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 
 
¶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