of course, more detailed, more voluminous, more large-scale than ours. We collected point-by-point: Ryazan, Moscow, Volgodonsk, just the explosions. And Alexander Litvinenko and Yuri Felshtinsky traced the FSB's connections with criminal groups there, with various criminal communities. That is, the background, the backstory, the background, the field on which these crimes became possible, as they believe. This was all basically researched more deeply, more... and most likely everything there is also true. Well, they plowed through materials for all the 90s, one might say, traced there and some materials on specific personalities of people who were possibly involved in this.

Interviewer: So there was a large volume of necessary... good information.

Lev: Yes.

Interviewer: But the conclusions they...

Lev: Yes, the conclusions they... well, of course. Actually, the main conclusion is that the FSB was the organizer. That it was an action undertaken on the instructions of some people, which ones could be debated there. But this is not in the book. If we and Sergei Adamovich Kovalyov said that we were judges, we would not have accepted this. We would have been forced to acquit.

Interviewer: And according to the conclusion of the book, what was... what was the conclusion?

Lev: The main conclusion is that all the authorities, the FSB, at the top of which is the figure of the president, are the source of terror against the population of the country. Well, something in that spirit.

Interviewer: Well, that's how it is. And how does this opinion differ from yours and from...

Lev: It differs only in one detail: that the FSB blew up houses in Moscow. The fact that the FSB, as well as the entire current police regime, at the head of which is most likely precisely this structure with a sad past and an even no less sad present... that their policy, their omnipotence of this service, it is disastrous for the country and led to the fact that the country became, in essence, one might call it, firstly, a police state, secondly, a completely lawless state. Lawless, not social. I would avoid some clichés like "fascist" there, because fascism was something specific in history. No one preaches direct fascism. But the fact that it is a police, lawless, criminal, in essence, state, waging an aggressive war, having started this war and guilty of escalating the conflict even beyond this region, being a terrorist, in essence, base, a terrorist base. This, of course, we agree with, the fact that the book also basically says this.

Interviewer: I... I still, what you're saying, I don't exactly catch the difference between what Alexander Litvinenko said and the conclusion you reached on the commission.

Lev: The commission was not created for political... what I'm saying now, yes, that's our position. But regarding the explosions of houses in Moscow, Volgodonsk and the events in Ryazan. And regarding the events in Ryazan. Our assessment, especially today, of course coincides, I think we are in solidarity with those who remained alive over these years, in the assessment and in the attitude towards the Vladimir Putin regime. There. But the main difference is that they say that the FSB blew up the houses, and that it is proven. We say that the FSB is blowing up Russia in a global sense, in the sense of all of Russia, as a figurative expression, yes. But the fact that it's proven - it's not proven. It was done in such a way that it's not proven. Neither you nor we... we didn't set out to prove exactly that, we set out for a public discussion, an open open trial. After all, the trial was closed even for those two on whom everything was blamed: both Moscow and Volgodonsk, and everything possible. And these two people as if closed the whole topic with their conviction, and everything is forgotten. We understand that it's all a fiction. This is important, it seems to me.

Interviewer: Were you acquainted with Alexander Litvinenko?

Lev: Yes.

Interviewer: And did you... did you manage to talk with him on this topic?

Lev: We went to London, we talked on this topic, yes.

Interviewer: So you talked.

Lev: We talked, and we expressed our doubts, and we listened with interest. It was very productive, because both Alexander Litvinenko and Yuri Felshtinsky, we talked with them very...

Interviewer: Well, only in London, you weren't acquainted with him in Moscow?

Lev: Well no, of course, yes. When he... well, he began his opposition activity in Moscow, when he, in general, spoke at a press conference with a statement that he was assigned to kill Boris Berezovsky. That's when his way of the cross began.

Interviewer: And the effect... well, did the Russian people know about Alexander Litvinenko's existence? Did they... did they see these press conferences? Did they know that you are working... that your commission is working? How did the people react to this in general? What influence, how did it affect the people?

Lev: It's hard to say what "the people" is. If you look at the media, then, in general, the position of all more or less adequate and independent... well, at the same time more independent, there were more of them, and they were more independent media, was, of course, the same as ours. And... so to speak, therefore we were, in general, given the opportunity to speak out. Sergei Adamovich Kovalyov gave many interviews, something was published. But, for example, that teleconference with London, where Achimez Gochiyayev's testimony was presented, with whom Yuri Felshtinsky, as... as he says, met. Maybe he really did meet, I can't say anything here, no one knows. We'll believe him, probably he met, but he didn't manage to film him. Well, for some reason, well, it doesn't matter. I don't question the... especially since everything written in Achimez Gochiyayev's statement was confirmed. Facts. Well, except for the explosions of houses, it's hard to judge that on the basis of this note.

Interviewer: You... well, you already said, you say that in the end the commission didn't write a report. But you have some, well, probably a very large volume of information left. And even rumors reached us that this information is somewhere... in a warehouse in the Urals.

Lev: No, everything there is basically from open sources, everything was officially received. What was a state secret, Sergei Adamovich Kovalyov read it, signed for it. To some of his requests, they gave us nothing. But something technically necessary for us, but not fundamental, they gave him answers. There were open answers in huge quantities, plenty there. And there were answers allegedly containing state secrets. In the Duma, there is a special person, he comes with a folder, shows him this answer. He reads it, signs that he received it and undertakes not to disclose it. He didn't disclose it, but then he told us that there's nothing there at all. Empty words about nothing at all. Or some such trifles that don't smell of state secrets. Well, there's nothing even to disclose. It doesn't correspond to this or that, there according to article such-and-such of something-or-other it's written.

Interviewer: And these records, are they kept somewhere by someone?

Lev: Well, the secret ones - they are stored somewhere forever.

Interviewer: Well, just... well, let's say the secret ones and other things that the commission collected.

Lev: Well, yes, it's in many places, I think, in electronic form everything is already stored somewhere. We store it in different places.

Interviewer: So you still have it.

Lev: There is, yes. Well, there is something that can really... if it's possible to pass it on to future generations, it will probably be useful for history.

Interviewer: Good. Can we have a small break?

Lev: Good.

Interviewer: I'll look through my notes a bit now.