Spy poisoning: UK seeks ex-KGB agent

[lider_r]

Spy poisoning: UK seeks ex-KGB agent

LONDON, England (CNN) -- British prosecutors are to ask Russia to extradite businessman and former KGB agent Andrei Lugovoi to face murder charges in the radioactive poisoning death of ex-Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko.
The Crown Prosecution Service said Tuesday they had evidence to charge Lugovoi and seek his extradition over "this extraordinarily grave crime." Litvinenko died in a London hospital last November, several weeks after he was poisoned with polonium-210.
"I have today concluded that the evidence sent to us by the police is sufficient to charge Andrei Lugovoi with the murder of Mr. Litvinenko by deliberate poisoning," Director of Public Prosecutions Ken Macdonald said.
Litvinenko was a fierce critic of President Vladimir Putin and had been granted political asylum in the UK.
The case has put pressure on relations between London and Moscow, and Tuesday's announcement threatened to aggravate the situation further.
Britain urged Moscow to cooperate in the case. "Russia should comply with our legal request," Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman said.
However, Interfax news agency on Tuesday cited the Russian prosecutor-general's office as saying it would not turn over Lugovoi to British authorities.
Lugovoi had met Litvinenko in London on November 1 at the Millennium Hotel bar, hours before Litvinenko fell ill.
But in January, Lugovoi told The Associated Press he had no role in Litvinenko's death, adding that the allegations against him were "lies, provocation and government propaganda."
'Howl of protest'

On his deathbed, 43-year-old Litvinenko, who was married with a 12-year-old son, released a statement blaming the Russian president for involvement in his poisoning -- an allegation the Kremlin denied.
Litvinenko said: "You may succeed in silencing one man, but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr. Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life.
"May God forgive you for what you have done, not only to me, but to beloved Russia and its people."
Litvinenko's widow said Tuesday she hoped justice would now be done.
"I would like to thank the police and the CPS for all their hard work in investigating the murder of my husband," Marina Litvinenko said in a statement. She later met Russia's ambassador in London.
"It is thanks to them that we have reached the point today of having a named person to be charged with this crime," she said.
"I am now very anxious to see that justice is really done and that Mr. Lugovoi is extradited and brought to trial in a UK court."
Lugovoi, a former security service agent but now a businessman, traveled to London three times in the month before Litvinenko's death and met him four times, Russian media reported.
Lugovoi and businessman Dmitry Kovtun told Russian media they went to London with a group of Moscow soccer fans and met Litvinenko briefly on November 1 to discuss business matters.
Later, they attended a soccer game between CSKA Moscow and Arsenal at the Emirates Stadium in north London, where polonium-210 was also later detected.
Both men said they believed someone was trying to frame them over Litvinenko's death.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/05/22/uk.spy/index.html

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Luguvoi is just the patsy for Putin and his cronies

[Mamont]

Yeah, of course - we say Lugovoy, but mean Putin...
It's a shame West is so predictable in such matters...

[tommy00]

Of course there is no chance that Lugovoi will be extradited, otherwise he will tell who gave him polonium.....

[Switek]

Yeah, of course - we say Lugovoy, but mean Putin...
It's a shame West is so predictable in such matters...

I wish we had such independent and reliable justice system like Brits have... If they said that Lugovoi was suspected means there were firm basis for such statement.

[Mamont]

Independent and reliable. Of course. Berezovskiy and Zakaev come to mind immediatly.

[PaulClift]

He will never get extradited.

[Switek]

Independent and reliable. Of course. Berezovskiy and Zakaev come to mind immediatly.


You answered yourself. They left to UK couse its legal system is independent and reliable what means - 100% resistant from political pressures. Whether you like it or not.

[Laworkerbee]

Does anyone have any idea how much it costs to make the amount of polonium used and how dangerous it is to transport it?

[Weasel]

Does anyone have any idea how much it costs to make the amount of polonium used and how dangerous it is to transport it?

Expensive way to kill somebody. It needs millions of dollars if I remember correctly.

[Mamont]

You answered yourself. They left to UK couse its legal system is independent and reliable what means - 100% resistant from political pressures. Whether you like it or not.
:) Switek, i find it very peculiar, that almost all traitors and high criminals are fleeing to US or Britain - countries, whose opposition to Russia is almost as old as countries themselfes. That is a good tradition of sorts - flee to the enemy - and is very old with prominent examples as Masepa or Turgenev. Regarding Berezovskiy and independence/reliability, look for Timoty Workman's decisions(also about Dubov). A nice and transparent set, no doubt. And let me remind you: there are 16 russian citisens residenting in Britain, that had been announced in the international investigation by Russia. Another score for the britain law.

[Switek]

:) Switek, i find it very peculiar, that almost all traitors and high criminals are fleeing to US or Britain - countries, whose opposition to Russia is almost as old as countries themselfes. That is a good tradition of sorts - flee to the enemy - and is very old with prominent examples as Masepa or Turgenev. Regarding Berezovskiy and independence/reliability, look for Timoty Workman's decisions(also about Dubov). A nice and transparent set, no doubt. And let me remind you: there are 16 russian citisens residenting in Britain, that had been announced in the international investigation by Russia. Another score for the britain law.

Seems that evidences are too weak...

"almost all traitors and high criminals"... Do you have an objective, from first-hand information to be absolutely sure, who they are? Be honest! Do you know all files and records to acknowledge, with no single doubt, what you wrote?

[Mamont]

Switek, you're flaming. Do at least a little research. You'll be surprised how those who defected were used against Russia/SU.

[Switek]

Switek, you're flaming. Do at least a little research. You'll be surprised how those who defected were used against Russia/SU.

No, I'm not! You know it. Don't accuse me for flaming. :|

[Calanen]

He will never get extradited.

My understanding is that even if they wanted to, he could not be as the Russian constitution prevents it. Any Russians, please chime in....

[Digimon]

You answered yourself. They left to UK couse its legal system is independent and reliable what means - 100% resistant from political pressures. Whether you like it or not.

I think you are right. But, we are not at the stage of the justice system yet; only at the stage of the charge by the prosecution, and many charges get thrown out of court as unsubstantiated.

It seems to me that no new evidence had been unravelled. The investigation simply failed to disconfirm the initial hypothesis. But the initial hypothesis always had a major flow - motive. All the available evidence seems to point to Lugovoy, but we simply have no evidence that would make the motive for the crime clear. One could charge Lugovoy, but to make it stick one must explain his motive and how he got the means to carry out the crime, i.e. access to polonium (motive and opportunity). In other words, to prosecute Lugovoy successfully, one must prove beyond reasonable doubt that Litvinenko was killed with the sanction of the state, for reasons of the state - as it seems that no other explanation of motive and means present themselves. The evidence that is required to support such story is too scares... Too many questions must be answered: Who ordered the assasination? Which agency? Who passed the polunium to Lugovoy? Where did it come from? Who paid for it? Was it the state or rogue officials?...

[MZKT]

Well Britain is not extradicting Berezovsky who recently announced a military coup in Russia, earned money with chechenian slave trade and helped Yellzin robbing russian economy (which caused deaths of millions).

Russia would be pretty stupid to fullfill british requests while GB refuse to do it with Berezovsky.

[Kilgor]

So a traitor is anyone the current Russian government has a issue with ?

Some things never change...

And worse, some believe men accused by the politburo have no right to due process of law.

[Mamont]

No, I'm not! You know it. Don't accuse me for flaming. :|
Oh, please. Surely you do. How else could such sentence can be viewed: "do you have an objective, from first-hand information..."? Any indepth information about post-soviet known defectors/runners is still closed, some becouse of the judicial procedures, some becouse of national security or politics. And that's preatty obvious and understandable. So no point in trying to derail the thread or starting "you_doesnt_know_that_personaly" game.

Well, look at Kilgor's comment: he probably seriously believe in the fact, that Gordievskiy, Suvorov, Belenko and such are not traitors? Becouse goverment had an issue with them? Zakaev too? Some model logic here...

[asch]

So a traitor is anyone the current Russian government has a issue with ?

Some things never change...

And worse, some believe men accused by the politburo have no right to due process of law.

what is "politburo"?

[Calanen]

I think you are right. But, we are not at the stage of the justice system yet; only at the stage of the charge by the prosecution, and many charges get thrown out of court as unsubstantiated.

It seems to me that no new evidence had been unravelled. The investigation simply failed to disconfirm the initial hypothesis. But the initial hypothesis always had a major flow - motive. All the available evidence seems to point to Lugovoy, but we simply have no evidence that would make the motive for the crime clear. One could charge Lugovoy, but to make it stick one must explain his motive and how he got the means to carry out the crime, i.e. access to polonium (motive and opportunity). In other words, to prosecute Lugovoy successfully, one must prove beyond reasonable doubt that Litvinenko was killed with the sanction of the state, for reasons of the state - as it seems that no other explanation of motive and means present themselves. The evidence that is required to support such story is too scares... Too many questions must be answered: Who ordered the assasination? Which agency? Who passed the polunium to Lugovoy? Where did it come from? Who paid for it? Was it the state or rogue officials?...

Motive may go to proving that the crime was committed, but proof of a motive is not needed to prove the crime. People sometimes kill others with no motive at all. All the have to prove is that on this day at this time - Lugovoy killed Litvinenko with Polonium. You don't even have to prove exactly how he did it. If Polonium is all over Litvinenko, he was killed with Polonium - you may through expert evidence be able to prove that even if the exact method of administration is not known, that Lugovoy killed him with Polonium beyond reasonable doubt. That's enough. Why - even to some extent how - may not be necessary.

The answers to those questions if known only assist your case. They are not necessary elements of proving the case.

[Laworkerbee]

But why must it be left as Lugovoy killed Litvinenko?

This was a state sanctioned assasination, it's not like Lugovoy went to the local
Polonium store and purchased what he needed. He had to have been kitted out by FSB or a comparable Russian agency for the "mission".

[Mamont]

What? Or is it already proven that this is Lugovoy's deed and state sanctioned asassination?

[Flamming_Python]

But why must it be left as Lugovoy killed Litvinenko?

This was a state sanctioned assasination, it's not like Lugovoy went to the local
Polonium store and purchased what he needed. He had to have been kitted out by FSB or a comparable Russian agency for the "mission".

I wonder how many aggressive articles are going be typed-up and printed soon on the basis of this one assumption. Most likely, it won't even be questionned. It's 'obvious' after all :|

[Laworkerbee]

It's 'obvious' after all :|

Quite a message too.

Mess with us and it's Polonium in your tea.

[RECON DOC]

Quite a message too.

Mess with us and it's Polonium in your tea.

Light and sweet if you please.

[Digimon]

Motive may go to proving that the crime was committed, but proof of a motive is not needed to prove the crime. People sometimes kill others with no motive at all. All the have to prove is that on this day at this time - Lugovoy killed Litvinenko with Polonium. You don't even have to prove exactly how he did it. If Polonium is all over Litvinenko, he was killed with Polonium - you may through expert evidence be able to prove that even if the exact method of administration is not known, that Lugovoy killed him with Polonium beyond reasonable doubt. That's enough. Why - even to some extent how - may not be necessary.

The answers to those questions if known only assist your case. They are not necessary elements of proving the case.

This is true - motive only assists in inference made on the basis of other evidence. Proving a motive is not necessary, i.e. if a number of witnesses have testified that A shot B in the head, there is no need to prove the motive. But this does not mean that motive jointly with other evidence cannot be sufficient to show the culpability of the accused. In other words, when only circumstantial evidence is present, a plausible motive can make the difference between the presence and the absence of reasonable doubt regarding the alleged fact of murder.

The charge of murder implies that according to the prosecution Lugovoy intended to poison Litvinenko. The jury must infer Lugovoy’s mens rea from circumstantial evidence; were this some cowboy shootout, this would not be difficult, but this was a friendly cup of tea… To move from accidental to intentional poisoning one needs either direct or good circumstantial evidence, both seem lacking…

[Kilgor]

The charge of murder implies that according to the prosecution Lugovoy intended to poison Litvinenko. The jury must infer Lugovoy’s mens rea from circumstantial evidence; were this some cowboy shootout, this would not be difficult, but this was a friendly cup of tea… To move from accidental to intentional poisoning one needs either direct or good circumstantial evidence, both seem lacking…

Is there a possibility Scotland Yard knows something that you don't ?

Its a basic fact of law enforcement that they never report on evidence before the court case because it might pervert the course of justice.

[Digimon]

Is there a possibility Scotland Yard knows something that you don't ?

Its a basic fact of law enforcement that they never report on evidence before the court case because it might pervert the course of justice.

That might be true. I can't comment on information that I do not have... As i have pointed out, it seemed to me that they have not unravelled any new evidence, but simply failed to disconfirm the initial hypothesis. My impression might be mistaken.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

There's only one thing to be said in this thread






Russia WRONG!!!!!!

:)

[GazB]

Its a basic fact of law enforcement that they never report on evidence before the court case because it might pervert the course of justice.

Every western news agency has already declared Putin guilty of the crime... why bother with a court case? Hes already been tried by the western public.

And lets face it... the Russians are never going to hand over anyone... especially when the UK seems to enjoy not handing any Russians back to Russia, the UK would never hand a British citizen over to the Russians for crimes commited in Russia... murder or otherwise.

All these conspirasy theories... for all we know they might have been trying to smuggle Polonium out of Russia considering how much it is worth and considering how many were contaminated with it maybe the cannister broke in transit. But then an anti putin campaigner in exile would never think of turning this into some sort of international conspirasy with his arch enemy as the chief suspect... nahhh. Guilty, innocent, who cares. No extradition. No one going to jail... cold case or something isn't it?

[Calanen]

But why must it be left as Lugovoy killed Litvinenko?

This was a state sanctioned assasination, it's not like Lugovoy went to the local
Polonium store and purchased what he needed. He had to have been kitted out by FSB or a comparable Russian agency for the "mission".

If it was and there is evidence of that the Prosecution would present it. But if there is no evidence, it doesn't matter. The Crown just has to prove that Lugovoy did the acts that killed Litvinenko, who, why etc - is useful, but not determinative.

[Calanen]

All these conspirasy theories... for all we know they might have been trying to smuggle Polonium out of Russia considering how much it is worth and considering how many were contaminated with it maybe the cannister broke in transit

Don't buy that. If so, Litvinenko would have told his doctors he had ingested Polonium. As it was, it was only the expert UK nuclear scientists that eventually worked out what the stuff was, after testing him for everything that it was likely to be - but it was too late by then. Depending on the amount ingested, it may have always been too late. It breaks you down at the genetic level - really really nasty.

[Calanen]

The jury must infer Lugovoy’s mens rea from circumstantial evidence; were this some cowboy shootout, this would not be difficult, but this was a friendly cup of tea… To move from accidental to intentional poisoning one needs either direct or good circumstantial evidence, both seem lacking…
It would have to be with expert evidence that somehow distinguishes between the Polonium irradiation found on Lugavoy and on others. If there is no such evidence, that the background radiation is the same, you would have to say that this guy was the only person with a probable reason for doing this act. IE the restaurant workers would not be killing Litvinenko. But still you are right, it would be a tough case to prove.

[Calanen]

Given that no russians chimed in on the Russian constitution prohibiting extradition at my invitation, I had a look myself. Article 61 and 63 seem contradictory. I imagine though if the specific deals with this where the general does not, then Article 63 applies wherever Federal Russian law or treaties provide for extradition. I doubt the UK has an extradition treaty with Russia - does anyone know....
Article 61.


The citizen of the Russian Federation may not be deported out of Russia or extradited to another state.
The Russian Federation shall guarantee its citizens defense and patronage beyond its boundaries.
Article 62.


The citizen of the Russian Federation may have the citizenship of a foreign state (dual citizenship) in conformity with the federal law or international treaty of the Russian Federation.
Possession of the citizenship of a foreign state by the citizen of the Russian Federation shall not belittle his or her ranks and liberties or exempt him or her from the duties stemming from Russian citizenship unless otherwise stipulated by the federal law or international treaty of the Russian Federation.
Foreign citizens and stateless persons shall enjoy in the Russian Federation the rights of its citizens and bear their duties with the exception of cases stipulated by the federal law or international treaty of the Russian Federation.
Article 63.


The Russian Federation shall grant political asylum to foreign citizens and stateless citizens in conformity with the commonly recognized norms of the international law.
The extradition of persons persecuted for their political views or any actions (or inaction), which are not qualified as criminal by the law of the Russian Federation, to other states shall not be allowed in the Russian Federation. The extradition of persons charged with crimes and also the hand-over of convicts for serving time in other countries shall be effected on the basis of the federal law or international treaty of the Russian Federation.

[Kilgor]

Every western news agency has already declared Putin guilty of the crime... why bother with a court case? Hes already been tried by the western public.

And lets face it... the Russians are never going to hand over anyone... especially when the UK seems to enjoy not handing any Russians back to Russia, the UK would never hand a British citizen over to the Russians for crimes commited in Russia... murder or otherwise.

All these conspirasy theories... for all we know they might have been trying to smuggle Polonium out of Russia considering how much it is worth and considering how many were contaminated with it maybe the cannister broke in transit. But then an anti putin campaigner in exile would never think of turning this into some sort of international conspirasy with his arch enemy as the chief suspect... nahhh. Guilty, innocent, who cares. No extradition. No one going to jail... cold case or something isn't it?

Yes I agree. Its totally outrageous to accuse Russia's Leader and Secret service agents of poisoning "traitors" with toxic and radioactive substances. There is certainly NO historical precedent here.

Leopards never change their spots.

[Mamont]

Kilgor, care to provide examples of poisoning traitors with r/a materials?

[Switek]

Kilgor, care to provide examples of poisoning traitors with r/a materials?

Are, really, "r/a materials" a key in this type of execution?

[Kilgor]

Kilgor, care to provide examples of poisoning traitors with r/a materials?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Markov

[Mamont]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Markov
You probably want to check your eyes. Or since when ricin became radioactive? And another note - confirmed by traitors..

[a_very_ex_STAB]

You probably want to check your eyes. Or since when ricin became radioactive? And another note - confirmed by traitors..


Interestingly it is regarded as a WMD over here though. The British security services have arrested terrorist suspects involved in so-called 'ricin' plots. I don't think the allegations came to anything though.

[Mamont]

I mean - compare procedures to aquire and results of use of the ricin and polonium. Quite a difference, isn' it?

[asch]

Are, really, "r/a materials" a key in this type of execution?
haha, even it was explosive cigars, there is always scary evil russkies, who you can blame.
p-)

[Flamming_Python]

Are, really, "r/a materials" a key in this type of execution?

Yes. Because it's such a ridiculous, risky, slow, expensive and hard to obtain way to poison someone.

[Mamont]

Ha, look at western media go! Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2085756,00.html), , Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117982581360410657.html), Wash.Times (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070522-085024-3582r.htm), Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=457075&in_page_id=1770&ito=newsnow), Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/43c660a8-08ca-11dc-b11e-000b5df10621,_i_rssPage=063fb9c2-3000-11da-ba9f-00000e2511c8.html)and so on... The show must go on...

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I mean - compare procedures to aquire and results of use of the ricin and polonium. Quite a difference, isn' it?

Yes there's quite a difference which is why the use of polonium in this assassination case could only have been 'state sponsored'

One of my old school friends was drinking in the same hotel bar as Litvinenko at the time he was poisoned. He now has to think about whether he is going to die a premature death from cancer - thanks to Putin. :roll:

[CPL Trevoga]

One of my old school friends was drinking in the same hotel bar as Litvinenko at the time he was poisoned. He now has to think about whether he is going to die a premature death from cancer - thanks to Putin. :roll:

Yeah, abusing alcohol is bad for the liver, but did Putin forced your friends to abuse alcohol?

[Laworkerbee]

Yeah, abusing alcohol is bad for the liver, but did Putin forced your friends to abuse alcohol?

My girlfriend was supposed to stay at that hotel and they were asked to sign a waiver because of lingering radiation....she left of course.

Taking a pot shot at a_very_ex_STAB is always a good thing to do and I enjoy them immensely but this is no joking manner.

[Kilgor]

Kilgor, care to provide examples of poisoning traitors with r/a materials?

Did you read where I wrote TOXIC or Radioactive ?

Bitch all you want, but the soviet past and a Ex KGB president make Russia look very guilty.

[Switek]

haha, even it was explosive cigars, there is always scary evil russkies, who you can blame.
p-)

"Russkies" in their majority are good, nice blokes but have a very bad luck about their leaders...

[asch]

"Russkies" in their majority are good, nice blokes but have a very bad luck about their leaders...

I mean, there is no difference between "ricin thrust" by KGB for traitor and explosive cigar by CIA for Castro. Both was supposed state sponsored assassinations. only difference, KGB one is works.
And i am sure that any of mentioned state services have a record of such deeds, public non-accessible.

and about our leaders - they have a vast support of population.
as yours.
p-)

[Mamont]

Did you read where I wrote TOXIC or Radioactive ?
Bitch all you want, but the soviet past and a Ex KGB president make Russia look very guilty.

Kilgor, if you want to look stupid - that's your choice.
Simply review styles and means used by KGB with this case.

On a side note: use of "KGB" by western media really reminds me of a soviet use of "tsarist agents" in 1920xx. The same witchhunting stance.

[Kilgor]

and about our leaders - they have a vast support of population.
as yours.
p-)

How people cried at Stalin and Lenin's funerals.

Like the escaped bird from the cage, it returns because its the only life it knows.


Kilgor, if you want to look stupid - that's your choice.
Simply review styles and means used by KGB with this case.

Many newspapers and journalists have compared the similarities in the assassination of both men. They must all be foolish too.

Btw, if you want to keep on looking like one of Lenin's useful idiots, keep taking like a pravda editorial.

[Mamont]

Many newspapers and journalists have compared the similarities in the assassination of both men. They must all be foolish too.
Wow, magic word - newspaper. Glad you didn't point to TV.
No similarities.



Btw, if you want to keep on looking like one of Lenin's useful idiots, keep taking like a pravda editorial.
Are you lost or drunk or something? What year is today?

[CPL Trevoga]

My girlfriend was supposed to stay at that hotel and they were asked to sign a waiver because of lingering radiation....she left of course.

Taking a pot shot at a_very_ex_STAB is always a good thing to do and I enjoy them immensely but this is no joking manner.

That's crazy. Anyway Putin is a swell guy, Berezovskiy is most likely suspect in this case.

Putin is doing great, he's most liked guy in Russian history, why would he killed a nobody with freaking radioactive poison. Too much honor.

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/9986/32800436ac3.jpg

[Digimon]

Given that no russians chimed in on the Russian constitution prohibiting extradition at my invitation, I had a look myself. Article 61 and 63 seem contradictory. I imagine though if the specific deals with this where the general does not, then Article 63 applies wherever Federal Russian law or treaties provide for extradition. I doubt the UK has an extradition treaty with Russia - does anyone know....
Article 61.

The citizen of the Russian Federation may not be deported out of Russia or extradited to another state.
The Russian Federation shall guarantee its citizens defense and patronage beyond its boundaries.Article 62.

The citizen of the Russian Federation may have the citizenship of a foreign state (dual citizenship) in conformity with the federal law or international treaty of the Russian Federation.
Possession of the citizenship of a foreign state by the citizen of the Russian Federation shall not belittle his or her ranks and liberties or exempt him or her from the duties stemming from Russian citizenship unless otherwise stipulated by the federal law or international treaty of the Russian Federation.
Foreign citizens and stateless persons shall enjoy in the Russian Federation the rights of its citizens and bear their duties with the exception of cases stipulated by the federal law or international treaty of the Russian Federation.Article 63.

The Russian Federation shall grant political asylum to foreign citizens and stateless citizens in conformity with the commonly recognized norms of the international law.
The extradition of persons persecuted for their political views or any actions (or inaction), which are not qualified as criminal by the law of the Russian Federation, to other states shall not be allowed in the Russian Federation. The extradition of persons charged with crimes and also the hand-over of convicts for serving time in other countries shall be effected on the basis of the federal law or international treaty of the Russian Federation.

There is an ambiguous formulation rather than a contradiction. Article 61 deals with Russian citizens; article 62 deals with dual citizens; while article 63 does not mention citizenship at all, section 1 deals with persons of foreign citizenship and persons without citizenship, and section 2 seems to deal with persons of the same status.

However, if this is in fact a contradiction, although I doubt the Constitutional Court would recognize it as such, there is an easy way of dealing with it in Russian judicial practice. Articles are listed in order of importance, hence, in case of a contradiction the preceding article takes precedence over the subsequent article.

There is no extradition treaty. However, both countries are parties to 1957 European convention on extradition, and signatories to 2006 agreement to cooperate in all matters pertaining to extradition and other matters of this nature. According to the current Constitution of RF, in case of a conflict between federal laws and international agreements and treaties to which RF is a party, the international agreements take precedence. However, this does not apply to the conflict between an international treaty and an article of the Constitution.

[Calanen]

So Digimon, is it your opinion that Article 61 would prevent the extradition of a Russian citizen to the UK - notwithstanding the treaty? It seems to me that if you were a defence lawyer opposing extradition, you'd have a red hot go on that basis.

[0rphie]

So far nobody explained the fact that Litvinenko had left a r/a trace at that sushi place 2 hours BEFORE he met Lugovoi at Millenium hotel. Also, when Lugovoi met with Litvenenko there was a third guy. Is not it strange to bring a friend when planing a murder?

[Digimon]

So Digimon, is it your opinion that Article 61 would prevent the extradition of a Russian citizen to the UK - notwithstanding the treaty? It seems to me that if you were a defence lawyer opposing extradition, you'd have a red hot go on that basis.

Yes. Even if the article 61 did not prevent it, there are a number of loopholes in the original convention that allows the requested party to avoid granting extradition.

1) Article 2; section 3:
“3 Any Contracting Party whose law does not allow extradition for certain of the offences referred to in paragraph 1 of this article may, in so far as it is concerned, exclude such offences from the application of this Convention.”

2) Article 6; section 1a:
“1 a A Contracting Party shall have the right to refuse extradition of its nationals.”

3) Article 9:
“Extradition shall not be granted if final judgment has been passed by the competent authorities of the requested Party upon the person claimed in respect of the offence or offences for which extradition is requested. Extradition may be refused if the competent authorities of the requested Party have decided either not to institute or to terminate proceedings in respect of the same offence or offences.”

As far as the 2006 memorandum on cooperation in matters of extradition is concerned, it cannot override this toothless convention…

Article 28; sections 1 and 2:
“1 This Convention shall, in respect of those countries to which it applies, supersede the provisions of any bilateral treaties, conventions or agreements governing extradition between any two Contracting Parties.”

“2 The Contracting Parties may conclude between themselves bilateral or multilateral agreements only in order to supplement the provisions of this Convention or to facilitate the application of the principles contained therein.”

Convention: http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-publications/publication/operational-policing/european-convention-extradition?view=Binary

[GazB]

This was a state sanctioned assasination, it's not like Lugovoy went to the local
Polonium store and purchased what he needed. He had to have been kitted out by FSB or a comparable Russian agency for the "mission".

More likely he went to a corrupt official and offered money or threatened to expose that official using embarassing information (ie lugovoy was ex KGB).

Why on Earth would the Russian state sanction an operation that involved the use of something that would so clearly point back to them? That is rather stupid.


The Crown just has to prove that Lugovoy did the acts that killed Litvinenko, who, why etc - is useful, but not determinative.

If they want a murder charge it needs to be premeditated. Otherwise it is manslaughter.


If so, Litvinenko would have told his doctors he had ingested Polonium.

If Litvinenko knew Polonium was being smuggled. If he was party to the information. Equally if he was smuggling polonium he would know he wouldn't survive anyway... there isn't much the doctors could have done. By keeping silent he made it look more like it was a Putin supporter had murdered him than he had bungled a smuggling attempt.


Yes I agree. Its totally outrageous to accuse Russia's Leader and Secret service agents of poisoning "traitors" with toxic and radioactive substances. There is certainly NO historical precedent here.

Actually the US has plenty of history in this regard. There were plans to give Castro a dose of radioactive material that would make his beard and hair fall out. A CIA operative was given poision to kill the leader of the Congo but the Belgians beat them to it (they simply paid the army, that hadn't been paid in months to take tim out and shoot him against a tree).



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Markov

Markov was killed with Ricin and by the Bulgarians, not the Soviets... the Soviets just provided the poison.


One of my old school friends was drinking in the same hotel bar as Litvinenko at the time he was poisoned. He now has to think about whether he is going to die a premature death from cancer - thanks to Putin.


Yeah... you are right... they should have just used a bomb...


Bitch all you want, but the soviet past and a Ex KGB president make Russia look very guilty.

You mean guilty like Richard Nixon, or guilty like OJ?


So Digimon, is it your opinion that Article 61 would prevent the extradition of a Russian citizen to the UK - notwithstanding the treaty? It seems to me that if you were a defence lawyer opposing extradition, you'd have a red hot go on that basis.

This is a political case and as such the recent refusals of the UK to return Russian citizens to Russia to face trial for more serious crimes suggests Russia will likely decline the request to hand over a Russian citizen to the UK.

[Calanen]

The Crown just has to prove that Lugovoy did the acts that killed Litvinenko, who, why etc - is useful, but not determinative.



If they want a murder charge it needs to be premeditated. Otherwise it is manslaughter.


Its a little more complex than this. But the distinction between manslaughter and murder I don't think is relevant to the point I was making.

All I was saying was that Lugavoy's motive and the Russian state's responsibility is not something necessary to prove to convict him of murder.

Although not relevant in this case - there is also murder that may not be premeditated, felony murder.

[Deminer from Sarajevo]

Very interesting why nobody mentioned about why Mr. Lugovoy and co traveled to UK and about what they had negotiations with close friend of Mr. Berezovsky who is enemy of Mr. Putin.I have not idea why businessman like Mr. Lugovoy who worked for Mr. Berezovsky in middle of 90th as security on TV channel ORT now try to poison his close friend Mr. Litvinenko who also worked with Mr. Lugovoy in middle of 90 for Mr. Berezovsky.Very strange.
I heard that actor John Dep wants to make film about
Be carefully John it is very crazy situation

[0rphie]

There was a very big article in Vanity Fair "Sopranos" issue about Litvenenenko story. The bottom line was: it is very dangerous to have friends like Mr. Berezovsky
in this respect it is not true that all the meadia is acusing Russia/Kremlin in Litvenenko's death.


Very interesting why nobody mentioned about why Mr. Lugovoy and co traveled to UK and about what they had negotiations with close friend of Mr. Berezovsky who is enemy of Mr. Putin.I have not idea why businessman like Mr. Lugovoy who worked for Mr. Berezovsky in middle of 90th as security on TV channel ORT now try to poison his close friend Mr. Litvinenko who also worked with Mr. Lugovoy in middle of 90 for Mr. Berezovsky.Very strange.
I heard that actor John Dep wants to make film about
Be carefully John it is very crazy situation

[GazB]

All I was saying was that Lugavoy's motive and the Russian state's responsibility is not something necessary to prove to convict him of murder.

Although not relevant in this case - there is also murder that may not be premeditated, felony murder.

To get murder conviction you need motive and intent. The only other possibility for murder charge would be negligence. ie drinking and then driving without regard for whomever could be killed by your actions. Firing a weapon deliberately into a group of people. Detonating a bomb within a crowd Ie not targetting anyone in particular but also not taking any measures to prevent a life from being taken might be seen as murder. Mistakenly killing someone in the commision of a crime, ie bank robbery gone wrong or in this case perhaps a smuggling case gone wrong might stretch to murder, but would more likely get a result with manslaughter (as opposed to accident death through negligence... ie involuntary manslaughter).

...is it just me or does manslaughter sound worse than murder? A murder might be a pillow over the face or poison that is quick and relatively clean whereas manslaughter sounds like hacking and slashing someone to death... messy and painful.

[0rphie]

It was on the news that accordint to Russia's atterney general Lugovoi might be tried in Moscow if evidence is presented.