At Michail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev trial the public prosecution in the Khamovnichesky district court called one of its trump cards. It is Alexey Golubovich, the former «Yukos» director of the strategic planning and corporate finances, who gives evidence at court.

This ace of trumps-"heavyweight" – is a proved witness for prosecution in «Yukos case», who rendered it services of no small importance in PR-support of the disgraced oil company’s devastation and in persecution of its top-managers and employees. In no small measure according to his statements there are based life-long sentences regarding the ex-head of the «Yukos» Security department Alexey Pichugin and the former „Yukos“ vice-president Leonid Nevzlin. The independent experts – journalists, human rights defenders, the Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe and other observers — have no any doubts that these trials are politically motivated. And only the Russian Justice is in complete agreement with the prosecution till nowadays.

Participating as an official in those transactions which later became the subject of accusation in court, Alexey Golubovich struck a new bargain – with justice – and happily escaped criminal prosecution from the direction of the Russian authorities.

Obviously, that such witness as Alexey Golubovich was staked on by the General Prosecutor’s Office (to be more precise, by those whose interests it represents in this case).

But from the very beginning there occurred an embarrassment. Answering Valery Lakhtin’s question (who is a public prosecutor at Michail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev trial) about whether the exchange of shares of the daughter company «VNK» to the «Yukos»’s shares was equivalent, Alexey Golubovich told an unexpected thing. Instead of fallowing the accusation, according to which the daughter companies’ shares had been exchanged on knock-down prices and in result of which the companies had suffered damages, the witness stated something different:

«At that moment I supposed that to exchange the shares of the approximately equal cost by their market quotation – is a just exchange».

This statement became a surprise for both parties of the trial and produced a visible sensation in Mass Media. Some commentators even hurried to enlist Golubovich after the famous prisoners in «victims» of «Yukos case».

However, during the next court session, which took part just in a day, Alexey Golubovich set right. Reproved the journalist, who spread around his evidence, unprofitable for the public prosecution, before the court the witness didn’t agree with himself and changed his own affirmation to the contrary ones.

«According to me, the exchange of shares was not equivalent, but I need to see the valuation», — without a moment hesitation he stated to court.

And later the public prosecutors started to read out Golubovich’s evidence which he had given at the preliminary investigation – evidently, trying to close recent gaps.

What happened during these twenty-four hours? It remains only to guess. But it is obvious that in one of the case Golubovich told a lie. I suppose that it won’t be a closely guarded secret – in what.

However, if this changeability of the witness became a subject of a public discussion, the other part of his evidence, to my mind, wasn’t honored the attention it deserves.

The matter is that Alexey Golubovich didn’t say a word about the threats directed against him from the «Yukos» Security department. As he said himself, the colleagues recommended just to leave the country in connection with beginning criminal persecutions of the oil company’s representatives. And – nothing more. And, without beating about the bush, at court Alexey Golubovich called «Yukos case» a sponsored one.

Let me see, but the thesis about the threats is the key evidence against Leonid Nevzlin and Alexey Pichugin!

Thus, having appeared before the Moscow City court regarding Alexey Pichugin’s case in May, 18, 2007, Golubovich had affirmed that allegedly in 2003 Michail Khodorkovsky and Leonid Nevzlin told that if he wouldn’t go abroad, he might be arrested regarding «VNK case». In the same period, in Golubovich’s absence, there had allegedly been some calls from the investigator of the Ministry of the Interior Shumilov, there had been some searches. These events Golubovich had interpreted as a pressure upon him from Leonid Nevzlin’s direction who allegedly had a purpose to drive him out of Russia. According to that Golubovich’s opinion, the investigator had been under pressure of the «Yukos» vice-president and acted by his directions.

At least the equal interest to me is another Alexey Golubovich’s opinion, which also became a building block for Leonid Nevzlin’s and Alexey Pichugin’s sentences. By the way – in spite of the law, according which the witness must say about what he knows, but not about what he supposes.

During the top-managers’ tour to the nature reserve «Kavkaz» in 2002, Alexey Pichugin, escorted them, «provided a safeguard security». At that, Pichugin, according to the witness, «communicated with Nevzlin and the head of the Security service Shestopalov».

«It was unusual, — had stated Golubovich then, — because in „Yukos“ there existed a hard hierarchy. And Nevzlin and Pichugin communicated as a person with person, but not as a chief and a subordinate».

By the way, on the video, recorded during that tour (later, it was demonstrated at Leonid Nevzlin’s trial as a material evidence) there wasn’t seen this «communication» for some reasons.

Somehow or other, the «proof» of itself of «criminal» connection’s presence – the ability to communicate with a subordinate employee, without emphasizing a top position – produces an impression.

Evidently, with his employees Alexey Golubovich doesn’t speak as with ordinary people?

However, let’s return to nowadays. So, minus Golubovich in the evidentiary basis against Nevzlin and Pichugin.

I shall remind that at the court session of the Moscow City court regarding Leonid Nevzlin’s case on the 21-st of April, 2008 another false witness refused his evidence against the «Yukos»’ employees. The convict Gennady Tsygelnik, repeatedly tried, confessed then that, in spite of his previous affirmation, in real he had known neither Alexey Pichugin, nor Leonid Nevzlin, and he had heard about them for the first time from the investigator Burtovoi.

«I slandered Pichugin and Nevzlin at the request of the General Prosecutor’s Office’s investigators Burtovoi, Bannikov, Zhebryakov and the operative officer Smirnov», — in particular, said Tsygelnik. His partner in crime, Evgeny Reshetnikov, answering the lawyer’s qualifying question, explained that he was told about the version about involvement of the company’s representatives in assassinations by… the same investigator Burtovoi.

The motives of all the witnesses – is a subject of the court’s investigation, which must fix a measure of responsibility to the persons who committed this criminal offence.

But, first of all, let’s remember about their innocently convicted victims. Minus Tsygelnik, minus Reshetnikov, minus Golubovich.

And from the very beginning of the investigation and during all the trials Victor Kolesov, the former head of case management of the company «Rosprom» expressed his doubts in the «Yukos»’ employees’ guilt; he was beaten and robbed in October, 1998 by unknown persons (according to the investigators, these were Tsygelnik and Reshetnikov, who executed the «order» of «Yukos»’ top-management).

Minus, minus, minus…

What else have the «fabricators» on the credit side?

Olga Kostina, who was attempted where she didn’t live and seldom came, who «remembered» about «Yukos» involvement in the explosion on her parents’ staircase five years after the event? The rapist and the serial murderer Korovnikov? Yevgeny Rybin, who lost the actions against «Yukos» in the international court of arbitration and accused of financial machinations abroad?

Whether it is a time to finish the game with marked cards and to review the cases of convicted to long-life imprisonment on so doubtful grounds (as well as others cases regarding «Yukos» employees)?

Or, we shall wait for the next failure of the Russian Justice in Strasburg?

Vera Vasilieva, HRO.org, 25.01.2010