On July 19, 2002 the editorial staff of the Tikhookeansky Vestnik newspaper (the representative of the editors in court – A. Saneyev) and me, editor-in-chief of this newspaper and the author of the aforementioned articles lost EACH item in the action for protection of honor, reputation of a businessman, and indemnity for moral injury brought by V. Burkanov (ex-head of Kamchtrybvod) in the city court of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky against S. Vakhrin, the editorial staff of the Tikhookeansky Vestnik, and the editorial staff of the Northern Pacific magazine, Ltd. On August 22, 2002 our appeal to Kamchatka Regional Panel of Judges was not allowed on ANY item.

According to court decision, V. Burkanov sent the following refutation text to the editorial staff.

 

The articles "BLACK MARK…", "Curiosity is no crime", "Manna from heaven" for Vladimir Burkanov…" are contrary to facts.

The Northern Pacifica Charitable Fund in the person of its director S. Vakhrin, and the Tikhookeansky Vestnik Newspaper, Ltd. in the person of its director A. Saneyev tender our profound apologies to Vladimir N. Burkanov for diminishing his honor, respect, and reputation of a businessman through false information about him and unfounded accusation of him in the articles published in the Tikhookeansky Vestnik under the titles: "Black mark, or why Kamchatrybvod management proclaimed war to its own press-center" NO. 19, issued on September 20, 2001; "Curiosity is no crime" NO. 21, issued on October 18, 2001; "Manna from heaven" for Vladimir Burkanov, or why and how a high-treason was concealed from justice" NO. 22, issued on November 1, 2001; and in electronic mass media on web sites of the Northern Pacific Fund.

Hereafter the complete text of court decision is to be published.

V. Burkanov

 

The refutation text (only Russian)

 

As for the phrase "contrary to facts", it is not quite so or event on the contrary. The defendants – editor-in-chief of the Tikhookeansky Vestnik newspaper and its representative in court, A. Saneyev – submitted to the court a great many of facts, which were undoubtedly true on most important questions raised in the article. These facts are given below. They affect most fundamental matters: relations between V. Burkanov and the Dalmoreproduct Company (video record); contract with the Royal State Company; and poaching by Japanese fishermen in territorial waters of Russia.

Nevertheless the court found out deductions, assessments and evaluation of these facts incorrect. Moreover, the court has found that out deductions, assessments and evaluation blacken honor, dignity and reputation of V. Burkanov as a businessman. And we as law-abiding citizens are now executing the court decision.

Although we haven’t changed our assessments, evaluation and deductions about V. Burkanov and his actions! Neither before the trial nor during it, and moreover after it. Why then should we apologize to him?

The only document submitted to the court by us that related to the three fundamental matters was called in question – the contract between Kamchatrybvod (signed by V. Burkanov) and the Royal State Company. It happened because V. Burkanov submitted to the court the contract, the first and third pages of which were identical with a copy of the contract presented by us, but the second page had strong discrepancy between the page submitted by us (and on two matters only, each of which was favorable for V. Burkanov). We have mentioned in our appeal that the page was forged (i.e. the contract was actually falsified). Alas! Below we shall point at basic discrepancies between their and our documents. As for other facts (in most cases these are also documents) the court did not express any doubt about their authenticity and the plaintiff either.

As for assessments and deductions that we made from these facts, any person is allowed to do it due to clause 49 of the RF’s Law of Mass Media. We took this step and, to be honest, don’t feel sorry about it.

I didn’t write the article "Manna from heaven" for Vladimir Burkanov …", it had been written long before it was published, but due to different causes it was not published in other newspapers; and as the editor-in-chief who permitted to print this article, which author refused to append his signature, I am fully responsible for its publishing and COMPLETELY AGREE with quite harsh estimation and deductions of the anonymous author. But I am still keeping to this estimation and deductions. The court imposed a penalty on us for DISCLOSURE of this information, but it can’t prohibit us to HAVE SUCH OPINION. Although, to eradicate the reason for thinking and making any conclusions, V. Burkanov demanded something that may seem unprecedented and impossible – REMOVAL of ALL our articles from the Internet.

Consequently, the court, perhaps for the first time in the history of democratic Russia, obliged us to REMOVE these articles from the Internet (the electronic newspaper’s archive). It means their virtual DESTRUCTION. We appealed to Kamchatka Regional Panel of Judges, but the appeal has not been allowed. We, of course, will fulfill the court’s decision, but we beg to DIFFER. Such decision – on destruction of private intellectual property (a journalist’s articles) – probably, has not been taken by any court in the Russian Federation.

With all due deference to the city court of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky and Kamchatka Regional Panel of Judges, we believe that this decision violates our constitutional rights.

 

S. Vakhrin, editor-in-chief