PERSECUTION OF CRIMEAN TATARS
- 9-1. Mustafa Dzhemilev: arrest and hunger-strike (Uzbekistan).
- 9-2. The Kurtumerov, Khalikov and Ramazanov trial (Ukraine); other brief reports.
*
About the trial of Kurtumerov, Khalikov and Ramazanov
As already reported (CCE 31.9), on 28 November 1973 the Zaporozhe Regional Court (chairman, N. P. Selivanov, people’s assessors, V. A. Yarun and I. I. Kapustina; prosecutor, V. S. Demyanenko; defence lawyers: N. A. Dolzhenko, N. L. Kravtsova and V. D. Koshelnaya) sentenced E. Kurtumerov to two years, and E. Khalikov [1] and R. Ramazanov to 2 ½ years of ordinary-regime camps — as well as exacting 35 roubles from each of them for legal advice.
With the exception of the episode concerning Khalikov’s speech on 18 March 1973 (for which there was deemed to be insufficient evidence), the verdict repeats the wording of the indictment.
Its text is quoted here almost in full:
*
INDICTMENT
APPROVED
Procurator of Zaporozhe Region, Senior Counsellor of Justice
signed on behalf of V. SVETLICHNY
19 October 1973
Bill of Indictment
in the criminal case against:
Eskender Kurtumerov, Ebazer Khalikov & Regat [2] Ramazanov, Article 187-1 (UkSSR Criminal Code).
The investigation has established that:
The accused, E. Kurtumerov, E. Khalikov and R. Ramazanov, after warnings from agencies of State authority about circulating deliberately false fabrications which defame the Soviet political and social system, failed to draw the proper conclusions and systematically continued their criminal actions [3].
Thus, on 4 March 1973 at 29 Tsiolkovsky Street in Melitopol [4] they took an active part in a meeting of young people, and in the presence of 25 people distorted the national policy of the USSR and circulated deliberately false fabrications which defamed the Soviet political and social system.
On 18 March 1973 at a second meeting of young people at 36 Tsyurupa Street in Melitopol, at which 20 people were present, E. Kurtumerov, Khalikov and Ramazanov made speeches which also slandered Soviet reality.
In addition to this, the accused Kurtumerov produced written works (“History”, “The Crimea” and others), which contain false fabrications defaming the Soviet political and social system, and also made patently libellous inscriptions on pamphlets (T. I. Oizerman, The Marxist-Leninist Concept of Freedom and A. Kulagin, Generations of Optimists) and on the journal Problems of History.
The accused Khalikov prepared the manuscripts “A Note to the Chairman of the Council of Nationalities of the USSR Supreme Soviet’, “A Protest”, “The Criminals are Triumphing”, and others, which libel the Soviet political and social system.
The accused Ramazanov also prepared a number of manuscripts: “To People of Goodwill” and others, addressed to various Party and Soviet agencies, which libel the policies of the Communist Party and the political and social system.
*
Charged and interrogated as accused persons, Kurtumerov and Khalikov flatly refused to plead guilty. They explained that they had indeed taken part in meetings of young people, but had not slandered Soviet reality.
These assertions of Kurtumerov and Khalikov are refuted and their guilt fully confirmed
- by the testimonies of witnesses G. R. Mustafayeva, A. A. Eminova. Sh. A. Katayev, Z. E. Ablyazov, E. Shukurov, V. A. Seitumerov, R. Dzhelyalov and S. D. Khatunsky;
- by texts confiscated during searches (the poems “History” and “The Crimea”, the manuscripts “A Protest” and “The Criminals are Triumphing” and a note addressed to the Chairman of the USSR Supreme Soviet’s Council of Nationalities);
- by the notes in the margins of the pamphlet by T. I. Oizerman The Marxist-Leninist Concept of Freedom, and on the covers of Kulagin’s pamphlet Generations of Optimists and the journal Problems of History;
- by other manuscript works in confiscated exercise books; and also
- by the conclusions of handwriting examinations by experts (Vol. I, case sheets 169-173, 223-229).
*
GUILT AND PLEAS
Charged and interrogated as an accused person, Ramazanov pleaded not guilty and explained that he did not remember being present at the meetings of young people as he often visited Tatar families and held conversations with them on the Tatar Issue.
Ramazanov’s guilt is proved by the statements of witnesses who were present at the meetings on 4 and 18 March 1973 and, in particular, by the evidence of E. Shukurov, Sh.A. Katayev, Z. E. Ablyazov and others, by the manuscript texts of letters to various Party and soviet agencies (“To People of Goodwill”), and also by the conclusions of an examination by writing experts.
*
The culpability of E. Kurtumerov, E. Khalikov and R. Ramazanov in systematically spreading by word of mouth deliberately false fabrications defaming the Soviet political and social system, and also in preparing and circulating in handwritten and typewritten form works of similar content is fully proven by the evidence assembled in the case.
On the basis of these facts
THEY ARE ACCUSED:
[1] Eskender Kurtumerov, b. 8 August 1938, native of Koz village (Sudaksky district, Crimean Region), a Soviet citizen, a Tatar and non-Party-member. Eleven years of education, married; temporarily employed on various jobs in the Ukraina collective-farm (Melitopol district, Zaporozhe Region), resident in Melitopol at flat 35, 18 Kotovsky Boulevard; no previous convictions:
is charged with the fact that, having previously been cautioned by agencies of State authority to cease the circulation of deliberately false fabrications which defame the Soviet political and social system, he failed to draw the proper conclusions and continued his criminal activity.
Thus, on 4 March 1973 at 29 on Tsiolkovsky Street in Melitopol he took an active part in an assembly of youth, where in the presence of 25 people he spread deliberately false fabrications defaming the Soviet political and social system, and organized the taking of a register amongst young people of 15 to 25 years of age.
On 18 March 1973 he spoke at a second meeting at 36 Tsyurupa Street in Melitopol at which 20 people were present. As at the previous assembly, he slandered Soviet reality.
At a search in E. Kurtumerov’s flat literature containing libellous notes was confiscated, as well as manuscripts defaming the Soviet political and social system.
In addition, at the home of citizen Ibragimov in the small city of Nezhin [5] (Chernigov Region, Ukraine), there were two typed texts containing libellous fabrications regarding Soviet, Party and State officials, which had been sent to him by E. Kurtumerov, i.e. the latter had committed a crime envisaged by Article 187-1 (UkSSR Criminal Code).
*
[2] Ebazer Khalikov, b. 27 December 1932, native of Otarka village (Kuibyshev district, Crimean Region), a Soviet citizen and a Tatar. Higher education: graduate of Tashkent polytechnic institute, married; employed as a foreman in special mechanized unit No. 557 of Melitopol Rural Construction, resident in Melitopol at flat 9, 64 Grizodubova Street; no previous convictions:
is charged with the fact that he . . . (four paragraphs follow which repeat the text of the charge against Kurtumerov word for word, Chronicle) [6] committed a crime envisaged by Article 187-1 (UkSSR Criminal Code).
*
[3] Regat Ramazanov, b. 15 March 1936, native of Demerdzhi village (Alushta district, Crimean Region), a Soviet citizen, a Tatar and a non-Party-member. Ten years of education, married; employed in No. 9 workshop of the Melitopol factory of industrial sewing and clothing repair as a cutter, resident in Melitopol, flat 78, 55 Grizodubova Street; no previous convictions:
is charged with the fact that manuscripts confiscated during a search at his flat on 13 September 1968 contained deliberately false fabrications defaming the Soviet political and social system. However, R. Ramazanov, after being cautioned by agencies of State authority about the circulation of deliberately false fabrications defaming Soviet reality, did not draw the proper conclusions and continued his criminal activity . . . (two paragraphs follow, the text of which repeats the wordings of the charges against Kurtumerov, Chronicle).
On 8 July 1973 R. Ramazanov prepared a manuscript of libellous content which defamed the Soviet political and social system and was typed in several copies and sent to Soviet and Party agencies.
By his actions he has committed a crime envisaged by Article 187-1 (UkSSR Criminal Code).
*
This indictment was drawn up on 17-19 October 1973 in the city of Zaporozhe.
Senior Investigator V. Lomeiko
*
Statement by Roza Dzhemileva
On 23 April 1974, Roza (Zera) Dzhemileva — address: Tashkent, 15 Besh-Agach Street, Shark cul-de-sac — the wife of Reshat Dzhemilev (trial, CCE 31.2), sent the following statement to the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs:
“My husband Reshat Dzhemilev was sentenced on 21 April 1973 by the Tashkent city court to three years of imprisonment in strict-regime camps on charges of violating Article 191-4 (Uzbek SSR Criminal Code) and Articles 190-1 and 190-3 (RSFSR Criminal Code). He has been sent to camp postbox UYa 288/7 in the Krasnoyarsk Region to serve his sentence. This creates great difficulties for his family.
“We cannot make use of the right guaranteed by law of three meetings a year with our convicted relative. One visit alone to this distant camp costs two months’ salary. I have three children and my monthly wage of 100 roubles is not enough even to feed my family. His 72-year-old mother cannot travel to the Krasnoyarsk Region to see him not only for economic reasons, but also because of the condition of her health.
“This is not the first time that citizens convicted for taking part in the national movement of the Crimean Tatar people for return to their Homeland in the Crimea have deliberately been sent to distant camps, as a result of which the right to three meetings with the convicted prisoner turns into a hollow mockery.
“I ask you to transfer my husband for the remainder of his sentence to a camp in the Uzbek Republic, i.e. the republic on the territory of which he was convicted.
“I ask you to reply to me within the period prescribed by law.”
*
Statement to Kurt Waldheim, UN Secretary-General
(April 1974, 10 pages)
Recapitulating the continuing repression to which the Crimean Tatar people have been subjected for the past 30 years, the authors of the statement report the existence of more than 200 volumes of “letters, appeals, statements and petitions addressed to all the authorities of the Soviet state”. Since all these appeals have provoked only more repression, “our only path of salvation is to appeal to world public opinion and to the United Nations Organization”.
The statement describes the mass return of Crimean Tatars to the Crimea after the 1967 Decree and also (apparently for the first time) the two stages in the official attitude to this on the part of the Soviet authorities: initially instructions were sent out to assist the return in every way, but literally a few days later these were followed by circulars and directives explaining a “change in the situation” and laying down guidelines for a struggle against those who wanted to return to the Crimea and those who had already succeeded in doing so.
*
Then specific examples of persecution and victimization are enumerated.
*
RESIDENCE
The statement reports that 150 of the families who successfully returned have still not been granted residence permits (a list of 37 families is attached).
In September 1973 a teacher, Shevket Gafarov, received a Simferopol district directive to work in the village school in Skvortsovo. When he handed over his documents to receive a residence permit, it was seen that he was a Crimean Tatar; by means of threats, insults and blackmail he was forced to write a statement giving in his notice.
On 4 April 1974 the Zainetdinov couple (from Zavetnoye village, Sovetsky district) were summoned to the police. Elmira Zainetdinova was forcibly deported to Kherson Region, whilst her husband and five children were left in the Crimea; Kasym Seidalliyev, the father of two children, was deported in the same vehicle.
Sulbie Muzinova, the mother of four children and a sick woman (from Chernopol, Belogorsk district), was banished from the Crimea for two years, with threats that if she delayed her departure she would be exiled to the Irkutsk Region (east Siberia).
The Kadyrov couple (from Belogorsk), whose two children are serving in the army, have been sentenced to banishment.
Mambet Din-Ogly (from Novopavlovka village, Krasnoperekopsky district) was sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment in 1969 and again in 1971.
The head of the personnel section in Donuzlavsky State poultry farm (Chernomorsky district) declared to Rakhim Ishmatov, an Uzbek, in the autumn of 1973: “I will not give you a residence permit or a job as you have a Tatar wife.”
*
SCHOOL
The children of Tatars without residence permits are not admitted to schools. Many of them — though by no means all — go to lessons but are not entered in the register.
“The two children of Seit-lbragim Seit-Osmanov (from Chernopole village, Belogorsk district) have not been to school for over six months now.
“The headmaster of the Chernopole eight-year school, Lishak, twice dragged Seit-Osman Seit-Osmanov, who is in the 6th year, out of the classroom, kicking him in the process, and then for a week patrolled the sports ground to stop the foot of a single Crimean Tatar child from stepping on this forbidden plot, yelling at them each time: ‘Heh, clear off, you Tatars!’ “
The text of a document is then reproduced:
No. 232, 7 October 1973
To the Headmaster of Chernopole Secondary School
It is clear from the report of First Lieutenant Yasko, an inspector of the Belogorsk district Department of Internal Affairs, that you have admitted to your school Dilyara Ibragimova (b. 1963), who has no residence permit in Kurskoye village. I request you to give a written explanation about this, so that a report may be prepared for the chairman of the district Soviet executive committee, Comrade N. L. Krovets.
Inspector of the Belogorsk District Department of Education
(signature)
*
The statement reports on cases of ‘confiscation’ (evidently, compulsory purchase Chronicle) by the State of houses which their owners were intending to sell to Crimean Tatars.
*
MARRIAGE
Registry offices are refusing to register marriages of Crimean Tatars without police permission.
For example the marriages of: Mura Eredzhepov and Zeinep Dzhemaletdinova (Donskoye village, Simferopol district, 1972); Umer Chobanov and Emersaliyeva (Belogorsk town); Niyazi Dagdzhi and Elmira Seferova (Senokosnoye village, Razdolnensky district, 1974).
*
TRIAL
A detailed description is given of the trial of Dzhemil Kurtseitov, Eivaz Mustafayev and Reitvan Charukhov, who were provoked into a fight with Boldin and Mudry, after the latter had stolen two rams from Kurtseitov during the night (CCE 31.3):
“The judge Shmelev and the State prosecutor Ionova brazenly shielded the provocateurs Boldin and Mudry and dealt with Kurtseitov and his comrades with tyrannical cruelty in order to frighten other Crimean Tatars who want to live in their native land.
“Shmelev and Ionova disregarded a witness from the same village and did not even summon him to the court, as all his evidence was in favour of Kurtseitov and his comrades. Mustafayev asked for Morozenko, the chairman of the village soviet, who had earlier warned Kurtseitov that a provocation was being prepared, to be summoned to the court. The court refused his request.
“The judge and the prosecutor completely ignored the fact that the record drawn up at the scene of the incident had disappeared from the court materials. Even the knife of the bandit Boldin had disappeared. Moreover. the provocation was turned into a political trial in which the defendants were also accused, without any grounds whatsoever, of anti-Soviet propaganda and an anti-social way of life.
“Before the trial a search was carried out at the homes of Kurtseitov and Charukhov. Their notebooks and papers were ransacked but nothing was found against the defendants …”
Kurtseitov was sentenced to seven years of camps, Mustafayev and Charukhov to five years.
*
The statement describes the trial of E. Kurtumerov, E. Khalikov and R. Ramazanov (CCE 31.9), and the texts of the indictment and verdict are reproduced (see above).
The statement concludes with the words:
“We request the United Nations and the UN Commission on Human Rights to take our nation — which has no rights — under their protection.
“We realize that the UN is not a world government that dictates its will to States, but the UN can demand that all the States that have ratified its conventions observe them. In relation to the Crimean Tatars, Articles 2, 7 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have been violated, and continue to be violated, and also Article 123 of the USSR Constitution.
“We declare with full responsibility that a most terrible form of national discrimination against the Crimean Tatars is rampant in the USSR; the results of this are no less monstrous than genocide.”
*
Various Brief Reports
18 Crimean–Tatar families were transported into the Crimea to the Dzhankoi district on 18 May under the official labour recruitment scheme.
*
CCE 31 reported that many Crimean Tatars were unable to obtain residence permits not only in the Crimea but also in neighbouring districts of the Ukraine. At the present time all Crimean Tatars residing in the Kherson Region have obtained residence permits. About 400 families (approximately 2,000 people) are now living in Novo-Alekseyevka, Genichesk district (Kherson Region, Ukraine).
*
A few days before 18 May, the anniversary of the deportation of the Crimean Tatars from the Crimea, Seidamet Memetov was arrested in Margelan and held for ten days.
*
In Novo-Alekseyevka the military registration and enlistment office ordered Enver Ametov (CCE 31.2) to appear before a medical board on 18 May, allegedly in connection with a forthcoming call-up for short-term service.
On the appointed day it turned out that neither the doctors nor the officials at the enlistment office knew anything about a ‘board’.
On 25 May the office demanded that Ametov change the place and nature of his work, promising to release him from call-up in exchange. Ametov expressed his indignation at the deceit and the interference in his personal affairs and declared that he would refuse to do military service (he was on active service in 1959-1962). He repeated this in a conversation with an official of the KGB Directorate for Kherson Region, P. P. Popov, who did not conceal that the actions of the authorities had been engendered by Ametov’s participation in the national movement. Popov promised to ’intercede’ for Ametov at the enlistment office if he ceased his participation.
*
On 18 May a flag of mourning was hoisted on a high-voltage line in Bekabad (Uzbek SSR).
========================================
NOTES
See CCE No. 31 (May 1974), which was entirely devoted to the Crimean Tatar movement, and contains earlier references to many of the individuals and families mentioned in this report.
*
- In other documents this man is called Khalilov (CCE 31.9). The correct spelling on his surname is not known to the Chronicle (Chronicle note).
↩︎ - Riad according to CCE 31.9, though both forms may be correct: Tatar names are often spelt in a variety of ways.
↩︎ - It is clear from the text of the verdict in this criminal case that the defendants were cautioned by unnamed agencies of authority in 1968 and 1971, i.e. before the unpublished Decree of the Praesidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet came into force on 25 December 1972 (Chronicle note).
↩︎ - The city of Melitopol (Zaporozhe Region) had a population of 150,000 in 1970.
↩︎ - Between 1970 and 1980, the population of Nezhin grew from 56,320 to 69,533.
↩︎ - The numbers of the volumes and the case sheets of the ‘case materials’ are omitted here and subsequently (Chronicle note).
↩︎
=============================
A Chronicle of Current Events 