Published: 23 November, 2008, 08:28
Edited: 23 November, 2008, 08:28
Amidst mutual accusations, cold-blooded chicanery and radioactive poisoning, the key issue behind Alexander Litvinenko's death remains unresolved: who did it? Britain readily points the finger at Russia; Russia shrugs it
The former FSB agent – whose very job was to remain unnoticed – became the focus of the world's media. At first, nobody could understand how the 43-year-old secret agent turned dissident was speedily reduced to the state of a frail ghost within days. After his death on the 23rd of November 2006, it was revealed that a relatively unknown radioactive substance – polonium 210 – was the cause of Litvinenko's speedy deterioration.
Retracing Litvinenko's steps, the investigation made discoveries which shocked all those closely observing the drama's development. It was revealed that Litvinenko allegedly ingested a small amount of polonium 210 during an appointment with Andrey Lugovoy at the Millenium Hotel in London. This rapidly became a fully-blown international scandal. Radioactive paths were traced around London. “Radioactive terrorism” accusations were made, despite scientists pointing out that traces of polonium can be found virtually anywhere.
The investigation's confused tracking of polonium around London circled the Millenium Hotel revealed a cast of characters worthy of a James Bond film. On November 1 2006, Litvinenko had lunch at a sushi restaurant with an Italian associate, Mario Scaramella, who had flown in from Naples the night before. During lunch, Scaramella gave Litvinenko some documents. The ex-agent then proceeded to meet with Andrey Lugovoy at the Pine Bar in the Millenium Hotel where they discussed business matters over tea.
While Litvinenko's condition speedily took a turn for the worse, the world buzzed with suspicions and insinuations. At first, it was suggested the Litvinenko was poisoned by the documents that Scaramella handed him. However, a better suspect was quick to emerge – Andrey Lugovoy. Lugovoy was a Russian secret services agent until 1999, and former bodyguard to the former Russian Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar.
A deathbed statement made by Litvinenko was released postmortem. In it, he accused Vladimir Putin, the then president of Russia, to be accountable for the murder. British authorities were quick to switch the location of the suspected crime site from the Itsu sushi bar, where Litvinenko had dinner with Scaramella, to the Pine Bar, firmly pointing the finger at Andrey Lugovoy.
Lugovoy himself suggests three possible respondents to Litvinenko's murder. According to him, the possible authors of the ex-serviceman's death could have been either the British secret services, representatives of the “Russian mafia” or Boris Berezovsky and his collaborators.
On December 1 2006, an autopsy was conducted on Alexander Litvinenko's corpse, creating what was to become one of the most disturbing and controversial analyses in crime history. Three British pathologists stood around the radioactive body in full protective gear. Two years on, the results on the pathologists' work remains a British state secret.
Nevertheless, following the autopsy, British authorities made an announcement, stating: “We are 100% sure who administered the poison, where it was administered, and how it was administered”. The authorities, however, have refused to make further comment to disclose their evidence.
Litvinenko's murder was quick to become the focal point of Russian-British relations. Following the events surrounding Litvinenko's death, four Russian diplomats were deported from Britain. This was a tacit demonstration of the fact that London held the Russian government actively responsible for Litvinenko's poisoning.
In May 2007, the Crown Prosecution Service formally submitted an extradition request to Moscow for Lugovoy to stand on trial in Britain in order to face charges connected Litvinenko's murder. The request hangs between the two countries' political relations to this day. Yet, Moscow stands its ground firmly, refusing to comply with UK demands. Extradition of a Russian citizen to any country is unconstitutional in Russia under Article 61 of the constitution.
Therefore, the deportation of Lugovoy would imply breaking the very basis of Russia’s government, as has been repeatedly pointed out to the British side. The British government still holds another opinion on the matter. Sir Tony Brenton, the British ambassador to Russia, said in 2007 that Russia “should work with us creatively to find a way around this impediment”. Britain firmly denies the possibility of conducting a trial in Russia, alleging that justice in such an instance could not be objective and suggests the Russia should either work around its constitution or, indeed, go as far as changing it to find a resolution in the polonium poisoning case.
With such accusations being made against him, one might think that Lugovoy is keeping a low profile. Although not being able to travel outside of the former Soviet Union for fear of being arrested, Lugovoy is leading an active public and political life. He stood for parliament as the right hand man of Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the leader of Liberal Democratic Party of Russia and he is prepared to openly discuss his opinions on the Litvinenko case.
He confirms having met with Litvinenko on several occasions in London, including the day on which the poison was allegedly administered. Nevertheless, he points out that the meeting occurred after the ex-secret agent had his sushi lunch with Scaramella.
Lugovoy said in an interview with the BBC in 2007 that “this was a conspiracy to slur Russia and the Kremlin. I had no motive. I am a rich man, I am a successful businessman, I have a family. I would not do it for money or revenge. Whichever way you look at it there is no motive.”
He also points out that his 10-year-long relationship with Litvinenko had only recently been renewed, purely on a business basis. He claims that Litvinenko took no food or drink during their short meeting at the Millenium Hotel.
Despite what is called a “joint investigation” being conducted by the Russian and British governments in relation to the Litvinenko case, omissions are being made from both sides, making any conclusion virtually impossible. Within the case documents that the Russian side has to work with, such as autopsy reports and toxicology analyses, are absent. Therefore, determining when, how and under what conditions the poison was administered to Litvinenko's system is impossible for the Russian side. Furthermore, it still remains unclear as to why radiation poisoning was not diagnosed for over three weeks and why the victim had not been given the correct antidote.
Russian authorities say they have sent multiple requests to Britain, demanding for the evidence to be released, yet to no avail. They have also been denied the opportunity to speak to Litvinenko's doctors in order to determine how and under what circumstances the diagnosis was changed to polonium poisoning. Hence, the Russian side of the investigation points out that, to this day, they have no trustworthy data on the cause of Litvinenko's death. The British side, on the other hand, blames Russia for not cooperating through withholding the main suspect in the case – Andrey Lugovoy.
The whole situation appears to be so convoluted that you need to keep flicking back to the beginning of the story in order to make sense of everything. Two years on, making any insinuations of blame in this case adds up to as much as saying that it was Colonel Mustard in the Library with the Polonium.
Amending the constitution of the Russian Federation is a three-fold process. In the first instance, the proposed addition or amendment must be proposed to the main governing body – the State Duma. The parliamentarians must then debate the amendment and approve it by a majority vote.
The change is then passed on to the Federal Council, comprised of Russia's federal regions' governors. The debate takes a second turn, in which the proposed amendment is required to be approved by a majority of governors. Only after this, the documents are presented before the President, whose signature binds its validation.
The process is a long and meditated one, which demands a virtually unanimous spirit within the Russian political arena. Changes to the Constitution are virtually unprecedented, taking an example only from the recent augmentation of the parliamentary and presidential term.
Anna Bogdanova, RT