The accredited journalists have been let in the courtroom through another entrance
As a reminder, International Memorial’s defense team today is:
Attorneys
Maria Eismont, Mikhail Birukov, Henri Reznik
Lawyers
Grigory Vaipan, Tatiana Glushkova, Anastasiya Garina, Natalia Morozova, Natalia Sekretaryova, Tamilla Imanova
Attorneys
Maria Eismont, Mikhail Birukov, Henri Reznik
Lawyers
Grigory Vaipan, Tatiana Glushkova, Anastasiya Garina, Natalia Morozova, Natalia Sekretaryova, Tamilla Imanova
Court personnel have two small requests for the press: to take off their outer clothes and not to take close-up pictures of court personnel, "only from afar, and don't take close-up pictures of the judge too please"
The diplomats are being let in
Lev Ponomarev has entered the courtroom, he was in the presidium on the 28-29 of January 1989 at the foundation conference of Memorial
At the hearing about the Prosecutor General's Office lawsuits to liquidate Memorial he is in the third row
The first two withesses have entered the courtroom
❗️There' s been a first arrest next to the Supreme court
Meduza reports a woman arrested, she was in a solo piquet with a sign in support of Memmorial
Meduza reports a woman arrested, she was in a solo piquet with a sign in support of Memmorial
There are about 30-35 journalists in the courtroom at the moment
There are a lot of international journalists but reporters from Russia-1 (a state-owned Russian television channel) are also here
This is an open hearing and it feels like it won't start on time, people are queing outside
The hearing hasn't started yet, our lawyers are ready.
The courtroom is packed, everybody wants to get in
In the courtroom at the moment 
Everybody is very nervous, especially the court personnel
Mikhail Birukov and Henri Rezni, Memorial's attorneys, have entered the courtroom
Some people came with signs supporting Memorial (the sign says "We are Memorial")
The long process of getting passes to get inside is still going on, people are nervous
All the attorneys and lawyers are present in the courtroom, the last preperations before the hearing begins
The journalist and photographer Victoria Ivleva has entered the courtroom, she has recently spent several days in detention and was fined 150 000 rubbles for a solo piquet in support of Memorial
Meanwhile at the Russian Embassy in Israel
The judge has entered the courtroom
The hearing is about to begin
The judge says the journalists will be requested to leave the room after the hearing begins, as there are too many of them
They are checking court appearance
The rights are being read
The court asks if Memorial has any petitions and asks the press to leave
The press is being escorted to a press room
The judge says "too many people in one room, it's uncomfortable to work like that"
Amnesty International the Netherlands stands with Memorial @ the Russian Embassy in The Hague (photo: Maarten Beckers)
Vaipan:
A petition to call in a counsellor - Perm unit of Memorial
The lawsuit requires the support units of the defendant to be shut down as well
A petition to call in a counsellor - Perm unit of Memorial
The lawsuit requires the support units of the defendant to be shut down as well
The prosecutor's office objects
The rationale is that then you would also need to call all the other Memorial units
The rationale is that then you would also need to call all the other Memorial units
Roskomnadzor also objects
The judge doesn't grant the petition
The judge doesn't grant the petition
The judge asks Eismont to provide her warrant. Eismont says she hasn't been asked to do that before and provides her warrant
Eismont is calling for evidence.
"we don't understand within which procedural acts was the examination conducted. The Prosecutor's office conducts investigations based only on applications."
"we don't understand within which procedural acts was the examination conducted. The Prosecutor's office conducts investigations based only on applications."
"We don't have the paperwork explaining on what basis was the examination on 8.12.20 conducted, on the basis of the results of which the act in the case was made"
Eismont is calling for evidence once again.
The plaintiff has attached the decision of the Tverskoy court and the Moscow City Court
The plaintiff has attached the decision of the Tverskoy court and the Moscow City Court
The proseccutor believes it shows that the organisation violates citizens' right...
He is interrupted by Eismont who says she is just trying to justify her petition
He is interrupted by Eismont who says she is just trying to justify her petition
Eismont:
The defendant immediatly complied and marked publications. We corrected the violations immediatly. We believe the case materials that show that we did it immediately to be important evidence
The defendant immediatly complied and marked publications. We corrected the violations immediatly. We believe the case materials that show that we did it immediately to be important evidence
The number of people outside is not receding
The judge says the attorneys need to jгыешан the rationale less and adds "dare I remind you that I decide the order here"
The judge Nazarova asks if there are any more petions on this stage
The lawyer Vaipan asks for the Association Mémorial France to be called as a codefendant - according to article 47 of the law about non-governmental associations, it is a subdivision like Perm
The same goes for Memorial Czech Republic. It is a separate legal entity, but according to its statute it' s a pert of Unternational Memorial
Some of the journlists were sent from the courtroom to a separate room with a translation from the hearing, but then the video was turned off with only sound left. And that's an open hearing
Vaipan presents certified copeis.
The judge says they were made abroad.
Vaipan suggests that the court requests the original documents
The judge says they were made abroad.
Vaipan suggests that the court requests the original documents
Lawyer Sekretareva:
The original of the statute from France has been apostilled correctly and copied.
The judge nods, satisfied
The original of the statute from France has been apostilled correctly and copied.
The judge nods, satisfied
Judge: does the plaintiff wish to study the statutes from France and the Czech Republic?
The answer is yes
The answer is yes
the Ministry of Justice is also stydying them
Judge:
The paperwork is done incorrectly
Sekretareva: we just didn't have time to staple them together, we had very little time. We know it hasn't been done. We would love to correct this mistake for the next hearing
The paperwork is done incorrectly
Sekretareva: we just didn't have time to staple them together, we had very little time. We know it hasn't been done. We would love to correct this mistake for the next hearing
Eismont asks to renew the video broadcasting for the press. It's important as it guarantees the visibility of the hearing
The judge promises it will be turned back on
Vaipan:
A petition to involve an interested party - Rachinsky.
Judge (interrupts):
But he is representing a legal entity without power of attorney
A petition to involve an interested party - Rachinsky.
Judge (interrupts):
But he is representing a legal entity without power of attorney
Vaipan:
yes, but there is also zhemkova who can act without a power of attorney (asks to involve her as an interested party)
Judge:
If she can do that, she can be a representer, not an interested party. So can Rachinsky
yes, but there is also zhemkova who can act without a power of attorney (asks to involve her as an interested party)
Judge:
If she can do that, she can be a representer, not an interested party. So can Rachinsky
Vaipan asks for them both to be included as interested parties.
The judge doesn't see the reason, explains that they are representatives
The judge doesn't see the reason, explains that they are representatives
Judge: where is Zhemkova?
Vaipan: Outside the courthouse
Judge: tell her she can enter
Vaipan: Outside the courthouse
Judge: tell her she can enter
One more petition. Vaipan asks to involve Alexander Cherkasov as an interested party. He explains that the founders can be assigned obligations after the liquidation
He presents a list of the founders - there are three of them. Explains that Zhemkova has already been let in, one has died and we ask to allow Cherkasov to enter
Vaipan: at the moment there are no more petitions
Judge: then let's listen to the plaintiff on the petitions to call the evidence from the Tverskoy court, bringing into the proceedings the French and the Czech codivisions and Cherkasov
The prosecutors object granting the petitions
The prosecutors object granting the petitions
Prosecutors: considering the first petition, we were just doing our everyday job - we saw a violation and conducted an examination of the websites
Vaipan: it is important that the violations have been corrected then and not just recently
Vaipan: it is important that the violations have been corrected then and not just recently
Prosecutors are against granting the second petition as well
And also the third - the question about Cherkasov relates to the execution of judgement
The ministry of Justice:
We leave the first petition to the discretion of the court. Considering the second one - all the subdivisions should be in one register. It's another violation if they are not.
We leave the first petition to the discretion of the court. Considering the second one - all the subdivisions should be in one register. It's another violation if they are not.
Earlier the International Memorial has clearly stated in the protocol that the french subdivision is a member organization, the petition should be refused.
The Czech subdivision - ok, but if they refused Perm, they should also refuse this on. The Int Memorial is abusing their rights
the ministry of Justice:
the same goes for Ms Zhemkova
Judge: but she's been allowed to enter!
the ministry of Justice:
But she hasn't come for some reason! She is prolonging the hearing
the same goes for Ms Zhemkova
Judge: but she's been allowed to enter!
the ministry of Justice:
But she hasn't come for some reason! She is prolonging the hearing
the m. of justice about the third petition:
The founders automatically become members, then we should call in all the numerous members! The defender is misleading everybody: there are no obligations for the founders. We suggest refusing the petition
The founders automatically become members, then we should call in all the numerous members! The defender is misleading everybody: there are no obligations for the founders. We suggest refusing the petition
Roskomnadzor:
1 - the act is not the main evidence. The defender can provide the case materials easily. The fact that they want to bring them in is a concealed way of reviewing the decisions of the court that are already in effect
1 - the act is not the main evidence. The defender can provide the case materials easily. The fact that they want to bring them in is a concealed way of reviewing the decisions of the court that are already in effect
They suggest refusing all three petitions
zhemkova has entered the courtroom
Eismont: we are not disputing holding Int Memorial liable for not marking the materials. We want to show that IM has brought evidence that we have immediately corrected ALL the violations
Eismont
Additionally I ask you to direct your attention to the federal law about the prosecutor's office. The examination should be conducted based on incoming information, which means there should be legal grounds, not just a prosecutor's wish to make an act
Additionally I ask you to direct your attention to the federal law about the prosecutor's office. The examination should be conducted based on incoming information, which means there should be legal grounds, not just a prosecutor's wish to make an act
Vaipan
I wasn't listened to carefully. I was not talking about subsidiary responsibility. (repeats his earlier arguments)
I wasn't listened to carefully. I was not talking about subsidiary responsibility. (repeats his earlier arguments)
Lawyer Sekretareva tells the ministry of Justice that subdivisions can exist in many different forms
Zhemkova has been sat next to Rachinsky (the table of the administrative defendant)
Judge:
Calling for evidence why the website was examined - refused
Calling for evidence why the website was examined - refused
The judge says to come back to this issue after examining the evidence
Judge: refuse bringing into the proceedings the French and the Czech codivisions, but attach the documents to the case
Judge: refuse bringing Cherkasov in
The judge is reporting on the case
Here is one of the reasons of one of our lawyers many sleepless nights - part of the documents with objections that we sent on Monday
Nazarova lists all the administrative cases concerning the webpages of the international memorial — those ones, due to which Memorial paid a fine of million rubles.
That became possible thanks to donations of several thousands people.
That became possible thanks to donations of several thousands people.
Listing of the cases about fines still goes on. The judge starts reading more slowly, sighs and almost yawns. People are starting to look at their phones.
Except for the artists — they are drawing.
Except for the artists — they are drawing.
Now to something more serious: in 2012 IM gave a negative assessment to the "foreign agents" law
Nazarova: This shows that Memorial repeatedly violated the law! Repeatedly hide the fact that they're Foreign organisation, violated the Convention of Human Rights and Convention on the rights of the child
The Procesutors, Ministry of Justice and Roskomnadzor sustain the lawsuit claims.
The Memorial legal team does not acknowledge the claim
The Memorial legal team does not acknowledge the claim
Prosecutors, rationale for the claim:
IM according to its statute was created also to "achieve socially useful goals and other goals that do not contradict the law". I think it's obvious to everyone that everybody should obey the constitution and the laws.
IM according to its statute was created also to "achieve socially useful goals and other goals that do not contradict the law". I think it's obvious to everyone that everybody should obey the constitution and the laws.
Prosecutors:
But IM has repeatedly broken the law. From 2013 to 2016 they conducted political activities while recieving foreign funding
But IM has repeatedly broken the law. From 2013 to 2016 they conducted political activities while recieving foreign funding
The prosecutor says that all the IM materials should have been marked and the organisation and Rachinsky have repeatedly broken this rule.
Prosecutor:
Moreover Int Memorial attempted to influence the decisions made by the government, bit didn't ask for the status of the «foreign agent». That's why it has this status now.
Moreover Int Memorial attempted to influence the decisions made by the government, bit didn't ask for the status of the «foreign agent». That's why it has this status now.
Nazarova: Memorial repeatedly violated the law! Repeatedly hide the fact that they're Foreign organisation, violated the Convention of Human Rights and Convention on the rights of the child (No 436 “On protection of children from information...)
The judge asks which materials exactly
Prosecutor: Internet resources named in the statements. Does it matter what exact web adresses?
Prosecutor: Internet resources named in the statements. Does it matter what exact web adresses?
J: what materials are those?
P: different articles. A wide variety of topics. But the important thing is the author, not the topic
J: and the lack of markings!
P: exactly!
P: different articles. A wide variety of topics. But the important thing is the author, not the topic
J: and the lack of markings!
P: exactly!
Prosecutor:
Federal law about foreign agents speaks about russian organisations participating in political activity. This shows that the activity of the organisation doesn't stay in the inner needs but concerns public relations.
Federal law about foreign agents speaks about russian organisations participating in political activity. This shows that the activity of the organisation doesn't stay in the inner needs but concerns public relations.
Int memorial systematically distributed it's materials without the mark of being the foreign agent
Prosecutor continues:
IM has negativeky affected children. The pepeated violations are proven by the fact that IM has repeatedly been called liable. With that said the liquidation is adequate to the violations
*asks the court to shut down IM and its subdivisions*
IM has negativeky affected children. The pepeated violations are proven by the fact that IM has repeatedly been called liable. With that said the liquidation is adequate to the violations
*asks the court to shut down IM and its subdivisions*
Second prosecutor adds:
Int Memorial allows posting in social media without the mark. It's not important what's in the posts. There are protocols concerning this case and there's evidence
Int Memorial allows posting in social media without the mark. It's not important what's in the posts. There are protocols concerning this case and there's evidence
Judge Nazarova: does anybody want to say something?
Silence
Silence
the second prosecutor adds concerning the lawyers' objections: International Memorial says that liquidation is not adequate.
But as we have already shown, the organization repeatedly shows the negligence of the law and violates citizens' rights SYSTEMATICALLY conceals information about their "foreign agent" status. This, the liquidation is adequate and necessary.
Second prosecutor continues:
Let's speak about the objection: «International Memorial didn't commit gross violations» — the materials were online without the mark for a long time, which made it possible for an unlimited amount of people to read them.
Let's speak about the objection: «International Memorial didn't commit gross violations» — the materials were online without the mark for a long time, which made it possible for an unlimited amount of people to read them.
The courts that brought International Memorial to justice for this didn't speak about its insignificance. That's why Int Memo violated the rights of unlimited amounts of people.
The second prosecutor about the argument that the organisation is international: IM was created in Russia, follows Russian laws and has to obey them, even by its own statute.
The Mininstry of Justice registered it as a Russian organization. The argument about IM being an international organization provokes doubt.
Eismont:
Is a non-governmental organization a subject of a violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms? (reads the lawsuit where it says that IM has violated the convention).
Prosecutor doesn't answer anything.
Is a non-governmental organization a subject of a violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms? (reads the lawsuit where it says that IM has violated the convention).
Prosecutor doesn't answer anything.
Birukov:
Sit down, your grade is two ("F").
Silence
Sit down, your grade is two ("F").
Silence
Judge (to the prosecutor): do you have difficulty answering?
Attorneys: we'll wait for the answer
Attorneys: we'll wait for the answer
Prosecutors whisper
Eismont: you're not answering
Second prosecutor: not a subject, no, but you distributed the materials without markings
Eismont: that's all?
Judge: that's the answer you get
Eismont: you're not answering
Second prosecutor: not a subject, no, but you distributed the materials without markings
Eismont: that's all?
Judge: that's the answer you get
Eismont:
From what information, hindering the children's spiritual and moral growth, are you intending to protect them, by shutting down IM?
From what information, hindering the children's spiritual and moral growth, are you intending to protect them, by shutting down IM?
Long pause
2nd prosecutor: from all the information your organisation distributed without marking it
Lawyer Sekretareva:
The law defines which information has negative impact on children.
Lawyer Sekretareva:
The law defines which information has negative impact on children.
The judge tries to interrupt her. Sekretareva tries to find out which category of information is meant as it's impossible to give any explanations without this.
Vaipan: it's ok if you don't have an answer, just tell us
Judge: of course, it's ok, you just don't have an answer in front of you
Lawyer Sekretareva:
this law is cited in our objections which are right in front of you
Judge: of course, it's ok, you just don't have an answer in front of you
Lawyer Sekretareva:
this law is cited in our objections which are right in front of you
Vaipan: Numerous materials don't have markings - you state that in the lawsuit in the present tense.
*asks to clarify which ones are not marked at the moment*
*asks to clarify which ones are not marked at the moment*
Second prosecutor: we looked at some of them. The mark is here but it's hard to find. Either it's too low or it's not visible at all
Vaipan: I would like to get an answer to my question
Eismont: there are no new materials in the lawsuit, we don't refer to them
V: But I would like to clarify the text of the lawsuit
Eismont: What do you mean when you use the present tense?
The judge nods.
Eismont: there are no new materials in the lawsuit, we don't refer to them
V: But I would like to clarify the text of the lawsuit
Eismont: What do you mean when you use the present tense?
The judge nods.
2nd prosecutor: We believe this question is not relevant to the case
Vaipan:
How it was stated that IM didn't correct the violations? (It's in the claim)
Vaipan:
How it was stated that IM didn't correct the violations? (It's in the claim)
Second prosecutor: as I've already told the mark is here bit it's hard to find
Vaipan: Were there any measures from the prosecutor concerning this?
Vaipan: Were there any measures from the prosecutor concerning this?
Prosecutors: they're no requirements concerning this issue
Vaipan: what does "continued illegal activity of the IM" mean in this lawsuit, concerning the marking of the materials?
Silence.
2nd prosecutor: We suppose that the activity continued after the 1st, 2nd and 3rd fine
Vaipan: what does "continued illegal activity of the IM" mean in this lawsuit, concerning the marking of the materials?
Silence.
2nd prosecutor: We suppose that the activity continued after the 1st, 2nd and 3rd fine
Vaipan: You say it in the present tense in the lawsuit, but you used the past in your answer. There is a difference
2nd prosecutor: We mean continued after being held liable. We don't say anything about the presence in the lawsuit
2nd prosecutor: We mean continued after being held liable. We don't say anything about the presence in the lawsuit
Eismont: The unmarked resources for which IM was fined, stayed unmarked? Do you have any data about it?
2nd prosecutor: We're not talking about the same resources but about systematic violations of the same nature
2nd prosecutor: We're not talking about the same resources but about systematic violations of the same nature
It became clear for the judge that IM marked all the materials as being told without even waiting for the court's decision.
The judge understood why the lawyers wanted to call the evidence from the court (to prove it)
The judge understood why the lawyers wanted to call the evidence from the court (to prove it)
Sekretareva: were there reports about the lack of markings prepared after 2019? If you are talking about continuing violations
*the judge hints to the silent plaintiff that he might not have this info at the moment*
*the judge hints to the silent plaintiff that he might not have this info at the moment*
Prosecutor agrees. Vaipan wants to clarify the difference in the number of violations
Prosecutor: One number here, another there, there are 20 violations in the lawsuit and we insist on it
Prosecutor: One number here, another there, there are 20 violations in the lawsuit and we insist on it
Eismont: You say that "the status of the organisation suggests that..." (lists the responsibilities, including upholding morality). Which one of these do you consider violated?
2nd prosecutor: Organization should comply with all the requirements of the law. You know yourself what you were held liable for. It's all in the lawsuit
Eismont: were there any more requirements concerning unmarked materials? How they violates the morality and safety of citizens?
Second prosecutors: We believe, that we've already answered the question
Second prosecutors: We believe, that we've already answered the question
The Ministry of justice and Roskomnadzor don't have any more questions for the prosecutors.
It must be said that prosecutors are shyly silent after almost every question. Sometimes they don't start speaking again without the judge's help
Speaks Elena Zhemkova — the executive director of Int Memorial: I am the executive director, I am responsible for the organisation's work and I know it well, here is my card. Notice that there is a marking about "foreign agents" there.
Meanwhile, the law does not explain how this information should be mentioned. I am a public person, people sometimes recognize me in the street. Does it mean that I should mark my clothes?
Zhemkova: "Memorial" has been helping people for 30 years, you can't liquidate an organisation of this sort for technical reasons. Please attach my card to the case.
The judge takes the card and promises to consider the petition
The judge takes the card and promises to consider the petition
Yan Rachinsky speaks. He talks about IM's work and that the organisation was founded by Andrey Sakharov
Both Zhemkova and Rachinsky express the hope that the lawsuit will be dismissed.
Both Zhemkova and Rachinsky express the hope that the lawsuit will be dismissed.
Lawyer Sekretareva asks to attach the materials from the Supreme Court, where the importance of IM's work is stated
Lawyer Vaipan (talks about the liquidation not being adequate):
As we've already heard, we are talking about missing markings. we have 35 websites and 21 social media accounts. We have thousands of webpages! And all those materials are marked.
As we've already heard, we are talking about missing markings. we have 35 websites and 21 social media accounts. We have thousands of webpages! And all those materials are marked.
The imputed violations are a minuscule fraction.
Considering that on other websites IM is marked with an asterisk, the information about it being "a foreign agent" is literally everywhere
Considering that on other websites IM is marked with an asterisk, the information about it being "a foreign agent" is literally everywhere
Vaipan: constitutional court said that the status of "foreign agent" doesn't mean that the organisation carries any threat
Vaipan: Meanwhile, we are talking about a more serious violation than a lack of markings. And the Constitutional court says that even that doesn't carry a threat. IMO this per se closes the issue about this lawsuit's legal perspectives - there are none
Vaipan continues:
The law doesn't define the full list of the materials that need to be marked. After the law was adopted, there were no legal claims about the unmarked materials. Until 2019 IM scrupulously marked everything.
The law doesn't define the full list of the materials that need to be marked. After the law was adopted, there were no legal claims about the unmarked materials. Until 2019 IM scrupulously marked everything.
When we got the claim about the unmarked materials, we marked everything. There were no new violations since then. That's what concerns the graveness of the violations.
Vaipan: concerning the repeated violations of the law. There are several protocols made for one violation. So we are speaking about 10, not 20 violations.
The time limit for 8 of them is over according to the Administrative Violations Code, so they don't even exist legally anymore. The fines have been paid and more than a year has passed.
V: What is more, you can't punish twice for the same violation. We have administrative violations for which we have been held liable and paid the fines.
The plaintiff asks to shut us down only on the basis of 10 episodes for which we've already paid enormous fines-4,5 million rubbles. There are no new incidents in the lawsuit. So they ask to shut us down for the violations we've already been held accountable for.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
