On the day of Navalny's hospitalization, August 20, 2020, lawyers of the Anti-Corruption Foundation filed an application to the Investigative Committee to initiate a criminal case under Part 3 of Article 30, Part 1 of Article 105 and Article 277 of the Criminal Code of Russia (attempted murder and attempt on the life of a statesman or public figure). However, the case has not yet been initiated. The Investigative Committee refused to conduct an investigation into the poisoning of Navalny, and it was entrusted to the Tomsk transport police. According to the law, the investigation cannot last longer than 30 days, but the police officers artificially delayed it for almost six months (see below what legal trick they used for this).
At the same time, Navalny's associates tried to gain access to the CCTV footage from the hotel, where the poisoning most likely occurred. German experts, having examined the bottle that Alexei grabbed on the morning of August 20 before leaving the room, found traces of Novichok. This suggests that Navalny was poisoned while still in the hotel. CCTV footage from the hotel corridors could confirm or deny this, but the authorities refuse to provide them.
They also refuse to give back Alexei's clothes, which were seized on August 20 in the Omsk hospital. They were not returned even after the initiation of a criminal case was finally refused, although according to the law, after that the police had no right to keep any personal belongings. It’s important to note that, as it became clear from a conversation with an FSB officer and chemist Konstantin Kudryavtsev (see the “Investigation” section), Navalny's clothes serve as important material evidence: they were treated twice to hide the traces of Novichok.
When the OPCW confirmed that Alexei Navalny had been poisoned with a substance from the Novichok group, lawyers of the Anti-Corruption Foundation turned to the FSB and demanded to initiate a criminal case under Article 355 of the Criminal Code of Russia (development, production and accumulation of prohibited chemical weapons). No such case was initiated.
After the release of the investigation, which shed light on the detachment of poisoners from the FSB, and after the publication of the conversation with Kudryavtsev, the FBK lawyers filed applications to the Chief Military Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee, but they refused to conduct a check.
The pre-investigation check on the poisoning, which was carried out by the transport police of Tomsk, lasted until February 10, 2021. Over the course of it, more than 210 persons were questioned and more than 60 different forensic examinations were assigned on 542 seized objects. As a result of the check, the investigators came to the conclusion that the poisoning of Navalny was a staging aimed at preparation of a provocation for political purposes. The key role in this staging was played by FBK employees, who took away bottles of water from the hotel, as well as Navalny himself and his wife Yulia, who concealed Alexei's alleged illnesses from the investigation.
The initiation of a criminal case was refused “due to the absence of a crime event under Part 1 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of Russia”. The full version of this document is attached below.
Taking this into account, the position of the Prosecutor General's Office of Russia looks absolutely untenable: over and over again, it demands from Germany some evidence of poisoning, referring to the European Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (for more details, see the section “Russia’s Position”)... Indeed, in order to count on assistance under this convention, Russia needs to start its own investigation and open a criminal case on the fact of poisoning.
This table contains all the applications and legal complaints filed by FBK lawyers in connection with Navalny's poisoning: demands to open a criminal case, return personal belongings, and so on. Law enforcement agencies do not comply with these demands, and courts of all instances invariably refuse to satisfy the complaints. Materials on each of them, after passing the appeal courts, are submitted to the European Court of Human Rights — as part of a single complaint about the lack of investigation filed by Navalny's lawyer Olga Mikhailova in the fall of 2020.
The Investigative Committee, and not the transport police, should have dealt with the application regarding the attempted murder of Navalny
In accordance with Subparagraph “c” of Paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Article 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Russia, a preliminary investigation in criminal cases of crimes committed by FSB officers is carried out by the Investigative Committee. It must also conduct a preliminary investigation in cases of crimes provided for in Article 105 of the Criminal Code, in accordance with Subparagraph “a” of Paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Article 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Russia. The check on the assassination attempt was supposed to be carried out by an authorized body — the Investigative Committee, and not by the transport police, whose respoisibilities mainly consist of ensuring public order at train stations and investigating thefts on electric trains.
The Investigative Committee and the FSB were obliged to conduct inspections and initiate a criminal case
According to Part 1 of Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Russia, the investigator is obliged to accept and check the report of any committed or impending crime and take a decision on it within no more than three days (with the possibility of a maximum extension of up to 30). Nevertheless, neither the Investigative Committee nor the FSB carried out checks within the framework of the Criminal Procedure Code. They did not take any procedural decisions, unlawfully excluding themselves from the execution of the duties assigned to them by law at the very initial stage of the criminal process.
The fact of poisoning has been repeatedly confirmed by international authorities. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons released a report on October 6, 2020, according to which the tests carried out confirmed the content of a chemical warfare agent from the Novichok family in Navalny's biomaterials. The letter that UN special rapporteurs sent to the Russian government on December 30, 2020 following a four-month investigation says: “The use of chemical weapons is a 'sinister threat' and a 'gross violation' of customary international law.” The reporters emphasized that the Russian authorities “have an obligation to investigate the crime committed against Alexei Navalny and to identify and punish everyone responsible, including those at the highest level of leadership.”
The check period was artificially delayed
According to article 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Russia, the maximum period for checking a crime report, taking into account all extensions, is 30 days. However, in fact, the check on Navalny’s case was “carried out” from August 20 to February 10. The Investigation Department of the Tomsk Line Internal Affairs Department stated that it had been conducting an inspection since August 20, 2020. At the same time, the police kept issuing orders to refuse to initiate a criminal case under Part 1 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of Russia (Intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm), which would get cancelled on the same day by the head of this body.
Among the messages under consideration were statements by representatives of Navalny, who demanded on August 20, 2020 to initiate a criminal case under Articles 105 (Murder) and 277 (Attempt on the life of a state or public figure) of the Criminal Code of Russia. However, while formally considering these statements as well, the investigators refused to initiate a criminal case under Part 1 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Russia. The question of the presence or absence of signs of corpus delicti provided for in Articles 105 and 277 of the Criminal Code of Russia was not raised.
The investigation has artificially created a situation that allowed the check to be carried out indefinitely, issuing formal meaningless decisions to refuse to initiate a criminal case and immediately canceling them.
Although before the initiation of a criminal case, it is possible to carry out a number of procedural actions aimed at collecting evidence, such evidence may subsequently be declared inadmissible if violations of the Criminal Procedure Code were committed during the collection. Moreover, without initiating a criminal case, Navalny was not able to exercise the rights provided for by law — to participate in criminal prosecution; give testimony; submit evidence for admission to a criminal case; file petitions in a criminal case; exercise his rights in the appointment and production of expert examinations; receive copies of procedural documents affecting his interests.
Thus, Navalny could not count not only on an adequate, thorough and comprehensive investigation into the circumstances of his poisoning with a prohibited chemical, but also on the effectiveness of legal remedies. In addition, the situation in which law enforcement agencies do not open a criminal case, but state that they are conducting a check — which eventually exceeded the maximum time limit established by law — indicates that there is no legal remedy to achieve a proper investigation.
Navalny’s personal belongings must have been returned to him
Navalny's personal belongings, seized on August 20 by the Omsk transport police, have not yet been returned to the owner. This is illegal, since upon refusal to initiate a criminal case, the legal grounds for further retention of the property belonging to the citizen disappear. Subsequent hypothetical cancellations of the refusal order, undertaken for the sake of delaying the check, do not legally serve as a basis for restricting ownership.
The current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation does not grant the investigator and the police authority the right to retain the seized property after the verification period has expired.
The right to private property is guaranteed by Article 35 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The situation in which a citizen's property can be held by the police in the absence of legal grounds is not provided for by the current legislation and clearly violates the right of ownership.
Material of the check must have been provided for review
The person who reported the crime has the right to appeal against the refusal to initiate a criminal case (Part 1 of Article 125 and Part 5 of Article 148 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Russia). In order to reasonably appeal the refusal, it is necessary to familiarize oneself with its content and the materials underlying it. Otherwise, the person who reported the crime will be infringed on the right to judicial protection.
Disagreement of the Prosecutor General's Office with the results of its correspondence with the authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany should not entail the absence of a criminal case in Russia
According to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, the inevitability of punishment and the obligation to prosecute are not conditioned by correspondence with other states. A crime against a Russian citizen committed in Russia must be investigated regardless of any responses from third parties.
The “request” of the Prosecutor General's Office itself has no legal basis, since the European Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, to which the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation refers, does not imply assistance on requests outside of criminal cases, but a criminal case has not been initiated on the fact of Navalny's poisoning, and the request was made with reference to a pre-investigation check.
This list includes all judges and law enforcement officials involved in the above violations of the law.
A. I. Bastrykin, Chairman of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, V. A. Kolokoltsev, Minister of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, A. V. Bortnikov, Director of the FSB of Russia, and I. V. Krasnov, Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation. They did not take measures against a clear violation of the law and did not ensure the fulfillment of their legal duties by their subordinates.
Y. M. Pevneva., investigator of the Investigation Department of the Tomsk Line Internal Affairs Department. Refused to initiate a criminal case four times.
E. A. Bolshanina., investigator of the Investigation Department of the Tomsk Line Internal Affairs Department. Refused to transfer the materials of the check to the Main Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee and twice refused to initiate a criminal case.
The Tomsk Line Internal Affairs Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for Transport, in particular, its head I. I. Borkholeev, deputy head R. A. Semashko and acting deputy head of the Investigation Department T. A. Rusanova. No meaningful decision was made by them after 30 days from the start of the check.
Chief Military Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee of Russia, in particular D. E. Pankratov, Senior Investigator for Particularly Important Cases of the 1st Control-Zone Division of the Department of Procedural Control and Criminalistics, Colonel of Justice. They refused to conduct a check on the attempted murder of Navalny.
West Siberian Investigation Department for Transport of the Investigative Committee, in particular, head of the Investigative Department A. A. Aleksandrov, Y. M. Popova, S. A. Sinyakov.
Investigation Department of the FSB, in particular A. M. Korystin., Deputy Head of the Investigation Department. They refused to carry out a check on the application regarding the development of chemical weapons
V. V. Torvinen, Head of the Department for Work with Citizens of the Investigative Committee of Russia. Sent a request to the Basmanny District Court to refuse to satisfy the complaint about the inaction of the Investigative Committee.
E. S. Nikolaeva, judge of the Basmanny District Court of Moscow. Refused to satisfy the complaint about the inaction of the Investigative Committee. Among the participants of that court session was M. A. Bobek, Prosecutor of the Appeals Division of the Criminal and Judicial Department of the Moscow Prosecutor's Office.
L. M. Smolkina, judge of the Moscow City Court. Upheld the decision of the Basmanny District Court, which rejected the complaint about the inaction of the Investigative Committee. Among the participants of the court hearing was Y. P. Ivannikova, Prosecutor of the Appeals Division of the Criminal and Judicial Department of the Moscow Prosecutor's Office.
A. V. Fedorov, judge of the Kirovsky District Court of Tomsk. Twice he refused to satisfy the complaint about the inaction of the Tomsk transport police. Among the participants of these court sessions was V. P. Detkov, Tomsk Transport Prosecutor.
Y. G. Krivoshein, judge of the Tomsk Regional Court. He twice upheld the decision of the Kirovsky District Court of Tomsk, which rejected the complaint about the inaction of the Tomsk transport police. Among the participants of one of these court sessions was prosecutor V.P. Detkov.
S. A. Ryabtsev., judge of the Lefortovo District Court of Moscow. He refused to satisfy the complaint about the inaction of the Investigative Directorate of the FSB of Russia. Among the participants of the court session were I. K. Malyutina, senior department prosecutor of the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation, and A. M. Korystin, deputy head of the FSB Investigation Department.
N. V. Konovalova, judge of the Moscow City Court. Upheld the decision of the Lefortovo District Court, which rejected the complaint about the inaction of the Investigative Department of the FSB of Russia. Among the participants of the court session was Prosecutor S. S. Tarasova and Deputy Head of the Investigation Department of the FSB A. M. Korystin.
A. V. Karpov, judge of the Kirovsky District Court of Tomsk. He refused to satisfy the complaints about the inaction of the Tomsk transport police and the refusal to initiate a criminal case. Prosecutor V. P. Detkov also participated in the court sessions.
E. N. Nizamieva, judge of the Tomsk Regional Court. She twice upheld the decision of the Kirovsky District Court of Tomsk, which rejected the complaint about the inaction of the Tomsk transport police. Prosecutor V. P. Detkov also participated in the court sessions.
E. V. Galyautdinova, judge of the Kirovsky District Court of Tomsk. Refused to satisfy the complaint about the inaction of the Tomsk transport police. Prosecutor V. P. Detkov also participated in the court session.
L. S. Matyskina, judge of the Tomsk Regional Court. Upheld the decision of the Kirovsky District Court of Tomsk, which rejected the complaint about the inaction of the Tomsk transport police. Prosecutor S. A. Krivoshein also participated in the court session.
I. A. Fesenko, judge of the Kirovsky district court of Tomsk. Twice refused to satisfy the complaint about the inaction of the Tomsk transport police. Prosecutor V. P. Detkov also participated in the court session.
A. A. Nokhrin, judge of the Tomsk Regional Court. Upheld the decision of the Kirovsky District Court of Tomsk, which rejected the complaint about the inaction of the Tomsk transport police. Prosecutor S. A. Krivoshein also participated in the court session.
E. V. Kashina and Y. G. Dmitrieva, judges of the Leninsky District Court of Novosibirsk. They refused to satisfy the complaint about the inaction of the West Siberian Investigative Department for Transport of the Investigative Committee. Senior assistant of the West Siberian Transport Prosecutor O. S. Potekhina also participated in the court sessions.
E. V. Bondarenko, judge of the Novosibirsk Regional Court. Upheld the decision of the Leninsky District Court of Novosibirsk, which rejected the complaint about the inaction of the West Siberian Investigative Department for Transport of the Investigative Committee. Senior assistant of the West Siberian Transport Prosecutor O. S. Potekhina also participated in the court session.
A. A. Rudi, judge of the Tomsk Regional Court. Upheld the decision of the Kirovsky District Court of Tomsk, which rejected the complaint about the inaction of the Tomsk transport police. Prosecutor D. I. Milyutin also participated in the court session.
A. A. Tolkachenko, judge of the 235th garrison military court. He dismissed the complaint about the inaction of the Chief Military Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee. Among the participants of the court session were investigator for especially important cases of the 1st control-zonal department of the procedural control and criminalistics department of the Chief Military Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee, Colonel of Justice R. Sh. Neverov and military prosecutor of the 4th department of the 5th Directorate of the Chief Military Prosecutor's Office, Colonel of Justice A. S. Yurochkin.
V. V. Krasnov, judge of the 2nd Western District Military Court. Upheld the decision of the 235th Garrison Military Court, which refused to satisfy the complaint about the inaction of the Chief Military Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee. Prosecutor A. S. Yurochkin also participated in the court session.
V. V. Polyakov, judge of the Tomsk Regional Court. Upheld the decision of the Kirovsky District Court of Tomsk, which rejected the complaint about the refusal to initiate a criminal case. Prosecutor V. P. Detkov also participated in the court sessions.