The system of extrajudicial decisions and repressions. The meaning of "non-judicial bodies

Among the indisputable evidence of the crimes of the Soviet period, they usually cite the widespread use of emergency measures and extrajudicial bodies in the first half of the 20th century. Let us digress for a while from the history of the formation of the image of Stalinist repressions and consider in more detail this important issue for the theme of the book.

The claims of researchers who take anti-Soviet positions are usually based on two liberal ideologemes that took root at the end of the 20th century - about the inviolability of private property and the primacy of law. Accordingly, any actions leading to the seizure of property or extrajudicial proceedings (devoid of competition and the right to defense) are declared illegal, and therefore criminal.

Today we know that these ideologemes are not absolute, the market in times of crises easily switches to planning, ignoring both the primacy of law and private property to the extent that the depth of the crisis is great.

In societies that did not know the ideology of liberalism (we should not forget that this ideology is a product of Europe in recent centuries), the ideas outlined above can only cause bewilderment.

Zemstvo courts, courts of officer honor, and comrades' courts, widely known to us from history, are typical extrajudicial bodies, and the difference between them, from the point of view of modern law, is only in the level of sanctions that they are free to apply. If one non-legal way (not from the point of view of codified rules - laws, but from the point of view of justice) solved property issues, then others under special circumstances - issues of life and death.

Considering the crimes of the Bolsheviks under the prism of liberalism, the authors carefully pretend that the emergency measures were invented and implemented by the Bolsheviks as a method of a sophisticated crime against the people. The most striking example is the surplus appraisal, the forerunner of dispossession and collectivization - an emergency measure introduced to provide the city and the front with food during the Civil War.

At the same time, they traditionally forget that the history of the surplus is wider than the Bolshevik period, for the first time it was introduced back in 1916 to supply the front of the First World War by order of the Minister of Agriculture of the tsarist government, Alexander Rittich.

And in this case, the transition to the direct withdrawal of food was not unique; it inherited the policy of previous years “we will not finish eating, but we will take it out,” which ensured the grain export of tsarist Russia. Russia at that time did not have oil and gas, the main export was bread, and in this respect the Bolsheviks, already much later, under Stalin, differed from the tsarist government only in that they centrally purchased machine tools and technologies with the money received, which made it possible to industrialize and win the Great Patriotic War.

By the way, after the October Revolution of 1917, the practice of surplus appropriation was discontinued, and was resumed again in some provinces only at the end of 1918, and on the territory of Soviet Russia - in January 1919. It existed under the Bolsheviks until 1922, when, in connection with the end of the Civil War, it was replaced by a tax in kind, which marked the beginning of the NEP.

The situation with extrajudicial repressive bodies looks similar. The Extraordinary Commission (Cheka, VChK), created in 1917 as a special body to combat counter-revolution and sabotage, initially had the authority only to bring saboteurs and counter-revolutionaries to trial by the Military Revolutionary Tribunal. But already in 1918, with the outbreak of the Civil War and the general aggravation of the situation, the Cheka was endowed with extrajudicial functions: it received the right to directly shoot spies, saboteurs and other active enemies of the revolution.

This situation, however, lasted only one year. Already in 1919, by a decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, the extrajudicial powers of the Cheka were abolished, and the consideration of all cases of the Cheka was transferred to the tribunals. The Chekists had only the right to apply punishment in areas declared under martial law, and only for crimes specifically specified in the decree on martial law.

Of course, in wartime and post-revolutionary devastation, this could not prevent all abuses, but there is an obvious desire of the Bolsheviks to minimize the number of excesses and clearly regulate the actions of the main intelligence service.

But the Cheka itself lasted only until 1922, that is, 5 years, of which only a year was endowed with broad extrajudicial powers. With the end of the Civil War, the need for an emergency body disappeared. The 9th All-Russian Congress of Soviets, noting the merits of the VChK bodies in protecting and strengthening the gains of the revolution, decided to narrow the competence of the VChK bodies and reorganize it into the State Political Directorate (GPU). The new structure was deprived of judicial functions, its powers were strictly limited: it had the right only to search, inquiry, preliminary investigation. Detention of persons under investigation for more than two months was not allowed.

The Bolsheviks actively built a peaceful life, sometimes guided by completely idealistic principles. In order for the country to live a peaceful life, a great desire and liberalization of legislation is not enough. The latter, on the contrary, significantly harms in a situation where there is political and social instability in the country.

In the conditions of rampant crime, the imperfection of law enforcement agencies and the judicial system, already at the end of 1922, extrajudicial powers were again granted to the GPU. Their implementation was entrusted not to the entire organization, but to a separate body - the Special Conference at the OGPU, whose task was to consider cases of state crimes. Later, extrajudicial powers were also granted to the Judicial Collegium of the OGPU and interdepartmental bodies, the so-called "troikas".

In 1934, Stalin abolished all non-judicial bodies of the OGPU - the Judicial Collegium, the Special Meeting of the OGPU and the "troika". Their functions were centralized and relegated to the newly created Special Conference under the NKVD of the USSR, whose task was to consider cases of state crimes.

An attempt to revive the extrajudicial bodies of past years - "troikas" (head of the NKVD region, secretary of the regional committee and prosecutor of the region), "twos" (head of the NKVD and prosecutor) was made in August 1937, but already on November 17, 1938, by a decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (b) they were again abolished.

Thus, the “troikas”, widely known in fiction and journalism, allegedly responsible for the majority of unjust sentences during the period of Stalinist repressions, lasted a little more than a year (more precisely, 14 months). They were structures of a regional or regional scale and physically could not be held responsible for the mass repressions of that period. Their negative image is most likely directly related to Khrushchev's report at the 20th Congress of the CPSU and his interpretation of the "Great Terror" of 1937, when a significant number of the party's leading cadres fell under the wave of repressions. Below we will consider this issue in more detail.

The main non-judicial body that operated throughout the period of repression (until 1953) was the Special Meeting of the NKVD of the USSR (later the Ministry of State Security of the USSR) - OSO. His powers included the consideration of criminal cases and sentencing for counter-revolutionary crimes within the framework of the existing Criminal Code. The OSO did not have the right to issue sentences of capital punishment, with the exception of the period of the Second World War of 1941-1945.

Interestingly, the OSO (like its predecessors, the Troika) is not an exclusive invention of the Bolsheviks. Their history can be traced back to the time of Peter I, when "Special Commissions of Investigation" with extrajudicial powers were created, consisting of three officers of the guard. In the 19th century, a Special Council operated under the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Tsarist Russia, whose powers included consideration of cases under the regulation on state protection. The affairs of the revolutionaries, the future leaders of the Soviet state, were also considered by the tsarist OSO.

As we can see, the Bolsheviks did not invent anything specifically new, preferring to adjust the institutions historically established in Russia to suit their needs. The condemnation of Soviet Russia for the practice of using emergency and extrajudicial bodies is, in fact, tantamount to condemning the entire Russian history, during which they were also actively used. The forgetfulness of modern authors, who prefer not to recall the historical roots of these phenomena, betrays in them an ideological predestination aimed at denigrating the Soviet period.

One more important remark regarding the use of extrajudicial bodies. Few people question the right of the tsarist OSO to pass judgment on Russian revolutionaries of the 19th and early 20th centuries. However, in the case of similar bodies in Soviet Russia, all OSO sentences are a priori considered political and are dismissed as fabricated.

Chapter 9. Deportation of peoples

As a rule, supporters of the primacy of law are not able to reason outside of legal concepts: "The law is not right, but it is the law." In these criteria, all other arguments are a priori placed below the requirements of the law.

Consider from this point of view the deportation of peoples on the example of the deportation of Chechens, Ingush and Crimean Tatars in 1944.

It is documented that during the Great Patriotic War the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was seized by mass banditry, a significant part of the male population sided with the enemy or went to the mountains with weapons in their hands. The situation with the Crimean Tatars looks no less comforting. These are sick pages of history, but they have to be turned up.

“... Comrade STALIN I.V.

The NKVD and NKGB bodies are carrying out work in Crimea to identify and seize enemy agents, traitors to the Motherland, accomplices of the Nazi invaders and other anti-Soviet elements. […]

Through investigative and undercover means, as well as statements by local residents, it was established that a significant part of the Tatar population of Crimea actively collaborated with the Nazi occupiers and fought against Soviet power. Over 20,000 Tatars deserted from the Red Army units in 1941, who betrayed their homeland, went over to the service of the Germans and fought against the Red Army with weapons in their hands. […]

The "Tatar National Committees" widely assisted the Germans in organizing and cohesion of Tatar military units of punitive and police detachments from among the deserters and Tatar youth for operations against the Red Army and Soviet partisans. As punishers and police officers, the Tatars were particularly cruel. […]

The “Tatar National Committees” took an active part, together with the German police, in organizing the deportation of more than 50 thousand Soviet citizens to Germany ... "

I don’t think that anyone from the younger generation can fully imagine what is hidden behind the lines of this document, what people felt when they read: “As punishers ... they were particularly cruel” or “took an active part, together with the German police, in organizing the hijacking in Germany".

Under the conditions of the Great Patriotic War and the wartime laws in force at that time, there was only one punishment for such crimes: execution. And it should be noted that the vast majority of the population of the USSR, who experienced the horrors of fascism, would support this decision. There is no doubt that Stalin had the opportunity to carry out a “legal solution to the issue” - in 1944, in a warring country, forces and means were found to resettle entire peoples thousands of kilometers away.

180.014 people were evicted and loaded into trains. The echelons were sent to the places of new settlement - to the Uzbek SSR.

During the eviction operation, weapons were confiscated: mortars - 49, machine guns - 622, machine guns - 724, rifles - 9,888 and ammunition - 326,887.

There were no incidents during the operation.

So, a legal solution to the issue would mean the execution of most of the male population of the Crimean Tatars, as well as the Chechen and Ingush peoples. That is genocide. I don't know if the supporters of the primacy of law are aware of this, but any other decision would be illegal. And in a number of serious publications, one can come across statements that the peoples themselves perfectly understood the threat looming over them: women cried when they learned that they were only being evicted, and the NKVD troops surrounding the villages would not immediately lead their husbands to be shot.

It was not for nothing that JV Stalin held until 1922 the post of park committee for nationalities. No matter how it sounds, he knew how to punish both individuals and entire nations. It can be said that in the choice between legality and humanism, Stalin preferred humanism, but it seems that such a choice simply did not stand before him. He was not brought up in the liberal tradition and did not make the choice “the people or the law (genocide)”. Having cut off the people from the soil, from the roots, moving them to a different culture, he punished them enough, and Stalin, presumably, was perfectly aware of this.

The pre-war deportations from the Baltic countries could not be compared with the deportations of the peoples of the Crimea and the North Caucasus, but their consequences were noted quite accurately. Historian Alexander Dyukov in the book “For what the Soviet people fought” based on the materials of the Nuremberg trials notes:

“In one night in Kaunas, more than one and a half thousand people were killed by brutal nationalists ... In Riga, by the beginning of June, as the report of the chief of the security police and SD said, “all synagogues were destroyed, about 400 Jews were shot.” The fact that in the territory of Latvia in the extermination of Jews at first only very modest successes were achieved, Brigadeführer Stahlacker explained very intelligibly:

“This was mainly due to the fact that the national leadership was hijacked by the Soviets. However, by influencing the Latvian auxiliary police, a Jewish pogrom was organized.

“Latvians, including those in leading positions, kept themselves completely passive towards the Jews and did not dare to speak out against them,” says another SD document cited by Dyukov. “The activity of the Latvian population is significantly weakened by the fact that two weeks before the outbreak of the war, the Russians took about 500 Latvian families, which can be considered as belonging to the intelligentsia, into the interior of the country.”

It is difficult to assess Stalin's criminal policy here.

I must say that "Memoirs" by B. Menshagin is the first work I have come across, which clearly states what it is and on the basis of what laws the courts called "out-of-court" were created. The fact is that even fairly literate historians have an idea of ​​them as some kind of illegal court that killed millions of innocent citizens of the USSR. Meanwhile, these are absolutely legal and natural courts for that time, and it is completely incomprehensible to me who and why are exaggerating the term "extrajudicial bodies." Let's say, in the perestroika magazine, statistics are given: "For counter-revolutionary crimes from 1921 to February 1, 1954, 3,770,380 people were convicted, of which 2.9 million (76.7%) were convicted by extrajudicial bodies." 59

As you can see, these statistics are presented as if there were some kind of fair courts - "legal" - and there were still "bodies" that were not provided for by law in any way, which, without judicial review, killed anyone whom Stalin wanted.

What "legitimate" courts were in those days, Menshagin perfectly showed, but the collegiums of the OGPU, all kinds of troikas at the departments of internal affairs, the Special Meeting under the People's Commissar of Internal Affairs, for almost their entire history, were quite harmless in terms of the severity of the sentence, since out of court only the helplessness of the main, "legal" courts was eliminated. Cases were considered extrajudicially when there was no evidence of a specific crime, as Menshagin correctly wrote, and there was no evidence because there was no crime itself, and the person was potentially socially dangerous, and it was impossible to leave him at large. You ask - how can this be? Elementary and everywhere.

For example, after Japan's attack on the United States in December 1941, American citizens with Japanese blood were imprisoned in the United States "out of court" for an indefinite period. It was not possible to prove their crimes in court, but these citizens were (or seemed to be) socially dangerous.

With the outbreak of war in free England, thousands of citizens who were suspected of sympathizing with the Nazis were imprisoned in exactly the same "out of court" manner. And there was no talk of suspicion of the possibility of espionage. The British historian writes about it this way: “Patriotism was a very difficult concept for the 74,000 citizens of states hostile to Great Britain located on its territory - most of them fled Nazi persecution. Based on absurd stories about how spies and saboteurs contributed to the victories of German weapons, the authorities placed all foreign citizens to camps where conditions were appalling.In one abandoned factory building (in Wharf Mills), there were only 18 water taps for 2,000 internees.Sixty buckets put out in the yard acted as a toilet, and straw mattresses were given out only to the sick. In another such internment camp, two survivors of a Nazi concentration camp committed suicide. "This camp broke their spirit," concluded the investigator. were not released for fear that the public would become aware of the injustice committed against them." 54

And at the beginning of the 20th century, in 1914, with the outbreak of war in France, all thieves, swindlers and other criminals who were not even convicted and were at large were shot without trial. The basis for the execution was the reports of police agents. During the war, they were considered unacceptably socially dangerous, but they could not be judged - there was nothing for it. 60

In terms of extrajudicial defense, the Bolsheviks did not need to invent anything and even borrow something from abroad. In the Russia that Govorukhin lost, the extrajudicial defense of the state was first introduced by the "Regulations on Measures to Protect State Order and Public Peace" dated August 14, 1881. The Bolsheviks did not even invent a name - under the tsar, the extrajudicial defense body was called the "Special Conference under the Minister of the Interior affairs", and he could exile a socially dangerous subject of the empire to remote areas for a period of 5 years without trial or investigation. 61 And E.G. Repin reports that under Nicholas II, such organs were deployed on a grand scale: "A special meeting at the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia was created two years after the throne was taken by the Decree of the Tsar in 1896. His punitive rights were no less than under Stalin. Troikas and other types of" hasty courts "(48 hours from the commission of a crime to execution) were created by Nikolai II in 1906-1907 and existed until their abolition by the Provisional Government. Throughout their existence, they had the right to sentence to death. During the "reign" of Stalin, the "troikas" had only 1 year and 4 months of such a right. the governors were granted the right to personally order to sentence to death. In addition, the king, in his personal subordination, created punitive military units, which were given the right to execute on the spot, up to mass executions. 62

And the Special Meeting under the People's Commissar of Internal Affairs of the USSR, from 1924 to April 1937, could send for a period of no more than 5 years (although it could force them to work in the place of exile). 63; 64

In 1937, the Special Conference was given more rights: now, in addition to exile for up to 5 years, it could be sent to camps for the same period, and in some cases even imprisoned for up to 8 years. This "extrajudicial" court was very representative and considered cases under the chairmanship of the People's Commissar of Internal Affairs himself, his deputy, the head of the Workers' and Peasants' Militia, authorized representatives of the NKVD of the RSFSR and the Union Republic. The Prosecutor General of the USSR personally supervised its work, which could delay the decisions of the Special Meeting and appeal them to the Supreme Council. 65

Only on November 17, 1941, due to the lengthy procedure for appealing those sentenced to capital punishment in the Supreme Court and considering requests for pardon in the Supreme Soviet, the Special Conference under the NKVD was instructed to pass death sentences on certain points of Articles 58 and 59. 66 With the end of the war, the death penalty was abolished, and the Special Council could impose a sentence of up to 25 years in prison. Menshagin, in particular, was condemned by the Special Conference. But after the war, the cases of consideration of cases by the Special Conference were very rare. All high-profile cases of the post-war years were considered by the courts.

Therefore, the above-mentioned number of 2.9 million convicted by "extrajudicial bodies" does not mean the death of so many people and not even imprisonment in camps, but simply expulsion. I will back this up with statistics. Despite such an abundance of those convicted by courts and extrajudicially, and only for counter-revolutionary crimes, in 1930 there were only 179 thousand people in camps and prisons - both political and criminals. 67 But then the USSR was numerically the same as the Russian Federation today, but today we have about 2 million people in prisons and camps!

We forget what time it was then. We forget that any country that is in a state of war or preparing for it clears itself of talkers and alarmists and does so with the approval of the people. What is it like for a soldier going to the front to listen to the chatter of an intellectual freak about the fact that it is impossible to win?! And with the advent of Hitler in 1933, who openly announced that his goal was to win the living space for Germany in the USSR, the Soviet Union became a military camp, and any panic chatter was perceived very negatively not only by the Soviet authorities, but also by the people.

Now about the closed nature of the courts at that time in the USSR. Whatever this secrecy may be, but the cases (by the court or by the troika), according to the law, should have been considered on their merits. That's what the law required! How it was real is already on the conscience of those who were judges in those years, and not on the conscience of the Soviet government, Vyshinsky or Stalin. On the conscience of these small, vile and lazy judicial scum.

And now pay attention to the fact that in the "citadel of democracy" of the United States, according to law the legal level of the Stalinist USSR has not yet been reached, there the judge still makes the decision alone and without consideration of the merits! E.G. Repin writes about it this way:

"As evidenced by the largest US lawyer, former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark in his study "Crime in the USA": 90% of all sentences in the United States are issued by a single judge without considering the case on the merits, based on the admission of guilt by the accused according to the accusation formula; 5% of sentences is also issued solely by the judge on the basis of the so-called "judicial deal" between the prosecution and the defense with the participation of the judge, when the accused, for admitting guilt according to the formulas of the prosecution in whole or in part, stipulates a punishment for himself. And this is not at all for trifling crimes. on the basis of the "court deal" were the sole judge, without considering the case on the merits, sentencing to 99 years in prison to the assassins of Robert Kennedy - Sirhan and Martin Luther King - John Wright; the remaining 5% (approximately in half) are considered in court on the merits, in accordance with the decision of the accused and his defense, either alone by the judge, or by a jury. the innocence or innocence of the accused. The measure of punishment is determined by the judge alone. 62

It's in Hollywood movies that everything happens in a jury trial with smart lawyers, a conscientious jury and a wise judge. But in practice in the US, only 5 out of 200 convicts were lucky enough to have their cases considered by a jury, and 5 - at least by a judge. The remaining 190 are imprisoned without any trial at all, in our understanding, they are imprisoned because the prosecutor's office and the police "convinced" them to confess and agreed with them how long they would be imprisoned.

But it is amazing: it is the United States that accuses the Stalinist USSR of lack of rights!

You will say that, nevertheless, the accused in the United States are not beaten and are not forced to confess. Wait! Moreover, if in the USSR a forced confession could serve as a basis for the annulment of the sentence (after all, on this basis, in 1939-1941, L.P. Beria revised the sentences and released third all convicts), then in the USA don’t even think about it!

The Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court both in the Constitution and in practice, which determines all law enforcement activities in the United States, put an end to this issue, adopting a resolution in early 1991: “From now on, during criminal trials, forced confessions obtained even in violation of the constitutional rights of persons brought to trial can be taken into account”. 62

But on the other hand, what do we care about justice in the USA? After all, it is important for us that we have justice.

The Constitution of the USSR in 1936 and adopted in 1938 G. The law on the judiciary did not make fundamental changes to the judicial system. Rather, they summarized the accumulated experience.

Nevertheless, some innovations were proclaimed. In particular, the procedure for the formation of people's courts has changed. For them, the principle of election directly by the population was again introduced, although in practice it has not yet been carried out. There have been changes in the status and forms of activity of the supreme courts. The key point here was the transformation regarding the position

Supreme Court of the USSR. During 1933-1936. the competence of the highest judicial body of the country is expanding. When creating the Supreme Court of the USSR, the legislator considered the regulation of relations between the Union and the republics in the judicial sphere to be the basis of its activity. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of the USSR was gradually turning into an ordinary, albeit at the head of the entire judicial system, judicial body. First, in September 1933, he received the right to issue directives to the supreme courts of the Union republics on issues of judicial practice, to examine the judicial bodies of the Union republics. He also began to cancel and change the decrees, rulings, decisions and sentences of the supreme courts of the Union republics. For this work, a special judicial-supervisory collegium was established.

The Constitution of 1936 summed up the evolution of the status of the Supreme Court: “The Supreme Court of the USSR,” it said, “is the highest judicial body.

The unity and centralization of the judicial system was also secured by the creation in 1936 of the People's Commissariat of Justice of the USSR, which was entrusted, in particular, with the management of the courts of the entire state.

The legislation provided for the administration of justice by the courts, and this was indeed implemented in practice when it came to civil and general criminal cases. However, the Constitution and the Law on Judiciary of 1938, listing all possible courts, did not use the limiting adverb - "only". This made it possible to interpret the legislation broadly, i.e. preserve and create bodies of extrajudicial repression, often used when accused of counter-revolutionary crimes. The need for this arose from the special nature of the proceedings in such cases, when it was often necessary to use materials of operational development, which it was impossible to bring to court without disclosing agents and special methods of inquiry. However, this "industrial" need began to be used in order to cover up the gaps in the investigation. Cases poorly substantiated by evidence that would not have passed in court were "passed" through special meetings, where they were sympathetic to the difficulties of colleagues. There were also cases when a large, multi-figure case was divided into two. The main defendants ended up in the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court, and numerous minor accomplices were passed through a special meeting.

A special meeting (OSO) was formed in 1934 during the creation of the NKVD of the USSR. It could apply reprisals, like the judiciary, but without proper procedural guarantees, even without summoning the accused himself. The Special Meeting included serious people - the Deputy People's Commissar of Internal Affairs of the USSR, the authorized NKVD of the USSR for the RSFSR, the head of the Main Police Department, the People's Commissar of Internal Affairs of the union republic on whose territory the case arose. The USSR Prosecutor or his deputy had to attend the meetings of the OSO.

A special meeting replaced the judicial board of the OGPU. According to V.M. Kuritsyn, this meant a mitigation of repression, because the rights of the OSO were less than those of the judicial board, which could even in a narrow composition (three members) apply any punishment up to and including execution. The OSO, however, initially could only order expulsion, deportation, or imprisonment in forced labor camps for up to five years. True, this indulgence was soon eliminated, already in 1937 the OSO received all repressive rights, up to the right to use execution.

Obviously, over time, the CSO could no longer cope with the ever-increasing number of cases. Therefore, in 1935, with a clear excess of power, the order of the NKVD created the so-called troikas, which became, as it were, branches of the OSO in the field. They included: the first secretary of the corresponding regional party committee, the head of the regional department of the NKVD and the regional prosecutor. In 1937, at the height of mass repressions, this construction was further simplified - representatives of party bodies were excluded from the "triples", making "twos". For the first time, "troikas" were invented back in the time of complete collectivization, and not in the center, but in the localities, by local party bodies. They were not sanctioned by law and were only tacitly taken into account by the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks2. In the mid 30s. militia "troikas" were also created to deal with petty offenders in the cities, to cleanse the cities of undesirable elements.

As a result of the activities of all punitive bodies, the number of prisoners by the end of the 30s. increased several times, reaching 1.9 million people It should be noted the high percentage of political prisoners - from 12.8 to 34.5% in different years.

The course towards the development of centralized principles in the state leadership led to the reorganization of the prosecutor's office. Propaganda explained this by the need to strengthen the rule of law. Objectively, the centralization of the prosecutor's office really could help strengthen the rule of law, although it did not always achieve this goal. In June 1933, the USSR Prosecutor's Office was organized. She was responsible for overseeing the compliance of decrees and orders of departments, republican and local bodies with the Constitution and all legislation of the Union, duties for judicial supervision, for initiating criminal prosecution and maintaining charges, for overseeing the legality of the actions of the OGPU, police, criminal investigation and corrective labor institutions. In accordance with this, the Prosecutor's Office of the Supreme Court of the USSR was abolished, and its functions were transferred to the Prosecutor of the USSR.

The establishment of the USSR Prosecutor's Office completed the construction of the system of prosecutorial bodies of the Soviet state. However, this system has not yet reached full unity, since the prosecutor's offices of the Union republics were still under the jurisdiction of the people's commissariats of justice, although the overall leadership of the activities of the republican prosecutor's offices remained with the Prosecutor of the USSR. Yes, and he himself was, as it were, in a double subordination - not only to the Central Executive Committee of the USSR, but also to the government, to which he was responsible. Even both resolutions of 1933 on the establishment of the USSR Prosecutor's Office were issued jointly by the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR.

The formation during this period of special courts for transport (railway line and water transport) also led to the creation of special prosecutor's offices for rail and water transport.

The Constitution of 1936 completed the centralization of the system of prosecutorial bodies of the country, subordinating the republican bodies of the Union. At the same time, the status of the prosecutor's office increased: it left the subordination of the government and began to depend only on the supreme authority of the Union - the Supreme Council.

Centralization was useful, but by itself it could not solve all problems, including personnel. Thus, in 1937, only 9.3% of investigators in the USSR had a higher legal education1.

OPTU-NKVD during this period have undergone significant changes and went down in history not always from the best side.

The OGPU, created during the formation of the USSR, dealt primarily with issues of state security, as well as the fight against political crimes. In 1934, when the NKVD of the USSR was created, it was included in the People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs as the Main Directorate of State Security.

Soviet foreign intelligence, which was carried out by the army intelligence agencies and state security agencies, was very well organized and sometimes gave surprising results. Unfortunately, intelligence data was not always correctly perceived by the country's leadership, which, in particular, later influenced the unsuccessful start of the Great Patriotic War.

The successes of Soviet intelligence were largely due to the fact that it relied not only on paid employees, but also on people who sympathized with us abroad, who considered the Soviet Union the standard-bearer of great ideas and therefore unselfishly performed difficult and dangerous work. Among the overseas intelligence officers were white émigrés, who worked partly out of necessity and partly in the hope of earning a return to their homeland.

From ideological motives, the workers of the Comintern also helped us, who considered the Soviet Union the homeland of all working people.

Unfortunately, foreign intelligence was not spared by repression. Sometimes its best cadres perished, and some disappeared or even went over to the side of our enemies.

Counterintelligence did a good job. Through its efforts, especially in the pre-war period, a number of underground organizations of foreign intelligence agencies were neutralized.

However, along with the struggle against the real enemies of the Soviet Union in the mid-30s. The NKVD also took up inventing enemies, when innocent people were suddenly indicated as alleged agents of Japanese, German, English and who knows what other intelligence services with all the ensuing consequences. Many communists were accused of Trotskyism, which was also considered a crime not only against the party, but also against the state. True, there were some grounds for this, since L.D. Trotsky, expelled from the USSR in 1929, really actively harmed not only Stalin personally, whom he hated, but also the Soviet state, until he was killed in 1940.

Many Soviet citizens were accused of preparing far-fetched terrorist acts, sabotage, and sabotage. I must say that there were always some grounds for accusation. For example, accidents often occurred at enterprises caused by the low technical level of workers who had just arrived from the countryside yesterday, as well as by ordinary slovenliness. But when the case fell into the hands of the NKVD investigators, they gave it a political coloring, although usually the accused did not have any counter-revolutionary intent. Cases of anti-Soviet propaganda and agitation became widespread. It meant almost any criticism of the existing order. This was used by mercenary and unscrupulous people when they wanted, for example, to take the place of a boss or take an apartment from their neighbors.

The resolutions of the OSO only completed the chain of lawlessness perpetrated by the operational and investigative units of the NKVD, which prepared materials for the final decision on specific cases.

It cannot be said that all these lawlessness did not cause any protests, and first of all from the prosecutor's office. In any case, the facts of active opposition to lawlessness are noted in the first half of the 30s. However, there are cases when the prosecutor's response to arbitrariness led to the fact that the prosecutors ended up behind bars. Such a fate befell even the Prosecutor of the USSR I.A. Akulova".

However, in 1935-1937. and the prosecutors themselves were drawn into the ongoing lawlessness, being included in the notorious "threes" and "twos".

The question of the scope of repressions of the 30s. caused a lot of controversy in the press. Some authors estimated the number of repressed people by tens and almost hundreds of millions of people. In recent years, the number of victims of repression has been accurately established. For 1930-1953 it amounted to 3,778,234 convicted by all judicial and extrajudicial bodies, and not 110 million, as one of the authors claimed; 786,098 people were shot. Of course, this is also a huge number. However, it should be borne in mind that in the mass of those convicted there were both innocent and guilty of state crimes. - The development of the militia is closely connected with the history of the NKVD. In 1930, the people's commissariats of internal affairs of the union and autonomous republics were abolished, which were in charge of very diverse branches of government: public utilities, fire protection, the fight against crime, etc. On the basis of their structural subdivisions, sectoral bodies directly subordinated to the Councils of People's Commissars of the republics were created, including the departments of the police and the criminal investigation department1. In 1931, the Regulations on the Workers' and Peasants' Militia of the USSR were issued, which for the first time regulated its organization and activities on a Union scale. The regulation provided for a more complete subordination of the militia to its central bodies. Centralization was strengthened even more when in 1932 the Main Directorate of the Workers 'and Peasants' Militia under the OGPU was created, subordinating the republican police departments. When the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs of the USSR was formed in 1934, the Main Police Department was included in its structure. The centralization of the protection of public order, on the one hand, made it possible to organize the fight against crime more systematically and on a large scale, but on the other hand, it unwittingly fettered the initiative of local workers who were accustomed to waiting for directives from the center.

When the NKVD of the USSR was created, other departments were also subordinate to it: the Main Directorate of the Border and Internal Troops. Main Directorate of Fire Protection, Main Directorate of Correctional Labor Camps and Labor Settlements, Department of Civil Status Acts. Later, it included the Main Directorate of Highways, the Main Directorate of Geodesy and Cartography, the Main Archives Directorate, and others. The NKVD was very swollen, and besides, he had to manage very diverse areas of government. This explains the separation from the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs at the beginning of 1941 of the Main Directorate of State Security, which became an independent People's Commissariat, although there are other opinions.

Control bodies were also reorganized. By decision of the 17th Party Congress, the Central Control Commission of the RKI was abolished. Instead, an independent Commission of Party Control and a Commission of Soviet Control under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR were created. Party control was thus again separated from state control.

In 1940, the Commission of Soviet Control was liquidated and the People's Commissariat of State Control was created instead. It was already a purely bureaucratic body that did not provide for public participation. His main concern was financial control. He did not care about the improvement of the state apparatus, as the RKI did.

Political Science: Dictionary-Reference

Non-judicial bodies

unconstitutional repressive formations carrying out out-of-court consideration of criminal cases. They were first introduced by a decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR of February 21, 1918, by which the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution (VChK) was endowed with the right to extrajudicial consideration of a certain category of cases and sentencing up to the highest measure. They became widespread during the period of mass repressions of the 30-40s - early. 50s Non-judicial bodies (the Collegium of the OGPU, special meetings, “troikas”, “twos”, “highest two”, etc.) considered cases in a simplified manner: without the participation of the defense, and often in the absence of the accused; sentences were not subject to appeal and were carried out immediately.

encyclopedic Dictionary

Non-Judicial Bodies

unconstitutional repressive formations carrying out out-of-court consideration of criminal cases. They were first introduced by a decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR of February 21, 1918, by which the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution (VChK) was endowed with the right to extrajudicial consideration of a certain category of cases and sentencing up to the highest measure. They became widespread during the period of mass repressions of the 30-40s - early. 50s Non-judicial bodies (OGPU Collegium, special meetings, "threes", "deuces", "top two" etc.) considered cases in a simplified manner: without the participation of the defense, and often in the absence of the accused; sentences were not subject to appeal and were carried out immediately.

Extrajudicial bodies are the so-called "extrajudicial" courts, which were widespread in the first half of the 20th century not only in the USSR, but also in other developed countries of the world. One might get the impression that the conversation is about some kind of illegal trials, thanks to which millions of innocent citizens were killed. But it's not. Everything was absolutely legal and natural in that harsh time.

For example, in the publication "History of the USSR" No. 5 for 1991, the following figures are given: "From January 1921 to February 1, 1954, 3 million 770 thousand 390 people were convicted of counterrevolutionary activities, of which . person by extrajudicial bodies". This is 76.7 percent.

The thought arises that in addition to legal courts, there were some other bodies not provided for by law. They handed down death sentences without any trial at the whim of Stalin and his inner circle.

These seemingly incomprehensible judicial formations included the collegiums of the OGPU, the troikas at the departments of internal affairs, and the Special Meeting under the People's Commissar of Internal Affairs. Their function was to eliminate the helplessness of the state judicial system out of court. That is, cases were considered when there was no concrete evidence of crimes. And there were none because no crimes existed at all. The accused were considered potentially dangerous and therefore could not be left free.

This was practiced everywhere. Let's take the USA as an example. In December 1941, Japan attacked this country. And then, out of court, Americans with Japanese origin were put in camps. These citizens did not commit any crimes, but they represented a potential danger to the security of the country. Therefore, they were isolated from society.

With the outbreak of war between England and Germany, thousands of citizens also ended up in prisons on British lands, as they were suspected of sympathizing with the Nazis.

Here is what is written in the book of the British historian L. Dayton "World War II. Mistakes, misses, losses": "Patriotism was an empty phrase for 80 thousand citizens of states hostile to Great Britain. These people were on British territory at the beginning of the war. The authorities, guided by stories about about how spies and saboteurs contributed to the German victory, put potentially dangerous foreigners in camps where conditions were appalling."

But France went even further. In 1914, when the First World War began, thieves, swindlers and other criminals were arrested and shot without trial. The reason for the execution was the reports of police agents. For wartime, the criminal public turned out to be socially dangerous. But officially there was nothing to judge these people for.

The Bolsheviks who came to power in Russia had nothing to invent. Everything that is needed was invented long before them. Extrajudicial protection of the state was introduced on August 14, 1881. This is the so-called "Regulations on measures to protect state order and public peace."

The Bolsheviks didn't even have to come up with a name. In tsarist Russia, the body of extrajudicial defense was called the "Special Meeting under the Minister of the Interior." This body could exile any socially dangerous citizen of the empire to Siberia without trial or investigation for a period of 5 years.

Here is what E. G. Repin reports: “Under Nicholas II, the Special Conference under the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Empire was created in 1896 by decree of the autocrat. In 1906, troikas and other types of “rapid courts” were created. had the right to sentence people to death. The king also issued a decree by which the governor himself could sentence to death. In addition, punitive detachments were created. They had the right to execute any number of people on the spot. "

For the Bolsheviks, a Special Meeting under the People's Commissar of Internal Affairs of the USSR from 1924 to 1937 could send a link for a period of not more than 5 years. In 1937, extrajudicial bodies received more rights. Now they could not only exile citizens for a period not exceeding 5 years, but also put them in camps for the same period or in prison for a period not exceeding 8 years.

The special meetings were extremely representative. They were chaired by the People's Commissar of Internal Affairs of the USSR, and representatives of the NKVD of the Union republics were present. The work of the Special Meeting was supervised by the Prosecutor General of the USSR. He could suspend the decision of high-ranking comrades and appeal it to the Supreme Soviet of the country.

Starting on November 17, 1941, the Special Conference was given the right to impose the death penalty on certain points of Articles 58 and 59. After the end of the war, the death penalty was abolished, so extrajudicial maximum punishment was limited to 25 years in prison. But after the war, this practice became extremely rare, as the lion's share of all cases was taken over by the courts.

It may seem to some people that without a trial, investigation, evidence base, it is impossible to condemn people. However, let's take a look at the statements of former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark: “In our country, 90% of all sentences are handed down by a single judge. Moreover, the case is not considered on the merits.

Of the remaining judgments, 5% of sentences are handed down by a single judge on the basis of a "judicial deal" between the prosecution and the defense, with the participation of the judge. That is, the accused, for admitting his guilt according to the accusation formulas, fully or partially discusses his punishment. And this does not apply to trifling crimes, but to murders, robberies, rape and other especially serious acts.

The rest of the cases are considered in court on the merits in accordance with the decision of the defense of the accused, either alone by the judge, or by a jury. In this case, the jury only issues a verdict of guilt or innocence. The judge alone determines the measure of punishment."

And one more interesting detail. In 1991, the US Supreme Court ruled: "During the investigation, forced confessions obtained even as a result of violation of the constitutional rights of persons suspected of a crime may be taken into account."

All this is not very good, but on the other hand, what do we care about justice in other countries. It is important for us that there is justice in our country. And it has long since abandoned extrajudicial bodies. Nowadays, a person can be given a real term only by a court decision.