THE CASE OF SERGEI KOVALYOV
On 26 September 1975 the pre-trial investigation in the case of Sergei Kovalyov (CCE 34.1), which forms part of Case 345, came to an end.
The interrogations in the Kovalyov case have already been reported in CCE 35.5 & CCE 36.7 (in the section ‘Investigation of Case 345’).
In connection with this case, in Moscow during June and August the following were also interrogated: his colleague A. A. Mizyakin, V. F. Turchin, I. M. Belogorodskaya, G. S. Podyapolsky, T. M, Velikanova, M. N. Landa, and L. Yu. Boitsova (Kovalyov’s wife). Investigator Istomin told Mizyakin that Kovalyov had founded an ‘anti-Soviet group’ among his work-colleagues, which had included Kovalyov, Mizyakin, V. M. Maresin (CCE 35.5), and E. Yankelevich (in spite of this, E. Yankelevich, Academician Sakharov’s son-in-law, was not summoned for interrogation).
Istomin said that Mizyakin’s refusal to answer questions was proof that such a group had existed. Istomin threatened to start a criminal case against Mizyakin, charging him with revealing a military secret entrusted to Mizyakin nine years ago, when he was a private doing his military service. Istomin said he would not press charges concerning this incident if Mizyakin gave the required evidence.
T. M. Velikanova stated at the very beginning of her interrogation that she refused to participate in the investigation [correction CCE 38.22] and pointed out that her motives for refusing to do so were known to the KGB from previous interrogations and ‘conversations’ (CCE 29.8 & CCE 32). G. S. Podyapolsky, in explaining his refusal to answer questions, also referred to the statement he made two years ago about his refusal to answer during an interrogation concerning Case 24 (CCE 29.8).
Others interrogated were Alexander Ginzburg, Father Sergei Zheludkov and Sergei Pirogov (in a camp in Arkhangelsk Region). In Georgia, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, Merab Kostava, Valentina Pailodze (in a camp) and V. Rtskhiladze were interrogated [1].
In June investigator Sorokin of the Moscow KGB administration interrogated N. Ya. Shatunovskaya and Sergei Genkin, who had been present on 23 December 1974 at Y. A. Shikhanovich’s flat during a search (CCE 34) ‘concerning Case 345’. The majority of his questions concerned Shikhanovich.
*
LAWYERS
In August Kovalyov’s wife — at his request, transmitted to her through the investigators — approached the Moscow barristers S. V. Kalistratova and D. I. Kaminskaya. They agreed to take on Kovalyov’s defence.
For this agreement to be formalized, permission had to be obtained from the Presidium of the Moscow Bar. Apraksin, President of the Presidium, stated that he would not allow either Kalistratova or Kaminskaya to participate in a case concerning Article 70 of the Criminal Code, as they had ‘no official permit’, and that he would not allow any Moscow lawyer to participate in a trial taking place outside Moscow, ‘because our lawyers are overburdened with work’. He also said that no Moscow lawyer would agree to take the case and that such cases were dangerous for lawyers because while they were outside Moscow the Bar could not help them. In addition, he said that even if the trial were held in open court, probably only close relatives would be allowed to attend, “because of higher considerations” [2].
Apraksin refused to give Kovalyov’s wife a written reply to her declaration. Boitsova’s complaint to the RSFSR Minister of Justice about Apraksin’s behaviour was sent to the Moscow Soviet and remained, in effect, unanswered. Boitsova was forced to find a lawyer from outside Moscow.
The Leningrad lawyer A. I. Rozhansky [3] took on the defence of Kovalyov. At the end of August Kovalyov began to study the case evidence. On 26 September Kovalyov and his lawyer signed the official statement declaring the pre-trial investigation completed. After this, Kovalyov told Rozhansky that he refused to have a defence counsel at his trial, because, in his opinion, the position he intended to adopt at the trial would create difficulties for his lawyer.
*
THE CASE OF TVERDOKHLEBOV
The pre-trial investigation in the case of Andrei Tverdokhlebov (CCE 36.1) is nearing its end.
Many people have been interrogated. In June Valentin Turchin, chairman of the Soviet Amnesty International group, was questioned six times (he was even asked ‘Have you participated in helping the children of political prisoners?’), and Vladimir Albrekht, the group’s secretary, was questioned five times. In Moscow, Regina Bobrova, Nikolai Beloozerov, Ivan Rudakov, Mikhail Utevsky, and Alexander Shuster and his wife, were also interrogated.
In connection with Tverdokhlebov’s case, Ernst Orlovsky (from Leningrad), who is a member of the Soviet Amnesty International group, Revolt Pimenov (from Syktyvkar) and Alexander Ginzburg (from Tarusa) were likewise interrogated. The investigators travelled to Kuibyshev Region in order to question Tverdokhlebov’s former wife.
In July, Anatoly Ilich RESHETNIK was summoned for interrogation by the Moscow city procurator’s office; he had formerly been sentenced in Sverdlovsk under Article 190-1 (RSFSR Criminal Code) and completed his sentence [4]. Investigator Gusev suggested that Reshetnik should testify that Tverdokhlebov used to give him the Chronicle of Current Events to read. After Reshetnik’s refusal, he was invited three times to ‘have a talk’ at the Hotel Rossiya, where attempts were again made to persuade him to give the necessary evidence and become a witness. Reshetnik was led to believe that if he agreed to do so he would be helped to keep his Moscow residence permit, regardless of his approaching divorce.
In the middle of June a search in connection with Tverdokhlebov’s case was carried out in Leningrad at the home of V. Gomelsky, who was sentenced to 1 ½ years in 1967 under Article 190-1 of the RSFSR Criminal Code [5]. The confiscated material included: My Memoirs by E. Olitskaya, The End of the Tragedy by A, Yakobson, My Return by A. E. Krasnov-Levitin, and materials of ‘Group 73’ (CCE 30.14 [7]). When interrogated, Gomelsky stated that he had himself asked Tverdokhlebov to give him the ‘Group 73’ materials.
The lawyer L. A. Yudovich has taken on Tverdokhlebov’s defence [6].
*
A CASE CONCERNING A JOURNAL
The investigation concerning the samizdat journal Jews in the USSR, which began with a series of searches at the end of May 1975 (CCE 36), continues.
About 30 people have been interrogated in Moscow, Leningrad, Odessa, Kharkov and Vladimir. At the beginning of August senior investigator Tikhonov of the Moscow procurator’s office interrogated Alexander Lunts. When the interrogation ended, Tikhonov and Lunts argued for one-and-a-half hours about whether or not Lunts had the right to take away notes that he had made during the interrogation. Lunts won this argument. At the end of August, Mark Azbel, Doctor of Physics and Mathematical Sciences, an eminent Soviet physicist, who has for long been refused an exit visa, was summoned for questioning.
While he was being interrogated Azbel was asked to sign a document promising not to reveal the evidence that he had given.
The journal Jews in the USSR is still being published (CCE 37.16 [3-5]). The first issue of a supplement to the journal called Tarbut (Culture) has come out and is dedicated to Jewish history and culture.
29 Soviet Jews have signed an appeal to heads of State who took part in the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, protesting against the persecution of the journal Jews in the USSR and warning that a court-case concerning the journal is in its preliminary stages.
*
The Case of Igrunov
In the summer of 1975 Vyacheslav Igrunov, arrested on 1 March of that year (CCE 35.10 [6]), was undergoing an in-patient forensic-psychiatric examination.
Igrunov is charged under Article 187-1 (UkSSR Criminal Code = Article 190-1, RSFSR Code). Senior Investigator Captain N. A. Shalagin and investigator First Lieutenant Yu. S. Grazhdan are in charge of the case.
Over 30 persons have been brought into the case as witnesses, including all of Igrunov’s close relatives. There is some evidence that both the defendant and the majority of the witnesses are refusing to cooperate with the wishes of the investigators. It is possible that this fact led to the in-patient psychiatric examination to which Igrunov has now been subjected.
Various methods of obtaining information have been used during the investigation. For example, Aleksei Tikhomolov, one of Igrunov’s acquaintances, was stopped on the street, put into a car and taken first to K G B headquarters for questioning and then to a room in the Hotel Krasnaya where he had a meeting with two KGB officials. After being questioned about Igrunov and other acquaintances — particularly Leonid Tymchuk (CCE 36.10 [14]) — it was suggested to Tikhomolov that he might cooperate in bringing to light the hostile activities of anti-Soviet organizations in Odessa. Tikhomolov stated that he was willing to cooperate only if the matter concerned the activities of Zionist organizations. After lengthy discussion, this offer was accepted.
This was followed by dinner in the same room at the Hotel Krasnaya.
This deal is probably no longer in force, as A. Tikhomolov has broken his ‘vow of silence’.
For half a year Igrunov’s family has had no official information concerning his whereabouts or state of health. In April an investigator promised Igrunov’s wife that he would arrange a meeting for her and her child, in exchange for her agreement to participate in the investigation. Evidently, though, her participation did not fulfil the expectations of the investigator and so the visit did not take place. The investigator said it would be inhumane to the child.
The first response to the news of Igrunov being placed in a psychiatric hospital was the samizdat leaflet ‘Echo of an Event’, signed by ‘A. Zhakov’ and dated 18 August. ‘A State with a developed system of democratic institutions,’ writes the author, ‘needs thinking, educated, talented people, among whom one would undoubtedly include V, Igrunov.’
In September Igrunov was back in an Odessa prison. At the end of September, the investigator suggested that Svetlana Artsimovich, Igrunov’s wife, should try to find a lawyer at once. He did not tell her the result of the psychiatric examination.
==========================================
NOTES
- The names Valentina Pailodze and V. Rtskhiladze are here corrected from Valeria Pailodze and D. Getskhiladze, as indicated in //CCE 38.
↩︎ - //CCE 23 reported that in 1971 Apraksin refused to allow V. Bukovsky to use Kaminskaya’s services. ↩︎
- Rozhansky was one of the defence lawyers at the ‘Riga Trial of the Four’. See //CCE 20.2.
↩︎ - On Reshetnik see //CCE 25.
↩︎ - On Gomelsky’s case see P. Reddaway, Uncensored Russia, p. 387.
↩︎ - Yudovich had been a counsel for the defence in the trials of K. A. Lyubarsky (//CCE 28) and P. Yakir and V. Krasin (//CCE 30). He was also chosen by G. Superfin’s relatives to defend him, but was not allowed to do so by the Moscow Bar (//CCE 32).
↩︎
============================
A Chronicle of Current Events 