<< 31 December 1980 : Issue 60 >>
From 24 to 26 December 1980, Moscow City Court, examined the case against Alexander Pavlovich LAVUT (b. 1929; arrested 29 April, CCE 56.6), who was charged under Article 190-1 of the RSFSR Criminal Code.
The trial was presided over by V.V. Bogdanov, who also tried Yury Grimm (CCE 58.9) and many others [1]. The prosecutor was Procurator T.P. Prazdnikova, who recently prosecuted Vyacheslav Bakhmin (CCE 58.2), Sokirko (CCE 58.7-2) and Yury Grimm.
Lawyer E.A. Reznikova [2] defended Ternovsky earlier this year (CCE 60.4); now she was Lavut’s defence lawyer.
*
The trial took place in the Babushkino district people’s court in Moscow.
Apart from the specially invited public only relatives of the accused were admitted into the courtroom. Lavut’s friends, who had entered the courtroom long before the beginning of the trial, were taken out.
On the evening of 24 December officials tried to prevent Yelisaveta Alexeyeva, who had left the courthouse altogether, from returning. On 25 December Izolda Brailovskaya managed to enter the courtroom. During the break she was taken from the courtroom to a police station ‘to establish her identity’ (she did not have her ID document with her). On 26 December Pinkhos Podrabinek was detained while attempting to enter the courtroom, and taken to a police station.
*
At the beginning of the trial Lavut submitted these petitions:
[1] to make the trial an open one and to allow his friends who had come to the court building into the courtroom. Here Lavut told the court that on 3 November, at an interrogation about the case of Tatyana Osipova, Major Gubinsky of the USSR KGB had told him: “We admit people who are capable of assimilating information objectively”;
[2] to summon Pyotr Yakir as a witness:
“The indictment often refers to the evidence which he gave while himself on trial [in 1973 CCE 30.2]. He was not interrogated in connection with my case. In his evidence he called all the documents shown to him slanderous. Maybe he doesn’t think so now; maybe he didn’t think so even at the time”;
[3] to summon also
- Enver Ametov, Eskender Razulov, Gulizar Abdullayeva, Mustafa Dzhemilev and Fuat Ablyamitov: “During the investigation of my case they were all interrogated in connection with Crimean Tatar documents”;
- Ludmila Boitsova, Sophia Kalistratova and the President of the Moscow City Bar Association K. Apraksin (“to demonstrate the absence of slander or deliberate fabrication in ‘On the Right to a Defence’, one of the incriminating documents”),
- Irina Valitova (in connection with the document “The Trial of Professor Orlov”), Yury Shikhanovich, N. Konstantinov and Yury Kiselyov; and also
- the expert Garkavenko who had carried out an ideological assessment: “The expert’s conclusions are dishonest and incompetent. They contain slanderous utterances about myself and others”.
[4] to attach to the case about 70 letters, statements and complaints sent by Crimean Tatars to various Soviet departments — in October Investigator Zhdanov had decided to remove these documents from the case and send them to the KGB; three ‘Bulletins’ of the Action Group to Defend the Rights of the Disabled in the USSR; and the typewritten commentary “Results of the Enrolment Procedure at Moscow University’s Mathematics and Mechanics Faculty” [see CCE 53.31 item 3];
[5] “to obtain the written authorizations to disconnect my telephone (284-36-93) in March 1978 and in January 1980”; to obtain a complete list of the documents which have to be handed in with an application to emigrate (“From this list it will be seen that the restrictions described in one of the incriminating documents do exist”); a list of the number of Jewish applicants and Jews admitted to the Mathematics and Mechanics Faculty and the Physics Faculty of Moscow University in 1975-1980; the instructions of the Uzbekistan MVD to revoke the residence permits of persons of Crimean Tatar nationality who had left for the Crimea, and a copy of the letter dated 28 December 1977 from Lt. Col. Tsapenko in which it is stated plainly that Crimean Tatars are forbidden to live in the Crimea [CCE 47.7 & CCE 48.14].
*
Lawyer Reznikova upheld all Lavut’s petitions and asked for the head of the Central Administration for Geological Expeditions (CGE), A.S. Kashik, and the head of one of its teams, E.A. Sokolinsky, who were interrogated during the pre-trial investigation, to be summoned as witnesses.
The Procurator asked for all the petitions to be dismissed; the Court complied.
*
THE INDICTMENT (A SUMMARY)
Between 1968 and 1980 Lavut signed 22 documents (letters and statements) containing “deliberate fabrications defaming …” (Article 190-1).
He helped to compile several of them and was involved in their circulation. These letters and statements were taken abroad and used by foreign radio-stations and anti-Soviet publishers. The “defamatory” nature of the documents signed by Lavut and the facts about their circulation were confirmed by the evidence in 1973 of Yakir and Krasin. Yakir and Krasin also confirmed that these actions were injurious to the prestige of the Soviet Union. The fact that Lavut had signed several of the letters was confirmed by the evidence of Mostinsky, Dedyulin and Shemi-Zade.
Lavut’s signature is to be seen on statements of the so-called Action Group to Defend Human Rights in the USSR. Witnesses Uritsky, Fridman and Kozharinov confirmed that Lavut was a member of the Action Group, as did a tape-recording on which Lavut’s voice could be heard, which was confiscated during a search at the home of Vladimir Tolts (CCE 56.6). Witnesses Mostinsky, Uritsky and Tertitsky confirmed that the voice on the recording was similar to that of Lavut.
Lavut is also charged with the circulation of books:
- by Solzhenitsyn: The Gulag Archipelago (“this book was ruled by the Kaluga Region Court to be anti-Soviet and slanderous, written from a hostile position and distorting the essence of socialist humanism”) and Lenin in Zurich;
- The Medical History of Leonid Plyushch by Tatyana Khodorovich; and
- Sakharov’s article “On Revoking the Death Sentence”.
In 1976 Kovalsky and Antidi, at the request of Bekirov, visited Lavut, who gave them copies of Lenin in Zurich and The Medical History of Leonid Plyushch, and also a photographed copy of The Gulag Archipelago. In 1978 Lavut gave a copy of The Gulag Archipelago to Efroikin; he also gave him the article “On revoking the Death Sentence”. He gave a copy of The Gulag Archipelago to Chistikov.
Lavut said to Efroikin: “The present government will not last long, because there are people prepared to sacrifice themselves to change the system”. A note to Ternovsky confiscated from Lavut (in Butyrka Prison, CCE 57.3) confirms that Lavut was connected with A Chronicle cf Current Events.
Prophylactic chats were held with Lavut in connection with his anti-government activities, in particular a talk with CGE head Kashik on 15 February 1980. Lavut’s aim of harming the Soviet State is clear. Lavut pleaded not guilty of slanderous fabrications and refused to give evidence at the pre-trial investigation.
*
THE TRIAL
To the Judge’s question: ‘Do you plead guilty?” Lavut replied in the negative.
The Judge announced that five of the 11 people summoned as witnesses were absent: Chistikov was on a foreign assignment; Efroikin was on holiday in Pyatigorsk; Kozharinov was ill (there was a certificate); Bekirov and Fridman were absent for unknown reasons. Lavut petitioned to postpone the trial: “The charge rests, essentially, on the evidence of Efroikin, Kozharinov and Bekirov. Efroikin gave false testimony; maybe he will conduct himself better in court. There are important circumstances connected with Bekirov”. His petition was upheld by his lawyer, but rejected by the Court.
During the whole second half of the first day of the trial, and for the first half of the second day, Lavut gave commentaries on the indictment. He explained that throughout the pre-trial investigation Investigator Zhdanov had not once brought up the contents of the incriminating documents, having decided in advance that they were all slanderous. Analysing each incriminating document in turn, Lavut showed that the facts contained in them were true.
He showed that two of the documents listed in the indictment differed only in their titles, and that he had not signed one of them.
Lavut: Am I guilty because the letter [CCE 8.10] was sent to the [UN] Commission on Human Rights?
Judge (Bogdanov): You are not accused because of who received the letter, but because of the slander contained in the letter.
Lavut: I am glad that in the court’s opinion one is not forbidden to write to international bodies.
Judge: That is the opinion of the President of this court, not of the court’s full membership. We all live on the same sinful earth and breathe the same air, and your case, Lavut, is not the only source of the court’s information.
Lavut: It has become the norm to think that people who write abroad have done something wrong.
As I see it, the prestige of the State is undermined not by writing to international organizations but by the acts which have to be disclosed. To prove that I belonged to the Action Group [to Defend Human Rights in the USSR] — which, by the way, I do not deny — the investigation has submitted the evidence of three witnesses who in fact said nothing about it. I must emphasize the dishonesty of the investigation.
Judge: I agree with you that imprisonment in the cooler IS a harsh punishment: but it exists in accordance with the Corrective Labour Code.
Lavut: Then what about the padded cell in Butyrka Prison? People are put in there naked.
Procurator (Prazdnikova): Slander! I’ve never heard that before in 30 working years.
Lavut: I’m repeating what I’ve heard: they often threaten people with the padded cell.
Judge: When you signed all those documents, were you concerned about the good of the State? Or did you intend to harm it?
Lavut: I thought of its good. The only way I can see [to that end] is publicity.
Judge: So you were concerned for the good of the State. But what about the damage to its international prestige?
Lavut: I do not consider there was damage.
*
EFROIKIN’S EVIDENCE.
Lavut: “I met Efroikin sometime in the autumn of 1976. He came to see me at home and told me he had come from Omsk with a letter from Dvoryansky: Dvoryansky was interrogated in connection with the case of Mustafa Dzhemilev, whose trial took place in Omsk. …
“I listened to what Efroikin had to say because the case of Dvoryansky [CCE 40.3] interested me. I tried to help Dvoryansky for a while, and Efroikin visited me several more times. He often tried to persuade me to write to Dvoryansky. He said that he could teach me how to use secret ink, i.e. write something that the censor would not notice. I said that I would write to Dvoryansky if I managed to find anything out for him, but that I needed no secret ink since any censor would allow through material about Dvoryansky’s medical affairs.
“I very soon decided that Efroikin had been planted on me, but I couldn’t bring myself to show him the door, and besides, I was interested in the fate of Dvoryansky. Then, after trying to invite himself round for a long time, Efroikin came over and asked me for something to read. Earlier we had talked about the dissident movement. Efroikin said that he had heard a lot about such things, that he was very interested and wanted to know more. I said that I was to some extent involved. He asked me for something to read, for example The Gulag Archipelago. The book was free and I gave it to Efroikin: the first volume definitely, the second I don’t remember.
“We rarely saw each other. About winter 1977 Efroikin asked me, quite insistently, to help him get an invitation to emigrate … In his evidence Efroikin says that I uttered the following sentence: ‘The present government will not last long, because there are people prepared to sacrifice themselves to change the system’. My character is such that I could not have uttered such a sentence and never did I say anything like it to anyone.”
Among the documents in the case file is a statement by Efroikin. He writes: ‘I soon understood that Lavut was hostile to our society and I decided to break off relations with him. I have brought this statement to the KGB’. The statement ends with a request to take measures against Lavut.
*
The evidence given by Efroikin at the pre-trial investigation was read out in Court:
“I met Lavut around autumn 1976 near the synagogue. At that time, I wanted to emigrate to Israel. Someone had pointed Lavut out to me as a man who could help. I started going to see him. Alexander Pavlovich told me about the existence of a democratic dissident movement and announced with pride that he was connected with it, that he signed and compiled certain things, various articles, documents and letters of protest and sent them abroad via foreign correspondents. We discussed a lot of social and political issues.
“In about October 1978 he said: ‘The present government will not last long, because there are people prepared to sacrifice themselves to change the system’. Soon after, we celebrated the second anniversary of our acquaintance sitting in a cafe on Sretenka Street. I must have said that I was interested in these questions and asked Alexander Pavlovich to give me something to read. He gave me The Gulag Archipelago – a photocopy of the first volume and a xeroxed copy of the second volume. I did not like The Gulag Archipelago. We talked about the book when I returned it. Alexander Pavlovich said that he, on the contrary, had liked the book because it reflected the truth. At Alexander Pavlovich’s home I read Sakharov’s article ‘On Revoking the Death Sentence’.
“After some time, I understood that Alexander Pavlovich was a dangerous man and I decided that I did not need such a comrade. I took a letter to the KGB asking them to take measures against Alexander Pavlovich.”
*
FROM CHISTIKOV’S EVIDENCE:
I saw the book The Gulag Archipelago on a table in the hall. I asked if I could read it. Alexander Pavlovich said that I could. I took and read the first and second volumes.
Lavut: Sergei Chistikov was my daughter’s first husband and lived with us. Our relations were normal and good.
In our home we don’t bother to ask permission to read each other’s books. In connection with The Gulag Archipelago the question meant this: is it reserved? Maybe someone was reading it or I had promised to give it to someone. Seryozha [affectionate form of Sergei] asked and I gave him permission.
Procurator: Why in the evidence of your former son-in-law does he say: “In summer 1978 I heard from mother that Lavut was the editor of the Crimean Tatar section of A Chronicle of Current Events”?
Lavut: I don’t know.
Procurator: Three typewriters were taken when your home was searched. Who used them and what for?
Lavut: I refuse to take part in a “who-where-when-to whom” type of investigation.
Procurator: Did you know that documents which you sent to the West were published there?
Lavut: I found out about some of them afterwards. I found out about others only when I read the case file. There are still a lot I don’t know about. But when I did find out I was always glad, because, after all, it meant publicity.
I consider A Chronicle of Human Rights in the USSR [CHR] to be a domestic publication because its editor, Chalidze, although he lives in America, has not, to my mind, become an American. He’s one of us.
Lawyer: What work did you do for Central Administration for Geological Expeditions (CGE) when you were under arrest?
Lavut: I finished the computer program which I had begun pr or to my arrest. I worked on it for a month in the investigations prison. I gave the investigator the finished work to give to CGE. When I saw my case file, I read that the finished program had been handed to the head of CGE.
*
While Lavut was giving evidence the court superintendent approached his daughter and warned her to stop taking notes. Noticing this, Lavut referred to an essay by Feofanov in Izvestiya, in which the author explained that a Judge who rebuked him for note-taking during an open court session was not acting lawfully. Bogdanov did not react to all this at all.
*
TASS’s report of the first day of the trial reads as follows:
“The open trial of the criminal case against Alexander Pavlovich Lavut, a 51-year-old Muscovite geophysicist, began this morning in Moscow City Court.
“In the indictment, which was read out in court, the accused was charged with many years’ illegal activities and with the deliberate intention of damaging the interests and prestige of the USSR. The crime with which Alexander Lavut is charged comes under Article 190-1 of the Russian Federation’s Criminal Code.
“When the indictment had been read the court questioned the accused Lavut. During the questioning Lavut acknowledged the facts with which he had been charged in the indictment. He said that between 1968 and 1980 he had indeed systematically compiled and distributed the material listed in the indictment and presented to the court as material evidence. He also admitted that he had acquainted a specific group of people in the USSR with the ‘letters’, ‘statements’ and ‘appeals’ which he had fabricated. Nor did the accused deny that he had sent his fabrications to the West through accredited correspondents of the bourgeois media and through other channels. Lavut admitted that he knew about the use made of his documents by the subversive anti-Soviet radio stations Liberty and Free Europe, by the journal Possev (an organ of the semi-fascist People’s Labour Alliance [NTS]) and by the slanderous publications A Chronicle of Human Rights in the USSR [CHR], A Chronicle of Current Events [CCE] and others.”
Referring to this statement, Radio Liberty broadcast that Lavut had pleaded guilty.
*
At about midday on 24 December 1980, Ivan Kovalyov, Yelena Bonner, Vladimir Tolts, Yelisaveta Alexeyeva, Maria Petrenko and T. Gerus handed a statement to Judge Bogdanov:
“We have discovered that among the material incriminating A. Lavut is a statement which specifically maintains that the openness of court proceedings at ‘political’ trials (e.g. under Articles 190-1 and 70 of the RSFSR Criminal Code) is systematically violated.
“We know that Lavut’s petition to admit us into the courtroom was rejected. The police cordon will not admit us further than the foyer of the court building. The openness of court proceedings at this trial has thus been violated. References to the absence of free places are unfounded: before the beginning of the trial several of Lavut’s friends were removed from the courtroom and at this moment there are at least a few free places in the courtroom.
“We ask to be summoned as witnesses to give evidence at the trial on whether it is true that the principle of openness of court proceedings at such trials is systematically violated. Several of us can give similar evidence about other trials. Of course, we ask to be admitted to the courtroom in any case.”
Colleagues of Lavut, too, submitted a request to be admitted to the courtroom. There was no reply.
*
QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES
Lavut: In December 1976, I did indeed give microfilm copies of the books The Gulag Archipelago, Lenin in Zurich and The Medical History of Leonid Plyushch to somebody. He (maybe it was Kovalsky) came to see me early in the morning…
I gave him the books that I have just named. There was no advance phone call and I did not intend to meet him at the entrance of the building. As for Antidi, I met him for the first time at a confrontation in prison in which I refused to take part. In the reports and notes connected with this episode there are mistakes in the dates, or maybe they are not mistakes …
Kovalsky (a manager of the restaurant car on the ‘Moscow-Novorossiysk’ train [3]): In autumn 1976 I went to visit him. My train gets into Moscow early in the morning. I was told that Lavut would come to the train.
We, Antidi and myself, waited for about half-an-hour, but he didn’t come and so we went to his place. My acquaintance Bekirov had asked me to collect a package for him from Lavut … We are often asked to do that sort of thing – taking packages to and from Moscow.
Judge: Did Bekirov tell you who Lavut was and what was in the package?
Kovalsky: He said that Lavut was a good person, that he did a lot of good things for us Crimean Tatars. He just said that the package would be books.
Judge: And what was it like?
Kovalsky: It was a small parcel. I asked for something to read myself. Lavut gave me the book Lenin in Zurich; he said it was interesting.
Judge: And then what happened?
Kovalsky: When the train reached Novorossiysk I was detained on suspicion of speculation and searched. They found no evidence of speculation but they did find the parcel. I had to write a statement for the Novorossiysk KGB.
Lawyer: When was this statement written?
Kovalsky: The day after I got back from Moscow, i.e. 10 December 1976.
Lawyer: How did it happen that you wrote another statement on 6 December, i.e. before your trip to Moscow?
Kovalsky: I’ve got muddled up. (Laughter in courtroom.)
Lawyer: And did you read Lenin in Zurich?
Kovalsky: I looked through it. I didn’t read it. Why? I already know all about Lenin.
Procurator: I do not understand why we need these details. We have already established that the transfer of books did take place; the rest is unimportant.
Incidentally, Lavut: why are you refusing to answer many of the questions concerning the details of this episode? Are you scared of something?
Lavut: No. I simply consider that books should not be the subject of a court examination. I do not want to be part of these examinations. And I consider Solzhenitsyn’s books to be useful, not harmful.
Judge: It is up to us to make that evaluation. The court will decide. It is important now that the fact of the transfer should be established. Do you admit it?
Lavut: One admits to guilt, and I do not consider myself guilty. As for that episode, I have already described it.
Antidi (a waiter in the restaurant car in 1976): I went to his home with Kovalsky for the package.
Judge: Then what happened?
Antidi: When the train got into Novorossiysk Kovalsky sent me to tell Bekirov to come for his parcel. Bekirov said that he was busy and would come later. And then we were detained and had to make a statement to the KGB.
Lavut: Did you promise not to divulge your talk with officials on your return to Novorossiysk?
Antidi: Yes, I gave a signed promise.
*
Tertitsky (a colleague of Lavut): I know Lavut very well. He’s an excellent worker, a highly qualified mathematician and a sensitive, honest and fair man.
Judge: You signed a letter in Lavut’s defence. Under what circumstances? Who wrote the letter?
Tertitsky I don’t know who wrote it. I went into Room 403, think, I saw the letter and read it. I agreed with what it said, so I signed it.
Judge: But you did not sign the letter in defence of Osipova.
Tertitsky I didn’t sign it because I hardly knew her.
Judge: At the pre-trial investigation you heard a tape recording. Did you recognize Lavut’s voice?
Tertitsky Yes, but I said then, and I will repeat, that it was like Alexander Pavlovich’s voice. Someone told me once that my voice is like Vysotsky’s.
Judge: Why are you so worked up? You’re still young. Are you afraid of something?
Tertitsky I’m not afraid. I stand by my evidence.
Lavut: At the investigation did they ask you about the money which was collected for my family?
Judge: Is that relevant?
Tertitsky Yes, they asked. They asked who collected it. How much, who gave it to the family.
Lavut: Thank you.
(At one point during the examination the Judge said to Tertitsky: “And why on earth were you summoned here?”)
*
Uritsky (a colleague of Lavut): I know Lavut well. I can say that he is an excellent person, straightforward, honest, sympathetic, and an expert in his field.
Judge: Did you know anything about his activities?
Uritsky: When I started working at the Centre for Geological Expeditions [CGE] I was told that Alexander Pavlovich had signed some letters of protest. And I heard a thing or two from foreign radio broadcasts.
Judge: Did you have any conversations of a political nature with Lavut?
Uritsky: Of course. Politics often came up in our conversations, for example the military actions in various parts of the world.
Judge: During the pre-trial investigation you heard a tape-recording. Whose voice was on it?
Uritsky: I said then and I’ll say again now: the voice is not very like Alexander Pavlovich’s, but the intonation and the little coughs are.
*
Shemi-Zade: In summer 1978 my friend Reshat Dzhemilev phoned me and invited me over to where he was staying, which turned out to be Lavut’s flat.
Judge: Did you discuss professional matters or other questions?
Shemi-Zade: I’m sure we touched on the Crimean Tatar situation.
Lavut: Vildan, could you tell us something about the situation of Crimean Tatars in the Crimean now? Have you any concrete examples of discrimination?
Shemi-Zade: Yes, of course. Six months ago, one of my relatives, a Crimean Tatar living in the village of Grushevka, got married. His wife is an English teacher, also a Crimean Tatar. They both have Crimean residence permits.
There was no English teacher at the village school so she tried to get a job there. The headmaster was delighted at first, but when he discovered her nationality, he turned her down. The local residents tried to change his mind, they even sent some sort of written request. The headmaster explained to her husband: ‘I’d take her on, but I don’t have the power. Try and get permission from someone higher up. If you can get it, I’ll take her’. And for six months the school hasn’t had an English teacher.
Procurator: They teach English, not Crimean Tatar.
Lavut: What about exiles, arrests …?
Shemi-Zade: Yes, yes of course.
Judge: That’ll be all, witness.
*
Mostinsky (Lavut’s wife’s brother): Sasha is a very good, responsive, honest, decent person.
Judge: Still more of the same. Did you know about his activities?
Mostinsky: I guessed. A long while ago my sister told me about some kind of signatures and was very worried about him.
Judge: Did Lavut give you things to read? The Gulag Archipelago, for example?
Mostinsky: No, never.
*
On 25 December Anatoly Marchenko and Larisa Bogoraz wrote an Open Letter:
“The trial of Alexander Lavut is in progress. The content of the trial, as in many similar cases, has absolutely no significance.
What the witnesses testify, what the Procurator says, what petitions are rejected, how many times the law is broken – these are all meaningless details which have no bearing on the case and therefore do not merit attention. For the court, what the accused himself says is irrelevant. If lawful defence meant anything at this trial, Lavut’s whole way of life, known to all interested parties long before the trial and his arrest, would be his best defence; but it was his very way of life which occasioned his arrest.
“Only the trial’s finale, the sentence – fixed in advance – has any significance: how many years? The camps or exile? And even that will not decide his fate, because, as is well-known, the practice of giving additional sentences has now been renewed – new camp and exile terms on new charges. It seems that at this very moment Alexander Podrabinek, in exile in Yakutsk, is being tried, tried so as to add to his sentence, give him a term in the camps instead of exile.
“The purpose of these two trials and of all recent trials, and those soon to take place, and of the extrajudicial reprisals taken against Andrei Sakharov – the hidden purpose of our authorities – is to put a stop to independent activities, to destroy completely the country’s moral resistance movement. Take that one away, silence that one, buy that one, and the longed-for monolith of Soviet society will be reconstructed, we’ll be able to manipulate them without hindrance. A dream worthy of Ugryum-Burcheyev [4], and as unattainable as Ugryum-Burcheyev’s dream of stopping the river from flowing.
“The moral resistance movement is not an organization which can be smashed: Lavut and Podrabinek, like all the others, including Sakharov, are not its leaders, its ideological inspiration or an executive with the power to stop its activities. Moral resistance is a combination of various forms of existence in our society, a society starting to have a life of its own – open and underground, active and passive, public and internal, collective and individual. All forms except one: that of the puppet who alone, unfortunately, is recognized by the authorities.
“Alexander Lavut is not a puppet and he alone decides how he will relate to society, by considering all that is happening around him. His inner qualities will continue to set an example for us – people close to him, friends and colleagues, everyone who knows him – of a truly moral citizen. Neither exile nor the camps can take away his influence on society or his permanent inclusion in the annals of the moral resistance movement.”
*
SUMMING-UP
Prosecution
In our socialist State everything possible is done to ensure that law and order are observed. (Prazdnikova then gave a summary of the indictment.)
One charge must be dismissed: that of the document included twice. This was the investigator’s mistake and quite natural in view of his youth. The charge concerning the document not signed by Lavut must also be dismissed.
Lavut received a good education, he had a flat and well-paid work. In spite of all that, Lavut embarked on the wrong course of distributing false information, thus damaging the prestige of the Soviet Union.
The Procurator asked for Lavut to be sentenced to three years in camps.
*
Defence Lawyer Reznikova began by discussing Lavut’s professional standing.
“All the witnesses have described Lavut as an excellent specialist and as a modest, sensitive and good man. The data we have been given force us to ask ourselves: is such a man capable of lies and slander?
“The Procurator has asked for harsh measures of punishment to be taken against the accused. The testimonials I have put before you give the defence grounds on which to ask for a significantly milder punishment. But I would not be doing my professional duty if I let the matter rest there. I have grounds for believing that in Lavut’s activities no crime under Article 190-1 of the Criminal Code was committed, because I place in doubt the evidence presented by the prosecution.
“Any evidence, however convincing it may seem, must be confirmed here in court, because our trial process is oral and direct … Lavut is charged with giving Efroikin Sakharov’s article ‘On Revoking the Death Sentence’. This article is not in the case file. Since those taking part in the trial and the court have not had the opportunity to see the article and cannot judge its nature, this charge must be dropped. The investigation had no grounds for including it among the charges against Lavut.
“The accused is charged with signing the ‘Moscow Appeal’ (on the exile of Solzhenitsyn [CCE 32.1 item 12]), described by Investigator Zhdanov as ‘ideologically harmful’. Since the investigative organs have not perceived slander or deliberate fabrications in it, this document should also be dropped from the charges as not coming under Article 190-1 of the RSFSR Criminal Code.
“The prosecution has referred to the evidence of Yakir, who was not questioned during the course of the investigation. I consider this to be unacceptable. The prosecution has presented much evidence that Lavut took part in the composition of documents with which he is incriminated. But the prosecution has not demonstrated that a crime took place, i.e. that Lavut’s actions involved deliberate fabrication, that Lavut knew about any falsehood in the information and facts presented in the documents.
“On the contrary, Lavut considered that the facts presented in the letters, protests and appeals were true. For several of them he had letters of confirmation, which, in spite of our petitions, were not attached to the case.
“As for all the documents which were examined by experts, not one expert was summoned to the trial. How can one verify the conclusion of an expert who isn’t here? Let us take for example the document ‘On the Right to Defence’. Here Lavut was simply one of the people directly involved … so how could he consider that the information in the document was false?
“On the Crimean Tatar question, Lavut has in his possession a large number of letters, complaints and requests, and again, he believed that they were written in good faith. Lavut has formed his own personal impression of the truthfulness of the facts described in the documents about Crimean Tatars.
“Lavut is also accused of giving a number of people Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago and Lenin in Zurich to read. These works have been ruled libellous in court, e.g. in the judgments in the cases of Yakir and Krasin, [Sergei] Kovalyov and Velikanova. When a judgment establishes a certain fact, that fact becomes law. But on the question of people’s personal attitudes to these works, a judgment cannot be seen as law. Uttering mistaken evaluations does not constitute a crime under Article 190-1 of the RSFSR Criminal Code.
“During the trial doubts have arisen about the soundness of the evidence presented by the prosecution, and this gives me sufficient reason to ask that the accused be acquitted.“
*
LAVUT’S FINAL SPEECH
I very much liked the way the prosecutor began her speech – with the necessity of observing legality and the rule of law. I consider that if these were really observed, a trial like today’s would be unheard of.
From the very beginning of my case there has not been one stage in the course of which Articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure have not been violated. Nevertheless, the Procurator has considered it permissible to refer to doubtful evidence, such as a search record which does not even enumerate what was confiscated.
There is no factual material in the case file to support the essence of the charges.
Judging from the facts presented in the material incriminating me, the court may perceive that I am well acquainted with cases like mine. This is so. I have observed how expert testimonies, especially those carried over from trial to trial, have been used instead of summoning witnesses … I have also seen the number of expert witnesses becoming smaller and smaller. At my trial there haven’t been any at all.
But there remains the right of the accused to present material to the court which can confirm the truthfulness of the relevant facts. I have tried to make use of this final option and have myself attempted to present the facts known to me on the basis of which the letters incriminating me were written, but I have met increasing resistance from the court to these attempts.
Factual material is treated carelessly. I give an example which is not from my case. The investigation on the case of Reshat Dzhemilev deliberately destroyed a large collection of documents and factual material which had been confiscated at searches of his home and which constituted material evidence confirming the truth of the facts which he had set down. The same is happening here, but in a more sophisticated manner: a large number of selected letters, statements and complaints to various departments were sent by Investigator Zhdanov to be ‘checked’ by the KGB.
I would like to reply, belatedly perhaps, to the question put to me by the President of the court. He asked me if I really saw nothing good in the country in which I lived, if I really liked nothing here … Earlier, for reasons of principle, I did not answer that question, but now I will answer … I do like my country. I do like its people. That’s all.
*
FROM THE JUDGEMENT
(The ‘duplicated’ and unsigned documents, and Sakharov’s article, were not included in the judgment.)
“Lavut’s guilt is confirmed by the evidence of Kovalsky, Antidi, Chistikov, Efroikin and Kozharinov. Tertitsky and Uritsky testified in court that they had listened to part of a tape-recording during the investigation and that one of the voices resembled in some respects that of Lavut.
“Shemi-Zade testified that he had learned from third parties of Lavut’s participation in the dissident movement.
“Mostinsky testified that during a conversation with his sister the latter expressed her fear of possible reprisals against her husband in connection with his activities in the movement to defend the rule of law.
“Uritsky testified that he had heard from CGE colleagues of Lavut’s membership of the Action Group. He also heard this on foreign radio broadcasts. Lavut’s membership of the Action Group is confirmed by the tape recording and by the biographical and bibliographical material of Dedyulin …“
*
The court sentenced Lavut to three years in ordinary-regime camps.
========================================
Notes
Lavut’s three-year term of imprisonment in the camps was due to end on 29 April 1983. He was not released but, as Marchenko and Bogoraz predicted, he faced new charges (again under Article 190-1). In October that year he was tried in the Far-Eastern city of Khabarovsk and sentenced to five years’ exile.
In December 1983 Lavut was sent to a remote village in the Khabarovsk Region [Krai] to serve his sentence: taking into account his time in custody it was due to end in October 1986 (see USSR News Update, 1983, 21-5).
Alexander Lavut, 1929-2013
*
- Vladimir Bogdanov of the Moscow City Court was one of a handful of Soviet judges who specialised in dissident cases. Others were Dyshel in Ukraine; Isakova in Leningrad; and Lubentsova in Moscow (see “Guided Search” at the foot of this page).
Bogdanov presided over half a dozen and more trials in Moscow: Natalya Gorbanevskaya (1970), Olga Joffe (1970); Anatoly Krasnov-Levitin (1971), Dmitry Mikheyev & Francois de Perregaux (1971); Pyotr Starchik (1972), Andrei Tverdokhlebov (1976) and Felix Serebrov (1981).
↩︎ - In the recent past Reznikova defended Yury Shikhanovich, Moscow 1973 (CCE 30.3), and Mark Nashpits, Moscow 1975 (CCE 36.4).
Since 1975 she has conducted the ‘supervisory case’ of Sergei Kovalyov (CCE 46.10 and CCE 53.19-1); in 1977 she defended Felix Serebrov (CCE 47.1) and Svetlana Pavlenkova (CCE 47.3-1); in 1978 she represented Vladimir Khailo (CCE 48.16-2) and in 1977-1978 she was Alexander Ginzburg’s defence lawyer (CCE 48.2, CCE 49.6 & CCE 50.3).
↩︎ - Train from Novorossiysk (Krasnodar Region), a port on Black Sea coast.
↩︎ - Ugryum-Burcheyev is a well-known character in the Story of a Certain Town (1870) by the 19th-century author Saltykov-Shchedrin.
↩︎
=============================
A Chronicle of Current Events 