August 2004 Archives

By Vladimir Gryaznevich

The St.-Petersburg Times, #997, Tuesday, August 24, 2004

A recent public opinion poll conducted by the All-Russian Public Opinion Research Center, or VTsIOM, in connection with the anniversary of the August 1998 financial crisis - otherwise known as the "default" - shows that most citizens think some kind of financial crisis will happen again.

Even after shedding its independent head, Yury Levada, VTsIOM found almost half of those questioned believe that in Russia such a crisis could happen at any moment.

And this is despite the government's comprehensive publicizing of the country's impressive economic achievements, the macroeconomic evidence for which is confirmed by wholly unbiased information.

Since it is unreasonable to begin to suspect almost 50 million adult citizens (the age of those asked were over 18) of paranoia, other explanations must be found for this paradox. It is clear that, since they do not, on the whole, have an intimate knowledge - whether theoretical or factual - of economics, Russians clearly could not have formulated their own opinions on the basis of reasoned estimations. This leaves only one other explanation: intuition.

The people sense that economic stability, which has been publicized by the government as President Vladimir Putin's main achievement, is a myth. It is this that has led to fears of a crisis. Such a feeling has arisen on the strength of various information on processes in the country capable of influencing the socio-economic situation.

In the opinion of one Levada Center employee, Leonid Sedov, the causes of Russians' growing uncertainty in the future were "fears of a banking crisis and a lack of information on the real meaning of governmental initiatives concerning replacement of privileges with monetary compensation and a lowering of a set of measures for the population's social security to a regional level." Other governmental activities, heard of through the media and friends' experiences, most likely also influenced the mood of the people. The number of pessimists who thought that their financial position would worsen in the next six months rose from 16 percent last year to 22 percent, while the number of optimists fell by 16 percent to 14 percent.

Given Russians' general dislike of the oligarchs, it is impossible for them not to be concerned - if only on a subconscious level - that the government is in cahoots with Yukos and its main representative - Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Platon Lebedev and others, who are being accused of embezzling state property during privatization. The people aren't that stupid; only 6 percent of those questioned by the Levada Center blame businessmen for the damage done during privatization, while 62 percent quite reasonably believe that state officials are guilty of accepting bribes for the distribution of government property. Only 24 percent think that both are equally guilty. The majority is inclined to think that the trial of former Yukos directors has little chance of being fair and unbiased.

The intuition of the Russian people does not usually let them down. As an increasingly large number of competent individuals - businessmen, politicians and experts - openly admit, the judicial system in Russian has basically been in ruins for the past few years. One businessman who spoke recently on radio station Ekho Moskvy admitted that he was not sure that having even 100 per cent proof of one's innocence would allow the judicial process to triumph over a company controlled by Chekists. Almost every day, lawyers publish facts of glaring procedural infringements committed during legal trials. The lawyer of jailed arms control researcher Igor Sutyagin's recently commented in detail about the mechanism of falsification in jury work.

It is significant that, judging from the evidence, clear infringements of public prosecution laws are committed even by the judges themselves completely openly.

Clearly, the source of their boldness is to be found in the Kremlin. The recent story of the Moscow authorities' intention to name one of Moscow's streets after Akhmad Kadyrov is, in this respect, highly significant. When officials were made aware that Moscow city law openly forbids this until 10 years after the person's death, they then referred to the personal wish of Putin.

The government clearly assumes that the country can do without an independent legal system. Such a system, however, is itself a system-creating institution of modern society, the main guarantor of the defense of a democratic country's civil rights and, most importantly, the guarantor of the rights of the private owner. Without such a guarantor, a market economy cannot work. Evidence for this is that for the last few years there has been no real outflow of capital from Russia.

The authorities, to all appearances, are relying on meeting social demands with just one form of government support. At a recent conference the government decided to increase the effectiveness of its activity by means of the introduction of parameters that openly show the extent to which the people's needs have been satisfied into reports of different ministries' activities. Nevertheless, when push comes to shove (i.e. the satisfying of the people), it will quickly become clear that in this sphere the government cannot replace business.

It seems the people do not doubt this. According to information from the Levada Center, the absolute majority of Russian citizens negatively evaluate the socio-economic policy currently being implemented. Moreover, the gap between those who feel the government's efforts in improving the economy and increasing citizens' welfare to be successful and those who don't (37 percent versus 59 percent) grew even wider. Last year the relationship was 43 percent versus 53 percent.

It is significant that the opinions of the population about the responsibility of the president for obscure and unpopular decisions have no effect on Putin's ratings. According to information from the Levada Center, responsibility for the proposed replacement of social privileges with monetary compensation is something those questioned blame mainly on Putin (35 percent) and the government (34 percent). It is, however, clear that sooner or later intuition will lead the people to the conclusion that they cannot rely upon a person (and Putin's high rating, as sociologists note, is determined primarily by the hopes of the population) who allows the implementation of such a policy.

Vladimir Gryaznevich is a political analyst with Expert Severo-Zapad magazine. His comment was first broadcast on Ekho Moskvy in St. Petersburg on Friday.

By Anatoly Medetsky
Staff Writer
AP

The Moscow Times, Wednesday, August 18, 2004. Page 1.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Igor Sutyagin's conviction to 15 years in prison on espionage charges in a case that human rights advocates called a miscarriage of justice and part of an FSB campaign to intimidate academics.

A Moscow City Court jury found Sutyagin, an arms control researcher at the respected USA and Canada Institute, guilty of treason in April for selling information on nuclear submarines and missile warning systems to a British company that the Federal Security Service, or FSB, claimed was a CIA cover.

Sutyagin maintained that he drew his information from publicly available sources such as news reports, and that he had no reason to believe that the British company was linked to U.S. intelligence.

Defense lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court that the judge and jury had been replaced for no good reason after the trial had begun and that the new judge, Marina Komarova, had misdirected jurors by telling them to ignore the nonclassified nature of the information Sutyagin had passed on. The lawyers also said the prosecution's witnesses had misguided the jury by discussing evidence that did not pertain to the case.

Sutyagin's lawyers said they would appeal to the presidium of the Supreme Court -- the last possible avenue for appeal -- and seek justice at the European Court of Human Rights.

But Tuesday's ruling means that Sutyagin can now be transferred to a maximum-security prison to serve out his sentence.

Sutyagin's parents, Vyacheslav and Svetlana, said the decision squashed any hope that their son might be freed soon.

"We'll have to wait for another president. It's four more years," Sutyagin's father said at the door of the courthouse, in a reference to the clout that the FSB has gained under President Vladimir Putin.

"We have no hope," said Sutyagin's mother, fighting back tears.

The Supreme Court hearing was held behind closed doors, but journalists were let in after the judge had heard arguments from defense lawyers and prosecutors and left the room to make a decision.

Sutyagin, who participated in the court session via a video linkup from a defendant's cage in the Matrosskaya Tishina jail, paced back and forth and fidgeted with a string of prayer beads as he waited for the judge to return. When the judge reentered the room, Sutyagin put his hands behind his back and stood tall in tense anticipation. When he heard the ruling, he ran out of the defendant's cage and disappeared off-screen.

Sutyagin's lawyers and supporters said they had not pinned much hope on the Supreme Court because they had suspected its decision would be influenced by the FSB, which investigated the case.

"For me, justice in Russia has ended with the Sutyagin case," defense lawyer Boris Kuznetsov said.

"The judicial system in Russia doesn't work. To be more exact, it works like it is being dictated by an outside agency -- and that agency is the Federal Security Service," said Ernest Chyorny, a member of the Public Committee for the Protection of Scientists.

Chyorny said the FSB wanted to use Sutyagin's case as an example of its success in catching spies.

An FSB spokesman said Tuesday that the attacks on the security service by Sutyagin's supporters were "their own personal business."

Another defense lawyer, Anna Stavitskaya, said the little hope she had nurtured for a favorable decision evaporated when she learned in the courtroom Tuesday that the appeal would be handled by a judge who had rejected two earlier appeals from Sutyagin -- one to throw out the case and one for release pending trial.

The defense asked for another judge but was turned down, she said.

The judge, whom Stavitskaya identified only by his last name, Galiulin, ordered the sound turned off on the video linkup when Sutyagin explained his reasons for the appeal, Stavitskaya said.

Sutyagin also asked the judge to wait until a 200-page letter he had written in his defense was delivered by mail, but the judge rejected the request, she said.

Prosecutor Yevgeny Naidyonov praised the decision. "The court has confirmed that no violations were made during the trial," he said.

Stavitskaya said the European Court of Human Rights is processing an appeal from Sutyagin about the earlier court ruling ordering him to remain in custody before the trial. Sutyagin was arrested in October 1999 and only went on trial in November 2003.

Defense lawyers plan to amend the European court appeal to ask that the court consider Sutyagin's conviction, Stavitskaya said.

The court has not set a date to hand down a ruling but has said it considers the case a priority, she said.

Amnesty International has named Sutyagin -- who has been given the longest prison term for espionage since Soviet times -- a political prisoner.

Human Rights Watch said Monday that upholding the conviction would amount to "a gross miscarriage of justice."

Sutyagin's case is one in a series of dubious espionage prosecutions brought against independent scientists, journalists and environmentalists, and seemingly aimed at discouraging contacts with foreigners and clamping down on the discussion of sensitive topics such as nuclear pollution and arms transfers.

Krasnoyarsk physicist Valentin Danilov, who was also tried on espionage charges, was acquitted, but the Supreme Court ordered a retrial in June.

Sutyagin's wife, who has irregular jobs cleaning hallways in apartment buildings in the family's hometown of Obninsk, in the Kaluga region, and their two daughters did not attend Tuesday's hearing.

"It's more than she can take," Sutyagin's mother said.

The Supreme Court decided to upheld the verdict in the case of Igor Sutyagin, who was sentenced to 15 years in prison in April 2004, after a trial in which the Russian security service accused him of treason and espionage. The defense appealed that verdict citing numerous procedural violations, which effectively denied Sutyagin his right to a fair trial. The appeal for a new trial was supported by a number of international human right organizations, as well as by the international scientific community. The Supreme Court, however, chose to ignore the defense’s arguments and let the sentence stand. In accordance to the Russian practice, the Supreme Court did not give any justification for its decision.

The Supreme Court decision means that Igor Sutyagin has now exhausted virtually all possibilities for an appeal within the Russian judicial system. The defense is now considering an option of filing an appeal to the European Court. Igor Sutyagin’s case has also drawn attention of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which assigned a rapporteur on the case in June 2004.

MosNews
Created: 17.08.2004 13:32 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 15:48 MSK

The Supreme Court of Russia upheld the sentence against scientist Igor Sutyagin on Tuesday.

He was sentenced to 15 years in prison for spying for the United States by the Moscow City Court in April. His lawyers lodged an appeal to a higher authority.

Sutyagin’s lawyer, Boris Kuznetsov, quoted by the Interfax news agency, said that he intended to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. He added that the court of jury that had found the scientist guilty had been formed with a violation of criminal procedure. One of the jurors was simultaneously a candidate to the court of jury of the Moscow district military court, Kuznetsov said. However, the agency quoted Prosecutor General’s Office spokesman Yevgeny Naidyonov as saying that this argument had been rejected by the Supreme Court as groundless.

After the Supreme Court’s ruling was made public, Russian HR activists said they would continue to fight for Sutyagin’s acquittal.

“We will not leave this case asa it is, we will fight for Sutyagin’s freedom till the end. I cannot imagine that Sutyagin, an innocent man, should serve such an enormous term,” the Interfax news agency quoted Lyudmila Alekseyeva, the head of the Moscow Helsinki Group as saying.

“We have not pinned much hope to the Russian Supreme Court and we hope that Sutyagin’s case will be considered by the International Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. We will use all legal means to set him free. It will be an international campaign,” Alekseyeva said.

A representative of the Russian office of the Human Rights Watch bureau, Aleksander Petrov, told the agency about the procedure violations committed in the course of the process. In particular, he said that investigators shed little lite on the sources where the scientists had taken his information from. The materials proving that Sutyagin used only open sources, were forwarded to the wrong experts and thus, the experts were making conclusions on the basis of insufficient information.

Sutyagin, an arms control specialist with the Institute of U.S. and Canadian Studies, was accused of having five meetings with foreign intelligence agents to whom he passed on information on air-to-air missiles, the MIG-29SMT fighter jet, plans for Russia’s strategic nuclear forces up to 2007, the Defense Ministry’s work in 1998 to implement plans to develop permanent readiness units and about the structure and condition of the Russian early warning system.