Larisa
Daniel, wife of the imprisoned writer
Yuli Daniel, and Pavel Litvinov, grand-
son of Stalin's foreign minister in the
thirties, Maxim Litvinov. Litvinov came
to prominence only a few weeks before
this trial, in connection with another,
earlier attempt to support Ginzburg,
Galanskov, and the others.
A surprising document hit the
world press in late December. It was an
open letter by Litvinov addressed to
four Soviet papers and to the main
daily papers of the French and Italian
Communist parties. (None of those papers
printed the letter or indicated any
knowledge of it, to the discredit espe-
cially of the French and Italian Commu-
nist leaderships.)
Litvinov's letter related to the
Sinyavsky-Daniel and Ginzburg-Galanskov
cases, but it was more directly linked
with a third trial of literary dissi-
dents, one held last August and involv-
ing particularly a youth named Vladimir
Bukovsky. A look at the background of
the Bukovsky case is necessary.
The arrest of Galanskov and the
others on January 19, 1967, was met with
an immediate demonstration of support.
Some fifty persons gathered three days
later in downtown Moscow and unfurled
banners calling for repeal of Article 70.
This was the law under which Sinyavsky
and Daniel had been convicted and by
which Galanskov and the others were
clearly threatened.
In standing up for Galanskov and
the others, Bukovsky himself became a
victim. He and two others, Vadim Delone
and Yevgeny Kushchev, were arrested for
participating in the demonstration. They
too were held without trial for many
months. At last, late in August 1967,
they were tried.
Bukovsky, who assumed responsi-
bility for having organized the demon-
from his teaching job in the physics department of the Institute of Precision Chemical Technology. The alleged ground for the dismissal was "breach of work discipline." The dismissal reportedly became effective January 3. Whether the Kosygin~Brezhnev regime will exact fur~ ther reprisals remains to be seen. To be fired from a job in the Soviet Union is a serious matter since control over hiring and firing is in the hands of the government which in turn expresses the will of the privileged ruling caste.
[Reproduced below is the text of the denunciation of the trial issued by Pavel M. Litvinov and Larisa Daniel. The translation is the one distributed by Reuter. ]
* * *
To World Public Opinion:
The judicial trial of Galanskov, Ginzburg, Dobrovolsky and Lashkova, which is taking place at present in the Moscow City Court, is being carried out in violation of the most important principles of Soviet law. The judge and the prosecutor, with the participation of a special kind of audience, have turned the trial into a wild mockery of three of the accused -- Galanskov, Ginzburg and Lashkova -- and of the witnesses -- unthinkable in the 20th century.
The case took on the character of the well~known "witch trials" on its second day, when Galanskov and Ginzburg -~ despite a year of preliminary incarceration, in spite of pressure from the court -- refused to accept the groundless ac~ cusations made against them by Dobrovolsky and sought to prove their own innocence. Evidence by witnesses in favor of Galanskov and Ginzburg infuriated the court even more.
The judge and the prosecutor throughout the trial have been helping Dobrovolsky to introduce false evidence against Galanskov and Ginzburg. The defense lawyers are constantly forbidden to ask questions, and the witnesses are not being allowed to give evidence that unmasks the provocative role of Dobrovolsky in this case.
Judge Mironov has not once stopped the prosecutor. But he is allowing people who represent the defense to say only that which fits in with the program already prepared by the K.G.B. investigation. Whenever any participant in the trial departs from the rehearsed spectacle, the judge cries, "Your question is out of order," "This has no relation to the case," "I will not allow you to speak." These exclamations have been directed at the accused (apart from Dobrovolsky), to their lawyers and to the witnesses. ~70-
The witnesses leave the court after their examination, or rather they are pushed out of the court, in a depressed state almost in hysterics.
Witness Yelena Basilova was not allowed to make a statement to the court -- she wanted to record how the K.G.B. had prosecuted her mentally sick husband, whose evidence given during the investigation when he was in a certifiable state, plays an important role in the prosecution case. Basilova was driven out of the court while the judge shouted and the audience howled, drowning her words.
P. Grigorenko submitted a request asking that he be examined as a witness because he could explain the origin of the money found on Dobrovolsky, Galanskov gave him this money. Grigorenko's request was turned down on the pretext that he is allegedly mentally ill. This is not true.
Witnesses Aida Topeshkina was not allowed to make a statement to the court in which she wanted to give facts showing the falsity of Dobrovolsky's evidence. Topeshkina, an expectant mother, was physically ejected from the courtroom, while the audience howled at her.
The "commandant of the court," K.G.B. Colonel Tsirkunenko, did not allow witness L. Katz back into the court after a recess, and told her, "If you had given other evidence, you could have stayed."
None of the witnesses have been allowed to stay in the court after giving evidence, although they are obliged to stay under Soviet law. Appeals by the witnesses on the basis of Article 283 of the Code of Criminal Procedure went unheeded, and the judge said sharply to witness V. Vinogradova, "You can just leave the court under Article 283."
The courtroom is filled with specially-selected people ~- officials of the K.G.B. and volunteer militia -- who give the appearance of an open public trial. These people make a noise, laugh, and insult the accused and the witnesses. Judge Mironov had made no attempt to prevent these violations of order. Not one of the blatant offenders has been ejected from the hall.
In this tense atmosphere, there can be no pretense that the trial is objective, that there is any justice or legality about it. The sentence was decided from the very start.
We appeal to world public opinion, and in the first place to the Soviet public opinion. We appeal to everyone in whom conscience is alive and who have sufficient courage:
Demand public condemnation of this shameful trial and the punishment of those
guilty of perpetrating it!
Demand the release of the accused from arrest!
Demand a new trial with the observance of all legal norms and with the presence of international observers!
Citizens of our country! This trial is a stain on the honor of our state and on the conscience of every one of us. You yourselves elected this court and these judges -- demand that they be deprived of the posts which they have abused. Today it is not only the fate of the three accused which is in danger -their trial is no better than the celeprated trials of the nineteen-thirties, which involved us in so much shame and so
-71-
much blood that we have still not recov-
ered from then.
We pass this appeal to the Western
progressive press, and ask for it to be
published and broadcast by radio as soon
as possible. We are not sending this re-
quest to Soviet newspapers because that
is hopeless.
Larisa Bogoraz—Daniel
Moscow, V-261,
Leninsky Prospet 85,
Flat 3.
Pavel