Is Journalism Worth Dying For__ Final Dispatches - Anna Politkovskaya [54]
“In addition to the delay in arrest, it is apparent that there has been delay in the investigation and preparation of the Prosecution’s case. Although two witnesses told me that they had made statements soon after the events, those statements have not been produced or provided to the Defence. With one exception (an unnamed witness) who made a statement on March 13, 2000, the other 11 witnesses made their statements after Mr Zakayev was arrested. In respect of four of those witnesses, their statements were not taken until after the extradition request to Denmark had failed. Note that in the request to Denmark it was being alleged that Mr Zakayev was involved in the Moscow theatre siege and that he had murdered Father Sergius (now known as Father Philip). Both allegations were later withdrawn, and indeed Father Philip has given evidence before me.
“I have also noted that the Kremlin denied the existence of any criminal proceedings against Mr Zakayev when in fact a warrant was still extant. I have noted that the Russian Government continued to negotiate with Mr Zakayev despite the existence of the warrant, and that there was no attempt to extradite Mr Zakayev until the moment of the World Chechen Conference and the Moscow theatre siege. I have also noted the statements of the Russian foreign minister likening Mr Zakayev to Osama Bin Laden.
“When those factors are added together the inevitable conclusion is that it would now be unjust and oppressive to return Mr Zakayev to stand his trial in Russia.
“I found that the evidence given by Mr de Waal, Mr Rybakov and Mr Rybkin was truthful and accurate, and from their evidence I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the motivation of the Government of the Russian Federation was and is to exclude Mr Zakayev from continuing to take part in the peace process and to discredit him as a moderate. I therefore find as a fact that the Russian Government are seeking extradition for purposes of prosecuting Mr Zakayev on account of his nationality and his political opinions. I take the view that Mr Zakayev is entitled to the benefit of the protection provided by Section 6(i)(c) [of the European Convention on Extradition].
“With some reluctance I have to come to the inevitable conclusion that if the Authorities are prepared to resort to torturing witnesses there is a substantial risk that Mr Zakayev would himself be subject to torture. I am satisfied that such punishment and detention would be by reason of his nationality and political opinions. I therefore believe that Mr Zakayev is entitled to the benefit of Section 6(i)(d) and should not be returned to face trial in the Russian Federation …
“I am therefore discharging the defendant.”
That is an end to it. The judge is silent, the courtroom animated. People are trying to congratulate Zakayev, but the case is not over yet. Edward Fitzgerald, Zakayev’s defence lawyer, rises to his feet. His concerns extend beyond the law to the financing of all this. Who is going to pay the legal costs? The judge calmly accepts the bills and invoices as is the way in Britain. This means it is clear who is going to pay. The costs of a court case which has lasted almost a year will be payable by the losing side, that is, by you and me, since it is we who employ the officials of the Prosecutor-General’s Office, officials who have failed to learn to work in accordance with the law but excel in carrying out political orders, as the London court has demonstrated.
Each has received his just desserts. Zakayev is free, his passport will be returned to him in the immediate future, and he will again be able to travel at will throughout the world. Representatives of the Crown Prosecution Service of Great Britain who, in accordance with the British judicial system, represented the Russian Prosecutor-General’s Office, have strongly advised Mr Fridinsky against thinking of lodging an appeal because it would