One of the founders of the Free Inter-Trade Association of Working People (FIAWP; CCE 51.19-2), Vladimir Ilich SKVIRSKY (b. 1930), was arrested on 13 October 1978 (CCE 51.19-2 & CCE 52.19) on a charge of misappropriating State property — library books.
Skvirsky’s arrest came after a search, in the record of which 76 items are listed. However, only nine of these items concern books with library stamps. The remainder are typewritten and handwritten texts (mainly relating to the Free Trades Union, CCE 48.21), cinefilms, negatives of a brochure entitled Sowing [Posev], three photographs, seven sheets of carbon paper and 405 cassette tape-recordings of songs.
The search was conducted by Investigator Knyazev of the Moscow Procuracy. The record does not mention the participation in the search of Investigator Zhdanov of the Moskvoretsky district Procuracy, who later conducted the case against Skvirsky, or of three KGB officials (one of whom ‘combed’ the walls and floor of the flat with a metal detector), or the presence of three of Skvirsky’s acquaintances. At the same time a search was conducted in Skvirsky’s mother’s fiat. There, over 200 books were confiscated, some bearing library stamps.
*
TRIAL
The case was heard on 15-16 May in Moskvoretsky district people’s court in Moscow. None of Skvirsky’s friends or acquaintances was allowed into the courtroom, although as far back as March, 17 people had written a statement to the Chairman of the Moscow City Court asking to be allowed to attend the court proceedings (there was no answer to this letter),
B. A. Komyagin presided at the trial; G. P. Pavda defended. (The Moscow lawyer Andrei Rakhmilovich, an acquaintance of Skvirsky who was preparing to defend him in court and had already presented the assignment from his lawyers’ office to defend Skvirsky to the Procuracy, was then called as a witness. This automatically disqualified him from participation in the trial as defence counsel.)
The indictment charged Skvirsky with misappropriation of books to the value of over 750 roubles. The Procurator asked for Skvirsky to be sentenced to five years’ exile.
The lawyer demonstrated that Skvirsky was guilty only of not having returned (without the intention of misappropriation) a few dozen books, and that he had paid the cost of these books, and therefore his actions did not constitute a crime.
The judgment stated that Skvirsky had misappropriated books to the value of 246 roubles. The court sentenced Skvirsky under Article 93, pt. 1 (RSFSR Criminal Code: ‘The misappropriation of State … property by fraudulent means’) to five years’ exile.
*
Several collective letters have been written in defence of V. Skvirsky.
The following extract is from a letter (with 18 signatures) to the Procurator of Moscow, M. G. Maikov, dated 6 November 1978:
‘Are there really sufficient grounds for charging Vladimir Skvirsky with the misappropriation of library books, since deliberate misappropriation can come about only when the reader refuses to return books after two written warnings from the library? Until these two written warnings have been received there can be no talk of the deliberate misappropriation of library books, and it is only the rules for using a state library that are broken … After reading in the Literaturnaya Gazeta on 13 September 1978 that in the Nekrasov Moscow City Library alone … there were 3,718 readers at the end of 1977 who had not returned books borrowed from the library, and knowing that not one of them was charged with a civil (let alone a criminal) offence, one can safely say that charging Skvirsky with a criminal offence cannot be considered fair…’
An extract from another letter in defence of Skvirsky (with 75 signatures) says:
‘Vladimir Skvirsky has been arrested. A criminal charge has been fabricated against him. This is the latest arrest of an active member of an independent trades union, the latest attempt to present a dissenter as a criminal …’
From yet another letter (with 20 signatures):
‘The activity which he took upon himself during the past year, to save and consolidate what was left (i.e. who was left) of the independent trades union, could not, of course, pass unnoticed.’
A Chronicle of Current Events 