PROTOCOL OF THE COURT SESSION

for case No. 2-301/02

August 12, 2002, Moscow City Court consisting of:

• Presiding judge: Komarova M.A.
• Lay assessors: Smirnova L.R., Dashkova A.N.
• Prosecutors: Semenenko M.E., Zaraev D.V.
• Secretary: Tsvetkova N.V.
• Defense lawyer: Chernousov E.A.

considered in an open court session the case accusing

Anatoly Viktorovich Mylnikov
under Art. 205 part 1, 30 part 3, 150 part 4 of the UK RF [Criminal Code of the Russian Federation].

The presiding judge opens the court session and announces which case is subject to trial.

The secretary reports on the appearance of the summoned persons in court.

• Defendant Mylnikov A.V. appeared.
• Lawyer Chernousov E.A. in defense of defendant Mylnikov appeared.
• Representative of the state prosecution Zaraev D.V. appeared.
• Representative of the state prosecution Semenenko M.E. appeared.

Witnesses:
* Tumasyan A.E. appeared.
* Zander N.V. appeared.
* Neudakhina M.M. appeared.
* Tumasyan E.Yu. appeared.
* Tumasyan Zh.A. appeared.
* Sokolov S.M. did not appear.
* Skoibeda U.B. did not appear.

Witnesses are removed from the courtroom.

The presiding judge establishes the identity of the defendant and finds out when he was served a copy of the indictment.

Defendant:
Mylnikov Anatoly Viktorovich, born December 12, 1946, native of Ivano-Frankovsk, Russian, citizen of Russia, previously repeatedly convicted, married, I have a daughter born in 1974, previously worked as the head of the economic security service of the "Zolotye Stranitsy" [Golden Pages] publishing house until January 15, 2002, actually residing at the address: Moscow, Vernadskogo Ave., 27, bldg. 1, apt. 64 - this is my daughter's address, address: Moscow, Sadovaya-Karetnaya St., 4/6, apt. 82 - this is my wife's address, previously convicted in 1998 by the Nagatinsky Court for crossing the state border, released in 1998 upon completion of the term in November or December.
Was held in custody from January 15, 2002 to June 10, 2002, the measure of restraint was changed to bail of 30,000 rubles.
Received a copy of the indictment on June 28, 2002.

Proceedings Update

• Did you not speak about the handwritten text? And why is there such a difference in the testimony in court and during the investigation?

Answer: I don't know why there is such a difference in the testimony; it means the investigators didn't ask me such questions, so it was not reflected in the protocol.

No questions.

Court Announcement

The presiding judge announces that the proceedings will be continued on August 13, 2002 at [?] hours.

August 13, 2002. The judicial proceeding is continued.

The court informs the participants of the trial that measures have been taken to summon witness Golubkova; the court received an inquiry stating that Golubkova is on regular leave with departure from Moscow.

Lawyer Chernousov's Motion

Lawyer Chernousov: I still believe that the testimony is necessary. This witness is needed to clarify why instructions were by her and why Mylnikov's reports about the preparing explosions were not taken into account. In this regard, I move to read out the testimony of witness Golubkova.

Defendant Mylnikov and representatives of the state prosecution object.

The court, consulting on the spot, ruled:
* To grant lawyer Chernousov's motion, to read out the testimony of witness Golubkova given during the preliminary investigation.

The presiding judge reads out:
Volume 1, case file page 167 - protocol of the interrogation of witness Golubkova.

Lawyer Chernousov's Further Questions

Lawyer Chernousov: It is unclear why Golubkova, in a conversation with Anzhelika on May 19, did not draw up a single procedural document about the conversation that took place, why she did not officially formalize the fact of receiving the handwritten text of the appeal from Tumasyan; this should have been formalized by a seizure protocol. Why does Golubkova, in the presence of information, claim—and there is testimony from Mylnikov and corresponding information was sent from the Ministry of Internal Affairs—why did Golubkova not summon Mylnikov and interrogate Mylnikov on this matter? And why was the criminal case initiated after a significant amount of time?

The defense is invited to provide evidence to the court.

Court Proceedings Transcript

Motion by Lawyer Chernousov

Chernousov: I ask the court to examine as additional witnesses:
* German Elena Anatolyevna - the daughter of Mylnikov regarding characterizing data.
* Dmitry Yuryevich Mayorov, an employee of the publishing house "Zolotye Stranitsy" for a character reference.
* Ananyev Pavel Igorevich for a character reference.

Also, I ask the court to summon to court the Senior Operations Officer for Especially Important Cases, Vladimir Mikhailovich Kirienkov, whom Mylnikov approached in September 1999 after he received information about the explosions in Moscow.

The stated motion is supported.

Responses

Defendant Mylnikov: I support it.

Representative of the state prosecution Zaraev: I believe it is possible to question them as witnesses for character references; as far as Kirienkov is concerned, there are no grounds for his summons to court, since the lawyer stated the reasons for his questioning as being related to the case.

Representative of the state prosecution Semenenko: I do not object to the questioning of witnesses for character references, I object to summoning Kirienkov since the circumstances about which the questioning of this witness is requested do not relate to the case.

Court Ruling

The court, consulting on the spot, ruled:
* To grant the motion of lawyer Chernousov regarding the questioning of additional witnesses for the character reference of Mylnikov.
* To deny the summons of witness Kirienkov, as the questioning goes beyond the scope of evidence in the present case.

Further Statements by Lawyer Chernousov

Lawyer Chernousov: I believe that the refusal to summon witness Kirienkov, which was also denied during the preliminary investigation, testifies to a biased consideration of this criminal case.

Lawyer Chernousov: I suggest starting the questioning with witness German E.A., then witnesses Mayorov D.Y. and Ananyev P.I.

EXAMINATION OF ADDITIONAL WITNESS GERMAN E.A.

German Elena Anatolyevna, residing at the address: Moscow, Shvernika St. [house ...], dormitory, but in fact I reside at the address: 60-letiya Oktyabrya Ave. together with my father. Pavel Fedorovich [surname illegible] is registered at this address. I am a full-time student at MSU, I do not work, no prior convictions.

Warned of criminal liability under Articles 307, 308 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Rights under Article 56 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation explained. I do not require the services of a lawyer.
Defendant Mylnikov is my father. I wish to give testimony.

Testimony Transcript Excerpts

Lawyer's Questions

• Lawyer Chernousov to the witness: Could Mylnikov have committed unlawful actions?
  • Question withdrawn.
• Question of lawyer Chernousov to the witness: How do you assess Mylnikov's presence in?
  • ...perceived this as an abnormal phenomenon, that it was some kind of?
  • assumed that he could not commit something like that.
  • no.

INTERROGATION OF THE DEFENDANT MYLNIKOV

• Defendant Mylnikov: I do not plead guilty to any article of the proffered charges. I met Anzhelika Tumasyan in the summer of 1999.
  • There was a group of musicians performing something, the songs were all in performance, Tumasyan stood with her mouth open and put money in there. It was not clear to me what the girl found interesting. We met, exchanged some coordinates, then did not see each other for a long time.
  • This meeting occurred under very strange circumstances, when I happened to be on Vernadsky Avenue, where I was renting an apartment for my daughter, and there we met.
  • At that time I was living with Natalya Zander, and she at the same time somewhere in? Natalya went to prison. This was June-July 1999. I met Anzhelika.
  • Zander was arrested for complicity in a crime. At that time I lived in Zander's apartment with her. When she was arrested, I was left with all her household, including two minor children.
  • With Natalya we talked for a very long time, I lived with her for 5-6 months, I thought that we had a serious and long-term relationship.
  • I clarified all the relations, which regarding this extortion case, this was even before her arrest and from conversations with the investigator I understood that she was not involved in this.
  • I told her that what scares her is what there is and she doesn't need anything more, everything as it really is when she was taken into custody.
  • Zander was taken into custody in the courtroom I saw that she tried to take all the blame on herself.
  • After that I had no choice, I brought her parcels, wrote letters and supported her tried to hire a lawyer for Zander.
  • When I met Anzhelika it surprised me that she easily found where I lived with Natalya Zander on Leninsky Avenue, she came to me unexpectedly, but I did not give her the address nor the phone number.
  • This was a month after Zander's arrest, at the beginning of? year.
  • At that period I had no relationship with Tumasyan at all but she for some reason got it into her head that she would become my wife and this problem tormented her all the time.
  • She began to take an interest in who was here who said that I live with Zander and she began to ask how to help her, I hired a lawyer for her and how else I don't know.
  • From Anzhela's appearance I understood that she came because of drug addiction. I thought that she had some interest, but why I don't know, I didn't know.
  • Some time passed, 10-20 days, I tried to tell her to quit drugs. I asked her where the drugs come from, asked if those people I saw together with her were them, she said they were.
  • I began to try to help Tumasyan get rid of drug addiction. Then Tumasyan...

Account Details

• ...was not working for me, she was studying in the second year of medical school.
• Tried to identify the Caucasians with whom Tumasyan communicated, many times.
• I am saying now in the process I reported to the investigator, but the investigator did not record it in the protocol.
• When the Caucasians came, they asked for Zander's husband, i.e. they called the name of Alexander Zander, and then asked where the wife was. I said that she is in prison, but from the question I realized that they know all this.
• They started asking whether I am doing something for her, I said that I do what I can.
• The Caucasians said they came to stir up Moscow and make fireworks, and offered to participate in terrorist acts, to blow something up and earn money on this.
• Since I have known this group of persons for a long time, I treated this as boasting, i.e. I mean, in general, Caucasians, but specifically these people I did not know anyone.
• I refused their offer.
• Everything that was written in the paper, everything I heard from them, it was they who suggested I write an appeal so that they would release Zander, if she is not released, there will be explosions.
• I did not start writing the appeal.
• Literally a month later, I had already forgotten about all this, an explosion occurred on Manezh Square, in my opinion, it was August 31, and on the pager a message came that they are doing their job and that I can also help Zander.
• This was connected with Zander. Immediately after this, I turned to the MVD told about what was happening. This was recorded and minuted/put in a protocol.
• I was summoned, two generals were present, one from the FSB, the other from MVD who were from the terrorism department.
• I reported on how the meeting with the Caucasians took place and what messages came to me on the pager.
• They didn't believe me and I went to the "Komsomolskaya Pravda" publishing house, since I received another message that the explosions were continuing.
• I wanted to say that such messages came to me in connection with the fact that this is connected with my activity.
• I arrived at the editorial office of the newspaper "Komsomolskaya Pravda" and reported that there were explosions in Moscow and explosions would continue to occur, reported that I was at the MVD and reported there, but here too they treated me coolly/indifferently.
• After this, they began to detain me.
• I came to Pozner's program, wanted to raise the process on television.
• Pozner has an assistant Porashutinskaya and she has an assistant and she met with me in a cafe, detained by the Federal Security Service.
• For two hours they took a deposition/interrogation from me and including this kind of paper I wrote.
• I wrote this with the aim to notify the people that explosions are appearing.
• Then they detained me and said that they need to take handwriting samples from me and said that an expert analysis would be conducted.
• Since they told me that there are various letters, I said that I did not send them, that I am reporting on the events taking place.
• I became convinced that in the information among the correspondents there are the same agents who can betray me at the same moment and this topic is inconvenient for someone.
• In 2000 they summoned me for interrogation, I don't remember when it was, they arrested me in 2002 from January 15.
• In 2000 they summoned me and began to interrogate me, I began to ask what the investigator wants from me and in 2000 I wrote so many pages that it was possible to make 2 volumes.

Sentence and Repentance

• I served a sentence in places of deprivation of liberty for 21 years.
• The charge under articles 146, 177, 142 of the UK RSFSR I did not recognize.
• I have now repented and set out on the path of correction, but I repent for the evil I did in my time.

Regarding the Appeal

• I believe that this appeal appeared because Tumasyan was caught on drugs and this paper was handed to her, it could not have been with her for 10 months.
• I don't remember if I wrote such things to Tumasyan and directly handed them.
• It is quite possible that such a thing could have been written by me when they took samples of handwriting for handwriting analysis.

Transcript Excerpts

• It is interesting how this appeal appeared in the "General Newspaper", I did not send it there.
• They took samples for handwriting analysis, perhaps wrote this appeal. I don't remember writing this at all.
• No such appeal at Zander's apartment in the presence of Tumasyan.
• I wrote under the dictation of FSB officers.
• Tumasyan's testimony about duplicating the text of the appeal on did not give. I did not buy postage envelopes for her.
• That Tumasyan is 100% slandering me. All her testimony, that in are different. Tumasyan's motive for slandering me is that she did not come out dissatisfaction with her own ambitions and her being in drug addiction.
• Knew who the "Volunteers of Russia" were.
• I [deny] my guilt in involving a minor in a criminal [activity].
• I did not know Tumasyan's age, she told me that she was studying in second year. I asked her if she had finished school, she said.
• The charge under Art. 150 of the Criminal Code is absurd. I did not [commit] any committed, and did not involve anyone.

The presiding judge suggests the lawyer ask questions to the defendant.

[Question] of lawyer Chernousov to the defendant: What were your relations with Tumasyan like?

• Our relations were constantly uneven. I don't like it when on this occasion I constantly had clashes, she [drugs] and anasha [hashish]. I determined this from my past, as I saw, consumed anasha.

[Question] of lawyer Chernousov to the defendant: When you communicated with [her, did you help] her and did you fight to keep her from smoking drugs?

• Yes, I took drugs away from her, we dealt with the Caucasians the authorities found drugs on them.

[Question] of lawyer Chernousov to the defendant: After meeting Tumasyan [were you] with Zander?

• Yes, Tumasyan told me that measures needed to be taken, [to] Zander, suggested I write a letter with threats, to which I it will all end sadly.

[Question] of lawyer Chernousov to the defendant: When was the first time [FS]B [officers] detained you?

• It was immediately, three or 4 detentions in different places, it was [year].

[Question] of lawyer Chernousov to the defendant: On what occasion were you

Interview Transcript

Questions and Answers

Question from lawyer Chernousov to the defendant: Where did the meetings with FSB officers take place?

Answer: They showed me IDs, took me into an office, and began a most ordinary interrogation; at the same time, I signed something.

Question from lawyer Chernousov to the defendant: In the period of September 1999, were handwriting samples taken from you and was something dictated to you?

Answer: Yes. I do not know if a criminal case had been initiated during that period.

Question from lawyer Chernousov to the defendant: As you understood it, in September 1999, had a case been initiated when they took handwriting samples from you?

Answer: No.

Question from lawyer Chernousov to the defendant: Was it specifically handwriting samples that you wrote in September 1999, and were these samples used when a criminal case was initiated?

Answer: Yes.

Question from lawyer Chernousov to the defendant: Why did you go to the MVD?

Answer: I believed it was a civic duty to report the explosions. This was at Zhitnaya 16; two generals were present on the upper floors.

Question from lawyer Chernousov to the defendant: Regarding the information you gave to the MVD officers, to whom did you give it?

Answer: I reported it to Colonel Kirienkov, and he brought it to the attention of the leadership, and then I was summoned, I told everything, and no measures were taken.
I believe that someone wants to involve me as a participant in some terrorist threats; as for who is interested in this, I think that the investigation and the court should clarify this.

The presiding judge suggests that the representatives of the state prosecution ask questions to the defendant.

Question from the representative of the state prosecution Zar[?] to the defendant: Since what time have you been acquainted with Zander?

Answer: Since February 1999.

Question from the representative of the state prosecution Zar[?] to the defendant: How did you meet her?

Initial Statement

Answer: I was detained and asked what I had written here and what relation I had to it. Officially, I was not interrogated; I did not sign a protocol.

Testimony Transcript

Representative of the state prosecution, Zaraeva: Tell me, when were you acquainted?

Answer: In 1999.

Representative of the state prosecution, Zaraeva: Are you aware of the acquaintance between Tumasyan and Zander earlier than you?

Answer: It seemed to me that they were acquainted earlier. These were my observations, as she came to Zander's home, although I did not ask Zander for the address; I asked if she knew Tumasyan, she said no, but that this was not the case. My relationship with Zander was normal until she went to prison, and when she got out I told her that we were in our relations, as she did not fulfill much of what I. She tried to save her husband by taking all the blame on herself. I considered that she. Then Zander came to me and said that she needed a job and I job.

Representative of the state prosecution, Zaraeva: How do you think one can trust Zander's testimony about getting a job at the publishing house earlier than Tumasyan, and also that she was not with Tumasyan?

Answer: I believe that she is slandering me because I did not start living with her and.

Representative of the state prosecution, Zaraeva: How should one regard Tumasyan's testimony that she a job through you and gave all her personal data?

Answer: I was acquainted with Tumasyan and that was enough for me, and I did not have Tumasyan's documents. Tumasyan was not officially employed; I took her to see what she was capable of.

Representative of the state prosecution, Zaraeva: Did Tumasyan have any kind of dependence on you?

Answer: I don't think I was scary for anyone and never people.

Representative of the state prosecution, Zaraeva: How long ago did you become a believer and how does this reconcile with your crimes?

Answer: I began to believe in God after he took my daughter from me and said no. I wrote to my wife so that our daughter would never be put in. In 1993, I was informed that our daughter had died. I do not want to say anything more to the court.

Interrogation Transcript

Questions and Answers

• Question from the representative of the state prosecution [Zar...] to the defendant: What functions did Tumasyan perform at the publishing house?

  • Answer: She went to the bailiffs under contracts, like the others, and received money.

• Question from the representative of the state prosecution [Zar...] to the defendant: Did you instruct Tumasyan about the printing of the appeal that appears in the materials of the criminal case?

  • Answer: No. There are dozens of computers in the publishing house and I instruct my employees to print this appeal.

• Question from the representative of the state prosecution [Zar...] to the defendant: Did you give any instructions to Tumasyan regarding the preparation of appeals?

  • Answer: No.

• Question from the representative of the state prosecution [Zar...] to the defendant: Did you personally or through some people try to exert influence on Tumasyan and her parents?

  • Answer: No, I had no need for that.

• Question from the representative of the state prosecution [Zar...] to the defendant: Did you report any additional information about Zander to Tumasyan?

  • Answer: No, I think they were acquainted before. Zander and Tumasyan were friends and she knew everything, they communicated closely, I noticed this.

• Question from the representative of the state prosecution [Zar...] to the defendant: How do you explain the reasons for your evasion of appearances before the investigative authorities after you were interrogated for the first time?

  • Answer: In September 1999, when no case had been initiated, I was repeatedly interrogated; this had a negative effect on me, my health immediately deteriorated and I decided not to go. The case under the terrorism article was not subject to initiation under amnesty.

• Question from the representative of the state prosecution [Zar...] to the defendant: According to the case materials, it appears that you were summoned for interrogation but did not appear; how can you explain this?

  • Answer: I was in Ukraine at that time, I called the investigator and reported that I have a sick mother and I am forced to take care of my mother's health and have no time to come for interrogation.

Testimony Transcript Excerpt

Interrogation Details

• Representative of the state prosecution Zaraev questioned the defendant regarding the close attention from the FSB.

Defendant's Account of Detention

• The defendant stated that the FSB bodies placed him in the SIZO (remand prison) to get testimony regarding the explosions.
• While undergoing an examination at the Serbsky Institute, he was taken to an office where several employees suggested signing the interrogation protocol in exchange for his freedom.
• The protocols contained statements that he had met individuals he had spoken of earlier, but he did not provide surnames and names.
• He read the protocols, stated that this did not happen, and refused to sign.
• He reported the incident to the head of the Lefortovo SIZO, Sklyarov, and sent letters to Putin, after which measures were taken for his release.

Questions from Zaraev

Question from the representative of the state prosecution Zaraev to the defendant: You said that you have extensive acquaintances in the agencies, what did you mean?

Answer: He meant individuals who hold a certain post, whom he cannot name. These are former employees of the State Security Committee (KGB), acquaintances, and Trofim Maloev.

Question from the representative of the state prosecution Zaraev to the defendant: Does this circumstance not explain the recommendations of the General Prosecutor's Office regarding the change of the measure of restraint?

Answer: He believes the letter he wrote to Putin influenced this.

Question from the representative of the state prosecution Zaraev to the defendant: Did you give an interview to the newspaper "Versiya"?

Answer: Yes.

Question from the representative of the state prosecution Zaraev to the defendant: What purpose did you pursue by giving this interview?

Answer: He wanted to draw people's attention to the fact that his statements about the explosions in Moscow were not accepted in any way, and those persons who should have done this did nothing for it.

Representative of the state prosecution Zaraev: He asked the court to examine the newspaper "Versiya" in the court session.

Court Review

• The court reviewed the newspaper "Versiya," article: "Open Threat."

Question from the representative of the state prosecution Zaraev to the defendant: Did you know about the minor age of Tumasyan?

Answer: No.

Testimony Transcript

Questions and Answers

To the defendant: How does your previous sentence align with your previous testimony?

Answer: That sentence is invalid.

Question from lawyer Chernousov to the defendant: You said that they changed the measure of restraint to bail and referred to a letter from Putin and that's it, what was the reason?

Answer: They wanted to directly link me to the explosions in Moscow, to make me an accomplice. And when that failed, they released me, to look at my connections, circle, and what I do, and then locked me up again. There were moments of my persecution and I almost got hit by a truck, they follow me, tap my phones. This was after I was released. This persecution and photographing is still happening.

Question from lawyer Chernousov to the defendant: When in September 1999 did FSB officers meet with you, where did it happen?

Answer: When I am arrested and led, I cannot name the exact location.

Question from lawyer Chernousov to the defendant: Could FSB officers have taken handwriting samples from you before the initiation of the criminal case?

Answer: Yes.

Question from the court to the defendant: Do you remember when they took handwriting samples from you?

Answer: Immediately after the last explosion in Moscow on September 12 or 13. The samples were all in September, the 13th, 15th, and 18th. The criminal case was initiated on July 18, ? year. I believe that I gave the samples for comparative study before the initiation of the criminal case. It is clear from the case file that the expert examination was conducted after the initiation of the criminal case, but I think it could have been conducted before.

Prosecutor Statement

State prosecutor Semenenko: I ask to attach to the case materials a certificate on the facts of terrorism that took place in 1999.
No objections.

Court Ruling

The court, consulting on the spot, ruled:
* To attach to the case materials a certificate signed by the deputy head of the FSB department.

Transcript Excerpt

Questions and Answers

Question from the representative of the state prosecution Semenenko
* After the change of the measure of restraint for Zander to arrest, you...?

Answer:
* Three-four.

Question from the representative of the state prosecution Semenenko
* From what moment did Zander begin to take revenge on you for the fact that you left...?

Answer:
* After she was released. When she came out, I told her that I would not, as I considered that she had betrayed me.

Question from the representative of the state prosecution Semenenko
* Why did you continue communicating with Tumasyan, if she is such a lady, arranged?

Answer:
* My job is like that - to help.

Question from the representative of the state prosecution Semenenko
* Why did you, as a law-abiding citizen, not report that suffers from drug addiction?

Answer:
* I did report.

Question from the representative of the state prosecution Semenenko
* You are a professional with 20 years of experience, who knows the CPC and CC (Criminal Procedure Code and Criminal Code), did it happen that under the dictation of FSB officers you wrote yourself an article (criminal charge)?

Answer:
* It's hard for me to say.

Question from the representative of the state prosecution Semenenko
* When you wrote the appeal under the dictation of FSB officers, there was going?

Answer:
* You know, so much time has passed, I don't remember.

Court Presentation

• The court presents to the defendant volume 2, case files 52, 53, 54, the texts of the appeal.

Question from the representative of the state prosecution Semenenko
* How did it happen that in this appeal you reported Zander as the mother of two children and even spoke about the fact that she has parents?

Answer:
* I was surprised that they were dictating to me about some murders, therefore, to get angry about Zander.

Question from the representative of the state prosecution Semenenko
* Constantly referring to the fact that you are familiar with the system of law enforcement agencies, how could you write such a thing under dictation?

Handwritten Notes

• Note
  • pr-na (prosecutor?)
  • Pushkina
  • n na (regarding?)
  • Trepashk (Trepashkin)
  • Zander

Court Transcript Excerpts

Questions and Answers

Question from the court to the defendant: On what date did this paper arrive at the prosecutor's office and the newspapers?

Answer: In August and September.

Question from the representative of the state prosecution Semenenko to the defendant: Were you present at the judicial investigation when the case regarding Zander was being conducted?

Answer: Yes, and I was also present when the measure of restraint was changed in the Ostankino court.

Question from the representative of the state prosecution Semenenko to the defendant: How then was the investigator or the operational officer made aware that the case regarding Zander was being conducted in the Ostankino court by Judge Matveev?

Answer: This appeal is falsified based on those letters that were received. I did not write them; they were written under the dictation of certain organs.

Question from the court to the defendant: You said that even with Reznik himself, there were comments regarding Art. 207 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the application of the amnesty act. And did Reznik explain to you? that amnesty is applied? if the person admits guilt?

Answer: Amnesty is given not only for persons who fall under this, but also for those persons who initiate this case. Reznik told me that this is an instruction to the investigative bodies which cannot initiate a criminal case. I do not admit to the elements of Art. 207 and 205.

Question from lawyer Chernousov to the defendant: In court, Tumasyan gave testimony that you gave her a handwritten text and asked her to type it on a computer, and it turned out that she saved this text; how do you explain this?

Answer: There is a rule of work: if I write in my own handwriting to someone, I do not force people to rewrite it and put their signature; if I had committed such an oversight and given her the manuscript, then I would have ensured that it was destroyed. I had opportunities in my work to type it myself or give this paper to someone else to type.

Question from lawyer Chernousov to the defendant: During the investigation? when the case under Art. 207 was initiated, did the investigator present you with a document and record in the protocol that in the event of your admission of Art. 207, the criminal case is subject to termination?

Answer: No. But the investigator told me that he considers me as a recidivist.

Testimony Transcript

Advocate Chernousova to the defendant: Why did you not give such testimony during the preliminary investigation?

Answer: The thing is that everything I said during the investigation, the investigator did not record in the protocol; he said that it did not interest him. Only at the end of the investigation, at the very end, did he accept two motions to summon witnesses, but he rejected them. I believe that my rights were violated and they acted with the same methods that were used in the 50s. No one beat me, but the methods—and I never gave confessionary statements. I filed the statement because an illegal measure of restraint was applied to me, and a criminal case was initiated.

Judge to the defendant: You say that handwriting samples were taken from you illegally; in volume 1, pp. 96-98, there is a protocol for obtaining samples for handwriting analysis; were you indeed asked to write an essay on the topic: "My life in Moscow"?

Answer: Yes, I wrote such an essay in my own hand.

Judge to the defendant: As follows from the case materials, there was a lawyer; there was such a lawyer, and did you tell the truth in the presence of your lawyer?

Answer: The advocate was with me, but I refused his services and I did not always tell the truth in his presence. In the presence of advocate Chernousova, I spoke the truth.

...

no.

Representative of the state prosecution, Zaraev: If the defense has no other evidence, then I would ask the court to read out the case materials contained in two volumes. These are documents regarding the initiation of the criminal case, protocols of investigative actions, and characterizing data on the defendant's personality.

The court proceeds to the examination of the written materials of the case.

Volume 1 is being read out.

• Decision to initiate a criminal case;
• p. 3 - decision;
• p. 5 - decision;
• p. 1 - decision;
• p. ... communication;
• p. ... statement by Tumasyan;
• p. 5 - copy of the sentence dated January 14, 2000;
• p. 9 - specialist's conclusion;
• p. 1 - decision to obtain comparative handwriting samples from 2000;

Defense Motion Discussion

The defense's motion is to be denied, as the issue of the admissibility of evidence is decided by the court in the deliberation room in conjunction with all the evidence examined in court.

Motion of Defendant Mylnikov

Mylnikov asked the court to exclude the authorship expertise from the evidence, as it is of a presumptive nature, as well as the conclusions of the technical expert regarding the printer on which the messages were allegedly printed, as they do not state with certainty that the appeals were printed on this specific printer.

The filed motion is being discussed.

• Lawyer Chernousov: I support it.
• State prosecution representative Zaraev: I believe the filed motions are not subject to satisfaction, as there are no grounds for exclusion from the evidence specified in Art. 75 of the CCP RF.
• State prosecution representative Semenenko: I support the opinion of the panel.

The court, conferring on the spot, ruled:
* To reject the motion of defendant Mylnikov.

The court questions the participants of the process regarding additions to the entire judicial investigation.

Second Motion Discussion

Defendant Mylnikov asked the court to summon witness Kirienkov to the court session, whom he approached in August 1999 and spoke about the upcoming explosions, and not as he said earlier—in September 1999, i.e., after the explosions were carried out. He approached him at the end of August, on the 30th, 1999, before the explosion on Manezh Square.

The filed motion is being discussed.

• Lawyer Chernousov: I support the motion of my client and believe that by not summoning this witness, we are infringing on the rights of my client. I ask the court to inquire with the MVD as to whether information was received from Mylnikov in late August or early September 1999, and if it was received, what its content was and to whom this information was passed.
• State prosecution representative Zaraev: I believe there are no grounds for satisfying the filed motions. The appeal was prepared after the explosions and therefore there are no grounds for summoning the witness.
• State prosecution representative Semenenko: In accordance with Art. 53 of the CCP RF, the powers of the defense counsel, the defense counsel is entitled to provide and collect evidence by means of an interview. If the defense counsel...

Judicial Proceedings Summary

The judicial investigation is concluded.

The court proceeds to hear the closing arguments.

• Lawyer Chernousov requested time to prepare for the closing arguments.
• At 10:45, a break was announced in the court session until [illegible] o'clock.
• After the break, in response to the court's question, Lawyer Chernousov stated that there was enough time to prepare for the closing arguments and wished to file a motion to question witness Kirienkova.

The presiding judge informed the lawyer that the judicial investigation was over and proposed, in accordance with the requirements of Art. 292 of the Criminal Code of the RF, to speak in the arguments.

The floor was given to the representative of the state prosecution, D.V. Zaraev.

State Prosecution Representative Zaraev's Argument

State Prosecution Representative Zaraev addressed the court and participants of the trial, drawing attention to the testimony of witnesses Zander and Tumasyan regarding their acquaintance with Mylnikov.

• Mylnikov initially introduced Zander, and subsequently Anzhelika Tumasyan.
• Mylnikov was aware of Zander's personality, her family situation, and the circumstances of her custody. This information is present in Mylnikov's appeal, which Tumasyan was unaware of.
• Zaraev believes the direct evidence of guilt is the testimony of witnesses Anzh. Tumasyan concerning the writing of the appeal and the time it was written, as she witnessed this. These witnesses confirmed their testimony given during the preliminary investigation in court.
• At the time of the events, Anzhela Tumasyan was an employee of the 'Zolotye Stranitsy' (Golden Pages) Publishing House and a subordinate of Mylnikov, and she held feelings for Mylnikov. This explains Mylnikov's influence on Anzhela Tumasyan, as she viewed Mylnikov as a potential husband.
• Due to these circumstances, Tumasyan complied blindly with Mylnikov's requests, including printing the appeal on Neudakhina's computer. Neudakhina testified in court, confirming her testimony from the preliminary investigation.
• Relatives of Anzhela Tumasyan were questioned in court, indirectly confirming their daughter's relationship with Mylnikov and the fact that Anzhela knew Neudakhina, where the appeal text was printed.
• Attention should be paid to the testimony of witness Neudakhina, who confirmed the circumstances of producing the computer version of the 'appeal' in August 1999 and informed the investigation and the court about the availability of a computer with 'Word' system software and an inkjet printer.

[Handwritten in margin:] Closing arguments of the parties