This really is a pointless stance for the UK to take. Russia's constitution, whether Britain likes it or not, is clear: citizens cannot be extradited. Even as a country without a written constitution, Britain generally understands that constitutions and the rule of law rule supreme where they exist. I'm afraid, like it or not - and in this case I don't - we just have to accept it. As a recent Prime Minister was so fond of saying, it's time to draw a line under this and move on.

Steven, Southampton,

British government is turning to a banana republic style of conducting foreign affairs and I'm afraid this is going to be a major problem in years to come. I can't believe that the govenment of the country which "invented" Magna Carta Libertatum 800 years ago dares to make such irresponsible demands to violate the Constitution!

What I also refuse to believe is that as a punishment this government is threatening to withdraw cooperation in counter-terrorism information. As if everything was safe and quiet in Britain!!! As if it was Moscow where a major terrorist plot has just been uncovered!

British government should concentrate more on internal affairs rather then turning domestic criminal issues into an instrument in their Politics.

Alexander, Moscow, Russian Federation

I dont get it really? Of course this man should face a court! But as i know englands constitution says that it doesn't extradite citizens, My country Switzerland says the same..under no reasons would ever be a swiss national extradite to any other coutry...he would face court at home in switzerland.... well the russian constitution simply says the same...or does anyone believe that england would extradit any of its nationals to russia in any circumstances??

Why making this big political thing out of it... its just called souveranity and citizenships and the rights they have as well in russia..

Dont get me wrong im not on russians side..but i cant stand double standards at all.

Andi, Basel, Switzerland

To Sasha
What makes you think there is enough evidence to prove that Lugovoi was the killer? And why you think the trial in Moscow would not be fair? If Britain has enough evidence - russians whould get them and do trial in Russia. British officials would always be welcome to check if the trial is fair or not. To me it looks like MI6 wants a former KGB officer be extradicted to UK to get some information from him about russian secrets and that is it. Litvinenko case is just a well constructed case and nothing else.

Alex, Moscow,

Is it not rather contradictory, Lugovoy allegedly committed a crime and now Brittian wants Russia to commit a crime by breaking their law. Be sensible and flex a muscle when you have a muscle to flex.

Erik, London,

It's a tough one really. The geezer clearly has to be tried in London and would not get a fair trial in Moscow. On the other hand, he will not be extradited as it's against the Russian constitution. And whilst on the one hand we keep saying that Putin should not change the constitution and get re-elected for a third term, on the other we are putting pressure on them to violate this same constitution when it suits us.
The Russian claims re Berezovsky and Zakayev are nonsense as their cases have been heard in English courts which found that the evidence supplied by the Russians was inediquate for extradiction.
One good thing is he will never be able to travel anywhere outside Russia unless he wants to get extradited to Britain anyway.
What is worrying is the Russian's claims of russophobia with their ambassador claiming the other day that "Russian tourists, visitors and businessmen were severely beaten and the police did not open any investigation on these particular incidents".

Sasha, London, UK

Lets be clear there is no way the Russians were involved in the murder of Mr Litvinenko. If Mr the Russian secret services had wanted him dead they would have spent the pennies that a bullet cost and not the millions of dollars on Polonium. If the secret services are looking for some pretext to organise public opinion against Russia they had better spend money on a better scriptwriter. What a joke as the indexed linked pensioned traitors in 5 and 6 carry out more false flag terror operations in my nation they should be more professional. Their fictions are an insult to intelligence.

Ragnar, Newcastle, England

I think it is now obvious, that Britain does not want any real trial. They will make unreasonable demends exactly to make ground for at first delaying and later just droping the case in hope that any uncertainty will be put by public opinion on Russia.
Unfortuinatelly the times of 'gentelmen' and 'fair play' in UK are gone . . .

Dmitry, Germany,

The thing about British prosecutors - they cannot show EVEN ONE piece of solid evidence, or ANY evidence at all, yet they have the nerve to demand something. Even if there was no constitutional barrier - why would the Russia comply with those demands without any facts to prove UK POV ? Just because ?

Besides, what "fair trial" is go going to recieve in UK, when their media ironed at him, day and night ?

Karry, Moscow,

The attempt to break out hysteria in Britain is nothing but the strong intention to disguise its own failures around Berezovsky and Litvinenko. I mean the MI6. Money, bribes and blackmail pave the way to obtaining British residency.

Victor, Moscow,

It's been fun reading the comments: every one living in Russia knows full well that the Constitution is just a piece of paper the Kremlin thugs violate publicly every day. Besides, they have millions of ways to make Lugovoy go to London "of his own free will". And they would, if they could be certain he will not shop his masters. The mooted proposition to boot out a few junior diplomats is really fatuous. The Kremlin criminals have multiple personal interests in the UK, such as the Kremlin's private accountant Abramovich who resides in England, thousands of other wealthy Russians who are doing the Kremlin's bidding in one way or another, the RF government members' kids working in the City (some already in jail) or studying in Oxbridge...

Max, Moscow, RF

One should take into account some facts. 1. It was never disclosed entirely what was Mr Litvinenko's business while in UK. 2. Four UK spies were caught red handed in Russia, but Putin had dealt with that affair as a statesman - quietly, letting them out. 3. Not one US soldier - including evident war criminals - was ever extradited. 4. Any anti-Russian action will hurt UK more than Russia, will strengthen nationalism in Russia, and contribute to world tensions. Think twice.

B.Segal, Budapest, Hungary

The extradition of a Russian citizen is forbidden by the Russian constitution, so it is here in Switzerland as well.

Would Britain extradite a British citizen to Russia? (You even refuse tio extradite a spokesman of chechen terrorists. As much about fighting global terrorism!)

The whole thing is about setting pressure on Russia by a government that is supporting US-Imperialism in the former soviet republics.

Gerhard Koch, Bern, Switzerland

Lets take a step back and look again at the issue: Britain wants Russia to break with its own constitution and extradite Lugovoi for trial in UK. On another hand Britain doesn't want to extradite Berezovsky and Zakaev no matter what charges are brought against them. At the same time UK keeps lecturing Russia about merits of democracy. Well, democratic countries do not break with its own constitution. And Russia should not do it. Lugovoi must be tried in Russia and it doesn't matter whether UK likes it or not. Any pressure from UK in this matter is unacceptable. Russia should flatly refuse as UK did in Berezovsky's case. No one will guarantee Lugovoi's life once he is in UK, he knows too much, and he started talking. Remember that ex-spies do not live long in London, even Egyptian ones. UK has pushed itself into a trap and any sunctions against Russia will be counter-productive because Russia can ignore UK, but UK can not ignore Russia.

Oleg, Toronto, Canada

Russia's response to this extradition request was known and expected weeks and months ago. British chose to confront Russia on this issue anyway. As Putin said, they are being silly. Now with London under attack from terrorists, the British threaten to stop their counter-terrorism cooperation with Russia. Well, that makes perfect sense... The British government is acting like a spoiled baby who was denied a favorite toy.

Veniamin Nikolayev, Philadelphia, US

It is difficult to imagine who is driving this nonsense forward. Everybody, surely including the government, must by now know that Russia is not legally able to extradite Litvinenko.

Presumably our free and democratic leaders want Russia to change their laws to allow the extradition absurdities that now obtain between the UK and the USA.

Mike Poulsen, Reading, Berkshire

The Russian Constitution (Article 61) forbids the extradition of Russian citizens to other countries. This is a legal fact. It is not Putin's fault or even his decision. The British government knows this, but for some reason keeps demanding the impossible and making a political issue out of a legal one. Putin and the Russian government is quite rightly bound by its own constitution, established many years before Putin was in power.

Bill Johnston, Carlisle,

Why are there so much russians oligarchs in Great Britain?

Manuel Kielmannsegge, Madrid, Spain

Future Russian visitors to Britain should be banned from entering unless they sign a waiver on their Russian constitutional rights in respect of extradition.

Guy Shirra, Sai Kung, Hong Kong

To find a murderer of Litvinenko is one thing. And Russians are interested in getting the right answer to that even more than anybody else. In principle British and Russian cooperation in trial is the best way to open the truth. But another thing is a UK authorities demand for Russian government to breach the articles of Russian Constitution in order to get the suspect -- Russian citizen -- to their jurisdiction. There are no government on Earth which would agree to meet such demand. And British authorities knew that. Why they insisted if they knew the only answer possible? It's not a right way to find solution. And it seems that the aim of British claim was different. As a result we'll not know the truth but get a new conflict. Who is interested in that? Qui prodest?

Oleg, Moscow, Russia

What about the Russians sheltering in the UK that
the Russians want back to put them on trial for a
variety of crimes.

Barry Holmes, Christchurch, New Zealand

Britain already refuses to cooperate with Russia about giving up terrorists hiding on it's soil and preventing
Russian business from expanding in the UK. As for "education, education and education", UK has never been strong in this department anyway. Business between Russian and UK companies is booming, have a look at today's Times. As for offencive statements about Russian courts does "not meet standards of impartiality and fairness", and threats towards Russia, that affair "would have an impact on the number of businesses that would risk making investments there" - that is simply "silly", because on the long run they can threaten UK's business interests.

Van der den, Breda, Netherlands

An open trial in absence isn't exactly creating a precedence nor breaking new ground.

Robbie Rohan, Great Chart, Kent, UK