Moscow April 22, 2013

Conclusions of the section

The coverage of the events on the Bolotnaya Square has a “centralized” nature due to the fact that all news programs were based on the same principle: extremely biased and one-sided presentation of materials.

2. All three major federal channels of Russia – “Channel One”, “Russia-1” and NTV – in covering the events on the Bolotnaya Square on May 6 performed a single task: to discredit the organizers of the march and public rally, to inspire people thought that the protest action was funded and managed from abroad (this is especially important due to the fact that the action took place the day before the inauguration of Vladimir Putin).

To be proved that the “anti-Putin” sentiments can only be burnt from the outside – Russian society itself does not have them. That is why the events on Bolotnaya Square are “tied” to the Georgian politician Givi Targamadze. But as no evidence existed that Targamadze led the events on May 6, the federal channels are trying to pervert the meaning of overheard conversations between Russian opposition and Georgian politician in favor of this version.

3. Federal channels obviously aimed at creation an atmosphere of rejection of ordinary participants of the events in the society, to show that this is an aggressive, marginal part of the population in order to create the necessary background for the trials, where, obviously, will be presented very weak evidence base. “Previously convicted”, “unemployed”, “mentally ill” – these are the typical characteristics of those who were detained after the events of May 6.

It is clear that at some point (early November 2012) for all federal channels a centralized decision is adopted to stop telling a wide audience about new arrests of ordinary participants of the events on the Bolotnaya square on May 6. TV channels also stopped telling about the trials of those who were arrested earlier under this case. Most likely, for two reasons: because of apparently inconclusive evidence of these processes, and in order not to arouse sympathy in the community to these people. The coverage highlights only those Russian politicians who communicated with Givi Targamadze (and hence logic of state TV channels suggest that they are the “enemies of Russia”) – Udaltsov, Lebedev and Razvozzhaev, and at the very Targamadze.

4. Noteworthy is extremely scanty basis of video evidence presented by TV channels as alleged confirmation of guilt of the detainees. As public and pro-government Russian television works in direct conjunction with the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, actually being his mouthpiece, this suggests that investigation does not have a heavy video-base, which would clearly indicate the fault of persons under arrest in connection with the events in Moscow on May 6.

Thus, it becomes clear why on December 7 the apartment of Roman Kostomarov, operator of NTV and co-author of the documentary film “Term” about the opposition, was searched and the materials withdrawn – the investigation apparently did not have enough evidence to feel confident in the trial of the accused of the “violence”.

5. Federal television channels are apparently to compensate the weakness of the legal charges against the participants of the events on the Bolotnaya Square on May 6 with ideological pressure both on the court and their huge audience.

That is why while covering these events, all professional requirements and standards that need to provide different points of view on the conflict have been violated. The pieces had purely one-sided nature of the conviction, the audience in general was not made aware if there were at least some arguments in favor of those accused of organizing mass riots and use of violence against representatives of the authorities.

7. Findings of the Commission

7.1 Answers to the questions posed to the Commission

Did the riots occur, and were the riots organized before the mass public event on May 6, 2012 or during it?

No, during the events on May 6, 2012 no riots occurred. There were individual acts of self-defense by some of the protesters against police officers, which should be qualified as necessary self-defense, provoked by illegal encroachment of the police on the constitutional right of citizens to participate in peaceful meetings, provoked by aggressive, unmotivated, illegal actions of the authorities that were hazardous to health of protesters.

Collected facts conclusively prove that clashes of protesters with law enforcement authorities were caused by massive intentional actions of the authorities. Among them:

1. Nobody expected the appearance of Special Police Forces (OMON), Interior troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the police inside the perimeter of the agreed public event, about which neither the organizers nor the participants of the event were informed and they were not ready to it.

2. Law enforcement authorities created obstacles to movement of the column to the public rally.

3. Deliberate provocative actions aimed at increasing the congestion while creating obstacles to the people to leave the venue of the public rally. This has created a danger to health of participants of the event and was the main reason that caused response from demonstrators.

4. Mass arrests of people who were snatched at random from the mass of demonstrators and without regard to any actions of the detainees. This created a general sense of insecurity and the need to protect themselves from total lawlessness.

5. Disproportionate and unlawful use of violence against the participants of a peaceful public event was another reason for defensive response on the part of some participants of a peaceful and agreed event.

Question 3.

Why did the peaceful march escalate into clashes between the police and the protesters?

The primary reason was one-sided and inconsistent with the organizers of a public event change of the agreed in advance scheme of the event on May 6 by city authorities and police forces. This was reflected in closure of a part of the agreed place where it should take place by Special Police Forces, Interior troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the police, as well as in putting additional “frames” for the participants of a public event in the area of the passage to the meeting, which created obstacles for citizens to exercise their constitutional rights.

All clashes can be divided into two categories. The first is illegal, dangerous to health of participants of the event actions of Special Police Forces and Interior troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs that created obstacles for citizens to exercise their constitutional rights. These actions of law enforcement authorities provoked responsive actions from participants of a peaceful event. The second category is the provocative actions of unknown people (none of them were arrested and brought to justice) in masks, acting under the cover of Special Police Forces, as there was irrefutable video evidence.

It is important to emphasize that during this procession the absence of the working contact between the organizers of a public event, on the one hand, and the persons authorized by the municipal authorities and law enforcement bodies on the other was first detected during the event. The main culprit for the lack of such contact are the city authorities and law enforcement bodies.