Nicola Barley wrote:Any case of alleged use of chemical weapons should be handled through the proper channel, in this instance it’s the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague, of which both Russia and Britain are members.
The suspected/accused member state has the right to request
access to full information available to the accusing member state and to the location where the chemical attack took place to enable experts to test it in accordance with the Chemical Weapons Convention, under the supervision of OPCW (obviously!)
The OPCW rules allow Britain in this case to send a request to Russia on the suspected Russian-made chemical weapon and expect a response within [B][U]10 days[/U][/B]. If the response is not satisfactory, Britain would have to file a complaint with the organization’s executive council and the conference of CWC member-states.
Just look it up on the OPCW site, for goodness sake.
What’s very interesting is that Britain has not (so far) addressed the relevant international body in The Hague (OPCW) but instead brought the case to the UN. Might they be concerned about a professional investigation?
Firstly, Britain has reported the Salisbury attack to the OPCW, and has invited the OPCW to help verify Britain's claims about the nerve agent involved. Britain was also supported in taking the issue to the UNSC, due to the international security implications involved.
Secondly, Britain is not obliged by the Chemical Weapons Convention to provide Russia with evidence gathered during a criminal investigation. However, the CWC does oblige Russia to declare its chemical weapons programs, which in the case of Novichok it has failed to do. We should of course overlook that breach, as we don't want to demonise anyone.
Now, about those Litveneko suspects......?