In a press released posted Tuesday on the agency’s official website, Lieutenant General Vladimir Gorshukov said that an article published Monday in the New Times magazine accusing an elite subdivision of the OMON of using slave labor was “a complete fabrication.”

“I would call it an intentional campaign against the OMON detachments of the Russian Internal Ministry, and against the Zubr detachment in particular,” said Gorshukov.

The lieutenant asserted that the article was based on “the private statements of a former member of the division who had disciplinary problems and did not follow demands from above that were given to members of the special subdivisions; in consequence of this, she was fired.”

Monday’s article by the New Times consisted largely of the transcript of an interview with former Zubr OMON officer Larisa Krepkova, who claims to have witnessed migrant workers brought to the OMON base and forced to work without pay. The article asserts that her reason for leaving the force was related to illness.

Major General Aleksandr Ivanin, who commands the Zubr unit of the OMON, said that while Krepkova was sufficiently qualified for her job as a canine handler, she had repeatedly come to work intoxicated and was seen consuming alcohol on the job. “We conducted a service check on the matter and have all the supporting documentation,” he added.

Ivanin claimed that Krepkova was given the opportunity to resign, but that the reason for her dismissal was changed to the condition of her health after a medical commission was completed. What exactly the commission concluded was unclear.

Internal Ministry spokesman Oleg Yelnikov accused the media of failing to fact check their articles. “Some journalists, clearly, have forgotten that in accordance with article 49 of the law regarding the media, a journalist is required to check the reliability of the information presented to him,” blaming the New Times for relying solely on Krepkova’s testimony.

The agency announced Monday morning that they plan to sue the magazine for libel.

The legislation adds a short statement to Part 1, Article 4 of the existing law regulating media outlets, and forbids using a registered media source to spread “false facts that discredit the honor and dignity of another entity, or undermine their reputation.” It passed nearly unanimously, with 399 delegates for, one against, and two abstaining.

When the draft law was originally proposed, on January 25th 2008, it was simply going to add the word “libel,” but it was expanded before it reached a vote. The deputy that initiated the legislation is Robert Shlegel, a former “commissar” of the pro-Kremlin Nashi youth movement, and the youngest MP in Russia. He argued that the standing laws on mass-media were not enough, and that closing a libelous publication was essential, since material compensation was “incommensurately smaller” than the harm done by a libelous article. He added that the law would force editors and media owners keep greater oversight of journalists.

According to Shlegel, the law grants leverage courts to punish outlets that repeatedly publish libelous materials.

By amending the law on mass-media, legislators are also granting greater powers to the Ministry of Justice and Russia’s Federal Registration Agency. Whereas before, trying a libel case was a criminal matter left to the courts, the new law lets officials give out warnings to any newspaper, television channel and radio station without a court case. Two warnings in the course of 12 months mean the media outlet must immediately cease publishing, pending a trial to decide whether it should remain shut permanently.

The Nezavisimaya Gazeta newspaper cited an unnamed source in the State Duma, who said that the amendments were related to the scandalous article published recently in the Moskovsky Korrespondent, which speculated that President Vladimir Putin was marrying gymnast Alina Kabaeva. That paper has since stopped publishing.

Part 1, Article 4 of the present law “On Mass Media,” is titled the “Inadmissibility of Misuse of the Freedom of Mass Communication.” It says that, “[n]o provision shall be made for the use of mass media for purposes of committing criminally indictable deeds, divulging information making up a state secret or any other law-protective secret, disseminating materials containing public calls to perform terrorist acts or publicly justifying terrorism or other extremist activities, or broadcasting materials propagandizing pornography or the cult of violence and cruelty.”