works that point to its many and various ills – lack of judicial independence, influence of politics (Ledeneva, 2013; Sakwa, 2010), and the persistence of the telephone law (Ledeneva, 2008). A number of high-profile cases – for example the Pussy Riot or of the chair of Yukos, Mr Mikhail Khodorkovsky – show in abundance how the legal system can be diverted by big politics. However empirical researchers of the Russian legal system will argue that while the judgments in the high-profile cases might be prepared outside of the courtroom, many mundane and everyday cases are adjudicated in accordance with the law (Hendley, 2007, 2009, 2012, 2017; Kubal, 2018; Kurchiyan & Kubal, 2018a, 2018b). As Kathryn Hendley observed, ‘the noise produced by these high-profile cases can mask a reality in which the vast majority of cases being brought to the courts are being processed […] without any outside interference’ ( 2015: 532). These ordinary cases are decided, however, in accordance to specific dynamics (Kahn, 2010; Kubal, 2018) and the broader legal culture (Kurkchiyan, 2009). The discussion of these dynamics sheds more light on why Mskhiladze became such a successful ‘test’ case to argue for the rights of other de facto stateless noncitizens in Russia. Russian judges are not activist judges; they are rather conservative and attached to the literal interpretation of the law (Hendley 2012). Their judgments could be characterised by legal formalism that has moved to the extreme and became a way of thinking – draining the law of its content and spirit, so it remains only as a form (Kurkchiyan 2009). Any attempt by the Russian judges to exercise discretion so as to match the content of the law to a particular situation that arises in practice can therefore be easily regarded as a manipulation or outright violation of the law (Kurkchiyan 2009: 355). Therefore the judges, in their everyday rulings, prefer to stick to the written text of the law and its literal interpretation (Kubal 2019). In addition, Russian judges drown in paper – favouring written evidence contained in the case file over the power of adversarial arguments. ‘Quod non est in actis, non est in mundo’ – What is not kept in the case file, does not exist (Kahn 2010: 107) – this old Latin saying 14