105

Prisoners of Conscience in the USSR: Their Treatment and Conditions. (An Report).

Nottingham, England: Russell Press, 1975. 154 pp. 85 pence/$2.00. ISBN 0-900058-13-7.

It might seem unfairly elitist to focus a study on the abuse of political of the Soviet Union while ignoring the treatment of non-political prisoners. Should not the treatment of the common criminal be of at least equal interest to the international human rights observer? After all, the common thief, presumably being less articulate than his more idealistic dissident colleague, might welcome some outside representation. ' This Amnesty International report justifies the attention given political prisoners.' To be a political of the Soviet Union is not an elitist experience. By Amnesty's conservative estimate, there are at least 10,000 prisoners of conscience, not including those in psychiatric institutions. Furthermore, while Amnesty addresses itself to the treat- ment of those persons imprisoned for their non-violent beliefs (hence the term "prisoners of conscience" herein- after also referred to as political prisoners), not all such persons are even outspoken opponents of the Soviet State. The practice of such a seemingly modest activity as to teach religion has been a frequent ground for imprison- ment. By classifying them as dangerous criminals, the Soviet courts frequently render political prisoners eligible for a special penal regime. As a rule of practice, although not of theory, the prisoners of conscience are thereby singled out for harsher treatment than common criminals-sometimes at the hands of common criminal convicts. In special psychiatric institutions, common criminals with violent tendencies serve as orderlies for the patients. So tight is the control over the patients that they may not use toilet facilities without permission from the orderlies. The hierarchy of medical responsibility is so restricted, that even if the doctors wanted to (many 2 are members of the KGB or MVD) they would not have the authority to discipline an orderly for beating a patient. Within the , Amnesty documents a legalized practice of what amounts to systematic starvation of prisoners. Depending on a political prisoner's behavior he may be transferred to a with a more or less severe dietary regime. If a prisoner becomes ill, he may expect to be ignored as a malingerer or to receive inadequate treatment. 106

For example, one Jewish prisoner who sought treatment for a heart ailment was told to less time "spend learning. Hebrew".3 Amnesty, which has consultative status with the United Nations on human rights issues, does not try to answer the philosophical reasons, if any, for the brutality reportedly practiced against political prisoners. Some historical back- ground is offered to explain how, initially, psychiatric institutions saved persons who would otherwise have received more brutal consequences for their acts during Stalinist repression. However, this concise report is pri- marily a straightforward factual compilation of whatever Amnesty has learned about the treatment of Soviet prison- ers of conscience. It should be noted that Amnesty relies heavily on unofficial reports (often Samizdat or under- ground, literally "self-publication" materials), although Amnesty is confident of the truth of its allegations, since the unofficial reports are mutually corroborative. Soviet views were sought on the accuracy and interpretation of the facts in the report, but the only comment received was a letter from Lev Smimov as President of the Soviet Lawyer's 4 Association calling the report a "vulgar falsification".4 Nevertheless, the tone of the report is deliberately non- polemical in order to let the facts speak for themselves. And Amnesty makes it clear that it is only trying to present the facts as it has learned them from sources it has found to be reliable. The report is provocative, if frustratingly devoid of general commentary, on the legal issues. We are presented with a mass of contradictory laws and extra-legal practices applied unequally, secretively and arbitrarily to political prisoners. The Soviet constitutional guarantee of free speech is whittled to almost nothing by criminal laws actually applied to dissidents for defaming the state. While the Russian code of criminal procedure has been applied to vindicate the rights of ordinary citizens, Amnesty knows of no case in which the rights of a prisoner of conscience has been vindicated on procedural grounds-even though trials of dissidents are characterized by gross violations of criminal procedure. A fundamental principle of penal legislation- that prisoners are not to be abused-remains unapplied as to political prisoners and is in fact belied by the legalized practice of punitive dietary restrictions. Rules do not even exist to protect political patients abused while in the custody of special psychiatric institutions. Yet the reader may glean an undeviating consistency from Amnesty's presentation of Soviet law: As to political