Pavel Litvinov

Soviet and later American physicist and educator. A participant in the human rights movement in the USSR, one of the participants in and organisers of the ‘Demonstration of the Seven’ on Red Square, a political prisoner and political émigré. Grandson of Litvinov, People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR. Compiler of the samizdat collections Justice or Retribution (1967) and The Trial of the Four (1968). Co-author, with Larisa Bogoraz, of the ‘Appeal to World Public Opinion’ (1968)–the first open appeal by Soviet dissidents to the West.

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 five years of exile. He served his exile from 1968 to 1972 in the settlement of Usugli, Chita Oblast (now Zabaykalsky Krai).

1960s

‘The Demonstration of the Seven’Dissidents

Reading time: 6 minutes

The Final Statement

‘The prosecutor speaks with approval, almost with tenderness, of the actions of the people who detained us, insulted us, and beat us. The prosecutor calmly says that if we had not been detained, we might have been torn to pieces. And yet he is a lawyer! That is what is frightening.’

I will not take up your time analysing the evidence presented at the trial. I do not plead guilty. Our innocence of the acts of which we are accused is obvious.

Nevertheless, the guilty verdict awaiting me is equally obvious. I knew this verdict in advance–even when I was on my way to Red Square.

I am absolutely convinced that we were the victims of a provocation by officers of the state security agencies. I saw that I was being followed. I read my verdict in the eyes of the man who was following me on the underground. I saw this man in the crowd in the square. I had also seen the man who detained and beat me before. For almost a year, I was subjected to systematic surveillance.

Subsequent events confirmed that I was right.

Nevertheless, I went out onto the square. For me, there was no question of whether to go or not. As a Soviet citizen, I believed that I had to express my disagreement with the gross mistake made by our government, which had deeply disturbed and outraged me–the violation of the norms of international law and the sovereignty of another country.

I knew my verdict when I signed the report at Police Station No. 50. The report already stated that I had committed an offence under Article 190, paragraph 3. ‘Fool,’ the policeman said to me then, ‘you should have kept quiet and lived peacefully.’ Perhaps he was right. He no longer had any doubt that I was a man who had lost his freedom.

What we are accused of is not a serious crime. There were no grounds for detaining us during the period of the preliminary investigation. I hope that none of those present doubts that we would not have gone into hiding from the court or the investigation.

The investigation also anticipated the court’s decision. The investigator collected only material that could be used for the prosecution. No one was interested in whether I believed in what I was advocating; the question was not even put to me. But if I believed in it, then Article 190, paragraph 1–concerning knowingly false fabrications–automatically becomes inapplicable. And I did not merely believe–I was convinced!

Nor was I surprised by the vagueness of the indictment: the wording of the charges does not explain what exactly in our slogans defamed our social and state system. Even the original charges presented to us in prison during the preliminary investigation were more specific. The prosecutor’s speech likewise says that we spoke out against the policies of the Party and the government, rather than against the social and state system. Perhaps some people believe that all our policies, including the government’s mistakes, are determined by our social and state system. I do not think so. The prosecutor probably would not say this either, because otherwise he would have to admit that all the crimes of the Stalin era were determined by our social and state system.

What is happening here? Violations of legality are continuing.

The principal one is the violation of the principle of open justice. Our friends are not allowed into the courtroom at all, and my wife is admitted only with difficulty. There are strangers sitting in the courtroom who clearly have less right to be here than our relatives and friends.

Both we and our defence lawyers submitted a number of motions to the Court–all of them were rejected.

A number of witnesses whom we insisted on having summoned were not called, even though their testimony would have helped clarify the circumstances of the case.

I will not speak about the other violations–this is enough.

I consider it extremely important that the citizens of our country should be truly free. This is important also because our country is the largest socialist state and–whether for better or for worse–everything that happens in it affects other socialist countries. The more freedom we have, the more freedom there will be there, and therefore throughout the world.

Yesterday, when quoting Article 125 of the Constitution, the prosecutor made a certain rearrangement of its wording, perhaps deliberately. The Constitution states that, in the interests of working people and with the aim of strengthening the socialist system, citizens of the USSR are guaranteed: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, meetings and demonstrations. But according to the prosecutor, these freedoms are guaranteed insofar as they serve to strengthen the socialist system.

Judge: Defendant Litvinov, do not engage in debates; speak only about the case.

Litvinov: I am speaking about the case. Larisa Bogoraz has partially addressed this point, and I agree with her interpretation of this article. True, it is usually interpreted in the same way as the prosecutor interprets it. But even if we were to accept such an interpretation, who determines what is in the interests of the socialist system and what is not? Perhaps the citizen prosecutor?

The prosecutor calls our actions a gathering; we call them a peaceful demonstration. The prosecutor speaks with approval, almost with tenderness, of the actions of the people who detained us, insulted us, and beat us. The prosecutor calmly says that if we had not been detained, we might have been torn to pieces. And yet he is a lawyer! That is what is frightening.

Obviously, it is these people who determine what socialism is and what counter-revolution is.

That is what frightens me. That is what I fought against and will continue to fight against by every lawful means known to me.

11 October 1968
Visiting Session of the Moscow City Court, Moscow, USSR.
Source: ‘Volnoe Slovo’, issue 14–15.
For more information: ‘Radio Liberty’.
Photo: Anatoly Yakobson Memorial Page.