Вил Мирзаянов - State Secrets - An Insider's Chronicle of the Russian Chemical Weapons Program

By that time, my lawyer Aleksander Asnis was rapidly recovering. Soon he was back at work full time, and we often talked on the phone. He was planning to petition the court to appoint a new expert commission, and he was looking for new candidates to be experts. A number of famous scientists agreed to take on that role.

Meanwhile, it seemed that everything in the country and in the world followed its proper course. President Clinton’s long-awaited visit to Moscow took place. The State Duma, where supporters of Zhirinovsky and Communists prevailed at that time, gave amnesty to the putsch ring-leaders and participants of the bloody revolt, which had claimed hundreds of victims. The democratic deputies literally sobbed into their microphones, demagogically urging people to stop “dividing everybody into red and white camps.” Translated into normal language, this was an appeal for honest and decent people to join forces with the criminals. Social demagogy had never reached such a pinnacle, even during the times of the Communist regime. The new Attorney General was completely preoccupied with solving this “nationwide” job. It was clear that nobody had time to attend to my case…

My day in court began on January 24, 1994 at 10.30 A.M. Nobody accompanied me this time, and I reached the courthouse alone. There was a lively group of Russian and foreign correspondents and television reporters milling about outside the courthouse, and my lawyer Asnis was already answering their questions. Valeria Novodvorskaya was there with her lads from the Democratic Union movement. We warmly greeted each other and posed for the photojournalists. I told the reporters that this day was a test for the new Russian Constitution, which had been developed with such difficulty. A great number of people in Russia and the rest of the world placed their hopes on this document.

Two policemen were standing by the doors of the courtroom, and we went inside and took our seats. I sat down on the defendants’ bench and Asnis took a seat in the lawyer’s section, not far from me. The prosecutor’s place was occupied by an elderly man of retirement age, with sparse gray hair, who was missing his left arm. He was dressed in a prosecutor’s uniform, and as you could tell from his medals and ribbons that he was clearly a disabled veteran of the Great Patriotic war (WW II). Soon we heard: “Rise. Court is in order!” Judge Nikolai Sazonov appeared, followed by a light-haired woman, and a tall powerful man, stooped over under the weight of seven thick volumes which he carried under his arm. I was surprised and wondered why there were seven volumes, instead of the five that I had read.

Quickly, I got it. The investigator was trying to make the case seem more weighty and significant, by adding two more volumes. Judge Sazonov proclaimed the opening of the hearing of my criminal case, which would be heard before a judicial panel consisting of Nikolai Sazonov, Valentina V. Laricheva, and Victor G. Yudin, Court Secretary T.V. Pankratova, and with the participation of Prosecutor Leonid S. Pankratov and lawyer Aleksander Ya. Asnis.

When the judge asked if I had any questions or petitions, I stood up and delivered a prepared speech listing my petitions. I declared that the investigation was putting an accusatory spin on my case, and it was obviously biased with the clear goal of putting me – the defendant – in jail at any cost, and in this way frightening possible future opponents of the leaders of the military-chemical complex. Departmental lists of information of state secrecy were being used for that, as well as the so-called List of Major Information of State Secrecy. I added that these are classified documents and were not attached to my case, so my lawyer and I didn’t have any way to dispute them. However, the major point was that these normative acts had not been published. This is a direct violation of the Paragraph 3 of Article 15 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which gives the precise definition, “Any normative legal acts that touch upon the rights, freedom, and responsibilities of a person and a citizen, cannot be applied unless they have officially been openly published for everybody’s inspection.”

In my first petition I asked the court to recognize these normative acts and the secret lists of state secrecy as null and void on constitutional grounds. Additionally, I asked the court to cancel the closed hearing of my case, because it contradicted Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Articles 9-10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. My lawyer Alexander Asnis and I filed numerous petitions, including one in which we asked the prosecution to show us the “special purpose program” in the interests of the defense of the country and its results, which I had allegedly disclosed information about. Up to that time, it had not been done, so I asked the court to comply with my second request to show me that program, so that I could finally find out what it was that I had disclosed. Also, since a majority of members of the expert commission formed by “the investigation” were representatives of an interested party, I asked the court to appoint a new, and this time independent, commission.

As a long-time lecturer, I usually tried to observe the reaction of the audience while I was delivering my speech. The face of Judge Sazonov expressed a mixture of deep indifference, along with a dash of undisguised disgust. He obviously thought that I was speaking for the sake of propaganda, like a demagogue who was accustomed to rattling on, no matter who was listening. Judge Yudin tried hard to show the magnanimity and condescension of a prominent individual toward some feeble man. The face of Judge Laricheva openly expressed disapproval, as if she wanted to say, “We’ll see what tune you’ll sing when we throw the whole book at you.” The face of the prosecutor was the most animated one. It clearly expressed exasperation that in this hall of justice, and what was even worse, in his – the prosecutor’s – presence, someone dared to challenge the system, that pursued only one objective, that of protecting his sacred State from criminal actions. “We are the bosses here, and you will be very sorry about your eloquence!” Pankratov’s expression cried out.

The judge gave the floor to my defense attorney. Aleksander Asnis insisted that a new expert commission be appointed because the current one, in his opinion, hadn’t researched the technical aspects of the case. Since the findings of this commission were the basis for the indictment, Asnis asked the court to send the case back to the Attorney General’s Office for additional research. He also submitted a petition to summon General Smirnitsky and Colonel Chugunov as witnesses for the defense.

My lawyer’s speech was precisely well reasoned, with references to various articles of the Russian Criminal and Procedural Code and to explanations and elaborations that we received from the Scientific Research Institute for Legal Expertise, in response to a request from my lawyer.

The judges and the prosecutor listened to Aleksander Asnis’s speech with open scorn, taking advantage of the fact that there were no auditors in the room. However, my lawyer was used to scenes like that, and he wasn’t confused by it. The prosecutor took the floor. In contrast with Asnis’ speech, there was no logic at all in his words. It was perfectly clear that he hadn’t read the case, and he had no clue about the laws protecting state secrecy or the lists of secrets, etc. You can judge for yourself.

“Dear comrades,” began Pankratov. “The main point of the petition of the defendant and his lawyer appears to be a request to return the present criminal case for additional investigation. In the name of evaluating all of the materials of the investigation, they have focused their attention on the findings of the expert commission. They say, this is not good, that is not good. Why isn’t it a subject for discussion?” grumbled the war veteran sullenly as if he were actually quoting us. “The prosecution believes that this is a flawed approach,” he whined. “We are only in the preliminary stage of the trial process. We can’t produce objective evidence. Our task is to evaluate everything in the process.”