The fact that an article entitled "Pasha Mercedes: A thief should be in prison, not acting as the defense minister" should have landed the deputy editor of Moskovsky Komsomolets in court ought not to have come as a shock to him.


The article was the culmination of a longstanding feud between the Defense Ministry and MK's editor, Pavel Gusev, which was made even more bitter by the murder of the journalist Dmitry Kholodov, who had been investigating corruption in the Western Group of Forces. To say the least, emotions were running high.


But there must be very few countries in the world where a newspaper can publish barely substantiated allegations of theft against a government minister without being sued for libel. So whatever one's feelings about the case, it is hard to fault Pavel Grachev's decision to seek legal redress.


But what is bizarre about this case is that it is not a civil suit, but a criminal suit. The charges are not being brought by Grachev, but by the state, which is accusing MK's deputy editor, Vadim Poegli, of defamation under Article 131 of the Russian criminal code.


The court has no interest in establishing whether there was any truth in the newspaper's allegations, only in whether Poegli did indeed carry out "a deliberate assault on the honor and dignity of a person, in an indecent manner."


While few would question Grachev's right to protect himself against libel, why should the state be taking up his cause? Why is the criminal code involved at all?


In a libel case, one of the court's first priorities is to establish whether the offending allegations are true. But under the defamation law, Poegli's lawyer was disallowed from probing whether Poegli's charges were accurate.


Happily for Poegli, the worst he seems to face from the current case, if it should go against him, is a small loss of earnings. In a civil libel case he might lose much more.


But this is not the issue. If the publication of revelations about illegal activities by a public figure can lead to criminal charges, irrespective of their accuracy, then this has serious implications for the freedom and rights of the press.


Libel laws play a useful role in curbing the proliferation of smear stories and encourage responsibility in the media, but they do not amount to a gag.


The criminal law under which Poegli is being prosecuted, by contrast, does have a clear potential to smother investigative journalists.


Pavel Grachev has his rights. And like anyone else he should be free to fight for them. But in a civil court.