LexisNexis Global

Three years ago, Alexander Litvinenko, a former Russian security agent who became a British citizen, was murdered in London by radioactive polonium poisoning. The suspect, Andrei Lugovoy (a.k.a. Andrey Konstantinovich Lugovoy) is a former KGB agent who resides in Russia and has become a politician there after the murder occurred.

The British government wants to prosecute Lugovi but the Russian government has refused to turn him over because Russia’s constitution bans extradition of its citizens. And Russia refuses to prosecute Lugovoy in a domestic court because it claims that the evidence of Lugovoy’s culpability in Litvinenko’s murder is insufficient, despite, as UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband described it, the “substantial information” sent by the British government’s Criminal Prosecution Service. This case involves not merely the horrific murder of Mr. Litvinenko, but also the exposure of a vast number of British citizens to the polonium-210 that Mr. Lugovoy was carrying about barely shielded in his travels to visit Mr. Litvinenko. Traces were found nearly everywhere Mr. Lugovoy went and in particular in the MILLENIUM Hotel bar where he met with Mr. Litvinenko and where the fatal substance was apparently surreptitiously deposited in Mr. Litvinenko’s tea.

This refusal to extradite and refusal to cooperate raises the issue of whether the spirit of the rule of law can be subverted by application of local law designed to prevent or discourage prosecution.  Although there should be deference to a nation-state’s sovereign right to enact its own laws, there is a limit to sovereignty and such “constitutional” rights where violations fundamental human rights are involved.  Such a limit on sovereignty is clearly envisaged by a nation-state’s adherence to the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and other UN-sponsored conventions concerning the protection of human rights. Since the Nuremberg Trials, those who conceive and commit heinous crimes such as genocide or war crimes cannot escape justice by exercising their rights under domestic law.

On his deathbed, Litvinenko accused the Russian government in general and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in particular for his murder. Given the circumstances, there is a strong case to be made that Litvinenko was killed in an act of state-sponsored murder by nuclear poisoning; given the deadly nature of radioactive elements and the likelihood of exposure of members of the general public to it (traces of it have been found everywhere Mr. Lugovoy went), such an act could also be deemed an act of terrorism with a weapon certainly capable of inflicting harm on masses of people.

Neither Lugovoy nor any other Russian responsible for Litvinenko’s murder should be able to escape justice by hiding behind the constitution of a government that may be complicit in his death. The international community should apply diplomatic pressure until Russia turns over Lugovoy for prosecution. If Russia believes that Lugovoy would not receive due process in an English court, perhaps prosecution should occur before the International Criminal Court. In either event, Russian refusal to cooperate in this case, together with its string of domestic “mysterious murders”, taken together with the allegations of election fraud by the United Russia party in the latest local elections – including the implication that the local Yabloko party chairman running in the Khamovniki neighborhood and his family members did not vote for him, suggests that the Rule of Law has not advanced much, if at all, since the days of Soviet rule.

UK Demands Russia Deliver Polonium Killing Suspect (A.P. Worldstream, Nov. 2, 2009)

Miliband Has New Lugovoi Extradition Plea Rejected On Moscow Trip (The Guardian Nov 2., 2009)

Russia's Ruling Party Triumphs in Local Elections (Deutsche Welle, Oct. 12, 2009)

United Russia Win Raises a Dilemma (Moscow Times, Oct. 13, 2009)