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

We entered the hall of the beautiful building, and Asnis made a call on the internal phone. Soon Prosecutor Vladimir Buivolov found us, we greeted each other, and he handed me the text of the final indictment, which had many pages. At that point I realized that nobody had terminated my case, and the KGB flywheel fashioned by Lenin many years ago was still revolving. However, I had no time for further reflection, because Buivolov persistently repeated his request for me to sign for the receipt of this document. I did so automatically, because I must admit I was simply shocked at what was happening. On the street I quickly recovered and gave my full attention to my lawyer, who was describing the scenario of the events to come. A closed session of my case would take place in the Supreme Court of Russia, and the trial was unlikely to start before next year. The court would consist of either a judge and two jurors, or three independent judges, depending on which we chose. I was shocked at what I heard. “Closed trials have been cancelled, haven’t they? How it is possible these days that they want to return to the past?” I asked. Asnis explained to me that closed trials had in fact been cancelled, but not closed hearings. The only difference is that the first session and the last one, when the verdict is made public, would be open. I told my lawyer that I would not participate in such monkey business, and he explained that if that was the case I would be arrested, and the trial would be closed anyway.

After I studied the indictment [200] “INDICTMENT Concerning Criminal Case N 62, about the indictment of Vil Sultanovich Mirzayanov for committing a crime according to Part 1 of Clause 75 of the Criminal Code (UK) of the RSFSR”, November 1993. Top Secret. See Annex 55. carefully, I came to the conclusion that the trial would be purely a formality, because the general framework for the final indictment had been prepared to rubber-stamp the lists of state secrets and the conclusion of the so-called expert commission. The only real task of the trial was to determine the length of my imprisonment based on Article 75 of the Criminal Code.

Soon I received a copy of the letter that the Supreme Court had sent to the Attorney General’s office, which said that there would be a hearing of my case in Moscow City Court on December 6, 1993. Aleksander Asnis told me that he had met with Judge Nikolai Sazonov who would consider my case. He made a reasonably good impression on Asnis. The judge told my lawyer that even though he was still very busy, he was going to read through the case before the New Year, and after that he would schedule a trial date. I was filled with apprehension that my case was just rolling along by itself. It seemed to have a life of its own, and who could stop it? Anyone who thought they could should refer to the letter of the law, and the general advice that those who are dissatisfied should work to make changes in the law, and not complain about those who are just carrying out their duties. I was certain that I had to do something extraordinary to step off this path of destruction. I was sure that my actions would inevitably drag me under the wheels of the tank of the Soviet system of justice, which had not changed much at all when it became the Russian system of justice.

The news from the U.S. showed that many influential public and state figures there were beginning to become a bit alarmed about my case. One of the first letters from this time period is the one written on October 14, 1993 by the U.S. Senator from New Jersey, Bill Bradley, to Strobe Talbot the Ambassador Plenipotentiary to Russia and Special Advisor on issues of the Newly Independent States. [201] Senator Bill Bradley, letter to Strobe Talbott, 14 October 1993. See Annex 56. In the letter, he stressed that my trial must be open to the public in accordance with Russian law, and he asked Talbot to raise these concerns with the Russian government at a senior level.

On October 19, 1993 John Conyers, Jr., Chairman of the Congressional Legislation and National Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations sent a letter to Warren Christopher, the U.S. Secretary of State. [202] Letter of John Conyers, Jr., Chairman of the Congressional Legislation and National Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, to Warren Christopher, the U.S. Secretary of State, October 19, 1993. See Annex 57. He wrote, “Dr. Mirzayanov courageously revealed that the Russian government’s public call for the elimination of chemical weapons was deceptive, since new chemical weapons research was being secretly funded… The persecution of Dr. Mirzayanov stands in direct contradiction of the Clinton Administration’s commitment to strengthen democratization efforts in the former Soviet Union, and halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I am confident that you share my deep concern over the treatment of this courageous scientist, and I call on you to personally appeal for his release.”

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in his letter to the Secretary of State Warren Christopher, on December 23, 1993, [203] Letter of U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan to the Secretary of State Warren Christopher, December 23, 1993. See Annex 58. expressed his “deep concern regarding Dr. Vil Mirzayanov, a Russian chemist who has been arrested for publishing an article in Moskovski Novosti [Moscow News] alleging that the Soviet Union developed and that Russia subsequently tested a new class of organophosphorous nerve gases, which are highly toxic and when are absorbed through the skin or lungs shut down the nervous system, for use as chemical weapons”. “If true”, continued the senator, “it means Russia may have disingenuously negotiated and signed a treaty on chemical weapons which does not prohibit its newly developed weapon because it is not listed on the detailed schedules appended to the convention.” He finished with the conclusion “…President Clinton will be meeting with President Yeltsin in January. Would you not think it appropriate to raise this issue at that time? I look forward to hearing your views.”

Dr. Wolfgang Hirschwald a professor of Berlin Free University, wrote an open letter on December 27, 1993, on behalf of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES), the largest association of scientists in Germany and Western countries, addressed to Frederico Mayor, the Director General of UNESCO, regarding the violation of human rights and possible violation of the CWC by my trial. [204] Letter of Dr. Wolfgang Hirschwald a professor of Berlin Free University, on behalf of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES), to Frederico Mayor, the Director General of UNESCO, December 27, 1993. See Annex 59.

From the fall of 1993 through January 1994, a number of U.S. scientific societies kept their members current on the developments of my case, and they wrote frequently to President Boris Yeltsin and to Attorney General Stepankov and then to Kazannik who replaced him and others, urging that my case be dropped. Especially vigorous among them were the American Chemical Society (ACS), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), [205] Letter of the American Association for the Advancement of Science to President Boris Yeltsin, March 30, 1993. See Annex 60. the Committee of Concerned Scientists, [206] Letter of the Committee of Concerned Scientists (in the U.S) to President of Russia Boris Yeltsin, October 25, 1993. See Annex 61. and the New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS). [207] Letter of the New York Academy of Sciences to President of Russia Boris Yeltsin, August 25, 1993. See Annex 62. I am pointing out just some of these documents, which show the high level of solidarity of scientists who defended the right of their colleague to speak out on issues of vital global importance.