Interviewer: So, I wanted to ask a little bit about what you found out about Vladimir Romanovich.

Lev: I said yesterday that I didn't deal with that line at all. It's an important line, important, yes.

Interviewer: That's why we're talking about it...

Lev: It's an oversight, I know. This topic, about Vladimir Romanovich, Mikhail Trespashkin took this topic upon himself then. We had one conversation with him, with Mikhail Trespashkin, a general one. He said: here's Vladimir Romanovich, then also this one, Karpushin, yes, what's his name... no, not Karpushin, who... Vladimir Romanovich and also before that... so... who was in business together with Achimez Gochiyayev, his name is Ka... Ka...

Interviewer: Ka... Alexander Yuryevich Karmishin.

Lev: Alexander Yuryevich Karmishin, sorry, yes. Vladimir Romanovich and Alexander Yuryevich Karmishin, Mikhail Trespashkin took all of that, so to speak, upon himself. But he was imprisoned, and that was the end of the conversation, and it was already 2003, and we didn't have time to do anything.

Interviewer: I also wanted to ask, by the way, about, well, probably this also concerns Nikita Chekulin and Mikhail Trespashkin. Well, excuse me for such a slightly ugly question, maybe, but why are they still alive?

Lev: Well, Mikhail Trespashkin had to suffer a lot, he barely survived. He... by the way, this had to be said for sure, he was prosecuted mainly for the fact that, well, not only for that, but also for the fact that he was the lawyer for the Morozov sisters, who, living in the States, were free from any possible pressure on them. And for the fact that he worked with our commission, because he knew all the ins and outs better than us, naturally. Well, he told a lot somewhere there. And in general, the policy there, the position of the KGB and the FSB was: destroy traitors. And he's a sick man, he has very severe asthma, and they put him in jail out of nowhere for some bullets, some nonsense. Well, it's obvious that they planted something, they found some unregistered, not re-registered gun in the house. There seemed to be a gun, but there's nothing wrong with that, he just didn't have time to register it for a month or two. They planted bullets on him, at least they didn't plant drugs, so that's good. And they gave him 4 years in a penal colony. A penal colony is the mildest type of colony, there's movement without guards and all that. But he had a very hard time in prison. He was kept in the strictest conditions. He sat worse than in the worst zone. They didn't give him medicine. He sat in solitary confinement for a long time, yes. And he survived by a miracle. After... well, back then it was still possible to be much freer, they wrote in the newspapers then, collected signatures in his support, lawyers went there. And thanks to that he survived, otherwise they would have killed him there, driven him to... He's very... Now he seems to be fine, alive and well. Mikhail Trespashkin, he did a lot, of course.

Interviewer: Well, he survived after all.

Lev: He survived, yes.

Interviewer: And is he now... is his situation not dangerous now?

Lev: He, I don't... I don't think he's involved in such political affairs now. I haven't talked to him for a long time. But I see, he's in my friends on Facebook, sometimes I see some of his, well, neutral publications. He works as a lawyer, as I understand it, to this day.

Interviewer: And Nikita Chekulin also... well...

Lev: Well, I've already told about Nikita Chekulin, him differently. He was just...

Interviewer: Well, the question is that he's also still alive.

Lev: Well, he's alive because he renounced everything, wrote two books, published them, they were published. Well, against... where he renounced everything, everything... And the main thing there is about Boris Berezovsky... Well, what was required of him. And maybe it wasn't even him who wrote them, it's still unknown. His name is on them and that's it.

Interviewer: If you take all this information together, for... well, when I read this, it seems to me, a normal person, when they read and perceive this information, it's hard for me to imagine that anyone has any doubt that this state structure is rotten.

Lev: You bet, of course.

Interviewer: But it turns out that many people are not yet... well, the majority of people are not yet convinced of this. What can be said to them, what can be conveyed to them, how can it be conveyed so that they understand it themselves? If... if you think that there is some part of this story or another story... Well, in general, how... how to persuade them in this?

Lev: This is not an easy question, of course. I think there is no such recipe. The trouble is that the current Russian government, even before Vladimir Putin, working, so to speak, not on the surface, and then with his coming to power it became wider and wider, did a lot not only to intimidate citizens, to discredit any alternative, both left and right... well, in the sense of both left and liberal. Specifically discredit, by passing legislation that cut off all possible freedoms and opportunities for a political alternative. And it very diligently pressed on the consciousness of the population through propaganda, television is completely captured in Russia, it is still the main source of information for the majority. Of course, the internet is more and more, but even on the internet they introduced censorship, strict censorship, when people are already being imprisoned today for reposts, for likes, for donations there. People are actually sitting for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 years. And at the same time, they began to cut people off from culture, from genuine culture, from Russian culture, from world culture, well, also by propaganda measures. After all, in the Soviet years it was considered, and indeed it was, that the Soviet people were the most reading in the world. Yes, well, people read less in the world now because of the internet and everything. But in Russia in this sense, the situation is catastrophic in the humanitarian sense. Well, it shouldn't be exaggerated, of course, but it's still difficult. Well, and especially these last years, when censorship has become more and more overt censorship, just censorship, up to some motives of insulting the feelings of believers there, all sorts of things went, completely far-fetched drug propaganda there, propaganda... that is, a mass of opportunities to cut off freedom of speech. Well. In the spiritual sphere, I mean the religious sphere, there's the ROC, the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, which is completely oriented towards supporting the government, the war, calls for death there, in fact preaches death in the name of... like these... like suicide bombers, not even all Orthodox are demonic, if you listen to Patriarch Kirill. A completely shameful patriarch. Well, and most parishioners listen to all this, all this... In these conditions, the only thing one can hope for is that the social situation in the country is getting worse and worse. Unemployment, depreciation of all Soviet-era production there is a lot. Well, the only thing that works well for us now is the atrocity... it's the military-industrial complex. Now, of course, weapons, weapons. And on the one hand, all this military industry. And the second is the Central Bank, which by some miracles keeps it afloat. Well, that's why they keep... liberals sit there, our government is liberal to this day. They're trying a kind of Chinese version. These are people who were raised by Yegor Gaidar, the chairman of the Central Bank, the finance minister, the economy minister, both former and current. The former one was a good man, that's why he was imprisoned. And at the same time, the country is governed... the main law in the country, the main one, is not the Constitution — it's the Criminal Code. Vladimir Putin has been ruling for 25 years on the basis of the Criminal Code. And since this is the most important tool, they expand it, expand it, expand it. It's already everything, already here... down to every little detail, these are articles, articles, articles. Well, therefore, in these conditions...

Interviewer: Therefore, it is very difficult to persuade the people.

Lev: Yes, well, first of all, it's hard for them to be heard. You can shout as much as you want, no one... Well. And also the people were untaught from politics, to be interested in politics. "Oh, I'm not interested in politics" — that's a common one... "I don't talk about politics, I don't think about it, I don't have time, I have other interests. In politics everything... everything there is dishonest, everything there... you can't believe anyone, everyone is just for themselves, well, and in general it doesn't concern me." That's the approach.

Interviewer: You mean everyone thinks that way? Everyone feels that way? I remember that very well too. Yes, of course. I, who grew up in that family where voting... that I wouldn't vote in elections — that's impossible. And it seems to me that most of my friends in Russia, they... there are those who have never voted in their lives.

Lev: Well, to be honest, I myself didn't... I started voting late, because I didn't believe and I thought that voting according to the electoral laws we have is a harmful and meaningless activity. Even when I was already working in the Duma, as a citizen I... I am, of course, interested in my deputies getting through. But since it depends little on me in this case, I don't live where they are running. Well, then this was probably the wrong position. This is indeed the position of the majority, including cultured people. And indeed, our laws are so mean, and now it's generally been brought to the limit. It seemed bad then in the 90s, we didn't imagine what would happen. This is forbidden, that, the other, electoral blocs, that is, only one party can run without a coalition with someone. And in every way, in small details, a huge number, and not in small details. And this five percent barrier. And the fact that the government pulls all the strings, and if someone left runs, it means someone else left runs. And then extremists can't, those and these can't, the Constitution is completely ignored. In these conditions, one cannot count on elections either. And therefore, only some kind of cataclysm is possible. Well. Or Ukraine will send its troops already, which is also little joy, but what can you do.

Interviewer: Is there anything else that you think for now... well, well, two small points. Maybe we'll film it.

Interviewer: Everything is working.

Lev: I somehow didn't focus on the moment of social protection for those who suffered from the apartment bombings, but we dealt with that. The commission dealt with that, and it so happened that we dealt more not with Moscow, but with Volgodonsk in this direction. There was a more difficult situation for the citizens, for the residents of the houses, there, in fact, two and a half, almost three houses were subject to eviction. One completely, the second almost completely, the third partially. Because even in the third house, which stood right next to the truck filled with TNT or hexogen... The first house there were victims, 84 people died there. In the second house, I think, one or two died, and even then later. In the third one, everyone just suffered there, there were also some serious psychological traumas. And they... they were simply deceived in a completely shameless way. Some local deputy took over the fund, and from this fund the money flowed generally to the left. They registered people who lived a kilometer away, they received money. Well, some... the government covered everything, the corruption was terrible. And so some... several women came to me, we fought, we achieved something. Well, to this day they write me congratulations, there is some live contact with one woman with a child, she was a single mother. And we... we managed to help them so that she was given what she wanted. She wanted... she wanted an apartment in Rostov, this is the Rostov region. She wanted to leave Volgodonsk, an apartment, a similar apartment, but in Rostov. Does she have the right? Of course she does. All her property was destroyed there, burned, blown to smithereens. She herself had received some kind of concussion. The child wasn't there at the time. Well, or was, but somehow the child, I think, wasn't hurt. Well, an adult child now.

Interviewer: And basically where did these people go, who... well, well, you gave me yesterday too...

Lev: Yes, those are Moscow, Moscow — that's Guryanova. And that one — that's Volgodonsk. Basically where did... those who... Well, the Moscow ones — they somehow took such a scandalous position. We didn't... well, we had one in the commission, he brought some specific... we ourselves then, well, prepared a draft, put the case in proper form and sent some letters there for two, three, four people, so this... what he brought. Well, some problems there with something. Well, someone had an apartment, someone didn't, it was bequeathed to him, he didn't have time to... well, such things. We dealt with that too. We managed to help some, not others.

Interviewer: And these people from Volgodonsk in the end...

Lev: Well, we managed to help one, she was given it. And for the others we wrote something, I don't know, I'm not aware of how it ended. But we dealt with it there after all, we tried to do something specifically in Volgodonsk. Because the situation there was worse than in Moscow. Well, Moscow is Moscow, and there's more money, and after all, some kind of more control over this, over the houses. In general, they steal here too, they steal there too in Moscow. Well, but there it's on a larger scale. That's one point. And the second is a little bit about something else, concerning the court. I didn't say this, I think it's important to note it. Yusuf Krymshamkhalov and Adam Dekkushev were convicted. This process, where it all ended, the story of responsibility for the bombings in Moscow and Volgodonsk. Why did it happen this way? Well, clearly, it was a directive from the authorities — not to catch anyone else, to suspend the rest of the cases, then sooner or later they will be closed or have already been closed in relation to others, including Achimez Gochiyayev. The case seems to still exist, but it is suspended pending his international search. They've been looking for him for 25 years already. Here, in general, the flaw in many ways still contributes to this, the fact that the authorities did everything themselves with their own hands. The flaw of our Russian legal system. Because if you take criminal law and, accordingly, criminal policy, what is it? And the legislation, the Code of Criminal Procedure contributes to this. In normal countries, let's say, evidence determines the charge. Well, someone was killed, versions are put forward, the version that is considered proven, this version becomes the charge. In Russia, it's the other way around. First, the version is approved, and then evidence is collected for it. What suits the investigator, what doesn't suit him — he doesn't see it. Therefore, anyone can be convicted of anything and appropriate evidence can be collected, that guilt is confirmed by some certificate from school that he drank there or ate, or went for a walk. Well, in that spirit, I'm exaggerating a little. Well, and in general, why did we work more in this direction? Well, it was often heard that human rights activists are doing who knows what, not helping real people. Well, as for real people, everyone does what they can. And I considered dealing with legislation to be the most important. Because it depends on... well, my lawyer friends, teachers and former judges liked to repeat that the Code of Criminal Procedure — it determines the political regime of the country. If the code is adversarial — then that's one situation. If it's inquisitorial — then the political situation in the country is different. The political regime depends in many ways on this, if not primarily. Well.

Interviewer: In principle, so, I want to just ask you a little bit about the commission. So, there were five deputies, two were killed, three remained, you continued to work. After these two were killed after all, well, were there other people who... you said at first that the deputies themselves, they were the ones who agreed to go for it because they weren't afraid, they had to not be afraid to agree to it. But people like you, you had a choice to work on this, not to work. This was your daily work, after all.

Lev: Well, in general I had, of course I had. I just...

Interviewer: You would have had to change jobs.

Lev: No. If I had wanted to, I would have talked Sergei Adamovich Kovalyov out of it. He could have been... Well no, I'm just saying this purely theoretically. If it hadn't been such a proposal, but some other one.

Interviewer: This was when he was an official?

Lev: I was his assistant, so I could have said: "Yes, right." I could have said: "Sergei Adamovich, I will deal with the laws, and this I simply don't have time for, I don't have the physical capacity," which in many ways was the truth.

Interviewer: And other people who helped the commission like you, after the death of Yuri Shchekochikhin, Sergei Nikolayevich Yushenkov, were they afraid, did they leave it? What was the reaction?

Lev: I don't know of a single... The reaction was, of course, everyone was very shocked by the murder of Sergei Nikolayevich Yushenkov. With Yuri Shchekochikhin, not everyone immediately understood that it was a murder, he was poisoned by something. It was later that Novaya Gazeta started to unravel it. Someone heard something there. This wasn't immediately known, that Yuri Shchekochikhin died from something, from poisoning. Well, some immediately said "murdered," some said "no, probably something like that." This was before Alexander Litvinenko, after all, this case wasn't yet well-known. With Sergei Nikolayevich Yushenkov, of course, everyone was shocked, and it was a heavy blow, but none of the commission members, those who participated in the work, they continued to participate. Those who didn't participate for their own personal reasons, they also there... no one said... Even a resident of this house, a person who was, in general, unprotected, well, less protected than us, since we are known here after all, and he was a new person. Even he went, although he was a little bit modest like that.

Interviewer: Who?

Lev: A resident of the house who was with us. He specifically continued to go.

Interviewer: And were you never afraid?

Lev: Well, I didn't see a threat here. Well, you can be afraid of anything. You can... you don't know where...

Interviewer: Well, and you weren't afraid to talk to us and tell all this?

Lev: I'm not the first to... well, I haven't had such a detailed conversation, to be honest, for a long time. As I say, 25 years have passed, and few people return to this topic. Some, maybe separate, accidental ones were side, marginal conversations on the sidelines. Well, on some points there, something. And so all the conversations with journalists I had were in 2003, at the latest 2004, then interest in this simply disappeared. No one asked. Well, Sergei Adamovich Kovalyov was still called sometimes, but also until about the fifth year, I think, until the sixth maximum.

Interviewer: And did you have a desire... well, you felt that it was a very big, probably it was a very big part of your life while you were doing this. Well, probably it was a pity that...

Lev: Yes, I am very grateful to you in this sense, because to a large extent what we talked about, it lay as a dead weight. Not only in the form of papers, but also in the form of the fact that I could, as it were, tell about it there, maybe not so much new, but still some points to talk through, to discuss together. When you start to think... well, I always thought about it, of course, I always had it in my head. But when you're not directly involved, it somehow all goes into the past a little bit. Especially since I write little now and there's nowhere special to publish as it used to be possible. Well, and health is not the same, in general, everything is together here. Therefore, it is very important that you took this up, remembering a quarter of a century.

Interviewer: Where should we look for information next?

Lev: Well, it seems to me if you establish contact with Mikhail Trespashkin...

Interviewer: His last name?

Lev: Mikhail Trespashkin. Well, I don't know if he'll agree or not, well how... he's with this...

Interviewer: We tried, so, to contact him, and well there was some contact like that, but he...

Lev: He might not want to. If he lives in Russia, and he...

Interviewer: This was before we knew Karinna Moskalenko. When... well, I told you that Patrick tried to... well, he was looking for Karinna Moskalenko. And she... she probably also at first, well, felt some way, didn't know what kind of person he was. And then we already understood that we...

Lev: Well, Karinna Moskalenko lives in Strasbourg, and Mikhail Trespashkin is in Moscow.

Interviewer: That's clear, but when Patrick said that he contacted Mikhail Trespashkin before he was acquainted with Karinna Moskalenko. Therefore, maybe then through Karinna Moskalenko... well, if Karinna Moskalenko just... well, in general...

Lev: I don't know if Karinna Moskalenko is acquainted with Mikhail Trespashkin.

Interviewer: He's not acquainted?

Lev: I don't know.

Interviewer: I don't know.

Lev: Well, directly, maybe they are acquainted, but they... I don't remember them crossing paths in front of me.

Interviewer: I just, maybe he just doubted, for what reasons we were looking for contact, therefore...

Interviewer: Patrick says that they should know each other because they supposedly represented the residents together.

Lev: Ah, yes, in Strasbourg, in the European Court. Yes, yes, yes, I missed that, yes, of course, yes.

Interviewer: And also, so, there's Mikhail Trespashkin, and also you gave me also...

Lev: Valentin Gefter. You can with him... he won't be afraid of anything. He wrote on this topic in Novaya Gazeta. Another thing is that he is sick now after all. He is 80 years old, he is almost blind. And it's hard for him, if he has any papers, it's hard for him to work with them. I'll give you his contacts. I'll forward them to you then.

Interviewer: Good. And for Vladimir Romanovich, is it dangerous for him after all?

Lev: No, it's not dangerous for him. It's not dangerous for Valentin Gefter. If it's dangerous, he won't... he'll say.

Interviewer: In any case, if he... he might agree and he might not agree, we won't...

Lev: Yes, well, and he is, as they say, a big boy, yes, he's all... We communicate with him, he comes, he was here with us. Well, but he sees very poorly, he is practically blind, he walks... no operations help him. Although he works, he heads the Institute for Human Rights.

Interviewer: Еще вы сказали Хамид...

Lev: Ну, я очень сомневаюсь, потому что по моим расчетам ему очень много лет, если он жив. У меня нет с ним контактов никаких.

Interviewer: И мы не знаем, как его искать.

Lev: Ну, что он может сказать, он может что-то и может, но это зависит от его состояния, я просто ничего не могу сказать.

Interviewer: Так, вы работали очень плотно с Ковалевым, который тоже, кажется, очень плотно работал и хорошо знал Сахарова. Какое было наследство, скажем, от Сахарова на... как это действовало на вашу работу, на работу Ковалева, на работу комиссии? Какое... ну, в принципе, да, ну, вы видите какое-нибудь наследство Сахарова в том, что ну вы занимались и вот как... и вот если смотреть на сегодняшнюю Россию?

Lev: Ну, правозащитное движение в России, оно, конечно, все обязано многим Сахарову. Не одному Сахарову, а всем тем борцам с советским тоталитаризмом, среди которых он был первым и главным, конечно, знаменем, можно сказать. Это был... я его не знал, не видел никогда, но тоже, в общем-то, считаю... почитаю и понимаю его значение, читал его работы. Ну и Дом Сахарова — это было как бы нашим домом, вот музей... центр-музей имени Сахарова. Напротив его дома, там была мемориальная квартира. Я общался, не то что мы дружили, я не могу сказать, но как бы постоянно общался среди правозащитников с Еленой Боннэр, его вдовой. И нынешнее вот то, как у него сложилось правозащитное движение, оно, конечно, оттуда идет, из советского диссидентства. Хотя как оно преимущественно, и тут от этого его и плюсы, и минусы. Плюсы понятны — это как бы вот наследие таких мыслителей и выдающихся людей, как Андрей Дмитриевич Сахаров. А минусы в том, что вполне оправданно диссидентство было в подавляющей части практически все антисоветским и антикоммунистическим настроено. Соответственно, ориентированным на, как у нас говорили, западные ценности. И когда советская власть прекратила существование, когда произошла перестройка, когда их выпустили из лагерей, диссидентов, и они пошли в политику многие, как Сергей Адамович Ковалев, они не воспринимали... они очень много сделали, и Ковалева, надо сказать, Сахаров именно уговорил идти на выборы в тогда еще Верховный Совет России.

Interviewer: Сахаров уговорил... чего они не воспринимают?

Lev: Сейчас скажу. Да, Сахаров уговорил Ковалева. И вот, продолжу фразу, и они, вот выходцы из Советского Союза и антикоммунистически настроены, что оправданно было, естественно, тогда в советские времена, потому что это было... ну, все понятно, какая была политика, они сохранили как бы такой взгляд на права человека, который отсекал социально-экономические права как права второго поколения. И как бы есть неотъемлемые... как бы концепция держится на том, что есть права первого поколения, неотъемлемые права человека: право там на неприкосновенность личности, на свободу от пыток, на свободу передвижения, свободу совести, свободу слова — вот эти права, это первого поколения, личные и политические права, и гражданские права. А права социально-экономические, они обусловлены экономикой, развитием страны, объективными условиями, они вторичны. А люди все-таки в большинстве своем больше озабочены не свободой слова, а пропитанием, жилищем, ну и так далее. Зарплатой, работой — ну, понятно чем. То, что тоже является их правом. А если эти права отодвигаются в сторону и рассматриваются как вторичные, во-первых, это подхватывается другими, это знамя, и это уже рассматривается только это как главное, как там у левых у многих в России. Ну и многие там, как КПРФ, паразитируют на этом просто, Коммунистическая партия думская.

Interviewer: Вы считаете, значит, движение настолько сильно было вот чтобы ну принять какие-то западные политические идеалы, что они забыли вот об обычных людях, что им нужна зарплата, жилье?

Lev: Нет, это было... они не забыли, это была установка такая. Я вот на эту тему очень много спорил, и я в очень таком подавляемом меньшинстве там. При том, что все это мои друзья, но у нас позиции в этом не совпадают. Там, когда разговор заходит о праве на жизнь, все сводится к смертной казни. А если человек умирает от голода — это как бы другая проблема. А в мире умирает людей от голода больше, чем на электрическом стуле, намного. Поэтому здесь... но Сахаров тут ни при чем, он как раз был в этом смысле очень широко мыслящим, он этого разделения никогда не... я не знаю, как он относился вот именно к постановке вопроса о поколениях прав там и все, но то, что он писал о правах человека в широком смысле, имея в виду, что в Советском Союзе и социально-экономические были, так сказать, не столь защищены, как это того следует многим. Ну, продуктов не было по всей стране, люди... пустые полки в магазинах и так далее. И зарплаты там убогие, и жилье там коммуналки, ну и все такое прочее. Так что Сахаров — он в этом смысле безупречная фигура для ориентации, надо его читать, конечно.