Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09STPETERSBURG7
2009-01-21 14:16:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Consulate St Petersburg
Cable title:  

ST. PETERSBURG COURT ORDERS RETURN OF MEMORIAL PROPERTY

Tags:  RS PGOV PHUM 
pdf how-to read a cable
R 211416Z JAN 09
FM AMCONSUL ST PETERSBURG
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 2665
INFO AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 
AMCONSUL ST PETERSBURG 
AMCONSUL VLADIVOSTOK 
AMCONSUL YEKATERINBURG
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

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