DISSENSION IN RUSSIA Courts take guilt for granted

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33450, 4 February 1974, Page 19

DISSENSION IN RUSSIA Courts take guilt for granted

By

HEDRICK SMITH.

. of the Netv York Timet .Service. through N.Z.P.A.)

MOSCOW. In the 20 years since Stalin’s death, the Soviet Union’s internal security system has undergone significant moderation from the pervasive,' arbitrary, and violent repressions described by Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his new book, “Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956.” ; There are now believed to; be far fewer people in the; still-considerable Soviet; Union prison network fori political reasons, and Western diplomats say that the; authorities now make al greater attempt at preserving at least the facade of legality in their prosecution of political dissidents. Some dissenters them--1 selves concede that today [there is less of the terrifying | arbitariness of the Stalinist purges, which made any citizen subject to unpredictable arrest and imprisonment without trial on the basis of executive orders and secret denunciations. ! “Today,” said one free'thinking writer, “people pretty well know when they I are taking a risk. If you imind your own business, just follow your career, keep quiet, and say what is expected of you, you can keep out of trouble. But under Stalin, even that kind of conformity did not guarantee you safety.” A Western diplomat comments: “Imagine if Solzhenitsyn had written, in 1952, a book about the forced collectivisation of Soviet agriculture in the 1930 s — in other words, about events 20 years before, as he has done now. What would have happened to him? He would already have been arrested, and probably sent to prison, or maybe shot.” Heavily loaded By Western standards Soviet justice remains harsh : and heavily loaded in favour; of the State and its concept! of internal security, and! against the individual. More-i over, the State has powerful!

, means of non-judicial pun-, | ishment and pressure at its (disposal: dismissal from i jdbs, virtually all of which i are in Government-run of-: j fices or factories; expulsion ; (from creative and in-; I tellectual unions, which, in I effect, destroy careers; and: Ibureaucratic harrassment, I I such as refusal to permit! (residence in Moscow or l (other desirable areas. > The Soviet criminal code! | does not contain such clear-1 jcut protections of defendants; las the writ of habeas corpusj (or unambiguous guarantees! ■ against self-incrimination, j lAn accused under inivestigation can be inter-1 rogated for months onj ;end.and held incommunicado.; I His lawyer is not allowed to I see him until the investigation is concluded and the prosecution has prepared its case. The law permits detention of an accused for nine months during investigation, but Soviet officials have ' said that, extensions can be obtained from the Presidum : of The Supreme Soviet, the I standing executive of the (Soviet Parliament. Strong incentive 1 i ” , ' In practice, secret police interrogators are said to Shave great power because (defendants understand that,: i normally, their recommend-: jations for punishment, re-j payed through State prose-: icutors, are accepted by the! (judges. Hence, dissidents report, there is strong incentive to co-operate with; an interrogator. Dissidents complain that; in some cases the legalities are only minimally observed. They cite the case of Yuri Shikhanovich, a former Moscow University mathematician, held incommunicado for 14 months after his arrest. He was ordered to be held in a mental hospital last November at a hearing at which he was not (present; he was represented; ■by a defence lawyer whom he had never met. In another important case, (Vladimir Bukovsky was sentenced to 12 years in prison and exile in January, 1972, after having been held incommunicado for eight months, and having been allowed to see his defence lawyer only shortly before the trial. He asked for 12 defence witnesses to be called, but the Court rejected all of them. Open and shut I Both Russians and for-1 eigners are inclined to com-' pare the trial last September of Pyotr Yakir and Viktor Krasin, two dissident activists, to the show trials of the Stalinist period. Because both men had been held so, long that they were presumed to have been broken by , i the secret police and care- .

fully rehearsed on their tes-l (timony after promises of) ; clemency for co-operating! with police in naming other! dissidents for preparing and ■ 'circulating “Samizdat”, or! ■underground publications. Technically speaking,) trials of dissidents are open,) (but Russians say that, in practice, they are closed tol I all but a handful of the clos-j est relatives of the defend-, iant. Foreign journalists are) always barred, as are most: interested friends, lncreas-1 tingly, the authorities try! | leading dissidents outside) (Moscow, to reduce inter- ■ (national publicity or any! (chance of active protests. | From accounts of some! (who have been able to enter (courtrooms, the cases are open and shut, often rushed ( through in a day or two,’ and consist almost entirely! of the prosecution's preseni tation. It is common fori i judges to join prosecutors in! . interrogating witnesses, and. ■ even to lecture defendants;' : and it. is very unusual fori i any judge to impose a sen-i : fence which differs from the i State Prosecutor’s plea. I Nonetheless, a few lawyers have gained a reputaI'tion for defending political ; dissidents, usually at some (professional risk. However, requests from defendants for > their assistance is often rejected by the authorities. ! Either way, the defence is! (rarely given more than minimal time to read the prosecution's case and, as in the i case of Shikhanovich, ■ defence laywers sometimes Ido not even meet the acidised. Taken for granted Moscow sources do say that where defendants or their lawyers are particularly courageous, some modest courtroom give-and-take occurs, usually involving challenges to the prosecution case based on legal technicalities or extenuating cir(cumstances. | Some dissidents, in their final statements to the courts, have accused the I Government of violating the liberally-worded Soviet Constitution by severe restrictions of free speech, broad interpretations of anti-Soviet activities, violations of legal procedures, or the use of contestable psychiatric findings. No-one, however, can recall a trial in recent years where a political dissident I has been found innocent: a finding of guilty is taken for granted by all once a' case goes to court. Despite all this, in comparison with the Stalinist terror described in Solzhenitsyn’s book, the Soviet authorities have in recent years treated some political dissidents with clemency. ’ Both Yakir and Krasin were sentenced to three' years in prison and three inj exile in a remote place after they had “confessed” to dissident activities, but their] sentences were later reduced 1 to three years in exile not' far from Moscow.