![Russian spy had access to investigation files. Even classified ones [AKTUALIZACJA]](https://i0.wp.com/cdn.defence24.pl/2024/09/05/1920x1080px/EZoiyc8Sjv6EObIexR1yUyAUqLsykVl3MBqfu4tC.dnra.jpg?fit=%2C&ssl=1 "Russian spy had access to investigation files. Even classified ones [AKTUALIZACJA]")
Illustrative photo
Author: KPP in Cieszyn
Paweł Rubtsov – known in Poland as Pablo González – who turned out to be a Russian spy, was supposed to have been given access to materials on the investigation conducted against him – reports Thursday’s Rzeczpospolita. The National Prosecutor’s Office commented on the case in a statement.
Pavel Rubtsov left Polish custody at the end of July as part of a prisoner exchange between Russia and the U.S.He was there because of allegations of conducting activities for Russian military intelligence (GRU).
As Rzeczpospolita reports, Before he returned to Russia, he had the opportunity to familiarize himself with everything that had been collected on him during the Polish investigation.
Prosecutor Przemysław Nowak, spokesman for the National Prosecutor’s Office, told Rzeczpospolita that “Pablo G., before closing the investigation, exercised his right under Article 321 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”He was made familiar with all the evidence, including the classified material.” – he added.
An officer of the Internal Security Agency interviewed by “Rz” stated that “the prosecutor’s office, knowing that he would be replaced, should have refused based on art. 156 kpk” “This is a provision introduced in 2021 to protect an important state interest. It is a safety valve,” he emphasized.
The article recalls that “Rubtsov read the files for two weeks in July”. “The suspect familiarized himself with classified materials at the secret ABW office. With unclassified materials at the prosecutor’s office,” indicated the spokesman for the National Prosecutor’s Office. The prosecutor, giving him access to the files, was not supposed to know that Rubtsov would be released on July 31.
“He left with a full set of knowledge. There is a risk that he learned too much and passed it on to his principals,” a high-ranking ABW officer told “Rzeczpospolita”.
“The prosecutor’s office should make a selection and provide Rubtsov with only the materials on which it based its accusation. And not show the rest, including information of significance to state security,” prosecutor Kazimierz Olejnik, former deputy prosecutor general in the SLD government, told the daily. He noted that “in cases involving espionage, the services and prosecutors usually establish many additional facts.”
“The case is stigmatized by a number of strange, incomprehensible decisions and actions that are unknown to Polish criminal procedure,” Olejnik said, quoted in the article. He noted that “it is still unknown what the agreements were and with whom, and how they were translated into Polish legal norms.”
UPDATE – September 5 – 1:00 PM
The National Prosecutor’s Office commented on the case in a statement.Providing access to files for a suspect who has been placed under temporary arrest is a statutory principle. There is no possibility of refusing to provide access to files to a suspect against whom a request for arrest has been filed, said Przemysław Nowak, spokesman for the National Prosecutor’s Office.
“Every suspect has the right to familiarize themselves with the files. Exceptionally, during preparatory proceedings, this right may be denied to a suspect who remains at large. It is not possible to refuse access to files to a suspect who is temporarily detained. After the indictment is filed with the court, each accused has unlimited access to the files,” prosecutor Nowak said in a statement posted on the PK website on Thursday.
At the same time, he noted that the services “know about these rules”, so information revealing “operational techniques” and data that suspects should not be familiar with is not transferred to the evidence material. As assured by prosecutor Nowak, this was also the case of the Russian spy Pavel Rubtsov.
The PK spokesman recalled in a statement that the suspect was detained from March 2, 2022 to July 31, 2024. Prosecutor Nowak noted that in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the event of filing a “motion to apply or extend temporary detention during an investigation, the suspect and his defense attorney are immediately provided with the case files in the part containing the content of the evidence attached to the motion.”
”There is no legal possibility of refusing access to files for a suspect against whom a request for temporary arrest has been filed. (…) The need to provide access to the files is therefore a consequence of filing a motion to apply and then extend temporary arrest,” emphasized prosecutor Nowak. He added that in such a situation, the provision providing for the possibility of refusing access to files due to “protection of an important state interest” – applied to suspects responding from freedom of speech – does not apply.
“These principles, including the need to make files available to each accused, are known to the bodies (Police, services) cooperating with the prosecutor’s office and transferring evidence to the investigation files, including that obtained in the course of secret proceedings. As a result, information revealing “operational techniques” and other data that suspects or accused persons should not be familiar with is not transferred to the evidence,” noted the PK spokesman. As emphasized by prosecutor Nowak, “this was also the case here.”
Moreover – as the PK spokesman pointed out – the suspect or his lawyer has the right to file a request for “final familiarization with the materials of the proceedings”“When there are grounds to close the investigation, the prosecutor is obliged to make the files available to the suspect and the defense attorney. Making the entire files available is mandatory in such a situation and the regulations do not provide for the possibility of refusal,” he pointed out.
In Rubtsov’s case, the application for “final acquaintance” – as revealed by the prosecutor’s office – was filed in 2022 and then repeated. The case files were made available on July 16 this year and in the following days. “At that time, the prosecutor did not know that at the end of July there would be reasons justifying the lifting of the temporary arrest, which happened on July 31 this year,” the PK spokesman informed.
As PK recalled, an indictment was filed against Rubtsov on August 9 this year. A few days earlier, however, Rubtsov was released from Polish custody as part of a prisoner exchange between Western countries and Russia – according to the media, the largest such exchange since the end of the Cold War, involving 24 people.
Let us recall that the spokesman for the head of the Ministry of Interior and Administration and the minister-coordinator of special services, Jacek Dobrzyński, described Rubtsov as an officer of the GRU military intelligence, “carrying out intelligence tasks in Europe and awaiting criminal trial.”
As reported by the independent Russian website Insider, Rubtsov was detained by Poland on the Polish-Ukrainian border on February 27, 2022. He posed as a Spanish journalist and used the name Pablo Gonzalez. He allegedly used his status as a journalist to gather information in Ukraine for the Russian special services; his goal was also to gain the trust of Russian oppositionists.
The indictment against Rubtsov was filed with the District Court in Przemyśl. “Pablo GY vel Pavel R. was accused of providing foreign intelligence (Russian military intelligence) from April 2016 to February 2022 in Przemyśl, Warsaw and other places with information that, if passed on, could be detrimental to the Republic of Poland, including as a NATO member state. The accused’s activities included obtaining and transmitting information, spreading disinformation and conducting operational reconnaissance.” – the prosecutor’s office said at the time.
The prosecutor’s office also informed at that time that the evidence concerning other collaborators (including against the suspected journalist Magdalena Ch.) was separated into separate proceedings, which are being continued.
