| Politics of the Soviet Union |
|---|
.svg) |
 Soviet Union portal |
TheLaw of the Soviet Union was the law as it developed in theSoviet Union (USSR) following theOctober Revolution of 1917. Modified versions of the Soviet legal system operated in manyCommunist states following theSecond World War—includingMongolia, thePeople's Republic of China, theWarsaw Pact countries ofeastern Europe,Cuba andVietnam.
Soviet law was rooted in pre-revolutionaryRussian law andMarxism-Leninism. Pre-revolutionary influences includedByzantine law,Mongol law,Russian Orthodox Canon law, andWestern law. Western law was mostly absent until thejudicial reform of Alexander II in 1864, five decades before the revolution. Despite this, thesupremacy of law andequality before the law were not well-known concepts, thetsar was still not bound by the law, and the "police had unlimited authority."[1]
Marxism-Leninism views law as a superstructure in thebase and superstructure model of society. "Capitalist" law was a tool of "bourgeois domination and a reflection of bourgeois values." Since law was a tool "to maintain class domination", in a classless society,law would inevitably disappear.[1]
Like all other government institutions, the judiciary was officially subordinated to theSupreme Soviet of the Soviet Union.
In 1917, the Soviet authorities formally repealed all Tsaristlegislation and established asocialist legal system. According to a critic,Richard Pipes, this system abolishedWestern legal concepts including therule of law,civil liberties, theprotection of law andguarantees of property.[2][3] For example,profiteering could be interpreted as acounter-revolutionary activity punishable by death. Soviet authors claimed that a new socialistrule of law was created, protecting personal properties and civil liberties, and developing the basis of an international rule of law.[4]
The deportation of the 'Kulaks' in 1928–31 was carried out within the terms of Soviet Civil Code.[5] Some Soviet legal scholars even asserted that "criminal repression" may be applied in the absence of guilt.".[5][6]
The year 1960 saw a new edition theSoviet criminal code.[7] The new Criminal Code replaced theSoviet analogue of 1960.[7]
The 1960s reforms tried to improve the judicial system and the activities of the courts, the restoration and development of several democratic principles dismantling special conferences attached to the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs and certain categories of state crimes.[8]
Soviet criminal and civil cases involve trials that were "primarily[...]official investigation[s] of the truth of the claims and defenses presented".[9] Soviet law was very similar in this respect tocivil law of European countries likeFrance andGermany.[10]
Criminal cases consisted of a preliminary examination before theindictment and the actualtrial. In the preliminary examination, thesledovatel (or "investigator") "interrogate[d] the accused and the witnesses and examine[d] evidence". The accused was informed of his/her rights before the examination. Before 1958,counsel was only available during the trial. After 1958, counsel was available at the last stage of the preliminary examination after the accused was indicted. The examiner was prohibited from using force though the accused could be confined for long durations: up to 10 days before being charged, up to 9 months during the preliminary investigation (with the approval of theProcurator General). The testimony to be used in the trial was presented to the accused. The sledovatel was subordinate to theprocurator (prokuratura) that was tasked with theprosecution, "'general supervision' of legality", and reporting illegal administrative actions. The indictment that included the preliminary examination was considered the "official record" at trial.[10]
Thetrial court consisted of a professional judge with a 5-year term and twoassessors (lay judges) from the population with a 2.5-year term. The proceedings were informal compared tocriminal procedure in democratic countries based on therule of law. The judges first questioned accused and witnesses, then the procurator and defense counsel to corroborate the evidence in the indictment. The accused and the victim could question each other or the witnesses. The accused waspresumed innocent, though not in thecommon law sense.[clarification needed] The court decided by majority vote. The accused or the procurator could appeal decisions to a higher court consisting of three professional judges that reviewed the facts and the law. If the procurator appealed, the higher court could set aside the judgment andremand the case. Although the decision of the appeals court was "final", higher courts could review them as "supervision". Here, the accused or his/her counsel could submit briefs, but they could not appear in person.[10]
During the trial, the judges had the additional responsibility of educating the people, for example revealing and removing the causes and conditions that led to the crime. Judges kept legal technicalities to a minimum; the court's stated purpose was to find the truth, rather than to protect legal rights. Although most hearings were open to the public, hearings could also be held privately, if theSoviet Government deemed it necessary.[10]
Soviet civil court process did not entail a high degree of physical interference. There was no sudden arrest or detention during a preliminary investigation phase. The trial was conducted entirely by a counsel and, if need be, a stay was obtained.
According to theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights,human rights are the "basic [rights] andfreedoms to which all humans are entitled",[11] including the right to [life] and [liberty],freedom of expression, andequality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate inculture, theright to food, theright to work, and the right toeducation.
The Soviet conception of human rights was very different frominternational law. According to Soviet legal theory, "it is the government who is the beneficiary of human rights which are to be assertedagainst the individual".[12] TheSoviet state was considered as the source of human rights.[13] Therefore, the Soviet legal system regardedlaw as an arm of politics and courts as agencies of the government.[5] Extensiveextrajudicial powers were given to theSoviet secret police agencies. The Soviet government in practice significantly curbed therule of law,civil liberties,protection of law andguarantees of property,[14][15] which were considered as examples of "bourgeois morality" by Soviet law theorists such asAndrey Vyshinsky.[16] According toVladimir Lenin, the purpose ofsocialist courts was "not to eliminateterror ... but to substantiate it and legitimize it in principle".[5]
The USSR and other countries of theSoviet bloc had abstained from affirming theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), saying it was "overly juridical" and potentially infringed on national sovereignty.[17]: 167–169 The Soviet Union later signed legally-binding human rights documents, such as theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1973 (and the 1966International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), but they were neither widely known or accessible to people living under Communist rule, nor were they taken seriously by the Communist authorities.[18]: 117 Sergei Kovalev recalled "the famous article 125 of the Constitution which enumerated all basic civil and political rights" in the Soviet Union. But when he and other prisoners attempted to use this as a legal basis for their abuse complaints, their prosecutor's argument was that "the Constitution was written not for you, but for American Negroes, so that they know how happy the lives of Soviet citizens are".[19]
Crime was determined not as the infraction of law, but as any action which could threaten the Soviet state and society. For example,a desire to make a profit could be interpreted as acounter-revolutionary activity punishable by death.[5]The liquidation and deportation of millions of peasants in 1928–31 was carried out within the terms of the Soviet Civil Code.[5] Some Soviet legal scholars even said that "criminal repression" may be applied in the absence of guilt.[5]Martin Latsis, chief ofSoviet Ukraine'ssecret police explained: "Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask him instead to whichclass he belongs, what is his background, hiseducation, hisprofession. These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and essence of theRed Terror."[6]
The purpose ofpublic trials was "not to demonstrate the existence or absence of a crime – that was predetermined by the appropriateparty authorities – but to provide yet another forum forpolitical agitation and propaganda for the instruction of the citizenry (seeMoscow Trials for example). Defense lawyers, who had to beparty members, were required to take their client's guilt for granted..."[5]
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
