SOVIET LAW AND THE STRUGGLE FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES

TuHRoUGHOUT the forty years since the Russian Revolution law has been regarded in the Soviet Union as a matter of efficient administration rather than of rights of the individual and of the community.

The law courts. being administrative organs of government, could not protect victims against acts of the government. Hence civil liberties, particularly during the Stalin period, have been virtually non-existent.

The proletarian revolution was born virtually direct from the feudalist tsarist régime and inevitably carried over many of its ideas and values. It was the proletariat of Moscow and Leningrad that imposed its will on the millions of backward peasants. The Soviet people could not change their standards and outlook overnight. Their minds had been conditioned by centuries of the old régime where civil rights were entirely unknown.

In western Europe, on the other hand, the bourgeois revolution had thrown up certain values. For example in England opinion was no longer the monopoly of the King. Special courts, such as the Star Chamber, which were instruments of the Government dealing with political offences and using terture as a recognized means of extracting confessions, were abolished. Political offences came to be dealt with by the ordinary courts with a system of procedure more favourable to the accused. A judiciary and legal profession not subject to the direct interference of the government grew up. Men combined in trade unions and other societies to protect their interests or advance causes. The peoples of the Russian Empire had never known these traditions, so that they could not incorporate them in and adapt them to their new social order.

From 1934 until after the death of Stalin there were two standards of justice in the USSR. One standard was practised in the regular courts and another in the special courts dealing with political offences. These special courts were generally held in secret, with very few facilities for the defence, sometimes no right of appearance for the accused at all: torture was regularly used for extracting confessions and convictions could be secured on confession alone. These bodies were not genuine courts deciding judicially whether or not a man was guilty, but administrative bodies carrying out government policy.

The ordinary courts have been free from the worst of these abuses, but nevertheless have been weighted more heavily in favour of the government against the accused than in most capitalist countries. In criminal cases defending lawyers have had far less status and influence in court than in many other countries. A defending lawyer could not and still cannot represent his client wholeheartedly on the legal or moral merits of some political offence without exposing himself to the accusation of being disloyal. The legal profession is therefore not genuinely independent.

Almost all the special courts have now been abolished. Espionage, however, can still be tried by a military court sitting in seeret with jurisdiction over civilians.

The improvements made in procedure in recent years, particularly the abolition of the special courts. show that intimidatory methods are being relinquished. The removal of the

YORKSHIRE special courts should help the ordinary courts to raise their standards. The Supreme Court in 1955 gave instructions to all courts that there should be no pressure by the government, Communist Party or any other organization or persons to interfere with a judge’s decision in a criminal law case.

So far reforms have been mainly procedural. There have been no serious changes in the criminal law itself so far as concerns political offences. The definition of political offences such as ‘counter-revolutionary activities’ and ‘wrecking’ remain very wide. Penalties are severe. Nor do there appear to have been any discussions reported on redefining these offences in more specific terms.

The maxim ‘no crime without a law expressly creating the olfence’ does not apply in the USSR. Thus it is possible for a man to be convicted of an act not specified in the criminal code on the basis of crime by analogy. Almost all European criminal codes specifically forbid crime by analogy. (Hitler reintroduced it into Germany after it had been abolished for more than sixty years.)

During the Stalin régime increasing harshness was shown in the ‘non-political’ law. In the late thirties, although crime was steadily decreasing, due no doubt to the improved living conditions, the proportion of convicted persons sent to prison or put on forced labour at their place of work increased, while the proportion of lighter punishments, such as reprimand, fine or probation declined. Stalin used the criminal law as a means of maintaining labour discipline. In 1940 he made criminal offences such things as arriving late or leaving work early or taking too long for Junch. In later years the courts eased afl the penalties imposed for these offences. In 1956 these offences against labour discipline were made no_ longer criminal.

Divorce was tightened up in 1944 and in practice put out of reach of many of the lower income groups. At the last session of the Soviet Parliament, MPs criticized the divorce laws which prevented the dissolution of broken marriages. Since this criticism was allowed, it seems likely that divorce reforms may take place.

JOHN PETERS Post The Stalin Constitution of 1936 contained many admirable provisions. ‘The judges were declared independent and subject only to the law. The procuracy—the legal inspectorate— had full powers of inspection over everybody. Local sovicts had the duty to protect the rights of citizens. The inviolability of the person was guaranteed. But these provisions existed on paper only. They afforded no protection against the Stalin terror. Nor did anyone raise the argument that Stalin and his henchmen were acting unconstitutionally. The Soviet people never thought along such lines, They had been too long conditioned to such methods of government. Copies of the Constitution were distributed in millions throughout the world as a propaganda stunt to persuade people that he constitution was a correct account of how things worked in the USSR.

There is much talk today of upholding ‘socialist legality’. This is a reflection of a desire to reduce arbitrariness. More and more lawyers are being trained and placed in industry and local government, although not yet in collective farms, to promote legal standards. The procuracy has been given increased powers and the political police down-graded. procuracy is, however, essentially inspection from above—by one State organ over others—and therefore limited in its effectiveness. Civil liberty can only be protected and extended effectively if people have the right to organize from below into voluntary associations. Such organizations do not exist, for all such activities are canalized into the authoritarian Communist Party. “Socialist legality’ is certainly not yet what we understand in this country as the rule of law.

* * * More progress has been made in humanizing the law in the last few years than ever before. The increasing standard of living. the raising of educational standards, the existence of a large working class provide the basis for much greater changes. To! uphold the Soviet legal system as a model to be followed by other advanced European countries is of no value to those who seek to advance socialism in their own countries. Rather the reforms should be seen as the beginning of the struggles of the Soviet people for genuine civil liberties,