The Prime Minister's visit to Moscow this month suggests that the relationship between the UK and Russia is on the mend. Following five years of frosty distance caused, amongst other things, by the murder of Kremlin critic Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006, a thaw in relations is desirable. Not least, in order to promote the trade and business ties that will be essential if we are to rebuild the global economy.
We should not however forget a crucial lesson learnt from the Litvinenko affair: that a fundamental imbalance exists between the legal protection afforded to citizens of Russia and that afforded to UK citizens.
Litvinenko's family has been denied justice because British authorities are powerless to bring the chief suspect, Andrey Lugovoi, now a Russian Duma Deputy, to stand trial, despite presenting evidence that is understood to be overwhelming.
The Russian Constitution includes a blanket prohibition on extraditing Russian citizens from Russia, irrespective of the weight of evidence presented to the Russian authorities. Yet British citizens enjoy no such protection and must instead rely on the Courts to bar their extradition. Or not. Britons in Britain could, theoretically at least, be sent to face Russian justice without so much as a prima facie case being presented by their accusers.
Only recently a Russian official announced that Russia might seek the extradition of Hermitage Capital founder Bill Browder, a close friend and former employer of the murdered lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, on charges of tax evasion. If this threat materialises, Mr Browder too will be forced to rely on the protection of a UK court.
The Government last year ordered an independent panel to review the UK's extradition arrangements, to determine whether they work both efficiently and in the interests of justice. It asked specifically whether the evidentiary burden is high enough.
It is clear that it is not.
Russia is classed as a Category II territory by the Extradition Act 2003 and is further distinguished as one of the small group of those territories, including Switzerland, Australia, Canada and the US, released from a requirement to provide prima facie evidence when requesting extradition from the UK. This, on the basis that its judicial system conforms to international standards of independence and freedom; standards that have, time and again, been found to be sorely lacking.
International human rights organisations have openly criticised Russia for abusing its own justice system to persecute individuals thought to oppose the government and those in power. Most recently, Amnesty International proclaimed former YUKOS CEO Mikhail Khodorkovsky and his business partner Platon Lebedev, sentenced to 14 years in jail on charges of tax fraud and embezzlement, as "prisoners of conscience". Amnesty declared that they are "trapped in a judicial vortex that answers to political not legal considerations."
Since 2000, UK courts have denied a series of extradition requests made by Russia on the basis that the Court deemed them to have been politically motivated or that the defendant would have been punished on account of his political opinions on being returned to his country. They join courts in Switzerland, The Netherlands and Lithuania, as well as the European Court of Human Rights, which have similarly ruled.
This, one could argue, proves that the UK's extradition rules with regards to Russia are sufficiently strong to withstand requests that do not hold up in court.
The problem, however, is two-fold. For one, the imbalance means that UK citizens are forced to defend themselves in court while Russian citizens in Russia, as well as Russian citizens granted political asylum in the UK, are constitutionally protected. Second, the burden of prosecuting the request lies with the UK's Criminal Prosecution Service. Therefore it is the British taxpayer who picks up the bill for whichever political spat might have sparked the Russian extradition request of the day. This situation appears deeply problematic.
A requirement for requesting countries to present a prima facie case would address this imbalance and remove some of the cost burden from the Treasury without singling out any particular country, with the associated diplomatic difficulties. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights included this measure in its recommendations in June, in order to better protect the rights of individuals. As the Government's review panel prepares to issue its report, it should recommend the same requirement for prima facie evidence.
Perhaps just as important as addressing the legal imbalance, as we seek greater economic ties, this would send an important message about the UK's commitment to the rule of law and the freedom of the judiciary.