The Litvinenko Inquiry

The Litvinenko Inquiry
Chapter 4: Work for the Mitrokhin Commission
in Italy
4.75 Vasili Mitrokhin was a senior KGB archivist who defected to the UK in 1992. He
brought with him a very large collection of handwritten notes of KGB records that he
had made over many years. Much of the material contained in what became known
as the Mitrokhin Archive has subsequently been published in books jointly written by
Mr Mitrokhin and the British historian Professor Christopher Andrew.
4.76 The Mitrokhin Archive contained details of historic KGB operations throughout the
world. It included details of such operations in Italy. In 2002 the Italian Parliament
established a Commission to investigate matters arising from the Mitrokhin Archive.
It was known as the Mitrokhin Commission. Mr Litvinenko took part in its enquiries.
Could anything that Mr Litvinenko did in relation to the Mitrokhin Commission have
had a connection with his death?
4.77 Before considering the evidence available to the Inquiry that bears on that question,
it is important that I enter a number of caveats. It is apparent even from the limited
evidence that I have heard about it that the Mitrokhin Commission was and remains
highly controversial, both in Italy and beyond. It seems that there are many who have
questioned both the legitimacy of its work and the value of its findings. I must make it
clear at the outset that it is no part of my function to investigate, far less to make any
findings, in relation to those controversies. The scope of this Inquiry’s interest in the
Mitrokhin Commission is sharply limited. Put simply, it is to investigate what it was
that Alexander Litvinenko did for and in connection with the Commission, and whether
there could have been any link between those matters and his death.
4.78 I heard oral evidence from two witnesses who had a direct connection with the
Mitrokhin Commission, and with the work that Mr Litvinenko undertook for it.
4.79 First, I heard from Mario Scaramella. Mr Scaramella is an Italian lawyer who has held
a number of posts during his career. He was a consultant to the Mitrokhin Commission
and conducted certain investigations on its behalf. It was in this capacity that he was
introduced to Mr Litvinenko; and Mr Litvinenko subsequently assisted Mr Scaramella
by providing him with information. The two men became friends. Mr Scaramella also
has a second part to play in the narrative because he met Mr Litvinenko in London
on 1 November 2006, shortly before Mr Litvinenko’s meeting with Mr Lugovoy and
Mr Kovtun at the Pine Bar; I will return to his evidence about events on that day at a
later stage of the Report (see paragraphs 6.293 – 6.300 below).
4.80 The second witness was Paolo Guzzanti. At the time of the events in question,
Mr Guzzanti was a member of the Italian Senate, having previously spent many
years as a journalist, including a lengthy period as editor in chief of the newspaper
La Republica. Mr Guzzanti was the Chairman of the Mitrokhin Commission.
4.81 I am aware that both these two men have been caught up in the controversies
surrounding the Mitrokhin Commission (to which I referred above), and that in that
context questions have been raised in the public domain about their conduct and their
credibility. Although the oral and written evidence that Mr Guzzanti and (in particular)
Mr Scaramella have provided to the Inquiry has extended to cover a range of issues,
the evidence that they have given that is of central relevance to this Inquiry – i.e.
their evidence concerning their dealings with Mr Litvinenko and his dealings with the
68