with polonium 210, a dangerous radioactive substance put in his tea when he was having tea with other russians in london. a british public inquiry concluded that those two russians were responsible for his death and likely the kremlin had directed that. that case has gone to the european court of human rights because alexander litvinenko s widow has been trying to hold the russian state responsible for alexander litvinenko s killing, and they have concluded that essentially the british court was correct. they gave russia the opportunity to give an alternative explanation as to why these two men. was it a rogue operation? and the court concluded that had they been involved in a rogue operation, the information to prove that theory could lie entirely in the hands of the russian authorities. the government had made no serious attempt to provide such information or counter the findings
use, is the result of operations by the russian security services, but so far as poisonings and assassinations as exposures abroad are concerned, i think we will see a bowl of foray few years because they will need to train new people. i think we will see a lull. will need to train new people. i think we will see a lull. will need to train new people. i think we will see a lull. what about the un court think we will see a lull. what about the un court of think we will see a lull. what about the un court of human think we will see a lull. what about the un court of human rights - think we will see a lull. what about i the un court of human rights talking about a state sponsored assassination of alexander litvinenko, how much pressure does not place on the kremlin? the kremlin has described it as baseless assertions. ., , kremlin has described it as baseless assertions. . , ., ., assertions. that is almost a computerised assertions. that is almost a computerised response. -
of the uk authorities and the european court of human rights has concluded that russia authorised that poisoning. this morning the kremlin spokesman said such assertions are in the very least baseless and we are not prepared to pay attention to such decisions. pressure is part of the council of europe and does subscribe to the european court of human rights decisions, so that will be hard for than to deal with. potentially, where does it go? i don t think anywhere, to be honest. the coach is authorised for compensation of £100,000, i don t even know if russia will deal with that but its support from the european court of human rights, an international court, for what the british court concluded. russia had always claimed these were just political allegations and was entirely baseless, they came up with all sorts of other ideas about whether or not the british state killed alexander litvinenko and the
it is clearly in the public interest to charge sergey fedotov, a russian national, with a number of offences including conspiracy to murder, attempted murder and the use and possession of a chemical weapon. we will not apply to russia for the extradition of sergey fedotov is the russian constitution does not permit extradition of its own nationals. russia made this clear following requests for extradition in other cases. should this position change that an extradition request will be made. a realistic prospect of conviction means the cps is satisfied that the evidence can be used in court and an objective, impartial and reasonable jury on hearing the case is more likely than not to convict sergey fedotov of the charges. it is of course for a jury to decide if the evidence is to be sure of the suspect s guild. but as they made clear, they will not apply to russia for the extradition of sergey fedotov.