Vadim Delone

Poet, writer, dissident.

A participant in the demonstration on Red Square on 25 August 1968 protesting the deployment of Soviet troops to Czechoslovakia. He was arrested when the demonstration was dispersed. On 11 October 1968, the Moscow City Court sentenced him to two years and ten months in a labour camp. He served his sentence in Tyumen Oblast.

1960s

‘The Demonstration of the Seven’Dissidents Male Poets

Reading time: 6 minutes

The Final Statement

‘I am convinced that criticism of individual government actions is not only permissible and lawful, but necessary.’

I will not repeat everything my defence counsel has said. From the very beginning, I stated that I considered the charges brought against me unfounded. My opinion did not change after I heard the testimony of the witnesses and the prosecutor’s speech.

It is perfectly clear to me that the text of the slogans contained no false fabrications defaming our state and social system. The slogans criticised the government’s actions in very strong terms. I am convinced that criticism of individual government actions is not only permissible and lawful, but necessary. We all know what the absence of criticism of the government led to during the Stalinist period.

I did not criticise the state and social system at all, not to mention the fact that I did not disseminate any defamatory information and that my actions were not systematic.

I will not spend much time explaining why the texts of the slogans were neither knowingly false nor defamatory. The text of the slogan I was holding–‘For Your and Our Freedom’–expresses my deep personal conviction.

I will not draw the Court’s attention to my personal convictions or to how I arrived at my position, especially since the other defendants were not allowed to do so. In his speech, the prosecutor spoke about the sources of our convictions. I would like to say that I did not listen to broadcasts from foreign radio stations, and in general I rarely do. My views were formed through studying articles and speeches by a number of Czechoslovak figures and through conversations with citizens of Czechoslovakia who came here in the period following January.

Here, in the courtroom, the prosecutor addressed Litvinov and me with the question: ‘What kind of freedom are you demanding? Freedom to slander? Freedom to hold gatherings?’ No, I do not need ‘freedom to slander’. I understand this slogan in the following way: our freedom determines not only democracy in our own country, but also the freedom of another state to develop and the freedom of the citizens of another country.

In characterising me, the prosecutor referred to the fact that I had ‘shed crocodile tears’ at the previous trial. He says that I had already been convicted under Article 190.3 and knew that my actions were subject to prosecution. I do not understand why the prosecutor is referring to my previous trial, which is not being considered here. But since he has done so, I will have to speak about it. Indeed, more than a year ago, in the courtroom of the Moscow City Court, I condemned my actions connected with the demonstration on Pushkin Square in defence of my arrested friends. However, I did not condemn my actions from a legal standpoint. Legally, I did not plead guilty. The verdict states that I admitted my guilt. I did not challenge this at the time–which is understandable, since I was released. Besides, I was not certain that the demand with which I had gone out to the demonstration was lawful: to release my arrested friends–they had not been convicted. It was difficult to defend such a position. In addition, I was psychologically crushed by the fact that one of my friends, Alexey Dobrovolsky, for whose freedom I had spoken out, had slandered me during the investigation.

The fact that I was convicted, and the fact that the verdict in the case of Khaustov, Bukovsky and others became final, in no way means that such actions are always criminal. I had previously taken part in two demonstrations, including a silent rally on 5 December 1966 against the partial rehabilitation of Stalin, and those demonstrations were not followed by repression.

I understand that my position is a special one. And that the prosecution will undoubtedly use this against me if a case is brought against me. Unlike the other defendants, I knew what prison was like: I had spent more than seven months there. Yet I still went out to the demonstration. When making my decision on the way to Red Square, I knew that I would not commit any unlawful acts, but I understood and was almost certain that criminal proceedings would be initiated against me. But the fact that I had previously been convicted could not make me give up my protest.

I think it will be clear to the Court that making such a decision was not easy for me: if a case were initiated, the punishment would have been severe. This only proves that I acted out of a deep conviction that I was in the right. I went out onto the square and resolved inwardly to do everything necessary to avoid violating public order in any way. I did not react even when I was beaten. I repeat: I was deeply convinced of the correctness of my position, and I am certain that I did not violate the law. I expected to be deprived of my freedom for a considerable period for expressing my protest. I understood that I might pay for five minutes of freedom on Red Square with years of imprisonment.

Judge: Do not speak about your convictions. You are not being charged because of your convictions.

I have no right not to trust the composition of the Court: at the beginning of the trial, when I was asked whether I trusted the composition of the Court, I answered in the affirmative. Based on the statements of the defence lawyers and my own statement, I ask the Court for an acquittal. I am a person who has a profound aversion to all forms of totalitarianism…

The prosecutor objects to ‘inadmissible expressions’. The judge reprimands him.

I mean the imposition of someone else’s point of view. I accept the existence of different points of view. I do not consider myself guilty. But neither can I claim that my point of view is the only correct one. If you nevertheless find us guilty, I would like to address the Court as follows. I ask the Court not for leniency, but for restraint. As you yourselves have said, we are not being tried for our convictions. We are being tried for publicly expressing our convictions and for the form of our protest. I would ask the Court to remember that, regardless of whether we violated the law in the form in which we expressed ourselves, we expressed our convictions openly, frankly, selflessly, and with a deep faith in the correctness of our position. I have finished.

11 October 1968,
Visiting Session of the Moscow City Court, Moscow, USSR.
Source: ‘Volnoe Slovo’, issues 14–15.
For more information: the official website of poet Vadim Nikolayevich Delone.
Photo: Vadim Delone’s website.