Moscow April 22, 2013

7.4. The Events of the 6^th of May: the Version of the Commission

The evidence collected by the Commission provides reasonable grounds to put forward another version of the events of May 6, 2012. The mass lawlessness on the part of the authorities irrefutably testified for by the facts may have two explanations. The first is an excess of performers. The second is a pre-planned action. The Commission believes that the latter explanation is true and this explanation is our proposed version.

1. A large set of facts points to a pre-planned nature of the mass lawlessness. It is sufficient to remind of the following:

• It’s been the first time when there were no interaction between the authorities and the organizers of the action in the campaign;

• Technical equipment necessary for the mass detention of an unprecedented scale was concentrated in advance;

• There were no statutory markings on uniforms of the members of the security forces. Such a massive violation of the law is possible only in case of a centralized preparation for it. Unlawful absence of markings planned in advance can serve only one purpose: an unpunished violation of laws;

• here is much evidence of coordinated interaction between the forces of law and order and provocateurs who penetrated the arrays of the protesters;

• It is important to remember that disassembled and carefully folded blocks of asphalt were found unexpectedly for the organizers of the action. Then such blocks were used by provocateurs to throw at the representatives of the law enforcement bodies;

• According to the information given in the “Report on the results of ensuring public order and safety in Moscow on May 6, 2012” signed by the deputy chief of the Directorate for the Protection of Public Order of the MIA of Russia for Moscow, police colonel D. Deynichenko (annex 1 to Section 7), the police fixed 8,000 participants of the meeting (when the declared number was 5,000). However, the forces of law and order were 12,759 people according to the Report;

• One-sided coverage of the action, which is proven by the same materials being copied, by the controlled mass media also indicates to the preliminarily planned character of the mass lawlessness on the part of the authorities.

2. It is inconsistent to assume that the unprecedented force preparation for the action of the 6^th of May could be stipulated by the presence of some preliminary current information. If there were any grounds for concern, they would have to be discussed with the organizers of the action first of all, which did not happen. At present, the investigation bodies have only the evidence that they understand as supporting the government's version. Presence of serious and reliable current information about the intentions of certain individuals that represent a serious threat to public safety would reduce a preventive isolation of such individuals. It has been practiced before and being practiced so far regardless of the extent of the threat. All (or nearly all) of the activists who is charged with preparation of the riots were present at the action of the 6^th of May. In the presence of preliminary information, such an unusual fact (it means lack of preventive isolation) must be considered as a deliberate provocation. Finally, to prevent the intentions of individuals to sit on the pavement or to pitch tents (the law enforcement bodies could have the information about these intentions in advance), it is not necessary to use any troops, nor massive illegal violence. In addition, the action of “sitting on the pavement and pitching tents” does not belong to the category of riots. Thus, the presence of huge security forces centered around the venue of the public agreed actions cannot be explained by the concern of preventing riots, but it is the evidence in favor of the version submitted by the Commission.

3. The Commission is convinced, and this conviction is supported by numerous facts, that the illegal and planned-in-advance actions of the forces of law and order in the Bolotnaya Square and the surrounding area had the following goals:

• to scare people;

• to cause panic;

• to provoke the participants of the action to make response actions against representatives of law and order;

• to create conditions for bringing charges in the riots;

• to justify mass lawlessness and violence.

It is well-known that panic begins in the crowd when the latter is squeezed and does not have possibility to go out. It is systematically carried out by law enforcement agencies, ranging from an unexpected transfer of cordon chain sharply limiting the space of the rally. After that, a targeted “squeezing” of the crowd carried out. Simultaneously, the first comers were pulled out from the crowd, suddenly mass beatings began aimed at strengthening the panic and provoking response protective actions of demonstrators. It must be added that deliberate anonymity of the perpetrators of mass lawlessness contributed to the growth of unmotivated aggression.

It is necessary to pay close attention to the fact that at the stage of determining preventive measures, the investigation agencies (before clarifying all the circumstances of the case, without any descriptions by the accused of their own actions) incriminated to them both an intent and participation in the riots. It also confirms the preliminary planning and purposefulness of the actions of the representatives of the authorities.

4. Putting forward its own version, the Commission counts itself obliged to try to explain the reasons that made the law enforcement agencies initiate massive violation of the law. It is to be recalled that the public action of the 6^th of May in 2012 was directed against falsification of the latest parliamentary and presidential election results. Consequently, this action questioned the legitimacy of both the presidential election and the person who had to take an oath during his inauguration at the Kremlin the next day. It also bears reminding that the question of illegitimacy of the acting government has become one of the main topics of the protest. The public success of such an action in the run up to the inauguration could have long-term negative political consequences for V. Putin. The fear caused by the awareness of his own illegitimacy was the main reason that pushed authorities to use mass lawlessness as a political facility designed to restrict and reduce the protest insisting on this illegitimacy. This fear has found a graphic confirmation in the picture of empty Moscow where a black motorcade was carrying the president to give the presidential oath. The fear armed with state coercion agencies found its way out in trying by any means to scare all the Russian citizens who are dissatisfied with the current Russian government.

Summing up all the available information and evidence, the Commission considers that in the course of events of the 6^th of May the political leaders of the country acting consciously and pursuing their political goals violated the constitutional rights of citizens and fought against dissent using government institutions (the police, investigation agencies, prosecutors, courts, federal TV channels) illegally.

Events of the 6^th of May in 2012 shall be qualified as planned, deliberate, purposeful, mass violation, with extreme atrocity, of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and Russian laws. The Commission believes that such events were possible only with the approval and under the pressure of the top political leaders of the country.

The Commission does not consider its version as a proven one and believes that the answer should be given by investigation agencies and a court, if and when these are a professional investigation body and independent and unbiased court.