The image of Alexander Litvinenko defiant but succumbing from radioactive poisoning in a London hospital bed is how the world remembers the former Russian intelligence officer.
But that is not the way his widow, Marina, and son, Anatoly, 21, want to remember him.
The photos they spread across a kitchen table tell the story of Litvinenko’s life , not his death.
There is a picture of him aged 17 in military uniform. He became part of the security apparatus – what was the KGB and, after the end of the Soviet Union, the FSB.
Another picture shows him sitting astride a tank – a human who fought for his country.
But there is also an image from a press conference in which he spoke out about corruption in the FSB.
He went to see the FSB’s newly appointed director to complain, hoping he would act. But, instead, Litvinenko was cast out. The director’s name was Vladimir Putin.
Alongside the pictures of his run, are those of his personal life – holding his newborn son, teaching Anatoly to swim on his back, and playing with him on a sofa. Anatoly seems away from these.
“I try not to think too much about my early childhood, ” he tells. “It is easier that way.”
Soon after speaking out over corruption, Litvinenko made the decision to flee Russia for his and his family’s security.
He arrived in London and eventually became a British citizen, in 2006.
Within weeks of that event, he would be poisoned.
The journey to the current inquiry has been tortuous.
An inquest began but then reached a brick wall when the governmental forces said much of the information it held was categorized and could not be revealed in public.
The only solution, Sir Robert Owen, a magistrate sitting as coroner responded, was a public inquiry.
The government defied that alternative, but Marina Litvinenko continued to fight through the courts.
Eventually, the Home Office relented, a decision many find as research results of a downturn in relations with Russia.
Anatoly had little understanding of his father’s run when he was a child, and it was only the inquiry that helped him understand the extent to which Litvinenko had remained involved in the world of security and intelligence.
This included working for Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service MI6.
The inquiry exposed how Litvinenko was receiving regular pays for consultancy run and had a case officer( known as Martin) he fulfilled regularly.
The details of the poisoning itself have long been known, although fresh datum did emerge, which linked Andrei Lugovoi and Dimitri Kovtun to multiple attempts to kill Litvinenko.
Those two men have denied any role and Russia tells it cannot extradite them to face charges.
And the crucial issue in the report is that of state responsibility.
“You want to find out who was behind the murder, who planned it, who commissioned it, ” Anatoly says.
“That is why state responsibility is important to us.”
Most observers expect some kind of finding of state responsibility, but whether there is enough evidence to name people – including up to the Russian leader himself – is unclear.
One thing that did emerge, though, was a personal animosity between Mr Putin and Litvinenko.
“They detested one another vastly, because Litvinenko complained about corruption and Putin shelved his report, ” tells Litvinenko’s friend Alex Goldfarb.
“And Putin considered Litvinenko, after the fact, a traitor for going public with his allegations.”
The specific trigger for the killing has also been the subject of supposition.
Litvinenko had been vociferous and outspoken in his accusations about the Kremlin from London – co-writing a volume accusing the Russian security services of bombing Moscow apartments to justify a war in Chechnya.
But it may well have been his work investigating specific people in the Kremlin and their ties to the mafia that warranted his killing.
He had already helped Spanish prosecutors apprehend a number of individuals and was due to travel out to give further evidence when he was poisoned.
One of the person or persons he had told about that the project works( and was due to travel to Spain with) was Andrei Lugovoi.
The issue of state responsibility has ramifications beyond the Litvinenko case.
An inquest is due to start in Surrey in the coming months into the death of Alexander Perepilichnyy.
He had come to Britain with information of corruption inside the Russian nation.
It is not yet clear whether he was murdered, but Bill Browder, whose fucking lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, was killed in Russia, believes he was.
“Anything that potentially exposes fund that the government crime figures are collecting sets members of the public who exposes that fund at a risk of being killed, ” Mr Browder tells.
He tells not sufficient has been done in the wake of the Litvinenko killing.
“If the Russian government sends assassins to the United Kingdom to kill people and there are no repercussions, it basically givens them a green light to keep on killing people, ” he tells.
Mr Browder tells the UK and EU should “at a minimum” impose individual sanctions such as asset freezes and travelling prohibits on people in the Russian government presented to have any responsibility for the Litvinenko killing.
British diplomats involved in the Litvinenko case accept the measures taken at the time may not have been strong enough to deter Russia( these included the expulsion of diplomats and the suspension of intelligence cooperation, which was of relatively small importance anyway ).
But the signs are the British nation may not be keen at this moment to farther escalate tensions with Russia, particularly because of Moscow’s role in the Countries of the middle east and the Syria crisis.
The Litvinenko case
23 Nov 2006 – Litvinenko dies three weeks after having tea with former agents Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitri Kovtun in London 24 Nov 2006 – His death is attributed to polonium-2 10 22 May 2007 – Britain’s director of public prosecutions decides Mr Lugovoi should be charged with the murder of Litvinenko 31 May 2007 – Mr Lugovoi denies any participation in his death but tells Litvinenko was a British spy 5 Jul 2007 – Russia officially refuses to extradite Mr Lugovoi, saying its constitution does not allow it May-June 2013 – The inquest into Litvinenko’s death is delayed as the coroner decides a public inquiry, which could hear some evidence in secret, would be preferable July 2013 – Pastor rule out a public inquiry Jan 2014 – Marina Litvinenko appears in the High Court to fight for a public inquiry 11 Feb 2014 – The High Court tells the Home Office had been incorrect to rule out an inquiry before the outcome of an inquest July 2014 – A public inquiry is announced by Home Office January 2015 – The public inquiry begins