the Russian Federation No. 1203 of 30 November 1995, and paragraphs 129 and 240-1 of... Decree of the Ministry of Defence No. 055". The appellate court further noted that, when assessing the expert report of 14 September 2001, the trial court had rejected a number of its conclusions in which the experts had groundlessly stated that some of the impugned items of information had contained State secrets. The Supreme Court thus concluded that the first-instance court had critically assessed the expert report of 14 September 2001 and had only relied on those conclusions which had been objectively confirmed during the trial.
32. The Supreme Court also upheld the first-instance finding that the applicant's intent to transfer the impugned information to Mr T.O. had been proved by the recordings of his telephone conversations with the latter. The court further rejected the applicant's argument that the information in his handwritten notes could have been found in public sources. In that connection it stated - with reference to the trial court's finding - that "no data concerning the actual names of highly critical and secured military units, ships and formations, and, in particular, military intelligence units, the means and methods of radio electronic warfare, as contained in [the applicant's] handwritten notes, [was] openly published".
33. The court also rejected the applicant's argument that Decree No. 055 had been unlawfully applied in his case, holding that this decree had been operative on the date that the applicant had committed his offence and was still in force.
34. Finally, as regards the applicant's argument that the law had been applied retrospectively in his case, the Supreme Court noted:
"According to the decision of the Constitutional Court of Russia of 20 December 1995,... the requirements of Article 29 § 4 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation are implemented in the State Secrets Act of the Russian Federation of 21 July 1993, which defines the notion of State secrets and lists the information classifiable as State secrets. Later, on 30 November 1995, the List of Information classified as State secrets was enacted by Decree No. 1203 of the President of the Russian Federation.
Since collecting and keeping secret information for its transfer to a foreign citizen, committed by [the applicant], [was] a continuing criminal offence which was brought to an end on 20 November 1997, the [first-instance] court rightly applied the aforementioned legal instrument as well as the State Secrets Act, as amended on 6 October 1997, in the examination of his case."
35. The applicant unsuccessfully applied for supervisory review of his conviction.
36. On 23 January 2003 the applicant was released on parole.
II. Relevant domestic law and practice
A. Criminal liability for disclosure of State secrets
37. Article 275 (High Treason) of the Russian Criminal Code, in force as of 1 January 1997, provides that high treason, that is, espionage, disclosure of State secrets, or assistance otherwise provided to a foreign state, a foreign organisation, or their representatives, by way of hostile activities undermining the external security of the Russian Federation, committed by a Russian citizen, shall be punishable by twelve to twenty years' imprisonment and confiscation of property.
B. Laws and regulations concerning State secrets
1. The Russian Constitution of 12 December 1993
38. Article 29 § 4 of the Russian Constitution provides that everyone has the right to freely search, obtain, impart, generate and disseminate information by all lawful means and that a list of information constituting State secrets is to be defined by a federal statute.
2. The Federal Law on State Secrets
> 1 2 3 ... 25 26 27 ... 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
