On 24 and 25 March 1977 the Leningrad City Court considered Case 68, in which Belgian citizen Anton Maria Joseph PYPE (b. 1945) was accused of “Anti-Soviet Agitation & Propaganda”.
Vice-chairman of the Leningrad City Court Karlov presided over the court; the prosecution was represented by Leningrad’s Deputy-Procurator Katukova; the defence was conducted by lawyer Lev Slitenko.
*
CHARGES
Anton Pype was charged with circulation of leaflets “of anti-Soviet content”.
He came to the Soviet Union on 21 December 1976 as a member of a tourist group. On 23 December 1976 he began to hand out the leaflets on the University Embankment in Leningrad.
Pavel Olesov, a student of the philosophy faculty, Andrei Kudrev, a 2nd-year student of the geology faculty, and Mikhail Doroshenko, a 4th-year student of the geology faculty, all at Leningrad University, detained him and took him to the premises of a Komsomol committee. On the way there Pype continued to pull leaflets from his pocket and scatter them around. As well as this he pushed a bundle of leaflets into the briefcase of a passer-by — asserted by the indictment to have been Sergei Gorichenko, a 2nd-year student of the university’s philology faculty.
The leaflets distributed by Pype were signed by the People’s Labour Alliance (NTS) and the Flemish Action Committee for Eastern Europe (FAC). According to the indictment they were aimed at a change in the existing order in the Soviet Union, the introduction of private property, and reforms in the social security and education systems.
The indictment also mentioned the statement Anton Pype had prepared while still in Belgium about his line of conduct under investigation in the event of his possible arrest.
*
At the pre-trial investigation Pype admitted that he had brought about 2,000 leaflets into the USSR. He refused to say who had given them to him.
About 900 leaflets fell into the hands of the investigating bodies: 155 leaflets were collected up and handed over to the KGB by Olesov, Kudrev, Gorichenko, Alexander Vladimirovich Prokhorenko and Gusev, a member of a Party bureau; 742 leaflets were handed out by Pype himself after his arrest. Pype refused to say where the remaining leaflets were.
The indictment says:
“He stated that by this behaviour he was fulfilling a promise given to friends.
“He does not consider his actions to have been criminal, and refused to sign the records of interrogations. He does not repent of what he has done. A direct intention to undermine Soviet power is to be seen in the fact that his actions bore a deliberate character, which corresponded to his behaviour during the investigation. His actions were directed by the hostile organizations FAC and NTS, which advocate a change in the existing order in the USSR, and maliciously slander the foreign policy of the USSR and the democratic freedom in our country.
“His actions bore a calculated character and were distinguished by particular audacity. It is evident from his statement compiled on 20 December that he knew in advance of the anti-Soviet content of the leaflets, came to this country specially in order to circulate them, and can be held criminally responsible.”
*
QUESTIONING
At the beginning of the trial the judge asked Pype the traditional question: Did he plead guilty?
Pype: In relation to the Soviet Union, no.
Judge: I do not understand.
Pype: The Soviet Union in signing international agreements has itself authorized such actions.
Judge: As the chairman of the court, I do not understand; do you plead guilty or not?
Pype: I do not. Such actions are permitted in the USSR.
At the trial, as during the pre-trial investigation, Pype refused to answer specific questions connected with his ‘action’ (who had given him the leaflets, where were the remaining leaflets, etc.). To the judge’s question as to what was in the leaflets Pype replied:
“The programme of the NTS and the Flemish Committee’s suggestion that Soviet citizens be given a free choice between the programme of the Communist Party and the programme of the NTS. I wanted to give people the possibility of a free choice.”
Judge: Thus, the leaflets were aimed against the policy of the CPSU?
Pype: I think that is a democratic right.
Judge: Why will you not answer certain questions?
Pype: Because it is impossible for me to do so.
Judge: Why?
Pype: Because I am acting according to my principles.
Judge: Which ones?
Pype: The principles of a Christian.
Judge: Of a Christian?
People’s Assessor: You said that you do not consider yourself guilty in regard to the USSR. How are we to understand this?
Pype: The USSR has signed international agreements authorizing the free exchange of information. And in general, I do not plead guilty.
Judge: What was your purpose in coming here?
Pype: I came as a tourist with the object of circulating leaflets.
Procurator: Before your trip here were you interested in the political system and living conditions in the USSR?
Pype: Yes.
Procurator: Have you read the newspapers and journals published by the Communist Party?
Pype: No, I have not.
Procurator: Do you consider yourself sufficiently well-informed in questions of Marxist-Leninist doctrine and the construction of a socialist society?
Pype: I have not read the works of Marx and Lenin but I am well acquainted with the structure of Soviet society — not so much with the theory as with the practice.
Procurator: Are you familiar with the Final Act of the Helsinki conference?
Pype: Yes.
Procurator: Have you read the whole Act?
Pype: I have read it only in part.
Procurator: And do you not consider your actions, directed at a change in the order existing in our country, to be interference in our internal affairs?
Pype: I think that the Helsinki Agreement does not contradict this. I brought in the leaflets out of Christian duty.
Procurator: How are we to understand that? You have said that for the second time.
Pype: In the West I am a free man. And as a Christian I must inform Soviet citizens of this freedom.
Procurator: Of what freedom?
Pype: For example, of the right to free elections. Therefore, I brought leaflets calling for the right to free elections.
Procurator: But you do not know what the Soviet people need.
Pype: I do know. There is sufficient information on this subject.
Procurator: The Soviet people have themselves chosen this method of government and political system. Have you given any thought to that?
Pype: I have thought about it. I have a different opinion on that point.
Procurator: You know that the NTS carries out work directed at a change in the existing order in our country?
Pype: The NTS aims at establishing freedoms in the USSR.
Procurator: Do you know the programme of the NTS?
Pype: I know about the circumstances in which this organization arose, and its history and activities, but I have not read its programme word for word.
Procurator: That means you have not studied its programme?
Pype: I said that I do not know it off by heart.
Procurator: You know that it is an underground organization whose aim is to overthrow the socialist system? The organization was set up with just this aim. And it is paid money by reactionary imperialist States.
Pype: Such assertions are the norm in the USSR. It is untrue to say that all organizations are in the pay of the CIA.
Judge: Did you know that you would be arrested?
Pype: I took this into account as a possibility.
Procurator: You answered “no” to the question of your guilt, on the grounds that such actions are permitted in the USSR. If this is the case, then why did you expect to be arrested?
Pype: I looked on all my activities as a protest. The very fact of my arrest discredits your State. It shows that your State does not observe the agreements it has signed.
Judge: In what way?
Pype: The fact that I am here proves that the agreements are not observed.
Judge: Do you confirm that you brought in 2,000 leaflets, concealing them from the customs?
Pype: It is up to the customs to find out whether I had leaflets.
Judge: Did you know it was forbidden to bring in leaflets?
Pype: Yes, I allowed for the fact that the leaflets might be confiscated at the frontier.
Judge: You foresaw the possibility of arrest and punishment?
Pype: I took that into account.
Procurator: Wouldn’t you like to look at your case from the other side now? You fulfilled the role of a person who came into a friendly State with hostile intentions. Your actions were organized by organizations which are hostile to the USSR.
Pype: That happens because the USSR does not fulfil its obligations.
Procurator: We have established that you are unable to judge on that since you have not read the Final Act.
*
Then the witnesses were interrogated: the participants in the detention of Pype and Intourist guide Matis.
Matis testified that on 22 December Pype had had dinner and been on the excursion with the group, but it was not known where he had spent his free time; on 23 December he had declined to take breakfast or go on the planned outing.
*
At the end of the judicial investigation:
Procurator: You have heard the testimony of witnesses. They have all called these leaflets anti-Soviet. Nobody forewarned these witnesses, they did this voluntarily.
They did not support the calls of the NTS. They all detained you on their own initiative and handed you over to the KGB, considering your actions in circulating calls for the overthrow of the existing system to be criminal and provocative. The judge warned each of them about their answerability for giving false testimony. False testimony involves severe punishment. All the witnesses have acknowledged this. After this, are you convinced that Soviet citizens do not support the calls of the NTS? Do you not consider your actions to be unlawful?
Pype: I do not consider my actions to be unlawful. Some people may be opposed, others may be in agreement with me.
Procurator: You have not answered the question that was put to you.
Pype: The evidence of three people cannot speak for the attitude of Soviet people to the programme of the NTS.
Judge: We are finishing the judicial investigation. Have you anything to add?
Pype: I wish only to add that I acted in accordance with my conscience.
Judge: What is the attitude of the accused to the actions he has performed?
Pype: All my life I have spoken up for truth, and my circulation of leaflets shows once again that wherever I may be, I speak up for truth. If people tell me this is not so, it cannot change my opinion.
*
CLOSING SPEECHES
PROSECUTION
In his speech the procurator said:
“The Soviet people are living in an atmosphere of unprecedented enthusiasm for labour …
The meeting of 35 countries in Helsinki deepened the processes of detente … But the opponents of detente do not want to accept this … Speculating on human rights, they interfere in the internal affairs of the socialist countries … They get support in their actions from anti-Soviet organizations. The most active of them — in the pay of the CIA and consisting of paid hirelings and turncoats — is the NTS… The documents signed in Helsinki have created a new opportunity for detente and the exchange of information. The USSR firmly and consistently observes these agreements … But when the improvement in the climate is made use of for hostile ends, we cannot remain indifferent. The Soviet people value their conquests and will not permit interference in our internal affairs using the pretext of the agreements signed in Helsinki…
“The so-called Flemish Action Committee for Eastern Europe: what kind of an organization is it?,.. Hiding behind high-sounding phrases they … give moral and material support to the families of convicts, and this constitutes interference in our internal affairs …
“The prosecution affirms, basing itself on proofs, that Anton Pype committed an ideological diversion prepared in advance by the NTS and the FAC …
“This action, inspired by others, has nothing in common with the defence of human rights … Pype’s statements that his actions are in accord with the principles of the Helsinki agreement are completely unfounded. We know from his statements that he is not familiar with this document. If we turn to the Act, we may be convinced of the total political ignorance of Pype and of the groundlessness of his statements. We have before us an unwarranted interference, with the aim of sowing discord between the Soviet and Belgian peoples …
“An analysis of the interrogations showed that Pype’s statements that he acted with humanitarian aims are untenable.
“It remains to add that it was no chance that he chose Leningrad University at a time when classes were ending, when there were a lot of young people on the embankment. Our ideological opponents are aiming at students. But their calculation has not been justified. Soviet youth, like all Soviet people, upholds the policy of the CPSU and therefore the calls of the NTS have received no support whatever. The very first citizens viewed Pype’s actions with indignation and on their own initiative handed him over to the KGB, preventing the further circulation of leaflets. I draw your attention to the fact that even after he was detained Pype did not cease to commit his crime… In consideration of the seriousness of the offence and of Pype’s personality. I ask for a sentence of six years in a strict-regime colony and recovery of costs.
“And let this serve as a warning to all those who try to interfere in the internal politics of the Soviet people.”
*
DEFENCE
In his speech the defence lawyer stated that the entire case had been conducted in exact accordance with the norms of Soviet legality, that in his speech the State prosecutor had correctly shown the essence of the case, that Pype’s actions had been correctly defined as falling under Article 70 pt. 1 of the RSFSR Criminal Code, that the crime had been proved and that the defence supported the prosecution’s assessment of Pype’s activities. He said:
“A defence lawyer does not have the right to refuse to defend an accused, he is obliged to do this by law — Article 51 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure …
“Through political shortsightedness and an inability to understand the international situation he became a blind tool in the hands of reactionary forces … How can one talk and compare the different systems without knowing the classic works of Marxism-Leninism, and drawing conclusions using only the materials of the Western press?
“The defence sees the reasons that have brought Pype to the dock. It is not his fault alone …
“Speaking of extenuating circumstances, in accordance with Article 38 of the Criminal Code, it should be emphasized that A. Pype described his activities in detail during the investigation. This gives us the right to say that he assisted in uncovering the crime. I wish to draw attention to the circumstances that Pype, for reasons that are known to us, was not able to understand correctly the situation and the people involved. I do not wish to offend the accused, but my duty as a man and a defence lawyer obliges me to say that in giving his agreement, he showed a political shortsightedness which is fully explicable. How was it possible, not having read to the end of the Final Act of the Helsinki agreement, not understanding the programme of the NTS but knowing it only by hearsay, to undertake an obligation to circulate leaflets? …
“I cannot fail to say that he is appearing in court for the first time. There are no bad references regarding his character. My defendant has told the court very little about his parents, but he has a father and mother in Belgium. Their anxiety about the fate of their son is fully understandable. They are asking themselves the question: what will happen to our son?
“Especially understandable is the sorrow of the mother, who gave birth to her son, brought him up, and did not think that he would break Soviet law. The sorrow of a Belgian mother, the sorrow of a woman. All the mothers in the world are united by love for their children. In the name of a Belgian mother, I ask the court to show lenience.”
*
In his final statement Anton Pype said:
“As a Christian, I consider it my duty to tell everyone about freedom of choice in connection with the Helsinki agreement, I recognize the correctness of Brezhnev’s words that despite the Helsinki agreement the ideological struggle will continue. I am continuing this struggle.
“I chose Leningrad University, since in the West a university is always picked as a place of ideological struggle. I am grateful to the members of the FAC for having given me the opportunity to do this.
“Not all the people to whom I handed leaflets have been present here. Thus, it is not possible to make a judgment about the opinion of Soviet people.
“But Gorichenko is here, of whom it was said that I had placed a packet of leaflets in his briefcase. I do not deny the fact itself, but that is not the person in whose briefcase I placed leaflets.
“In conclusion I wish to say that my action was aimed at giving Soviet people the freedom to choose democratic freedoms.
“Gentlemen of the Court, I thank you!”
The court sentenced Anton Pype to five years in a strict-regime camp.
*
APPEAL
On 27 March the Muscovites Malva Landa, Irina Kaplun, Alexander Podrabinek, Vladimir Borisov, Pyotr Grigorenko and Yury Mnyukh and the Leningrader Ilya Levin issued a letter with the appeal “Free Anton Pype!”
“… We presume, judging by our experience, that it was precisely the courageous conduct of Anton Pype during the investigation and trial, and his wish not to discredit others, himself and his actions, that were the basic reason for the harsh sentence.
“We note that the trial of Anton Pype was essentially a closed one. People were allowed into the court-room only at the discretion of the authorities, and seats were occupied by a specially-picked public; for the remaining Soviet citizens who wished to attend the trial there turned out to be ‘no free seats’ and they were not allowed in even for the reading of the verdict (one of the violations of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is usual in such trials).
“The indictment and conviction of Anton Pype is an open infringement of human rights and a gross violation of the humanitarian articles of the Helsinki agreements.
“We call on independent jurists and humanistic organizations to investigate the case of the conviction of Anton Pype.
“We support Anton Pype in his selfless struggle for an increase in the amount of freedom in the whole world, regardless of State frontiers.
“Freedom for Anton Pype! We call on all who value humanity and the rights of man to bring about the release of Anton Pype.”
================================
NOTE
Pype was expelled from the Soviet Union on 1 July 1977. See a TASS statement of that date.
=======================
A Chronicle of Current Events 