Posted on 11/24/2004 4:50:03 AM PST by klpt
A Russian physicist convicted of spying for China has been jailed for 14 years by a court in Siberia. Valentin Danilov was cleared in 2003 of passing space secrets to China, but the result was later overturned.
Mr Danilov, 53, has always maintained that information he sold to China was already publicly available.
He is one of several Russian academics and journalists prosecuted by the internal security services, the FSB, on espionage charges.
Mr Danilov, a professor at Krasnoyarsk Technical University in Siberia, was first arrested in 2001.
He spent 19 months in prison before being cleared of charges in December 2003, but the verdict was overturned on appeal in December 2003.
A retrial in Krasnoyarsk returned a guilty verdict at the beginning of November.
Mr Danilov was sentenced by a judge in Krasnoyarsk and ordered to serve his sentence in a maximum security labour camp.
Appeal plans
Charges against Mr Danilov centred on alleged attempts to sell technology to China based on his work on the effects of the space environment on man-made satellites.
Russian authorities claimed his invention, a tool designed to examine ways to destroy redundant satellites, revealed state secrets.
He was charged with high treason and also accused of misappropriating funds from the university where he worked.
The case is the latest in a series of high-profile arrests and convictions of alleged spies.
Human rights groups have voiced concerns that the increase in convictions marks a return to Soviet-style scare tactics, correspondents say.
Mr Danilov's lawyer, Yelena Yevmenova, said she planned to launch an appeal against the sentence in the Russian Supreme Court, the Itar-Tass news agency reported.
The Supreme Court previously upheld the Krasnoyarsk prosecutor's appeal against the original guilty verdict, ordering Mr Danilov to stand trial a second time. In an interview with the BBC before being found guilty, Mr Danilov claimed his arrest set a dangerous precedent.
"I did no damage to this country. I am a scientist. I have no links at all to weapons development programmes, or anything sensitive covered by the law on state secrets. I don't know why they are being so stubborn," he said.
"If I can be found guilty of spying, then they could take any physicist here and make a case against him very easily
How lucky we are, we do not live in Russia.
This is G o o g l e's cache of http://www.hrea.org/lists/hr-headlines/markup/msg01702.html as retrieved on Nov 7, 2004 20:00:34
These search terms have been highlighted:
valentin
danilov
IHF condemns retrial ordered
for Valentin Danilov, warns
against rising "Spy-mania"
Subject: [headlines] IHF condemns retrial ordered for
Valentin Danilov, warns against rising "Spy-mania"
From: owner-hr-headlines@hrea.org
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 12:07:59 +0200
To: hr-headlines@hrea.org
Vienna, 11 June 2004. The International Helsinki Federation for Human
Rights (IHF) expresses its deep concern at the decision of the Russian
Supreme Court on 9 June to overturn the acquittal by jury of the
Krasnoiarsk-based scientist Valentin Danilov and send the case for a
retrial.
The IHF considers that the decision to order a new trial violates
international fair trial standards. Valentin Danilov and his lawyer,
Yelena Yevmenova complained that the Supreme Court's decision had been
prepared in advance of the hearing, rendering the judges' deliberation
merely pretence. The judges' written seven-page decision in the case was
produced fifteen minutes after the judges ostensibly went to deliberate
their verdict.
"This decision discredits the Supreme Court and the rule of law in
Russia", stated Dr. Aaron Rhodes, Executive Director of the IHF. "At a
stroke, the Supreme Court has negated the celebrated acquittal of Valentin
Danilov by jury trial and appears to herald a return to justice by fiat",
he added.
The retrial to due to begin in Krasnoiarsk in the next few months. The IHF
fears that, as with the recent Sutiagin conviction, the FSB will attempt
to influence or manipulate members of the jury and/or the court in order
to secure a conviction.
Background
On 29 December 2003 a jury trial in Krasnoiarsk dismissed all seven points
in the prosecution of the scientist Valentin Danilov, a professor at
Krasnoiarsk State Technical University, who was accused of providing
secret information about space technology to China. The university had
concluded a contract with the Chinese Export and Import Company of Precise
Machine Building. The acquittal of Danilov was broadly welcomed by civil
society in Russia and abroad as proof of a properly functioning judiciary
and jury trial system, introduced in 2002 as part of the new Criminal
Procedure Code (CPC).
On 9 June 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the acquittal on procedural
grounds and sent the case for retrial. Those present at the verdict
expressed surprise at the speed at which it was reached. Many observers
expressed the suspicion that the verdict had been pre-ordained.
Danilov's defence lawyer, Yelena Yevmenova, claimed that the technical
violations cited by the Supreme Court as the reason for sending the case
for retrial were minor and could not have swayed the jury from its
"not-guilty" verdict. Included among the violations was the mismatching by
jurors of the boxes where they had to write the answers to the questions
or that they pencilled some notes on the margins of the lists. The IHF
fails to see how these purely technical matters could be considered to
have unduly influenced the jury's verdict. According to Danilov's lawyers,
these matters could have been remedied by the judge during the trial.
Another more serious argument used by the prosecution to overturn the
verdict by the Supreme Court, according to Yevmenova, was that the
presiding judge did not intervene on each occasion when the defence lawyer
cited the allegedly non-admissible evidence in front of the jury, as
stipulated at Article 336, paragraph 3 in the CPC. However, Yevmenova
stated that during the trial, the judge interrupted her on at least five
occasions to challenge evidence used in Danilov's defence.
"Waiting until the verdict was issued to complain on some minor technical
matters undermines the validity of the prosecution's argument for a
retrial," stated Dr. Rhodes.
The IHF notes with concern the irony that, had Danilov been convicted in
the original trial, his defence team would have had far stronger grounds
for arguing that there had been procedural violations. For example, the
court rejected testimony from key expert witnesses on the grounds that
they lacked the necessary expertise. By contrast, according to Danilov's
defence team, the court permitted experts to testify for the prosecution
whose background, they claim, was questionable.
The litmus test for the Russian criminal justice system will be the
forthcoming appeal against Igor Sutiagin's conviction on espionage charges
which is based on numerous procedural violations (see IHF unites with
human rights NGOs to call for retrial of Igor Sutiagin, Vienna 1 June
2004).
The IHF calls upon the Russian courts fairly and impartially to guarantee
the rule of law for all in compliance with domestic and international
human rights and fair trial standards to which Russia is state party.
IHF Press release
-----
The Human Rights Headlines mailing list provides daily news based on press
releases issued by national, regional and international non-governmental
and international organisations. HREA does note take any responsibility
for the accuracy or content of these new items nor does it necessarily
endorse them. Archives of "hr-headlines", as well as instructions on how
to (un)subscribe to the list, can be found at:
http://www.hrea.org/lists/hr-headlines/markup/maillist.php
This is the html version of the file http://scholarsatrisk.nyu.edu/letters/06-20-2004%20RUSS-003.pdf.
Scholars at Tisk, at New York University, says that the information had been available to everyone in the Science Journals for ten years.
Scholars at Tisk
should read
Scholars at Risk
The article that you posted to start this thread appears to be only the tip of the iceberg.
according to this one, I would be tried in Russia, for my research with Google, this morning.
There is a lot more here than meets the eye, it goes with the dead, murdered and missing scientists that there so many of. (In my opinion)
This is G o o g l e's cache of http://www.nearinternational.org/alerts/russia1420040820en.php as retrieved on Nov 23, 2004
09:06:27 GMT.
Russian Researcher Dr. Igor Sutyagin's Appeal Rejected
The Supreme Court 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 Federal Security Service (FSB)
campaign to intimidate academics.
Related Links
Case 52
Related NEAR-Alerts
Russian Researcher's Acquittal
Overturned
Scientist Jailed for 15 Years for Spying
Russian Researcher on Second Trial for
Espionage
Russia: Researcher’s Trial Postponed
Indefinitely
Dr. Sutyagin's Moscow Trial Begins
Supreme Court Orders New Probe Into
Sutyagin’s Trial
Physicist Released
Dr. Sutyagin's Moscow Trial Begins
NEAR is not responsible for the content of
external internet sites.
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. ut the ruling means
that Sutyagin can now be
transferred to a
maximum-security prison to
serve out his sentence.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Dr. Sutyagin was first arrested
in October 1999 on espionage
charges related to research he
conducted for a British
consulting firm. The research
was on civil-military relations in
Russia. As a civilian researcher,
Dr. Sutyagin did have a
security clearance and had no
access to classified materials.
Several searches of his office
and home have failed to
produce any classified
materials to support the
charges.
Russian authorities
contend that the accuracy of the research indicated that Dr. Sutyagin
must have used classified documents to draw his conclusions. Dr.
Sutyagin maintained that he has only used public documents, such as
newspaper articles. He has remained in jail since his initial arrest in
1999.
The case had been tried previously in 2001 at a regional court. The
ruling in that case was that the prosecution had failed to present
sufficient evidence. At that time, a provision of the Russian legal code
allowed for the case to return to the Federal Security Service (known
by its Russian acronym FSB) for further investigation. This provision has
since been revised because it violates the citizen’s rights to due
process by placing an inordinate amount of power to the prosecution to
drag out investigations. However, the revised code does not apply in
Sutyagin’s case because the investigation began before the change in
the legal code.
The continued investigation has failed to produce further evidence to
support the espionage charges. There is some concern that the case
appears to be one of a series of cases where scientists in Russia are
accused of espionage when they turn to commercial ventures abroad
and sell their unclassified research. The case was transferred to a
Moscow court in 2002 and it was been delayed and postponed several
times.
In September 2003, the case was assigned to Judge Pyotr Shtunder of
the Moscow City Court, who began jury selection. A few months later,
Judge Shtunder was removed from the case without explanation to the
defence. This removal meant that the jury had to be dismissed causing
further delay because a new Judge had to be appointed and jury
selection had to begin
again. The case was assigned to Judge Marina Komarova. Judge
Komarova has a history of considering cases initiated by the FSB. She
has refused to allow Dr. Sutyagin to be released during the trial.
The 5 April 2004 Dr Sutyagin was found guilty of high treason and was
sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment.
The cases of espionage against Russian scientists have ended with
mixed results. In December 2003, a jury acquitted physicist Dr. Valentin
Danilov, (please see related NEAR Alerts) the director of a research
institution in Krasnoyarsk, of espionage charges related to selling
technological information about Russia’s space technology to China.
The information in question had been declassified for over ten years
and had even appeared in scientific journals.
Other cases have ended
less favourably. Because of what appears to be a political nature to
these espionage charges, international attention to the individual
cases appears to be helpful in guaranteeing that the cases follow
international norms for fairness and transparency.
-END-
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.