Interview of the Defendant

Anatoly Viktorovich Mylnikov, born in 1946, previously convicted (total sentence served 21 years), accused of committing crimes under:

• Part 1 of Art. 205 (threat of terrorism, i.e., committing explosions, arson, or other actions creating a danger of death, causing significant property damage or other socially dangerous consequences, if these actions are committed for the purpose of violating public safety, intimidating the population, or to exert influence on decision-making by government bodies – punishment from 5 to 10 years of imprisonment)
• Part 3 of Art. 30 (attempted crime or preparation for a crime)
• Part 4 of Art. 150 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (involvement of a minor in the commission of a serious crime).

Contract Nature of Prosecution

The contract nature of my criminal prosecution by the FSB bodies and, as I assume, that on August 16 the Moscow City Court will establish a long term of imprisonment by its verdict (two state prosecutors asked the court to sentence me to 8 years and 6 months of imprisonment) consists of the following.

• Initially, an unobjective and biased preliminary investigation was conducted against me by the senior investigator of the Investigation Service of the USFB of the Russian Federation for Moscow and the Moscow Region, Senior Lieutenant of Justice I. V. Asochakov, in criminal case No. 970, initiated on fabricated grounds on July 19, 2000, under Art. 207 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (knowingly false report of an act of terrorism).
• Then the FSB bodies realized that they had committed a violation of the law, because it was impossible to initiate a criminal case under this article and incriminate the specified corpus delicti, since, based on Art. 8, paragraph 'a' of the resolution of the State Duma of the Russian Federation of May 26, 2000 'On the declaration of amnesty in connection with the 55th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945' for those crimes where the maximum sentence does not exceed 3 years of imprisonment. Consequently, on the basis of the specified act of amnesty, it was impossible to initiate a criminal case, since Art. 207 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for a punishment from 6 months to three years.
• But the deed was done; I was already arrested on January 15, 2002, and was in the pre-trial detention center of the FSB of the Russian Federation 'Lefortovo'. The FSB bodies could not be given the opportunity for me, while at liberty, to have the opportunity to contact the media and human rights activists and inform them that back on August 30, 1999 (the first explosion on Manezh Square occurred on August 31, 1999), before all three explosions that took place in 1999 in Moscow, I contacted the central apparatus of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, where I was received by responsible officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the FSB, and reported that I had received a message about upcoming explosions in Moscow.
• The FSB bodies should have found out who sent such information to my pager, identified and detained these people. However, this was not done, and therefore they decided to lock me up for a long term of imprisonment myself, in order to hide the fact of inaction by the FSB bodies. This is arbitrariness on the part of the special services, which violates my rights and freedoms.
• Therefore, on April 24, 2002, in order not to release me from the Lefortovo pre-trial detention center, the FSB investigator for Moscow and the Moscow Region, I. V. Asochakov, on fabricated grounds, brought a new charge against me under Part 1 of Art. 205 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (terrorism), that I allegedly committed criminal acts consisting of a threat to commit explosions, arson, and other actions creating a danger of death.

Conclusion

Thus, I must inform the population of Russia: in case you receive any data about upcoming terrorist acts, do not hurry to run to the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

Account of Judicial Proceedings

...or the FSB and report this, because my case might be repeated, and you yourselves will be accused of a threat of terrorism. I realized that the methods of the KGB of past years are no different from the methods of the FSB. They transfer their miscalculations and mistakes onto innocent people, and those who know about these shortcomings of the FSB, they try to deprive of their freedom.

I hoped for a fair judicial review of the criminal case in the Moscow City Court, especially since the hearing of the case was already being conducted under the new Criminal Procedure Code (UPK) of the RF. Previously, I had heard about various contract judicial processes in the Moscow City Court. I confirm that there will be five more new UPKs of the RF, but with the same judges, the defendant and his defenders are still nobodies before the presiding judge. In this case, the presiding federal judge of the Moscow City Court, Komarova M. A., conducted the process just as under the old UPK. That is, she was the complete mistress of the process. She could command the secretary what to write in the protocol and what not to write. Although everything said by me and my defender was entered into the protocol, the judge only has the right to reject questions or remarks. From the way the judge corrected some of the parties' answers, I realized that there would be nothing more for me in this court except a guilty verdict.

Issues with the Trial

• The judge unreasonably rejected the lawyer's questions, which he asked the witnesses about whether they saw explosives or action plans for house bombings with me, explaining that this was not relevant to the case. It was strange to hear from the judge that I was charged with such a serious crime as a threat of terrorism, while at the same time the presence of explosives with me is not relevant to the case.
• Judge Komarova did everything to ensure that the witness—an employee of the central apparatus of the MVD of the RF, whom I approached and informed about the received messages about the bombings in Moscow as early as August 30, 1999—was not summoned to court and questioned about these circumstances. Twice I and my defender filed such motions, but they were unreasonably rejected by the court. I realized that the task of the court is to ensure that the testimony of the MVD employee, who would confirm the fact of my approaching him and meeting with other responsible officials of the MVD and FSB, was not entered into the court session protocol.

Discrepancies in Testimony

• Initially in court, I gave erroneous testimony that the information was given by me after the first explosion on Manezhnaya Square in Moscow on August 31, 1999.
• Then, in a conversation with a witness invited to court by the defense (that MVD employee who received information from me on August 30, 1999) on August 14 at 1:45 PM near the Moscow City Court building, the employee told me that he had pulled up the information that was sent from the MVD to the FSB, and it stated that I had reported the planned bombings on August 30, 1999.

Denial of Rights

• Even the witness invited by the defense, an employee of the central MVD of the RF who was in the court corridor on August 14 at 2:00 PM, was intentionally not questioned by the court.
• Thus, the court illegally deprived me of the opportunity to use the note to Art. 205 of the UK RF (A person who participated in the preparation of an act of terrorism is exempt from criminal liability if they, by timely warning the authorities or in another way, contributed to preventing the implementation of the act of terrorism).
• Judge Komarova did not give me and my lawyer the opportunity to prepare for the debates, despite our motions that time was needed to analyze everything and speak in the debates. Judge Komarova unreasonably rejected these motions, and I was deprived of the opportunity to prepare for the debates and the final word. Judge Komarova rushed the process very quickly. Mostly, defense motions were rejected.

I fear for my life, I fear that at the behest of the FSB, the Moscow City Court will lock me away for a long term in places of deprivation of liberty, so that society does not know about

On the recording of the cassation judicial collegium for criminal cases of the Supreme Court of the RF, falsification is registered - Art. 384, 413, part 3, items 1, 2; 379, part 1, item 2 - and violation of the application of articles leading to the reversal of the sentence!!!

UPK RF Art. 271, 24 violated

Personal Account

• "The Human Rights Committee has decided to give you protection," S.N. Yushenkov told me at a meeting with me.
• They (the protection) followed me day and night.
• The first question at the trial was asked of me: "How did you manage to get released from Lefortovo?" "Who are your acquaintances in higher circles?"
• My woe-of-a-lawyer never understood the reason for the gentle treatment of me on the 1st day.
• He was on the commission of those judging: "What if the defendant really has such connections that?!?!"
• Hence their well-being of the trial on the 1st day...
• Then: Judge Marova gave me back my passport, saying: "Everything I can do!"
• Then: they wanted to arrest me; but the protection "fought me off" (or maybe: it was a well-staged performance) and took me out of Russia.
• The trial went on without me.
• They tried me without me and passed a sentence and a ruling contrary to all laws, the Constitution, the Criminal Procedure Code, and human rights.
• At that time in Ukraine, they were knocking out my teeth and dragging me through prisons, (changed 13 prisons in 6 months).

Document Transcription

...miscalculations and unsatisfactory work of the FSB bodies in the fight against terrorism, when they did not take proper measures to prevent the act of terrorism in Moscow. I expect any provocation from the FSB bodies, planting of drugs and weapons, traffic accidents, and other provocations. I hope only for a fair resolution of the issue in the second judicial instance by way of cassation in the judicial collegium for criminal cases of the Supreme Court of the RF.
One cannot create the appearance of fighting terrorism; one must truly fight these crimes.

Letter to the Editorial Office of "Novaya Gazeta"

Hello, editorial office of "Novaya Gazeta"!
I am glad to greet you, free people with free thoughts. Thank God that you exist! I feel a breath of fresh air reading your newspaper. When you walk the path of truth, the burden is light, even if it is difficult, because it is for the good. So I carry my cross, although this is not easy. Many bosses, "getting acquainted" with my case, say: "How are you still alive?!" God is with me and He protects me. S.N. Yushenkov was killed, who prepared this interview and press conference for me with the "Human Rights Committee" of the State Duma and correspondents. "May he rest in peace!" I told him to be careful. The script of our life is written, and those who try to change it, like me, are removed, sidelined from activity capable of influencing the script. So God wills!

Whether you are believers or non-believers, but from above I was given to know about the explosions in Moscow. And this is the last time in my life, an attempt to prevent the death of people. Many years ago I tried to prevent the death of my daughter by writing a letter to my wife in Kyiv /Valentina Mikhailovna Yatsenko, Kvitnevyi lane 8, apt. 29, home tel. 460-05-83/ about the upcoming death in a car accident. All measures were taken, but... my daughter died. I am writing to you about this not so that you would believe in the gift sent to me from above, but so that you would be convinced of the existence of a "script." And the fact that you try to live in truth and speak to the world in free will is a GIFT from God to us people, but if the freedom of choice, decisions, and actions happens without His knowledge, but in reliance on oneself, then... the result is deplorable — we are walking the path of the devil... But what am I telling you, copybook maxims! Don't judge me. I want to see your good fruits; by them the tree is judged. I cannot describe to you my earthly "ordeals" in "Lefortovo" and other SIZOs through which I was tossed; I fear for my own. /I have an adult daughter who just graduated from MSU, and a grandson/. They have to live. And for us, who have stood on our feet, like your editor Sergei Kozheurov, and pro...

Statement

...who lived in difficult years and stood firm, to unite in the struggle against evil, no matter what masks it wears — Cheka or S.S.

I, a sinful, small person, a Christian, and my duty is to help my neighbor.

In my case, cooked up by FSB investigators and supported by the Moscow City Court and the judicial collegium for criminal cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation — it is utter nonsense — wherever you look. The law is on my side, even if one takes the version of me committing a "terrorist act in the form of a threat of carrying out explosions" — i.e., childbirth in the form of a promise to bring a child into the world/. The supplement to Article 205 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation says: "...one who voluntarily reports to the authorities and refuses to participate... is released from criminal liability."

After my voluntary appearance at the MVD Directorate and refusal to participate in any actions aimed at the release of N.V. Zander, and the conduct of an investigation by Colonel V.M. Kirienkov with interrogations of N.V. Zander in the SIZO, for the investigation, judges, and prosecutors to say: "the interrogation of the latter falls outside the scope of the case under consideration" is an absurdity that shows the aforementioned to be insane, bribed, or interested parties.

One could be surprised by this fact and reflect on the reasons for such blatant stupidity, if not for the falsification of documents — the minutes of the court session (which were not presented to me, despite all my requests), which is confirmed by the 3rd page of the ruling of the cassation Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (presiding judge Z.F. Galiullin). From this follows the conclusion — A CONTRACT [HIT/ORDER]!!!

Who is the customer [the one who ordered it]?! Maybe those who killed Yushenkov?!.. (I mean not the perpetrators). But I did not hand over anything to him and did not speak about the organizers. Yes, and there was no need to do so, because they speak for themselves through their actions. But we will still fight!

With respect to you,

November 12, 2003. Anatoly Mylnikov

P.S. I have sent complaints to:
* the General Prosecutor's Office
* to the Senior Prosecutor of Federal Security S.N. Sklyarov
* to the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
* to the state-legal directorate of the President of the Russian Federation with a letter to V.V. Putin. Letter to the President at the address Staraya Ploshchad, 4.

Prison P.O. Box Mikhailovskoye. Institution ON-55/10, detachment 6.

Curious Observation

Do you know what is curious in this story? That none of the residents of Moscow (and other cities and settlements) noticed that the article published in the newspaper "Komsomolskaya Pravda" on September 11, 1999, stopped the explosions in Moscow (and there were supposed to be two more).

Why? All these watches by the population and services began only after the article was published?! There was also no reaction from the press!

CASSATION RULING

Moscow, December 4, 2002

The Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, consisting of:
* Presiding Judge Galiullina Z.F.
* Judges Burova A.A. and Rodionova M.A.

considered in a court session on December 4, 2002, the cassation appeal of lawyer Chernousov E.A. against the sentence of the Moscow City Court dated August 16, 2002, by which

MYLNIKOV Anatoly Viktorovich, born December 12, 1946, a native of the city of Ivano-Frankovsk, convicted on February 9, 1979, under Articles 102 items 'a, g', 146 part 2 items 'a, b', 15 and 90 part 3, 218 part 1, 144 part 2, 17 and 144 part 2, 149 part 2, 194, 98 part 2, 195 part 3, 17 and 195 part 3 of the RSFSR Criminal Code, Articles 16-1 and 121, 117 part 3, 222 part 1, 194 part 1 and 197 of the Ukrainian SSR Criminal Code to 15 years of imprisonment with 5 years of exile; on September 25, 1998, under Articles 33 part 5 and 327 part 1 and Art. 322 of the Criminal Code of the RF to 10 months of imprisonment,

was convicted under Art. 205 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the RF to 6 (six) years and 8 months of imprisonment in a strict regime correctional colony.
Under Art. 30 part 3 and 150 part 4 of the Criminal Code of the RF, Mylnikov A.V. was acquitted for lack of corpus delicti in his actions.

Having heard the report of Judge Burova A.A., the explanations of lawyer Chernousov E.A., who supported the arguments of the cassation appeal, and the opinion of prosecutor Kornilova I.O., who proposed to leave the sentence unchanged, the judicial collegium

established:

• Mylnikov A.V. was convicted of terrorism in the form of a threat of committing explosions that create a danger of death and significant property damage, for the purpose of disrupting public safety, intimidating the population, and influencing decision-making by authorities.
• The crime was committed under the circumstances specified in the sentence.
• The convict Mylnikov did not plead guilty.

Cassation Appeal Review

Arguments of Lawyer Chernousov (Defense of Mylnikov)

Lawyer Chernousov, in defense of Mylnikov, asserts the following in the cassation appeal (main and supplementary):

• The sentence against Mylnikov is unfounded because the court's conclusions are based on unreliable evidence that was not comprehensively examined during the trial.
• The case was handled non-objectively, with significant violations of the principles of justice and from a position of prosecutorial bias.
• The handwritten text of the appeal on behalf of the public organization "Volunteers of Russia" and the explanations of Tumasian A.E. cannot be recognized as admissible evidence because they were obtained in violation of the norms of criminal procedure law.
• The sentence provides no evidence that Mylnikov actually threatened to blow up communications and houses in the city of Moscow.
• He disagrees with the classification of the convict's actions under Article 205 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, arguing they should be reclassified under Article 207 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
• Citing the lack of investigation into the case materials, he asserts that the court groundlessly denied the motion to interrogate Kirienkov, whose testimony is of great importance for making a correct judicial decision.
• He raises the issue of overturning the sentence regarding Mylnikov's conviction under Article 205, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and remanding the case for a new trial.

State Prosecutor's Objection

State prosecutor Zaras, in objections to lawyer Chernousov's cassation appeal, requests that it be denied and that the sentence against Mylnikov remain unchanged.

Judicial Collegium Findings

Having reviewed the case materials and discussed the arguments presented in the cassation appeal, the judicial collegium finds:

• The court's conclusion regarding Mylnikov's guilt to be well-founded, confirmed by evidence examined by the court and analyzed in the sentence.
• The arguments of the appeal to be groundless.

Evidence Review

• On August 21 and September 7, 1999, respectively, the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation and the editorial office of "Novaya Gazeta" received printed texts of an "Appeal" on behalf of a fictional organization "Volunteers of Russia."
• This appeal contained demands for the authorities to release the arrested N.V. Zander from custody and expressed a threat that if these demands were not met by September 1, 1999, communications, buildings, etc., would be blown up every 7 days.
• Witness Tumasian A.E. described producing several printed copies from a handwritten text of the aforementioned "Appeal," prepared by Mylnikov, at his suggestion, and gave him postal envelopes signed by third parties containing copies of the "Appeal."
• Tumasian A.E. testified that she did not destroy the handwritten text of the "Appeal" as instructed by Mylnikov, but kept it and later handed it over to FSB officers during the investigation.
• The court found no reason to distrust Tumasian A.E.'s testimony because it is confirmed by:
  • The testimony of witness N.V. Zander, who learned from Tumasian A.E. that Mylnikov actively sought her release, personally wrote the text of the "Appeal" with demands on behalf of the "Volunteers of Russia," and showed her the handwritten text. Zander had no doubt the text was prepared by Mylnikov, as she was familiar with his handwriting and writing style.
  • The testimony of witness Golubova during the preliminary investigation, which shows that Tumasian A.E. was given the original handwritten text of the aforementioned "Appeal."
  • The testimony of witness Neudakhina, who provided Tumasian A.E. with a personal computer and printer to write and print the text, the content of which was unknown to her.
• Additionally, Tumasian A.E.'s testimony is objectively confirmed by:
  • The handwritten text of the "Appeal" and the postal envelope addressed to the editorial office of "Novaya Gazeta" attached to the case.
  • The conclusion of a handwriting expert that the handwritten text of the "Appeal" was written by the convict Mylnikov.
  • The conclusion of an authorship expert who did not exclude Mylnikov from the circle of possible authors of the text of the named "Appeal."
  • Other evidence fully and correctly cited in the sentence.

Procedural Review

• No violations of the norms of criminal procedure law entailing the reversal of the sentence were established during the review of the case materials.
• The evidence cited by the court to confirm Mylnikov's guilt was obtained in compliance with the requirements of the law.
• Tumasian A.E.'s testimony does not indicate that she gave it during the preliminary investigation as a result of unlawful methods of investigation.
• The court discussed the motion filed during the trial to interrogate B.M. Kirienkov as a witness and, based on the fact that the interrogation falls outside the scope of the case under consideration, reached the correct conclusion to deny this motion.
• There were no violations of the requirements of Article 277, Part 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation by the court, as the court does not have the right to refuse a motion to interrogate a person as a witness in a court session initiated by the parties, whereas Kirienkov, as seen from the trial transcript, did not appear in court at the initiative of Mylnikov, who filed the motion for his interrogation, supported by lawyer Chernousov.

Conclusion

Thus, the court's conclusion regarding Mylnikov's guilt in committing terrorism in the form of a threat to carry out explosions that create a danger of loss of life and significant property damage, for the purpose of violating public safety, intimidating the population and...

Ruling

The legal classification of the acts committed by the convict Mylnikov under Art. 205 Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is correct.

The punishment for Mylnikov was assigned in accordance with the requirements of the law.

Therefore, the cassation appeal is not subject to satisfaction.

Based on the foregoing and guided by Articles 377, 378, and 388 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the judicial collegium ruled:

• To leave the sentence of the Moscow City Court dated August 16, 2002, regarding Anatoly Viktorovich Mylnikov unchanged, and the cassation appeal - without satisfaction.

Presiding [Signature]
Judges [Signatures]
TRUE COPY: Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation [Signature]

Note: the case was considered under the chairmanship of Judge Komarova.

The measure of restraint regarding the convict A.V. Mylnikov until the pronouncement of the sentence was chosen in the form of detention/custody.

[Stamp: MOSCOW CITY COURT]
[Stamp: COPY]

5-002-229

COPIES OF THE RULING SENT TO:
[Handwritten notes: to SIZO-1, to special department, to SIZO-3, Case sent on 23.10.02 to Moscow City Court]

sewn and numbered on [?] pages

Judge:
Secretary: