ST. PETERSBURG COURT ORDERS RETURN OF MEMORIAL PROPERTY

UNCLAS ST PETERSBURG 000007 E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: RS PGOV PHUM SUBJECT: ST. PETERSBURG COURT ORDERS RETURN OF MEMORIAL PROPERTY REF: 08 ST PETERSBURG 189 ¶1. (SBU) Summary. On January 20, the St Petersburg court ordered the city's Prosecutor's Office to return computer hard drives and research materials confiscated in a December 4, 2008, raid on a local office of the human rights organization, Memorial. Memorial's victory in the case is not untarnished: despite ordering return of the confiscated material due to "procedural errors" committed during the raid, the judge also ruled that the Prosecutor's underlying reasons for searching Memorial's office were legal. ¶2. (SBU) Following the December 4, 2008, raid on Memorial's St Petersburg offices by the St. Petersburg Prosecutor's office (reftel),Memorial launched a legal battle to secure return of the organization's computer hard drives and other research documentation. Memorial confided to us that much of the information was irreplaceable, so the potential loss to the organization was tremendous. ¶3. (SBU) After two false starts in December when the Prosecutor's Office failed to make court appearances, the hearing was held January 16-20. Present were numerous media representatives, the consulate representative, plus Ulrika Sundberg, the Special Advisor to the Commissioner on Human Rights of the Council of Europe. Sundberg came to St. Petersburg specifically to attend the hearing and meet with all parties involved in the process, including the city's human rights ombudsmen. The judge denied the request of the Prosecutor's office representative Mikhail Kalganov to close the hearings to the public. Kalganov argued that his defense of the search of Memorial's premises would necessitate revealing sensitive details regarding the ongoing investigation of the newspaper Novy Petersburg , its chief editor Aleksey Andreyev, and journalist Konstantin Chernyayev. Kalganov asserted that revealing those details would compromise the investigation. ¶4. (SBU) Kalganov said that his office was looking for the evidence needed to charge Andreyev and "Novy Peterburg" with incitement of racial hatred. Prior to the raid on Memorial, his office had searched Andreyev's home, but did not locate the documents they sought. Authorities assumed Andreyev put the documents elsewhere. Kalganov said that his office had observed a man believed to be Andreyev twice in 2008 enter the building where Memorial is located. (note: The building where Memorial has an office is large and many other organizations have offices there. Private residences also are located in the building). Kalganov claimed that on both occasions this man had carried a suitcase, which authorities assumed contained the documents in question, into the building, but left without the bags. The authorities' logic, per Kalganov, was that, as a research organization, Memorial had many documents of all kinds and that Andreyev might have stashed the documents there. ¶5. (SBU) Memorial categorically denied knowing Andreyev or ever agreeing to store anything for him. Memorial's legal representatives said the Procecutor's Office had not established the identity of the man whom authorities observed entering the building, nor had they established that the individual ever went to Memorial's office. Memorial did not rule out that this individual could have attended one of the group's many public events that anyone can choose to attend, but denied having any dealings or contact with Andreyev. ¶6. (SBU) The judge walked a fine line in his ruling. He ordered the return of the confiscated material based on procedural errors committed by the Prosecutor's office in the course of the search, but he found no fault with the Prosecutor's underlying reasons for conducting the raid. The prosecutor's office has ten days in which to appeal the ruling. Memorial representatives, while generally pleased with the decision, were disappointed the judge had ruled that the prosecutor's office was justified in its search and seizure in the first place, and as such have not ruled out appealing the case themselves. ¶7. (SBU) Some people involved in the court case told us that they believe the raid was part of a concerted national attack on Memorial, citing similar incidents that have occurred in both Ryazan and Penza. They believe the assault on Memorial is a part of the national government's decision to review the "official position" regarding the history of government repressions, with the ultimate goal being to change society's general attitude towards Russia's political history and remove concerns in the body politic regarding excessive governmental powers. Therefore, the ultimate purpose of this particular trial was to attempt to marginalize Memorial, present it to public as being a suspicious organization, and to at some point in the future charge it with extremist activities under the new national hate crime legislation. ¶8. (SBU) Comment. The judge's order that Memorial's confiscated property be returned is positive, although his ruling clearly splits a very fine hair. It isn't clear yet whether the Prosecutor's office will appeal the ruling or comply with it - and comply within a reasonable period of time. It may be that the local prosecutor's office did not realize its action would stir up the strong resistance that it did and so the judge's ruling may be a face-saving way out of the situation. The Prosecutor's office has had over a month to review the Memorial material and may have discerned that it contains nothing that could possibly be linked with the "Novy Peterburg" investigation. Perhaps they wanted to intimidate Memorial. Perhaps our reaction, that of the EU, plus the presence of the CoE observer, may have played a role. Earlier this week, the St Petersburg Ombudsman responded to our note sent shortly after the December raid. While claiming that he was empowered to act only on requests from the parties directly involved in disputes, he offered "on an exceptional basis," as a result of our "friendly relations," to look into the matter. GWALTNEY