FRENCH MFA "PRUDENT" ON MOSKALENKO CASE, CITES

C O N F I D E N T I A L PARIS 001948 NOFORN SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/23/2018 TAGS: PREL PHUM PGOV PINS PINR FR RS SUBJECT: FRENCH MFA "PRUDENT" ON MOSKALENKO CASE, CITES LACK OF CONCLUSIVE INFORMATION Classified By: POLITICAL MINISTER COUNSELOR KATHY ALLEGRONE FOR REASONS 1.4 (b and d) ¶1. (C) MFA desk officer for Russian internal issues Arnaud Migoux told us October 23 that the French are paying close attention to the alleged poisoning of Russian human rights lawyer Karina Moskalenko in the eastern French city of Strasbourg where she lives. However, French investigators are very hesitant to draw quick conclusions as to how small balls of mercury came to be in Moskalenko,s car and whether the mercury actually caused her illness. Although Moskalenko filed a formal complaint with French authorities (thus triggering the current investigation),she has been hesitant to suggest who may have been behind her reputed poisoning. French authorities have not yet excluded any possibilities or suspects (including Moskalenko herself or "others" seeking to concoct an incident that would implicate Moscow),but Migoux again emphasized that no one in the GOF wants to make hasty accusations. ¶2. (C) French prudence, Migoux continued, accounted for the MFA's reticence to make any sort of public statement on the subject. Guidance he had prepared for the MFA spokesperson to use in response to any questions from journalists (which have so far not been posed) would only have confirmed that French authorities were conducting an investigation of the incident and directed media inquiries to appropriate judicial and police authorities. ¶3. (C) Migoux also reported that he saw Moskalenko Monday, October 20, in Paris -* ironically at an EU/Russia meeting to discuss human rights issues *- and that she appeared to be in perfect health. His understanding of medical interventions to date, for symptoms of poisoning that included headaches and nausea, was that it consisted of blood and other tests to determine the precise nature of any poisoning. She had not, as far as Migoux was aware, spent any time in hospital undergoing treatment. It was certainly premature, in his view, to equate this case with the Litvinenko poisoning in the UK. ¶4. (C) Migoux noted that Moskalenko continues to work on various human rights-related cases in Strasbourg. She continues to work on the Politkovskaya case, which was due to go to trial last week, despite refusing to travel to Russia to take part because she rejects out of principle the Russian government's transfer of the venue to a military tribunal that would hold the proceedings behind closed doors with no access accorded the media or members of the public. Migoux suggested as well that she may have declined to go to Russia out of concern for her own possible detention by Russian authorities. He was not sure, therefore, how she would make good on her determination to remain engaged in the prosecution of Politkovskaya's presumed murderers. ¶5. (C/NF) Comment: Migoux was determined not to over-dramatize the details of the Moskalenko case, emphasizing that while conspiracy theorists were quick to draw similarities between this case and the 2006 poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in London, French police have found no proof that Moskalenko was or is in similar danger. Migoux acknowledged the Russians maintain an active intelligence presence in Strasbourg (large enough, he claimed, to constitute a formal FSB "residence")because of the many European institutions located there. This presence could complicate Moskalenko,s life and work. When we mentioned discussion within Washington about a possible public statement of the case, he urged that we respond cautiously until the circumstances of "l'affaire Moskalenko" become clearer. STAPLETON