Briefing :: Human Rights Play on Magnitsky Murder

Print

Commission on Security & Cooperation in Europe:  U.S. Helsinki Commission

“One Hour Eighteen”

Director:
Yury Urnov















The Event Was Held From 6:00 p.m. To 7:00 p.m. in 121 Cannon House Office 
Building, Washington, D.C., Kyle Parker, CSCE, Moderating 

Thursday, November 17, 2011



Transcript by
Federal News Service
Washington, D.C. 





KYLE PARKER:  Well, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of Chairman Chris Smith and 
Co-Chair Ben Cardin, I would like to welcome you to tonight’s event hosted by 
the Helsinki Commission.

I’ll be very brief because we’re going to have a discussion following the play 
– (inaudible) – question and answer, and it will be transcribed for the record. 
 And I would – just a couple of housekeeping items:  Because we have such small 
space tonight – sort of recreating that coffeehouse theater, if you will, up on 
here on Capitol Hill – we will try to keep the door closed, just to minimize 
the disturbance, as well as ask anyone with cellphones to silence them, shut 
them off.

One note about the clock:  The clock has a habit of beeping irregularly, and 
that has to do with votes happening on the floor of the House of 
Representatives right now, so don’t mind the clock.

The play we’re going to – at the Helsinki Commission, we are mandated by 
Congress to focus on the human dimension – (inaudible) – OSCE participating 
states.  States?  Russia is a participating state, and the United States is a 
participating state.  And so we focus on the human dimension, the human face.

And the play tonight, “One Hour Eighteen,” is – the story of Sergei Magnitsky 
is a very – it’s been called an emblematic example of the devastating human 
cost of corruption and the lack of rule of law.  Today is the second 
anniversary of the death of Sergei Magnitsky in a Moscow pre-trial detention 
facility.  There is a lot more information on the table about the case, and I 
won’t take the time up now to go into that, but – (inaudible) – will have 
opportunities.  And the play we’re about to see is based on (documented ?) 
evidence, diaries, prison diaries that Sergei Magnitsky kept and other public 
records.

So with that, we’ll start.

(Break.)

YURY URNOV:  Kyle, so we’re coming back for a – we were talking, like, five, 
now.  Are we taking a short break?

MR. PARKER:  Yeah.  Yeah, why don’t we – you could change up and we’ll – 
(inaudible) – just a little bit, and we’ll start in about – a couple of minutes.

MR. URNOV:  Thank you.

MR. PARKER:  I think we’ll leave the papers around here – (inaudible).

By the way, for anyone, the bathrooms are just around the corner, in case they 
are needed.

(Break.)

MARK MILOSCH:  That was, of course – (inaudible) – incredibly powerful.

My name is Mark Milosch.  I’m staff director of the Helsinki Commission.  
(Inaudible) – in the room today.  I want to, on behalf of our (Helsinki 
Commission ?) chairman, Congressman Chris Smith, a very big thank-you to the 
actors, Mr. Urnov, and Arnoult’s Center for International Theater Development.

We will now have a short discussion up here.  Maybe we – I’d like to begin a 
little bit with a statement or comments, and then we can go into questions up 
here and from out there, and of course include the actors.  You can direct your 
direct questions to – (inaudible).  It’s a small room – going to be very 
freestyle.

I’d like to say, we’ve got Kyle Parker.  This is – this is the commission 
staffer, who has done tremendous work on the Magnitsky case for the commission, 
for so – for so many people.  He’s been a real leader on the issue.  And I’ll 
ask Kyle to sort of monitor (the speed ?) of discussion since he knows the 
issue like few people.

MR. PARKER:  Thank you, Mark.

You know, I thought – I thought we might begin – Yury, if you have a few words 
to sort of set the context and then perhaps tell us a little bit about the 
theater in which this comes out of.  You’re a Fulbright, I believe, right?

MR. URNOV:  I was, yeah.

MR. PARKER:  Oh, you were?  OK.  I believe this play – and I also know that 
this was performed today in London so – by Amnesty International in London and 
it’s –

MR. URNOV:  On Sputnik Theatre.

MR. PARKER:  – in the Sputnik Theatre – and continues, to my knowledge, to run 
in Moscow, and has now for – almost a year?

MR. URNOV:  More than that.  I think a year, a year and a half.  There are 
actually people from – (inaudible).

MR. PARKER:  Oh, there are?  Well, welcome to you.

MR. URNOV:  (Inaudible) – (maybe beginning of June ?) 2009, so it was probably 
a year old.

MR. PARKER:  Somewhere in there.

MR. URNOV:  Half a year – so now it’s a year and half.  They’re not – they’re 
not playing it every night.

But it’s this very small theater, very, very small theater in (very central ?) 
Moscow, which became a very powerful – (inaudible) – the Russian culture and 
the new writing which is really an important – (inaudible) – and most 
importantly, to the Russian culture of the last 20 years – playwrights who were 
formed – most of them were fully formed after 1990.  Many of them don’t have 
professional education.  Many of them are using the language which – 
(inaudible) – what’s useful – (inaudible) – writing for a long time.  Many of 
them are using the knowledge of – (inaudible).

And that was important for many reasons – (inaudible) – and pretty much changed 
the landscape of contemporary – of playwriting – of the Russian – (inaudible).  
It’s one of the – it’s one of the examples.  It’s almost like – I believe 90 
percent of it is other words that were pronounced by this – (inaudible) – 
people, and some of them were introduced specifically for (this ?) performance 
– (inaudible) – produced, so the words were from mass media.  But we have, 
like, 90 percent – (inaudible) – all these words are real.  So that’s one of 
the – that’s one of the (trends ?).  That’s one of the – that’s one of the new 
things happening in Russia.  We are very – and certainly comparing to the 
previous years, it’s something we are very – (inaudible).  And it really, I 
think – (inaudible) – we were very smart – (inaudible) – bigger stages, but – 
(inaudible).

MR. PARKER:  Could you tell us just a little bit about Gremina and Ugarov?

MR. URNOV:  OK.

MR. PARKER:  – a husband and wife, right, who had written the play and directed 
it?

MR. URNOV:  Well, again, when we brought in – (inaudible) – but I think they 
worked together very much.  They are kind of – I don’t know – (inaudible) – 
grandmother and grandfather of the – of the – of the – (inaudible) – drama 
movement or modern father of the drama movement.  That’s a couple who basically 
– there were (the three of them ?) who built this theater with their hands and 
who created this – who brought together – I don’t know – I don’t know how many 
– how many playwrights – a whole lot of playwrights, and they’re bringing more 
and more every year.  And – (inaudible) – and both of them – (inaudible) – 
pretty well-known playwrights.  And actually, at some point – (inaudible) – it 
was her play after – (inaudible) – long period of time.  She was very different 
– (inaudible) – I think that’s – that’s also specific to – (inaudible).  But I 
think – (inaudible) – in real life for – (inaudible).

MR. PARKER:  Well, thank you.  You know, I would also just mention, it’s 
interesting, of course, that the play, you know, featured people who are around 
in Moscow, and – (inaudible) – come see themselves portrayed in it.

MR. URNOV:  That’s the thing.  That’s – (inaudible) –

MR. PARKER:  (In Moscow ?) –

MR. URNOV:  – which – (inaudible).

We are – (inaudible) – we say that we’re – we (encourage ?) people to come – 
(inaudible).

MR. PARKER:  Right, right.  And this, of course, is still a very dynamic story, 
and it’s – you know, I can’t think of too many murders, cases like this that 
remain in the news two years later.  And it’s certainly – I think that there is 
a – probably a daily story somewhere on a Russian wire.  And here in the West, 
the Magnitsky story – depending on activity and things that are going on, but 
certainly every month a major story – sometimes many in the case of a week.  
And so it’s really sort of seized the attention and become a global human 
rights cause.

I – you know, Judge Stachen (ph), who was portrayed in the play, I see this 
morning on (the ?) Russian wire has some protesters or people who came to the 
courtroom this morning to make a statement.  And, you know, the complaints you 
see are actually real complaints.  Magnitsky wrote I think 450 written 
complaints during eleven-some months in pre-trial detention.  And 20 of them 
were specific requests for medical care.  And if anyone has any particular 
questions on the case itself, I certainly would think we can – we can address 
those as well.

This is my second time seeing the play.  I happened to catch it when it 
premiered at the Kennedy Center.  And you know, I guess my reaction initially 
was, first, sort of the guilty laughter – you know, things that are – things 
that are funny but really shouldn’t be funny, and then just, you know, the 
powerful symbolism of the glass of water.  You know, it’s sort of this – 
something that really is biblical and also has a tradition in Russia as well – 
like, you know, I – obviously, you know – (inaudible) – look at the New 
Testament.  You know, anyone who gives a glass of water to these, my little 
ones, you know, in Matthew 25.  You know, I was thirsty, and you gave me the 
drink.  I was a prisoner and you visited me.

And then thinking – recently, some of the commissions involved in – around the 
commemoration of Katyn, it was interesting how the Polish prisoners of war, I 
would note – (inaudible) – the boiling water, the cup of water.  That was a – 
that was a staple and a ration, which was – which was always provided.  And 
another example, more recent, I think, of – in Russia around sort of the 
symbolism of the water – the Beslan terrorist attack and tragedy.  Many of you, 
I’m sure, are familiar, but – what was it?  2004?

MR.:  Four, maybe.

MR. PARKER:  Yeah.

MR.:  Four.

MR. PARKER:  Well, in any case, these children who were taken hostage on the 
first day of school were held in a gymnasium for about – I think it was about 
three days, and were prohibited from drinking water.  There were awful stories 
of, you know, people with severe dehydration and in some cases having to resort 
to drinking urine – just incredible barbarism.

And it was – it was really moving to see the memorial on the first anniversary 
of that attack.  There were just a lot of water bottles sitting there at the 
school.  So it’s something to me that really seems to be, you know, a very 
powerful symbol in the Russian context and in the human context.

And another thing I would sort of, again, be interested in other reactions 
today:  As much as this play sort of – and the story of Magnitsky – has 
humanized a victim, in a sense, it also humanizes the so-called bad guys who – 
for the lack of a better – for lack of a better word.  I think that’s quite 
interesting (to ?) sort of really – and really very powerfully raises the 
question first raised by Cain in the fourth chapter of Genesis – am I my 
brother’s keeper?  You know, is this really my problem?  Is it OK for me to 
simply turn the music up?  And what is going on behind the walls of Matrosskaya 
Tishina or Butyrka, as, you know, the ambulance driver talks about, well, you 
drive by these things every day.

And pre-trial detention in Russia remains a very current issue.  There have 
been a number of deaths following Magnitsky’s case.  And a number of reforms 
that President Medvedev appeared to put into place either don’t seem to be in 
place or don’t seem to be working.  And it’s interesting how (corruption ?) has 
very directly has exacerbated an overcrowding problem in Russian prisons.  It’s 
directly related to how many particularly white-collar criminals – or I 
shouldn’t say “criminals” – white-collar suspects – are in juvenile detention 
on very dubious pretexts.

But my – and I don’t want to monopolize the discussion, so please – (inaudible) 
– open it up – (inaudible) –

Q:  I have a question.

MR. PARKER:  Sure, OK.

Q:  My name is Natali Entina (ph).  I’m a Fulbright visiting scholar here from 
Moscow, Russia.  I work in Cana (ph) Institute for – (inaudible) – center.  So 
I’m not in theater, but I’m – (inaudible) – political science.

I have a question to Yury.  Could you please tell us about the moment when you 
make – when you made this decision to make this play, how you felt, and what 
was your message.  Which effect to you expect to have on this play in Moscow – 
(inaudible)?  And do you – do you believe that theater can change society?  And 
do you – (inaudible) – some government officials who attended this play?  
(Inaudible.)

MR. URNOV:  (Inaudible.)  I mean, I can go – we’ll do things – like, we – 
people do different things.  Some people – (inaudible) – some people – 
(inaudible).  So we knew – we knew what we should do.

But I think that was a very – actually (it was ?) not my idea.  It was 
Stephen’s idea – he’s sitting here.  He read the play before I read the play.  
(Inaudible) – we did – (inaudible) – translations – (inaudible) – performances 
of that.

And then Stephen brought this play here.  And I was really afraid of this play 
because this – it’s not a play, basically.  It doesn’t have this dramatic 
development.  And I never – (inaudible).

But there is something really very, very specific about this particular – 
(inaudible).  There are so many questions there.  (Inaudible) – starting from 
there?  And – (inaudible) – because the – (inaudible) – is this old, right?  
There is a way to find one person, or, you know, even two people – (inaudible).

I think – (inaudible) – investigating, is who – (inaudible) – how do you – how 
do you – how do – how do we kill people and how can we – well, what is – what 
is the measure of guilt in each of us, in a sense?  Because – (inaudible) – is 
very different measure of guilt as much as each of us has a measure of guilt in 
this – (inaudible) – right?

So I think that’s what this play is trying to understand.  And that was – that 
was finally a reason for me to say, yeah, we should – we should probably do 
that.

As much as – as much as just this unbelievable fact that the death of the small 
man, right – speaking in the terms of Russian culture, the small person – 
suddenly became such a huge event – I’m very glad it did become a huge event, 
but it’s very – but it’s very unusual.  Many, many, many people die that way.  
Nobody – (inaudible).  So I think that’s a small door into this – into this 
culture, into – (inaudible) – judicial culture that is working there now.

And this was kind of – (inaudible) – that this (worked ?) at all, you know.

Well, (never mind ?).  That’s my personal – (inaudible).

Q:  Thank you, and thank you for being so honest.  (Laughter.)

MR. PARKER:  I’m sorry.  Anna Stasia (ph)?

Q:  Yes.

MR. PARKER:  Yes.

Q:   What has been happening to – with the girl who presents – (inaudible) – to 
the judge – to the medical doctor?  Has anyone lost their job?

MR. URNOV:  (Inaudible)  On the contrary – on the contrary.  They are – most of 
them are – (inaudible).  

Q:  That’s a funny question.

Q:  (It’s the ?) Russian system.

MR. PARKER:  It’s an interesting question also because Dr. Alexander Gous (ph), 
who was in the play, was in – this summer, President Medvedev’s special 
commission – (inaudible) – human rights commission presented their findings in 
a report to the president of Russia.  And Gous (ph) was one who was really 
quite singled out for a lot of culpability here.

And I also would – I mean, again, remind people that what we’re looking at in 
the Magnitsky case is not simply a case of prison abuse and neglect – 
withdrawing – you know, withholding the medical treatment.  It is that indeed.  
  But there’s also, again, the question of how Magnitsky ended up in that 
situation, and what exactly – and the role of the investigators.

And of course, this surrounds a tax fraud rebate of $230 million.  And one of – 
one of, I think, the shocking things for many in the United States or wherever, 
is – you know, is the realization that, you know, it’s actually a mid-level 
fraud.  This is really – I mean, $230 million is significant; it needs to be 
investigated.  But it’s – you know, when you – when you look at just the level 
of some of the – some of the frauds – (inaudible) – this is – this is really 
very much at the mid-level.  And of course, the people we’re talking about it 
are also sort of the rank and file.

And there was – I will say – shortly after there was – there was a great sort 
of uproar in the Russian press shortly after Magnitsky’s death.  And then there 
was at least the impression that President Medvedev had relieved 20 prison 
officials.  In reality, I think all but one or two of those officials had – 
couldn’t possibly have had any involvement in the case, and was part of a 
planned shuffle of prison officials.  And so currently there are two doctors 
who, I believe, have been indicted on charges –

MR. URNOV:  Not the ones mentioned in the play.

MR. PARKER:  No, not the ones mentioned in the play.  And the charges 
themselves are very strange, because they’re charges of failure to diagnose 
illnesses that by all accounts were never present.  And it’s hard to wonder 
what strategy is going on there, if it’s not just the step up for them to walk. 
 

MR. MILOSCH:  But Yury, when the play is performed in Moscow, do the 
performers, the producers, the director hear from the people who call them, 
contact them – (inaudible) – and say, by the way, I am – these are people who 
are out there today, who you see on the streets.  (Inaudible) – people who say, 
one of my relatives, one of my friends – you know, I know people who were 
involved in this?  It’s –

MR. URNOV:  I never heard about this.  Did you – did you ever hear about these 
kind of reactions from real people involved with this case to the departments 
in Moscow – (inaudible)?

Q:  No.  No reaction.  Just total silence, nothing.

Q:  Ignored.

Q:  Ignored.

Q:  Let me just say one?

(Cross talk.)

Q:  My name is Gregory Petai (ph).  I’m a film director for Moscow – 
(inaudible).  I was invited also so make a stage play in the – (inaudible).  
I’m not attached to the theater, probably not very well, but – (inaudible).  
And I just wanted to say that, of course, the case is that for the American 
audience, you should understand that it’s just the – (inaudible) – of many 
cases of that kind, not so well known, because the Magnitsky case – it just so 
happened that it started to be – it happened to be very well known all over in 
Russia and in the world.  

But (sticking that pole?) over Russia, you have to remember that it’s not the – 
all the people of Russia – just those people who are going on the Internet or 
to the radio station – (inaudible) – station, or the – (inaudible) – station, 
because you actually can find nothing about this case in the official – in the 
official press, just except the news that it’s – (inaudible) – for some – 
(inaudible) – just two – one or two or, in this case, nothing.  Not a word 
about this on the official TV channels – nothing, just ignored it – silence. 

So for many people who saw this show – (inaudible) – in Moscow and here, it 
just is our way to understand – (inaudible).  And it’s the – (inaudible) – of 
many, many cases which we don’t even know about, but we heard about them, and 
the people who are in charge of and engaged in this situation, and the 
journalist and their relatives who are – (inaudible) – so we should quickly 
know of many cases with this kind of threatening in Russia.  That they – the – 
(inaudible) – they charge for water, for anything.  So this is not the case, 
and I just – (inaudible) – about – (inaudible).  

I want to congratulate you with – as a – as a director.  I want to thank you 
for this – for this – for this excellent, spectacular play.  I like it very 
much.  The actors are wonderful, thank you so much, and the director’s – the 
gesture that you made into this – (inaudible) – this meeting – (inaudible) – of 
these people.  That’s, I think – that’s the most important thing.  That brought 
– I didn’t have enough, though I liked it very much and they are my friends – 
(inaudible) – but I didn’t get this much for this – (inaudible) – in Theater 
Gluck (ph) in Moscow.

They wanted it to be more like a social gesture, not like a theater spectacle.  
But of course, it’s a theater.  And the only way to get to the heart of the 
spectators is like the needle that does inside the heart, to be very, very – 
oh, I’m sorry for my English – to be very confident and profound in the 
characters that you show.  Then the – you – the demands you make – then all the 
explanations of these people, only in this case, they start being very obvious, 
that each of them has the explanation why he didn’t do this or that.

So only when you show the character so brightly is – so artistically, and so – 
and so – and so truthfully, then I understand the – (inaudible) – the awfulness 
of the situation, because it’s not even the question of Putin or the Russian 
regime.  It’s the question about internal – the spiritual, psychological –

Q:  Connection.

Q:  -- understanding of the – of the comprehension of those people – the judge, 
the medic – paramedic, the doctor, the girl in – right, exactly – in – 
(inaudible).  It’s – for me as a director, very crucial that I saw in Europe – 
in your spectacular – when you understand the reason – (inaudible) – you 
understand the character.  And then – (inaudible) – and he talking – 
(inaudible) – and of course he will sit and – (inaudible).  So –

(Cross talk.)

Q:  Thank you very much – (inaudible).  

MR. URNOV:  But I think this is – this is very important to say that this be 
part of – that this – (inaudible) – area here are being – (inaudible).  So when 
you think about me coming to the Moscow – doing the performance in Moscow where 
we already did – (inaudible).  We hope that not just for – (inaudible) – but 
also some kind of recognition of the types who are – (inaudible) – like this – 
all the – all the architects of the – you know, of the – like, when Russians 
say investigate – 

(Cross talk, laughter.)

MR. URNOV:  I think there is – there is – there is an awful lot of – 
(inaudible) – associations in the – (inaudible).  That’s not right, that’s not 
exactly that, I hope.  (Laughter.)  

MR. MILOSCH:  Well, I don’t know.  

(Cross talk.)

Q:  On the – (inaudible) – correct, that you take as a director to represent – 
(inaudible) – 

MR. URNOV:  (Inaudible) – different.  You know – sorry, I hate to – (inaudible) 
– as we’re going just overseas.  Sorry, we’re going to – we’re trying to 
understand these people from, I think – (inaudible) – from a very – (inaudible).

MR. MILOSCH:  Picking up on some of the things they were saying – (inaudible) – 
and their efforts to – (inaudible) – I came here really not knowing about – 
(inaudible) – I intended to sort of tell the story and – (inaudible) – Slavic 
Theater (sp) and – (inaudible) – modern art.  

And, you know – (inaudible) – true story – (inaudible) – a play – (inaudible) – 
true story and – so that you’re – you’re asked to play a role unlike – 
(inaudible) – Shakespeare or Beckett or whoever else you’re playing.  And this 
probably feeds into a lot of – (inaudible) – training, a lot of things – 
(inaudible) – Washington theater, right at – (inaudible) – method acting – 
built into the character – (inaudible).

So anybody – (inaudible) – different or interesting or challenging you want to 
share about playing in a real story?  And please introduce yourselves.

(Inaudible.)

MR. URNOV:  We can – (inaudible).

MR. PARKER:  Oh, sorry, sure

STEPHEN NUNNS:  Stephen Nunns – (inaudible) – programs out there – (inaudible). 
 I can’t – I can’t speak anybody else, but I don’t think that – I don’t think 
it’s much different from doing anything else.  I think it’s just a question of 
you – I mean, I’m a little connected to this because I worked with Yury on the 
script, so it – so I’m in a sort of different position – (inaudible) – than 
they are.  But – and I was a little deeper into it as a result of that, because 
– (inaudible) – literal translation, and then I basically turned it into 
American language.  (Laughter.)

And so I think – I think it’s – I probably think from a very different place, 
but I don’t think it’s much different.  I think it’s just a character and you 
just sort of make decisions about who the person is.  And I didn’t do any 
investigation about these people, and I don’t – I mean, I don’t think Temple 
did either.  I mean, we just – we just – we took some cues from the director, 
and we went with that, basically, you know.

TEMPLE CROCKER:  I think, also, in some ways, we didn’t want to say we know who 
these people are and that we wanted to be clear that this is – this could be 
who they are – (inaudible) – representing – (inaudible) – their thinking and 
their hearts and minds, but we don’t really know.

And especially as – I know one of the challenges that we talked about a lot 
with Yury was, to Yury, some of these characters seemed like Russian archetypes 
in some way – like, you see people like this; you are in contact with people 
like this on a regular basis.  And I didn’t feel like I was in my own life in 
the States.  And so that was also very challenging because these characters 
have so many veils or so many masks and you’re kind of trying to portray all 
those different masks.  And there’s a lot of fear there as well that’s driving 
them.  And so that’s challenging as well, you know.  So it’s like the 
characters have these veils; we have these veils in us too that we’re trying to 
move away – move out of the way to understand something about these (people ?).

MR. URNOV:  Yeah, I think fear, actually, is kind of a key word – key word to 
understand – (inaudible) – different kinds of fear – (inaudible).  Each of 
these characters are afraid of – (inaudible) – but they – (inaudible) – some 
kind of very specific fear.  So I think that fear is very much the reason for 
what they are doing.  So – (inaudible) – fear.

Q:  Mmm hmm.  (Affirmative.)  Actually –

MR. URNOV:  I think there was –

Q:  Ah.

MR. PARKER:  Someone on this side – (inaudible)?

Q:  One of the things that struck me – (inaudible) – performance was wonderful. 
 The – (inaudible) – really came along so well.  And as you’re saying, true 
that – (inaudible) – exactly what those particular people are feeling or 
thinking or if they were at the time.

But what really I have been thinking about in the last few minutes is how 
universal the situation really is.  I mean, I thought the whole – (inaudible) – 
to some extent, and are they – are these people not – (inaudible)?  It’s really 
quite fascinating.  And it’s much more universal – we’ve been talking about it 
in particular horrible case – (inaudible) – representative of many other cases 
that are unknown.  And yeah, I think it’s a lot more universal – (inaudible).

MR. PARKER:  Sure.  It’s really – (inaudible) – again striking at something 
very human.  And I think, again, that’s something – (inaudible) – you know, at 
once, sort of Magnitsky is a symbol, and at the same time, he’s also a real 
person.  And it’s interesting because –

And it’s also – in this case in particular, it sort of seems so accidental, 
right?  I mean, who would have thought that a 36-year-old sort of – I mean, 
what could be a more sort of a banal profession than a tax attorney, right?  
You know, a tax attorney comes to the cubicle in the morning and with a cup of 
coffee, and then ends up being the person who’s unbroken by the Russian penal 
system, you know.

I mean – and just the name – and I think you should read the documents – I’m 
always struck by the repression, yes, and brutal honesty of the name of the 
Russian Federal Service for the Execution of Punishment.  No, I – you know, 
it’s – and it’s – and it’s – and it’s, again, something that – who would have 
thought and how many will – (inaudible) – documented that way.

And, you know, I remember watching Mrs. Magnitsky talk about her son and how 
sort of this was really his way to – (inaudible) – withdrawing – (inaudible) – 
himself and documenting this, and in a sense, there’s a sort of homeless – you 
know, I – the word is a nerd, but there’s a certain bookish quality.  I mean, 
you know, where you’re throwing at – what the hell does he think this is, 
right?  You know, you’re in a Russia pre-trial detention cell, and you expect 
there’d be window panes on your cell wall?  And you expect this?  And, of 
course, those are all conditions that, probably together, faced by many.  In 
Magnitsky’s case, there were certain very specific pressure – (inaudible) – 
applied to break him in this case.

Just sort of offhand – (inaudible) – my views, and when we talk about the 
Russian press, here’s a document.  I don’t know how well you see it, but 
there’s November 2009, there’s May of 2011, and it’s more than 3,500 articles 
written by the Russia media repeating this story.

So – and it’s also an interesting story because – (inaudible) – again, you 
know, to me – I cover Russia for the commission, and I sort of – again – 
(inaudible) – work on some other countries – (inaudible) – inherently, but 
Russia, by comparison, in many senses, is a – (inaudible) – society and – 
(inaudible).  And yes – (inaudible) – of course, the national TV is highly 
controlled.  But the things that are being said and done and going into Moscow 
is, it’s interesting to see it happening in an authoritarian state, to be sure, 
but not a totalitarian state, and a very sort of mixed set of issues.

And also, in this case, again, it’ s – you know, this is something that, as 
much as it outrages many of us, outrages many Russians, and probably many 
Russian officials.  (Inaudible) – I say – (inaudible) – for some time.

And it’s also a case, I might say, that sort of really has, at least for me 
personally, changed my sort of approach in looking at how we sort of – at least 
how I do my job – (inaudible) – and getting my coffee and sitting in my cubicle 
and sort of covering Russia – (inaudible) – human rights.

I knew about this case when Magnitsky was alive, and I was, of course, shocked 
by it, but I’m shocked by so many, right?  I mean, so many people come – 
(inaudible) – office – (inaudible) – United States.  I’ll never forget Natalia 
Estemoriva who meets with us and then, shortly after, I see it in a headline 
that her – (inaudible) – body sat on a roadside in the North Caucasus.  It’s 
sort of, you almost want to pinch yourself – is this real?  Is this really – 
sort of – you know, because of the one hand, you know, for me, I – (inaudible) 
– ride on the metro to work, I live in suburban Maryland and, wow.

And on – (inaudible) – case, I go, well, this is really outrageous, we should 
do something.  And so we featured it at a hearing.  And then, after that, I 
thought we had served our duty, right?  I mean, there’s a lot of cases, and you 
can’t deal with everything.  You can’t – (inaudible).  And then, the next thing 
I know, I walk in, November 16th, 2009, turn my computer on.  What?  This guy’s 
dead?

And, you know, again, not to say – I mean, you can only do what you can do; you 
can’t do everything about everything.  But sort of, like, an interesting way of 
approaching this – and I’ve often thought, you know, you see the poor on the 
street.  And, you know, if you had $100 to feed the poor, how do you do the 
best good?  Do you – do you give a dollar to a hundred beggars?  Or do you give 
$100 to one beggar?

And sort of this case really sort of having some interesting lessons in it 
about the dangers of proportionalism, about the notion that it’s one case and 
it’s not just one case, but it is one case.  And that one case is enough and 
that one case is important – and the value, infinite value of one person, and, 
again, the sort of danger of collapsing something into an issue – (inaudible).

And then what?  You know – (inaudible) – you hear – you hear about the 
statistics about awful corruption and awful human rights situation and you sort 
of walk away and say, well, it sucks to be you.  (Chuckles.)  I’m glad it’s not 
my problem.  But, again, the human face just – (inaudible) – so powerful, and 
never being a distraction from the issue – (inaudible) – the issue itself.

And, again, it’s sort of so magnificent that it comes across in this play and 
in such a beautiful as it does also for those in the other side, for those who 
caused the suffering, who are human as well.

And of course, on the prison – (inaudible) – right?  You know, it’s not just 
those who are, you know, wrongly imprisoned.  I mean, it’s – (inaudible).  In 
some sense, in Russia, it’s almost a rite a passage, right, to have been 
imprisoned.  It conveys a certain literary coolness, right, you know.

MR. URNOV:  (Inaudible.)

MR. PARKER:  But, of course, for those who are rightly imprisoned, that their 
rights and their sort of purchase on our humanity is just as strong, maybe 
stronger.  And I think this is something that really is very rich – (inaudible).

MR. URNOV:  Let’s take a couple more.

MR. PARKER:  OK, yeah.  We should wind up – (inaudible) – please.

Q:  (Inaudible.)

MR. PARKER:  (Inaudible.)

Q:  I have one quick question.  I was just wondering, right now since is 
seeking membership in the WTO, whether or not you think this will be a factor 
in that and if this could affect – (inaudible) – how they’re dealing with the 
situation?

MR. PARKER:  Well – (laughter) – well, yeah – I mean, it’s – you know, these 
things are covered quite widely in the press and in – you know, on the one 
hand, I would say that they’re sort of unrelated, and on the other hand, you 
know – I guess I would – I would assume you’re looking at perhaps some of the 
U.S. sort of say about it.  At this point, it looks like Russia is going to 
join the WTO, at least as far as the news I’ve read, in December.

And what that will mean in the broader context and why that should have any 
human rights meaning, I think one of the reasons that it does is, of course, 
the historic and successful Jackson-Vanik amendment to the Trade Act of 1974, 
which was sort of, in a sense, to paraphrase it, it was, no free movement of 
goods without the free movement of people.  It was linking two seemingly 
unrelated issues.  And, of course, of the big issues of the day was Jewish 
emigration and – (inaudible) – Jewish – (inaudible).

So I do expect that it will all be talked about.  What it all means and where 
this all ends is a very good question.  I certainly don’t know.  It’s still a 
very dynamic story.

(Ambassador ?)?

Q:  Can I – can I ask the people who are here from Russia, who are Russians – 
because when we hear about dissent within Russia, about (this kind of case ?), 
we hear about journalists.  We might hear about some opposition political 
person.  This play strikes me very much in the line – and I don’t want to 
over-intellectualize it because I was really touched, but in the line of 
avant-garde or Russian theater from early in the 20th century, and is – you 
know, the – and it was the intellectuals who were encouraging opposition to 
injustice.  Is that going on among – I mean, is there – are there intellectuals 
in Russia who are attending this play, who are thinking about these things?  I 
was struck that you said that people who are in this theater have not had 
training or, you know –

MR. URNOV:  Yeah – (inaudible).

Q:  So is there a current going on that we should know about?

Q:  (Inaudible.)  (Laughter.)

You know, in my view, the real problem, the real – (inaudible) – described by 
this play is that these are quite hundred percent ordinary people behaving 
according everyday culture.  They – (inaudible) – a code of (culture ?) and – 
(inaudible) – by their position, they help to go against one ordinary person, 
preferring to violate this prescription of everyday culture, because of some 
moral (code ?).

So what we see here, just – (inaudible) – the matrix of – (inaudible) – the 
matrix of Russian everyday culture poisoned by – (inaudible) –.  And this is – 
(inaudible) – undermining any efforts to modernize the country, just – 
(inaudible) – to renew it – (inaudible) – the moral basis.  This is – 
(inaudible) – it’s not an exception.  It’s not a Shakespearian – (inaudible).  
Ordinary – (inaudible) – ordinary person.

And of course, when you explain why they do so, why you paint them as the 
criminals, no.  We – (inaudible).  This is – (inaudible).  They’re not just 
devils.  (Inaudible) – but I – (inaudible) – that the majority of the people at 
their position who replicate such – (inaudible) – behavior – (inaudible) – this 
devil – (inaudible).  This is my – (inaudible).  This is my – (inaudible).  And 
this – that’s why I thank you so much to propose at this stage this inner part 
of everyday life – maybe one of the most important elements.

This is the international – (inaudible).  (Laughter.)

MR. MILOSCH:  (Inaudible.)  (Laughter.)

Q:  Just want to agree with Mark – (inaudible) – I can feel that society is 
infected by – (inaudible) – national character, that’s how the system hurts 
people, and they have to cope, they have to adapt.  And – (inaudible) – 
self-defense mechanisms, they work, and they try to protect themselves just not 
to be bothered.  This is – (inaudible) – irrational for them – (inaudible) – 
going on.  That’s how they can survive in today’s society.

MR. URNOV:  That’s – (inaudible) – if I could – (inaudible) – one more thing, 
that’s something that I think we – (inaudible) – this play, that Magnitsky is 
the only person who is – who, in this story, behaves against this logic.  
Everybody else follows one logic and he’s following (it ?).  And then again, 
you bring – (inaudible).  From the point of view not just of most characters – 
(inaudible) – but I’m afraid, from the point of view of very many – (inaudible) 
– that he’s weird – (inaudible).  So that’s – and that’s, again, exactly to the 
beginning of – (inaudible) – that was – that was – (inaudible) – for me what – 
you don’t do that.  You don’t do that.  He did.  Go figure.

MR. MILOSCH:  Seems to be the moment that – (inaudible).  Thank you, Yury.  
Thank you – (inaudible).  (Applause.)

(END)