Moscow Helsinki Group, Jan-April 1980 (56.3)

<<No. 56 : 30 April 1980>>

The Jailing of Tatyana Osipova
The trial of Malva Landa
A search of Osipova and Kovalyov’s apartment
The case of Victor Nekipelov

1. The Jailing of Tatyana Osipova

At 3 pm on 4 January 1980, Tatyana OSIPOVA, a member of the Moscow Helsinki Group, was arrested.

She had been summoned that day for questioning to the 58th District Police Station by Investigator Pirogov. He charged her with petty hooliganism during a search on 26 December 1979 at the home of Irina Grivnina (see below), at which she was present.

Tatyana Osipova (b. 1949)

The ‘case’ against her consisted of reports from two policemen, junior sergeant Paulauskas and sergeant Karpenok, and ‘explanations’ from two witnesses who were present at the search, V.A. Morozov and A.N. Kuleshov.

The policemen’s reports state that the police went “to assist in the conduct of the search”. On entering Grivnina’s flat they asked all those present to show their documents. However, no one showed them any documents, and when Osipova categorically refused to show her passport [ID document] she pushed Karpenok away, “accompanying her act with all sorts of words”. She used abusive language, threatened violence and insulted them (with the words ‘scum’, ‘thieves’, ‘goats’ [idiots]), etc. She also categorically refused to comply with their “repeated lawful request to accompany them to the police station”. Finally, “at the request of the KGB officers” conducting the search, Osipova was left in the flat.

The witnesses wrote that Osipova behaved “improperly, attempted to disrupt the search and create a tense atmosphere, used abusive language and ignored the policemen’s requests”.

During questioning Osipova wrote a statement in which she explained what really happened during the search.

She arrived at Grivnina’s flat when the search was effectively over, and had presented her passport [ID document] to the KGB officers as soon as they asked for It. The policemen came not to ‘assist’ in the conduct of the search, but to take Irina Grivnina away for questioning. The policemen did not ask Osipova for her passport (they checked only the documents of the owners of the flat); nor did they request her to accompany them to the police station. When, however, the police began to lead Grivnina away and her daughter started crying, Osipova went into another room, shutting the door behind her. Osipova remarked in her statement that both the indecent behaviour of the police officers and their slanderous reports called for condemnation and punishment, and she requested that they be made to answer for their actions.

When she arrived at the police station Grivnina wrote a statement for Investigator Pirogov describing how the search had been conducted, and requested that her evidence be placed in the case file. Pirogov refused to accept her statement. Grivnina then handed it to station chief Captain V.S. Popov, after he had promised that it would be added to the case file. Popov did not keep his promise.

After questioning, Osipova was taken to Dzerzhinsky district people’s court. Her ‘case’ was examined by Judge Beloborodov. The trial lasted for five or ten minutes. The Judge read the indictment to Osipova and then asked her to comment on the essence of the charges. She requested that Grivnina, who was present in the courtroom, be called as a witness, but the Judge interrupted Osipova and repeated his question. She replied that the charges were false and slanderous. Several minutes later the Judge cast the papers aside and asked Investigator Pirogov if there were any witnesses. He said there were none. Beloborodov continued to ignore Grivnina’s request to present evidence. The Judge then pronounced his decision: 15 days in jail, and left.

After the trial Osipova was placed in Special Women’s Detention Centre No. 2. In protest against her unjust sentence Osipova refused to go out to work. On 8 January 1980, the term of her detention was extended by 10 days by order of Judge Slakayev (of the Zheleznodorozhny district people’s court) “for malicious violations of the regime”. Osipova responded by declaring a hunger-strike, which lasted until the end of her sentence. She was placed in solitary confinement, and on the seventh day, 15 January, artificial feeding began. She was not given a bed, even though in similar cases in the camps, beds are given (to those on hunger-strike in the cooler). During her hunger-strike a duty psychiatrist was called, who pronounced her healthy.

On 9 January 1980, Osipova’s husband Ivan Kovalyov, a fellow-member of the Moscow Helsinki Group, submitted a supervisory complaint to the Dzerzhinsky district procurator’s office, in which he referred to the 26 July 1966 Decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet, and stated that even if his wife were guilty of an act of ‘petty hooliganism’ she should have been detained at the time of the offence. He also stated that the Judge’s order should have been issued not later than 28 December 1979. The complaint was accompanied by evidence from Grivnina which the court had not examined.

On 10 January 1980 Kovalyov sent a statement to the same procurator’s office about the illegality of extending Osipova’s arrest because of her refusal to work. He quoted the 4 April 1962 Decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet, “Measures against Malicious Disobedience” to the police:

“If a person under arrest refuses to perform physical labour, then, on an order from a people’s court, that person shall be made to pay the cost of all meals provided during the period of detention…”

On 17 January 1980, Kovalyov sent a statement to the Chairman of the Moscow City Court and to the Moscow Procurator demanding that the decisions of the Dzerzhinsky and Zheleznodorozhny people’s courts should be overruled.

On 21 February 1980, Osipova was warned at the Central Geophysical Expeditions Office, where she works, that “her behaviour was inadmissible”. On 25 March Osipova was visited by Khoruzhy, a local police officer. He had previously summoned her by telephone, then sent a summons to her, but she had refused to go. The reason for the summons was said to be that Osipova had to be registered as a petty hooligan liable to administrative penalties. A record card was completed in her name.

2. The Trial of Malva Landa (26 March 1980)

On 3 January 1980, Malva LANDA was arrested outside the apartment block where Andrei Sakharov lives in Moscow.

She was taken to the town of Petushki (Vladimir Region), where she is registered as a resident. There she was informed that she was under suspicion for offences under Article 190-1 (RSFSR Criminal Code). She was asked to sign an undertaking not to leave Petushki. If she refused, the investigator told her, she would be arrested immediately.

The following day Landa was summoned to Vladimir, where she was questioned about materials confiscated during a search at her home on 8 December 1979 (CCE 55.2-4 item 6). She refused to give any evidence whatsoever or to take part in the investigation.

On 11 January 1980 Investigator Zhmakin of the Vladimir district procurator’s office charged Landa under Article 190-1. The incriminating material included

two unfinished versions of an article about the “Zatikyan, Stepanyan & Bagdasaryan” case (CCE 52.1; see also “Official Documents” in this issue, CCE 56.29);
Several documents of the Moscow Helsinki Group:
No. 58 About the 10th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia (CCE 51.20),
No. 56 About the recent trials of Orlov, Ginzburg and Shcharansky (CCE 50), and
No. 69 An appeal on the 30th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (CCE 52.16 & CCE 55.10);
“An Appeal to an Italian Factory”, in the writing of which Landa was in no way involved (the “Appeal” is signed by the Ukrainian Helsinki Group).

Malva N. Landa, 1918-2019

Zhmakin invited Landa to ‘repent’. He said that if she did the case against her would be closed. After the exile of Andrei Sakharov (see CCE 56.1-1) Zhmakin told Landa:

“Now, Malva Noyevna, whatever happens to you, nobody will ever know…

“As they say, ‘Even death is beautiful in this world’ (Russian proverb). But what use are you? Nobody needs you. Even if anyone says anything, it will only be a few words, something insincere.”

Throughout many interrogations, which lasted two months, Landa refused to answer questions or sign the records. She also refused to answer questions concerning the case of Nekipelov when summoned to the Regional KGB office on 11 February 1980. Both Zhmakin and the KGB investigator threatened to send her for psychiatric examination.

On 8 February 1980, a Moscow investigator arrived at the home of Raissa LERT (CCE 52.4-4) on behalf of the Vladimir Regional Procurator’s office, to ask her about her acquaintance with Landa. Lert replied that her relationships with her acquaintances were her own affair. Several days later she was visited by Zhmakin. He asked her questions about Landa and other human rights activists.

On 14 February 1980, Zhmakin visited A. Germanov (Landa’s son) in Moscow. Neither he nor his wife was at home. Zhmakin talked to Germanov’s daughter and mother-in-law. He was particularly interested in whether Landa had visited them in January, that is, after she had signed the undertaking not to leave Petushki. They replied: “We don’t remember”.

On 15 February 1980, Kuranov, an investigator from the Vladimir Regional Procurator’s office, carried out a search at the home of Anatoly MARCHENKO in the town of Karabanovo (Alexandrov district, Vladimir Region). Some samizdat and tamizdat books and manuscripts were confiscated.

On 18 February 1980, Investigator Zhmakin said that Landa could engage any defence counsel she liked, Soviet or foreign. A week later, however, he stated that only a member of the Bar, that is a Soviet citizen, could conduct her defence.

On 25 February 1980, Landa began to study the case file. On 7 March she was reaching the end of her study. In the lunch-break she managed to telephone Moscow. In the evening, when she signed the record that she had finished her study, she was arrested.

The trial took place on 26 March 1980 in the club of the MVD school attached to Vladimir Prison.

The prosecutor at the trial was Procurator Obraztsov. None of Landa’s friends who travelled to Vladimir was admitted to the courtroom. Yelena Bonner was not allowed to leave Gorky that day. Landa’s son was called as a witness. But he was questioned last, so he could not be present in the courtroom during the first part of the trial.

Landa pleaded not guilty, and claimed that none of the documents incriminated against her contained ‘deliberately false fabrications’.

All her petitions requesting that the truthfulness and accuracy of the information contained in the documents be established were rejected by the court. Landa was sentenced to five years’ exile. She was transported to Kazakhstan.

Moscow Helsinki Group Document No. 117 states:

… Malva Landa is one of the longest-standing and most active defenders of the rule of law in the USSR, and has been a member of the Moscow Helsinki Group since its creation. She is one of the organizers of the Relief Fund for Political Prisoners and their Families.”

Moscow Helsinki Group Document No. 124 (19 March 1980) and the statement “Malva Landa has been Arrested” (15 March 1980, 17 signatures) both deal with her arrest. A letter from another organizer of the Relief Fund for Political Prisoners, Sergei Khodorovich, states:

“How morally weak must be that mighty power which fears honest people. And how dangerous the cowards who possess such power! In opposition to the power of truth all they can offer are prison, exile, camps, guards and handcuffs.”

On 28 March the Moscow Helsinki Group published document No. 127,“The Trial of Malva Landa”:

“… Any verdict of guilty in the case of Malva Landa is incorrect and illegal, since she has committed no crime, and her conviction is another instance of the suppression of free speech, of human rights activities conducted within the law, and of those who give help to the oppressed.

“One cannot help but protest against the severity of the form of punishment chosen by the court. For a woman of 62, exile, in the climatic and environmental conditions in which prisoners serve their sentences, see Document No. 116, is a virtually unendurable punishment. In this case it is also illegal. Article 190-1 (RSFSR Criminal Code) makes no provision for exile as punishment.

“Punishment under this article may be any of the following; deprivation of freedom for a period of up to three years; corrective labour (while not held in custody) for a period of up to one year; or a fine of 100 roubles. In sending Malva Landa into exile as a humane mitigation of sentence the authorities have in fact attempted to paralyse her civic activity for five years.”

On 26 March 1980, Felix Serebrov and Leonard Ternovsky, members of the Working Commission to Investigate the Use of Psychiatry for Political Purposes, both joined the Moscow Helsinki Group (Document No. 125).

3. A Search at the Home of Osipova and Ivan Kovalyov (10 April 1980)

On 10 April 1980, the day of Ternovsky’s arrest (see below), a search was conducted at the flat of Tatyana OSIPOVA and Ivan KOVALYOV by Senior Investigator of the Moscow City Procurator’s office G.V. Ponomarev (CCE 44.7), on an order written by Ponomarev himself.

A large number of papers containing information on the human rights movement in the USSR were confiscated. These included:

letters and statements addressed to the Moscow Helsinki Group and to official bodies;
a list of political prisoners;
information from the political camps;
Information Bulletins of the Working Commission to Investigate the Use of Psychiatry for Political Purposes;
of the Committee to Defend Tatyana Velikanova;
of the Action Group to Defend the Rights of the Disabled;
of the Baptist Council of Prisoners’ Relatives; and
of the Free Inter-Trade Association of Working People;
plus several almost complete collections of the documents of the Moscow Helsinki Group (listed in the report as 3,610 sheets of typewritten text);
documents of the Christian Committee to Defend Believers’ Rights;
personal letters;
a notebook and writing-pad containing notes;
a number of magazines (Poiski [Searches] No. 7, Duel No. 2, Alternative No. 3 (in French);
a photocopy of the article “Statistics on Crime in the USSR” (from Posev magazine); and
a catalogue of the YMCA Press.

Of all the photographs in the flat only three pictures of Vyacheslav Bakhmin were removed.

4. The case of Victor Nekipelov

At the beginning of January relatives of Victor NEKIPELOV, a member of the Moscow Helsinki Group arrested on 7 December 1979 (CCE 55.3), received a briefcase which had been in his possession at the time of his arrest (it contained a Bible and an English text-book).

They also received a jacket and a pair of spectacles. An investigator stated that according to his information Nekipelov was quite capable of managing without spectacles. In fact, Nekipelov finds it difficult to read without them.

Victor Nekipelov, 1928-1989

On 24 January 1980, Tatyana Osipova, who was in a special detention centre (see above), was visited by Senior Investigator Major Minin from the Far Eastern Kamchatka KGB. He questioned her in connection with Nekipelov’s case. After the first question (on whether she knew him), Osipova refused to give evidence, and wrote in the record that Nekipelov was a brilliant writer, poet and publicist, and that the criminal case against him was fabricated.

On 25 January 1980, Felix Serebrov, who lives in Moscow, was visited at his home by an investigator from the team examining Nekipelov’s case. Serebrov refused to talk to him. The investigator tried to serve some kind of a summons on him, and to conduct an official interrogation there and then in Serebrov’s flat, but Serebrov categorically rejected this approach too.

On 26 January Mikhail Naritsa and his wife Lyudmila were summoned to the Latvian KGB, where Lieutenant-Colonel Leinart asked them each three questions: did they know Nekipelov and his wife Nina Komarova; did they correspond with them; and, thirdly, did they know where their own son P. Naritsa was? They answered ‘no’ to the first two questions, and to the third replied that they did not know.

On 31 January Komarova was called for questioning to the Vladimir KGB. She was questioned about Nekipelov’s acquaintance with Orlov, Shcharansky, Sakharov, Kukobaka and Buzinnikov. The investigators were interested in Komarova’s involvement in the writing and editing of her husband’s articles, in particular an essay written by him called “About Our Searches”. She was asked who had translated Osadchy’s novel “Cataract” [1971]; whether Nekipelov had received letters and articles from Osadchy; and if he had, then for what purpose. The final question was whether Nekipelov and Komarova had received help from abroad, and whether they had helped political prisoners and their families: Komarova refused to reply to these questions. She was questioned by Investigator Romanovsky of the Belgorod KGB.

At the end of February 1980, Stefaniya Shabatura was questioned in Lvov (see “After Release” in the section “Events in the Ukraine”, CCE 56.15) about an article written in her defence in 1976 by Malva Landa and Victor Nekipelov. When shown excerpts from the article, Shabatura stated that all they had written was true. She also said that she did not know either Landa or Nekipelov.

On 5 March 1980 Maria Petrenko was served with a summons in Moscow to appear for questioning on 6 March at the Vladimir KGB before Investigator Zotov. She did not go. In a statement addressed to Zotov, Petrenko wrote:

“… I refuse to take part in investigations of cases concerning any articles of the Criminal Code under which people are convicted for their opinions or actions where the legality of the latter is guaranteed by the Constitution of the USSR, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Covenants on human rights, ratified by the USSR…

“Nekipelov’s activities have been dedicated to the struggle against injustice and unlawful actions, and are consequently aimed at strengthening society and the rule of law. He has helped all members of society to increase their awareness of their rights and of the responsibility they bear for the present and the future. His innocence before the law is obvious.”

*

On 13 March 1980, Alexander Podrabinek was questioned in exile in connection with the case of Nekipelov. He refused to reply to the investigator’s questions.

In Yuryev-Polsky (Vladimir Region) a number of attempts were made to question Valery Fefyolov, a member of the Action Group to Defend the Rights of the Disabled, about Nekipelov. He refused to give any information (see this issue “Miscellaneous Reports”, CCE 56.25 item 9).

On 4 April 1980, Investigator Pleshkov asked Komarova to find a lawyer for her husband within ten days. She discovered that the defence could be handled only by a lawyer with a special permit to work on cases investigated by the KGB. Two Moscow lawyers, V.Ya Shveisky and S.A. Dubrovskaya, agreed to take on Nekipelov’s defence, but they were refused permission to go to Vladimir by Shklyarsky, deputy chairman of the Presidium of the Moscow City Bar. Komarova was forced to request a lawyer from the Vladimir Bar Association. She was referred to A.G. Smorchkov, who agreed to handle Nekipelov’s defence.

On 17 April 1980, Smorchkov talked to Nekipelov in the presence of Pleshkov. Nekipelov refused the offer of his services when Smorchkov said that it was impossible to defend him if he did not plead guilty. Pleshkov told Komarova about this, and added that Nekipelov was sufficiently educated to undertake his own defence.

Sergei Nekipelov (CCE 55.2-4 item 6), together with Sophia Kalistratova, Maria Petrenko and Felix Serebrov, sent statements to the Ministry of Justice and the Procurator-General concerning this violation of the right to a defence counsel. N. Komarova sent telegrams to the same addresses, and also to Brezhnev and Andropov. Serebrov wrote an appeal, “A Lawyer for a Dissident”, which was signed by seven other people. The appeal contains a request to Western lawyers to undertake Nekipelov’s defence, and quotes Pleshkov as saying that no Western lawyer would be allowed to work on Nekipelov’s case.

An ‘Open Statement in Defence of Victor Nekipelov” (December 1979, 41 signatures) states:

“… By profession a laboratory worker, who up to his arrest worked in Kameshkovo Hospital, Victor Nekipelov is by vocation a poet.

“His poetry and translations of poetry have been published by Soviet editors and publishing-houses. But the official career of this Soviet poet could not and did not last long. A man of the utmost sincerity, in his poetry Nekipelov never attempted either to conform to the prevailing ideology or to hide his thoughts and feelings. Even though his poems were in no way meant as political pamphlets, in 1973 this poet was put on trial, and his poems ruled anti-Soviet and slanderous. Nekipelov was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.

“His poetry took him to prison. Prison made him realize more profoundly his relationship with Soviet reality …

“Victor Nekipelov was not a public activist either by vocation or by nature. He became one through a sense of civic duty, a sense of justice, through his honesty, his goodness, and his responsiveness to the fates of others …

“The arrest of such people as Victor Nekipelov is undoubtedly harmful to the country. It damages its prestige, its dignity and its moral climate.

“We appeal to the common sense of the government and society, Victor Nekipelov has committed no unlawful action, and should be released immediately. The case against him is without foundation and should be quashed.”

Document No. 117 of the Moscow Helsinki Group states:

“The arrest of Victor Nekipelov, the proceedings against Malva Landa and the detention of Tatyana Osipova all show that the authorities will stop at nothing to suppress the activities conducted by the Moscow Helsinki Group in defence of the rule of law.”

========================================