grounds of the trial court's failure to establish the essential circumstances of the case and its inconsistent conclusions and wrongful application of the law. The case was remitted to the Pacific Fleet Military Court for a fresh examination.
D. Second round of court proceedings
1. Proceedings before the trial court
18. On an unspecified date, following the Pacific Military Court's request, the General Headquarters' 8th Department of the Ministry of Defence appointed seven experts and the Ministry of Nuclear Energy appointed an expert. The experts were asked whether the items of information listed in the indictment contained State secrets.
19. On 14 September 2001 the experts submitted their report, stating that three out of the ten items in question were of "restricted distribution", whilst the other seven contained State secrets. According to the applicant, in defining whether the disclosed information contained State secrets, the experts had applied the Ministry of Defence's unpublished Decree No. 055 of 10 August 1996, Presidential Decree No. 1203:95 of 30 November 1995 and section 5 of the State Secrets Act, enacted on 21 July 1993 and amended on 6 October 1997. In the applicant's submission, he had access to Decree No. 055, read it and signed a document to the effect that he had read it in the autumn of 1996.
20. On 25 December 2001 the Pacific Fleet Military Court convicted the applicant of treason through espionage under Article 275 of the Russian Criminal Code.
21. As regards the actus reus of the offence, the court found that in 1996 - 1997 the applicant had established friendly relations with a Japanese journalist, Mr T.O., and provided him with information, at the latter's requests, in exchange for regular payments. In August - September 1997, in his telephone conversations with the applicant, Mr T.O. had repeatedly expressed his interest in the military exercises that were being conducted by the Pacific Fleet at that time, especially their particular features and any differences from previous exercises. The judgment further stated:
"On 10 September 1997, on an official invitation, [the applicant], as a representative of the Boyevaya Vakhta newspaper, attended a meeting of the Military Council of the Pacific Fleet, where he learned that an appraisal of the results of the military exercises of the Pacific Fleet was scheduled for 11 September 1997.
On 11 September 1997 [the applicant], with the intention of obtaining classified information on the said exercises and subsequently transferring it to [Mr T.O.], arrived at the headquarters of the Pacific Fleet. Although he was not included in the list of persons authorised to participate in the appraisal of the tactical training exercises, the applicant attended the meeting and collected information disclosing the actual names of highly critical and secured military formations and units, including military-intelligence units, that had taken part in the exercises and information disclosing the means and methods of protection of classified data by radio electronic warfare units that had participated in the exercises. Under section 5 paragraphs 1 (6) and 4 (5) of the State Secrets Act of the Russian Federation (No. 5485-1) of 21 July 1993, as amended by Federal Law No. 131-FZ of 6 October 1997, paragraphs 13 and 77 of the List of Information classified as State Secrets approved by Decree No. 1203 of the President of the Russian Federation of 30 November 1995, [the impugned information] was classified as State secrets.
For the same purpose, namely for communicating it to [Mr T.O.], the applicant then unlawfully kept this information... On 20 November 1997 the handwritten notes made by [the applicant] during [the meeting of 11 September 1997] were found and seized at his place of residence.
...
According to
> 1 2 3 ... 22 23 24 ... 38 39 40
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
