On 9 December 1975 the RSFSR Supreme Court heard an appeal in the case of Vladimir Osipov (trial, CCE 37.2). Lukanov, Gavrilin and Osipenko formed the panel of judges. The prosecutor was Zverev. The defence was conducted by Volkova, an attorney from the city of Vladimir. The accused was not present.
*
At the court of first instance (Vladimir Region Court) Osipov had pleaded not guilty.
At the appeal hearing his appeal complaint was read out: he again rejected the charges of defamation and denied that he had any intention of harming the Soviet State. The letters and declarations used as evidence against Osipov were, according to him, mainly condemnations of harsh and unfounded sentences.
The journal Veche (of which he had edited six issues) contained no libellous fabrications or material intended to undermine the Soviet State. Osipov denied the charge of sending material abroad.
*
DEFENCE
Defence attorney Volkova objected to the charge that her client aimed to undermine or weaken the Soviet social system.
She considered that Osipov’s articles could be said to contain libel of the Soviet system, but without deliberate subjective intent. Volkova recalled that Osipov had asked the authorities for permission to publish the journal Veche, that in 1972 he had made a public announcement about the journal’s publication and had even informed Investigator Pleshkov of this. However, Osipov’s activities had not been nipped in the bud.
Osipov believed that the Orthodox faith would save the Russian nation from total alcoholism (he had defamed his People, generalising from the individual shortcomings of some citizens). Thus, his Slavophilism was directed against alcoholism. The lawyer called Osipov’s religious beliefs the result of his lack of a firm spirit: after his first term of imprisonment (1961-1968), he had not been able to find accommodation for a long time, and living in such difficult conditions, had broken with atheism.
Volkova considered that Osipov should not be charged with being the author of certain articles listed in the indictment, nor with editing the 6th and 9th issues of Veche. It had not been proven, in her view, that Osipov had sent the journal to the West. According to her, Osipov had refused out of moral and ethical scruples to name other people who had written articles or had helped in the publication and distribution of the journal Veche. From the case evidence it was known, however, that there were other persons responsible for actions attributed in the charges brought against her client.
The defence attorney requested that charges relating to Article 70, part 2, should be reclassified under Article 190-1. The court should take into account that Osipov had two infant children to support, Volkova said, and that he had broken with the periodical Veche long before his arrest.
*
PROSECUTION
Prosecutor Zverev repeated in his speech the charges made at the court of first instance.
In his view, Osipov had spoken the truth during the investigation when he admitted being the author of the articles he was charged with writing and confirmed that he had met the American journalist Broenings. In court Osipov had renounced his testimony; he had tried to evade responsibility in anticipation of punishment.
Osipov had disassociated himself from publications abroad, but it was obvious from the evidence of witnesses that he was very pleased by this, and had himself been involved (evidence of Dobrovolsky and others). He had made use of money received from the West. Osipov had been associated with Yakir, who had publicly denounced his own activities (CCE 30.2). That renegade, who slandered his own system, had been rightly sentenced: he was a danger to the State.
*
The defence lawyer introduced a few more points, referring to individual episodes in the charges.
The Supreme Court announced its decision: to confirm the sentence passed by the court of the first instance, eight years in strict-regime camps.
=========================================
A Chronicle of Current Events 