On July 20, 1999, Military court in Vladivostok found Pasko guilty of 'official position abuse', sentenced him to three years in prison but gave amnesty. The verdict was cancelled by the higher court in Moscow. The re-trial against journalist Grigory Pasko starts in Vladivostok on March 22.
The Russian Federation
On July 20, 1999. Vladivostok
PACIFIC FLEET MILITARY COURT consisting of:
Presiding – Lieutenant Colonel of justice Savushkin D.P.
Judges : Lieutenant Colonel Polovnikov V.P. and Lieutenant Colonel Dronov A.P.
Court Secretary Zubrihina O.E.
With participation of State Prosecutors – senior assistant prosecutor, martial of the Pacific Fleet, Lieutenant Colonel of justice, Pogodin V.K.
Defense Attorneys Rimkunas I.I., Pyshkin A.F., Gerina Y.M., Kotlyarov O.S.,
Public Defenders: Maksimenko Y.S., Tkachenko A.P.
considered in a closed judicial session a case against the accused PASKO Grigoriy Mihaylovich born on May 19, 1962 in Kreshenovka, Novovorontsovskiy region, Hersonskaya oblast in the Ukraine SSR, [Ethnic] Ukrainian, with higher education, married, no prior convictions, rewarded with three medals, serving in the Armed Forces since 1979, since 1983 as an officer, captain of the 2nd rank for having committed the crimes stipulated in Article 275 [treason through espionage] of the Penal Code of the Russian Federation.
In course of the examination the Military Court established:
Pasko, being the head of the combat training department in the editorial staff of the Pacific Fleet newspaper “Boeyvaya Vakhta”, started collecting data in 1993, mainly obtained in the military units, in order to transfer it to representatives of the Japanese Mass Media with the purpose to get remuneration and fees in addition to money allowance, i.e. to participate in commercial activity associated with fulfilling his military service duties.
The attorney’s comment:
Take into consideration the fact that the above-written wording is right for every fellow worker in every other editorial staff that ventured to write and publish materials in a different newspaper: ” started collecting data to transfer it to representatives of the Mass Media with the purpose to get remuneration and fees in addition to money allowance, i.e. to participate in commercial activity…”
On November 2,1993 the editor-in-chief of “Boyevaya Vakhta” found that this activity was hindering Pasko from fulfilling his duties and warned him about violating the procedures for work with materials concerning military activity.
In the same year by the orders of the Fleet Commander and editor-in-chief, he got two more disciplinary penalties: for transferring information about the Pacific Fleet activity to the foreign citizens without permission, and for violating the procedures for preparing publications that concerned military activity.
Although the official documents qualifying those orders as illegal did not exist, Pasko did not stop his activity violating the procedures and regulations adopted by the Ministry of Defense in accordance with the legal norms about state secret protection, which determined procedures for publishing materials about Army and Navy (e.g. guidelines for work with state secrets in the Armed Forces, guidelines for official correspondence in the Army and Navy, order No. 355 dated from 1996 “About publishing activity in the Armed Forces of Russian Federation etc.).
The attorney’s comment:
The Court confirmed the fact that on November 2, 1993 the editor-in-chief of “Boyeveya vakhta” newspaper, OTEKIN, incurred PASKO disciplinary penalties in the form of warning for him collecting data obtained mainly in the military units in order to transfer them to Japanese journalists for fees and that this activity hindered PASKO from proper fulfilling his own duties.
In fact the Court’s conclusion contradicts the facts of the case and the evidences presented in the verdict.
The testimony of the former editor-in-chief of “Boyevaya Vakhta” newspaper, OTEKIN, confirmed only the fact that PASKO, being the head of combat training department in the editorial staff of the newspaper, simultaneously published his materials in other Mass Media. As OTEKIN testified in the court he did not know whether PASKO had transferred any information to the foreign journalists including Japanese ones. The Court did not present any other evidences to confirm the conclusion about the reasons of the penalty incurred PASKO on November 2, 1993 (for the contacts with Japanese journalists, collecting and transferring for fee to them information obtained in the military units)
The Court stated in the verdict that in 1993 PASKO got two more disciplinary penalties: By the orders of the Fleet Commander and editor-in-chief he got two more disciplinary penalties: for transferring information about Pacific Fleet activity without permission to the foreign citizens, and for violating the procedures for preparing publication concerning military activity.
The Court did not examine the grounds for issuing these orders, but convicted PASKO taking into consideration only the presence of the orders.
The conviction did not indicate neither when, where, under what circumstances and to whom of the foreigners PASKO transferred what kind of information, nor the character of damage to the Navy and the state coursed by alleged actions.
At the same time OTEKIN testified in court that the department headed by PASKO was ranked among the best. PASKO took business trips more often than others, sometimes covered expenses himself, and went on long-term missions. He was delegated to take part in the first officers meeting of Russian military forces, in the Russian submariners meeting, and was a member of the Journalists Union. PASKO G. M. being a deputy of the chief editor managed to perform his tasks. OTEKIN considered it to be possible that PASKO would have been appointed as a chief editor after OTEKIN would retire.
Taking into consideration these facts, we find the Court’s conclusion about a presence of the content of the alleged crimes in his actions, which coursed the disciplinary penalties for presenting materials to the secretariat not on time that coursed postponing of newspaper releasing, violating of the procedures for preparing materials concerning military sphere for publication, and failure to come to the work place and to perform his work tasks, ungrounded.
He certainly realised the danger to the society posed by his activity as it contradicted not only the above-mentioned orders, but also the provisions of article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation; article 47 of the Law “On Mass Media” that allows to obtain, to transfer and to spread information by legal means only; articles 10 and 24 of the Law “On the status of a military servicemen” of the Russian Federation (1993-edition); article 21 of the Charter of internal service in the Military Forces of the Russian Federation; the Set of rules for the editorial staff, publishing house and printing house of the military unit (including naval) newspaper from 1996 that obliges every military serviceman to obey unconditionally the general military charters; orders and guidelines by the Minister of Defense to act in military service benefit only; the provisions of the Law “On state secret” and article 4 of the Law ” On Mass Media”, which state that the officials should not misuse freedom of the Mass Media. Pasko regularly abused his official position, in own benefit every time.
All the theoretical deliberations about PASKO obligation to obey the provisions of the Constitution, Laws of the Russian Federation, orders by the Minister of Defense, military charters and guidelines, do not confirm his guilt since the court does not indicate which crimes Pasko committed and which negative consequences that has led to.
The Court’s conclusion that PASKO regularly abused his official position and acted in his own benefit only is in discordance with the facts of the case. In the verdict the Court did not present any evidences to base its conclusion on.
From 1995 till 1997 he got access to the closed military units 40752 and 63916 using an excuse to write articles for “Boevaya Vakhta” or to shoot video reportage to the benefit of Russia, its citizens and Military Forces. Actually he filmed objects on the storage sites (e.g. casks of transport containers in October 1997) without permission of his superiors.
The attorney comment:
PASKO was found guilty for getting access to closed military units 40752 and 63916 using an excuse to write articles for “Boevaya Vakhta” or to shoot reportage in benefit of Russia, its citizens and Military Forces. There he filmed objects on the storage sites (e.g. casks of transport containers in October 1997) without permission of his superiors.
As a ground for the conclusion about PASKO guilt the Court points on his request to the Commander of the head-quarters and Commander-in chief of the Pacific Fleet for permission to collect data and to film decommissioning of nuclear powered submarines, dumping of radioactive waste on the Pacific Fleet and nuclear spent fuel transportation by special train.
But the Court did not indicate in which military unit the film was made, which casks, containers and other objects were filmed and why filming of them was prohibited, which superiors should give the permission. The verdict did not point to the laws which provisions were violated by PASKO. At the same time during court hearing it was established that PASKO got into closed military units of the Pacific Fleet by permissions of the head-quarter commander and Commander-in-chief only, or along with them. Every time he had got business assignment and written permission from the commandership of the Pacific Fleet. The documents are attached to the case files. Every filming and photo was made in presence and by permission of representatives of the commandership and by agreement of FSB officers. They looked through the materials. Only after that, PASKO used the materials to prepare video reportage and newspaper publications – this is confirmed by the actual facts of the case.
The defendant informed the Director of the Vladivistok branch of the Japanese TV Radio company “NHK” about his plans to visit the military units and reported to him on the results because he tried by any means, including unofficial, to obtain information or to get acquainted with servicemen familiar with the information that he was interested in. He monthly paid $300 to the defendant for such cooperation.
Pasko is accused of informing the Director of the Vladivistok branch of the Japanese TV Radio company NHK about plans to visit the military units and reporting him on the results of visits to units 40752 and 63916, because he tried by any means, including unofficial, to obtain information or to get acquainted with the persons familiar with the information that he was interested in. He monthly paid to the PASKO $ 300 for providing him with information.
When qualifying PASKO’s alleged actions as criminal, the Court violated part 1 of the article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the RSFSR, as it did not indicate when PASKO informed the Director of the Vladivostok branch of the Japanese TVRC NHK about the planned visits, to which of those two military units, how many times and what results PASKO reported him about, which data the director was interested in, during which period PASKO was paid monthly $300, what the total sum was paid, what meant the phrase ” tried by any means, including unofficial, to obtain information or to get acquainted with the persons familiar with the information that he was interested in”. The Court also had to indicate the reason for qualifying the alleged actions as criminal and the consequences of those actions. The Court used the testimony of T.DZUN, the former director of the Vladivostok branch of TVRC NHK, got in course of the preliminary investigation, as the evidence of PASKO’s guilt. T.DSUN testified that PASKO almost every month came to TVRC office to get $300 as fee and almost every time he brought some materials, twice he brought video materials.
However, by giving this testimony T. Dzun confirmed only the fact that PASKO came to TVRC office, brought some materials and was paid fee monthly. T. DZUN did not testify that PASKO informed him about plans to visit closed military units or reported him about the results of the visits.
In June-July, 1996 Pasko supplied the mentioned director with official military information intended only for internal use about the place and approximate date of the train with spent nuclear fuel departure.
PASKO was found guilty for in June-July 1996 having supplied the director of the TVRC NHK office with the information about the place and approximate date of the departure of the train with spent nuclear fuel, i.e.: official military information intended for internal use only. But the Court violated part 1 of the article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Code of RSFSR as it did not present in the verdict the evidences of the alleged actions.
As the evidence of PASKO’s alleged crime the Court presented the reference from the FSB records which stated that DOGADKO had informed PASKO about the approximate date of the departure of the special train with nuclear spent fuel. Besides the verdict points to the testimony of TAKAO DZUN obtained in course of the preliminary investigation who told that PASKO came to the NHK office on the eve of the business trip “to the place from which the trains with nuclear waste departed”. Although the reference from FSB records mentioned in the verdict, said that the talk took place on October 10, 1997, not in June-July, 1996. Witness T. DZUN testified about his meeting with PASKO in October 1997, not in the summer of 1996.
Besides, T. DZUN testified that he did not remember whether PASKO had informed him about the place and the date of the train departure or not. In accordance with his testimony (personal records 204, volume 2) he got acquainted with PASKO in August, 1996. So, PASKO could not inform him about the date of the train departure in June or July, 1996. TAKAO DZUN arrived in Vladivistok and took over duties from NACU HIROUKY in August 1996. But the reference attached to the case said that the train with spent nuclear fuel departed from Primorski krai in July, 1996 (p.r.199, v.4).
In July the same year the defendant filmed the train by video camera obtained in the NHK office and handed over video materials to the head of the mentioned office for an extra fee of not less than $500.
PASKO was found guilty for filming the train with nuclear spent fuel by the video camera obtained in NHK office in July, 1996 and for handing the video reportage over to the office director for a fee not less than $ 500. TAKAO DZUN testified that reportage about the train transporting nuclear waste was made with PASKO participation (p.r.208, v.2)
PASKO, interrogated in the Court, testified that he did film the train in July 1996. But he filmed by permission of the commander of the head-quarters, with consent of ZAHARCHENKO, FSB representative on the base, and SHAR, the head of the train. GOLUB, the head of technical department of the head-quarters were present. Nothing secret was filmed since the special train from outside looks similar to a regular goods train. Later, after the train had departed from the Pacific Fleet, by request of the Japanese journalists, he participated as an advisor in making video reportage about transportation of nuclear spent fuel from the Pacific Fleet.
According to the testimonies of the witnesses KENKESHVILY, GOLUB, DOGADKO, FOMIN, the protocol of reviewing the records of visitors and vehicles incomes-outcomes, PASKO visited military unit 40752 several times, in particular in July, 1996 and on October 14 and 22, 1997. In July 1996 he filmed the train for nuclear spent fuel transportation, and on October 14, 1997 wanted to shoot the train in motion but was denied shooting. Working on the storage site, he filmed casks and transport containers without permission. But the Court did not indicate what damage to state interests were brought by PASKO’s actions.
As the case does not contain facts showing that PASKO’s actions led to damage of state interests, the video footage is not attached to the case, it brings us to the conclusion that PASKO has not committed any crime.
In the first part of 1997 Pasko handed over video footage to the director of the TVRC office for an extra fee. The video footage contained several episodes made in different places, in particular on the storage site of the military unit 63916 on February 27-28 .
The attorney comment:
The Court found proved the fact that in the first part of 1997 Pasko handed over video footage to the director of TVRC office for an extra fee. The video footage contained several pieces made in different places, in particular on the storage site of the military unit 63916 on February 27-28.
But the Court did not establish and it did not indicate what video footage was shot and handed over to the director of the TVRC office and why the Court found that illegal. The Court restricted to non-concrete deliberations that PASKO ignored requirements to examine footages with scrutiny whether they contained information constituting state secrets or not. The Court also mentioned the testimony of witness MOISEENKO that by his permission PASKO shot the storage site in the military service 63916 and on the plant “Krasny vympel” in his presence. Court did not point out what crime that was committed by PASKO’s actions. In essence it confirmed legal nature of his actions.
The Court did not find and did not present any evidences that PASKO had handed over video footage shot on the storage site in the military unit 63916 or in other places.
In both cases, the defendant ignored the requirements stipulated by the above-mentioned laws and legal norms. In accordance with them, he had to examine with scrutiny footages whether they contained information pertaining to state secrets or not. PASKO also violated the requirements concerning the collecting information about locations with restricted admission.
The Court considers journalist to be obliged to obtain permission for shooting video footage, and then order an experts’ evaluation of the footage to find whether it contains any secrets or not. The fact that the Court has denied request for carrying out interagency experts’ evaluation to the defence team points out difficulty in obtaining such an evaluation.
Approximately in 1996 he arbitrarily drew the map of the storage site in the military unit 40572 on an unregistered sheet of paper with peculiarities that disclosed the location and function of the most important infrastructures and the closed location in general, i.e. the map contained information pertaining to state secrets. Obtaining the information Pasko abused the trust appropriate to his official position.
He planned to attach the map to the text of his book about radioactive waste management on the Pacific Fleet. The book was to be published without any preliminary examination of its content whether it constituted state secrets or not, or any other information restricted for open publication.
The Court found PASKO guilty for in 1996, abusing his official position, he drew a map of the storage site in the military unit 40752 with peculiarities disclosing location and function of the most important infrastructures which pertained to state secrets, on an unrecorded list of paper. He planned to attach the map to the text of his book about radioactive waste management. The book was to be published without preliminary permission of his superiors for publication.
Four different maps of the military unit 40752, allegedly confiscated from PASKO’s apartment were attached to the criminal case files. But the body of preliminary investigation and the court came to the conclusion that PASKO drew only one of them. It’s impossible to establish which one and whether it was confiscated from PASKO’s apartment since it is not mentioned in the records of the search as retrieved.
Contradicting the conclusion of the experts from the 8th Department of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, the note of the Pacific fleet head-quarters commander to FSB dated December 5, 1997 states that the map is not secret (p.r. 152-154, v. 7). However, the Court did not evaluate that fact. In the course of the court hearing it was established that maps of the military unit 40752 with designation of infrastructures can be seen on walls at the offices of some officials. The maps constitute no secrets. The military unit, in particular the offices where the maps can be seen, are visited by American military experts and nobody is hiding the maps from them.
Moreover numerous witnesses interrogated in the Court testified that the map attached to the case files as allegedly confiscated from PASKO’s apartment do not correspond to the current location and designation of the infrastructures, uncompleted and drawn before 1993, but not in 1996 as the verdict states.
Besides, while caring out their evaluation, the experts were not provided with the current map of the military unit with designation of the infrastructures, i.e.: the experts had not a possibility to identify whether an alleged map is correct and corresponds to the current location of the infrastructures. So, their conclusions cannot be considered as well-grounded, and build the basis of the verdict.
The Court did not consider the fact that the report of the International environmental organization Greenpeace contains the detailed data about the base and infrastructures drawn on the map that attached to the case files as an alleged map of the military unit.
On February 28th, 1997 Pasko, while shooting the photo and video footages, without permission asked a chief engineer of the Military Unit 63916, Sangishev R.Y., questions in accordance with a questionnaire prepared by Japanese journalists in order to obtain information, in particular information restricted for open publication.
The director of the NHK TVRC office knew that Pasko had the questionnaire and intended to obtain the above-mention information. Therefore, he considered meeting with Pasko, after his return from the business trip, as essential and urgent.
As it’s evident from the testimony of SANGISHEV, which he gave in the course of the preliminary investigation and the court hearing, PASKO did not try to obtain any secret information about technical condition of the base from him and SANGISHEV did not tell him that information. SANGISHEV also testified that during the conversation with PASKO he did not see PASKO’s intention to obtain information that exceeded regular journalistic interest. But the court biasly evaluated SANGISHEV’s testimony and mentioned only the part which confirmed the fact that the conversation had taken place and PASKO had the questionnaire at that moment. Though the conversation as such cannot be considered as criminal.
The Court also biasly applied the experts’ evaluation. It says that “The questions about the ways of securing of liquid rocket fuel in Russia” constitute secrets only in case they are fully answered. But the case files do not contain evidences that PASKO obtained or tried to obtain full answer to any of the questions or, moreover, transferred any of the obtained information.
Besides, the Court did not evaluate the testimony of the witness VOROGBIT, that said that the above-mentioned questions were officially submitted to the Fleet head-quarters as early as in 1994. The questionnaire, that PASKO had, did not pertain to secrets.
On January 31, 1997 the defendant obtained the second copy of the secret “Guidelines for rescue space ships by Russian Navy “in the head-quarters of the Pacific Fleet from Amirov K.H., and made photocopies of 10 pages from the document without informing anyone.
Qualifying PASKO’s alleged actions as criminal, the Court referred to testimony of the witness AMIROV and to the records of a search in PASKO’s apartment. AMIROV confirmed only the fact that he gave PASKO the document.
PASKO admitted the fact that he obtained the document from AMIROV. But he explained that he needed Guidelines to prepare publication about the carrying out of rescue operations. This fact is confirmed by testimony of AMIROV as well as by other evidence attached to the case files, including the article published in “Boyevaya vakhta”. Besides, PASKO told he copied or made transcripts of no secret information from the Guidelines. That statement is in consent with the facts of the case.
10 pages copied from the Guidelines and allegedly confiscated from PASKO’s apartment during the search on November 20th, 1997 are attached to the case files.
Although, the records of the search did not mention which pages copied from the Guidelines that were retrieved. The records of the survey only contain numbers of the pages from the Guidelines allegedly confiscated from PASKO’s apartment. But in the course of chemical analysis of the records the experts found that the numbers of the pages were written into the records of survey by ink different from the most of records on the same page, i.e. the body of preliminary investigation forged the facts of the case. Therefore, in accordance with the art. 69 of the Criminal Procedure Code of RSUR, the facts cannot build the ground of the verdict.
Bias of the Court is proved by the fact that it applied the conclusion of the experts of the 8th Department of the General Staff of Armed Forces of the RF as an evidence of PASKO’ guilt. Though the expert’s conclusion states that 10 pages copied from the Guidelines do not contain information pertaining to state secret.
Therefore, even in case we agree with the Court’s conclusion that the pages were copied by PASKO, his alleged actions do not contain the content of the crime, since the Court found evident the fact that PASKO did not hand over the pages to anyone. Keeping at home the pages with the information that do not constitute state secrets, even if they’re copied from the secret document, do not form the content of the crime.
In March 1997 the defendant obtained the report from the assistant of the Pacific Navy Chief Commander on finance-economical activity, which contained information restricted for open release and made a photocopy of it. In November he obtained materials of the same content from the Agricultural Department of Primorski Krai Administration and copied them.
The verdict does not mention the testimony of SHEVCHENKO who authored the report and said that it did not contain information pertaining to state secrets. He wrote similar reports during several years while being on military service in the Pacific Fleet and at the financial department of Moscow military district. All the reports as well as reports by the head of the Naval Financial department and the head of Military Budget and Finance Department of Defense Ministry of the Russian Federation, did not contain secret information. To confirm his testimony he presented to the court a copy of the report by the head of Military Budget and Finance Department to the session of the Defense Ministry collegium on the results of financial activity in the Armed Forces of Defense Ministry RF from 1998 (r. N 22577 from 29.03.1999). The report was not stamped classified.
As it’s evident from testimony of SHEVCHENKO, the 8th department of the Pacific Fleet headquarters regularly examined the department headed by him, but never demanded to stamp the reports classified.
Taking into consideration the above-mentioned circumstances and the fact that in accordance with the decree adopted by the Minister of Defense of the Soviet Union N010-1990 and valid in the period of PASKO’s alleged actions, the author of the report was to determine whether its content is secret or not. PASKO did not commit any crime making photocopy of the report by an assistant of the Pacific Fleet Chief Commander, even without his permission.
– Abusing his official position, Pasko obtained from the technical department of the Pacific Fleet: “Reference-report. I. Decommissioning of nuclear submarines in the Pacific Fleet and providing their floating capacity”; “A list of nuclear submarines on which accidents and incidents took place” that contained information disclosing numbers of submarines which are not the subject of international agreements, i.e.: the information pertains to state secrets.
– In the same period in the department of artillery of the Pacific Fleet – “III. Armament decommissioning” disclosing the number of the military unit 63916, i.e. secret information.
Violating requirements for using secret information and regulations for work with the documents (materials) for internal use only (the regulations stipulated by Ministry of Defence decree from 1983 No. 170, as well as by the Set of rules determined by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation from November 3rd, 1994 No. 1233) Pasko did not keep accounts of the copied documents, and kept them at his apartment where unauthorised persons could access the documents.
In violation of the regular rules, the defendant used information from “Reference-Report”, in particular, intended for internal use only, in his article ” Measures provided, debts not paid”.
The attorney comment:
The Court came to a conclusion about the presence of the content of the alleged crimes in PASKO’s actions without grounds.
First of all, PASKO’s actions cannot be considered as criminal for not keeping accounts of the documents copied. The verdict does not mention which documents PASKO had to account, probably, 10 pages copied from the Guidelines and SHEVCHENKO’s report. Although, in accordance with the USSR Ministry of Defence decree N 10-1990, only secret documents are to be accounted. But as it’s evident from the case files, the report by SHEVCHENKO was classified by experts from the 8th department of the General Staff of Armed Forces of the RF only in the course of preliminary investigation.
As for the 10 pages copied from the Guidelines, even if we accept established the fact that the copies were made by PASKO, the experts found them not secret. Therefore they are not to be accounted.
Taking into consideration these facts and a lack of proof that unauthorised persons used the documents causing huge damage to the legal state interests, PASKO cannot be held responsible for keeping documents at his apartment. Accusing PASKO of inserting information from Reference-report intended for internal use only, into the article “Measures provided, debts not paid”, the Court did not mention what information that was put into the article confiscated from PASKO. Besides, on evaluating the evidences, the Court did not take into consideration the fact that FSB retrieved from a computer only a draft of the article, which was to be revised by its author. It could result in the article not containing secret information.
Other facts significant for proving PASKO’s guilt of the items of the indictment were not evaluated properly. As it is evident from the records of search in PASKO’s apartment (p.r. 15-19, v.5) “Reference-report. I. Decommissioning of nuclear submarines in the PF and providing their floating capacity”, “A list of nuclear submarines on which accidents and incidents took place”, “III. Armament decommissioning” and report by SHEVCHENKO, were not retrieved.
The verdict was right in pointing out that the witnesses’ testimonies were insufficient to establish from whom and under what circumstances PASKO obtained “Reference-report. I. Decommissioning of nuclear submarines in the PF and providing their floating capacity”.
The Court’s conclusion that by the results of investigation, in particular, by a copy of summary from September 4th, 1997 the fact is established that PASKO obtained the reference-report from the Pacific Fleet head-quarters is not proved by the facts of the case.
Furthermore, as it is evident from the conclusion of the experts from the 8th department at the General Staff the reference “Retired submarines in the Pacific Fleet” attached to the case files does not constitute state secret.
The experts’ conclusion states that “Reference-report. I. Decommissioning of nuclear submarines in the PF and providing their floating capacity” contains information disclosing presence (amount) of nuclear fuel onboard submarines and numbers of nuclear submarines that pertains to state secrets.
This conclusion is ungrounded since it does not indicate what information that discloses the presence of nuclear weapon(fuel) onboard nuclear submarines. Besides, nuclear submarines are designed to have nuclear weapons (fuel) onboard. The experts’ conclusion points, albeit, in brackets, that the report discloses information on the amount of nuclear fuel onboard nuclear submarines. But it does not explain how the amount or presence of nuclear fuel can be estimated. Who can find out, by what way, using which information. Without these facts the conclusion can not be considered well grounded. It’s based on an assumption and can not be applied as a proof. The conclusion did not mention the fact that the report said about retired nuclear submarines, i.e.: the submarines taken out of service , and any data on such submarines do not constitute state secrets. It was told by the Pacific Fleet head-quarters commander to the investigation body on December 5th, 1997 (p.r. 152-154, v.7). The same fact was testified by DOGADO an expert in the Pacific Fleet head-quarters at work with data on retired submarines.
In the Court hearing on June 2, 1999 the reference similar to “Reference-report. I. Decommissioning of nuclear submarines in the PF and providing their floating capacity” was attached to the case files. It was presented by the Fleet head-quarters and was open.
Besides the case files consist of another reference – ” Retired nuclear submarines”. By conclusion of the experts from the 8th department at the General Staff this reference is open (p.r. 115-116, v. 5, p.r. 265, v. 7). But as compared with “Reference-report. I. Decommissioning of nuclear submarines in the PF and providing their floating capacity” it contains tactical numbers of the same nuclear submarines. So it’s unclear why one document is found open and another one classified (p.r. 260-273, v.7)
The Court mentions the testimonies of the witnesses TISHENKO and PANKOV as a proof of PASKO’s guilt of obtaining the “List of submarines on which accidents and incidents took place” from the technical department of the Pacific Fleet. But from the testimonies follows the fact that PASKO obtained only open data on the servicemen, which took place in recovering operation after nuclear accidents.
By the conclusion of the experts from the 8th department at the General Staff the above-mentioned List contained information disclosing [tactical] numbers of nuclear submarines (p.r.260-273, v.7). But it contains the tactical numbers of submarines that are the same as those in the reference “Retired nuclear submarines” attached to the case files. The reference “Retired nuclear submarines” was found open by experts, but the same experts found “List of submarines on which accidents and incidents took place” secret.
The Court mentioned the testimonies of the witnesses MOISEENKO and VOROGBIT as evidences of PASKO’s guilt. They testified that “III. Armament decommissioning” is a part of secret reference-report by the head of artillery department.
At the same time the Court did not present any evidence in order to substantiate that the document was confiscated at PASKO’s apartment. Besides, in accordance with the experts’ conclusion the document is not classified. Only the number of the military unit 63916 mentioned in the document pertains to state secrets (p.r.260-273, v.7).
Pasko planned to hand over parts of the materials about decommissioning, materials concerning co-operation between the Administration of Primorsky Krai and the Agricultural department of the Chinese Republic, as well as materials on the defense industry in the region obtained in October 1997 from a chairman of the Krai committee of shipyards workers’ trade-union, which contained information for internal use only, to the director of NHK TVRCo office or to the correspondent of Japanese newspaper “Asahy simbun” Tadashi OKANO, with whom the defendant had been cooperating since 1996, assisting him to obtain the above-mentioned materials or other information which was interesting for him, including the information for internal use only.
The case files do not contain any evidence that substantiates that PASKO had the purpose to hand over these documents to anyone. The verdict does not mention the evidences either. The Court did not take into consideration the testimonies of the witnesses BOMKO and PONAMOROV, that they handed over the documents to a journalist PASKO, with whom they had not been acquainted before, since the documents did not contain information restricted for free disclosing, also through Mass Media as well. The documents were not stamped classified and did not contain information intended for internal use only.
On September 10-11, 1997 Pasko attended the session of the Pacific Fleet Military Counsel for an analysis of the Navy’s manoeuvres, as an acting deputy of the chief editor of “Boyevaya Vakhta” newspaper.
Again ignoring the Guidelines for work with state secrets he made notes of the Council members speeches and manoeuvres’ analysis which was discussed at the meeting on unregistered pages.
The notes contained information pertaining to state secrets and were retrieved from his apartments in the course of the search on November 20-21, 1997.
The attorney comment:
The Court grounds its verdict on the testimonies of the witnesses VERHOVOD, USHAKOV, RYAZANTSEV, SHEVCHENKO, as well as on the experts’ conclusion and information from the investigation records. Though these facts do not confirm the presence of the content of the alleged crimes in his actions.
VERHOVOD testified that in September 1997 PASKO was an acting deputy of a chief editor and was allowed to attend the session. The secretary of the Military Counsel USHAKOV also testified that PASKO was allowed to attend the session during the analysis of the navy forces’ manoeuvres and to take notes. He explained that anyone could get access to the session only if they were in the list of invited persons.
In accordance with the records attached to the case files, the experts made two evaluations. But no evaluation points at which information pertains to state secrets. The evaluations contain only non- concrete deliberations.
As for the evaluations, the fact should be taken into consideration that a reference of the Pacific Fleet head-quarters commander from December 5th, 1997 was attached to p.r. 152-154, v. 7. It tells that the notes taken at the Military Counsel session on September 10th, 1997 do not constitute state secrets. Besides, the reference attached to p.r. 156, v. 7 points out that the speeches of the session participants during analysis of the navy forces’ manoeuvres were not recorded. So while evaluating, the experts did not have records of what was discussed at the session and could not compare it with PASKO’s alleged notes. The notes attached to the case files could contain incorrect information, figures, writing mistakes, since the author could misunderstand or mishear speakers. So, the evaluation can not be considered as well-grounded, as it’s based on an assumption.
The facts of the case confirm only that PASKO attended the session of the Military Counsel, as well during analysis of the navy forces manoeuvres, and took notes for himself. The Court’s conclusion that PASKO assisted TADASHI OKANO to obtain information about navy manoeuvres does not follow from the facts of the case.
Moreover, the Court found it evident that the case files do not contain facts that PASKO divulged state secret or made attempts to disclose state secret or assisted foreign states, organisations or its representatives in hostile activity to undermine external security of the Russian Federation.
Besides the Court did not establish in what way the notes got into the case files. By the preliminary investigation body’s explanation, the notes were retrieved from PASKO’s apartment during the search. Though, the protocol of the search on November 20th, 1997 does not mention the notes.
In the court hearing the defendant did not admit guilt for committing the above-mentioned crimes.
The following is the Court’s version of PASKO’s testimonies. To familiarise yourself with PASKO’s attitude look in the documents themselves.
He testified that he did not breach the provision of the Constitution and federal laws. He fulfilled the requirements of the Ministry of Defence decrees, in the part which does not contradict the current legislation.
While co-operating with Japanese Mass Media, he rendered only open information, primarily concerning radioactive waste management and environment, sometimes advised on video reportage made on the same issues by NHK TVRCo for an occasional fee of $100-300 paid by the director of the NHK office. After getting the fee, he filled in the receipt similar to the one attached to the case files.
He also permitted the NHK office director to transmit to Japan two video reports (about departure of the train with nuclear spent fuel and about dismantling of the rockets Shtorm and Volna design) shot by Pasko with consent of the Fleet commandership and the plant Krasny Vimpel administration, though he did not get fee on that occasion. He collected data about the Fleet or other information and persons, which had particular knowledge, in order to write articles and books. The information was collected on the Fleet commandership initiative. He obtained materials concerning nuclear accidents from the technical department at Tishenko’s request.
His articles were to be published in the “Boyevaya Vakhta” newspaper, as well as in other Mass Media, in particular, Japanese.
He needed the notes taken at the Military Counsel session and a couple of days later after the participants of the manoeuvres’ analysis, in order to file an appropriate report and to write a final article about combat training during 1997 and, besides, to train his subordinates in the “changes of the navy structure”.
“The map of the base was drawn by him probably, “but not completely and before 1996, while he was writing a book about radioactive waste management in the Pacific Fleet and planned to attach some maps, in particular, the above-mentioned one, which was obviously uncompleted”.
The questionnaire attached to the case files was handed over to him by Vorogbit among other materials to familiarise with. He discussed the questionnaire with some of the officers, in particular with the head of the Pacific Fleet artillery department Moiseenko, with the purpose to write an article about the “provocative character of the questions”.
The document “III. Armament decommissioning” he could obtain from Moiseenko or at his request from Malyshenko and others of the officers in the artillery department”. Pasko admitted the fact that he had in a computer a draft of the article “Measures provided, debts not paid”. He used “Reference-report. I. Decommissioning of nuclear submarines in the Pacific Fleet and providing their floating capacity” to write article “Measures provided, debts not paid”.
He admitted also the fact that he without permission made a photo-copy of the “introduction and conclusion of the Guidelines for rescue space ships”, obtained from Amirov.
At the same time Pasko denied the fact that he kept materials pertaining to state secrets or intended for internal use only, at his apartment.
He denied as well the fact that he disclosed information about the place and date of the departure of the train with Spent Nuclear Fuel in the conversation with Tako Dzun.
As for the materials retrieved from him at the customs, he explained that he took them to Japan with the purpose to work on them there, not to hand it over to Tadashi Okano.
He refused to explain from whom he obtained the Reference-report and whether he made a copy of the report by the assistant of the Fleet Chief Commander on finance, and whether he discussed the questionnaire with Takao Dzun.
He also refused to answer the questions concerning the justification of the actions of the person to have disregarded the order as well as the serviceman’s right to appeal the actions (decisions) of the military command bodies and the military officers to the court. The decisions concerned the combination of the information constituted the state secret and which is to be classified and the information, which isn’t to be kept secret.
Here the court finished the paraphrase of the Pasko’s testimonies. As it is evident from the material of Pasko this paraphrase is unfair:
At the same time the guilt of Pasko is confirmed with the following evidences searched during the trial in details.
The witness Otekin Y.P. (the former executive editor of the newspaper “Military Watch”) testified that in 1993 Pasko, being the chief of the military training department of the newspaper, was engaged in the other activities in the interests of the other mass media, what disturbed proper execution of his office duties.
The Pasko’s comments:
First of all, it isn’t clear, what does it mean the “other” activities? Secondly, according to the Russian Constitution (art.29) and to the law on the mass media I have THE FULL RIGHT as a journalist to publish where I want, when I want and at the same time I’m able to receive the fee. (Besides, there are not any data in the case, if I obtained the fee anywhere. I am emphasizing – the HONORARIUM instead of the mythic “compensation” used by the court very often.)
Several times Pasko was called to disciplinary account because of that as well as because of the disregarding the demands of the secret regime and the order of the handling the service information limited distribution, while he was preparing the material about the Military Forces of Russian Federation for publishing.
The given testimonies are confirmed with the ID and with the order of the Pacific Fleet’s Commander dated 1993 No 411. According to them at the 28th of April 1993 Pasko “was reprimanded for conscious violating of the established order during the transferring the material of his to secretariat, what entailed the delay of the newspaper’s run-out”, at the 2nd of the November of the same year he was “warned against his service correspondence uncompleted because of his lapses in service work, his duties’ non-fulfilment and direct non-execution of orders and instructions of editorial board as well”; at 9th of the November he “was reprimanded strictly for unsanctioned transferring the materials about the works carried out in the interests of the Pacific Fleet to the foreigners and for constant violating of the preparation rules for publishing the materials concerning the military issues as well”; at the 30th of June 1995 he was “reprimanded strictly for non-appearance to his service during three days and for task’s non-fulfilment”; at the 18th of September he was “reprimanded strictly for divulging the information to be forbidden for publishing in the article “Our cargo train, go forward!”; and finally, at the 15thof May 1997 he was “reprimanded for bad preparation of materials for publishing, what entailed the divulging of the close information”.
The Pasko’s comments:
As the court completely ignored my demands to search in details ALL EDITOR’s ORDERS concerned my punishment, the invalid statement has appeared in the sentence that I didn’t follow the demands of the secret regime and “was called to the disciplinary account”. The absurdity and the incredibility of this statement is proven with the statement itself: if there were the violations of the secret regime, then there were the facts of the secrets’ divulging or the premises to that. And as it is known, these kinds of actions are penal acts instead of just breaches of discipline. Therefore it is obviously, if there were not grounds for the initiating of criminal cases, there were not penal acts and the violations of the “secret regime” as well.
As it is evident from the reports’ copies of the military training department’ chief of the Pacific Fleet’s newspaper “Military Watch”, Pasko G.M., in 1996 he applied to the Chief of the Pacific Fleet Staff as well as in a year to the Commander-in-chief for permission to make a film “on the utilization of the submarines and the radioactive waste at the Pacific Fleet” and according to the editorial plan to collect different materials including “about the dispatch of spent nuclear fuel, the decommission of the subs and the weaponry “.
According to the testimonies of the witness Mr. Verhovod (the former assistant of the editor–in-chief of the newspaper “Military Watch”), which he gave after the declaration the above-mentioned reports, the indicated appeals of Pasko are the violations of subordination and, besides, testify about his objectives to prepare the materials in interests of the other mass media making reference to the editorial plan.
The Pasko’s comments:
The detailed investigation of the orders about my punishment as well as the simple comparing of the detached duty’s certificates signed by Otekin and Verhovod with their testimonies during the trial allows to make certain that the testimonies of these persons are false, besides, these testimonies don’t testify about my violations of the subordination and my objectives to prepare the materials for the other mass media at all. I have a hundred-per-cent proof of my truth against THEIR each absurd accusation- that is the published materials of mine just in the “Military Watch”.
Verhovod also testified, that in September 1997 he acted for the editor-in-chief, and Pasko on behalf of editor’s duty and, therefore, he could be present at the Military Councils or at the other service meetings.
Pasko informed him about the results of the Military Council to have held at the 10th of September, but only in the field concerned the command’s estimation of the activities of the editorial office. He doesn’t remember, if Pasko informed him the results of the estimation of the classification training. He knows nothing about the objective of Pasko to carry out the training with the subordinates about the changes in the body of the fleet.
Verhovod also claimed, that Pasko collected the materials at the administration of Primorsky region on his own, not informed him about that.
The fact of Mr. Pasco’s presence at the meeting of the Pacific Fleet Military Council of September 10, 199 was confirmed by witness Mr. M.A. Ushakov, secretary of the Military Council, who also testified that after the Council had finished working, the persons present in the room started discussing the results of the navy training of the Fleet mobile forces.
In this part Mr. M.A. Ushakov’s testimony corresponds to the certificate of Mr. V.D.Riazantsev, the Commander’s Deputy, according to which the navy training’s examination of September 1, 1997 was performed by «the persons present in compliance with the list of persons invited to the meeting of the Pacific Fleet Military Council¹.
Mr. Pasco’s comments to the following
«Nothing is known of Mr. Pasko’s intention to conduct studies with Mr. Verkhovod’s subordinates¹.
Taking into account the fact that both Mr. Otiekin and Mr. Verkhovod regularly did not come to the editorial office, it seems more reasonable to ask THE SUBORDINATES THEMSELVES if I had conducted studies on the Fleet structure with them. I claim that I had conducted the studies and bring up the names of Fomin, Viazov, Pozhidaev, Dolgikh.
Mr. Ushakov COULD NOT confirm the fact of my presence at the Military Council meeting since he himself WAS NOT PRESENT at this meeting. Thus, this is another example of the Court’s regular forgery.
Mr. Ushakov’s testimony absolutely contradicts Mr. Riazantsev’s testimony, as the former testified that the meeting took place in one room and the latter testified that the meeting was held in different places. Besides, Mr. Ushakov testified that during the maneuvers examination, ONLY the Military Council members were present, and Mr. Pasko does not belong to the Counsel.
The testimony of Mr. I. T. Shevchenko (the assistant of the Pacific Fleet Commander on financial and economic issues) also confirmed Mr. Pasko’s presence at the meetings on classified issues. Shevchenko testified that he in March 1997 handed over his report to Pasko on the latter’s request, so that the containing information could be used in the preparation of an article on financial issues for publication in “Boyevaya Vakhta”. After approximately 40 minutes Mr. Pasko returned Mr. Shevchenko the report and told that he “had written down everything he needed”. In course of the preliminary investigation, the witness learned that during the search of Mr. Pasko’s apartment the Copy of the above mentioned report was confiscated. Mr. Shevchenko did not give Mr. Pasko his permission for making a copy of the report. The witness did not think the defendant could abuse his trust.
It is stated that Mr. Shevchenko’s report was confiscated at my apartment. In order to make certain that this assertion is false, it is enough to read through the search records. The report is not recorded in it and neither is ANY SINGLE document I am made liable for.
Concerning the meaning of the verdict-line: « the witness did not think the defendant could abuse his trust¹. Firstly, the Court does not identify the particular fact of the abuse, i.e.: how it manifested itself. Secondly, the Court did with purpose leave out the witness’ words that the report was NEITHER CLASSIFIED NOR MEANT FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY. Thirdly, the Court’s approach to use quotations is amateurish regarding what the phrase «the witness did not think¹ means. The witness is not simply an (ordinary) witness but a person who had AUTHORED THE REPORT and in accordance with the law could decide to which extent the document he had prepared was of a classified nature. Besides this person OUT OF HIS OWN FREE WILL AND ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE handed over to me the report which did not have any classified stamp.
The witnesses Mr. K. Kh. Amirov, Mr. N. I. Bomko, Mr. V. V. Ponamariev, Mr. G. G. Tishchenko, Mr. V. I. Pankov, Mr. V. V. Vorozhbit, Mr. I. D. Moiseenko were also sure of Mr. Pasko’s honesty and that he would abide by the regulations of work with classified information and information meant for internal use only.
The Court juggled with the facts once again. Firstly, the documents in question ARE NOT classified. Secondly, there are no records of my dishonesty or moreover of my criminal action in this badly written verdict.
Mr. K. Kh. Amirov (Head of the Search and Rescue Activities Department of the Pacific Fleet) told that on January 31, 1997 in the Fleet headquarters, Mr. Pasko asked him for a copy No. 2 of the secret Guidelines on Spacecraft’s Search and Rescue Support – 93, without informing him of his intention to make copies of several pages. Mr. Amirov learned about it only after Mr. Pasko was detained, since Pasko did not make appropriate records and did not keep accounts of the documents copied.
I am certain that the Court refused to investigate Mr. Amirov’s testimony as well as the fact that he handed over the Guidelines to me, although both the defense and even the prosecution asked the Court to get back to this episode.
Witness Mr. N. I. Bomko (the Head of the above mentioned Trade Unions Committee), testified that in October 1997 he passed over various material to Mr. Pasko to be used for [Pasko’s] preparation of an article for «Boevaia Vakhta¹. Allegedly the article was permitted by the chief editor. According to witness Mr. V. V. Ponomariev (a leading specialist in external and internal economic and regional relations, of the agricultural department of the Primorsky Region administration), Mr. Pasko gained from him materials concerning the cooperation between the mentioned administration and the Agricultural department of the People’s Democratic Republic of China, with the same purpose in November 1997. In course of the case-investigation he found out that Mr. Pasko made Xerox copies of these documents without his permission.
The witnesses also testified that Pasko did not inform them about his purpose to hand over the materials received from them to the representatives of other Mass Media or about a possible transfer of the materials to other countries.
The Verdict presents the testimonies of the witnesses Amirov, Bomko, Ponamariev in a distorted and biased way.
The Verdict’s statement that Mr. Ponamariev found out that I made copies of the materials only “in course of the case-investigation” contradicts the reality. As the witness himself testified in Court he did not object that I made photocopies since the documents were neither classified or meant for limited distribution only. The Court’s assertion of the planned hand over of these documents and their export abroad appears to us as another case of confusion and evidence juggling. The matter is that no planned hand over has ever taken place and that the case files contain absolutely no evidence of transferring. The witnesses could know nothing about a possible transfer of non-secret data because of the fact that the data was not secret. The transfer of non- secret data is not a crime. There are two experts-conclusion that the data was not secret. It means that all the deliberations in the verdict is nothing but an attempt to create a criminal atmosphere around some totally legal activities.
As it is evident from the fax message of October 12, 1997, from the copies of “recorded telephone conversations” (monitoring or extracts thereof) dated May 22, August 24-25, September 4-7, September 30-October 2, October 3-6, October, 8 and November 6, 1997 obtained during the investigation, and also from other facts of the case, including the hand written notes starting with the words «Hello Tadashi!¹, Mr. Pasko did conceal the fact that he was collecting materials on the defence industry and Northern Korean workers at the request of Tadashi Okano. Besides Mr. Pasko promised to pass these materials over to Mr. Okano in Vladivostok or Japan.
The fax messages and the recorded copies of telephone conversations, mentioned in the verdict, do according to the Court’s estimations, confirm that I concealed “the fact that [I] was collecting materials” and promised to pass them “over to Mr. Okano”. Firstly, ALL the materials mentioned in the fax messages and telephone conversations are NOT classified, which is proven by the expertise conclusion. Secondly, out of all the mentioned fax messages ONLY ONE did get transmitted through to Japan. The others were not transmitted due to different reasons. This is why neither the bodies of the investigation nor the Court have any legal grounds to claim that NON-SECRET information contained in the records became known to anybody. Thirdly, the Court did not investigate a resolution of the phonograph expertise, which would prove whether the voice recorded on the tapes is mine or not. Such an expertise HAS NOT been carried out, although petitions for holding it were stated more than once. Thus, according to article 49 of the Procedure Criminal Code of the RSFSR, the records can not be used as evidence in the case.
Besides, the Court regularly ignores the provisions of article 303 of the Procedure Criminal Code of RSFSR: all the records, phone calls, fax messages, video footages etc. are not related to the indictment filed against me, and do not contain the content of the alleged crimes.
In accordance with the testimony heard in Court of Titshenko (the former deputy of the head of the Pacific Fleet technical department), Pasko asked him in August, 1997 about assistance in obtaining information about accidents on the nuclear submarines of the Pacific Fleet. Titshenko advised him to turn to Pankov, one of the technical department chiefs.
As it’s evident from the testimony of Pankov V.I., in August-September, 1997, he allowed Pasko to take non-classified decrees from an officer Shurygin with a list of persons who took part in the accidents-recovering; and a list of nuclear submarines on which accidents and incidents occurred. The list was an extract from a secret telegram or an order. Pasko was allowed to take it, since he intended to use “the list” only for writing an article about veterans that participated in the recovering of radiation accidents.
Everything related to Titshenko, was utterly distorted in the verdict. The court DID NOT INTERROGATE that witness. Therefore, the Court has no grounds to claim that his testimony is true. In reality I did not address to Titshenko for assistance in obtaining information but it was Titshenko who asked me to write an article about veterans who participated in the recovering of the accidents, handed over copies of the documents (about hundred pages) to me and advised me to turn to the navy technical department for the lacking information.
Pasko returned the decrees, as the data explained [it is written like this in the verdict – editor’s comment], and kept “the list” with Shurygin’s permission.
As the witness Pankov stated, “the list” did not contain information pertaining to state secrets. At the same time he underlined that at the moment of handing “the list” over to Pasko some submarines of the list were in operation in the Russian Navy. Neither the above-mentioned witness nor Krivenko V.S. (the former head of the technical department) or other witnesses interrogated at the Court session could explain from whom and under which circumstances Pasko obtained “Reference-report. I. Decommissioning of nuclear submarines in the Pacific Fleet and providing their floating capacity”.
However, they explained that the reference-report was made definitely at the technical department.
During reviewing of the records obtained from the technical department the Court found out that the records No. 353 (nuclear submarines decommissioning) from 1997 does not contain “Reference-report till 01.01.2001”.
The Court impotently admits that the witnesses could not explain where from I obtained “reference-report”. Moreover, it tells that the reference was made at the technical department, but the Court shyly hushes up that the reference WAS NOT classified and that a theft had NEVER occurred. The Court DID NOT ESTABLISH THE TRUTH about the origin of the reference. Nevertheless, the Court, in favour of the investigation body, created the criminal background behind the materials.
As it’s evident from the records of the investigation, in particular from June 19, 1997 Pasko started obtaining information concerning nuclear submarines (retired, and submarines which accidents occurred onboard) or persons familiar with such information even before his above-mentioned meeting with Titshenko G.G. On June 19 he transferred information about a number of retired submarines and the bases in which they were laid off to Tadashi Okano and promised to bring materials on those submarines. Afterwards he phoned Victor Stepanovich (Krivenko) and questioned him using an excuse to write an article with new data about retired submarines and their decommissioning for one of the Moscow newspapers. On August 26-30, 1997 he let Tadashi Okano know that he had materials on the submarines and missiles decommissioning, but that he could not send them, since the texts were extensive and he decided to make summaries of them and afterwards “send the information from the documents by fax”.
The verdict is here referring not the records, but to illegal copies of them. Illegal, since the Court examined the copies but not the original documents. As it was established, the original documents do not exist at all, since FSB destroyed them. By the way, the reference about retired nuclear submarines was as well destroyed by the witness Shurygin- Therefore IT IS NOT CLEAR what the experts from the General Staff of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation EVALUATED and on which ground they came to the conclusion that the reference constitute secret.
The results of the investigation also confirmed the fact that Pasko obtained the “reference-report” in the Pacific Fleet headquarters.
According to a copy of the records from September 4, 1997 Pasko informed “V.L. Kuznetsova” that on September 2 he had documents “not for free disclosing for the time being” in his files, in particular, “a detailed reference about decommissioning, a very detailed reference about nuclear waste”.
The statement that “the results of investigation also confirm the fact that Pasko obtained the “reference-report” in the Pacific Fleet headquarters” is a plain fake. The obtaining IS NOT CONFIRMED! Neither facts nor evidences exist, since I DID NOT OBTAIN the reference in the Pacific Fleet headquarters.
The witnesses Moiseenko I. D. and Vorogbit V. V. (formerly one of the artillery department chiefs in the Pacific Fleet) testified that “III. Armament decommissioning” is a part of a reference-report by the head of the department. The entire reference-report pertains to state secrets. They have no idea about how Pasko obtained the materials. They did not hand the materials over to him.
The testimony is again referring to some reference, which allegedly pertains to state secrets, but of unknown origin, the original document does not exist and it was not found at my apartment. I am sure that the reference was planted to me by FSB officials.
The witnesses also explained that the “questionnaire”, which is also one of the proofs in the case files”, was not discussed with Pasko.
Vorogbit V.V. told that Pasko could take “the questionnaire” without permission while he came to Vorogbit with the purpose to get familiarized with the materials concerning “treatment SNV-2”.
The testimony of the witness Vorogbit that I allegedly took “the questionnaire” without his permission and did not discuss it with him were falsified. I insist that the so-called questionnaire IS NOT a questionnaire, but an official document officially made by representatives of Russian and Japan Ministry of Defense. I obtained it from someone else, but Vorogbit and I did SEVERAL TIMES discuss it with numerous Pacific Fleet officers, including Vorogbit and Moiseenko. Besides, both the investigation body and the court IGNORED the petition for interrogation of the witnesses about that circumstance!
It’s evident from testimony of Moiseenko I. D. that in February 1997, Pasko filmed the storage site of the military division 63916 with his permission. The same video shooting Pasko carried out in his presence at the plant “Krasny vympel”.
Take into consideration the fact that the shooting was permitted.
According to a reference to the act endorsed by the acting commander of the military unit 78396, the classified report about decommissioning from 1997, was destroyed.
The testimony refers to some reference, which the court considers to be classified and destroyed. Albeit, the verdict does not point out which reference, who determined the level of its secrecy, who destroyed it and on which grounds and of what concern the alleged reference was connected to the case or, at least, to the verdict.
The witness Sangishev testified that on February 28, 1997 Pasko asked him questions from a questionnaire, which he allegedly obtained from “Greenpeace”, regarding the Russian proposal on decommission of liquid missile fuel.
However, the court did not allegedly noted contradictions of the testimonies of Sangishev, who testified during the confrontation, that I DID NOT ASK HIM QUESTIONS, but we TALKED on the ecological issues. The truth, which was not said, thus, turned into a frank lie in the verdict.
After returning from a business trip on February 28, 1997, Pasko spoke to Mr. Takao Dzyun by phone about Pasko having “to go there twice and [that] there were serious problems there”. Mr. Takao Dzyun agreed immediately to meet him and to talk. The fact of this phone conversation is confirmed by the report of the examination of the cassette with the writing “No. 492 from 2.02.97” and by the investigation of this piece of evidence during the trial.
I shall note, that on February 28, FSB HAD NO RIGHT to listen to and make secret recordings of my phone conversations, as the ruling of the regional (for some reason regional instead of military) court was issued ONLY on April 9, 1997. Thus, the Court’s reference to the illegally obtained evidence, IS WRONGFUL, and there is no sense to speak of it.
The fact that Pasko collected the information for the branch “NHK” is confirmed by the extract from the report from May 22, 1997 according to that “Mr. Takao asks Pasko to write answers to the questions, which he would bring with him together with the camera and cassettes “Tolya”.”
Mr. Tadashi Okano was interested in the issues concerning the activity of the military unit 63916 and the plant “Krasny Vympel”. The copy of the next report (from July 19-20, 1997) confirms this. According to this report Mr. Tadashi would ask Pasko to bring him “the shots of these missiles in order to see them”, though he already obtained the photos of the missiles “Volna” from Pasko.
The copies of the reports from August 24- 25, September 4-7, 1997 and the facsimile from September 5 of the same year allow [the Court] to draw the conclusion that expecting the fees, Pasko would assist Tadashi Okano in collecting information about the navy training; locations of “military bases” and submarines; and about chemical armament.
These paragraphs of the verdict testify of the Court’s suppositions and guesses, which are not the facts, not confirmed during the trial, and which do not belong to the accusation brought against me.
As is evident from the testimonies of witnesses Kenkishvili (assistant of commander of military unit 40752), Mr. Golub, Mr. Dogadko, Mr. Fomin, and also from the report regarding the examination of the registration book of visitors and vehicles, Pasko was admitted to the said unit some times, including in July 1996, as well as on October 14 and 22, 1997. In July  using the camera, Pasko filmed the train for transportation of the spent nuclear fuel, and on the October 14,  he wanted to film the same train on departure, but he did not get the permission. During his work on the technical territories he filmed the receptacles and the transport containers without permission.
The latter circumstance is also confirmed by Konev’s resolution, attached to Pasko’s report from September 9, 1997: “I have nothing against the publication of the articles good for the Fleet’s interests within the demands of the rules”.
The statement that I allegedly admitted unapproved filming of receptacles and containers does not correspond to the facts and contradicts the testimonies of the witnesses during the trial. That is, the Court misrepresented the testimonies of the witnesses in the trial again, which is a violation of the demands of the law. It is necessary to note that fact that the Court avoided any possibility to be convinced in every way that the receptacles and the containers are not secret, especially not their exterior. The Court did not fully check what can be and what cannot be classified according to the demands of the law “On the state secret”.
What exactly the resolution of Konev confirms (” I have nothing against the publication of the articles on the Fleet account”) – probably only the Court is able to understand.
Judging by the words of Kenkishvili, all schemes of technical territories in the military unit have not any classification codes, as they do not contain explanations on the intent of object. But the rules of handling them are the same as the rules of handling information sources of limited distribution.
As to the scheme as evidence the witness testified that it contains the explanations opening the intents of the main technical-engineer facilities and corresponding to the reality as a whole. The graphics picture of facilities is quite precise and linked to the territory.
Speaking about any scheme (the Court does not indicate, what exactly it speaks about, and there are three schemes in the case files!), the Court refers only to the opinion of Kenkishvili, who had considered the scheme as the actual one. At the same time Dourt ignored the opinions and the testimonies of four other witnesses that testified that the given scheme DOES NOT CORRESPOND to the actuality, because it is very inaccurate and was drawn before 1985.
By the way, nobody DID CHECK UP the correspondence of this alleged scheme to the actual situation, that is, to the location of the actual objects on the actual territory. I insist that the scheme-picture does not correspond to the actual situation. Moreover, the so-called experts DID NOT EXAMINE the actual scheme of land-based technical station in Sysoeva bay, as the case files shows.
According to the transcript of the report dated October 10, 1997, Dogadko would inform the approximate date of the “departure” of the train containing the spent nuclear fuel.
Under the testimonies of Takao Dzyun (the former director of the branch “NHK” in Vladivostok) Pasko came to the office in October 1997 before his business trip to the point of departure of the trains with spent nuclear fuel.
Firstly, it is obviously, that the APPROXIMATE date of departure remained approximate up to the end of the trial: if to compare the testimonies of the witnesses regarding it, all of them vary, and NOBODY called the definite date. Secondly, the word of “departure” is not occasionally indicated in the sentence. The matter is that neither the time of the train departure or the time of the train arrival is indicated in the indictment or in the other case files. And it is, you see, a large difference. Thus, neither the investigation bodies, or the Court established the PRECISE FACT, and that is why there is such a disorder. Thirdly, it is not clear, what is this ” that departure point?” Why does the Court not address this point? The reason is the same as before: neither the Court nor the investigation bodies HAVE ESTABLISHED what that point is.
In addition Mr. Dzyun testified that Pasko visited the branch almost every month in order to receive the fee 300$. Usually he brought some materials. The branch gained video-materials from Pasko twice (about the train transporting the spent nuclear fuel and also about decommissioning of missiles). Pasko received single honorariums varying from $500 to $1000. The video-materials about the train were viewed in presence of Pasko, who gave necessary explanations. Mr. Dzyun does not remember if Pasko gave the information on the place and time of dispatch. Probably, Pasko spoke about it too. Occasionally Mr.Dzyun gave $100 to Pasko as a financial aid.
I claim at once, that there are no evidences in the case files that I obtained money from the Japanese, except the testimonies of ONE Japanese being a person with interests in the case. There is also a CLEAN SHEET of the receipt, which, on the ground of the lack of the filled one, both the Court and the investigation bodies pulled out of the one case file into the other and finally brought in the verdict. As a matter of fact, this clean sheet is the most brilliant testimony of investigation services’ impotence and the Court’s paralysis: they are to take ghosts, because there are no real evidences. The following statement is also incompetent: ” at the rate from $500 up to $1000″. How much do I receive exactly? From whom exactly? When and under what circumstances? Who can confirm it?
Nobody can confirm, therefore there is such a piece in the sentence: “Kolesnik, Decka, Unagaev were the eyewitnesses, while in the presence of Pasko the director of branch was carrying out the actions similar to process of tipping cash with a receipt in return”. In my opinion, it is not simple disrespect to the law. It is usual scoff at common sense as well as at the Court.
In November 1997 Pasko told him that he had materials regarding the Northern Koreans, but the branch did not gain these materials.
He himself did not address to Pasko often to obtain any information on any issue.
Last time there were few talks with Pasko on ecological issues. Or the interests of Pasko changed, or he started to need more money.
In general the testimonies of Mr. Dzyun is in accordance with the testimonies of the witnesses Kolesnikov, Decka, Unagaev, Mrs. Semenova (the employees of the branch), which were the eyewitnesses, while the director of the branch in the presence of Pasko was carrying out the actions similar to process of tipping cash with a receipt in return, while Mr. Pasko was transferring texts to their chief, in particular, the text about the plant “Krasny Vympel” and also the video-materials, including about the dumping of a liquid radioactive waste in 1993; about the special train in 1996; and about the decommissioning of missiles in February or May, 1997.
Besides, as it is evident from the testimonies of the mentioned witnesses, in 1995-1997 there were cases of obtaining the information and also the information sources, by the chief or somebody on his instruction by the informal means or unofficially. The director of the branch allowed Pasko to take the camera and copy machine at the office with the purpose of collecting information for “NHK”. Practically, all copies of video-material filmed by Pasko, were sent to head office in Tokyo.
In November 1997 some of the materials, including the mentioned materials of Pasko were destroyed in the branch, according the order of Mr. Dzyun.
Here the Court talks about some video-materials. But there is not anything similar in the case files. And the reason for this is not that something was allegedly destroyed in the branch, but because those video-materials, which I filmed with the permission of the Pacific Fleet command, are not secret and could not be attached to the present case. I’ll say more: very many videocassettes with video-materials, including those mentioned in the sentence were not confiscated at my flat. And many other materials which could confirm my innocence were not confiscated either, in particular, the permission of the Pacific Fleet Commander, and nowadays the Commander-in-Chief of Russian Navy the admiral Kuroedov, to travel to Japan, to contact to the Japanese journalists etc.
Judging by the testimonies of Mr. Decka, he heard at the office in 1996, how Pasko informed the branch director that he was going “to some settlement, from where the cargo train with spent nuclear fuel would take a departure at some time”.
The witness Polutov (the correspondent of the newspaper “Tokyo Simbun” – Japan) also testified against Pasko, whom Pasko offered to buy the video materials called “Decommissioned submarines of the Pacific Fleet” for $300 approximately in 1995.
As the given witness claims, Pasko had explained, that “he did not want just to return the material, as the transferring of the similar document could entail troubles for him”.
This sentence is full of dubiousness and ambiguity. I quote; “Mr. Decka heard … how Pasko informed …, that he was going” somewhere, “from where the cargo train … would charge sometime”. These are not concrete facts, just speculations.
And there is a Jesuit conclusion in the next paragraph: “ The witness Polutov … also testified against Pasko” Thus, the previous witness Mr. Decka testifies against me either, did he? What did he testify about? That “something would depart from somewhere”? Or would arrive? By the way, about Mr. Polutov. For some reasons the Court ignored that the mentioned person is the informer of FSB, and consequently a prejudiced and interested person.
According to the search report on November 20-21, 1997 ten sheets in a paper clip “Manual” were found and confiscated at Pasko’s flat (Vladivostok, Ivanovskaja str, 2, flat 24), as well as the receipt blank “Obtained from “NHK”, polyethylene folders with different materials, including the ones executed on the firm sheets (blanks) “NHK” and the others with notes in Japanese.
The witness Alekseev, who participated in the search, testified that he saw “the scheme of the base in Sysoeva bay” among the materials confiscated in Pasko’s flat, as well as the list of decommissioned subs, materials about the decommission of subs, weaponry and armament.
It is said in the sentence, that the witness Alekseev saw some documents among the confiscated ones. At the same time the Court again ignores the essential detail: the same witness, he is an employee of FSB, could not explain to the Court, why the documents, which he allegedly saw, were not mentioned in the search report as the confiscated ones?
Judging from the document about unsealing of a package with the documents from November 13, 1997; by the reference of the chief of Artyemovskaja customs from November 18 of the same year; by the reports of examinations and inspections; and also by the other case materials, the “documents” obtained by him in the administration of Primorsky region were confiscated from Pasko, who went to Japan on November 13, 1997
Having examined the above mentioned documents, the experts came to the following conclusions:
- The experts that carried out the graphology expertise established that the signatures in the register of Amirov and the order register of the Defence Ministry of 1985 No. 285, 1996 No. 055 were executed by Pasko, and also the hand-written texts started by words “11.09.97 Military Council. Results of the Navy training” and finished by words “actuators of hydro-acoustic stations”; and “10.09.97 Military Councils” – “.. then hung up “; the hand-written text in the schedule – scheme of object between the Askold strait, the Strelki gulf and the Sysoeva bay and the hand-written texts like letters starting by words “Hallo, Tadashi!”, too,
- The experts of the Russian Ministry of Economy established that the letter of the Commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy from 10.07.96. N 704/2/599 as well as the work report of the commission on complex analysis of the situation in the military industry contains information pertaining to the service information of limited distribution,
- The experts of the Russian Federal Migration service established that the materials about the cooperation between the administration of Primorsky region and the China agriculture committee contain items of information which cannot be published in mass media,
- The experts of the 8th Department of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation established that the items of information
In the verdict there is the detailed listing of the documents confiscated from me at the airport. There is an expertise conclusion in the case files that NONE OF THESE MATERIALS ARE SECRET. But the Court does not want to notice it and enumerates doubtful conclusions of so-called “experts”, who determined earlier published unclassified materials as ” the information of limited distribution” for some reasons. Besides, such kind of information is categorically forbidden to consider as the information of limited distribution. Here it is another piece: “The experts of the federal migration service came to the conclusion that materials about agriculture contain the information that must not be published in mass media”. When did it start in our country that unclear experts substitute the federal law purposing to determine, what can be published, and what cannot?
1). The following documents called
” The list of submarines that has suffered the nuclear and radiation accidents onboard” contains secret information, and the list itself has a classification code “confidential” both at the time it was published and today;
“Decommission of weaponry and armament” contains secret information, and the document itself has a classification code “confidential” both at the time it was published and today;
“Reference – report. 1. Decommission and maintenance of subs afloat” contains secret information, and the document has a classification code “top secret” both at the time it was published and today;
There are the big pieces about the allegedly established classification of different materials incriminated to Pasko as the transferred documents. It is not necessary to be frightened of the formidable verbal formulations. All of the references to the experts’ conclusions are invalid. See Pasko’s comments.
2) The article of Pasko “Measures provided, debts not paid” contains secret information, and the article has a classification code “top secret” both at the time of writing and today;
3) The hand-written document starting by words “10.09.97. The Military Council ” and finished by words “fuel incinerated ” contains secret information, and the document has a classification code “top secret” both at the time of writing and today;
4) The hand-written text starting by words “(1) dumping Rettihovka” and finished by the hand-written scheme of object located between the Sysoeva bay, the Strelki gulf and the Askold strait contains secret information, and the hand-written document has a classification code “confidential ” both at the time it was prepared and today;
the answers on the questions in the document “Russian side’s proposal on decommission of liquid missile fuel” contain secret information and have a classification code “confidential” both at the time of writing the questionnaire and today;
And the transferring of the reliable information about the date and the place of the train departure with the spent nuclear fuel to the representatives of a foreign organisations is considered as the transferring of information that constitutes state secrets and has the classification code “top secret” both in the autumn of 1996, October 1997 and today;
Besides the information contained in the document “The Report of the Navy Commander’s deputy on financial-economic activity as regards the Fleet’s financial-economic activities for 1996” constitutes state secrets. The document has the classification code “confidential” both at the time it was published and today;
Some of the materials concerning the handling of the liquid radioactive waste and the assemblies with spent nuclear fuel were examined by the specialists of the Russian Ministry of Nuclear Energy, who established in the letter signed by the Minister’s deputy Mr. Egorov, that “the documents are for internal use only and cannot be published openly”.
According to the law the criminal cases concerning state secrets can be examined by the single expert institute, this means ONLY the interdepartmental commission on the definition of state secrets. In principle, this commission was established especially for the similar cases. But both the investigation body of FSB, and the Court of the Pacific Fleet had totally ignored this circumstance and was satisfied with the dubious conclusions of the expertise of the 8th department of the General Staff of the Armed forces. I affirm that the 8th department IS UNAUTHORIZED to be experts in the present criminal case! There is also one more argument, that the so-called experts of the 8th department are put in and approved by the FSB. This shows the lawlessness in our country.
At the same time it is necessary to remind of the main circumstance in the present case: THERE IS NO FACT of THE TRANSFERRING OF SOMETHING TO SOMEBODY BY ME.
According to the psychiatric expertise, Pasko “while he committed the actions incriminated to him”, “could understand the actuality and the social danger of his actions as well as control them”.
The Court considers Pasko to be sane. It has taken into account the circumstances characterising the defendant’s personality, having analysed his actions before, during and after him committing the crime, which were conscious and purposeful, as well as his behaviour during the court session.
Special thanks for it…
Having evaluated the above mentioned evidences, the Court finds them legally valid and reliable, as they are obtained according to the law, and are in accordance with each other and with most of the materials of the case, and besides, are quite sufficient for the confirmation of the defendant’s guilt.
In order to substantiate his innocence, Pasko has referred to the resolution “on the face side” of the Russian Defense Ministry’s Instruction No. D-23 from August 30, 1995, as well as to the attitude of the editor-in-chief, who permitted him in 1993 to assist “the journalists from the Primorsky television broadcast”. In particular, it is said in the resolution, “to Mr. Pasko. Renew the publication of materials regarding this subject with covering of its various aspects, about 1 article per 2 months”. His references are considered to be invalid, because the mentioned data do not testify that he had the right to be permanently engaged in other paid activity.
Having estimated the given “evidences” in the verdict, it is possible to draw a conclusion, that they are legally invalid, unreliable and not obtained according to the law, that the contradicts each other and the other materials of the case and, certainly, they are not sufficient for the substantiation of my guilt at all.
The Court has completely ignored the federal law “About mass media “, which regulates my professional work and, besides, allow to publish material where and when I want. At the same time I can receive the fee for my intellectual activity, that is what the Court calls that a “honorarium for illegal activity” towards crime. In other words, I had the lawful right to be engaged in other paid journalistic activities on a permanent basis. The only thing- the basic activity should not be damaged by it. There was not any damage, because even the Court basing on the testimonies of the witnesses stated that in the whole Pasko is characterised at the office positively.
The reference of the defendant to the absence of the mark “confidential” on the materials collected by him is also invalid, because he could not know that most of the persons had not marked the sources of information of limited distribution according to article 182 of the instruction on the service correspondence.
The Court refers to the unpublished normative act again – the instruction on the service correspondence. By the way, I have first learned about it only from the verdict, as it was never mentioned during the Court session or during the investigation.
The Court has based its conclusion of Pasko’s guilt on the conclusion of the expert-commission at 8th Department of the General Staff of the Armed forces of the Russian Federation, assuming that its conclusion is in accordance both with the list of information that shall be kept secret in the military forces and with the list of information that constitutes state secrets according to the Law of the Russian Federation “On the state secrets” as well as in the Decrees of the Russian President (1995 No. 1203 and 1998 No. 61), except one expert conclusion, that there are the same items of information as well as the information of limited distribution, in the report of the Fleet Commander’s deputy on financial-economic work.
The Court claims that according to Article 5 of the Russian Law “On the state secret” the information on financial or monetary activity constitutes state secrets only in cases where the anticipatory distribution of this information can damage the safety of the state.
The experts did not consider this point, which is confirmed by the lack of the appropriate motivation in their conclusion. Thus, the Court has considered that the charge against Pasko by the investigation bodies of violating the instruction demands on the protection of state secrets in the military forces during the handling of the above-mentioned report, as a false one.
Having admitted the limitation of its own verdict, the Court indicates that it based its conclusion about my guilt ONLY on the conclusion of the expert commission of the 8th department of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. That is a gross violation of the law. The verdict cannot be based on the decrees and instructions, and the existence itself of the 8th department is based only on the decrees and IS NOT SANCTIONED by the Constitution of Russian Federation.
However, even the biased Court of the Pacific Fleet admitted that the experts of the 8th department had committed the violation of the law on the state secret: They had accepted the report on the financial work as a secret one. It means, that it is necessary to doubt also the other conclusions of these experts! But it has not been done for some reasons.
The Court also supposes that the verdict should contain more motivation of the decision to accept the transcripts of the phone conversations or the transcripts from them attached to the case’s search report of the operating examination No. 136, and also the magnetic tapes and cassettes as the results of operative search measures, which can be used as the case’s evidences.
According to the case materials, all the above-mentioned copies (transcripts) are made from the reports, which were prepared “according to the audio of the phone conversations” and are certified in due form; the tapes and cassettes attached to the case as the physical evidences were examined during the preliminary investigation, with the participation of the witnesses declared, that the voice of one of the men was similar to the voice of Pasko; the right of Pasko as well as of the person, whom he talked with by phone on February 28, 1997, of keeping such kind of the talks secret, was limited because of the Court’s decisions.
The defendant testified during the court session that there “in principle were such talks, about the military issues as well”.
Besides, it was established during the trial that the contents of the report copies (transcripts from them), the audio (these ones were listened in the Court) are in accordance with the testimonies of the witnesses, the fax messages and other case materials.
Thus, according to the Criminal Procedure Code no violations were found during the examination of the mentioned results of the operative-search measures. Consequently, all the evidences can be used and, moreover, form the base of the indictment.
The Court tries to convince both itself, and the other that the given copies can be admitted legal. But this conviction is beyond contempt, because it is legibly said in the Criminal Procedure Code that the evidences obtained in violation of the law are invalid. Well, I’ll repeat: the words that some of the witnesses (by the way, who were not interrogated during the trial!) allegedly learned my voice at the tape are similar to the child’s babble, instead of the Court investigation. I do not even mention that the record from February 28, 1997 is illegal, since there was no Court’s permission for recording it.
It is very unpleasant for me, when the Court has given false words in the verdict, referring to me, as if I admitted ” there were such talks”. There were no SUCH talks! It is necessary to use the FACTS, instead of speculations. There are just speculations in the verdict.
Thus, it WAS NOT established during the proceeding that the contents of the reports copies were in accordance with the testimonies of the witnesses.
At the same time the Court considers that not all the evidences given in the indictment were obtained in accordance with the law.
The Captain of justice Mr. Egorkin being interrogated in the court session as witness, testified that he gave a false date of the time of the start and the end of the investigation, while preparing the report of the examination of the case against Pasko (p.5-9, v. 1). Besides, the information that he included in the report was taken from the reports of interrogation of witnesses, that is, not connecting with the inspection “- 136”.
The falsification was also allowed during the report’s preparation regarding the inspection of things and documents confiscated from the citizen Pasko on November 20-21, 1997, while his flat was under search” (p. 24-46, v.5). This fact is confirmed by two expert conclusions. The expert, who carried out the graphology expertise, established that, in particular, that “the signatures on behalf of the witnesses were not made by the same persons on page 4 and 5 of the report”.
Taken into account the above mentioned, the Court excludes both reports from the complex of the evidences of the case.
The Court could not or did not want to see all violations of the law that occurred both at the stage of the preliminary investigation, and during the proceeding. The Court admitted only that some of the case-materials were falsified. By the way, nobody from the department of the FSB on the Pacific Fleet and from the prosecutor’s office of the Pacific Fleet was punished for falsifying the materials of the criminal case.
At the same time the Court does not consider those evidences to be reliable, which contradicts with the evidences given in the verdict after the testimonies of the defendant in order to substantiate his guilt.
I do not understand what is discussed in the previous paragraph, but I am ready to swear by anything, that I DID NOT GIVE the testimonies for the substantiation of my guilt.
The body of the preliminary investigation qualified the criminal actions of Pasko under article 275 of the Penal Code of the Russian Federation.
In order to confirm the correctness of this qualification it referred to the evidences mentioned above as well as to the other generally derived evidences in the indictment.
After the above-mentioned you have to be surprised by the Court’s conclusion that the mentioned so-called evidences are “generally DERIVATIVE” in the indictment. Why did the Court mention them so urgently, if these evidences cannot be used as a basis for the charge?
We see also that in violation of article 68 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court did not establish the evidences of the crime occurrence. That means – the time, the place, the method and the other circumstances; the Court did not search the circumstances that can influence on the level and the character of the defendant’s responsibility. Finally, the Court did not establish and prove the character and the size of damage either due to article 275, or due to article 285.
The facts of Pasko’s collecting for transferring, or the transferring of the information that constitutes state secrets to the representatives of the foreign organisations, were not confirmed during the evaluation of the evidence of the case in the Court session.
What confirmation can be found, if the facts themselves lack?
None of the witnesses except the witness Ralin testified that he in the [Vladivostok] branch of the “NHK” saw materials like the materials that was confiscated at Pasko’s flat, except the receipt blank “obtained from NHK (the branch in Vladivostok)”.
The testimonies of the witness Ralin, who testified that in September-October 1997 the branch’s director had shown him the base’s scheme in Sysoeva Bay and also the identification’s report of the scheme that was confiscated at Pasko’s flat during the search on November 20-21, 1997 by this witness, are not considered as indisputable proofs of the defendant’s guilt of high treason. As he could during the primary interrogation, Mr. Ralin could call only such signs and features that were obviously insufficient for the identification because of their vagueness. That is confirmed by the uncertainty of Mr. Ralin in his previous statements established during the trial.
Besides, Mr. Ralin claimed both during the preliminary investigation and during the trial, that he did not see the backside of the “scheme sheet”; that he did not know if there were some explanations there; and that Mr. Takao Dzyun “did not say him the source from where he obtained the scheme”.
The permanent connection between Pasko and the representatives of the foreign organisations (of the state); the transferring or the collecting for transferring of information to these representatives for a fee, including information on the military forces of Russia; are circumstances that in themselves do not testify of the correctness of the above-mentioned qualification [of his actions under article 275], taken into account the lack of evidence of false statements of the defendant that he did not transfer information that constitutes state secrets to the Japanese citizens, and also the fragments of the materials containing such information.
It should be repeated: “taken into account the lack of evidences of FALSE statement of the defendant”. Thus, even, taking into account the lack of evidence, the Court declares the presumption of guilt.
The Court could neither establish the facts that could confirm the divulging of state secrets by Pasko or of his attempts at committing the criminal actions, including the assistance to the foreign state, the foreign organisation or their representatives for their carrying out of hostile activities in order to damage the external safety of Russian Federation.
The point should be put here. The charges have not been confirmed in Court! What do you need else? Judging by the rules of justice the acquittal should follow it. But everybody has his own special way in Russia. Including Femida.
Taken into account the above mentioned, the Court qualifies Pasko’s actions, who as an officer used his office authorities against the service interests; the actions were committed because of his mercenary interests and entailed an essential violation of the state interests protected by law, under article 285 para. 1 of the Penal Code of the Russian Federation, instead of under article 275 of the same Penal Code.
The Court claims that I as a journalist is “an officer”. But I’m NOT an officer. It is stated further that I used my service authorities. But it is not indicated HOW EXACTLY I did it and WHAT it was expressed IN? That I collected the information for my articles on the command’s orders, did I?
Further: “committed because of his mercenary interests and entailed the essential violation of the legally protected state interests “. Up to now, we DID NOT SEE the facts of my “mercenary interests” except the clean blank of the receipt. And the statement about “the essential violation of the state interests” looks absolutely absurd. Where are they? In what they are?
Having convicted the defendant the Court takes into its account, that he was characterised positively both before and during his military service, awarded with several medals, including the medal “Honoured in military service of 1st degree” and also various data about his personality.
Besides, the Court takes into account the essential defects in the activity of a number of officials, whose activity is connected with the protection of the information constituting state secrets or other secrets under special legal protection, and also with keeping the rules of the handling of the service information of limited distribution, contributed Pasko in committing the above described crime.
There are no grounds for considering the circumstances indicated in the indictment as aggravating.
The Court has noted that the punishment should be in accordance with the character and the level of the social danger of the crime, and also be set in accordance with the presence or the lack of the circumstances stipulated by article 61 of Penal Code of the Russian Federation. And at the same time the Court came to the conclusion that the punishment, which is not connected with the imprisonment of Pasko, cannot provide the goals of the punishment.
Basing on the above-mentioned, and ruling in accordance with articles 301 and 303 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the Military Court RULES:
Pasko Grigory Michaylovich is considered guilty in the abuse of his office authorities, that is in committing the crime stipulated in para. 1 of article 285 of the Penal Code of the Russian Federation. Bases on this provision, he is convicted to three years imprisonment at the CORRECTIOANAL COLONY OF THE COMMON REGIME.
It is obvious that the Court left the indictment in force and sentenced me to tree-year imprisonment, in order to cover the criminal acts of the FSB and the prosecutor’s office of the Pacific Fleet.
In accordance with part 5 of the Resolution of the State Duma of the Russian Federal Assembly dated June 18, 1999 “On the declaration of amnesty” he should be freed from the punishment mentioned above, as a first time convict to an imprisonment less than 5 years and who has served more than one-thirds of the sentence [in pre-trial detention].
The preventive punishment regarding Pasko – being under arrest – is to be cancelled according to article 319 of the Penal Code of the Russian Federation and he should be released from custody in the Court session. After the verdict is in force the following evidences of the case:
a) on page 217 v. 5 (all except the mentioned below in the pp. b) c)) and on page 176 v. 6 according to para. 2 of article 86 of the Penal Code of the RF, should be transferred to the Staff of the Pacific Fleet; on p. 303 v. 6 and on p. 12 v. 6 (the registration book) – to the editorial office of the Pacific Fleet’s newspaper “Military Watch”;
b) to destroy on p. 86 v. 5, p. 217 v. 5 (“111. The decommissioning of the weaponry and the armament”, “the list of submarines”, “the report of the commander’s deputy on the financial-economic work”); on p. 308 v. 5 (“the order of the Ministry of the domestic affairs of USSR”, “enclosure to the ID”, “drafts of the military council”); on p. 349 v. 5 (the article “Measures provided…”); on p. 144, 236 v. 6, p. 109 v. 5 (the copy of the letter of the director and the base’s scheme), according to paras. 2 and 3 of article 86 of the Penal Code of RF.
c) to keep in the case – on p. 74 v. 5, p. 217 v. 5 (the interview with Mr. Baranov, “land-based technical unit”); p. 224-225 v. 5, p. 308 v. 5 (all expect the mentioned in item “b” and “d”); p. 349 v. 5 (all except the mentioned in item “b”); p. 12 v. 6 (the register); p. 34 v. 6, p. 38, 101, 114, 199, 205, 229, 243, 268, 274 and 307 v. 6 according to para. 5 of article 86 of the PC of the RF;
d) to transfer to Pasko p. 282 v. 5, 308 v. 5, p. 109 v. 5 (the report), as well as the system block of computer.
e) to transfer to Pasko on p. 10, 70 v. 5 (except the system block of computer); p. 109 v. 5 (the letter of Pavlov with the list); p. 66 v. 6, p. 87 v. 7, p. 104 v. 7) as the things excluded from the number of the material evidences) and the things and the documents indicated on p. 94 v. 7 as well;
f) to return to Mr. Lukjanez what is indicated on p.127 v.6.
To cancel the confiscation of Pasko’s property.
The verdict can be appealed and protested on to the Military Collegium of the Russian Supreme Court trough the Court of the Pacific Fleet within seven days from the date of its declaration.
Original with the appropriate stamps.
Correct. The chairman regards the case
The lieutenant colonel of Justice Mr. Savushkin