The Final Statement
‘For me, it was not enough to know that my voice would not be a ‘yes’–it was important to me that my voice would not be a ‘no’.’
First of all, I am compelled to state something unrelated to my final statement: my friends and relatives–both mine and those of the other defendants–have not been allowed into the courtroom. Thus, Article 18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which guarantees the principle of open justice, has been violated.
In my final statement, I neither have the opportunity nor intend–here and now–to substantiate my position on the Czechoslovak question. I will speak only about the motives behind my actions. Why, ‘disagreeing with the decision of the CPSU and the Soviet government to send troops into the Czechoslovak SSR’, did I not only submit a statement to this effect at my institute, but also go out onto Red Square to demonstrate?
Judge: Do not speak about your convictions. Do not go beyond the scope of the trial.
Bogoraz: I am not going beyond the scope of the trial. The prosecutor raised this question. During the trial, the question of motives was raised, and I have the right to address it. My action was not impulsive. I acted deliberately, fully aware of the consequences of my actions.
I love life and value freedom, and I understood that I was risking my freedom and did not want to lose it.
I do not consider myself a public figure. Public life is far from being the most important or interesting aspect of life for me. Political life even less so. In order to make myself go to the demonstration, I had to overcome my inertia and my aversion to publicity.
I would have preferred to act differently. I would have preferred to support my like-minded people–well-known individuals, known for their professions or their positions in society. I would have preferred to add my anonymous voice to the protest of these people. There were no such people in our country. But my convictions did not change because of that.
I found myself faced with a choice: to protest or to remain silent. For me, remaining silent meant joining in the approval of actions that I did not approve of. Remaining silent meant lying to me. I do not consider my course of action to be the only right one, but for me it was the only possible decision.
For me, it was not enough to know that my voice would not be a ‘yes’–it was important to me that my voice would not be a ‘no’.
It was precisely the rallies, radio broadcasts, and reports in the press about universal support that prompted me to say: I am against it, I disagree. If I had not done so, I would have considered myself responsible for these actions of the government–just as all adult citizens of our country bear responsibility for all the actions of our government, just as our entire people bear responsibility for the Stalin–Beria labour camps, for death sentences, for…
Prosecutor: The defendant is going beyond the scope of the indictment. She has no right to speak about the actions of the Soviet government or the Soviet people. If this happens again, I ask that the defendant Bogoraz be deprived of her final statement. The Court has the legal right to do so.
Defence Counsel Kaminskaya: There is some misunderstanding of what Bogoraz is saying. She is speaking about the motives behind her actions. When the Court retires to deliberate, it will have to take these motives into account, and you must hear them.
Defence Counsel Kallistratova: I join Kaminskaya’s statement. I would add that the prosecutor is mistaken in speaking of the possibility of depriving a defendant of the right to make a final statement. There is no such provision in the Code. The law merely states that the presiding judge has the right to exclude from a defendant’s speech elements that are unrelated to the case.
Judge: I consider the prosecutor’s statement justified. (To Bogoraz): You keep trying to speak about your convictions. You are being tried not for your convictions, but for your actions. Speak about specific actions. The Court admonishes you.
Bogoraz: Very well, I will take this admonition into account. It is all the easier for me to do so because I have not even touched upon my convictions yet, nor have I said a word about my attitude towards the Czechoslovak question. I have spoken exclusively about what prompted me to take the actions of which I am accused.
I had one more consideration against going to the demonstration (I insist that the events on Red Square should be called precisely that, whatever the prosecutor may call them). This was the consideration of the demonstration’s practical futility, the fact that it would not change the course of events. But in the end I decided that, for me, this was not a question of usefulness, but a question of my personal responsibility.
When asked whether I considered myself guilty, I answered: ‘No, I do not.’ Do I regret what happened? Fully or partially? Yes, I regret it in part. I deeply regret that Vadim Delone ended up beside me in the dock, a young man whose character and future were not yet fully formed and could be crippled by a labour camp. The other defendants are fully grown adults, capable of making their own choices. But I regret that the talented and honest scholar Konstantin Babitsky will be separated from his family and his work for a long time.
From the courtroom: ‘Speak about yourself!’
Judge: I demand that the shouting cease immediately! If necessary, I will immediately have people removed from the courtroom. (To Bogoraz): The Court is admonishing you for the third time. Speak only about matters that concern you personally…
Bogoraz (sharply): Should I give you an outline of my final statement? I do not understand why I cannot speak about the other defendants.
The prosecutor concluded his speech by suggesting that the sentence he had proposed would be approved by public opinion.
The Court is not dependent on public opinion and must be guided by the law. But I agree with the prosecutor. I have no doubt that public opinion will approve this sentence, just as it has approved similar sentences in the past, just as it would approve any other sentence. Public opinion will approve three years in a labour camp for a young poet, three years of exile for a talented scholar. Public opinion will approve a guilty verdict, firstly because we will be presented to it as parasites, outcasts, and conduits of a hostile ideology. And secondly, if there are people whose opinion differs from ‘public opinion’ and who find the courage to express it, they will soon find themselves here (points to the defendants’ dock). Public opinion will approve the repression of a peaceful demonstration consisting of several people.
Yesterday, in my speech defending my interests, I asked the Court for an acquittal. I still have no doubt that the only right and lawful verdict would be an acquittal. I know the law. But I also know judicial practice, and today, in my final statement, I ask nothing of the Court.
11 October 1968
Moscow City Court, Moscow, USSR.
Source: ‘My Final Statement. Speeches by Defendants at Trials, 1966–1974’.
Volnoe Slovo, samizdat, issue 14–15, Posev, 1974.