Court Decision Analysis and Appeals

Initial Court Decision (Dated April 2, 2003)

The judge's decision was notably dismissive of the submitted written evidence. Specifically:

• The judge ignored the article by Rustam Arifdzhanov, titled "And the city didn't know that exercises were underway," which partially quoted documents relating to the Ryazan events.
• The judge resolutely rejected the motion to summon the author of the article as a witness.

Ignored Special Service Documents

Crucially, the court completely disregarded documents obtained by Deputy Kovalev from the special services:

1. A copy of the Resolution to initiate a criminal case, accept it for proceedings, and create an investigative group by an investigator of the Investigative Department of the FSB Directorate for the Ryazan Region dated September 23, 1999.
2. The Resolution to refuse to initiate a criminal case by the Senior Assistant to the Prosecutor General of the RF dated March 22, 2000.
3. The Resolution to terminate the criminal case by the senior investigator of the Investigative Department of the FSB Directorate for the Ryazan Region dated April 6, 2000.

The grounds for rejecting these important materials remained a mystery, suggesting either:
* A terrible mess within the FSB of the RF system.
* The fact that there were no exercises at all, given that the FSB's own employees initiated a criminal case regarding them.

Paradoxical Actions of the Meshchansky Court

The Meshchansky Court acted paradoxically:

• It ruled that a State Duma deputy is not entitled to control the activities of the federal security service bodies and denied the complaint.
• This ruling was made despite Sergei Kovalev merely requesting information and documents, attempting to exercise his right to obtain objective data in accordance with the law on the status of a deputy.

Uncovered Information and "Operational Experiment"

Despite the unfavorable outcome of the closed trial, some results emerged:

• Additional documents came to light, revealing that in Ryazan, a certain "operational experiment" (something fundamentally new) was conducted within the framework of the exercises.
• This conclusion was drawn from a letter submitted to the court, addressed to the deputy head of the Department for the Protection of the Constitutional Order and the Fight against Terrorism of the FSB of Russia dated 14.09.99.
• The court easily concluded that what occurred in Ryazan was not an exercise, but an "operational experiment," which legally refers to operational-search activities and constitutes a major secret.

Contradictions in Official Statements

The judge overlooked obvious contradictions:

• In his official response to a deputy's inquiry (18.10.2002 No. K-5345), Acting FSB Director Pronichev stated that exercises were conducted in Ryazan, while operational-search activities were conducted in Ivanovo, Kursk, and Orel.
• This discrepancy led to the conclusion that what happened in Ryazan was in no way an operational-search activity.
• If Pronichev's letter is considered unserious, it implies that the leadership of the special services is fickle, and unimaginable confusion reigns within the department, posing a danger to society and the state.

Appeal to the Moscow City Court

Deputy Sergei Kovalev did not limit himself to the first-instance court decision. On April 24, 2003, he appealed to the Moscow City Court.

In his cassation appeal against the Meshchansky Court decision, he protested that even this predictable process was shielded from society by an impenetrable wall. He specifically noted:

"The court made an unfounded decision to hold a closed court session. The reason for declaring the court closed was the defendant's (a representative of the FSB of the RF, -- note) presentation for inspection of a document marked 'for official use' -- a letter addressed to the head of the Department for the Protection of the Constitutional Order and the Fight against Terrorism of the FSB of Russia dated 14.09.99."

He further cited the legal basis for closed sessions:

"In accordance with Article 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the RF, proceedings in closed court sessions are carried out in cases containing information constituting a state secret, the secret of adoption (adoption) of a child, as well as in other cases if provided for by federal law. Proceedings in closed..."