Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T16:56:22.222Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soviet Criminal Justice and the Great Terror

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Peter H. Solomon JR.
Peter H. Solomon JR.*
Affiliation:
Political Science at the University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Years ago Harold Berman observed that for many people in the west the term Soviet law represented a contradiction. Popular imagination found little place for law or criminal justice in a society where terror or extralegal coercion played a major role. Yet, as Berman argued, even in Stalin's Russia law and force existed side by side, and there was a “surprising degree of official compartmentalization of the legal and the extra-legal.” Berman recognized that the separation of law and terror was no accident; rather it was a product of the regime's commitment to law and the functions it could perform for a stable, conservative social order. Three decades later western Sovietologists are only starting to come to terms with the conservative phase of Stalin's rule; and, despite a fine essay by Robert Sharlet, the promotion of law has yet to be incorporated into the standard portrait of Stalinism. A major reason is the continuation of doubts about the possibilities for law where terror also reigns.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 46 , Issue 3-4 , Fall/Winter 1987 , pp. 391 - 413
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Research for this paper was supported by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the International Research and Exchanges Board of New York, the Office of Research Administration of the University of Toronto, the Lady Davis Foundation of Jerusalem, and the Soviet Interview Project, Urbana, Ilinois. The author gratefully acknowledges comments and suggestions from Harold Berman, Donald Filtzer, Eugene Huskey, Amy Knight, Lev Pevzner, Lewis Siegelbaum, Robert Thurston, and Robert Tucker.

1. Berman, Harold J., Justice in the U.S.S.R.: An Interpretation of Soviet Law, rev. ed. (NewYork: Vintage, 1963), p. 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Sharlet, Robert, “Stalinism and Soviet Legal Culture,” in Tucker, Robert, ed., Stalinism: Essays in Historical Interpretation (New York: Norton, 1977), pp. 155–179.Google Scholar

3. “Ob obrazovanii obshchesoiuznogo N.K.V.D.,” Postanovlenie TsIK ot 10 iulia 1934, and “0rassmotrenii del o prestupleniiakh, rassleduemykh N.K.V.D. SSSR i ego mestnymi organami,” both in Golunskii, S. A., ed., Istoriia zakonodatel'stva SSSR i RSFSR po ugolovnomu protsessu i organizatsii suda (Moscow: Gosiurizdat, 1955), pp. 517–518 Google Scholar. The special collegium was apparently based upon aUkrainian forerunner, the “extraordinary session” of the kraisud that operated during the 1920s. See van der Berg, Ger P., The Soviet System of Justice: Figures and Policy (The Hague: Nijhof, 1985),pp. 18–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. In Smolensk before the Great Terror the special collegium of the oblsud was treated as a second-class citizen. Cramped conditions of the oblast courthouse led to its hearing cases in the hall. It lacked the budget to pay its witnesses and, according to some members of the court, it served as a dumping ground for the more incompetent members of the oblsud “who were not fit for work in the criminal or civil collegia.” In the spring of 1937 members of the special collegium began complainingabout their situation. One of them was called to Moscow for a conference of members of special collegia, whose tasks were starting to change because of the terror. Smolensk Archive WKP 103, pp.78–79, 85, 100.

5. Conquest, Robert, The Great Terror. Stalin's Purge of the Thirties (London: Penguin, 1971),p. 424.Google Scholar

6. Stuchka, P. S., “Doklad ob obshchikh direktivakh Verkhsuda po kulatskim delam,” Sudebnaia praktika RSFSR, no. 7 (1931), pp. 4–7 Google Scholar. Sbornik raz'iasnenii Verkhovnogo suda RSFSR, 2nd ed. (Moscow,Sovetskoe zakonodatel'stvo, 1931), pp. 388–389.

7. J. Stalin, “Itogi pervoi piatiletki,” doklad na ob'edinennom plenume TsK i TsKK VKP(b) ot 7 ianvaria 1933 g., in Stalin, Voprosy leninizma, 11th ed. (Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1952), p. 428 Google Scholar. “Borbas khishcheniiami obshchestvennoi sobstvennosti,” Sovetskaia iustitsiia (SIu), no. 7 (1933), pp. 22–23. Shliapochnikov, A., “Okhrana obshchestvennoi (sotsialisticheskoi) sobstvennosti,” Za sotsialisticheskuiu zakonnosl’ (ZaSZ), no. 1 (1935), pp. 14–17 Google Scholar. Of the seventy-two death sentences handed out by theTiumen okrsud, the Supreme Court of the RSFSR confirmed only nine (Sbornik raz'iasnenii, pp.388–389). Bad convictions from the winter of 1933 for supposed violations of the law of 7 August 1932 were overturned in droves by the same court from summer 1933 until well into 1935. Kozhevnikov, M., “Nadzornaia praktika Verkhovnogo suda RSFSR,” SIu, no. 22 (1935), pp. 4–5.Google Scholar

8. Sostav rukovodiashchikh rabotnikov i spetsialistov SSSR (Moscow: Gosplan, 1936), pp.304–315, Rittersporn, Gabor, “Soviet Officialdom and Political Evolution: Judiciary Apparatus andPenal Policy in the 1930s,” Theory and Society 13 (March, 1984): 213–214 Google Scholar; Solomon, Peter H., Jr. “Local Political Power and Soviet Criminal Justice, 1922–41,” Soviet Studies 37 (July 1985): 305–329 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.On the antilaw bias and procedural simplification see Undrevich, V., “Ugolovno-protsessual'nyikodeks RSFSR,” Ezhegodnik sovetskogo stroitel'stva i prava (Moscow, 1931), pp. 379–393 Google Scholar; and Solomon, “Local Political Power,” pp. 311–313.

9. “O reorganizatsii mestnykh organov iustitsii v sviazi s likvidatsiei okrugov,” PostanovlenieVTsIK i SNK RSFSR ot 10 okt. 1930,” in Golunskii, Istoriia zakonodatel'stva, pp. 517–518. Accordingto Gertsenzon, the Law of 7 August 1932 made theft of socialist property into a political crime. See Gertsenzon, A. A. et al., Ugolovnoe pravo. Osobennaia chast'. Gosudarstvennoe pravo (Moscow: Iurizdat,1938), pp. 95–109.Google Scholar

10. Robert Sharlet traced Andrei Vyshinskii's support of the observance of law to June 1932, when Vyshinskii helped to secure the issuing of the party decree “On Revolutionary Legality.” EugeneHuskey went further and associated with this decree the beginning of the movement to restore legal norms in the USSR. The message of the decree is striking, for it urged local officials to desist in their nihilistic approach toward law and start observing the laws of the center. The question is whether that decree had any short-term effects, not just on legal practice but even on the politics or actions of central officials. Only six weeks after the issuance of the decree the infamous law on theft of socialistproperty was promulgated (Law of 7 August 1932) and its application during the ensuing harvestcampaign and winter made the June decree appear to be an historical anomaly. See Sharlet, Robert and Beirne, Piers, “In Search of Vyshinsky: The Paradox of Law and Terror,” International Journal of the Sociology of Law 12 (1984): 153–177 Google Scholar. Huskey, Eugene, Russian Lawyers and the Soviet State: The Origins and Development of the Soviet Bar (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, chap. 5.

11. “Instruktsiia vsem partiino-sovetskim rabotnikam i vsem organam OGPU, Suda i Prokuratury” (sekretno) ot Predsedatelia TsIK V. Molotova (Skriabina) i Sekretaria TsK VKP(b) I. Stalina ot8 maia 1933, Smolensk Archive, WKP 178, p. 135. Stalin, “Otchetnyi doklad XVII s “ezdu partii orabote TsK VKP(b) ot 27 ianvaria 1934 g. in Stalin, Voprosy leninizma, p. 517.

12. “Pervoe vsesoiuznoe soveshchanie sudebno-prokurorskikh rabotnikov,” ZaSZ, no. 5 (1934),pp. 16–32. “O neobkhodimosti strozhaishego sobliudeniia sudami ugolovno-protsessual'nykh norm,” Postanovlenie 47-go Plenuma ot 7 iunia 1934 g., Goliakov, I. T., ed., Sbornik deistvuiushchikh postanovlenii plenuma i direktivnykh pisem Verkhovnogo suda SSSR 1924–1944 gg. (Moscow, 1946), pp.113–116.Google Scholar

13. See Solomon, “Local Political Power,” p. 313. See also Eugene Huskey, “Vyshinskii,Krylenko, and the Struggle for Mastery over Soviet Legal Affairs, 1932–1936,” Slavic Review 45 (Winter-Fall, 1987), infra.

14. Bulat, I., “Kachestvo raboty suda—na uroven’ trebovanii Stalinskoi Konstitutsii,” SIu, no. 24(1936), pp. 7–10 Google Scholar. See also Rittersporn, “Soviet officialdom,” pp. 3–4, and Sostav rukovodiashchikh rabolnikov, pp. 304–315.

15. Kozhevnikov, M., “Nashi kadry,” SIu, no. 35 (1935), pp. 4–6 Google Scholar; Brandenburgskii, Ia., “Voprosyperepodgotovki sudebnykh kadrov,” Sotsialisticheskaia zakonnost’ (SZ), no. 8 (1936), pp. 70–73 Google Scholar, Skliarskii, , “Podgotovka i perepodgotovka sudei,” SIu, no. 8 (1937), pp. 10–11 Google Scholar. For details on the courses and upgrading of skills see Krastin, I., “Reorganizatsiia pravovogo obrazovaniia,” ZaSZ, no.4 (1935), pp. 25–26 Google Scholar. Granovskii, M., “Organizatsiia sudov v tretei piatiletke,” SIu, no. 12 (1937),pp. 5–7 Google Scholar, covers the planned expansion of higher education.

16. Major accounts of the Terror and Purge include Conquest, The Great Terror and Medvedev, Roi, Let History Judge (New York: Knopf, 1971)Google Scholar, chaps. 5–10. For a challenging new explorationof the relationship between the Purge and the Terror, see Arch Getty, J., Origins of the Great Purges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17. “O vnesenii izmenenii v deistvuiushchie ugolovno-protsessual'nye kodeksy soiuznykh respublik,” Postanovlenie TsIK i SNK SSSR ot 1 dekabria 1934 g., in Goliakov, I. T., ed., Sbornik dokumentov po istorii ugolovnogo zakonodatel'stva SSSR i RSFSR 1917–1952 (Moscow: Gosiuzizdat, 1954),p. 347 Google Scholar. The law extending these provisions can be found in “O vnesenii izmenenii v deistvuiushchieugolovno-protsessual'nye kodeksy soiuznykh respublik,” Postanovlenie TsIK SSSR ot 14 sentiabria1937, in ibid., p. 396.

18. “O priamom i kosvennom umysle pri kontrrevoliutsionnom prestuplenii,” Raz “iasnenie 18plenuma Verkhovnogo suda SSSR ot 2 ianvaria 1928 g. For a discussion of the effects of this directive,see Sorok let sovetskogo prava, 1917–1957 (Leningrad, 1957) 2:486–487.

19. These propositions were derived from the notion that the task of a judge was to establish notabsolute truth but maximum probability of truth. See Vyshinskii, A. la., “Problema otsenki dokazatel'stvv sovetskom ugolovnom protsesse,” Problemy ugolovnoi politiki 4 (1937):13–38.Google Scholar

20. Medvedev, Let History Judge, p. 393.

21. In spring 1937 members of the special collegium in Smolensk began demanding bettertreatment from the oblsudy in the form of quarters and funds to pay witnesses. WKP 103, pp. 100,130, 209.

22. Conquest, Great Terror, p. 424.

23. Medvedev, Let History Judge, pp. 236–238; Baazova, Faina, Prokazhennye (Jerusalem:Biblioteka-Aliia, 1980), pp. 7–8 Google Scholar; Conquest, Great Terror, pp. 340–341; Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr, The Gulag Archipelago, 1915–1956 (New York: Harper and Row, 1973) 1–2:419–431Google Scholar. Solzhenitsyn alsoasserted that the failure in the Ivanovo show trial led to the cessation of the practice of local showtrials, but no other source confirms this point.

24. On sabotage in the Stakhanovite campaign, see Filtzer, Donald, Soviet Workers and Stalinist Industrialization: The Formation of Modern Soviet Production Relations, 1928–1940 (Armonk, N.Y.:Sharpe, 1986)Google Scholar. Vyshinskii's directive is mentioned in Zhogin, N. V., “Ob izvrashcheniiakh Vyshinskogov teorii sovetskogo prava i praktike,” Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo (SGiP), no. 3 (1965), p. 24 Google Scholar. Naumov, , “Bor'ba za obespechenie tekhniki bezopasnosti,” SIu, no. 10–11 (1937), pp. 46–47.Google Scholar

25. Kh., “Shpiony, diversanty, vrediteli “: (Obzor literatury) SIu, no. 15 (1937), pp. 6–9.

26. Ibid.; “Aktiv prokuratury,” SZ, no. 6 (1937), pp. 96–101.

27. Obozrevatel, “Vragi naroda i ikh posobniki v sudebnykh organakh,” SIu, no. 15 (1937), pp.26–27 Google Scholar; Kh., “Mestnaia pechat’ o rabote suda,” Ibid., pp. 27–28; Vinokur, “Sud'ia, nedostoinaia etogozvaniia,” ibid., pp. 33–34.

28. Zhogin, “Ob izvrashcheniiakh Vyshinskogo,” pp. 24–25.

29. SIu, no. 15 (1937), pp. 50–51; ibid., no. 16 (1937), pp. 50–51.

30. Utevskii, B. S., Obshchee uchenie o dolzhnostnykh prestupleniiakh (Moscow: Iurizdat, 1948),esp. pp. 244–281 Google Scholar; Gurevich, Ia., “Organy iustrtsii TsChO na khlebzagotovitel'nom fronte,” SIu, no. 9(1931), pp. 22–24 Google Scholar. Iodkovskii, and Lagovier, , “Neobkhodim reshitel'nyi perelom v praktike primeneniaSt. Ill U.K.,” SIu, no. 20 (1936), pp. 8–10 Google Scholar; “O sudebnoi praktike po delam o dolzhnostnykh prestupleniiakh(St st. 109, 110, 111 UK RSFSR),” SIu, no. 6 (1937), p. 56.

31. In 1937, 82.3 percent of convicts received imprisonment as opposed to 62.6 percent in 1936;and 43.8 percent received a term of three years or more, in place of 21.2 percent the previous year. “Dela ob avariiakh na vodnom transporte,” SIu, no. 10 (1938), pp. 13–14. “Preniia po dokladu tov.A. la. Vyshinskogo, SZ, no. 6 (1938), p. 23; see also “V Narodnom komissariate iustitsii SSSR,” SIu, no. 12(1938), p. 22.

32. “Preniia po dokladu,” pp. 18, 16.

33. Ibid., p. 19, 18.

34. “Zadachi sudebnykh organov v svete ianvarskogo Plenuma TsK VKP(b),” SIu, no. 2–3 (1938),pp. 4–5.

35. “Vsebelorusskoe prokurorskoe soveshchanie,” SZ, no. 7 (1938), p. 84. Out of 883 ordinarycases reviewed in September and October 1937, the panel requalified 105 as political (WKP 103, p. 209).

36. “Preniia po dokladu,” p. 21; WKP 103, p. 79.

37. Gorbulev, Ia. and Rakhunov, R., “Kadry,” SZ, no. 1 (1938), pp. 26–31.Google Scholar

38. “Preniia po dokladu,” pp. 14, 29, 37, 38; “Vsebelorusskoe prokurorskoe soveshchanie,” p. 84.

39. “Rech’ deputata Burmasheva,” SZ, no. 9 (1938), pp. 63–64; “Prikaz narkoma iustitsii vdeistvii,” SIu, no. 9 (1938), pp. 6–8; interview with a former Mosocw narsud judge appointed in 1938.This informant claimed that in 1938 80 percent of Soviet judges were new. A small portion of thejudges removed in 1937 lost their posts before the Purge during a review of credentials before nominationsfor the first election of judges. Gorbulev and Rakhunov, “Kadry “; Rychkov, M. N., “Zadachisudebnykh organov,” SIu, no. 2–3 (1938), pp. 16–18 Google Scholar; and see note 65 infra.

40. Zhogin, “Ob izvrashcheniiakh Vyshmskogo,” p. 26; Gorbulev and Rakhunov, “Kadry. “

41. WKP 103, passim; WKP 238, pp. 302–305.

42. Zhogin, “Ob izvrashcheniiakh Vyshinskogo,” p 26. Medvedev, Let History Judge, p. 217. In 1935 Akulov was demoted from procurator general to secretary; of TSIK. He was arrested in 1937. Barry, Donald, “Leaders of the Soviet Legal Professions,” Canadian-American Slavic Studies 6 (Spring 1972): 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43. Zhogin, “Ob izvrashcheniiakh Vyshinskogo,” pp. 25–26.

44. Trifonov, Iurii, “Otblesk kostra,” Znamia, no. 2 (1965), pp. 142–177.Google Scholar

45. This privatization of terror by using denunciation to serve personal interests was one of thecharacteristic features of the Stalinist variety of terror. See Gross, Jan T., “A Note on the Nature ofSoviet Totalitarianism,” Soviet Studies 34, no. 3 (1982): 367–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46. “Aktivy sudebno-prokurorskikh rabotnikov na mestakh,” SZ, no. 7 (1937), pp. 93–97.

47. WKP 103, pp. 126–142, 174–184; WKP 238, pp. 302–305.

48. WKP 103, pp. 187, 195–196; WKP 238, pp. 302–305.

49. WKP 103, pp. 120–122, 130, 146–147, 212.

50. Ibid., pp. 81–82, 87, 142, 188–189, 194, 198–199, 203a.

51. Ibid., pp. 78, 134,204b.

52. Ibid., pp. 98–99, 104–113, 207.

53. In the fall of 1937 an increasing number of judges fell under suspicion and were scheduled tohave their credentials examined by their peers in 1938. But there is no record of their fate

54. “Aktiv Narodnogo komissariata iustitsii Soiuza SSR,” SIu, no. 8 (1937), p. 12; “Ob organizatsiirukovodstva narodnymi sudami,” Prikaz NKIu SSSR ot 4 marta 1938 g. no. 21, in Sbornik prikazov i instruktsii Narodnogo komissariata iustitsii Soiuza SSR (Moscow: Iurizdat, 1940), p. 53; “59 Plenum Verkhovnogo suda SSSR: Praktika sudov po grazhdanskim delam” (26–29 dekabria 1927g.), SZ, no. 2 (1938), pp. 116–123; B. Boshko, “Sudebnaia praktika SSSR po alimentnym delam, SZ, no. 11 (1938), pp. 50–54.

55. “Aktiv Prokuratury Soiuza,” SZ, no. 2 (1938), pp. 126–140; “Vsesoiuznoe prokurorskoe soveshchanie,” SZ, no. 6 (1938), pp. 12–13. In May-June 1938 procurators were mobilized to addresssome of these complaints, see “O nadzore organov prokuratury za pravil'nym razresheniem zhalobna nezakonnoe uvol'nenie i nezakonnyi otkaz v prieme na rabotu,” Prikaz ot 28 maia 1938 no. 547,Sbornik prikazov prokuratury deistvuiushchikh na 1 dek. 1938 g., comp. V. I. Solers and D. I. Orlov, 2nd ed. (Moscow: Iurizdat, 1939), pp. 120–122.

56. “Ob oshibkakh partorganizatsii pri iskliuchenii kommunistov iz partii, o formal'no-biurokraticheskomotnoshenii k apelliatsiiam iskliuchennykh iz VKP(b) i o merakh po ustraneniiu etikhnedostatkov,” Postanovlenie plenuma TsK VKP(b) ot 20 ianvaria 1938, SIu, no. 2–3 (1938), pp. 1–5. “Zadachi sudebnykh organov v svete ianvarskogo Plenuma TsK VKP(b),” ibid., pp. 4–5. The procuracyprikaz was cited in M. L'vovich, “Za Bolshevistskii kontrol’ ispolneniia,” SZ, no. 10 (1938),pp. 15–18.

57. A. Murugov and I. Kaganovich, “God raboty na osnove iiun'skogo prikaza,” SZ, no. 7(1939), pp. 12–19; Brodskii, D. and Viatkin, K., “O delakh, obrashchaemykh k dosledovaniiu, SZ, no. 2(1939), pp. 64–66.Google Scholar

58. “Aktiv Prokuratury Soiuza,” SZ, no. 9 (1938), p. 119. “O reshitel'noi bor'be s klevetnicheskimiobvineniami chestnykh liudei,” Prikaz ot 5 apreliia 1938 g., no. 346, Sbornik prikazov Prokuratury SSSR (1939), p. 146.

59. “Vsesoiuznoe prokurorskoe soveshchanie,” pp. 4–46.

60. Murugov and Kaganovich. “God raboty,” p. 12.

61. I. Iartsev, “Prokuror—samodur,” Pravda, 22 July 1938, p. 6; “Prokuror—samodur,” ibid., 27 July 1938, p. 6; I. Iartsev, “Prokuror—perestrakhovshchik,” ibid., 2 August 1938, p. 6; “Nebolshevistskaia pozitsiia riazanskogo prokurora,” ibid., 21 September 1938, p. 6; “Prestuplenie prokurora,” ibid., 27 October 1938, p. 6.

62. Pravda (1938) contained the following reports on cases against slanderers: I. Iartsev, “Klevetnik,” 6 April, p. 6; “Vinovniki uvol'neniia pedagogov privlekaiutsia k otvetstvennosti,” 7 April,p. 5; N. Kuzovkin, “Razoblachitel’ Gronskii,” 8 April, p. 6; “Klevetnik-kar'erist,” 24 April, p. 6;G. Solodii, “Beznakazannye klevetniki,” 27 August, p. 2; “Klevetniki,” 6 September, p. 5; “Klevetnikiostalis’ beznakannye,” 24 November, p. 2; P. Lidov, “Klevetniki,” 28 November, p. 6; K. M. Tabgalov, “Klevetniki,” 3 December, p. 1; P. Manuilov, “Klevetniki,” 27 December, p. 6. See also “Peregibshchik,” Izvestiia, 9 July 1938, p. 4; and “Klevetniki,” ibid., 6 September 1938, p. 4.

63. Between February and August 1938 the party control commission in the Bashkir ASSR heard 1,308 appeals and restored 687 persons to the party, “many of whom had been victims of slanderers “; Solodii, “Beznakazannye klevetinki.” There are also signs that other party bodies joined inthe effort to stop the momentum of prosecution. Diegates to a provincial party conference in Kurskcondemned “the arbitrary actions of the police, court and procuracy of Kursk oblast, who hadcommitted crude violations of revolutionary legality.” “Kurskaia oblastnaia partiinaia konferentsiia,” Pravda, 13 July 1938, p. 2. I. Iartsev, “Neobosnovannyi prigovor,” Pravda, 7 November 1938, p. 6.

64. Sotsialisticheskii Donbass, 1 August 1938, gave the transcript of the trial of a “right-Trotskyite” group of officials held responsible for a fire in a coal mine; and on 4 August, the paper announced the discovery of another such group in two other coal trusts. I am indebted to Lewis Siegelbaum for providing this information. For cases of arson by traitors see N. Iartsev, “Diversantypodzhigateli,” Pravda, 24 September 1938, p. 6; N. Iartsev, “Podzhigateli,” ibid., 10 October 1938, p.6?. One slanderer in Kiev continued his denunciations to the end of 1938. “Klevetnik,” Pravda, 4 February 1939, p. 6. Note that further prosecutions of slanderers were reported in Pravda in March, April, and July of 1939. For examples of the change in prosecution of industrial accidents see N. Milkhailovskii, “Prestupnoe otnoshenie k tekhnike bezopasnosti,” Pravda, 16 October 1938, p. 6, and interview no. 524 of the Harvard Project on the Soviet Social System. On the unpublished materials of the project, see Marjorie Mandelstam Balzer, “Guide to Materials from the Harvard Project on the Soviet Social System,” Soviet Interview Project Working Paper no. 1 (Urbana-Champaign, 111., August1980). In May 1939 judges returned less than half the number of cases to supplementary investigation than they had in May 1938 (Murugov and Kaganovich, “God raboty,” p. 13). Although the defects inmany cases stemmed from the inexperience of the investigators more than from the pressures of theTerror, it is hard to disentangle the two. Even in the spring of 1939, the authors admitted, some caseswere pursued because of the procurator's fear of refusing to prosecute and desire to play it safe (perestrakhovka).

65. The new list of judges provided in “Ob izbrannii Verkhovnogo suda SSSR,” Pravda, 24 August 1938, p. 2, contained only one of the ten members of the Supreme Court who had spoken at itsPlenum of December 1937 or at its aktiv of March 1938. “59 Plenum Verkhovnogo suda SSSR “; Kamenskii, F., “Na sobranii aktiva rabotnikov Verkhovnogo suda SSSR,” SIu, no. 5 (1938), pp. 20–21 Google Scholar. The law on court organization is covered in “Zakon o sudoustroistve SSSR, soiuznykh i avtonomykhrespublik,” Pravda, 24 August 1938, pp. 1–2, art. 63 and 64. Previously the court had been limited toreviewing cases already heard at republic supreme courts and then only at the initiative of the USSR Procuracy. See Goliakov, I. T., ed., Sbornik postanovlenii plenuma i opredelenii kollegii Verkhovnogo suda SSSR (1938 g. i pervoe polugodie 1939 g.) (Moscow: Iurizdat, 1940)Google Scholar, esp. pp. 1–8 and 34 for thereviews of corrections and stricter standards. The newspaper Jzvestiia gave the new role of theSupreme Court special publicity. On 9 December it reported Goliakov's promise to a meeting of thecourt that it would address instances of incorrect prosecutions and encourage attention to “livingpersons.” On 22 December it printed an article by Goliakov that explained the Supreme Court's newpower to take cases from any court. The paper also gave detailed coverage to the plenum itself. “Sobranie aktiva rabotnikov Verkhovnogo suda SSSR,” hvestiia, 9 December 1938, p. 3; I. Goliakov, “Revoliutsionnaia zakonnost’ nerushima,” ibid., 22 December 1938, p. 3; “Pervyi plenum Verkhovnogosuda SSSR,” ibid., 27 December 1938, p. 1; 28 December 1938, p. 4; 29 December 1938, p. 4; and 30December 1938, p. 3.

66. Sbornik postanovlenii plenuma, passim. The line or transport courts stood in direct subordination to the Supreme Court of the USSR and had been the subject of a special review. Of threesucessful appeals of political convictions reported in interviews conducted by the Harvard Project, one(no. 1, 498) involved a conviction from 1937 that was then overturned by the military collegium ofthe USSR Supreme Court “after Ezhov.” (The other cases can be found in interviews no. 306 and no.144; they involved arrests in 1938.) The same was true of the case reported in Baazova, Prokazhennye. The perception of new fairness is noted in Uralov, Alexander [Avtorkhanov, ], The Reign of Stalin (London, Bodley Head, 1953)Google Scholar; Baazova, Prokazhennye, pp. 110, 132; Harvard Project interviews nos. 40, 306, 1,498.

67. Baazova, Prokazhennye, pp. 113–124; interviews with former Soviet lawyers in emigration conducted by the author between 1985 and 1987, many under the auspices of the Soviet Interview Project and suppported by Contract No. 701 from the National Council for Soviet and East EuropeanResearch to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, James B. Millar, principal investigator.I. Goliakov, “Nekotorye voprosy nauki i sudebnaia praktika v resheniiakh Plenuma Verkhovnogosuda SSSR,” part one: SIu, no. 4 (1940), pp. 1–5; part two: SIu, no. 5 (1940), pp. 5–10; and Goliakov, I., “Sovetskii sud kak orudie vospitaniia,” SZ, no. 2 (1944), pp. 6–10 Google Scholar. Goliakov did not deserve the ridicule of Solzhenitsyn, Gulag Archipelago, 1–2; 172.

68. “O primenenii st. st. 587, 589, i 5814 UK RSFSR i sootvetstvuiushchikh statei UK drugikh soiuznykh respublik,” Postanovlenie Plenuma ot 31 dekabria 1938, in Goliakov, ed., Sbornik deistvuiushchikh postanovlenii, p. 5. Within a few years the new standards of proof in cases of wrecking became largely irrelevant, for that charge itself faded quickly from Soviet judicial practice, soonattaining the status of a relic of a particular era in the history of the USSR.

69. “O kvalifikatsii prestuplenii,” SZ, no. 10–11 (1939), p. 15.

70. Goliakov, “Nekotorye voprosy nauki i sudebnoi praktiki,” part 1, p. 2.

71. Medvedev, Roi, K sudu istorii (New York: Knopf, 1974), p. 471 Google Scholar, refers to “neskol'ko desiatkovtysiach chelovek” (a few tens of thousands). The English translator rendered this figure as “a fewthousand” in Let History Judge, p. 247. The infamous role played in the terror by the military collegiumof the USSR Supreme Court under Vasilii Ulrikh was described in Antonov-Ovseyenko, Anton. The Time of Stalin: A Portrait of a Tyranny (New York: Harper, 1981), p. 150 Google Scholar.

72. Skomorokhov, P., “Iz istorii Verkhovnogo suda SSSR,” Biulleten’ Verkhovnogo suda SSSR, no. 2(1964), pp. 34–35.Google Scholar

73. On the responsibility for political cases see van den Berg, The Soviet System of Justice, p. 19. Note that in Georgia the special collegium of the supreme court was still in operation in the first halfof 1939. Baazova, Prokazhennye, p. 64. For an example of a political case heard at the supreme courtof an autonomous republic (in 1941) and thrown out on appeal by the RSFSR Supreme Court (in 1942), see Avtorkhanov, A., Memuary (Frankfurt A.M: Possev, 1983), pp. 605–610 Google Scholar. The autonomy of legalagencies from the security police is shown in interviews with émigré lawyers. Party officials, ratherthan the security police, influenced the work of Soviet courts after 1938 (see Peter H. Solomon, Jr., “Soviet Politicians and Criminal Prosecutions: The Logic of Party Intervention,” Soviet Interview Project Working Paper no. 33 (Urbana-Champaign, III., March 1981).

The experience of Lev Kopelev suggests that standards of evidence at military tribunals could bemore stringent than at special boards of the NKVD. Charged with “undermining the morale of the Red Army,” Kopelev was first delivered to the military tribunal of Moscow district; when the evidence appeared insufficient, the tribunal passed the case over to a special board. When, for whatever reason, the board sent the case back to the tribunal, Kopelev's lawyers succeeded in winning an acquittal and getting two of the state's witnesses charged with slander; Kopelev, Lev, To be Preserved Forever (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1977), p. 182.Google Scholar

74. Already in 1936 there were complaints about a shortage of judgeships; the rapid growth incivil caseload in the mid-1930s made some increase in the number of judges necessary (see Bulat, “Kachestvo raboty suda,” p. 10). As a result, in 1938 one thousand new posts were created. Foranalysis of the recruitment of new cadres in 1938, see Solomon, , “Local Political Power.” “K itogam soveshchaniia fevral'skogo aktiva NKIu RSFSR,” SIu, no. 6 (1940), pp. 19–24.Google Scholar

75. See Sobrnik prikazov i instruktsii narodnogo komissariala iustsii, passim; and SZ, 1938–1939,passim.

76. Lebedinskii, B., “Godovshchina prikaza Prokuratury Soiuza ot 1 iuniia 1938,” SZ, no. 7(1939), pp. 7–11 Google Scholar. Murugov and Kaganovich, “God raboty “; L. Iachenin, “Organy prokuraturyUkrainy v bor'be za perestroiku raboty,” SZ, no. 5 (1939), pp. 17–25.

77. “Ob organizatsii rukovodstva narodnymi sudami,” p. 54. N. M. Rychkov, “Raboty sudasdelat otlichnoi,” SIu, no. 6 (1940), p. 2.

78. SIu, 1939, passim.; SZ, 1939, passim.

79. Kozhevnikov, M., htoriia sovetskogo suda (Moscow: Gosiurizdat, 1957), pp. 304–316.Google Scholar

80. Golunskii, S., “Zakon o sudoustroistve i rabota prokuratury v sude,” SZ, no. 10 (1938), pp.11–17 Google Scholar. Sverdlov, G., “Nekotorye voprosy perestroiki,” SZ, no. 1 (1939), pp. 28–32 Google Scholar. In practice, the elimination of hearings in nadzor in courts below the supreme court did not produce a decline in thereview of cases in supervision but a centralization of that process. The USSR Supreme Court reactedto the continuing flow of cases decided incorrectly in cassation panels of the oblsudy by taking on an increasing number of appeals in supervision. As a result, the size of the court increased from forty-fivejudges in 1938 to seventy-eight in 1951. Dobrovol'skaia, T. N., Verkhovnyi sud SSSR (Moscow: Iuridicheskaialiteratura, 1964), pp. 44–48, 56.Google Scholar

81. Stalin, “O proekte konstitutsii soiuza SSSR,” in Stalin, Voprosy leninizma, p. 569.

82. On the drafting of a new criminal code, see Solomon, Peter H. Jr., Soviet Criminologists and Criminal Policy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, chap.

83. See Peter H. Solomon, Jr., “The Case of the Vanishing Acquittal: Informal Norms and thePractice of Soviet Criminal Justice,” Soviet Studies 39 (October 1987); and Solomon, “Soviet Politiciansand Criminal Prosecutions. “