The Litvinenko Inquiry

The Litvinenko Inquiry
Chapter 6: Russian State responsibility –
introduction
9.33 A great deal of the evidence that I have heard in the course of the Inquiry has touched
on the possibility that one or more organisations of the Russian State may have
ordered Mr Litvinenko’s killing, or that they may otherwise have been involved or
complicit in his death. That issue has been referred to, both during the course of the
Inquiry and in this Report, as the issue, of Russian State responsibility.
9.34 In the following chapters I will address the following themes in the evidence relating
to possible Russian State responsibility for Mr Litvinenko’s death:
9.35 In chapter 7 I will consider the evidence that Russia was the source of the polonium 210
that killed Mr Litvinenko.
9.36 In chapter 8 I will consider the motives that the Russian State may have had for
wishing Mr Litvinenko dead, and evidence that I heard as to the history of other killings
and deaths of opponents of President Putin.
9.37 In chapter 9 I will consider the evidence of links between Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun
and the Russian State.
9.38 In chapter 10 I will consider events that have taken place since Mr Litvinenko’s death,
and what inferences may be drawn from them.
9.39 In chapter 11 I will set out my conclusions on the question of whether any Russian
State organisation was responsible for Mr Litvinenko’s death.
9.40 In chapter 12, I will address the further question of whether Nikolai Patrushev (the head
of the FSB in 2006) and/or President Putin bear any responsibility for Mr Litvinenko’s
death.
9.41 One witness about whom I should say a little more at this stage is Professor Robert
Service, who was until recently Professor of Russian History at Oxford University. I
have already referred to his evidence on a number of occasions. Professor Service
was instructed by the Inquiry to provide expert evidence on Russian history and
politics. He produced two reports, both of which I adduced in evidence. 6 He also gave
oral evidence at the Inquiry hearings. 7
9.42 For the avoidance of any doubt, Professor Service did not have access to any of the
closed material and was not involved in the closed hearings. It follows from this that
the material that is available to me and upon which I am able to base my findings is
more extensive than the material upon which Professor Service based his views.
9.43 I say at once that I found Professor Service to be a most impressive and helpful
witness. His mastery of the subject was apparent, but just as notable – and of great
assistance to me – was the conspicuous care that he took in highlighting the issues
where the limited nature of the source material available to him meant that he was
unable to express a decided view one way or the other.
6
INQ019146; INQ020316; INQ020998
7
Service 28/1-104
214