Chronicle of the Hearing on 21 May 2018
11.32 Moscow City Court. The general appeal regarding pre-trial restrictions for Kirill Serebrennikov, Alexei Malobrodsky, Yuri Itin and Sophia Apfelbaum.
Alexei Malobrodsky for the first time is not in the cage and not broadcasting from the jail, together with his wife Tatyana Lukyanova came for the first time himself. Everybody hugs him.
Kirill Serebrennikov, Sophia Apfelbaum and Yuri Itin are brought in. It is possible to say hello to everyone. A lot of people came to support them: Chulpan Khamatova, Ksenia Sobchak, Arina Borodina, Andrei Fomin, Mark Tishman, artists of the Gogol Center Theater and many more people. Naturally, Itin’s spouse and the parents of Sophia Apfelbaum also came.
The judge is very gentle, even shy. Always confused. She introduced Sophia Apfelbaum and her defence twice, smiled when Sophia suddenly forgotten the number of the building where she lives. Waiting for the hearing to start.
12.13 The courtroom is very small. At the table there are Kirill Serebrennikov, Alexei Malobrodsky, Yuri Itin and Sophia Apfelbaum with their lawyers and family members. In the hall there are Sophia’s parents and her husband, Tanya Lukyanova, wife of Alexei, Svetlana, wife of Yuri. Chulpan Khamatova, Katerina Gordeeva, Anna Shalashova, Mark Tishman and several journalists.
The judge announced the essence of the appeal, raised all participants in the process, explained their rights, read out a long list of those media that have requested permission to shoot. They discuss the possibility of photography and video. Everybody is OK with that.
The investigator asks not to photograph the faces of the Prosecutor and the investigator. To photograph the hearing is not allowed. They will be documenting the announcement of court decision.
Judge Nikishina will hear the case. Actually, judge Natalya Nikishina is known for the ludicrous “Case of 12” when she did not call an ambulance for Krivov and then kicked his lawyer out, and then Krivov (he was on hunger strike) lost consciousness. If this Nikishina is our Nikishina, she’s famous for the phrase: “The dog has a disciplining effect on the defence party”. In the photo, judge Nikishina is without glasses, and now in the courtroom — with glasses and seems to be younger. But it is doubtful whether there are two Nikishinas.
The prosecutor at the hearing today is again Anna Potychko representing the General Prosecutor’s Office, an unwelcoming woman, the one who on May 10th at the Basmanny court was against the petition to change Alexei Malobrodsky’s measure of restraint from detention to house arrest. That day Alexei Arkadyevich after a heart attack in the courtroom and many hours spent in the court was taken in serious condition by ambulance to the 20th hospital.
Investigator Terekhin is a neat young man. All this time he’s been studying the Moscow City Court schedule.
12.15 The judge reads (very attentively, judging by the intonation) arguments of Sophia Apfelbaum’s lawyer, Irina Poverennova, who produces arguments about the violation of the constitutional rights of Sofia, referring among others to the Convention on Human Rights. Due to the restriction of rights and freedom in connection with house arrest, Sophia cannot engage in her professional activities, although the investigation has long been completed, and most importantly, she can not engage in full participation in the life of her underage son.
12.16 The judge reads the complaints of Alexei Malobrodsky and Kirill Serebrennikov’s lawyers, they challenge the decisions of the Basmanny court of 18 and 27 April, in their opinion, the court ignores any arguments, the possibility of bail for the defendants, the absence of at least any arguments of their clients’ being in custody. The court made a “formal” conclusion when passing judgement of the Basmanny court. Lawyer Kharitonov points out that the decision of the Basmanny court is largely contrary to the documents of the Supreme Court and international legal conventions. Lawyers Karpinskaya and Kharitonov once again indicate that the documents of Alexei Malobrodsky and Kirill Serebrennikov were seized by the investigation both the Russian ID and the passport-they can not leave the country in any case, which is so feared by the investigation.
This is absolutely inexplicable, and is repeated every time — the investigation took away all the passports, but at the same time worried that Serebrennikov and Malobrodsky can leave the country.
The arguments of the investigator Lavrov that Kirill could go to Stuttgart for the production of the opera are completely untenable, said the lawyer Kharitonov. This contract was known about for a long time. Here the judge stumbles on the name of the opera, Kirill helps her.
The lawyer Kharitonov in the appeal points to Kirill’s impeccable reputation, that he is a famous director, directs the theater, more than 130 respected and well-known people vouched for him, that Kirill came to all the interrogations on the investigator’s summons (before the detention), was not going to leave the country and most importantly, that he is in charge of an elderly father, whose health is deteriorating and requires constant attention and support of his son.
12.20 Lawyer Ksenia Karpinskaya asks to attach a copy of Alexei Malobrodsky’s discharge summary and the statement of the Commission of the European court of human rights concerning the judge Karpov’s ruling in the Basmanny court (in April he left all restraint measures unchanged).
Everybody supported this move. The Prosecutor (this is an grown-up serious woman) says: these documents are dated May 15 and 16, and therefore have no relation to the appeal, because it is filed for the April’s ruling for Karpov.
As a result, the judge decides to attach documents on the deterioration of Alexei Malobrodsky’s health to the appeal, and the communiqué of the European court — not to attach.
Here, by the way, a letter from the ECHR (with translation), which the court refused to attach. They say this is a rare form: the question of the ECHR should be answered by no less than the Government.
12.49 Sophia Apfelbaum is speaking. She is not reading off a piece of paper. She says that she got acquainted with the materials of the case and there are no charges. There is “some people’s reasoning about how I should have behaved and acted in certain situations. But I also have ideas about how these people should behave — “says Apfelbaum,” I’m not asking to put them under house arrest?” She says she doesn’t consider herself guilty, that she doesn’t understand why she has to be under house arrest for 7 months, that she can’t teach at the Russian Institute of Theatre Arts, work at Russian Academic Youth Theatre or go to her son’s school. Despite the fact that the documents on the basis of which she was detained, contain no arguments why she should be limited in rights and freedom.
Apfelbaum recalls how on May 23, when the first searches and arrests on the “theatrical case” began, they first searched her parents’ apartment, and then came to her, she was taken to the Moscow Investigation Committee for questioning: “I told the investigator for several hours how things were on the “Platform”, how this difficult project was arranged, — says Apfelbaum, — I began to speak somewhere at three o’clock. But by six other investigators began entering the office asking to end the conversation. My investigator said: “I have an important witness, we have to finish conversation”. It turned out that there already was Serebrennikov in the corridor, and the investigators were in a hurry to begin his interrogation.”
Poverennova, Apfelbaum’s lawyer, says that of the 60 volumes criminal case, which they read, it is clear that the prosecution relies on the testimony “of a not quite adequate person Maslyaeva, who has already admitted that she herself stole about 5 million.” The lawyer says that it will be important for the future court whether the accused were detained or not, and that the extension of house arrest is a shadow that falls on all participants. “Why should Sophia Apfelbaum spend the best years of her life in restrictions with impossibility to be engaged in education of the 14-year-old son?»
The lawyer is ready to make bail for Apfelbaum, so she could work, go to court on demand, Sophia even really can not get to the doctor. Only once the investigator allowed a visit to the doctor.
They’re asking to repeal the house arrest.
12.53 Alexei Malobrodsky is speaking. He speaks very quietly, he is still very weak. It sems to be hard for him. Prior to the meeting, Alexei Arkadyevich had to sit down on the bench, he is still unwell. He said that he strongly disagreed with the decision of the Basmanny court, but asked his lawyers to speak in more detail and gave the word to Karpinskaya because of his health condition.
Ksenia Karpinskaya reads out documents in the Moscow city court and mentions the medical report about the dire state of health of Alexei Arkadyevich.
Taking into account the May decision of Investigation Committee, they do not ask to change pre-trial restrictions any more, but lawyers ask to deem the decision of the judge Karpov in Basmanny court of April 18 illegal and unfounded. It absolutely violated the rights of Alexei Malobrodsky and as a result of this, the health of Alexei Arkadyevich deteriorated and he still has to recover for a long time.
The lawyer says that her client nearly had a heart attack and he was hospitalized right from the courtroom. The sentences of Basmanny Court had a disastrous effect on Malobrodsky’s health.
Lucky he is home now. But it doesn’t cancel absolutely unjustified rulings of the judge Karpov and the judge Nikolaeva. The lawyer insists on the annulment of the Basmanny court’s decision as illegal.
13.00 Yuri Itin supports his colleagues. It is the first time he is verbose and emotional. He says that in the materials of the criminal case there is no evidence of guilt. He says that he is proud of the “Platform”. He also says that he spent most of his time in Yaroslavl, where he worked and formally still works at the theatre.
He references a lot to the speech of Apfelbaum, saying that everybody is interested in the investigation and no one will go anywhere.
The lawyer Lysenko agrees with him and adds that the documents of the investigation are unconvincing, and the interrogation records have been altered.
Yuri Itin and his lawyer Lysenko strongly disagree with the ruling of the Basmanny Court, consider it illegal and ask the Moscow City Court to repeal the house arrest.
13.05 Serebrennikov’s lawyer Kharitonov made a short speech. He supported all previous speakers and added only that on April 18 on the petition of investigation a scandalous letter by the Ministry of Culture was sent to Basmanny court where the lawyer of the Minister Zaitsev E. V. on the official form of the Ministry of culture asked court to leave unchanged the pre-trial restrictions to all participants of process (to prolong the maintenance of Alexei Malobrodsky in jail, and the others under house arrest). And then the Ministry of culture itself recognized this document as illegal and invalid. And that Zaitsev had no right to send such a letter to the court. That means, in fact, that the Ministry of Culture revoke its claims. Kharitonov asked the judge of Moscow City Court to this fact into consideration.
Kirill Serebrennikov speaks very briefly. He just thanked the judge Nikishina for explaining the essence of the matter in detail at the beginning of the hearing.
13.10 Prosecutor Potychko considers the decision of the Basmanny court legal. Investigator Terekhin also considers the decisions of the Basmanny court to be lawful. They don’t want to change anything.
Fortunately, the investigation once again confirms its decision to change the pre-trial restriction for Alexei Malobrodsky on his own recognizance.
The investigator Terekhin says that there are no grounds to change pre-trial restrictions. The arguments are the same: the case is complex, the investigation is still in progress (???), everyone can communicate, exert pressure and so on. And then suddenly he adds that because of his illness Alexei Malobrodksy delayed the process of other participants’ studying of the case. Then he says that he is against upholding of the appeal.
Prosecutor Potychko is also against it, of course.
Judge Nikishina reads in detail all the details of the medical report of Alexei Malobrodsky, stumbling on medical terms.
13.15 Oral argument begins.
Apfelbaum briefly repeats what she said. Her lawyer too. Apfelbaum says that “there are no existing accusations” and asks to overturn the ruling of the Basmanny Court.
13.20 Alexei Malobrodsky admits that he spent five days in the intensive care unit and at this time could not get acquainted with the case, but, being in jail, asked to bring him more volumes, but was refused. He asks to be given an opportunity to speed up the process of familiarization with the documents. Also Alexei Arkadyevich declared that he is very interested in an unbiased trial, and in defending his honour and reputation.
Ksenia Karpinskaya again returns to where she began, to the statement of the Investigation Committee: the case is over, the witnesses are questioned, the accused do not pose any danger. Karpinskaya recalls that investigator Terekhin refers to the particular complexity of the case. “But all the cases, the investigation of which lasts more than a year, are considered particularly difficult, — says Karpinskaya — for example, somebody stole a chicken. And a year later it turns out that this case is of particular complexity.”
Then Karpinskaya again says that the investigation seems over, but the court says that of all persons involved in the case will be able to exert pressure on witnesses, being out of prison. The Ministry of Culture first talked about the fact that the damage was 1.2 million, and now realized that it is 133 — all this is a rather formal attitude of the court. It would be nice to see that the defence arguments were not just empty talk, but influenced on something. She asks to deem Karpov’s decision illegal.
13.39 Yuri Itin, like Sophia Apfelbaum, in the oral argument stressed that the investigator Terekhin in his speech (very short and almost stencil) again did not mention anything except that the case is “super-complex” and that everyone can abscond. And no more arguments are given. No arguments. No explanations, just nothing.
13.41 Dmitry Kharitonov, speaking in the oral argument, says that all 9 months that Kirill Serebrennikov has been under house arrest, Nina Maslyaeva has given false testimony against innocent people. And the investigation does not try to prove anything and does not reveal any evidence of guilt of participants of process.
“We are not going to prove our innocence. And even more so do this in court. This is upon the investigation, to prove guilt. With my client, we have read 90 volumes of this case. There’s no evidence! There is a lot of incomprehensible stuff and a lot of procedural rubbish. The prosecution relies on the testimony of Maslyayeva, who perjures herself and others. But in her words there is no evidence of the crime.
The investigation, apparently, also is not trying to prove anything!
The investigation should prove what actions were not performed, or what funds were spent incorrectly. But the investigation does not prove it. We have everything transparent and clear: 340 events, success, spectators. Any participant of the “Platform” can come to the investigator or to the court, if it comes to it, and tell how it was. What are the arguments against this in the investigation?»
Kharitonov said that keeping Serebrennikov in custody is illegal and unreasonable. He cannot communicate with the actors of his theater, with his students. And he wants to at least let him work.
13.52 Kirill Serebrennikov is speaking. He is in a good shape, speaking in a calm, ironical way. He is even trying to make jokes. Kirill’s speech is bright and emotional as usual.
‘We are looking into the issue of the legitimacy of my house arrest. I’ve told more than once, even in this particular court, about the incontrovertible proofs that make its illegitimacy clear.
It will be a year in two days since the beginning of this absurdity and nightmare, when people with a dog came to my 44 m2 flat and said ‘You’ve stolen something from our wonderful Ministry of Culture’. I’ve been under house arrest for almost a year and for almost a year the Government have been blaming me for embezzlement and calling the theatre project ‘Platform’, which we were making and which all the educated people in this country and abroad were aware of, a criminal gang which was initiated by me to embezzle money. For almost a year this sadistic absurdity has been going on, for almost a year our arguments, explanations, proofs have not been taken into account, for almost a year the investigation has been accusing us -they are striving to call me an embezzler at all costs who, as they have noted in their press release, ‘bought a flat in Berlin, while committing a crime’, though more than once we have provided the bank statement, proving that the flat had been bought, using the money that had been earned and saved for a long time. The investigation does not care about it, they need to prove that ‘all this modern art is the pretense for embezzlement and chaos’. As for Serebrennikov himself, he is just a fraud who thought of the way to steal money from the Ministry of Culture’.
We have been accused of something absurd, that we embezzled almost all the money that had been allocated to the project ‘Platform’. Despite the fact that all the events of the project were documented, described, filmed and taken photos of — all the events that were full of elaborate ideas, that were hard to put on stage, that were labour-intensive. It is clear that the project ‘Platform’ is not just two chairs on an empty stage. 340 performances were made, more that 600 people took part in the project, more than 80 thousand people saw the project. The project was successful, it received awards, was recognized by the Government, which was proud of it and was intended to develop it further more. The project ‘Platform’ was created, using the money which was given free of charge and which was non-refundable. It was supposed to make a specific programme — it is clear to everyone that the Government received what it wanted to receive. However, the investigation does not want to see it.
I was accused of having embezzled 133 billion of rubles. This makes 70% of what the government invested in the project ‘Platform’ from 2011 to 2014. This means that we made only 30% of the project ‘Platform’. This is an absolute and easily refutable lie.
It is impossible to make 340 events in a 3 and a half year time, using only 30% of the project budget. We paid salaries to the full-time performers, technicians, administrators — in general, to 60 people. Almost 60 billion of rubles were spent only on that in 3 years.
For those 3 years we were making exquisite exhibitions, well-known performances and high-profile concerts — those events that are now said not to have existed and not to have been worth the money spent on them.
But if 70% of the money had been stolen and 30% of money had been spent on paying the salaries to the employees of the Seventh Studio, what financial resources would have been used for that celebration of modern art for 3 years? I was an artistic director of the project; I was not in charge of the finance, contracts, purchases, reports, accountancy. I was arranging the events, creating them, putting them on stage, rehearsing them. My signature is not present in any of the financial documents apart from the framework agreements, which I signed in request of the Ministry of Culture.
But the most important fact is not that I did not have any administrative position and responsibilities. The most crucial thing is that we did the project and did it in an honest way. All those people, who were working on the project, did not have any doubt that they were doing something necessary and important for Russia. We are not a criminal gang, we are a group of kindred spirits, who have nothing more important than art, our job.
We have the aggrieved party — the Ministry of Culture. At first, the Ministry did not know that it was the aggrieved party, and then the investigators told it about that and the claim for 133 billion of rubles was filed.
At first, the Ministry of Culture supported the prolongation of Malobrodsky’s arrest and house arrest as a punishment for me and for my fellow sufferers, but then it tried to persuade everyone that those actions were done not by the Ministry itself and by an employee who did not have any right to prolong the arrests.
Now the Ministry officially expresses its happiness that Malobrodsky was released. It is great happiness. It is good that he was freed. But then, while being so happy, the Ministry should answer the question ‘What didn’t they like among all the things that were shown in 2011–2014, among the things that people applauded to, among the things we were awarded and recognized not only in Russia but in other countries, too?! What did the Ministry find insufficient among all the things that we did for the development of modern art in Russia in 2011–2014? Maybe, the Ministry should formulate all the claims and, finally, tell us about them? It is a common practice when the aggrieved party is the initiator of an investigation. The aggrieved party goes to the police and tells about the committed crime, but the Ministry of Culture never did it. It was informed of the supposedly committed crime by the investigators. The Ministry did not even try to understand whether some harm had been done or not, and if there had been some harm done, what exactly it was and how much money it cost. The Ministry was informed on the cost of damage by the investigators.
I would like to say one more time that I am very happy that Alexei Malobrodsky is free and is sitting with us here in a medium-soft chair, not in a cell.
While making the decision on changing the measure of restraint, the Investigation Committee announced that ‘after having completed all the Commission’s inquiries and consolidated the evidence base, it was impossible for the accused to destroy and conceal the evidence crucial to the case’. It means that the Committee itself admitted that there was no basis to prolong the house arrest.
I believe that the grounds for it no longer obtain. It is clear for me that the Committee does not have and cannot have any evidence that could help to find my friends and me guilty. I am not talking about Maslyaeva’s lies. I took part in the confrontation with her and heard everything she was lying about. I was relieved after that. Honestly. I know and everyone knows how the Committee received that pseudo incrimination statement. But, in any case, the Committee admits that we cannot impede their work. I ask you to consider it, while making a decision on our appeal. I was not intended to hide and I did not hide from the investigation. I was always present whenever the Committee requested my presence, even while being on business trips, on holidays, or while making a film. The Investigation does not have and cannot have any grounds for keeping me under house arrest with such restraints that I have now.
I have not been allowed to leave my flat for 9 months with the exception of 2-hours walk. I ask the court to change this restraint, concerning the prohibition to leave my flat, and allow me to work and go to the Gogol Centre. I ask you, Your Honor, to let me leave my flat from, let say, 2–8 p.m. every day. I am not allowed to communicate with those involved in the prosecution. If the investigation thinks that the project ‘Platform’ is a form of committing a crime, which means, as far as I understand, that all members of the project ‘Platform’ are the participants of the prosecution. We are studying the case, we have read 80 volumes so far, but we have not come across any interrogations. None of them. Neither of the participants of the project nor of any other people. But, in any case, the investigation has already questioned them and reached the conclusion that we are not able to change anything in the interrogations. It means that communication with these people, people who are involved in the prosecution, cannot be prohibited. And this communication is important for work! I’ve never had any desire or need to communicate with Maslyaeva, or with other people in charge of finance and accountancy. I don’t have them now either. I do not need to discuss the case with anyone. I have nothing to talk about, to ask about, to persuade someone into, or to insist on. Any participant of the project ‘Platform’ will come to the investigators and to court and honestly tell what was going on there, what money was spent and what it was spent on. The most important thing is that the investigators should listen to them and try to understand them. The investigators have not been interested in that yet…Your Honor, the majority of the participants of the project ‘Platform’ were the performers of the Gogol Centre, my students. I have nothing to discuss with them about the case, but I have to discuss some issues, concerning their work in the theater, their work in the plays. Thus, I am asking You to give me permission to communicate with the employees of the Gogol Centre about the issues, concerning creative work. I am not allowed to use the Internet. I don’t have any explanation of the legitimacy of this prohibition. I have been deprived of the possibility to communicate with the world, of communication that is crucial to my work, which is not an attempt to escape from the mythic responsibility. I have been deprived of the possibility of working, even remotely, with the productions which are on stage in Europe, with the productions which are intended to be created, which are just being created and which demand collaboration, creative research, which cannot be done by an individual without access to the information, provided by the Internet. Your Honor, I am asking You to give me a chance to communicate, to work, as it means to live to me.’
14.09 Investigator Terekhin speaks for 36 seconds. He says that the keeping Serebrennikov and others in jail still meets the interests of the investigation. The audience laughs nervously.
14.10 Then Prosecutor Potychko speaks. She is prepared. She argues with accusations of inconsistency of the court.
She says that not all the accomplices of criminals are identified, not all the witnesses (???) have been questioned. The investigation has many cases and it is necessary to respect its interests.
The fact that Malobrodsky has a disease that does not allow to keep him in jail was not confirmed.
The court does not have evidence that would indicate the need to revoke the chosen pre-trial restrictions for any of the accused or to change them.
Potychko is reading without hesitation, it’s like she wrote the paper herself. But then he stumbles on the name Voronova. The audience helps her.
14.15 Apfelbaum has the final word. She makes a helpless gesture: “we are talking here, talking, and it turns out that the investigation and the Prosecutor’s arguments are the same, long-prepared. Nobody can hear us. Please hear us!!!»
14.17 Alexei Malobrodsky speaks quietly, with difficulty: “I beg you to pay attention to a huge contradiction in the position of the Prosecutor’s office. There has been a fair amount of such episodes. I ask the court to take into account the inconsistent position of the Prosecutor’s office, in all our speeches we hear the well-known (unfortunately) text of the CPC about the lack of formal grounds, etc. As for the position of the court, which we are currently discussing, decisions are made arbitrarily on the basis of tendentious and unfounded allegations.” He asks to cancel Karpov’s decision of April 18.
Itin asks for the same.
14.19 Kirill Serebrennikov: “we have been punished for almost a year. What is happening is called violence. We suffer losses. And, even if it ends well, we will bear reputation losses until the end of life. You know what they say, “the spoons were found, but the bad feeling remained.” It will always be with us. Unfortunately.
Dear court, no thieves are sitting in front of you. We were engaged in art, and didn’t think about any theft. We are being civilly executed and in really it is already done and the rest of my life will now be about how spoons were found but the bad feeling remained. If this punishment is not enough-well, do as you want, but please be guided by conscience.”
Pause.
14.29 Everybody was asked back to the courtroom in just 10 minutes.
14.34 Judge Nikishina decided to leave the ruling of the Basmanny court unchanged, specifying the terms of the house arrest of Itin — until May 23 and Apfelbaum until June 26.
