13 Сентября 2011 года

Digest of the Glasnost Defence Foundation, No 534

29 August 2011



From witness to suspect – a new development in the Politkovskaya murder investigation

A new suspect has appeared in the Politkovskaya murder investigation, Dmitry Pavlyuchenkov, former head of surveillance at the Moscow City Police Department. On 23 August he was arrested and three days later the Basmanny district court sanctioned his detention in custody.

The investigators say that in summer 2006 Pavlyuchenkov was commissioned to kill the Novaya Gazeta journalist and set up a group to carry out the crime. He gathered information about where Anna Politkovskaya lived and her regular movements; he acquired the murder weapon and handed it to her killer.

Pavlyuchenkov has long been part of the investigation. During the trial at which the jury acquitted those accused of Politkovskaya’s murder he acted as a witness. He was, moreover, a special anonymous witness who supposedly gave important evidence. Now, however, he is himself accused of organising the murder. The former police lieutenant-colonel does not acknowledge his guilt and denies any suggestion that he was involved in the crime.

The day after Pavlyuchenkov’s arrest, the Investigative Committee’s spokesman Vladimir Markin told journalists that investigators not only had information about the organiser of the murder but of its assumed instigator. He did not offer any more detailed information because, he said, it would be premature to do so. The new suspect’s lawyer Tamara Kuchma says there was no link between her client and the person behind the killing. “That’s totally excluded,” she told a correspondent from the Interfax news agency. “There is no suggestion about those who were behind the murder.”

There was a guarded response at Novaya Gazeta to the news that the circle of suspects had now widened. The newspaper’s chief editor Dmitry Muratov said that “the arrest of Pavlyuchenkov is a success”. He was unsettled, however, by the speed with which the investigators began to speak about the instigator of the crime when they had only just arrested its organiser. “I know what happens with such dramatic announcements,” he said. “Immediately after the murder of Anna Politkovskaya the Prosecutor General Yury Chaika declared that the presumed instigator of the crime was Boris Berezovsky. … Statements about the person behind the crime do not fill me with enthusiasm,” Muratov told RIA Novosti. “It seems we cannot escape politically-motivated acts.”

The paper’s deputy chief editor, Sergei Sokolov, takes a similar view. “I would not start saying that we know who ordered this crime. There are a certain number of interpretations and these refer to more than one or two individuals. In order for someone to be a suspect as the instigator of such a crime there must be an unshakeable argument. I believe that a long road lies ahead, requiring detective work and investigation, before we reach the person behind it all.”

The head of the presidential Council on Civil Society and Human Rights, Mikhail Fedotov, responded with cautious optimism to the latest announcement. “If the investigation is on the right trail then the case is approaching its solution and those responsible will be punished. For me it is most important that the investigators are not sitting idle. The progress that is being made gives cause for hope,” Interfax cites Fedotov as saying. “However, the greatest danger in such cases is that the solution will be forced to fit a foregone conclusion and then innocent people could find themselves behind bars, while those who were involved in the murder remain at large.”


Karelia. Court reinstates Svetlana Guseva

Anatoly Tsygankov, GDF correspondent in the Northwest Federal District

In May this year Olga Tervo, head of the Olonetsk district administration, sacked the editor of the “Olonia” newspaper Svetlana Guseva. The text of Tervo’s announcement offered no justification for a decision that took everyone by surprise. Until then there had been no complaints about the way Guseva was running the paper – on the contrary, the work of this officially commended journalist had been marked only by expressions of gratitude. It later became clear that Ms Tervo also had no objections to the editor’s professional qualities. She was dissatisfied with her work. A number of orders issued by Tervo required Guseva to explain why certain articles, all critical of the district administration, had been published in the newspaper.

As we reported earlier, the Union of Journalists in Karelia intervened on behalf of the dismissed editor. After studying the official documents Guseva’s colleagues had little difficulty in establishing that Tervo’s actions were unlawful. One, the district administration had taken the decision without consulting the other trustees of the newspaper, the district council and the Information Agency of the Republic of Karelia. Once the decision had been taken, it became clear that the district council’s deputies did not agree with the dismissal of Guseva although they did not take up her case. The government-sponsored Information Agency, on the other hand, gave its retrospective approval. Two, when the contract with Guseva was terminated the district administration somehow ignored the fact that she was not only the director of the “Olonia” editorial board but also the newspaper’s chief editor. Her dismissal should have been made, therefore, in accordance with the requirements and guarantees set out in the Russian Federation’s “Law on the Media”, the charter of the editorial board and the newspaper’s articles of incorporation. None of this was done.

After considering all these matters the judge examining the case ruled that Svetlana Guseva should be reinstated as editor. The May decision taken by the head of the district administration was declared unlawful and Guseva again became chief editor of the “Olonia” newspaper as of the moment that the court pronounced its decision.

Transbaikal Region. Journalists arrested trying to photograph “strategic” site

Marina Meteleva, GDF correspondent in the Siberian Federal District

On 25 August the members of a film-crew from the Japanese Sapporo Television Broadcasting company were arrested near the Tarskaya railway station in Buryatia’s Karymsky district. They were trying to film the special train carrying the North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il from Ulan-Ude towards the Russian-Chinese border.

The arrest took place about 8 am (local time) and was led by agents from the Karymsky section of the FSB and security guards for Russian railways. The same day the regional prosecutor’s office issued an official statement. Denis Kurochkin, prosecutor for the Karymsky district, commented:

“Armed guards were posted on the railway bridge over the Ingoda River, which is a ‘strategic’ site, as the train carrying Kim Jong-Il, leader of the Korean People’s Democratic Republic, was due to appear. They noted the presence of a group of people who were in a restricted area, filming this protected site. Article 20.17 of the RF Administrative Code defines a particular responsibility for unauthorised access to protected sites. For that reason the guards detained these foreign citizens, summoned the FSB, and then escorted the arrested individuals to the Karymsky district police station.”

There it was established that they were a film-crew for the Japanese STB company, who had been instructed by their editors to try and film the train of the North Korean leader. “They had film equipment with them and all the necessary documentation. No forbidden items were discovered. Checks were made and it was established that they had not infringed laws concerning migration or criminal offences.” Nevertheless, an offence under Article 20.17 of the Administrative Code was registered “for infraction of the above administrative law”. The film-crew faces a fine of up to 500 roubles.

The RF Ministry for Rail Transport is particularly sensitive about journalists visiting any of its guarded sites. That is why Russian journalists before they film, take interviews, and so on, prefer to get agreement on all issues. If representatives of major foreign media companies come to the area and do not wish to contact the authorities they have usually consulted their Russian colleagues about local conditions for obtaining information. “I don’t understand why Japanese journalists, especially if they work for TV, began to film near a railway bridge, when you consider that the world constantly faces terrorist threats and Russia is no exception,” commented the editor of one of the Transbaikal Region’s newspapers. “Perhaps at home in Japan such behaviour is commonplace? If so, our foreign colleagues could look on their arrest as obstruction of their work and an attack on press freedom. We are more law-abiding and have been ‘trained’ how to behave by our law-enforcement agencies. If the Japanese had wanted to conduct an interview with Kim Jong-Il without any prior agreement the consequences would have been far more serious.”

Rostov Region. Another two months’ custody for Margarita Yefremova

Anna Lebedeva, GDF correspondent in the Southern Federal District

On 19 August the fourth-month detention in custody of Margarita Yefremova of the “Southern Federal” newspaper came to an end. While the newspaper petitioned the Leninsky district court of Rostov-on-Don for a change in the measure of restraint imposed on its deputy chief editor, the investigators demanded that her detention be extended. As a result the court prolonged Yefremova’s custody for another two months.

She was arrested as she received 300,000 roubles from the deputy head of the Morozovsky district and charged with extortion to the amount of 500,000 roubles. According to the police, Yefremova threatened that if the heads of the district administration and the local police did not meet her demands she would publish information damaging to their reputation in her newspaper (see Digest 521).

Maxim Federenko, chief editor of the “Southern Federal” newspaper, told the GDF that law-enforcement agents had openly admitted to him, off the record, that his colleague and newspaper were being framed. The authorities had ordered them to discredit and destroy the independent newspaper as preparations began for the Duma elections in December. That was what accounted, in Federenko’s view, for the otherwise inexplicably harsh treatment of the suspect by both police investigators and the judges. They would not release a middle-aged woman from the pre-trial detention centre either on bail or in return for a guarantee that she would not leave the country.

The media in Rostov have been drawing comparisons with another high-profile case that vividly shows how harsh justice can be for some citizens and how unusually understanding it is towards others. Recently the Regional Court passed sentence in the trial of the region’s deputy minister for education Skachkov and the head of the Milyutinsky district Rudov. They were accused of taking a bribe of 1.3 million roubles from a construction company for the contract to carry out major work on a local school. The two were apprehended together but the district head was sentenced to 8 ½ years in a strict regime penal colony while his accomplice only received a conditional sentence of 7 ½ years. Rudov spent all the time before the trial in the pre-trial detention centre. Skachkov was allowed to remain free after giving an undertaking not to leave Russia. A journalist working for an opposition newspaper, evidently, cannot count on humane treatment from the authorities.

Rostov Region. Editor warned against joining political party

Anna Lebedeva, GDF correspondent in the Southern Federal District

Barely two days after Yevgeny Tkachev, editor of the “Zori Manycha” newspaper, set up a local branch of Yabloko tax inspectors made an unscheduled visit to the Veselovsky district paper. The outcome was a demand that the Zori Manycha Limited Company be shut down.

It was on 9 July that Sergei Mitrokhin, national chairman of Yabloko, arrived in the district to meet both with local Cossacks who had decided to join the party and with their leader (ataman) Yevgeny Tkachev, who also edits the “Zori Manycha” newspaper. A journalist known for his independent political views and for never having hidden the fact, Tkachev has boldly stated his opinions in the articles he publishes although the trustees of the “Zori Manycha” newspaper, apart from the company of the same name, include the administration of the Veselovsky district. A long-standing supporter of Yabloko, Tkachev never joined the party. Now, with a group of like-minded supporters, he took that decision and the Cossacks applied to become members of the local branch of Yabloko which is headed by Tkachev’s daughter Yelena. (She also works as a journalist for the newspaper.)

On Monday 11 July, local tax inspectors visited the newspaper’s offices. One can only hazard a guess as to why they suddenly appeared. No irregularities had been uncovered during their last scheduled visit in December 2010. “Zori Manycha” is meticulous about paying its taxes and at the end of the 2010 financial year closed with a profit on the books. Yet only a month after the surprise visit a letter arrived from the tax inspector instructing the Zori Manycha Company to shut down because “the volume of its net assets for 2008-2010 was lower than the minimal level required for its statutory capital”.

The letter warned that if the company “refused to go into voluntary liquidation the Inter-district Inspectorate No 20 of the Federal Tax Service for the Rostov Region would be forced to go to court to have the company closed down”. Yevgeny Tkachev refused to meet the demand of the tax inspectors and asked for the return of documents from the accounts department that were confiscated during their visit. He received the reply that these documents would be subject to further examination for a period of four months.

During the said years the net assets of the Zori Manycha Company were between 400,000 and 600,000 roubles. Many public and private companies acting as trustees of a variety of media have net assets far below that. Does this mean they could all be wound up as soon as their directors “join the wrong party” or if they demonstrate their disloyalty in some other way? We can guess who might have urged the inspectors to pay their unscheduled visit to the obstinate editor. A few months ago Victor Deryabkin, local leader of United Russia, and chair of the Region’s Legislative Assembly, formally requested the prosecutor’s office to press criminal charges against the organisers of a rally by the regional branch of Yabloko. The prosecutor’s office did not carry out these “valuable instructions”.

Khabarovsk Region. A five-round match. Score so far - Journalists 1, Plaintiffs 0

Olga Vasilyeva, GDF correspondent in the Far Eastern Federal District

On 26 August Judge Alyona Gubanova of Khabarovsk’s Central district court rejected in full the claims made by Duma deputy Alexander Shishkin against the Grand Express publishing house and journalists Konstantin Pronyakin and Irina Kharitonova.

Shishkin, who belongs to United Russia, applied to the court to defend his honour and dignity, and to exact moral compensation after the “Khabarovsk Express” newspaper published an article on 13 April entitled “The presidential plenipotentiary’s right hand man”. He asked that the court declare that the following text was untrue and damaging to his honour, dignity and business reputation: “… The owner of the Amurmetal Company has a holding of almost 50% in the Russian National Bank. As governor of the Region, it would seem that Victor Ishayev gave his support to Shishkin when the latter was elected to the Duma in December 2007 (although the seat had been promised, according to some reports, to Vyacheslav Shport)”. The Kemerovo-Khabarovsk-Moscow businessman [Shishkin] “is well known to represent the Kuzbass group” and, the text continued, “has a number of joint commercial ventures with Ishayev’s son in the [Khabarovsk] Region.” Shishkin added that he had not given agreement for the publication of his photograph.

As readers may recall, five individuals took immediate and simultaneous offence at the article in the “Khabarovsk Express”. Each submitted complaints containing similar formulations and demanding the same level of compensation, 500,000 roubles. They are all being represented in court by a very expensive Khabarovsk lawyer, Dr Yury Kuleshov (see Digest 533).

Yekaterinburg. Press banned from the courts?

Vladimir Golubev, GDF correspondent in the Urals Federal District

On 23 August journalists came to the Verkh-Isetsky district court in Yekaterinburg to learn what measure of restraint the court would impose on Victor Konteyev, deputy head of the city administration. They were all asked to vacate the courtroom on the pretext that “the trial participants must be escorted to the toilet”. Once the media had left, however, the door was shut and locked. Journalists were then promised they would be let back in to hear the court’s decision but this did not happen either. The lucky ones managed to overhear some of the speeches from the corridor.

This is a case that has attracted enormous attention throughout the Urals. The deputy mayor of Yekaterinburg is accused of organising the murder of two businessmen “in order to re-allocate the profits from enterprises working for the consumer market in the Urals Federal District”. Experts, it is true, are inclined to believe that some influential figures in the local political elite simply want Konteyev out of the way for a time.

Probably the court should have taken these circumstances into consideration and not expelled almost thirty journalists, thereby violating the RF “Law on the Media” and displaying a blatant lack of respect towards the press.

Republic of Dagestan. Charges of incitement to enmity expire

Natalya Yusupova, GDF correspondent in the North Caucasus Federal District

The Dagestan prosecutor’s office has acknowledged as lawful the decision not to proceed with criminal charges against Mugudin Kakhrimanov, chief editor of the “Golos naroda” newspaper, for circulating information that incited ethnic hatred. However, it does not consider that the charges were unfounded.

Three years ago two articles by Kakhrimanov were published in the newspaper: “Be on your guard, nationalism” and a text addressed “To the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Duma deputy Kh.I. Shikhsaidov”. Investigators found the articles to contain statements and information intended to incite ethnic hatred and their view was subsequently confirmed by expert opinion.

In May 2010 Mugudin Kakhrimanov was formally charged under Article 282 of the RF Criminal Code “Incitement to hatred or enmity, or the debasement of human dignity”. In court the editor admitted his guilt but presented a written request for the case against him to be closed since the [two-year] statute of limitation for criminal prosecution of the offence had since expired.

In July 2011 the decision to close the case against Kakhrimanov on these grounds was taken by the Investigative Committee for the Leninsky district of Makhachkala. The prosecutor’s office has now confirmed that the decision is lawful and well-founded.

Omsk. Journalists and bloggers accused of holding “unauthorised rally” in governor’s blog

Georgy Borodyansky, GDF correspondent in the Siberian Federal District

By today’s standards journalists in Omsk have been demonstrating an exceptional capacity for solidarity and collective action in assertion of their rights. One such example is their determination to attend meetings of the Regional Government where decisions affecting everyone in the Omsk Region are taken. Until last year the Region’s independent media, of which there are less than a dozen, were allowed into these meetings. Evidently, their journalists did not cover what happened as the regional authorities would have liked. The latter were particularly irritated by the reports of Stanislav Zhoglik, commentator for the “Biznes-kurs” magazine. First he was refused accreditation; then the same happened to journalists and publications other than those included in the “governor’s pool”.

The journalists asked officials for an explanation and even reported the matter to the prosecutor’s office. No one could give the press a coherent explanation as to why they had been forbidden to let citizens and tax-payers know what use the authorities were making of their funds and how these decisions were justified. A year later the story resumed in the blog of Andrei Besshtanko, the first deputy governor of the Omsk Region.

When Besshtanko offered for discussion his comment on relations between the authorities and the press (it was titled, “Lies do not make the media independent, they make them dependent on their lies”) the response beat all records. It also prompted a lively reaction from journalists and bloggers. Stanislav Zhoglik called on those visiting the deputy governor’s blog to repeat the words “I am in favour of all meetings of the regional government being open to all the media” and sign their names and surnames. More than one hundred representatives of various publications and Live Journal users followed this suggestion. It became an “unauthorised” rally in the deputy governor’s blog. In an attempt to halt the action Besshtanko wrote that their efforts were in vain – he would remove the pages that had been covered with this slogan. Fearing accusations of censorship, probably, he did not actually do so.

It seems unlikely that those running the Omsk Region will take the risk of letting independent journalists attend their meetings in the months that remain before the elections. Still, the protest may be considered a success. The governor has only six months left in office and, as he recently declared at the primaries of the People’s Front, he will be replaced by someone “with a new way of running the region”. Whoever that may be (many predict his place will be taken by 34-year-old Andrei Besshtanko) there is hope that he will put relations with the media on a different footing.

Perm Region. The term “fraud” according to the Civil Code

Mikhail Lobanov, GDF correspondent in the Volga Federal District

The word “fraud” reflects a negative assessment of the plaintiff’s activities and does not include any information about the presence of a criminal offence – that was the conclusion reached by the presidium of the Perm Region Court in the case brought by businessman Eduard Fadeyev against the editors of the “Parma” newspaper, the journalist Irina Dultseva, the administration of the Yusvinsky district and the former district head Nikolai Aksyonov.

On 26 August 2010 an article entitled “The Milk got Away” appeared in the “Parma” municipal newspaper, which is published in the Yusvinsky district of the Komi-Permyatsky Region. Describing the reasons why the only local milk-processing plant was not paying its suppliers, journalist Irina Dultseva wrote the following: “The attractive title of the Kuprossky dairy plant, ‘The Valley of Milk’, is a façade behind which lies fraud, misunderstanding and deception – that was the experience of those in charge of five agricultural enterprises in the Kusvinsky district”. The newspaper also provided a commentary by Nikolai Aksyonov, then head of the district: “We would like the law-enforcement agencies to take this matter seriously. There is fraud on a large scale here and yet they have concluded that the actions of Fadeyev do not constitute a crime”.

Fadeyev, who set up the Molochnaya dolina 2 (Valley of Milk) and Molochnaya dolina 3 companies on the basis of the former Kuprossky dairy and is their director, asked the court to rule the above statements inaccurate and damaging to his honour, dignity and business reputation. He demanded that a disclaimer be published, and that an apology to made and a payment of 1 million dollars in moral damages.

The Yusvinsky district court judged the disputed fragments to be an expression of subjective opinion and on 21 December 2010 declined to uphold the plaintiff’s case. On 1 February 2011 the Perm Region Court partially approved Fadeyev’s appeal. It was noted that as far back as 15 May 2010, i.e. before publication of the contentious article, that investigators had not found evidence of a crime and refused to bring charges against the businessman under part 2 of Article 195 of the RF Criminal Code (“Unlawful actions during bankruptcy”) in connection with losses of less than 1.5 million roubles. The appeal board also found that information about fraud on a large scale by the plaintiff was inaccurate and ordered the Yusvinsky district administration to pay compensation for moral damages to the value of 500 roubles.

After examining the complaint about this decision submitted by the respondent Aksyonov the presidium of the Perm Regional Court annulled the new decision on 11 August 2011 and left in force the conclusions reached by the district court. Assessing the words of the former official from the viewpoint of civil law the supervisory instance of the Regional Court determined that his commentary only contained value judgments about the refusal to bring criminal charges against Fadeyev and these could not be checked for their accuracy and did not require rebuttal under the terms of Article 152 of the RF Civil Code.


Journalists arrested during demonstration in Mogilev

Charter 97, 23 August

On 23 August rights activists demonstrated in Mogilev in support of Ales Belyatsky. Rights defenders and other activists distributed several hundred booklets about Belyatsky who is today held in custody and facing a long prison sentence. When the demonstration ended, reports the Vyasna human rights centre, the police arrested activist Pavel Voroshilov, journalist Alina Skrybunova and cameraman Yevgeny Glushakov. They were all taken to the Leninsky district police station.


Divide and Rule: The recent city elections in St Petersburg

Roman Zakharov, GDF correspondent in the Northwestern Federal District

During the city elections in St Petersburg on 21 August journalists were classified as “reliable” and “undesirable”. That, at least, is the picture which emerges from observing the behaviour of the electoral commissions and the police.

Valentina Matvienko, former governor of St Petersburg, had to be successful in the municipal elections if she was to be appointed Speaker of the Federation Council, the upper house of the Russian parliament. The scandals and rows that resulted prompted the city’s inhabitants to repeat the wry comment of experts on her election campaign: “If she’s afraid that means she can’t get the five hundred votes she needs by honest means.” Among those expected to fall in line were journalists of the city’s newspapers. In the run-up to the vote they had to put out a small print-run of a special edition announcing that Matvienko would take part in the elections and then hide this issue from the vigilant eyes of the opposition and the no less vigilant eyes of their colleagues. Next came the turn of a correspondent of a popular online publication. He resigned in protest when a critical report about the pressure exerted by the administration was not published (see Digest 533).

Neither did the elections on 21 August 2011 show much respect for journalists’ rights. Both the urban areas where the former governor of St Petersburg was standing as a candidate were tightly cordoned off by the police. The local electoral commissions showed particular zeal as did those assigned from the city headquarters to oversee the proceedings. Correspondents who had covered previous election campaigns were astonished by conditions that were more restrictive than even presidential and parliamentary elections. First the organisers simply tried to exclude the journalists, demanding not only their press card but also the original copy of their assignment from their editor and their passport (ID document). If a journalist lacked any of the three they were sent on their way. A TV crew from one of the national channels found themselves in a ridiculous situation. They each had press cards but their assignment had been approved by the head of the channel’s local bureau in Petersburg while their place of work was, in legal terms, correctly indicated as Moscow. The forces of law and order did not give the matter more thought. The discrepancy was used as an excuse to expel these “offenders” from the electoral district. They were only able to illustrate their report on the elections with footage donated by colleagues from another channel.

There were a number of other trivial acts of obstruction. In one of the electoral districts cars bearing a Press badge were not permitted to park anywhere near the polling station. Even a representative of the city electoral commission proved powerless to influence this decision by a young policeman. “My immediate superior must give me such an order,” he snapped. At the other polling station photographers were kept at such a distance that they could only film the members of the electoral commission. The latter made sure that no voters would be filmed.

These difficulties did not affect all journalists, however. On the principle of “divide and rule” those acting on behalf of the authorities put no obstacles in the way of certain media, which, probably, had earned their trust. Among them were film crews from the State Broadcasting Company, correspondents for State-run information agencies and representatives of the online publication which had filmed but then did not show a report about the improper behaviour of the authorities in support of Matvienko.

As we know Ms Matvienko won the election and became a deputy of the city assembly. The president wasted no time in accepting her resignation as governor. Now the former head of St Petersburg has entered the final straight and soon she will be the third most important official in Russia.


From Ulan-Ude (Buryatia, Siberia)

Dear Friends

We have just received a copy of the ruling by the appeals board of the Federal Arbitration Court for the Moscow District, confirming the decision of the Moscow City Arbitration Court that the Roskomnadzor oversight agency had acted wrongly in annulling the broadcasting licence of Pulse Radio in Ulan-Ude.

It would seem that everything is now clear and that Roskomnadzor should acknowledge its mistake, correct it as soon as possible and, probably, also offer its apologies. In the registry of licensed bodies, however, licence No 11181 is listed as annulled and, moreover, the permission to use that frequency has also been annulled since it has not been used for more than a year.

Let me remind your readers that the licence was annulled by an order issued by Sitnikov on 19 March 2010. From August to December last year the matter was considered by the Moscow Arbitration Court. Representatives of Roskomnadzor deliberately dragged out the process by failing to appear, not presenting documents required by the Court, and so on. The same happened during the appeals process.

Yours sincerely
Valery Trenogin


This Digest has been prepared by the Glasnost Defence Foundation (GDF).

We appreciate the support of the John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

Digest released once a week, on Mondays, since August 11, 2000. Distributed by e-mail to 1,600 subscribers in and outside Russia.

Editor-in-chief: Alexei Simonov.

Editorial board: Boris Timoshenko  – Monitoring Service chief, Pyotr Polonitsky  – head of GDF regional network, Svetlana Zemskova  – lawyer, John Crowfoot  – translator.


We would appreciate reference to our organisation in the event of any Digest-sourced information or other materials being used.

Contacts: Glasnost Defence Foundation, 4, Zubovsky Boulevard, Office 432, 119992 Moscow, Russia.
Telephone/fax: (495) 637-4947, 637-4420, e-mail: boris@gdf.ru, fond@gdf.ru

Все новости

ФЗГ продолжает бороться за свое честное имя. Пройдя все необходимые инстанции отечественного правосудия, Фонд обратился в Европейский суд. Для обращения понадобилось вкратце оценить все, что Фонд сделал за 25 лет своего существования. Вот что у нас получилось:
Полезная деятельность Фонда защиты гласности за 25 лет его жизни