Embassy Press Officer on unanswered questions regarding the Salisbury poisoning
Question: At yesterday's briefing, the Official Representative of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that the Embassy had asked quite a few questions that remain unanswered. What are those questions?
Answer: Indeed, we are witnessing a blatant violation by the UK of its international obligations under the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the 1968 bilateral Consular Convention. We have not received a response to our multiple questions and requests made through diplomatic notes. Failure by Britain to engage in normal diplomatic exchange with the Embassy on this matter is regrettable.
The questions to which we are awaiting answers are as follows:
1) What is Mr and Ms Skripal's exact diagnosis and condition?
2) What treatment are they receiving?
3) Is that treatment the same as that provided to Sgt Nick Bailey?
4) Is it true that Yulia Skripal has regained consciousness and can communicate, eat and drink?
5) Mr Bailey has been discharged, Yulia Skripal is getting better, but why is Sergei Skripal still in a critical condition?
6) Did Mr Bailey, Mr Skripal and Ms Skripal receive antidotes?
7) Which antidotes?
8) How were the right antidotes identified?
9) Did they actually help or harm?
10) The Embassy immediately informed the FCO that Mr Skripal's niece has been enquiring of her uncle's and cousin's health. Why have the authorities ignored her?
11) Why are there no photos/videos confirming that the Skripals are alive and at hospital?
12) Did the Skripals agree on Salisbury CCTV footage to be shown on TV?
13) If not, who agreed on their behalf?
14) Can that person also agree on hospital photos/videos to be published?
15) Why are consuls not allowed to see the Skripals?
16) How are doctors protected against chemical exposure?
17) Can consuls use the same protection?
18) Where, how and by whom were blood samples collected from the Skripals?
19) How was it documented?
20) Who can certify that the data is credible?
21) How can we be sure that the chain of custody was up to international standards?
22) Through what methods did experts identify the substance so quickly?
23) Had they possessed a sample against which to test the substance?
24) Where had that sample come from?
25) Nerve agents act immediately. Why was it not the case with the Skripals?
26) Leaks suggest the Skripals were poisoned at a pub, at a restaurant, in their car, at the airport, at home... Which version is the official one?
27) How to reconcile quick political moves with Scotland Yard's statement that the investigation will take "months"?
Question: Speaking at the National Cyber Security Centre’s CYBERUK conference on 12 May 2021, the UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said that ‘states like Russia’ have a responsibility to prosecute criminals operating from their territory, ‘not shelter them’. How would you comment on this? Answer: The Embassy has on multiple occasions commented unfounded accusations of numerous ‘sins’ in cyberspace made against our country. It is disappointing that the British authorities keep using Russia as a negative example, while having no actual grounds for this. Over the past few years we have repeatedly suggested to the UK, as well as to the USA and other countries, to develop professional cooperation to tackle the issues arising in this field... The UK prefers resounding speeches and vague ‘sheltering criminals’ insinuations.
The Embassy has no comment to make on the substance of the allegations against HRH Prince Michael of Kent made in the recent media publications. Prince Michael is well known in Russia as a champion of Russian-British friendship and cooperation. He has immensely contributed to developing human, cultural and economic ties between the two countries, including by serving as the Patron of the Russo-British Chamber of Commerce. In this capacity, His Royal Highness has maintained a wide range of contacts with Russian counterparts at various levels.
The Embassy expresses sincere condolences to the families and friends of the victims of the tragic events in School №175 in Kazan on 11 May 2021, and wishes of a speedy recovery to everyone who was injured. A Book of Condolence is open at the Embassy's Consular Section. You can also send your message to: condolences@rusemb.org.uk.
Question: What impact have the sanctions had on the state of relations between Russia and the West?
Maria Zakharova: Unfortunately, the growing use of politically motivated, unilateral restrictive measures by a number of Western countries, primarily the United States, has become a reality of our time. We increasingly view the sanctions against Russia as a “gesture of despair” and a manifestation of the local elites’ inability to accept the new reality, abandon the stereotypes of their bloc-based thinking, and recognise Russia's right to independently determine its path of development and build relationships with its partners.
In terms of discussion of the issue of current implementation of the Treaty on Open (OST) Skies, the Russian Delegation would like to announce the official position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia on the situation with regard to the Treaty on Open Skies.
On April 21, Deputy Chief of Mission of the US Embassy Bart Gorman was summoned to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where he was handed a note saying that 10 US Embassy employees in Moscow had been declared persona non grata. These people have been ordered to leave the Russian Federation before the end of the day on May 21.
We consider the FCDO statement of 15 April on “malign activity by Russian intelligence services in cyberspace” as nothing but an attempt to play along with the US, which as usually try to put a blame on Russia while obviously failing to ensure their own cyber security.
Question: Newly appointed to lead the inquest into the death of Dawn Sturgess, Baroness Hallet has announced her plans to examine the Russian state’s involvement in poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury as part of the inquest. Any comments?
Answer: We see it as a confirmation of our earlier conclusion that the situation with regard to these tragic events would evolve according to the Litvinenko Case scenario. Regular investigation and regular use of existing international legal instruments (since there have been Russian nationals affected) is being substituted with a quasi-judicial procedure. It does not formally pertain to the incident in Salisbury as such, yet would undoubtedly be used to support again and again the groundless accusations against Russia made by the British authorities.
On 10 March 2021, the Embassy undertook a demarche to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office regarding the leaked FCDO-related documents that reveal a large-scale campaign being performed by the UK Government aimed at exercising systematic influence on the Russian-language media space.
Three years have now passed since the highly publicized incident in Salisbury. So far we have learnt little on what really happened. The British authorities laid the blame on Russia for an alleged use of chemical weapons on the British soil. Such a serious accusation however was not backed by any facts, proof or other sort of relevant information. Being ungrounded, it cannot be considered credible.
Tweet Follow @russianembassy