Moscow April 22, 2013

Report Summary

The present Report was prepared in partnership with the experts on the basis of the publicly available information and the facts collected by the working group. It contemplates the key issues of the 6^th of May events, along with certain evaluations of the circumstances of utmost importance: the official investigation process of the Bolotnaya Square case and the nature of the events coverage in the mass-media.

The Report contains a description of the overall backgrounds of the 6^th of May events. The current regime is stated to be formed under the conditions that do not presuppose any possibility for an equitable dialog with the society , and that the authorities are not accustomed to conduct such communication. In the politically unhealthy society weary of all the previous revolutionary upheavals, the group of people took over the power and grasped the opportunity to expand their authority for illegal enrichment freely. This is largely responsible for the situation where the loss of power turned into a grave threat, and people actively showing their free political will turned into the regime’s personal enemies. The authorities considered the peaceful public protest caused by the massive electoral frauds as a direct, immenent and personal life threat. The Russian authorities concluded that they can remain in power exclusively with the help of the total suppression of the protests using all possible means, with no legal limitations or bounds whatsoever. This decision found its outlet in the actions taken by the government on May 6, 2012.

In its Report, the Committee proceeds from the fact that the events of the 6^th of May should be evaluated based on the following legal provisions:

• 
  The right to freedom of assembly and expression. The priority of the constitutional rights. The duty of state authorities to provide adequate conditions for the exercise of these rights.
  
• 
  The standards of freedom for peaceful assemblies in the CE and OSCE member states. The guarantee of rights secured by the legislation and the judicial practice.
  
• 
  Legal awareness of the objectives of public safety during mass public events.
  

Based on the above-mentioned principles, the Committee has stated the facts and evaluated the events.

The Report states that in the process of the event approvalthe public authority representatives committed serious violations, the worst one being the unauthorized and unlawful changes made to the approved plan of the march and its route. Authorities changed the coordinated technical parameters of the march with no proper notification of the event applicants. It is directly stated in the document titled On Assignment Execution of August 15, 2012 signed by the Deputy Chief of Moscow Department of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs – Chief of the Police, major-general O.V. Baranov: “The Public Safety Office of Moscow Department of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs did not coordinate the cartographic layouts and public safety plans for the mass event on May 6, 2012 with the initiators thereof and did not disclose their content to the general public and the march participants, for the documents in question are of an official character, have been designed for internal usage, and contain the information on the number and placement of police forces, their technical and special equipment, as well the information of the specific objectives for separate police squads.”

As distinct of how it was done on February 4, 2012, the park on the Bolotnaya Square was sealed off with policemen and metal barriers (thus a major part of the Bolotnaya Square was practically excluded from the approved event area). Only a small space of Bolotnaya Embankment was accessible. Besides, an additional set of metal detectors was installed at the entrance to the meeting area. Their aim did not consist in the provision of access to the citizens who wished to take part in the meeting only (as it happened on February 4, 2012), but in repeated demonstration participants admission (which was completely groundless). The quantity of these detectors was less than the quantity of those placed at the entrance to the event area. i.e. this quantity was obviously too small to allow free access of all those engaged in the demonstration to the meeting zone. On February 4, there were no police barriers in the park, whereas on the 6^th of May it was practically surrounded by reinforced armed police units.

Another material circumstance is the fact that the city Executive Board never sent any written orders regarding assignment of an authorized representative of the city authorities to the event organizers. Such a representative, in compliance with federal law No. 54- ФЗ On Public Gatherings, Meetings, Demonstrations, Marches and Pickets” of 19.06.2004 shall provide all the necessary assistance in the event conduct.

According to various official and informal data, on May 6, 2012, there were over 12800 policemen located in the center of Moscow, among them around the Bolotnaya Square – 8904 (policemen and members of the special police task forces (OMON) – 5334, State Traffic Safety Inspectors (GIBDD) – 100, internal troops (military units Nos. 3641 and 3500) – 2400, police cadets – 200). Besides, the police forces employed a lot of vehicles, including street cleaning machines used to make barriers on Bolshoy Kamenny and Bolshoy Moskvoretsky bridges, as well as in the lanes leading to Bolshaya Yakimanka. Apart from the Moscow police and the special police forces, huge human resources from the Moscow region (Sofrino, Balashikha), St. Petersburgh, Ivanovo, Mari El, Chelyabinsk and even from Yakutsk were involved.

The dislocation of the forces in the place of the coordinated meeting raises serious issues with regard to the actions planned by the authorities. Let us assume that the cordons organized by the police and OMON on the Moskva river can be easily explained by the unwillingness to let people to the central squares of the capital (the Manezhnaya Square, the Revolutionary Square, The Red Square). Yet the dislocation of significant police forces in Zamoskvorechie, time and time again noted by the participants, can only be reasonably explained with a previously planned attempt to block the protesters on all sides. An unprecedented number of policemen with service dogs should be emphasized . Besides, a number of service cars belonging to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation arrived to the Bolotnaya Square and Serafimovich street. The facts are described in the report of V.P. Lukin, Commissioner for Human Rights.

The Committee’s Report contains a minute-by-minute description of everything happening on the Bolotnaya Square and the adjacent territories, from the gathering of the protesters in the Kalzhskaya Square at 3 PM to the ending with the arrests of the protesters after 10 PM in the adjacent lanes. The descriptions of the events are based on the facts rendered by the participants, the available photos and video materials.

The analysis of the entire range of materials and facts possessed by the Public Investigation raises a number of issues of principal importance. The evidence given by the policemen, contained in the defendants’ case materials, along with a set of additional sources raise doubts as to the spontaneous nature of the cordon breakthrough.

For example, at 3:39-3:41 PM, when the column of demonstrators was still located on the traverse of house No. 40 in Bolshaya Yakimanka (i.e. before their movement towards the Bolotnaya Square from the initial spot), Tonya Samsonova, a journalist for the Echo of Moscow radio station, published at her twitter account a photo of a special police force line located at the start of Bolshoy Kamenny Bridge. Konstantin Rykov, a famous pro-Kremlin activist, immediately asked her: “Were you located at the point of breakthrough?” According to the evidence given by one of the policemen and sounded during the court session on the M. Kosenko’s case, “at 3:45-3:50 PM there was an order to prepare to conduct detentions”. As proved by the video, such detention groups were indeed formed and moved to the police cordon before 5:10 PM. According to the evidence given by the policemen, that were already voiced in court, they received an order “to suppress mass disorders” between 4 and 5 PM, that is at least an hour before the breakthrough and the clashes between the protesters and the police.

When considered alongside with the descriptions of provokers’ activities among the protesters, these data lead to the conclusion that the breakthrough was the result of a previously planned large-scale diversion of the law-enforcement agencies with the aim to provide the reasons for a forceful break up and suppression of the peaceful public meeting. The final evaluation of all the further events depends on the answers given to this principal issue.

Meanwhile, this issue wasn’t at all raised by the investigation, which takes the fact of mass disorders for axiomatic. The entire responsibility for the mass riots was imposed on the protesters.

The Report states that all the descriptions made by the event participants, all the videos and photos available provide solid proofs that at the early stages of the clashes the police forces, in spite of their direct and basic function, did not undertake any measures to ensure the public safety. On the contrary, the police and its actions created immediate threats to the lives and health of the participants of the coordinated peaceful manifestation.

The absolutely inappropriate and excessive use of force and special equipment was of an inadequate, repressive, excessively rough nature and was not at all indispensible in the given circumstances.

The cruelty of the actions taken by the police and the Special Forces led to numerous injuries among the protesters. The groundlessly cruel, non-selective and unprovoked nature of the majority of arrests, as well as direct violations of the law by policemen, beatings of helpless and unarmed people (women and seniors), block-outs of the exits from the meeting area, creation of crowds with an inherent dangers of causing victims and, in many cases, the openly provocative behavior of the special police task forces – all of the mentioned factors contributed to the escalation of the conflict, not its resolution or cessation. Only extreme self-control and responsibility of the majority of the protesters who did not engage into violent confrontations with the police units prevented the local clashes from turning into a full scale battle that could have unpredictable outcomes.

Moreover, the information and materials gathered by the Public Investigation provide solid grounds to state that the clashes were intentionally triggered by the provokers who penetrated the peaceful demonstration and were controlled and guided by the law-enforcement officers in civilian clothes.

The restored sequence of events allows assuming that the law-enforcement agencies are to blame for the violent turn of events within the mentioned timeframe and, as a result, for the overall nature of events.

The Report states that many of the arrested and injured people were not given medical attention afterwards. It contains the data provided by the Emergency Medical Center: on the 6^th of May 53 persons were taken to the city hospitals (among whom there were only 3 policemen), including 11 persons with head injuries, 18 persons with head concussions, 16 persons with head bruises, 1 person with elbow joint fracture. The evidences and the medical documents clearly show that many if not all of the injured were delivered to the hospitals from the local police departments and courts only on the following day. This means that the number of the injured was significantly higher. The Public Prosecution Office of the Russian Federation did not open a single case on the mentioned beatings of the civilians.

The total number of the detained on May 6, 2012 exceeded 600 persons.

The analysis of the written and oral evidences given by the participants, the available documents, videos and photos lead to the the following conclusions:

1. the forceful dispersal of the coordinated peaceful action was initially planned by the state authorities. The pre-planned forceful intervention had been prepared before the conflict took place. There is no doubt that the police staff was instructed on the matter of minimizing the contacts with the protesters. A number of trained provokers penetrated into the crowd of protesters;

2. the so-called technical reason for the complications that took place when the crowd was leaving Maly Kamenny Bridge, with the subsequent shift to the stage of direct confrontation, was the unilateral violation of the approved meeting plan committed by the authorities. The initiative group of the meeting was not aforehandnotified about the change and did not have the opportunity to implement preventive measures to eliminate the conflict situation. A prompt resolution of the conflict was also impossible due to the inability of the meeting initiators to establish a contact with the municipal authorities’ representatives. All of the attempts made by the representatives of the protesting side, the Commissioner for human rights in the Russian Federation V. Lukin, deputies of the State Duma to set clear the matter were ignored;

3. the subsequent breakthrough of the primary cordon line was caused by inadequate inertness of the authorities; the crowding provoked by the location of the police cordons which narrowed the passage for people; the absence of the necessary equipment for public announcement; largely, also by the provokers who intentionally penetrated the protesters. The numerous efforts made by the demonstration leaders to stop the breakthrough in the above-described circumstances were in vain;

4. during the confrontation the police and the special forces actions were characterized by the inappropriate use of force against unarmed and peaceful civilians, unlawful usage of special equipment, blocking of exits from the meeting area for the participants (including seniors, women, people with children), untimely medical assistance to the injured, provocation of panic which might have eventually led to numerous victims among the civilian population. The actions of the police forces were completely inexplicable for the peaceful people; there were no adequate instructions from the law-enforcement authorities;

5. the police and the special forces exceeded their powers by continuing to chase, beat and arrest the people who were leaving the meeting area outside of its premises. Thereby there were victims among accident passers-by who did in the action;

6. the actions taken by the meeting participants in the majority of cases can be defined as highly moderate and self-possessed. The sporadic fightbacks against the violent acts committed by the police and the special police forces did not go beyond the limits of the necessary self-defense and protection of the surrounding people from the groundless aggression exerted by the law-enforcement agencies.

The Report also evaluates the investigation – the eligibility of the implemented punitive measures and the accusations charged. The Committee reasons from the facts that:

• 
  any investigation must be objective.
  
• 
  courts cannot go beyond the accusation formulated by the body of investigation and containing descriptions of definite elements of crime.
  
• 
  corpus delicti, the aggregate of characteristics providing the necessary and sufficient evidence to distinguish guilt from innocence, shall constitute the sole ground for criminal liability (Art. No. 8 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
  
• 
  resistance to a public authority representative is not a discriminating feature of mass riots. Art. 212 of the Criminal Code suggests armed resistance.
  
• 
  the crime dealt with in Art. 212 of the Criminal Code is characterized by direct intentions of the defendant against the public safety (object of crime) and not against the protective actions of policemen, including public safety protection.
  
• 
  it is not allowed to use descriptions of actions committed by other persons which are not part of the defendant’s criminal intent. General descriptions of a public event while putting charges against a particular person according to Art. 212 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation do not have legal effect.
  
• 
  court decisions regarding detention as a punitive measure shall contain arguments in favor of the legal grounds to implement such a measure. The arguments must be thoroughly analyzed and supported by facts.
  
• 
  according to Part 1, Art. 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, “detention as a punitive measure can be implemented based on a court decision in relation to a person that is suspected or accused of a crime that presupposes a penalty of over 3 years of imprisonment if it is not possible to enact other, less strict punitive measures”.
  

The Report states that the charges do not contain descriptions of any actions that can be qualified as mass rioting under Art. 212 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In regard to the validity of the chosen punitive measures, it states that when making multiple prolongations of the detention periods for the defendants, in direct contrast to the respective legal requirements, in none of the cases did the courts react to any circumstances changes. They were only copying the previous decisions, changing their dates. In particular, the legal causes of the arrest are still stated as the possibility to influence the witnesses and destroy the evidence despite the fact that the investigation period has finished long time ago and currently the defendants and their attorneys are being introduced to the case details.

The Report contains the analysis of the media coverage of the 6^th of May Bolotnaya case. It says that the coverage of the events that took place on the 6^th of May in Bolotnaya Square by the state TV-channels and the subsequent arrest of the participants were obviously coordinated by a single center.

All the three major federal channels – Pervy, Rossiya-1 and NTV – when broadcasting reports on the events of the 6^th of May on the Bolotnaya Square were fulfilling the same task: discredit of the march and demonstration initiators, to proving that anti-Putin views can be spread only from abroad, seeding the feeling of antagonism towards the participants. In the early November 2012, all federal channels made a centralized decision to stop informing the public about new arrests of those who took part in the event on the Bolotnaya Square on May 6, 2012. TV-channels also ceased to cover the court proceedings over the people arrested earlier. Most likely, there are two reasons behind it: the obviously unconvincing evidential base of these proceedings and also the unwillingness to stir public compassion to the protesters. The media spotlight shifted towards those Russian politicians who had contacts with Givi Targamadze (and the Russian media logic tells that they are enemies of Russia) – Udaltsov, Lebedev and Razvozzhaev, alongside Targamadze himself.

The small collection of the video evidence broadcast on TV as alleged proofs of guilt of the arrested should be emphasized. In view of the fact that the state and the state-oriented Russian TV-channels work together with the Investigative Committee and basically broadcast the information given the Committee, it can be concluded that the bodies of investigation also do not have enough video proofs which could confirm the guilt of people in custody relating to the 6^th of May events.

So, it becomes clear why the apartment belonging to Roman Kostomarov, an operator for NTV channel, a co-author of the documentary “The Term” dedicated to the opposition, was searched on the 7^th of November and all the video materials were confiscated – the bodies of investigation obviously lack the necessary materials to ensure its confidence during the court proceedings of the case of the accused for violence and mass disorders.

One more conclusion – the federal channels are obviously ordered to compensate the judicial insufficiency of the accusations put forth against the participants of the 6^th of May events on the Bolotnaya Square by means of exerting ideological pressure on the court and on the giant audience of the channel. This was exactly the reason why media coverage of the events absolutely didn’t stand up to the established professional norms and standards which require to present the opposing views on the point of conflict. The reports on this topic were of exclusively accusatory nature, the audience had no information as to whether there were any arguments in favor of those who are blamed for organizing the mass riots and using physical violence against the authorities.

Conclusions of the Committee

Having collected and analyzed a huge amount of information and compared it with a number of video materials and with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, international legal acts and the Russian legislation, the Committee unanimously and responsibly considered the issues put forth before it during consideration of the December 12 Roundtable.

Did the facts of mass rioting and the intentional preparation thereof really take place before the start of mass public event on May 6, 2012 and in the course of it?

No, during the demonstration on May 6, 2012 there were no facts of mass rioting. There were separate acts of self-defense on the part of standalone protesters that should be qualified as justifiable self-defense provoked by the police by unlawful infringements of the protesters’ constitutional rights to participate in peaceful actions, and the defensive acts were directed against the aggressive, unmotivated and unlawful actions of the authorities that posed threat to the health of the protesters;

The facts obviously prove that the clashes between the protesters and police forces were caused by intentional actions of the authorities. These include:

1. The unexpected appearance of the special police task forces, interior the troops and the police inside the public action area which was not disclosed to the protesters not prepared to it.

2. Creation of obstacles for the crowd movement to the meeting site.

3. Intentional provocative actions aimed at increasing jams and creation of barriers to hamper free exit from the meeting site. All of this posed a threat to the protesters and became the basic reason what evoked the response.

4. Mass arrests of people by taking them out of the protesting crowd, arbitrarily and irrespective of their true deeds, contributed to the overall feeling of danger and necessity to protect themselves from the total disrespect of the law.

5. Inappropriate and unlawful use of force against the participants of the peaceful public action created an additional reason for responsive and protective actions from its participants.

Issue 3.

What was the reason for the peaceful gathering to turn into clashes between the police and the protesters?

The initial reason thereof was the unilateral and uncoordinated changes made to the initial plan of the public demonstration of the 6^th of May made by the police forces and the municipal authorities. This change implied closing part of the approved meeting site by the special police task forces, internal troops and the police, and also in the installation of a set of additional metal detectors at the access to the meeting space. All of the above created a set of obstacles for the citizens to make use of their constitutional rights;

The clashes can be commonly divided into two categories. The first category – the unlawful and dangerous actions of the special police task forces and the internal troops which posed obstacles for the citizens on the way to exercise their constitutional rights and evoked an adequate response. The second category – the provocative actions of unknown individuals (none of whom was arrested or brought to legal liability) wearing masks and acting under the cover of the special task forces (there are irrefutable video proofs for this).

It is important to stress the fact that during that demonstration for the first time there were no contacts between the initiators of the public event, on the one hand, and the municipal administration representatives and the officials of the law-enforcement agencies, on the other hand. The parties at fault for the lack of the necessary contact are the municipal government and the law-enforcement bodies.

The information collected by the Committee gives the ground to express an independent opinion on a set of other issues which clarify the truth behind the events of the 6^th of May in Moscow.

1. The Committee considers that an objective consideration of the events of the 6^th of May is impossible without an appropriate evaluation of the actions (or omission) of the municipal authorities and the law-enforcement bodies, which in line with the current legislation must “provide assistance in conducting the public action”, guarantee “public order and security during the conduct of a public action”.

2. The Committee underlines that the activities of the law-enforcement bodies were intentionally aimed to carry out groundless mass arrests among the protesters. The mass character thereof was planned to create an impression of a mass character of the conflict. This statement can be proved by all the accumulated data including the countless arrests outside of the meeting premises when the protesters were leaving it.

3. The immediate result of the intentional unlawful actions of the law-enforcement forces were the countless threats posed to the health to the participants of the demonstration. Many of them needed help, whereas the authority officials were generally not only reluctant to provide it, but also created obstacles on the way to it. A few exceptions were caused by the pressure exerted by the protesters.

4. Particular attention should be also paid to the aggressive reaction of the authority officials in situations when the protesters were pointing at the unlawful nature of their actions. Many of the people arrested on Bolotnaya Square and outside its premises were thrown into police cars exactly for this reason. And even more inadequately aggressive reactions took place when the people tried to suppress the unlawful acts of the authorities who were brutally beating defenseless people.

5. The Committee considers that the coverage of the events of May 6, 2012 on the federal TV-channels was political that the investigation process on the 6^th of May case was subjective and legally biased.

6. The Committee states the investigation was politically biased, all of the criminal charges are unlawful, the punitive measures implemented in relation to the defendants are illegitimate.

The Committee concludes that the actions taken by the authorities during the public events organized with the aim to exercise the constitutional rights “to peaceful and unarmed assemblies, to conduct meetings, demonstrations, marches and pickets” for the first time in 25 years were unprecedented in their cruelty and notable for the total use of violence and numerous violations of the law. The authority officials on the 6^th of May and afterwards, during the investigation and subsequent court proceedings, broke the norms of The Constitution of the Russian Federation, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, The Declaration of Human Rights, The International pact for civil and political rights, the Federal law “On meetings and gatherings, demonstrations, marches and pickets” No. 54- ФЗ dated 19 of June, 2004 and the Federal law “On the police forces” No. 3- ФЗ dated 07.02.2011.

Currently the government tries to bias the Russian society with an absolutely definite version of the events that took place on May 6, 2012, which in short boils down to the following. There is a group of individuals which was intentionally preparing the mass riotings on the Bolotnaya Square. The 6^th of May events, which were classified as mass disorders, were the result of these preparations. It is a completely groundless version that is not supported by facts which could be overthrown by any unbiased court, if there could ever be such a court trial in the contemporary Russia.

The Committee’s version of the 6^th of May events

The facts collected by the Committee give solid grounds to bring forward an absolutely different version of the May 6, 2012 events. The acts of complete disrespect of the law by the authorities, openly proved facts, can have two explanations. The first explanation – an excessive act. The second – a planned action. The Committee’s opinion is that second explanation is true and it constitutes the version put forth by it.

• 
  for the first time there was no cooperation whatsoever between the authorities and the demonstration initiators at the meeting site;
  
• 
  there was an unprecedented number of previously concentrated vehicles for conducting mass arrests;
  
• 
  the uniform worn by the law-enforcement forces did not have the necessary distinctive marks. Such a mass violation of the law can be possible only in case it was prepared by a single center. The previously planned absence of the distinctive marks can serve only one purpose – unpunished violation of the current legislation;
  
• 
  there are multiple facts proving the coordinated cooperation between the police forces and the provokers among the demonstrators;
  
• 
  it should be noted that, unexpectedly to the demonstration leaders, many have noticed piles of disassembled and carefully stacked asphalt which was later used to throw at the police formations by the provokers;
  
• 
  according to the data contained in the document titled Reference on the Result of the Public Safety and Order Enforcement Activities on May 6, 2012 in Moscow signed by Deputy Chief
  of the Directorate for the Protection of Public Order of Moscow Department of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs, police colonel D.Y. Deynichenko (Appendix 1 to Chapter 7), the police estimated 8,000 participants of the meeting (in whereas the declared figure constitutes 5,000). At the same time, the quantity of the law-enforcement forces was estimated at 12,759 people;
  
• 
  the planned character of the mass legislative violations is also proved by the biased, one-sided portrayal of the protest action in the state controlled media, characterised by copying the same materials.
  

3. The Committee is convinced, and such conviction is supported by multiple facts proving that the unlawful and previously planned actions of the public safety forces on the Bolotnaya Square and its surroundings had the following objectives:

• 
  to scare people;
  
• 
  to raise panic;
  
• 
  to provoke the protesters for responsive actions, directed against the law-enforcement bodies;
  
• 
  to provide the ground for mass rioting accusations;
  
• 
  to prove the mass legal violations with the help of the above.
  

It is also necessary to mention that the bodies of investigation, when choosing the punitive measures, with no proper analysis of all the circumstances or any description of the defendants’ actions, were identically incriminating them the criminal intent and participation in the mass riots.

4. Formulating its own version of the events, the Committee considers itself to be obliged to explain the reasons that triggered the public safety forces to commit mass violations of the law. It must be remembered that the public event of the 6^th of May was aimed at confrontation against the falsifications during the parliamentary and presidential elections. Consequently, the event was questioning the legitimacy of the presidential elections and the very person to take an oath during the official inauguration on the following day in Kremlin. It should also be reminded that the illegitimacy of the government in power earlier became one of the core issues of the protests. Public success of the protest immediately before the inauguration could have led to long-term negative political consequences for V. Putin. The fear stirred by the understanding of its own illegitimacy became the main reason which made the authorities resort to mass legal violations as means of political struggle chosen to restrain and subdue the protests that were insisting on such illegitimacy. This fear was well-illustrated by the views of empty Moscow streets and the dark motorcade taking the president to give his oath against such background. This exact fear, armed with the state bodies of coercion, found its outlet in the attempts to spread fear among the protesters using all the necessary means.

Summing up all the available facts, the Committee considers that during the events of the 6^th of May the state political leadership committed an intentional and violation of the constitutional rights of the citizens for their political ends, stirred and began its struggle with its ideological dissidence using various governmental institutes (the police, the bodies of investigation, the public prosecutor’s offices, courts, the federal TV-channels).

The events of May 6, 2012 should be classified as a pre-planned, conscious, intentional, particularly cruel and cynical mass infringement of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Russian legislation. The Committee is of the opinion that such events were put into reality and sanctioned under the pressure from the supreme political leadership of the country.

The Committee does not consider the presented version to be proved stating that the final consideration should be given by the investigation and the court, should there be a professional investigation and an independent court.

The Committee informs that its function is not limited to the preparation of the current Report and its public release. It will continue its work until the final liberation of all the citizens illegally convicted in relation to the events of May 6, 2012; until the authorities stop their unlawful activities in connection with the 6^th of May events; until the final overcoming of all the negative outcomes of the committed illegal actions, including the punishment of all officials involved in the considered crimes and administrative violations.

The Committee intends to attract maximum public attention, in Russia and internationally, to the 6^th of May events, to the legal cases and courts trials connected therewith to strive for open, impartial and just court proceedings.

The Committee considers it to be necessary to appeal to the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation with the aim to require an inspection in relation to the mass violations of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, international and Russian legal acts by the state authorities relating the events of the 6^th of May, 2012. All the mentioned appeals will be sent within the next few days.

The Committee intends to address the European Court for Human Rights on all the facts of violations of the human rights protected by the European Convention which have been and will be revealed in course of its work.

The Committee plans to address the international legal bodies (OSCE/ODIHR, the European Parliament, the UN, and etc.) on the matter of planned, mass violations of civil rights in Russia relating the events of May 6, 2012.

Alongside the court trials held in relation to the participants of the peaceful manifestation of May 6, 2012 planned by the authorities, the Committee will organize permanently active public hearings with the goal to analyze the progress of the trials, present all the evidence and hear all the witnesses denied by the court, disclose all the falsifications and procedural violations detected during the court trials in question.

In conclusion, the experts and the members of The Committee of the December 12 Roundtable organized to conduct the Public Investigation of the 6^th of May events express their deepest gratitude and respect to all people who presented their verbal and written descriptions and expressed willingness to testify upon the upcoming trials. The Committee would not be able to work without this great amount of collected information. This is an act of the greatest civil courage. It proves the fact, that the people of Russia cannot be scared of any repression.