Is Journalism Worth Dying For__ Final Dispatches - Anna Politkovskaya [53]
“The Russian Federation seek the extradition of Akhmed Zakayev in respect of some thirteen allegations of conduct which, had it occurred in the United Kingdom, would have amounted to the offences of soliciting persons to murder, three counts of murder, two counts of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, one count of false imprisonment and six counts of conspiring with others in a course of conduct which would necessarily involve the commission of offences of murder, wounding and hostage taking.
The judge continued:
“I am quite satisfied that the events in Chechnya in 1995 and 1996 amounted in law to an internal armed conflict. Indeed, many observers would have regarded it as a civil war. In support of that decision I have taken into account the scale of fighting – the intense carpet-bombing of Grozny with in excess of 100,000 casualties, the recognition of the conflict in the terms of a cease fire and a peace treaty. I was unable to accept the view expressed by one witness that the actions of the Russian Government in bombing Grozny were counter-terrorist operations.
“Having satisfied myself that this amounted to an internal armed conflict which would fall within the Geneva Convention, I reach the conclusion that those crimes which allege conspiring to seize specific areas of Chechnya by the use of armed force or resistance are not extraditable crimes because the conduct in those circumstances would not amount to a crime in this country. On that basis I propose to discharge counts 7, 8, 9 and 13.”
The next section of the ruling bears the highly eloquent title “Abuse of Process.” This is more to do with the professional methods of the Russian Prosecutor-General’s Office, whose representatives were conspicuous by their absence. Rumors were circulating yesterday that Sergey Fridinsky, who was in charge of the campaign to extradite Zakayev and who had given the President his word that he would be returned, had been warned by the Crown Prosecution Service that an adverse ruling was likely, as a result of which the whole lot of them had decided to absent themselves from their public humiliation.
One can see their point. The evidence of prosecution witnesses was found not to be reliable. It is worth recalling who was in this group which Fridinsky had assembled: Akhmar Zavgayev, a Senator representing Chechnya, currently preparing to enter the Duma; Yury Kalinin, Deputy Minister of Justice responsible for the prison system; Konstantin Krivorotov, Investigator of the Chechen Prosecutor’s Office; Yury Bessarabov, Professor of Law at the Research Institute of the Prosecutor-General’s Office; and Stanislav Iliasov, Russian Government Minister for Chechnya. These individuals should not continue to occupy their posts after such public disgrace.
“The alleged offences on which Mr Zakayev is sought occurred in 1995 and in 1996. The offences would have been apparent to the Authorities at the time, and two witnesses assured me that they made statements to the Prosecution shortly after the event. It was not until some six years later that a decision was made to arrest Mr Zakayev, and it was not until October 25, 2002 that the Russian request for his arrest was circulated by Interpol. Throughout 2001 and 2002 Mr Zakayev acted as a peace envoy, travelling extensively, but his whereabouts were apparently known to the Russian Authorities. Indeed, on November 18, 2001 Mr Zakayev travelled to Moscow Airport in an attempt to negotiate disarmament. He met with senior Government officials who had themselves been reassured that there were no proceedings anticipated against Mr Zakayev. The existence of the decision to arrest Mr Zakayev taken two months earlier appears to have been overlooked. Mr Fridinsky, the Russian prosecutor in this case, has explained that they had no idea that Mr Zakayev was going to attend a meeting in Moscow. Whilst I do, of course, accept that Mr Fridinsky may not have known, I find it surprising that a warrant