Free Speech Debate

Igor Sutyagin was convicted for a crime he did not commit. He was accused of treason against the state under the Article 275 of the Criminal Code of Russia for “espionage, disclosure of state secrets, or any other assistance rendered to a foreign State, a foreign organisation, or their representatives in hostile activities to the detriment of the external security of the Russian Federation, committed by a citizen of the Russian Federation”. He was sentenced to 15 years, of which he served 11. What is remarkable about Sutyagin’s case is the fact that there was no coherent proof of his espionage activity, or his disclosure of any state secrets that can justify the imprisonment and the verdict as stated. It is true that Sutyagin collated specific information on Russian military forces for a shady company called Alternative Futures, which long since went below the radar. It is true that he was paid for his services. But it is also true that though the information Sutyagin was providing in his “consultancy reports” was concerned with Russia’s military potential at the time, all the facts collated for these reports were taken from the mass media sources freely available to the public in newspapers and magazines, published both in Russia and abroad. Sutyagin himself, his colleagues and his research institution never had security clearance, which means no access to the classified information.

Sutyagin, a scientist with a distinguished career in Russia, the head of a department in a state-owned research institution, could not have been unaware of the perils of his “consulting” activity. To play games with any sort of military information in Russia under the watchful eye of the FSB is to play with fire, while standing with one foot in the puddle of petrol. What followed was no surprise to anyone familiar with Russian history of the 20th century – to convict a man in Russia in the late 90s could sadly still be an exercise in bureaucracy rather then an implementation of law. It could be argued that Sutyagin’s activity was questionable from the ethical point of view but it was not, in any possible case, an act of espionage or a disclosure of state secrets, and should not have been punished as such.