The so-called “public” investigation into the Litvinenko case, which ended in Britain, it became one of the most non-public in the history of English jurisprudence. It was started as an alternative to open inquest (which, by the way, participated as one of the stakeholders Investigative Committee of Russia) to hide under a security classification that what he did Litvinenko in Britain.
And do not to find out who was behind him, turning a former employee of the Russian special services in an obedient puppet in the service of the United Kingdom of certain departments. Maximum closed nature of the proceedings against Litvinenko, conducted by Sir Robert Owen, as predicted by analysts, has added fundamentally new information to the already earlier findings. And once again limited to the same list earlier to London guilty: Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Kovtun, who allegedly poisoned Litvinenko during a joint tea November 1, 2006.
In this new trial to whitewash the British government and security forces, confirming that they are not responsible for failing to prevent the death of Boris Berezovsky at hand. To improve the “solidity” of the work performed by Sir Owen, it was stated that the court heard the testimony of 62 witnesses, including secret witnesses. However, hidden from the prying eyes of the nature of “quasi” production does not allow independent observers to assess the impartiality of the obtained evidence. Besides, initially indictment against Russian character to start a business questioned the reliability of the on-court evidence: after all, as witnesses were people who are not friendly to Moscow’s policy, including its anonymous “professional” critics and defectors have been granted asylum in Britain. In other words, it was about the people who are always ready to give false testimony only to inflict maximum political damage to Russia. Is it any wonder that the verdict in this case was a pre-written in the corridors of the London agencies and wore obviously accusatory character in relation to the Kremlin.
How Russia expelled from the investigation of the Litvinenko case
In 2006, after the death of Litvinenko, nothing foretold the future aggravation in relations between London and Moscow. On the contrary, Russia has agreed to assist in the investigation of the resonant case. And in December 2006, Scotland Yard detectives traveled to Moscow, received assistance from the Prosecutor General’s Office. When, in 2011, the Coroner’s Court in London held a preliminary hearing to determine the causes of Litvinenko’s death, they had decided to give the Investigation Committee of the Russian Federation the status of “interested party”. But the case Litvinenko in the so-called “Coroner format”, which are taken into account only evidence available to all interested parties, not satisfied with the official London, because it does not guarantee an indictment against Russia. And in 2014 against the backdrop of worsening relations between London and Moscow over the events in Ukraine and was shot down over the Donbas Malaysian Boeing British government decided that objectivity in the study of the Litvinenko case, coupled with the excessive public inquiry may deprive the authorities as a valuable propaganda material. As a result, instead of an open inquest, it was decided to hold the so-called “public” hearing, actually make the proceedings of the reasons for the death of Litvinenko and the search for the “source of responsibility for her” secret.
See also
After a new format meant that future verdict will be adopted on the basis of materials that are not available to the Russian side . The Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation informed London about his non-participation in “public hearings”, without giving up on the status of “interested party” in the suspended Coroner process.
The main purpose of this legal casuistry undertaken by Britain, was the desire of certain circles London used to review the Litvinenko case materials of special services, which, according to the accepted practice in the Albion, the judicial system, not questioning. This opens up possibilities for abuse and fraud in the materials provided to the court. Instead of the open format of the proceedings Litvinenko case was seen behind the scenes, supposedly in the “interests of national security and harm the interests of Britain’s relations with other countries.” Perhaps that is why in London were not surprised that the Kremlin did not accept the verdict handed down by the court, as in the “public hearing” was originally violated the principle of “presumption of innocence”. And everything was done in order to hide the information that public relations was Litvinenko with British intelligence and settled in London of Russian opposition.
Moreover, during the proceedings, the British side deliberately violated Russian legislation and the rules of international right, leaving the contact with potential witnesses living in Russia by means of communication, without the knowledge of the Russian authorities. At the same time in London knew very well that the same rule of law applies in Britain. But the presiding judge decided to publish confidential correspondence with lawyers who represented the Investigative Committee of Russia in the suspended British coroner’s inquest, of course, without asking for these actions, no one agreement.
Secrets of the dead witnesses
The Litvinenko case being open, it could become a “bomb” that could reveal the most “intimate” side of the British secret service. After all, the whole story of the poisoning leaves a lot of questions, which, for obvious reasons, no reply was received in the course of Judge Owen “public” of the investigation. For example, it is not clear why the official London issued a visa at all meadows and Koftun, allowing them to enter the territory of Great Britain, which is completely contrary to the policy of the authorities Albion deny visas to former employees of the Russian special services? After that, these people are also free to leave the country. Or the British calculated that Russia will not give the suspects, and therefore no open their trial will not be. So you did not himself Litvinenko sacred victim of British intelligence?
In this regard, it is worth recalling that at the beginning of “public” hearings two key witnesses in the case of Litvinenko died under mysterious circumstances. It is the owner of the London restaurant “Abracadabra”, which is often visited by Litvinenko and Berezovsky. There were traces of polonium in two days (!) To the notorious meeting Litvinenko to Lugovoi and Kovtun in the hotel restaurant “Milennium”. Also under unclear circumstances died Berezovsky, whose death was immediately called suicide. It happened shortly after Berezovsky’s letter to the Russian authorities with a request to return to the country. “Public” investigation has enabled the British secret services, “work” with the former Russians hiding in Albion, to avoid uncomfortable questions about the purpose of such activities. But there is reason to believe that it was a gathering dirt on Russian politicians, including for the purpose of blackmail, attempts to influence the domestic political landscape in Russia.
Who needs a “dead donkey ears”?
A few days ago it became known that the British Foreign Office appealed to the Prime Minister with a request not to introduce a new package of sanctions against Russia if the investigation as it was quite clear, will come to a conclusion about the responsibility of Moscow for Litvinenko’s death.
See also
The reason given was the need to diplomats Russian-British cooperation on the situation in Syria. It is possible that the Foreign Ministry aware that an investigation – not that other, as the protection of the local security forces of corporate interests, combined with the political order, made in 2014 and intended to further blacken Russia. In the current environment it is not such a line meets more serious British interests. Most experts suggest that a temporary surge of attention to the Litvinenko case quickly come to naught, and will not lead to further cooling in relations between London and Moscow. How vividly expressed in an interview with RIA Novosti member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Commons Daniel Durbar Hall Art Gallery, “whatever the findings, we can not afford to burn the fuel.” In his view, the Litvinenko case to use the previous Labour government to freeze the Russian-British relations. Whereas today, “the situation with Russia should be treated carefully”.
However, in the government offices at Albion are still people who want to burn bridges between Moscow and London. A verdict on the results of the “public hearing” in regard to the death of Litvinenko gave them another chance to prevent a possible restart in the future of Russian-British relations.
Found a mistake? Highlight the text with error, and press Ctrl + Enter , to tell us about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment