The Litvinenko Inquiry

Part 5 | Chapters 1 to 8 | Alexander Litvinenko’s final months
5.11 Marina Litvinenko’s evidence was to a similar effect – she said that Mr Litvinenko
“viewed these laws as a personal threat”. 7
Did the 2006 laws represent a real threat?
5.12 This is an issue that is best addressed in two stages.
5.13 First, it is necessary to consider whether the terms of the legislative provisions
themselves bear out the type of concerns expressed above. That is an exercise that
requires me to determine the meaning and effect of the 2006 laws. Although Professor
Service addressed the point, it is not strictly within his expertise. Mr Holiner, on the
other hand, is an expert on Russian law and I will refer principally to his evidence in
addressing this first question.
5.14 The second stage is to assess whether the laws could have operated at a more
general level in increasing the threat to Mr Litvinenko and those around him. That is
an area within Professor Service’s expertise, and I found his evidence of assistance
in this regard.
The strict meaning of the 2006 laws
5.15 The question here is whether the text of the 2006 laws themselves bears out the
concerns held and expressed by Mr Bukovsky, Mr Gordievsky and Mr Litvinenko, and
which would appear to have been shared by others.
5.16 As I have said, both Professor Service and Mr Holiner addressed these matters. I also
received helpful representations on this point made in March 2013 to the Solicitor to
the Inquiry (then the Solicitor to the Inquest) by Mr Batmanov, the then Head of the
Consular Department of the Russian Embassy in London. 8
5.17 I agree with the observation made by Professor Service in his report that there is
“some confusion” as to the meaning and content of the two pieces of legislation, “even
in some of the well-informed secondary literature”. 9
5.18 I would make the following points regarding the content and strict meaning of the two
laws:
a. It appears to me that the effect of the Extremism Law was to create a very wide
definition of the term ‘extremism’. Moreover, the new definition included conduct
of which Mr Litvinenko and those around him could be accused – most obviously,
“Public slander of anyone filling a state post of the Russian Federation.” I note the
statutory requirement under that limb of the statutory definition that “such slander
has been established in court proceedings”
b. It follows that steps might well have been taken against Mr Litvinenko under
the On Countering Extremist Activity law as amended, had he been in Russia in
2006. However, he was of course outside the jurisdiction by that time, and the
anti-extremist law contained no provisions for extra-territorial enforcement
c. The Terrorism Law, by contrast, did contain such provisions
7
INQ017734 (page 23 paragraph 80)
8
INQ018943
9
INQ019146 (page 22 paragraph 68)
89