VZCZCXYZ0024
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHSK #0387/01 1311405
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 111405Z MAY 07
FM AMEMBASSY MINSK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5992
INFO RUEHFT/AMCONSUL FRANKFURT 3636
RHMFISS/HQ USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE
RUFOADA/JAC MOLESWORTH RAF MOLESWORTH UK

UNCLAS MINSK 000387 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
STATE FOR CA/OCS/ACS SENA AND 
CA/VO/F/P PATTERSON 
FRANKFURT FOR RCO RUSSEL BROWN 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM PGOV CASC EFIN KFRD BO
SUBJECT: BELARUSIAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: COMEDY AND TRAGEDY 
 
Summary 
------- 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Observations from the recent arrest and trial of an 
AmCit accused of financial crimes confirmed that the Belarusian 
criminal justice system remains a weak parody of a system based 
upon rule of law.  This glimpse at the court system outside the 
public eye and highly politicized cases exposes deep-seated, 
systemic problems that ranged from the absurd to the outrageous. 
Reform of the criminal justice system, in particular the 
professionalism of judges and prosecutors, is yet another issue 
in the laundry list to be addressed by GOB authorities.  End 
summary. 
 
Consular access?  What Vienna Convention? 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Post encountered problems from the outset as the 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs provided initial consular 
notification in February 2006 more than two weeks after the 
Department of Financial Investigations (DFI) of the Ministry of 
Internal Affairs detained the AmCit.  The Ministry of Internal 
Affairs then told the Consular Section that the AmCit expressly 
did not want to meet with Emboffs.  In reality, after spending a 
month in a detention facility before being released on USD 
50,000 bail, the rather perturbed AmCit appeared at the Consular 
Section and expressed displeasure that Conoffs did not visit him 
during his detention. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Unfortunately lightning did strike twice in this case 
when the DFI re-detained and then arrested and formally charged 
the AmCit in September 2006.  Once again, the Belarusian 
authorities violated Vienna Consular Convention provisions for 
immediate consular access, using bureaucratic rigmarole to delay 
a visit by Conoffs until five days after the detention.  This 
would become a familiar scenario as each subsequent request for 
consular access, although eventually granted, proved an intense 
battle of wills. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) The epitome of ignorance regarding Belarus' 
international treaty obligations occurred during Conoff's first 
interaction with the judge assigned to the case.  In accordance 
with the Belarusian Criminal Code, the trial judge personally 
must approve visitation rights once a case is transferred to the 
court's jurisdiction.  When presented with an Embassy diplomatic 
note requesting consular access, the presiding judge asked with 
all seriousness whether the purpose of the visit was moral 
support and whether the U.S. would grant such a request if a 
Belarusian Conoff wished to visit a Belarusian prisoner.  The 
judge then grabbed the note and disappeared for 15 minutes, 
leaving Conoff to contemplate the 1994-vintage portrait of 
President Lukashenka hanging on the wall. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) When the judge returned in a huff, she informed Conoff 
that while she understood the importance of "some international 
documents," the Belarusian Criminal Code in most cases provides 
for visitation rights only after a verdict has been announced. 
[Note: The judge denied the AmCit's Belarusian wife visitation 
on these grounds.  End note.]  Nevertheless, the judge stated 
that she in general was inclined to grant the request, but that 
she could not accept the current diplomatic note because it 
omitted the Russian language silent letter "soft sign" from her 
last name.  Conoff offered to correct the note by hand or send a 
new version by Embassy driver, but the judge rejected these 
options as showing disrespect to the court. 
 
¶6.  (SBU) As a result, the Consular Section turned to the MFA 
for assistance in shepherding this routine request for consular 
access through the courts and finally received permission to 
visit the Amcit two weeks later.  One of our MFA counterparts 
candidly attributed the actions of the judge to "fear or 
incompetence" and shared his disbelief for her inflexibility by 
stating that "as far I know, even one of the greatest documents 
of all time, the U.S. Constitution, was edited by hand." 
 
Ready, Action, Camera: Take Two! 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶7.  (SBU) To the relief of the AmCit, who repeatedly told Conoff 
that he eagerly awaited his day in court, the judge finally 
convened a hearing on February 5, 2007, almost five months after 
the arrest and more than a month after the Department of 
Financial Investigations handed off the case to the Prosecutor?s 
Office. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) This, however, proved to be the shortest of reprieves 
as it took less than an hour for the judge to declare a recess. 
Following the judge's heavily scripted excursion through the 
biographies of the defendant, the prosecutor made his opening 
statement -- or rather stumbled through his reading of eight 
pages of convoluted text.  At this point, the judge abruptly 
halted the proceedings and adjourned to her chambers, soon to be 
joined for 30 minutes of ex parte discussions with the 
prosecutor as defense lawyers waited patiently in the hallway. 
 
¶9.  (SBU) The trial resumed after 90 minutes, but with the 
addition of two laypersons who the judge announced would serve 
as "people's assessors" of the case.  The judge then stated that 
these new participants constituted a change to the composition 
of court, which in turn dictated starting over from scratch. 
This turn of events caused considerable angst, but did not save 
trial participants and observers from a second rendering of the 
prosecutor's rambling opening statement. 
 
¶10.  (SBU) The judge then announced that none of the 22 
witnesses due to be called by the prosecutor and the defense had 
appeared for the trial, but that the court would endeavor to 
ensure that these individuals appeared after lunch.  None of the 
trial participants seemed taken back by this proposal.  As 
dictated by Belarusian court proceedings, the prosecutor then 
began questioning the defendant, but in what appeared to be an 
entirely haphazard manner.  The questions either were entirely 
open-ended, such as "Tell the court what happened in November 
2004," or leading -- "when you decided to defraud the bank, what 
actions did you take?" --, but did not elicit objections from 
defense counsel. 
 
Going Through The Motions 
------------------------- 
 
¶11.  (SBU) Just when it seemed that the trial would move forward 
at a reasonable pace, a series of illnesses struck the 
proceedings.  The absence of one witness lead to a three-week 
recess, and one day after the trial resumed, one of the people?s 
assessors fainted in court, triggering another month-long delay. 
 
¶12.  (SBU) The court re-convened on March 21, 2007 for the 
fourth time since the trial began on February 5.  Conoff 
attended the hearing at the request of the AmCit, who 
anticipated that closing arguments would be heard.  While 
waiting for the case to begin, Conoff spoke briefly with defense 
counsel, who just had emerged from chambers.  They informed him 
that the presiding judge had informed them she planned to 
announce the verdict the following day at 5:00 pm.  The judge 
then exited her office and spent the next 15 minutes walking the 
halls searching for the prosecutor, who had failed to appear in 
time for the hearing. 
 
¶13.  (SBU) Once the case finally got underway, the court 
subjected the participants to another of the vagaries of the 
Belarusian justice system - the requirement that all 
information solicited and collected during the course of the 
investigation and trial be read into the official record. 
Thankfully, this particular case was relatively minor in scale 
and therefore involved a mere nine volumes of documents, which 
the judge, demonstrating enviable stamina, managed to zip 
through in 50 minutes flat. 
 
¶14.  (SBU) When it came time for closing arguments, the 
prosecutor evidently decided to compensate for the judge's 
verboseness.  His closing statement, in which he simply stated 
that the government proved its case without delving into 
unnecessary details, lasted less than three minutes.  By 
contrast, the AmCit's local attorney put forth a spirited and 
fairly well-grounded defense. 
 
¶15.  (SBU) On March 23, the court sentenced the defendant to 5.5 
years in prison, plus confiscation of assets, for crimes 
committed in violation of Article 210, Part 4 of the Criminal 
Code (theft through abuse of authority).  Sentencing provisions 
called for between five and twelve years' imprisonment for this 
offense. 
 
Comment 
------- 
¶16.  (SBU) Although we are not in a position to comment upon the 
guilt or innocence of the American defendant, observations from 
his trial expose fundamental weaknesses in the current state of 
the Belarusian criminal justice system.  In a case stripped of 
serious political connotations, both the judiciary and law 
enforcement proved unwilling and perhaps unable to uphold basic 
tenets crucial to guaranteeing a fair trial.  The lack of 
professionalism is yet another example of the many things that 
do not bode well for the future of rule of law in Belarus. 
 
MOORE