The story of his «spying» resembles other such cases dealt with by Russian courts in recent years. It was said he worked for foreign partners, received payment for this, and was accused of disclosing state secrets. With incorrect investigations and poor-quality legal proceedings, not much is needed for scientific cooperation with foreigners to be classified as espionage, or payment as betraying ones homeland. The problem is that correct investigations and high-quality legal proceedings are extremely rare in Russia.

Valentin Danilov, physicist from Krasnoyarsk State University, was involved in official cooperation with a certain Chinese firm, part of that country’s space program. It was an investigation into the influence of the space environment on flying objects. He was accused of developing a technical project and giving the Chinese Academy of space technology data concerning the existence at Krasnoyarsk university of the Akvagen electron accelerator (a simulator used in nuclear technology and used for testing satellites for the effects of x-ray radiation). This work would no doubt be useful for the Chinese space program. The accusation against Danilov states that the Chinese space rocket complex works in the interests of the Chinese People’s Army: a statement nobody would begin to argue with, just as they would not if referring to Russia or, for that matter, the USA…

It is quite obvious that Danilov’s work was of assistance to China’s military potential. However, this lies more within the realms of morality and responsibility of a scientist for the consequences of his work in the hands of a non-democratic regime. In this case the juridical meaning concerns only whether Danilov used data classified as secret. The formal accusation states that he did, while he categorically denies this. The evidence in court gave the impression Danilov did not use confidential material and not contravene state secrecy. At least he managed to convince 12 members of the jury, who found him not guilty.

According to the law, decisions by jury are final and not subject to appeal. But what is a law worth in Russia? The Public Prosecutor appeals to the supreme court and demands the verdict be quashed on account of infringements of court norms. To be more precise: the members of the jury supposedly had been put under pressure, had come to some kind of agreement with each other, the judge had been too liberal, had ignored infringements… The pressure, according to the Public Prosecutor, consisted of the defendant’s lawyers stating doubts in the honesty of the experts, reproaching the judge for tendentiousness. All this was not stated at some press conference, but formally to the Supreme Court!

The Supreme Court reacted sympathetically to the prosecutors’ insults, and the not guilty verdict issued by the Krasnoyarsk regional court on 30 December 2003 was quashed. The case was sent back for reexamination.

The accusation of breaking official secrecy is not the only one facing the defendant. Danilov is also accused of stealing 466,200 rubles. He received the money from the university for carrying out work under contract. The outgoings, for a future stand, are not backed up with invoices, and the manufacturer of the stand has since died. Thus Danilov cannot prove what money went where. According to him, there is some piece of paper vaguely similar to the voucher for the work done, but there is no signature. And the widow of the manufacturer, who could confirm the authenticity of the signature, has refused to testify in court. While the document could have been subjected to identification by experts, for some reason neither Danilov nor his lawyers deigned to do so.

Thus the plot. That Danilov is a physicist is undisputable; that he is a spy is doubtful. That he is a political prisoner is an open question. The authoritative human rights organization Amnesty International does not regard Danilov as being a political prisoner, as it does not the majority of other participants in “espionage” trials. The question is partly one of terminology, in view of the absence of defining criteria of the term “political prisoner”.

There exist several points of view concerning who should be considered a political prisoner. According to one of them, which is rather popular today, political prisoners are any people who are exposed to state reprisals for activity directed towards changing the political system of that state. And one can link to these prisoners those in the press who criticize the political system, and those who try to change it by terror. Thus according to the definition of the words “political prisoner” (imprisoned for political reasons) this point of view can be regarded as correct.

For this reason Amnesty International brought in the term Prisoner of Conscience: a political prisoner condemned for non-violent activities. Unquestionably, terrorists and revolutionaries do not fall into this category.

Amnesty International does not offer ideological differences between its prisoners of conscience. With equal diligence it defends both democrats and communists whose human rights have been abused. In this approach there is some weakness, dictated by the position taken of being “above the fight for ideology”. This formal, faultless legal approach, of defending all those whose rights are abused, ignores one important difference: that between those prisoners who fight for human rights, and those who through their activities try to build a system which itself violates human rights.

It is simple enough to define a political prisoner as someone whose actions are governed by political motivation, and experiences repression from the authorities in return. And in the case of Danilov? As he himself says, his actions held no political purpose. He worked in his profession and earned money carrying it out. He did not intend to change the political system in any measure. He became a victim of the state defence’s ambitions, dreaming of the strengthening of its influence: this also to be achieved with easy victories over false spies.

If agreed that the Danilov affair is not espionage, and the FSB is operating for political reasons, then these reasons can only come from one side – the authorities. Is this person therefore a political prisoner? The picture becomes more complicated, but not ultimately hopeless.

The question of whether Danilov is a political prisoner has various answers. One person regards a political prisoner as anyone unfairly treated by the authorities. There are many of these in Russia: those condemned with the help of false accusations, those who falsely confessed under torture, or judged by an unjust court with infringements of legal norms. And there is no difference in principle between a physician condemned while performing the ominous plans of the FSB, and a hard worker who gets blamed for other people’s crimes for the sake of the militia achieving its targets for clearing up crime. All of them are victims of the perverted law-enforcement system

Another point of view regards a political prisoner as being someone who has some kind of political motivation and, because of this, lands in prison. Danilov however had no such political motivation, and it would be strange to call him such, as he was cooperating with one of the last strongholds of the communist world, a country where an “untrue” spoken word or an “incorrect” written line can leave the person a political prisoner.

Building an unbiased opinion regarding espionage is difficult. Evidence is stamped “Confidential” and is inaccessible to the general public; the trials are held behind closed doors; the lawyers of the defendants are “reticent”… The prosecution illiterately and emotionally accuses the defendants of treachery, while the defendants no less emotionally certify themselves victims of political trials.

Nobody need doubt the FSB is prepared to falsify an espionage affair in the interests of strengthening its power. Nothing much could be expected from the pupils of Dzerzhinsky and Andropov. But it is a sad reflection that human rights rhetoric should replace the absence even of available documents and clear comments.

In the heat of the campaign to defend Grigori Pasko, the prosecution’s conclusion was published in the internet with notes saying that it had not been allowed to objectively judge all of the accusations against the defendant. The verdict of not guilty in Krasnoyarsk against Valentin Danilov was not published at all. Also not published were the verdicts against Valentin Moiseyev, Igor Sutyagin, and Anatoly Babkin. Naturally different cases can have various reasons, even respectable ones. However the documents being inaccessible to the general public narrows the opportunities for public protection. It leaves with empty hands those who prefer to independently analyze sensational cases, rather than be content with second- and third-hand information; even if the hands belong to respected human rights activists.