|
English Language Page How is that? My neighbor would understand me if I had tried to convince the court that it was an unintentional crime. But I did not deny that I actually disseminated the documents and the declaration that exposed our native justice in its most unattractive form. My neighbor did not understand when I explained that they sentenced me for slander, and in my statements there was not one word that was not true. My neighbor comprehends that what is written in the law is unimportant. It is common knowledge that to discuss our orders, especially to communicate this to foreign correspondents, is impossible because the authorities always punish people for doing this. Since I confirmed that I openly denounced the activity of the authorities, how was it not possible to admit my guilt?! However, what demand did my young neighbor make of me?! Really it was not peculiar to the wardens of justice, the investigators, the public prosecutor, or judges that ideas were substituted for laws – nihilism?! Immediately after the revolution of October 1917, the Bolsheviks proclaimed the supremacy of “Socialist Justice” and “Revolutionary Expediency.” In other words, the idea was above the law. This is completely not a legal-term. It is not written and the code of conduct for certain social group is occassionally rather vague, often criminal. It is tragic that many decades of tyranny have educated the majority of Soviet lawyers in a similar spirit. Many of the lawyers may not be conscious of the illegality of sending dissidents into camps and “insane asylums.”. For a long time they have followed the implanted tradition and do not think about how this compares with the written law. Meanwhile, the intellegentsia made their exits from the denunciation of criminal stalinism on 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (KPSS). The intellegentsia was convinced that there was no way that articles of the Criminal Code did not anticipate punishments for views and the open expression of such views. A fraudulent substitution of ideas occurs in such a form in trials for political actions in soviet courts. This is true. But, also, revealing that the information of the authorities is unsubstantiated is considered notorious slander. The peaceful (sitting!) demonstrations, against the occupation of Czechoslovakia was categorized as a “mob” and “a violation of public order.” And already a publication in the west (under a pseudonym) of works of literature, a satire that portrayed our activity, judged our activity as “anti-soviet agitation and propoganda.” Having recognized the law in their country, dissidents began to demand that the authorities observe the written law, and the respected articles of the constitution. This is how the human rights movement was conceived in the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, courts directed cruel sentences of dissidents, not according to the law, but according to the “idea!” It seemed to the public prosecutor and the judges that no one knows that the soviet constitution grants citizens freedom of speech, press, gathering and meeting, street processions, and demonstrations. Repeatedly, human rights activists rejected the groundless accusations of slander, anti-soviet agitation and propoganda, and repeatedly they spent time in the camps and “insane asylums.” At the moment of my arrest, I knew well the existing legal situation in the USSR. Also, I did not doubt for a moment that the court would not recognize my innocence and thus sentence me. But, nevertheless, I considered that it was necessary to announce my position in court. “If I were being punished by the law as it is itself composed regarding the distribution of unofficial information, contact with foreign correspondents and speaking out in front of them, - I would admit that I am guilty before the law. However, the law does not punish the distribution of information in itself, but the distribution of false information, and to be more precise, deliberately false information, that is deceitful, slanderous, and concocted. I am trying to prove that the information, which I distributed, as well as all my statements, are not false and are not slanderous.” I further brought factual proof about the statements that were imputed to me as slanderous, and that is why I listened to the forthcoming sentence of guilty. And I left from freedom “by the bell” three years later. An optimistic time began with Perestroika. There were freedoms – it is true, only by amnesty – political prisoners of the times remained at a “standstill.” But, they proclaimed a new way of thinking that reached to the heads of the guardians of justice. Until the break up of the Soviet Union, it was possible to count the exonerated individuals on your hand. Justice restored the unsuccessful attempt that I undertook at that time. The main reason for my sentence was that the statements were “slander” about existence in the Soviet Union and abuse of psychiatry for political motives. But, in the time of Glastnost, a million editions of newspapers and magazines (“Medical Newspaper,” “Komsomol Truth,” “Spark”) wrote about this shameful experience. Furthermore, soviet psychiatrists officially recognized the abuse of psychiatry in sentencing. This allowed soviet psychiatry to recover its membership in the worldwide psychiatry association “WPA.” Article 190-1 itself, by which they judged me, was already excluded from the criminal code. All this I stated in a complaint that I sent to supervision in 1990, to the public prosecutor of the The Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic (RSFSR). I received an answer in December: “Your sentence by Moscow City Court is correct (…) We cannot discover the foundations for your protest.” Only a year later, after the adoption in October 1991 by the Supreme Soviet of Russia of “the law for the rehabilitation of victims of political repression,” I (among many of my friends) was finally rehabilitated. Thus, truth triumphed? Alas, confusion was preserved in the heads and still remain in the present time. More often it suits people to listen to the television screen (especially from the mouths of former employees of the Checkist department): “The sentences about the named human rights activists and dissidents were carried out in the soviet times by the operating law at that time.” That is not true! The law in that time was only able to punish only for slander, for deceitful insinuations, not for the distribution of truth, not for anti-soviet agitation and propoganda, for activity having the purpose of undermining or weakening the soviet authorities. And they could not punish individuals for true information, not for leading or poetry, not for providing help to prisoners of shame. But I readily agree that the sentences of dissidents entirely conformed to the existence in that time, to the structure of the authorities, and to the idea of the KGB, which was then the higher law. Until the community and the authorities realize the distinction between written law and the loved idea, they will not understand and will not learn that only law has a right to control the administration of justice. Until that time, we will not have a defense from the administration of justice and in vain we will seek justice in our country. Today, while I read this small article, a judge in Moscow announced the sentence of M. Khordokovsky and P. Lebedyeva. Both of these individuals were sentenced to nine years in a camp. I have watched for the sentence in the newspaper and on television and I have been convinced that for a long period of time innocent people have been condemned. Personally, I do not doubt that in this process of law, the first person of the government looms behind the office of the public prosecutor and the judges. I am convinced that sooner or later this unjust and shameful matter for our justice will be revised. Will this happen soon? And when will Khordokovsky and Lebedyeva regain their freedom? I want this occurance until the expiration of the statute of limitation for responsibility regarding articles of the Criminal Code, the punishment for the crime against the administration of justice. And until this, I wish fortitude, cheerfulness, and health to the victims of the vulgar verdict. And I wish that they be freed soon. March 31, 2005 P.S. In the evening of June 2, 2005 on NTV on the program V. Soloveva “To the barrier,” an opponent and a supporter of Khordokovsky met in a television duel. M. Leontev, who supported the accusatory verdict was against B. Nemtsov. Suprisingly, the opponent again agreed that the sentence was contrived and he said for political motives. He said that they sentenced Khordokovsky, not for that which he was accused of, not for non-payment of taxes or for fraud, but rather for that which suited the political preference and ambition of someone “at the top.” Only Leontov argued that Khordokovsky should still be imprisoned “by the reasons of the state.” In contrast, Nemtsov argued that the court must pronounce the sentence by conforming only with the relevant law. But the most startling thing was the result of the audience survey. Through voting by telephone, the majority 60% (against 40%) supported Leontov. That occurred immediately. The public opinion spoke for “justice by the idea.” Such a result from the audeience did not surprise me at all. All the state television channels and almost all of the newspapers tried to convince the public in the guilt of the defendants. A year ago, the defeat of adherents of Khordokovsky may have been actually destructive. Let someone call me an incorrigible optimist, but I would comment upon the the results of the telephone survey such: It is not worth despairing. It is already evident to 40% of our citizens that the court must be on guard not for groups or departmentals of “the idea,” but rather must follow the demands of the written law. Translated by Kyle Withers, University of New York, Intern within Moscow Helsinki Group Back |
Íàøà êíîïêà  |
|