SOVIET HISTORY LESSONS

Interrogation of witness Dvoskin

 

Dvoskin: We were at the Pushkin Square because it was expected that something would happen there on that day, and so we were sent there. A group of people gathered around the monument. I was standing at the newspaper stand along with several members of the task unit. Three slogans were raised by the monument. When they were raised, we went to those who have gathered there suggesting they hand over the slogans and disperse. I detained a guy and a young woman: they did not resist, and went with me and with Malakhov. I heard some fuss, then it turned out that Khaustov was being detained. I told Malakhov to take the guy and the young girl to the headquarters, and to return and help. I heard someone shout, "Don't resist!" And Khaustov began to walk quietly, and all the rest calmly dispersed. But a few people remained, they stood in groups of two and three. 5-7 minutes later, after everyone had dispersed, a cry was heard from one group: "Down with the dictatorship! Freedom for Dobrovolsky!" I went up to the screamer and asked what he objected to and who is it that should have his "freedom". He replied that his friends had been arrested. I invited him to come with me, and he went with me to the headquarters without resisting.

 

Further, in response to the questions of Defense Council Kaminskaya, Dvoskin said that before the slogans had been raised, the members of the task unit did not approach the protestors, and that their intervention was caused solely by the content of the slogans, that he himself did not wear an arm band, but he saw an armband on someone else.

 

Interrogation of witness Cherkasov

 

Cherkasov's testimony basically coincides with Dvoskin's. He also confirmed that after the proposal to disperse, everyone calmly dispersed. According to him, he did not wear an arm band; he does not know whether the others did or not.

 

Then the testimony of the militiaman Gruzinov, given by him during the preliminary investigation, is read out, in basic terms repeating what he showed at Khaustov's trial.

 

 

August 31, 1967. 10 a.m.

 

Interrogation of the witness Viktor Khaustov

 

(Khaustov is brought into the room under escort).

 

Judge: Since you are a convict, you will not give an oath regarding giving false evidence. But we hope that you will tell us truthfully about the merits of the case. Please speak.

 

Khaustov: Please ask specific questions.

 

Judge: What do you know about the organization of the demonstration? 

 

Khaustov repeats what he said when he himself was tried (see the record of Khaustov's trial), and ends with the words: "I organized the demonstration."

 

Judge: What part did Bukovsky take in organizing the demonstration?

 

Khaustov: I shared my thoughts with Bukovsky, and he agreed with me.

 

Judge: And who came up with this idea earlier — you or Bukovsky?

 

Khaustov: I think that this idea has occurred to many people, but I personally shared it with Bukovsky, and he agreed with me.

 

Judge: Do you think that you have been the initial initiator of the demonstration?

 

Khaustov: Yes.

 

Judge: Where were the slogans made? Who wrote them? Who did you notify about the demonstration?

 

Khaustov: In my opinion, this should not interest anyone, but the investigation was very interested in this, and I do not want to help the investigation.

 

Judge: How did events unfold in the Square?

 

Khaustov: We gathered at exactly 6 o'clock on Pushkin Square, raised banners, public order patrol attacked us, I resisted and was taken to the headquarters of the patrol.

 

Judge: Why did you resist?

 

Khaustov: These people wore no arm bands, they attacked us suddenly, without showing anything identification, without saying anything, and I did not consider myself obliged to give up my slogan.

 

Judge: Did you hear Bukovsky's words: "Vitya, don't resist"?

 

Khaustov: Yes, I heard him, and after that I stopped resisting.

 

Judge: Did you know why the people whose release you demanded had been arrested?

 

Khaustov: I know that they were arrested under Article 70 for "anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda", namely for publishing the Phoenix magazine. I do not consider the Phoenix magazine to be anti-Soviet, but even if it were anti-Soviet, I still believe that Article 70 contradicts the Constitution, just like the Decree of September 16th. In 1961, I was involved as a witness in the Ossipov case, and it was at that time that I thought about the legitimacy of the existence of this article in our Criminal Code. I realized that the vague wording of this article gives grounds for any arbitrariness and persecution of dissidents.

 

Prosecutor: Are you familiar with any fundamentals of Soviet legislation?

 

Khaustov: I am familiar with the philosophy of law: I have read Hegel and Kant.

 

Prosecutor: Well, what did you conclude from this reading?

 

Khaustov: I realized that our legislation, namely Article 70, contradicts elementary universal legal principles.

 

Prosecutor: Did you have the moral right to assert that the Decree of September 16 is unconstitutional?

 

Khaustov: I think that as a citizen of my country, just like you, like any person, I not only have the right, but also the obligation to fight what I consider illegal.

 

Defense Council Melamed: Tell me, what did you read on jurisprudence?

 

Khaustov: I have already said: I have read Hegel and Kant.

 

Defense Council Melamed: And which works of Hegel and Kant have you read?

 

Khaustov: I do not wish to answer thit question.

 

Defense Council Melamed: Tell me, have you read Lenin's work "State and Revolution"?

 

Khaustov: Yes, I read it.

 

Defense Council Melamed: What did you learn from this work?

 

Khaustov: I do not wish to answer this question.

 

Defense Council Alsky: Tell me, did you consult with anyone about the legality of your actions?

 

Khaustov: Yes, we talked to some people.

 

Defense Council Alsky: Tell me, are these people competent in jurisprudence?

 

Khaustov: I do not wish to answer this question.

 

Defense Council Alsky: Please understand, I am asking you not to name names, but your opinion.

 

Khaustov: I do not wish to answer this question regardless.

 

Defense Council Melamed: You have a misconception about Soviet laws. You have read Hegel and Kant, but how can you coincide their ideas with the conditions of the Soviet reality, with the legal foundations of the Soviet State?

 

Khaustov: I believe that they cannot be coincided as long as the Soviet state exists.

 

(Exclamation from the audience: "Typically anti-Soviet!". Khaustov is led away).

 

 

Interrogation of the witness Lyudmila Abramovna Katz

 

Judge: Which of the defendants do you know?

 

Katz: All three. Especially Kushev.

 

Judge: Tell the court what happened on January 22, 1967.

 

Katz: I thought you were going to ask me questions. After all, the court called me as a witness.

 

Judge: How did you hear about the rally on January 22, 1967?

 

Katz: Kushev came to see me. He told me about the arrests and that on January 22, 1967, a rally would be held in defense of those arrested.

 

Judge: Why did you come to the rally?

​

Katz: The rally was organized in defense of my friends, and I didn't want to be left out.

 

Judge: Tell me what you saw.

 

Katz: Posters.

 

Judge: Who held the posters?

 

Katz: I didn't see.

 

Judge: Who were the young man and a young woman holding the second banner?

 

Katz: I don't know.

 

Judge: Did you see how Bukovsky behaved in the Square?

 

Katz: I saw him when there was a fight with Khaustov. Bukovsky stood nearby and said: "Vitya, calm down, do not resist." He repeated these words, addressing not only Khaustov, but everyone else. I didn’t see Bukovsky there again, since he left the Square. All this happened before a quarter past seven. And at a quarter past seven I saw Kushev coming up and was very surprised to see him. There were few people in the Square. Kushev came up to me and asked what had happened there. I told him that slogans had been raised and Khaustov had already been taken away. After that, I moved away from Kushev and heard a cry of "Freedom to Dobrovolsky!"

 

Judge: Did you hear anything else?

 

Katz: No, nothing.

 

Defense Council Kaminskaya: Have you seen arm bands on anyone?

 

Katz: No, I didn't.

 

Bukovsky: Are all the arrested guys now in custody?

 

Katz: No, Radzievsky has been released.

 

 

Interrogation of witness Vladimir Voskresensky

 

Voskresensky, a student at the Moscow Power Engineering Institute, a friend of Kushev, described Kushev as a good, kind comrade, a somewhat weak-willed person, a talented poet.

 

 

Interrogation of witness Larissa Kucherova

 

Kucherova, an acquaintance of Bukovsky, spoke at length about the irrelevant vicissitudes of her personal life. Then she told how she and Bukovsky nailed the poster to the rails in the gateway. Kucherova testified that she was against the demonstration, spent a long time trying to persuade Bukovsky not to organize it, said that a different form of protest was in order, but he said: "I must."

 

 

Interrogation of witness Bezobrazov

 

Bezobrazov, a member of the task unit of the Moscow Komsomol, testified that public order had been grossly violated in the Square, that he had heard noise and swearing. In addition, he testified that he was wearing an arm band.

 

 

Interrogation of witness Alexander Sergeevich Volpin

 

Judge: Where do you work and in which capacity?

 

Volpin: VINITI (All-Russian Institute for Scientific and Technical Information — translator), junior research fellow.

 

Judge: We have called you as a witness and warn you of liability for giving false evidence and for refusing to testify.

 

Volpin: Before I testify, I must inform you about the statement from the public that did not manage not enter this courtroom. It was given to me, but someone...

 

Judge: I will ask you questions, and you must answer them. Do you know the accused?

 

Volpin: I have known Bukovsky for a long time, since the autumn of 1961. I met Delaunay in 1966, at the same time. A year ago he came to visit me during my illness. I do not know the third accused. I can say little about Delaunay — only that he read some of his poetry to me. Among them were both good poems and — I suppose — bad ones.

 

Judge: Why did he bring you his poems?

 

Volpin: I don't know, maybe because I once also had my poems published. Bukovsky I know better. In the autumn of 1961, someone introduced us in the street — this acquaintance has been very superficial. Then he joined us at VINITI. At one time I gave lectures on semiotics (this is the theory of signs, philosophy) for the employees. Among my listeners I remember Bukovsky. After that we met more often — but he did not work for us for very long, he ended up in hospital. So I wasn't seeing him for a long time, but during that time I met his parents, visited their house. When Bukovsky got discharged, we sometimes met. Our attitude to each other is normal.

 

Judge: What drew you to these people?

 

Volpin: I didn't say that we had anything in common. However, of course, there was a unifying factor — namely, that we are all human beings. This should unite both me and you, and you and the defendants...

 

Judge: Does the date January 22 of this year tell you anything?

 

Volpin: Yes, of course. This is the day when a demonstration which took place on the Pushkin Square demanding a revision of the Decree of September 16, which the demonstrators called unconstitutional, and Article 70 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, as well as the release of four arrested people. But here I must make a statement with which I entered this room. I was asked to convey this statement to you in writing by people who could not get access into the room. They were not allowed in by some people in civilian clothes, who call themselves public order patrol, but do not wear any bandages. One of them snatched this statement out of my hands when the collection of signatures underneath it had not yet been completed.

 

Judge: You should have followed that man and then you would know about of the fate of that statement.

 

Volpin: I do not feel obliged to follow a person who is not a representative of the authorities. In essence: the people in this statement are only asking that the courtroom be radio-equipped and the public be given an opportunity to follow the progress of this case — nothing more.

 

Judge: I know the contents of this statement, I have it.

 

Volpin: In that case, I don't need to talk about it anymore. I should only add that if that statement had not been snatched from my hands, there would have been more signatures underneath it. And now to the essence of the issue of the demonstration. First of all, this is not the first demonstration of a legal nature. The first in recent years was on December 5, 1965, when they demanded publicity of the upcoming trial of Sinyavsky and Daniel. At that time I was one of the initiators of that demonstration. Then there were other demonstrations. On December 5, 1965, the demonstrators were also detained, not without resistance from some of the detainees — but everyone was released on the same day, and no one was arrested, so the demonstrators could count on the same outcome on January 22. Our impunity in 1965 cannot be explained by the fact that Article 190-3 did not exist at that time, because a gross violation of public order, if it had taken place, would have entailed consequences in 1965, but that was not the case. Bukovsky and other demonstrators knew this and could count on legal impunity for their actions. Now specifically about the event on January 22. That day I called Bukovsky to meet with him. I did not know anything about the upcoming demonstration, but the day before I heard about the arrest of three young people and wanted to check this report.

 

Bukovsky told me that he had guests in his apartment and that therefore he could not leave the house, but if I wanted to see him, I could come to him, and I came to him. It was at four o'clock in the afternoon. I don't remember exactly how many people Bukovsky had in his apartment, and I don't remember whether Delaunay was there. We went to the Square together. When we got off the trolleybus, I counted, I think, 17 people, including myself. However, I knew almost none of the demonstrators, and could easily count in someone else as demonstrators. A few minutes before 6 o'clock I moved away from Bukovsky's company, as I heard that much more demonstrators were expected, and I wanted to see one of the others before the demonstration began. Exactly at 6 p.m. according to the clock that hangs on the Square, I was at the monument to Pushkin. I affirm that at that moment the demonstration had not yet begun — I did not see any of the demonstrators on the spot, but I saw two or three young people in civilian clothes standing to the left of the monument. I went to the place where, a few minutes before, I had parted ways with Bukovsky, but I did not find anyone there — apparently, we missed each other in the underground passages. Then I returned to the Square — it was three minutes past seven — and saw people standing calmly with banners. I stopped to read what the banners said, and was already thinking about whether to join the demonstration, but at that moment one of the mentioned people in civilian clothes came up and began to pull away the slogans. Almost everyone gave them up calmly, only one, it seems Khaustov, resisted. I could not see all the details of this scene, because my view was blocked by a ring of people who stood around the place where this scuffle took place.

 

I heard Bukovsky shout: "Calm down, don't resist!" — and immediately after that, Khaustov was taken away from the Square. The demonstration actually did not continue, although the people had not yet dispersed. Bukovsky stood motionless. I began to leave the Square, but did not leave immediately. I went to the tunnel of the underpass and came back, and so two or three times; once I looked at my watch and noticed the time — 17 minutes past seven. At one point, when I returned to the Square, I met Delaunay there. I hinted to him that it was time to leave, but he did not listen to me and stayed. I left. I did not notice any violation of public order in the Square — apart from the violation committed by these persons in civilian clothes without arm bands, but this is no longer within the scope of the present proceedings. I want to add to this one consideration regarding a slogan that occurred to me at that time. I think...

​

Judge: We have already listened to you. Do you have any questions for the witness, comrades defense council?

 

Defense Council Kaminskaya: Yes, I want to know: did Bukovsky consider his demonstration legal?

 

Volpin: Yes, of course. When the demonstrators called the Decree unconstitutional, then, in my opinion, there was a characteristic mistake: they confused the law with its interpretation.

 

Defense Council Kaminskaya: Can I conclude from your words that Bukovsky intended to hold his demonstration in full compliance with the law and called on the rest of the demonstrators to do the same?

 

Volpin: Absolutely.

 

 

September 1, 1967. 10 a.m.

 

SPEECH OF THE PROSECUTOR MIRONOV

 

We are dealing with a case of a crime that is unusually rare in our country. And in this rarity lies its danger. Three young people are standing accused of organizing a demonstration in the city center against the KGB. Some participants and witnesses do not see in the actions of the defendants a crime under Article 190-3. Many of them cling to stating that the demonstrator's actions did not result in the disruption of transport, etc.

 

But this is not mentioned at all in the indictment, which refers only to participation in group actions that grossly violate public order, and on the part of Bukovsky, also to organizing  these actions. The mentioned participants and the witnesses who object to this accusation, apparently, allow the confusion of Article 190-3 with Article 206 of the Criminal Code. Both articles refer to gross violation of public order, but Article 206 requires a sign of clear contempt for society, which is indeed not in the indictment, but this is not required for the application of Article 190-3. In addition, Article 190-3 requires group action, which is not required by Article 206.

 

There are the following grounds for applying Article 190-3. Soviet citizens have the right to express their dissatisfaction with various phenomena of reality, including the actions of the authorities, but there is an established procedure for this.

 

The defendants staged their demonstration bypassing this procedure, thereby committing a violation of the public order. This violation is gross — in this case, the grossness lies in its impudence, and the impudence lies in the fact that the defendants criticized the laws currently in force and the activities of the state security agencies, thereby undermining their authority. The main violation of public order is in the content of the slogans. Actions, as we see it, were group actions. These actions were active — this is a necessary requirement, because the ordinary participants in the demonstration were not held accountable, some of them acted here simply as witnesses.

 

But not the three defendants: they all actively participated in the demonstration. Vladimir Bukovsky bears full responsibility: he composed the texts of the slogans, made banners, he invited people to the demonstration, he played the main role during the demonstration itself. Vadim Delaunay held banners with slogans, refused to leave the Square, and was very active at the demonstration. Kushev, however, did not write his slogan on the poster, but I do not see a significant difference between writing a slogan and shouting it out. Bukovsky, moreover, was the organizer of this demonstration.

 

The actions of the defendants were deliberate. True, they believe that their intent has not been aimed at violating the public order, but aimed at increasing the legal awareness of the population. But we are talking about Bukovsky’s legal awareness, and we have seen a not very high level of this legal awareness. The danger of intent lies in the fact that it is aimed at criticizing the laws and discrediting the KGB.

 

All three are guilty and responsible. But besides them, there are many others that are guilty: the fathers who abandoned their families are guilty, the mothers are guilty, the godfathers are guilty, who did not warn them from the crime. The mother of Evgeny Kushev remained completely calm about the fact that her son got involved with religion: she, you see, has her own God. Well, and her son went to seek his God, well, this God appeared to us in the form of a witness, his godfather.

 

I ask the court to find all three guilty. I ask the court to sentence Vadim Delaunay to one year in prison, Yevgeny Kushev to two years in prison, and Vladimir Bukovsky to three years in prison, all of them to be kept in a general regime camp.

 

 

SPEECH OF ATTORNEY KAMINSKAYA — DEFENSE COUNCIL OF ACCUSED BUKOVSKY

 

My task is extremely difficult. I could talk a lot about the difficult circumstances of his life, mitigating the responsibility of my client. But I have to give it up. This is out of the question — on my part — since my conscience as a lawyer makes me ask the court to acquit Bukovsky in view of the absence of crime in his actions. I hardly need to explain that this does not mean my solidarity with the actions of my client. I can't, and shouldn't, regard his actions as serious. This is not the point. 

 

The very fact that Bukovsky organized the demonstration is recognized by him and is not disputed by anyone. The main point is that the actions of my client do not constitute a crime — that is, the necessary condition without which the onset of criminal liability would be possible is absent. Demonstrations are allowed in our country — according to the Constitution, this freedom is guaranteed by law. I do not believe that Article 190-3 cancels the right of citizens to demonstrate. Participation in a demonstration can be criminalized only when a demonstration is accompanied by violations of public order specified in any of the articles of the Criminal Code. The actions provided for in Article 190-3 of the Criminal Code are "organization, as well as active participation in group actions that violate public order or are associated with clear disobedience to the legitimate demands of government officials, or which have caused disruption of transport, or state, public institutions or enterprises."

 

A variety of witnesses spoke here: members of voluntary people's patrol, demonstrators, casual spectators, and finally, a testimony of a policeman was read out. None of them noticed violations of THE public order. We know — this is confirmed by the testimony of witnesses (including the testimony of Khaustov, who was interrogated at the trial, AND who was also one of the organizers of this demonstration) — that Bukovsky gave instructions to the demonstrators demanding strict observance of laws and order. It was not his fault that Khaustov resisted and Kushev let out a cry. According to our law, the organizer is not responsible for the actions of participants which have not been agreed upon beforehand. Thus, even if we consider that there has been a violation of pubic order in the actions of Khaustov and Kushev, then Bukovsky's intent in relation to these actions is absent.

 

Members of the voluntary people's patrol approached the demonstrators only after the slogans had been raised. And they were attracted only by the words of those slogans. The Prosecutor views the content of those slogans as the main violation of the public order. But under which conditions can the content of slogans be a violation of public order? Under the condition that the texts of slogans are illegal, that is, punishable under Article 70 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR. But an investigation under Article 70 had already been carried out by very competent authorities, and no crime had been established under that Article. Criminal liability for participation in a demonstration can also occur if slogans, not of a political nature, offend any citizens or offend morality — then the actions of participants of a demonstration will be deemed criminal by virtue of other articles of the Criminal Code. However, none of this is mentioned in the indictment.

 

Comrade Prosecutor said that the violation of public order by the defendants consisted in the fact that they staged their demonstration in circumvention of the established procedure. This was his only argument on this point of the indictment — and the indictment does not say anything about resisting the legitimate demands of representatives of the authorities or about other group actions, responsibility for which is provided for in Article 190-3. And the established procedure, which the comrade prosecutor spoke about, is not established by the criminal laws, and it is not protected by them. Violations of the public order can be of different types — in particular, minor ones, the responsibility for which is provided for by the Resolutions of the Moscow Council or other local authorities, and punishment for them is administrative, usually a fine. We cannot engage in lawmaking and bring people to criminal liability where there are no legal grounds for this. Criticism of the laws or actions of state security agencies does not in itself entail criminal liability under Article 190. Thus, there is no crime in the actions of my client. I ask the court to acquit him.

 

 

THE LAST STATEMENT OF ACCUSED BUKOVSKY

 

I thank my defense council and my comrades.

 

Preparing for this trial, I expected that the court would fully reveal all the motives for the actions of the accused, and would engage in a legal analysis of the case. The court did nothing of the sort. Instead it busied itself with characterizing the defendants — although whether we are good or bad is irrelevant to the case.

 

I expected from the Prosecutor a detailed analysis of the "public disorder" that we have created on the Square: who hit whom, who stepped on whose foot. But this did not happen. The Prosecutor in his speech says: "I see the danger of this crime in its audacity."

 

Judge: Defendant Bukovsky, why are you quoting the Prosecutor's speech?

 

Bukovsky: It suits my needs, hence I am quoting. Don't interrupt me. Believe me, it’s not easy for me to speak, although outwardly my speech runs smoothly. So, the Prosecutor considers our action impudent. But here I have before me the text of the Soviet Constitution: "In accordance with the interests of the working people and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the USSR are guaranteed by law the freedom of street processions and demonstrations." For which purpose had this Article been created? For the May Day and October celebratory processions? But in order to conduct demonstrations organized by the state, it was not necessary to introduce such an article — after all, it is already clear that no one will disperse such demonstrations.

 

We do not need the freedom to demonstrate "for" if there is no freedom to demonstrate "against". We know that a demonstration of protest is a powerful weapon in the hands of the working people, it is an inalienable right in all democratic states. In which countries is this right being denied? Here I have an issue of "Pravda" newspaper, dated August 19, 1967, carrying a report from Paris. In Madrid, participants in the May Day demonstration have been tried in a court of law. They have been tried under a new law that has recently been adopted in Spain and provides for imprisonment of demonstrators for a term from one and a half to three years. I note the touching unanimity between the fascist Spanish legislation and the Soviet legislation.

 

Judge: Defendant, you are comparing incomparable things: the actions of the fascist government of Spain and the actions of the Soviet state. Comparison of Soviet policy with the policy of foreign bourgeois states is unacceptable in this court. Stay close to the merits of the indictment. I object to the abuse of the right to speak which has been given to you.

 

Bukovsky: And I object to your violation of my right to defense.

 

Judge: You have no right to object to anything. During a court trial, everything is subordinated to the presiding judge.

 

Bukovsky: And you have no right to interrupt me. I did not evade the key points of my case. On the basis of Article 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code, I demand that this objection of mine be recorded in the minutes.

 

Judge: (to the secretary): Make a note of it, please.

 

Bukovsky: The prosecutor spoke without furnishing any proof. But more on that later. None of those who spoke here gave examples of "gross violation of public order" on Pushkin Square — except for one witness, but is it worth talking about him, since his last name is Bezobrazov? ("Bezobrazov" means "man of disgrace" in Russian — Translator). 

 

Judge: Defendant, stop the unacceptable tone. What right do you have to insult a witness? Moreover, you speak as if you are at a rally, addressing the public. Address the court.

 

Bukovsky: I am not insulting him. Let's consider the case on its merits. People in civilian clothes, not wearing arm bands, called themselves "members of a voluntary people's patrol." But it was only from their actions that one could tell that they were indeed members of the people's patrol. Members of voluntary people's patrol play a serious positive role in the fight against crime — thieves, hooligans, etc. — but they always wear arm bands. And no instructions give them the right to disperse political demonstrations. By the way, regarding the instructions — where are they? Instructions are not the law, but provided they are indispensable, and provided it is enough to refer to them in court — mind you, they have been applied, people have been detained, and a case has been brought against them — then in such a case the instructions have to be read out in court. But such instructions in any case demand that members of a voluntary people's patrol wear arm bands when they perform their duty. Meanwhile, they haven't even showed us their credentials. When member of the people's patrol Kleimenov ran up to me — the one who spoke here as a witness — he shouted the following: "What sort of disgusting thing have you pegged out here? I'll punch you in the eye!"

 

Undoubtedly, all of this has been prepared in advance: the people in the Square knew in advance about our demonstration. Indeed, militaman Gruzinov testified that he did not notice any violation of the public order in the Square and did not approach the demonstrators until a certain man in civilian clothes ordered him to detain one of us. Maybe this person was a member of the people's patrol? No. How would an experienced militiaman fail to recognize a member of the people's patrol had he worn an arm band? So who could this person be? Why on earth would Gruzinov obey the order of a private person to detain another person who did not violate the public order? This means that he had been instructed in advance and, apparently, quite specifically.

 

Colonel of the KGB Abramov arrived at the Square, probably not as a private person. It is unlikely that he was taking a walk there (and his actions do not indicate that this was the case). Regrettably, the court did not call him as a witness — he could have given information about things regarding this case which is no less important than the information provided by many other witnesses.

 

Note that I have not yet used this word, but here it looks like a provocation. Really, what else would you call it? Imagine that on May 1 you are walking along the street with May Day slogans and some citizen in civilian clothes, without an arm band, takes away this slogan from you. It’s clear here, excuse the expression, that he could get hit in the neck. In the neck. Wasn't this what the members of the people's patrol were counting on, and wasn't it then that Colonel Abramov arrived at the Pushkin Square? Was it not in order to catch the moment when a reason for a criminal case arises? The words of Colonel Abramov, which he said when Delaunay was brought to the headquarters of the patrol, are interesting: "Delaunay, if we had not stopped this demonstration in time, you, a young poet and an cultured young man, would have ended up in prison with thieves and hooligans."

 

And why was it necessary to conduct so many searches? Why search the house of a person who disturbed public order? To take away from him an object with which he violated public order? We had nothing in our homes that could be taken away from us — we brought everything to the Square. What was there to look for? The cobblestones we were supposed to throw? Well, it would still make sense if the searches were carried out only in our homes. However, searches were carried out even at the homes of witnesses and strangers (lists names). What for? Searches make it possible to conduct surveillance, to search for other participants, etc. However, it is inconceivable that such a number of searches have been carried out following a violation of the public order in the Square. Why are we presented with photographs of people who have nothing to do with the demonstration for identification? All this would make sense only if the searches had been led by the KGB. State security agencies perform a police role in our country. What kind of democracy can we talk about when we are constantly being watched? Let them catch spies. Why are we being interrogated about our acquaintances, about what we did two or three years ago, etc.?

 

I recognize the important role of the KGB in the efforts to ensure security of the state. But what does the KGB have to do with this case? It does not concern any external enemies. Maybe they thought about internal enemies? There have been no grounds for the intervention of the state security agencies, but let's consider how our case was being conducted.

 

Why did it drag for seven months? And by the way, why were we immediately placed in the KGB detention center? I will not divert the attention of the court by describing the conditions of the detention center — but there is a difference. Here in the isolation ward, two or three people are being kept in one cell, and in ordinary prisons seven to eight people are being kept in one cell. Living there for many months affects the mental state of a person. In addition, the conditions with food and packages are completely different. So why drag this out for seven months? I see only one explanation: to find some reason to cover up the traces of this unseemly deed. When it became impossible to continue dragging it out for much longer, the trial against us was made unaccessible to the pubic to such a degree that no person could get in here to witness the lawlessness.

 

The Prosecutor's office began its investigation into our case, but the decision regarding my arrest was signed by the KGB captain Smelov. In its fourth month, our case was transferred from the Prosecutor's office to the KGB. This is a procedural violation: Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR precisely defines the range of cases falling within the competence of the KGB. Article 190 is not within this range. 

 

Moreover, on the same day as the Decree about the introduction of this new Article, another Decree was adopted, according to which Article 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was supplemented by an order which requires all cases under Article 190 to be processed by the Prosecutor's office. 

 

And if the KGB found that in our case there were grounds for an investigation under Article 70, then it had the right to start an investigation. But where should the KGB have started? With an indictment. It didn't. Perhaps there was no investigation under Article 70? There was. Judging by the interrogation of witnesses, it was carried out. And there is a document in the file proving that there was an investigation: a decision to terminate the investigation under Article 70. You cannot stop what had not been started. (Lists the violated articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

 

Judge: Defendant Bukovsky, we are not interested in hearing this. Stick closer to the indictment. What impact can what you say have on the merits of your case?

 

Bukovsky: I have already said that you have no right to interrupt me. And the impact is very simple: do you think it was easy for me — while being detained in the isolation ward — to absorb the fact that I was being accused under Article 70, and an investigation was underway, but that I wasn't being charged under it? The Prosecutor is trying to cover up all these illegal actions of the KGB by unfoundedly supporting the charge under Article 190 of the Criminal Code. In the course of the investigation, the law has been violated, and it is my duty to speak about it, which is why I am talking about it.

 

We have stood up for the rule of law. Then why the Prosecutor's office — whose duties include protecting the rights of citizens — authorizes such actions of the people's patrol and the KGB?

 

Now I must explain our slogans. The demonstration was held demanding the release of Galanskov, Dobrovolsky, Lashkova and Radzievsky. But they haven't received their sentences yet. What if it turns out they are innocent? Radzievsky, for example, has already been released from custody. What, then, is the crime of our demonstration?

 

Now regarding the second slogan. We were not speaking out against the law. We demanded a revision of the Decree of September 16 and Article 70 of the Criminal Code. Is this an  illegal action? We protested against the unconstitutional Decree. Are these anti-Soviet demands? We are not the only ones who find the Decree unconstitutional — a group of representatives from the intelligentsia, including academician Leontovich, writer Kaverin and others, addressed the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR with the same demand.

 

Isn't the Constitution the fundamental law of our country? If we read the full text of Article 125, it says the following:

 

"In accordance with the interests of the working people and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the USSR are guaranteed by law:

a) freedom of speech;

b) freedom of the press;

c) freedom of assembly and rallies;

d) freedom of street processions and demonstrations.

 

These rights of citizens are ensured by providing to the working people and their organizations with printing houses, supplies of paper, public buildings, streets — yes, streets, Citizen Prosecutor — as well as means of communication and other material conditions necessary for their implementation."

 

Now about Article 70. We demanded its revision because it allows for too broad an interpretation. Here is what it says:

 

"Agitation or propaganda carried out with the aim of undermining or weakening the Soviet power, or committing certain especially dangerous crimes, the dissemination for the same purposes of slanderous fabrications discrediting the Soviet State and its social system, as well as either distribution or production and storage of literature of this type with the same intention — shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of six months to seven years, or exile for a term of two to five years."

 

Article 70 combines such diverse things as agitation and propaganda aimed at committing especially dangerous state crimes, and, on the other hand, slanderous fabrications against the social order. The range of sanctions is also too wide — from six months to seven years. In the commentary, this article is divided into fourteen paragraphs. Apparently, it is in this manner that it should be revised, making the sanctions more definite. This would reduce the arbitrariness. True, Article 190-1 is already a step in this direction, where one can see a certain tendency toward revision, but this is not enough to fully harmonize it with the requirements of the Constitution.

 

Judge: Defendant Bukovsky, please keep in mind that we are lawyers, and all those present in this courtroom have also studied in the seventh grade. We understand that you, only now having faced with the problems of law, became interested in them. We welcome such interest, but there is no need to talk about it so much here. Understand: we need to make a decision on the issue of your guilt or innocence, decide your fate. Perhaps you will enter the Faculty of Law of the Moscow State University — there, at seminars, you will discuss these issues at a higher level.

 

Bukovsky: No, I will not be admitted to the university. I raise my objection to the Prosecutor, who accuses us of juristic illiteracy and frivolity — no, I know the laws and speak about them seriously. And if what I am talking about is so well known, it is all the more incomprehensible why the Prosecutor sees a crime in criticizing laws.

 

The preamble to Article 125 of the Constitution states: "In accordance with the interests of the working people and in order to strengthen the socialist system, citizens of the USSR are guaranteed by law..." It is absolutely clear that neither legally nor grammatically this preamble can be interpreted as meaning that the freedoms listed in it — including freedom of meetings and demonstrations — are permitted only on condition that they are carried out for the purposes specified in this preamble. Freedom of speech and press is, first of all, freedom of criticism. No one has ever banned praising the government. If Articles concerning freedom of speech and freedom of the press are included in the Constitution, then do have patience to listen to criticism. How does one call countries in which it is forbidden to criticize the government and protest against its actions? Maybe "capitalist"? No, we know that in the bourgeois countries there exist communist parties whose aim is to undermine the capitalist system. In the USA, the Communist Party had been banned — but the Supreme Court declared the ban unconstitutional and restored the Communist Party to all of its rights.

 

Judge: Defendant Bukovsky, this has nothing to do with the indictment in your case. Understand that the court is not competent to decide the issues you are talking about. We should not discuss, but execute the laws.

 

Bukovsky: You're interrupting me again. Do understand that it's difficult for me to talk.

 

Referee: I announce a break for five minutes.

 

Bukovsky: I did not ask for this, I will soon finish my last statement. You are breaking the continuity of my last statement.

 

The judge announces a break.

 

(After the break)

 

Judge: Defendant Bukovsky, continue your final statement, but I warn you that if you continue to criticize the laws and activities of the KGB instead of giving substantive explanations, I will have to interrupt you.

 

Bukovsky: Understand that our case is very complicated. We are accused of criticizing the laws — this gives me both the right and the basis to discuss these basic legal issues in my final statement.

 

But there is another topic. These are questions of honesty and civic courage. As you are judges, you are supposed to possess these qualities. If you really have honesty and civil courage, you will pass the only possible verdict in this case — an acquittal. I understand that it is very difficult...

 

Prosecutor (interrupts): I draw the court's attention to the fact that the defendant is abusing his right to the last statement. He criticizes the laws, discredits the activities of the KGB, he starts insulting you. A new criminal offense is being committed here! As a representative of the prosecution, I must stop this and urge you to oblige the defendant to speak only on the merits of the charges brought against him, otherwise you can endlessly listen to speeches criticising the laws and the government.

 

Judge: Defendant Bukovsky, you heard the Prosecutor's remark. I allow you to speak only on the merits of the indictment.

 

Bukovsky to the Prosecutor: You accuse us of trying to discredit the KGB with our slogans, but the KGB itself has already discredited itself so much that we have nothing to add. To the court: I'm speaking to the point. But what the Prosecutor wants to hear from me, he will not hear. There is no crime in our case. I have absolutely no regrets for having organized this demonstration. I believe that it has done its job, and when I am free, I will again will be organizing demonstrations, and again, of course, in full compliance with the law. This is all I wanted to say.

 

SENTENCING VERDICT

 

IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN SOVIET FEDERAL SOCIALIST REPUBLIC

 

September 1, 1967, Moscow.

 

Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Moscow City Court, consisting of presiding SHAPOVALOVA Yu. B, people's assessors ELFIMOV P. D., KIREEVA L. N., in the presence of the secretary MAKAROVA, and with participation of Prosecutor MIRONOV V. M. and defense council KAMINSKAYA D. I., ALSKI N.S., and MELAMED Sh. A., having considered in the open court the case on charges against:

 

BUKOVSKY Vladimir Konstantinovich, born December 30, 1942, born in the town of Belebey, Bashkir Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, by nationality Russian, not a member of the Communist Party, single, with secondary education, unemployed, disability of the III degree, residing at the following address: Moscow, st. Furmanova, d. 3/5, apt. 59;

 

DELAUNAY Vadim Nikolayevich, born December 22, 1947, born in Moscow, Russian by nationality, not a member of the Communist Party, with secondary education, single, worked as a freelance correspondent for Literaturnaya Gazeta, residing at the following address: Moscow, Pyatnitskaya st., d. 12, apt. 5;

 

KUSHEV Yevgeny Igorevich, born August 3, 1947, native of Odessa, Russian by nationality, not a member of the Communist Party, with incomplete secondary education, not working at the time of his arrest, residing at the following address: Moscow, Smolenskaya st., 10, apt. 174, 

 

— all under Article 190-3 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR.

 

Having checked the materials of the preliminary investigation during the court session, after listening to the explanations of the defendants, and witnesses, the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Moscow City Court ESTABLISHED THAT:

 

Defendant BUKOVSKY, having learnt about the arrest of his acquaintances Lashkova, Dobrovolsky and others, with a view to seek their release, in violation of the procedure established by law regarding submitting an application to the relevant authorities concerning this issue, embarked on a path of illegal expression of his demands and non-compliance with Articles 70 and 190-1"3 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, became one of the organizers of the actions which grossly violated public order on Pushkinskaya Square in Moscow on January 22, 1967, and took an active part in these actions.

 

Bukovsky informed his acquaintances about the place, time, and purpose of the gathering, and composed the following slogans: "Freedom to Lashkova, Dobrovolsky, Radzievsky and Galanskov" and "We demand a revision of the anti-constitutional Decree and Article 70 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR." One of these slogans Bukovsky made at his home.

 

Bukovsky informed defendants Dalaunay and Kushev about participation in the group actions organized by him (who both took an active part in it), and also informed other persons.

 

On January 22, 1967, at 6 p.m. on Pushkin Square, in the presence of a large crowd of people who have gathered, Bukovsky and Delaunay were holding up slogans, and defendant Kushev shouted out the following words: "Freedom to Dobrovolsky!", "Down with the dictatorship!"

 

One of the organizers and active participants, Khaustov (now convicted), at the suggestion of members of the Komsomol task unit to give up the slogan and disperse, refused to give up the slogan and resisted members of people's patrol.

 

Thus Bukovsky became an organizer and an active participant, and defendants Delaunay and Kushev became active participants in the group action which grossly violated public order.

 

Interrogated as defendants, Delaunay and Kushev pleaded fully guilty.

 

Defendant Bukovsky, without denying the stated facts, pleaded not guilty.

 

The indictment is supported by the following evidence:

 

- testimonies of the following witnesses, members of the voluntary people's patrol: Kleimenov, Dvoskin, Malakhov, Cherkasov who showed that while they were carrying out their duty to protect public order on January 22 at 18 o'clock, a group of young people, having gathered at the monument to Pushkin, grossly violated public order, raised three slogans demanding to release the arrested: "Lashkova, Dobrovolsky and others, as well as to revise the Decree on the introduction of Article 190 1-3 and Article 70 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR. Kushev shouted: "Freedom to Dobrovolsky" and "Down with the dictatorship", Khaustov did not obey their demands, resisted, did not give up his slogan.

 

- the testimony of witness Kucherova regarding how the group action had been organized and conducted, regarding the active role of Bukovsky, whom she tried to dissuade from carrying out such actions.

 

The indictment is also confirmed by the testimony of witnesses Katz and Khaustov — participants and eyewitnesses of what has been happening; finally, the indictment is confirmed by the explanations of the defendants themselves, by the material evidence attached to the case.

 

Analyzing all the evidence in conjunction with the materials of the case, the panel of judges considers the indictment of the defendants proven.

 

Turning to the appropriate punishment for each of the defendants, the judicial collegium takes into account the most active and organizational role of Bukovsky. At the same time, the collegium takes into account sincere repentance for their deeds by Delaunay and Kushev, and the fact that this is the first crime they have committed a crime and, as an exception, taking into account the circumstances outlined, considers it possible apply Article 44 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR to Delaunay and Kushev.

 

Based on the foregoing and guided by Articles 301, 303, 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR, the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Moscow City Court SENTENCES:

 

BUKOVSKY, Vladimir Konstantinovich, DELAUNAY, Vadim Nikolaevich, KUSHEV, Yevgeny Igorevich — found guilty under article 190-3 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR and condemns:

BUKOVSKY — to THREE years of imprisonment, taking into account the time already by him in the pre-trial detention, which began on January 26, 1967, with detention in a correctional labor camp under general regime;

 

DELAUNAY and KUSHEV — to ONE year of imprisonment each in a correctional labor camp under general regime.

 

By virtue of Article 44 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, the present sentence against Delaunay and Kushev should not be carried out — it should be considered suspended for 5 years.

 

Delaunay and KUSHEV are released from custody in the courtroom.

 

Material evidence — three slogans — are to be destroyed.

 

BUKOVSKY is to be kept in custody.

​

Translated from the Russian by Alissa Ordabai