[Communicated to the Council Official No.: C.190. M.79. 1934- VII. and the Members of the League.]
Geneva, May 12th, 1934.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS
INCIDENTS WHICH HAVE OCCURRED ON THE FRONTIER BETWEEN HUNGARY AND YUGOSLAVIA
COMMUNICATION FROM THE HUNGARIAN GOVERNMENT
Note by the Secretary-General :
The Secretary-General has the honour to communicate to the Council, for consideration, the following letter, dated May 8th, which he has received from the Hungarian Government.
LETTER FROM THE HUNGARIAN MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
Budapest, May 8th, 1934. On behalf of the Royal Hungarian Government, I have the honour to communicate to you, and through you to the Council of the League of Nations, the following application :
Subject of the Application. The Hungarian Government has for several years past been watching with the greatest anxiety the serious incidents that are continually occurring at the frontier between Hungary and Yugoslavia in consequence of the patently hostile attitude of the Yugoslav authorities and officials towards the Hungarian population. Those authorities and their officials are con stantly—and, it would seem, systematically—committing acts and taking measures which result in fatal incidents and other atrocities and deplorable occurrences. The outcome of all these proceedings is a situation unparalleled in Europe, and one of which the gravity cannot but be realised.
Reasons. 1 he countless complaints made in this connection by the population of the frontier-zone against the Yugoslav authorities, and also the attitude of the Yugoslav Government in refusing to make any attempt at a direct settlement of the dispute in question, make it imperative to appeal to an international authority. It is in the hope that this step may have the effect of restoring that order and calm which are indispensable that the Hungarian Government thinks it expedient to lay all the questions at issue before the Council’s impartial judgment. The tragic end of the many persons who have succumbed to the cruel and unjustified use firearms by the Yugoslav frontier-guards has naturally aroused great feeling on each occasion among the people of that area, and has had considerable repercussions among the Public in Hungary.
Antecedents. It must be established and placed upon record that the responsibility falls upon the ugoslav Government ; for, as will hereinafter be shown, the authors of the fatal incidents yi question, have always and without exception been officials of the Yugoslav frontier-guards. e Hungarian Government has duly brought each case in which the vital interests of its na 10nals were at stake to the notice of the Belgrade Government, with a view to obtaining
Series of League of Nations Publications
S' 4 N' J 025 (F.J. 970 (A.). 5/34. Imp. J. de G. VII. POLITICAL 1934. VII. 3. satisfaction, but has had but little success ; it has also many times appealed to that Govern ment to come to an amicable settlement of, at all events, a few fundamental questions. All the Royal Hungarian Government’s efforts, however, to secure the termination of the intolerable state of affairs established by the Yugoslav authorities at the Hungarian frontier failed in face of the categorical refusal of the Yugoslav Government.
Proposals for Uniformity in the Regulations regarding the Use of Firearms by Frontier-Guards. Being of opinion that one of the chief causes of these unfortunate incidents is to be found in the unduly liberal interpretation placed upon the right to use firearms by the Yugoslav frontier-guards, and having regard to the considerable differences between the regulations governing the use of arms by the Yugoslav and by the Hungarian frontier-guards, the latter regulations being much more restrictive and influenced by humanitarian principles, the Hun garian Government has several times asked the Yugoslav Government to agree, in the interests of general tranquillity, to have the regulations in question made uniform by common consent.
The Yugoslav Government’s Refusal. The direct negotiations opened on this matter by M. de Alth, Hungarian Minister at Belgrade, led, after some delays, to an oral reply from M. Pur itch, Secretary-General in the Yugoslav Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to the effect that his Government refused to make any change whatever in the regulations governing the use of firearms by the Yugoslav frontier- guards. This reply was followed by a written statement to the same effect, which already reveals the intention of evading responsibility.
The General Interests of Peace. Reference to the League Covenant. Unquestionably, however, the present state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue ; for, even though it does not yet threaten to disturb the peace, the fact remains that it does seriously threaten ‘ ‘ to disturb the good understanding between nations upon which peace depends ”. It seems superfluous to point out to the Council of the League the dangers that are liable to arise, to-day more than ever, out of disputes between States, if they are not settled in time. In view of the present highly tense political atmosphere in Europe, there are numerous reasons for eliminating any factor that might inflame that atmosphere. Every relief of tension, even regionally, every rapprochement, even partial, would necessarily contribute to a general reconciliation, and hence would serve the great cause of European recovery, which is at the present time one of the principal tasks of the League. Thinking along these lines, the Hungarian Government has become convinced that it is its duty to appeal to the Council, not merely for the sake of those of its nationals who are affected, but also out of respect for the great international interests that demand the maintenance of good relations between the nations. In doing so, it believes itself justified in appealing to Article n , paragraph 2, of the League Covenant.
Specification of Actual Cases. As for the actual cases on which this application is founded, it is essentially their great number, and the fact that they are being continually—indeed, systematically—repeated, that claim attention, apart from the cruelty that has frequently been observed in the actions of the Yugoslav officials. Some of these complaints are, of course, of minor importance ; but it must not be forgotten that even an injury of minor importance may, if continually repeated, lead to an intolerable situation. The same is true, a fortiori, of the fatal incidents, some of which are of unwonted gravity. A list (Annex 1) which does not claim to be exhaustive, but contains a number of incidents and atrocities that have recently occurred at the frontier between Hungary and Yugoslavia, is appended to this document, together with (Annex 2) the exchanges of notes dealing with the incidents in regard to which the Hungarian Government has made diplomatic representations.
I. —- F r o n t ie r I n c id e n t s .
The following cases may be mentioned as examples. First, the case of John Bali, aged 19, a Hungarian national, who, on May 27th, 1933, wished to go from one village to another situated near the frontier, but also in Hungarian territory, and who lost his way near G yékényes and thus entered Yugoslav territory. Realising his mistake, he at once turned back so as to re-enter Hungary. He was arrested by a Yugoslav frontier-guard and later taken into Yugo slavia. On the way, he was killed by the bullet of a Yugoslav guard. In the reply received from the Yugoslav Government on this matter, the latter endeavoured to explain this fatal use 01 firearms by stating that Bali, who was taken from Gotalovo to Botovo by a short cut crossing the frontier, noticing the boundary mark, tried to escape and ran towards the frontier, where upon, after firing into the air, one of the Yugoslav guards killed him. The Yugoslav Government made similar excuses to justify the cruel attitude of the Yugoslav frontier-guards in connection with the Budinci incident, when two H u n g a r i a n nationals, Charles Dravecz and Stephen Mâkos, were shot by these guards. These two men were killed at the same time, last Christmas eve. According to the Yugoslav reply to the diplomatie representations made in regard to this matter, the two men, after being arrested, attempted to escape by running in the direction of the frontier. Thereupon, the frontier- guards, as asserted in the Yugoslav reply, “ after summoning them to stop, opened fire and killed them both outright ”. Contrary to the assertions in the Yugoslav note, it was established by the investigations of the Hungarian authorities that the true facts of the case were altogether different from the Yugoslav version. The two men were first arrested and then taken to the Cepinci barracks, being compelled to walk barefoot through the snow—a fact which aroused keen indignation among the population. At Cepinci, a guard was ordered to take them to Hodos. It should be noted that this official selected a longer and worse road than the normal route, a path running through a dense forest near the frontier. In the forest, the two men were killed by the Yugoslav frontier-guards. Dravecz’ body bore traces of three bullet wounds and a wound caused by a cutting weapon, while Makos was shot in the stomach. It is hard to understand why it should have been necessary and how it wras possible to use a bayonet against a person who, it was asserted in the Yugoslav reply, was running away, and why two Hungarian nationals should be killed, even if they had been guilty of smuggling, since it was not when they were caught in the act that the Yugoslav guards fired on them, but several hours after their arrest. All this seems to indicate that the unfortunate men were, in any case, to meet their deaths in the Budinci forest, near the frontier-line, so as to make the version that they had “ run away ” more plausible.
Special attention should be drawn to the case of Joseph Jakopanec, a Hungarian national, 20 years of age, who was also killed in the course of an incident provoked by a Yugoslav frontier-guard. According to the concordant statements of several eye-witnesses, the facts were as follows :
Jakopanec, who was clad only in a bathing-suit, was bathing, on August 21st, 1932, near the Hungarian commune of Totszerdahely, in the River Mura, across which he was swimming. When he came to the Yugoslav side, he rested for a time, still in the water, then took a few steps upstream, so that he could more easily swim back to the place from which he had started. At that moment, a Yugoslav frontier-guard, who had previously been hidden, came out of the bushes and attempted to seize the young man : the latter instinctively began to swim towards the Hungarian bank, when the guard suddenly ordered him to stop and at once fired on him. Jakopanec, who was wounded, came out of the water and collapsed. The Yugoslav guards, who had appeared on the scene, carried him up the bank and tried to dress his wound, but refused to accept the offer made by the Hungarians to fetch medical assistance. The man, who was seriously wounded, was thus left lying on the ground naked, exposed to the bites of insects and with a frontier-guard covering him with his rifle. He expired after six hours’ suffering. The explanation given by the Yugoslav authorities that Jakopanec was carrying a parcel and was therefore suspected of smuggling is a very feeble attempt to justify this terrible act and the inhuman attitude subsequently adopted by the guards. This explanation is all the more untenable, since it was categorically denied by the eyewitnesses. As the careful investi gations undertaken by the Hungarian authorities led to diametrically opposite findings to those of the Yugoslav authorities, the Hungarian Government proposed to the Yugoslav Government that the matter should be cleared up by a joint commission consisting of delegates of both Governments. However, the Belgrade Government has not yet seen fit to reply to this proposal, which was made on July 19th, 1933.
A few other cases may be mentioned : Two persons, John Vôrôs and Michael Horvath, both of them Hungarian nationals, were killed, near Kisszerdahely, on November 23rd and 25th, 1931, respectively. Vôrôs, who was a rich farmer owning land on both sides of the frontier and who had a “ special frontier-card ” authorising him to cross the frontier at any time, crossed into Yugoslav territory in order to cut wood on his land there. A few hours later his body was found near the frontier-line bearing the mark of a bullet, while his axe, stained with blood, was found in Hungarian territory. John Vôrôs was killed in Hungarian territory and his body then dragged to the spot where it was subsequently found. The traces left by the removal of the body—footprints leading from the body across the frontier-line—were carefully obliterated later by the Yugoslav frontier-guards. In this case, therefore, there was not only a murder, but a violation of the territorial sovereignty of Hungary. In the same sector, Michael Horvath was killed two days later by Yugoslav frontier-guards when attempting to cross the frontier at a point which is not one of the regular crossing-places. A trivial offence—that of unlawfully crossing the frontier—was thus punished by four rifle shots which caused the immediate death of an innocent man, the father of a family. Since the facts established by the Hungarian authorities were at variance with the result °f the enquiries carried out by the Yugoslav authorities, the Hungarian Government proposed on two occasions to appoint a joint commission to examine on the spot the two cases of Vôrôs and Horvath, as they considered that only a commission of this nature could arrive at satis factory results. However, the Yugoslav Government obstinately refused to accept this equitable proposal. - 4 -
On May 27th, 1933, a Yugoslav frontier-guard brutally ill-treated an old man of 60 named Joseph Tiiske, who is paralysed in his left hand. This act was the more shocking in that it took place, according to the depositions of eye-witnesses, in Hungarian territory. The Yugoslav official went on beating the old man until he was stopped by several persons present. Contrary to the negative reply of the Yugoslav Government, the guilty person—the Yugoslav frontier- guard Peron himself—admitted before a Hungarian authority—the chief of the Lenti frontier- guard—that he had ill-treated Tiiske. A similar case occurred on November 13th, 1932, when Gabriel Gyuran, a Hungarian national and an old man of 61, was beaten by a Yugoslav guard, with the result that he was obliged to keep to his bed for six weeks. The medical certificate to the effect that several of his ribs had been broken was placed at the disposal of the Yugoslav authorities with a view to obtaining compensation, but so far this has- not been granted.
General Nature of the Incidents. It should be noted that a closer examination of all these incidents shows that they present certain common features which cannot be ignored. For instance, it is obvious that in every case, almost without exception, in which firearms were used, the victim was killed ; only in a few rare cases did he escape with wounds. Another striking feature is that persons arrested by the Yugoslav officials are often escorted along the frontier, even if that is not the most direct route. This usually leads to an attempt to escape on the part of the victims—judging at least by the notes of the Yugoslav Government. However, flight is necessarily followed by the use of firearms which, in every case, the findings of the subsequent enquiry deemed to be justifiable. Consequently, no one is ever held responsible for these revolting murders. In view of the foregoing, one is inclined to think that these incidents are part of a regular system. We need only refer to the above-mentioned cases of Bali, Makos, Dravecz, Horvath and others included in the attached list.
Brutal Treatment by Yugoslav Officials. Here again stress should be laid on the cruel and inhuman treatment by the Yugoslav guards of persons arrested or detained. We need only refer to the unfortunate Jakopanec, who was seriously wounded and left to die without medical assistance ; the old men Tüske and Gyurân, who were brutally ill-treated ; and Makos and Dravecz, who were compelled, before being killed, to walk barefoot through the snow. Murders and cruelty of this kind can in no case be excused by a mere reference to the existing regulations to which the frontier-guards are subject. Hungary also keeps a careful and successful watch over her frontiers by means of a smaller body of frontier-guards and without applying such methods. In this connection, the Hungarian Government wishes to stress that, for the period 1931-1933, no one was killed on the same frontier-line by Hungarian officials, whereas the number of victims fatally wounded by Yugoslav officials amounts to fifteen, apart from other atrocities which did not result in the death of the persons concerned.
Explanations of the Yugoslav Government. In order to defend itself and to excuse the acts committed by its officials, the Yugoslav Government has on several occasions attempted to adduce the principle of legitimate defence, asserting that Yugoslavia is obliged to take vigorous measures to protect herself against subversive elements and political terrorists coming from abroad, and particularly from Hungary. This is also the impression which the many inspired articles published on this subject in the Yugoslav Press endeavour to convey. In point of fact, the Hungarian Government possesses a considerable body of information to the effect that a number of political crimes, explosions, murders, etc., have recently been committed in Yugoslavia, the means for which were imported from abroad by Croat and Macedonian emigrants who are Yugoslav nationals. The Hungarian Government, which has no desire to meddle in the internal affairs of a foreign State, does not propose to examine the real causes of all this agitation in Yugoslavia ; it would merely state that in no case did any of the murders committed at the Hungarian frontier by Yugoslav officials prevent the execution of or reveal any organised plot against Yugoslavia.
Political Innocence of the Victims. On the contrary, the victims—peasants, workmen, youths—were, without exception, innocent of any attempt to stir up agitation in the neighbouring State, and took no interest whatever in politics. This fact, which should be noted, and which even the Yugoslav Govern ment cannot deny, destroys the argument as to the necessity for maintaining the present frontier regime. The foregoing account explains the curious fact that the population believed certain rumours to the effect that a price of 1,000 to 1,200 dinars had been set upon the head of any Hungarian by the Yugoslav authorities. The Hungarian Government has received several reports of these rumours, which, in any case, it considers characteristic of the state of mind prevailing in the frontier-zone. Before concluding the chapter dealing with incidents, it may perhaps be expedient to compare the situation on the frontier in question with that obtaining on the Hungaro- R oum anian frontier. Although the latter is absolutely open and has no natural protection, no fatal incident or happening of any importance has occurred during recent years. The few difficult cases which occurred in the past were settled by joint commissions, a remedy which has also proved to be satisfactory in relations between Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
Yugoslav Refusal to agree to the Appointment of Joint Commissions.
It is therefore all the more incomprehensible that the Yugoslav Government should refuse so persistently-—unless it has serious reasons to fear an impartial enquiry—to accept the suggestion that a joint commission be appointed to clear up, at any rate, the most serious cases.
II. — E conomic G r ie v a n c e s .
In addition to the series of serious incidents and atrocities described above, the inhabitants of the frontier districts frequently suffer from the consequences of administrative and economic measures directed against them without any sound reason.
Traffic in the Frontier-Zone.
Those most seriously affected by the foregoing measures are the so-called " dual ” or “ trans-frontier ” owners—i.e., persons habitually residing in one frontier-zone while owning land in the frontier-zone of the other country. In order to enable such persons to cultivate their holdings and, in general, to grant such facilities for traffic between the two frontier-zones as were called for by the requirements of every-day life, the two countries concluded international agreements introducing a system of special privileges to apply equally to the zones on each side of the frontier (in principle, the zone comprises the territory on each side of the frontier to a depth of ten kilometres). The basis of this system of special treatment was laid down in the " Provisions concerning the special privileges granted to frontier-traffic ”, which forms Annex A to the Treaty of Commerce between Hungary and Yugoslavia, signed in Belgrade on July 24th, 1926. Under these “ Provisions ”, trans-frontier landholders acquired the right to obtain a species of pass described as “ special frontier-permits”, to be issued by their home authorities and visaed by the authorities of the other State. Under the above-mentioned international agreement, the two Governments further undertook to permit the import and export of a wide range of articles and goods without payment of duty or taxes either on import or export and the list naturally included agricultural produce raised on the land of those concerned.
Unwarranted Delays.
The foregoing brief description of the system previously applied to traffic in the frontier- zones has been included in order to facilitate understanding of the position of the inhabitants of the districts in question and the prejudice caused them by the Yugoslav authorities. Such prejudice is due to the most varied causes, but in all cases it may be traced to the same under lying purpose—viz., to make frontier-traffic impossible or at least reduce it to a minimum. Thus it very frequently happens that, the above-mentioned “ Provisions ” notwith standing, the Yugoslav authorities either fail to place their visa upon the special frontier- permit or do not return them until weeks or even several months have elapsed—that is to say, when the time for the most important classes of agricultural work is already past. Such an attitude is in direct conflict with the “ Protocol of Belgrade ” , signed on October 1st, 1929, to supplement the Treaty of Commerce and regulate the application of Annex A ; the Protocol provides that all the administrative formalities in respect of frontier-permits shall be completed by February 15th or March 1st of each year.
Specific Cases.
As examples of the unwarranted attitude which the Yugoslav authorities have taken up ln this matter, the following cases and facts are particularly striking : In 1933, it was not until April 25th that the Yugoslav authorities returned to the Hunga- rian authorities the special frontier-permits of the trans-frontier landholders of the Madaras area, while in the Katymâr-Gara district the permits were not returned until May 25th. ^imilarly, on May 27th, the Tiead of the Bares district reported that the Yugoslav authorities had not yet returned the special permits of 168 trans-frontier landholders, together with faose of 413 other persons, despite the fact that all the necessary documents had been supplied !n §°°d time. This year, according to another complaint (dated May 7th, 1934) which I have ]"st received from the Bares district, the Yugoslav Government officials have not yet permitted Persons residing in the communes of Babôcsa, Bolhô, Heresznye and Vizvàr to cross the frontier ln order to work their land in the frontier-zone. In other cases, the Yugoslav authorities refuse to issue the communal property certificates °n basis of which the special permits are issued by the Hungarian authorities. According - 6 -
to the reports received, such certificates had still not been issued to landholders in the Kunbaja, Bàcsalmâs, Csikéria and Tompa districts as late as the end of February 1934. In July 1933, trans-frontier landholders resident in Szeged, together with others resident in the district lying between the Danube and the Tisza, were prevented from entering Yugoslav territory, even though they were all in possession of the regulation cards duly visaed by the Yugoslav authorities ; similarly, in the Ivàndàrda-Sàrok district, the Yugoslav authorities prohibited, as from November 1st, 1932, the entry into Yugoslavia of all trans-frontier landholders and their employees, and at the same time confiscated their frontier-permits, even though the latter were in order.
Obstacles placed in the Way of the Export of Agricultural Produce. The Yugoslav authorities have also done everything in their power to place obstacles in the way of the export by persons residing on the Hungarian side of the frontier of the agricultural produce raised on their holdings in Yugoslavia. It has already been explained that, originally, the export of such produce was duty and tax free. On May 18th, 1932, however, the “ Provisions ” in Annex A to the Treaty of Commerce, which granted this privilege, ceased to apply, and the Yugoslav Government at once made the export of such produce subject to very heavy duties and taxes, the rate of which varied, moreover, according to the point at which the frontier was crossed. The Yugoslav Government obstinately set its face against any extension of the validity of the “ Provisions ", and even rejected Hungary’s proposal for a conference between experts, while at the same time admitting that, in its opinion, those holding land in one country and residing in the other should be obliged to dispose of their property and that it was in the interests of both States that the right to cross the frontier should be limited to the absolute minimum. It should be noted that, in spite of the Belgrade Government’s unfriendly attitude, Yugoslav nationals continue to enjoy the privileges stipulated in the above-mentioned “ Provisions ” in respect of their holdings in Hungary, and that the Hungarian authorities place no obstacles in the way of the exportation of their produce.
Insufficiency of Customs Routes. Another consequence of the new system introduced on the expiry of the “ Provisions” which has caused great inconvenience to Hungarian farmers is that they were no longer able, as formerly, to export their produce from Yugoslavia by any recognised route, but found themselves obliged by the Customs regulations to use the special “ Customs ” routes. Unfor tunately, however, out of the eighty-four routes which may be used in the ordinary way, there are only nine “ Customs ” routes (not including the seven railway lines and one waterway). As all the agricultural produce raised by those concerned along a frontier 480 kilometres in length must be transported via the nine routes in question, it is easy to imagine the enormous detour which Hungarian landholders (in most cases, poor peasants) must make in order to reach their place of residence. Madaras landholders, for example, have to make a detour of 148 kilometres in order go clear the produce of their land in the Yugoslav frontier-zone through the nearest Yugoslav Customs House, which is at Horgos. What further proof could be needed to justify the request that steps should be taken to end the present intolerable situation.
Petty Persecution in Fiscal Matters.
One of the most serious respects in which prejudice has been caused to the inhabitants of the frontier-zone is perhaps the petty persecution to which they are subjected in fiscal matters. Many cases are known in which the export from Yugoslavia of produce r a i s e d on holdings owned by Hungarian nationals was suddenly prohibited by the Yugoslav authorities on the ground that the owners had not paid taxes or other dues payable to the Yugoslav revenue authorities. Apart from the question of whether the Yugoslav Government’s claim to make the export of produce in such cases dependent upon full payment of taxes is w arranted or unwarranted, it must be observed that many acts of injustice have been committed under this pretext. It has very frequently happened, for example, that, in spite of full p a y m e n t of all taxes, the produce raised by Hungarian landholders as the result of hard work has been seized by the Yugoslav authorities and shortly afterwards sold by auction at an absurdly low price. Thus, on April 30th, 1933, the produce of several Babocsa landholders was seized by the Yugoslav authorities and, although those concerned all produced receipts to prove that their taxes had been duly paid, was auctioned at Krizsnicapuszta within ten days and without the owners’ knowledge. The local Yugoslav officials announced that certain of the H ungarian landholders had still not paid their taxes and maintained that the whole class of trans-frontier landholders were jointly responsible “ all for one and one for all ”. . The following incident, which also occurred in the neighbourhood of Babocsa, is especially significant. On November n th , 1933, several Yugoslav frontier-guards entered Hungarian territory by crossing the frontier at Pitomaca-Babocsa and, after firing a few shots to frighten away t swineherds, they drove away a herd of 107 pigs (first-class stock) across the frontier into Yugosia territory. The pigs were the property of Julius Merész, a Hungarian national whose vvi is the owner of Somssich, an old property situated at Babocsa and now intersected by the frontier-line. The animals were immediately seized by the Yugoslav financial authorities and subsequently sold by auction at a price much below their real value ; according to the explanations given on the Yugoslav side, the whole purpose of this proceeding was to secure payment of arrears of taxes due in respect of that part of the estate which is situated in Yugoslav territory. Now, in entering Hungarian territory, armed to make a seizure, the Yugoslav officials not only caused considerable prejudice to the interests of a Hungarian national who suffered a serious loss but, by this wholly unprecedented act, seriously violated the territorial sovereignty of the Hungarian State. The Hungarian Government regrets to state that, in spite of repeated representations to the Belgrade Government, it has failed to obtain any satisfaction for this serious violation of its frontier or any reparation for the material loss caused to the owner of the animals. As the Yugoslav Government sought to disclaim all responsibility by maintaining that the seizure of the herd had been effected in Yugoslav territory and by actually questioning M. Merész’s rights of ownership—which is contrary both to the evidence of eye-witnesses and to the facts as ascertained by the Hungarian authorities—the Hungarian Government proposed that, as the results of the enquiries carried out by each side were flatly contradictory, the whole question should be referred to a joint commission for elucidation. Again, however, the Belgrade Government refused to accept the proposal for the setting-up of a joint commission. Certain residents of Bolho owning land covering a total area of 300 jugars in the Yugoslav frontier-zone had paid all the taxes due to the Yugoslav revenue authorities up to the spring of 1933 ; otherwise, they would have been unable to obtain a visa from the Yugoslav autho rities. The produce which they raised on the land in question was, nevertheless, seized by the Yugoslav authorities on the ground that arrears of taxes were still owing ; notification of sale after seizure was received by them on August 7th, the date fixed for the sale being August 8th and 9th. All their produce was indeed sold by auction at extremely low prices—ostensibly on account of taxes subsequently assessed in respect of the year 1932. As a result, those concerned have sustained enormous losses. Certain of them who endeavoured to save the rest of their crops by transporting them across the frontier by clandestine means were detected in the act by the Yugoslav police, who arrested them and escorted them handcuffed to their place of detention. A very typical case of this kind is that of the Hungarian nationals holding land at Gola, a village situated in the Yugoslav frontier-zone. The Yugoslav authorities refused to provide the persons in question with certificates attesting their ownership of land in Yugoslavia and demanded payment of certain taxes illegally assessed on the holdings in question which, since the Treaty of Trianon, have ceased to appear on the Gola land register, having been transferred thirteen years ago to that of Gyékényes, a commune situated in Hungary. It was in vain that those concerned protested and endeavoured to prove that the land in question was not under Yugoslav sovereignty and that taxes had been paid on it in Hungary. The only excuse given by the Yugoslav Government, when representations were made through diplomatic channels, was that the necessary corrections had not yet been made in the land registers.
Closing of the Frontier. It very frequently happens that the local Yugoslav frontier-authorities quite unexpectedly order the closing of the frontier in the areas under their jurisdiction. All traffic is prohibited for from two to eight days, the districts most frequently affected being those of Horgos, Bâcsalmâs, Bajmok, Kunbaja, Csikéria and Mélykut, together with the district lying between the Drave and the Danube. Such proceedings naturally cause serious prejudice to the interests of Hungarian landholders.
Apparent Political Aims. In order to realise what lies behind all these illegal acts and vexations measures directed against the peaceable inhabitants of the frontier-zones—carried to the point of depriving them of their means of livelihood and even of life itself—emphasis should be laid upon the tact that the motives by which the Yugoslav Government is actuated are essentially political and frankly anti-Hungarian. This policy would appear to be directed to two ends : the elimination of all Hungarian elements from the Yugoslav frontier-zone, together with the complete abolition of the frontier-traffic and of all points of passage across the frontier-line ; this policy undoubtedly aims at stamping out the economic and cultural relations which the inhabitants of the two frontier-zones have for centuries maintained.
Violation of Freedom of Traffic. Now the policy pursued by the Yugoslav Government, which causes prejudice to the interests not only of the population primarily affected but of the Hungarian Government so. is first and foremost in striking contradiction to the well-established principle of freedom traffic which the League of Nations has always upheld. There is, therefore, every reason a th ■ ^rm conviction that, in the present circumstances, the League of Nations is the only i nority capable of putting: an end to conditions which weigh heavily upon the inhabitants of the districts concerned. — 8 —
Co n c l u sio n s.
Actuated by a sincere desire for the re-establishment of order and tranquillity along its frontier, the Hungarian Government has instructed me to request you to call the attention of the Council of the League of Nations to the circumstances set out above, which may seriously affect relations between Hungary and Yugoslavia ; the Hungarian Government hopes that the Council will be able to settle the dispute which has thus arisen between two Members of the League of Nations, either by sending an international commission of enquiry or by any other means which it may think expedient. (Signed) K â n y a , Hungarian Minister for Foreign Affairs. — 9 —
Annex 1.
VARIOUS INCIDENTS ON THE FRONTIER BETWEEN HUNGARY AND YUGOSLAVIA CAUSED BY MEMBERS OF THE YUGOSLAV FRONTIER-GUARD.
1. On November 23rd, 1931, John Vôrôs, Hungarian national, a rich dual landowner and holder of a special permanent frontier-card authorising him to cross the frontier, was killed, near Kisszerdahely, in the immediate vicinity of the frontier, in Hungarian territory. He had gone to his estate in Yugoslav territory to cut wood. A fewr hours later, he was found dead close to the frontier-line. The body showed traces of a bullet wound. His axe was found stained with blood in Hungarian territory. John Vôrôs was killed in Hungarian territory and his body then dragged to the spot w'here it was subsequently found. The traces left by the removal of the body—footprints leading from the body across the frontier-line—were carefully obliterated later by the Y ugoslav frontier-guards. In this case, therefore, there was not only a murder but a violation of the territorial sovereignty of Hungary.
2 . In the same sector, Michael Horvath, Hungarian national, was killed twTo days later, on November 25th, 1931, by the Yugoslav frontier-guards, when he wras trying to cross the frontier at a point not used as a regular crossing-place. A trivial offence—that of unlawfully crossing the frontier—wras thus punished in this particular case by four rifle-shots that caused the immediate death of an innocent man, the father of a family. Seeing that the facts established by the Hungarian authorities w'ere at variance with the findings of the enquiries carried out by the Yugoslav authorities, the Hungarian Govern ment proposed, on two occasions, that a joint commission be instructed to examine the Vôrôs and Horvath cases on the spot, being of opinion that only a commission of that kind could arrive at satisfactory results. The Y ugoslav Government consistently refused, however, to accept this reasonable proposal.
3. On June 2nd, 1932, John Erôs, Hungarian national, was killed by a Yugoslav frontier- guard, near Madaras, close to the frontier. Eros, having unlawfully crossed the frontier, is alleged not to have stopped when summoned by the Yugoslav authorities to do so.
4. Joseph Jakopanec, aged 20, was killed by a Yugoslav frontier-guard on August 21st, 1932, near the Hungarian village of Tôtszerdahely. This incident, according to the concordant depositions of several eye-witnesses, occurred as follows : Jakopanec, clad only in a bathing-suit, bathed in the River Mura and swam across it. On reaching the Yugoslav bank he rested, still in the water, then walked a few steps upstream in order to swim back more easily to his starting-point. At that moment, a Yugoslav frontier- guard, who had been hiding until then, came out of the bushes and attempted to seize the young man : the latter instinctively took to flight in the direction of the Hungarian bank, when the guard suddenly ordered him to stop and immediately fired on him. Jakopanec, wounded, came out of the water and collapsed. The Yugoslav officials who had hastened up carried him on to the bank and tried to dress his wound, but refused to accept the Hungarian offer to obtain the necessary medical assistance. The man remained thus, seriously wounded, lying naked, exposed to the bites of insects, with a frontier-guard covering him with his rifle, and he expired after six hours’ suffering. The explanation given by the Yugoslav authorities, declaring that Jakopanec was carrying a parcel and therefore suspected of being engaged m smuggling, is simply a weak attempt to justify this terrible act and the inhuman attitude subsequently adopted by the guards. This explanation is all the more untenable, since it was categorically denied by eye-witnesses. As the result of the careful investigations made by the Hungarian authorities led to findings diametrically opposed to those of the Y ugoslav authorities, the Hungarian Government proposed to the Yugoslav Government that the case should be cleared up by a joint commission consisting of delegates of both Governments. The Belgrade Government, however, has not yet replied to this proposal, which was made on July 19th, 1933.
5 . M. Aladâr Gyertyânffy, Hungarian national, a stud-farm inspector, who was travelling 011 AugUst 31st, 1932, and stopped at the railway-station at Gyékényes, lost his way when walking in the neighbourhood of that station and involuntarily crossed the frontier. After he had taken a few steps on Yugoslav territory, M. Gyertyânffy was arrested and escorted by the Yugoslav guards and later imprisoned at Zagreb. He was not released, despite repeated diplomatic interventions at Belgrade laying stress on the absolutely innocent character of his mistake, until December 10th, 1932, after having undergone, without valid reason, three and a half months’ imprisonment. — 10 —
6 -7. In September 1932, near Subotica, in the vicinity of the frontier-line, the Yugoslav frontier-guard Milenko Milovcsevics killed Blasius Lukâcs and John Hajdu for the mere reason that they had crossed the frontier in an unlawful manner.
8. On November 13th, 1932, Gabriel Gyuran, a Hungarian national, an old man of 61, was so badly beaten by a Yugoslav guard that the unfortunate man was obliged to keep to his bed for six weeks. A medical certificate stating that several of his ribs were broken was placed at the disposal of the Yugoslav authorities with a view to obtaining compensation, but so far nothing has been granted him.
9. On November 23rd, 1932, near Bâcsmadaras, Yugoslav frontier-guards killed, with two rifle-shots, Stephen Kovâcs, who had crossed the frontier in an illicit manner. The Yugoslav authorities refused to comply with the request addressed to them by the Hungarian frontier- guard authorities to be present at the examination of the body. This refusal was quite improper, since such a request is provided for under the Belgrade Protocol signed on October 1st, 1929.
10. On January 15th, 1933, on the frontier-line near Lenti, a Yugoslav guard killed Alexander Treiber, a Hungarian national. Treiber, who, as a matter of fact, was somewhat feeble-minded, was proceeding on foot to the village of Lendvakecskés, when he missed his way and by mistake crossed the frontier at a point where passage was not allowed. He was arrested by the Yugoslav officials and killed by them in incomprehensible circumstances. Later his body was found in the vicinity of the frontier-line, with several bullet wounds. This is another instance in which a Hungarian was first arrested, then conducted by a patrol of the Yugoslav frontier-guard and subsequently killed in the immediate neighbourhood of the frontier-line, on the grounds that the prisoner was attempting to flee into Hungarian territory. There are circumstances which give rise to justified doubts as to the legitimacy of the Yugoslav officials’ attitude. Several witnesses, including two members of the Hungarian frontier-guard, gave evidence of having heard shouts for help and cries of pain, followed a few minutes later by three shots. According to these depositions, the Yugoslav patrol was composed of several men. One may well wonder why it was necessary for these strong, healthy men to use firearms against an unfortunate half-witted individual ? Further, the only argument that the Yugoslav Government can adduce, in this particular case, in defence of its officials is to declare that they “ acted in conformity with the existing regulations ”.
11. On March 16th, 1933, at Muraâtka, ten to twelve shots were fired from the Yugoslav side on a Hungarian frontier-guard.
12. On March 17th, 1933, on the outskirts of the district of Cakovec, several shots were fired by the Yugoslav guards on Hungarian nationals—namely, Louis Fehér and his companions, numbering seven, who were wralking along the road near the frontier.
13. The same day, a shot was also fired by a Yugoslav guard, between the villages of Aligvâr and Muraâtka, on Stephen and John Horvath, Hungarian nationals.
14. Stephen Ernhart, having crossed the frontier near Kunbaja, with the object of visiting his near relations, was killed by Yugoslav officials, in the immediate vicinity of the frontier-line.
15. On April 5th, 1933, near Gyékényes, in the immediate vicinity of the frontier, Stephen Gabaj, a young man of 23, was killed by a Yugoslav frontier-guard. Frightened by the guards’ summonses to stop he failed to do so, and was subsequently shot dead.
16. On May 14th, 1933, in the immediate vicinity of the ditch marking the frontier, at the south-east exit of the village of Zdâla, Yugoslav guards killed Stephen Kovâcs for illicit passage of the frontier-line.
17. On May 24th, 1933, near Lenti, the Yugoslav guards killed Ignatius Jakab for having crossed the frontier at a point where passage is not allowed.
18. John Bali, aged 19, a Hungarian national, proceeding on May 27th, 1933, from one village to another situated near the frontier but also in Hungarian territory, missed his way near Gyékényes and thus entered Yugoslav territory. Having realised his mistake, he imme diately turned back, so as to re-enter Hungary. He was arrested by a Yugoslav frontier-guard and later taken into the interior of the country. On the way, the young man was killed by a shot fired by a Yugoslav guard. In the reply received from the Yugoslav Government on this matter, the latter endeavoured to explain this fatal use of firearms by declaring that Bali, wrho was taken from Gotalovo to Botovo by a by-path crossing the frontier, noticing the frontier-post, attempted to escape and ran in the direction of the frontier, upon which, after firing in the air, one of the Yugoslav guards shot him dead.
19. On May 17th, 1933, a Yugoslav frontier-guard brutally ill-treated Joseph Ttiske, an old man of 60, paralysed in the left hand. This act was the more shocking in that it took place, according to the depositions of eye-witnesses, on Hungarian territory. The Yugoslav — II — official went on beating the old man until he was stopped by several bystanders. Contrary to the negative reply of the Yugoslav Government, the author of this incident—the Yugoslav frontier-guard Peron—admitted himself before a Hungarian authority—the chief of the frontier-guards at Lenti—that he had ill-treated Tüske.
20. On June 14th, 1933, near Horgos, in the neighbourhood of the frontier, the Yugoslav guards killed Michael Varga for illicit crossing of the frontier.
21. A flagrant violation of Hungarian sovereignty was committed on July 8th, 1933, near Vizvâr, by a Yugoslav official who, entering Hungary, brutally snatched two Hungarian subjects, peaceful farmers, from their occupation in the fields. The same day, John Zsobrâk, his wife and Stephen Jakopovics went to a place situated between frontier-posts 539 and 540 in Hungary, on the right bank of the “ Old Drave ”, on the estate of Prince Festetich, to gather in hay. A Yugoslav frontier-guard, accompanied by a civilian, entering Hungarian territory near frontier post No. 540, arrested John Zsobrak and Stephen Jakopovics on the ground that the land on which they were working belonged to Yugoslavia. On that occasion, the Yugoslav guard hit Zsobrak several blows with the butt end of his rifle and wounded Jakopovics with his bayonet. The two men were released only after two days’ detention. While endeavouring to impart to the incident an innocent appearance, the Yugoslav Govern ment itself admits, in its note on the subject, the necessity of establishing definitely the owner ship of the territory in question, thus recognising that it is not convinced of the legitimacy of its official's attitude.
22. On August nth, 1933, a Yugoslav guard crossed the Hungarian frontier between frontier-posts No. 477 and 478 and, advancing over a quarter of a kilometre into Hungarian territory, there effected the arrest of four Yugoslav subjects who had illicitly crossed the frontier, and conducted them back into Yugoslav territory. When questioned by Hungarian nationals, eye-witnesses of this violation of the frontier, the Yugoslav official declared that he had the right to enter Hungarian territory to a distance of 200 metres in pursuit of fugitives ; an explanation which is devoid of all foundation.
23. Violation of the Hungarian frontier by a Yugoslav frontier-guard, complicated by an attack on a Hungarian national : On September 23rd, 1933, Joseph Istvânfi, a Hungarian national, domiciled at Babocsa, was fishing in the Drave near frontier-post No. 811, on Hungarian territory, when a Yugoslav frontier-guard, crossing the frontier, seized him and dragged him on to Yugoslav territory. Istvânfi resisted, whereupon the guard fired on him ; fortunately, he succeeded in knocking aside the rifle barrel, so that the shot went into the water. On hearing Istvânfi’s cries, his wife and father hastened to his assistance and a scuffle ensued between them and the Yugoslav guard. The appearance of a Hungarian frontier-guard put an end to the quarrel, for, on seeing him, the Yugoslav guard moved off. The investigation carried out on the spot showed beyond doubt, on the strength of the depositions of two eye-witnesses, that the Yugoslav guard had entered Hungarian territory, a circumstance corroborated by the fact that his cap was found on Hungarian territory.
24. On September 26th, 1933, in the vicinity of the frontier, near Beremend, Yugoslav frontier-guards killed Stephen Koczun, a Polish national, who had crossed the frontier, for failing to obey their summons to stop.
25. On November nth, 1933, several Yugoslav frontier-guards entered Hungarian territory at the frontier-point Pitomaca-Babocsa and, after firing a few shots to frighten the swineherds, drove a herd of 107 pigs, first-class stock, across the frontier into Yugoslav territory. The pigs belonged to a Hungarian national, Julius Merész, whose wife, née Countess de Coreth, is the owner of the old former Somssich estate, situated at Babocsa and now intersected by the frontier-line. The animals were immediately seized by the Yugoslav revenue authorities and sold by auction later, at a price far below their real value ; all this, according to the explanations given by the Yugoslav authorities, with a view to the payment of arrears of taxes due for lands belonging to the estate and situated in Yugoslav territory. Now, in entering Hungary armed, in order to carry out a seizure, the Yugoslav officials not only caused prejudice to the interests of a Hungarian national who suffered a serious loss, but, by this wholly unprecedented act, seriously violated the territorial sovereignty of the Hungarian State. The Hungarian Government, to its regret, has not succeeded, despite its repeated representations to the Belgrade Government, in obtaining satisfaction for this grave violation of the frontier or compensation for the material loss caused to the owner of the animals. As the Yugoslav Government sought to disclaim all responsibility by declaring that the seizure of the herd had been carried out on Yugoslav territory and by actually questioning M. Merész rights of owership—statements which are contrary to the depositions of the eye-witnesses and to the findings of the Hungarian authorities—the Hungarian Government proposed, in view of the entirely contradictory results of the investigations carried out on either side, to refer the case to a joint commission with a view to its being satisfactorily cleared UP- But, on this occasion also, the Belgrade Government refused to accept the proposal for the setting-up of a joint commission. — n —
26-27. On Christmas Eve 1933, Charles Dravecz and Stephen Mâkos, both Hungarian nationals, fell victims to the use of firearms by Yugoslav officials. According to the Yugoslav reply to diplomatic representations, the two men had been arrested and had endeavoured to escape by running in the direction of the frontier. Thereupon—so the Yugoslav reply alleges—the frontier-guards, " after summoning them to stop, opened fire and killed them both outright”. But, contrary to the assertions in the Yugoslav note, it was established by the investigations of the Hungarian authorities that the true facts of the case were altogether different from the Yugoslav version. The two men were first arrested and then taken to the Cepinci barracks, being compelled to walk barefoot through the snow, a fact which aroused keen indignation among the population. At Cepinci, an official was ordered to take them to Hodos. It should be observed that the official chose for this purpose a longer and worse road than the normal route—a path leading through a dense forest near the frontier. In the forest, the two men were killed by the Yugoslav frontier-guards. Dravecz's body bore traces of three bullet wounds and one wound caused by a cutting weapon, while Mâkos was shot in the stomach. It is difficult to understand what necessity there could have been for using a bayonet, or how it could have been used at all against a person who was running away, as the Y ugoslav reply asserts, and why two Hungarian nationals should be killed, even if they had been guilty of smuggling, since it was not when caught in the act that the Yugoslav officials fired upon them, but several hours after their arrest.
28. On January 10th, 1934, in the neighbourhood of the frontier near Légrâd, Yugoslav frontier-guards killed Stephen Varga, an owner of land on both sides of the frontier, aged 70. Varga, being slightly deaf and slightly drunk, did not stop when a Yugoslav official ordered him to do so. The official immediately fired on the old man and killed him.
29. On the same day—i.e., January nth , 1934—Yugoslav frontier-guards killed, in the neighbourhood of the frontier, also near Légrâd, one Joseph Ovenics, aged 73. The old man had been undergoing treatment for two weeks at the hospital, and was killed, for reasons unknown, when returning to his home.
30. On February 24th, 1934, Michael Kiss was killed by Yugoslav guards near Gyékényes, in the immediate neighbourhood of the frontier, on the pretext that he had not stopped when the guards had called upon him to do so. Current report among the frontier-zone villagers has it, however, that before the actual occurrence there were rumours that Kiss would shortly be despatched, because he was on the black list of the Yugoslav officials.
31. On February 24th, the Hungarian frontier-guard Béla Ravadics was killed by Yugoslav frontier-guards in the neighbourhood of Lenti, near the frontier. According to information received by the Hungarian Government, this is what occurred : A Hungarian frontier-patrol, consisting of two guards, Béla Ravadics and John Mékli, was making its usual round along the frontier and entered Yugoslav territory, in circumstances which have not yet been sufficiently cleared up. Not far from the frontier, they met Yugoslav guards who warned them that they were on Yugoslav territory. Thereupon the Hungarian frontier-guards endeavoured to turn back, with a view to regaining Hungarian territory. The Yugoslav officials, however, prevented them from doing so, arrested Mékli and killed the frontier-guard Ravadics, who was shot several times at a range of barely a few metres. This fresh atrocity on the part of Yugoslav officials cannot be justified in any way, in view of their numerical superiority : they were, in fact, eight or nine against two, so that they could easily have arrested the Hungarian official without killing him, if they had deemed arrest to be absolutely necessary.
Annex 2.
EXCHANGE OF NOTES CONCERNING INCIDENTS DESCRIBED IN ANNEX I WHICH HAVE LED TO DIPLOMATIC ACTION BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Ad A n n e x I, P a ra g r a ph s i a n d 2.
Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade. No. i84/res-i93i. Note verbale. On the 25th of last month, Yugoslav frontier-guards in the neighbourhood of Sredisce killed the Hungarian national Mihâly Horvath, aged 35, domiciled at Budapest. His body was found near frontier-post No. 289. — 13 —
The Royal Hungarian Legation requests the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs to order a strict investigation of this case and to inflict exemplary punishment on the guilty party, [t should be noted that two Hungarian nationals have been killed in this same sector within a short space of time. The widow of Mihâly Horvath, deprived by her husband’s death of her means of existence, has filed a claim for compensation with the Hungarian authorities. The Royal Hungarian Legation requests the Royal Department to be good enough to inform it of the results of its enquiry as soon as possible, and thanks it in advance. Belgrade, December 16th, 1931. The Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Belgrade.
Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade. iS3/res-i93i. Note verbale. A Hungarian national, John Vôrôs, aged 67, domiciled at Magyarszombatfa, was killed on November 23rd, 1931, by a Yugoslav frontier-guard between the communes of Szomorôc and Sredistje (hill 228). The above-mentioned owner of property on both sides of the frontier, being in due possession of a frontier legitimation card, desired to proceed to his property situated in Yugoslav territory in order to cut wood. His body lay in Yugoslavia at a distance of thirty metres from the frontier, whereas his axe, stained with blood, lay in Hungarian territory. Footprints, leading from the body to the frontier, were also noted. According to the evidence of witnesses, these footprints were carefully obliterated by the Yugoslav frontier-guards. These facts give rise to the suspicion that John Vôrôs was killed on Hungarian territory and that his body was subsequently dragged to the place indicated. On the instructions of the Hungarian Government, the Royal Hungarian Legation has the honour to request the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs to be good enough to institute a minute enquiry into this case and to take the necessary steps to ensure the severe punishment of frontier-guards who make an unwarranted use of their firearms. Belgrade, December 17th, 1931. To the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Belgrade.
Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Pov. No. 25622 M.19. Note verbale. In reply to note verbale No. 184 of December 16th, 1931, the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs has the honour to inform the Hungarian Legation that, immediately after the frontier incident which occurred on November 25th, 1931, near frontier-post No. 289, in which the Hungarian national Mihâly Horvâth met his death, a minute enquiry was conducted on the spot by the competent Yugoslav authorities with a view to establishing the circumstances m which this occurrence took place. On November 25th, the Y ugoslav frontier-guard Borislaw Dintchitch was in hiding behind a tree at the sentinel-post near frontier-post No. 289, at a distance of thirty metres from the frontier. On that same date at 8.15 p.m., two men dressed in civilian clothing, coming from the Yugoslav side, approached the frontier-line with the evident intention of crossing the frontier. On seeing them the said frontier-guard thrice called upon them to stop, adding that >t they did not do so he would fire. As they did not obey his summons, he fired four shots at one and three shots at the other. The first was hit and fell to the ground, but the second succeeded in escaping into Hungary. The commission of enquiry has found on the spot tracks proving that one of the above- mentioned persons did indeed cross the frontier. The Yugoslav frontier-guard who was at the sentinel-post 200 metres from Dintchitch declares that he heard the latter call out “ Halt ! ” thrice at the time when the event occurred. It should also be noted that, in the sector where the two persons endeavoured to cross mto Jugoslavia, there is no point accepted by the two Governments as a regular point for crossing the frontier. f >v proves that, in the case of Mihâly Horvâth, the Yugoslav frontier-guard made use 0 “is firearm only when obliged to do so. Belgrade, December 30th, 1931. [Seal.] To the Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade. - 1 4 -
Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Pov. No. 705. M.19. Note verbale.
In reply to note verbale No. 183 from the Royal Hungarian Legation, dated December 17th, 1931, concerning the case of the Hungarian national John Vôrôs, the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs has the honour to inform the Legation that, as a result of the enquiry instituted by the Yugoslav authorities, the following facts have been established. On November 23rd of last year, at about 6.30 p.m., a Yugoslav frontier-guard noticed five men in civilian clothing coming from the Hungarian side, who were crossing the frontier near frontier-post No. 274. The frontier-guard ordered them three times to stop, and, as they suddenly started to run towards the Hungarian side of the frontier, he fired a few shots. One of the men, who was hit, collapsed, while the others succeeded in gaining Hungarian territory. The Yugoslav frontier-guard, wTio was at the sentinel-post three hundred metres away from the first guard, stated that he heard the latter distinctly call out “ Halt ! ” three times. It should also be observed that, as the owner of land on both sides of the frontier, John Vôrôs must have known quite well that it was forbidden by both Governments to cross the frontier at the spot where he and his companions crossed it. He probably intended to cross the frontier for some other purpose when he elected to do so at this point and at the hour mentioned above. It will be seen, therefore, that, in the case of John Vôrôs, the Yugoslav frontier-guard did not fire until he was obliged to do so. Belgrade, January 20th, 1932. [Seal.']
To the Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade.
Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade.
No. 5847/1932. Note verbale.
The Royal Hungarian Legation thanks the Royal Yugoslav Ministry of Foreign Affairs for its notes verbales No. 705.M. 19, dated January 20th, 1931, and No. 25622.M.19, dated December 30th, 1931, in which the Royal Department was good enough to inform this Legation of the result of the enquiries instituted by the Yugoslav authorities with a view to clearing up the incidents which occurred at frontier-posts Nos. 274 and 289. The facts established by the Royal authorities, however, conflict so glaringly with the findings of the Hungarian authorities that it would be desirable to appoint a joint commission to investigate on the spot the two cases dealt with in the above-mentioned notes verbales, as such a commission alone could arrive at satisfactory results. The Royal Hungarian Legation has accordingly the honour, under the instructions of its Government, to request the Royal Government to appoint the Yugoslav members of a joint commission, and to specify the date on which it would suit the Royal Government to carry out the proposed enquiry on the spot. Belgrade, April 25th, 1932.
To the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Belgrade.
Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Pov. No. 11031. Note verbale.
In reply to note verbale No. 6704/1932 A., dated the n t h instant, concerning the accidents which occurred at frontier-posts Nos. 274 and 289 to the Hungarian nationals John Vôrôs and Michael Horvâth, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has the honour to inform the Rop Hungarian Legation that the Royal Yugoslav Government regrets its inability to a c c e p t the proposal made in the above-mentioned note from the Royal Legation, as it does not consider it practicable for a joint commission to investigate on the spot the two cases in question, no" that more than seven months have elapsed since these incidents occurred and all traces of them have obviously disappeared long ago. 15 -
Moreover, the competent Yugoslav authorities have fully succeeded in ascertaining the facts by means of enquiries carried out in accordance with the existing regulations, the results of which have been communicated to the Legation by the Royal Ministry’s notes Nos. 25622/31 and 705/32. These findings show that the Yugoslav frontier-guards can in no wise be held responsible for these deplorable incidents, as they used their arms solely on account of the flight of the landholders concerned, who failed to obey the order to halt. [Seal.] To the Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade.
Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade. 97I4/I932- Note verbale. In its note verbale Pov. No. 11031, dated June 30th, 1932, the Royal Yugoslav Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that the Royal Yugoslav Government cannot agree to the proposal made in the Hungarian Legation’s note verbale No. 6704, as it does not consider it practicable for a joint commission to investigate the accidents which caused the death of the Hungarian nationals John Vôrôs and Michael Horvâth. On the other hand, in the opinion of the Royal Hungarian Government, the investigation by a joint commission of the accidents in question appears to be the only means of settling satisfactorily these regrettable cases, which have caused considerable uneasiness among the inhabitants of the frontier districts. It cannot be asserted that the fact that several months have elapsed since the incidents took place and that all traces of them have disappeared would make it impossible for a joint commission to investigate the matter, as a number of facts may then be brought to light. Moreover, the nature of joint commissions is such that, in most cases, they cannot begin work until after a certain time—that is to say, after the States concerned have already had the matter examined by their own authorities. Besides, the purpose of a joint commission is to re-examine, under the supervision of both parties, the conflicting results of partial enquiries. It is of the greatest importance to neighbouring States that frontier incidents should be re-examined and settled on a broader basis, since the one-sided settlement of disputes of this kind always leaves a certain amount of local tension on the other side, and this may easily lead to unfortunate developments. For this reason the Hungarian Government, being desirous of maintaining neighbourly relations, has instructed its Legation to request the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs to urge the Government of His Majesty the King of Yugoslavia to be good enough to reconsider its decision as set forth in the above-mentioned note verbale, and to appoint its members to serve on the proposed joint commission in order to settle the matter satisfactorily. Belgrade, December 31st, 1932. To the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Belgrade.
Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Pov. No. 1603. Note verbale. In reply to note verbale No. 9714/A, dated December 31st last, concerning the misadventure of the Hungarian nationals, John Vôrôs and Michael Horvâth, the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs has the honour to inform the Royal Hungarian Legation that the Royal Yugoslav Government feels bound to adhere to the view expressed in note verbale Pov. No. 11031, dated June 30th last, in view of the fact that the Yugoslav authorities entrusted with the investigation have cleared up beyond all doubt all the relevant details °f the misadventure in question. The Royal Yugoslav Government therefore considers that there is no justification for the institution of a further enquiry by a joint commission into occurrences which took place 80 long ago. In this connection, the Royal Ministry would point out that the only enquiry carried 9?tby the Hungarian and Yugoslav joint commission concerning the maltreatment of Stephen tiorvâth, a Yugoslav national, did not lead to a satisfactory result. Belgrade, January 31st, 1933. [Seal.] To the Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade. — r & —
Ad A n n e x i, Paragraph 4.
Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade. No. 8056/1932. Aroie verbale.
On August 21st, 1932, Joseph Jakopanecz, a Hungarian national, when bathing in the Mura near the commune of Tôtszerdahely, swam close up to the Yugoslav bank of the river. A Yugoslav frontier-guard, who had seen him, fired on him and shot him in the right leg. The wounded man succeeded in reaching the Yugoslav bank, where he was placed under a tree and left without help, pending the arrival of a Yugoslav commission, which was to examine the case. The commission, which arrived thirty-six hours after the event, found him dead and handed over the body to the Hungarian authorities. At the post-mortem, the doctors found that the cause of Jakopanecz’s death was infection of the wound, which had not been looked after. In bringing the foregoing to the knowledge of the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Royal Hungarian Legation has the honour—acting upon instructions from its Government —to request it to be good enough to hold an enquiry, in order to verify the facts and to cause the competent authorities to inflict severe punishment upon the frontier-guard guilty of such inhuman conduct. It should be noted that this is the fourth case during the last few months in which a Hungarian national has been killed on the frontier by a Yugoslav guard ; the use of firearms was the less justified in the present case, since Jakopanecz was swimming in a bathing-suit, and it was therefore impossible to suspect him of any intention of smuggling or committing any other offence. Belgrade, September 10th, 1932. To the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Belgrade.
Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Pov. No. 15938. Note verbale. With reference to the note verbale from the Royal Legation, No. 8056/1932, dated September 12th, concerning the frontier incident which cost the life of Jakopanecz Joseph, a Hungarian national, the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs has the honour to inform the Royal Legation that the enquiry conducted by the Yugoslav judicial authorities established the following facts : On August 21st last, about 4 p.m., an unknown individual (he was later identified as the above-mentioned Hungarian national) was swimming across the River Mura in a bathing- suit. He was carrying a packet tied round the neck. The swimmer was seen by Vassiljevic Milorad, a Yugoslav frontier-guard, who, hiding behind the bushes, approached the place where Jakopanecz would reach the Yugoslav bank, close to frontier-post No. 108. When Jakopanecz came out of the water, the frontier-guard called upon him to stop. Having supposed that he had crossed into Yugoslav territory without being noticed, and being startled by this unexpected challenge, Jakopanecz dashed in the very direction where the frontier-guard was hiding, ju st as the latter left his hiding-place. Finding himself face to face with him at a distance of thirty to forty metres, Jakopanecz turned on his tracks and ran away towards the river. The frontier-guard then called upon him a second time to halt, but he did not obey. As he was already close to the river, he untied the packet tied round his neck and threw it into the water. The packet sank immediately. He then shouted a few insulting words to the frontier-guard and continued his flight. The frontier-guard, after calling upon him a third time to stop, fired first in the air to frighten him, and, as he did not obey even then, fired again and hit him. Jakopanecz, seriously wounded, was carried by two frontier-guards into the shade of a tree, where his wound was dressed. He died the same day at 7 p.m.-—i.e., three hours after being wounded. The post-mortem examination revealed a round wound one centimetre in diameter, caused by a projectile, in the lower part of the body. It was established further that death had been caused by excessive loss of blood following on a grave lesion of the blood-vessels. In the doctor s opinion, the wound was of so serious a character that the promptest medical assistance com not have saved the man’s life. The enquiry thus led to the following conclusions : (1) the clandestine entry of Jakopanecz into Yugoslav territory was aggravated by the fact that he was also the bearer of a pacp which he got rid of by throwing it into the water when confronted by the Yugoslav frontier guard. This circumstance led to the supposition that he intended to commit some illegal ac on Yugoslav territory ; (2) Jakopanecz was not wounded while he was swimming, as is state — 17 —
in the Royal Legation’s note, but when he was already on Yugoslav territory ; (3) Jakopanecz’s death was not caused by infection of a neglected wound, as is further stated in the Royal Legation’s note, but by the serious nature of the wound itself ; (4) the Yugoslav frontier- guard fired on Jakopanecz only after challenging him three times in the prescribed manner and after first firing into the air.
Belgrade, September 30th, 1932. [Seal.]
To the Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade.
Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade.
No. 6985/1933. Noie verbale.
With reference to note verbale Pov. 15938, dated September 30th, 1932, the Royal Hunga rian Legation has the honour to inform the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the incident which caused the death of Joseph Jakopanecz, a Hungarian subject, occurred, according to the concordant depositions of four eye-witnesses, as follows : Jakopanecz was swimming across the River Mura on August 21st, 1932, about 3 p.m. It cannot now be established whether he really intended to land on the opposite bank or whether it w-as simply the current that forced him to do so. On reaching the Yugoslav side, he rested for five to ten minutes in shallow water, then, without getting out of the water, turned upstream in order to be able to swim back more easily to his point of departure. At that moment, a Yugoslav frontier-guard (whose name, according to the note verbale, is Milorad Vassiljevic) came out of the bushes (about ten metres from Jakopanecz) where he had been hiding and endeavoured to seize him. Thereupon Jakopanecz fled in the direction of the Hungarian bank. Jakopanecz had only gone about five metres when the frontier-guard called upon him to stop and immediately fired on him. Jakopanecz, wounded, came out of the river, groaning with pain, and fell to the ground at the feet of the frontier-guard Vassiljevic. The latter called to a comrade, who was hiding about two hundred metres away, and the two frontier-guards tried to bandage Jakopanecz’s wound with his bathing-suit, after which they carried him about fifteen metres away from the river and deposited him in a bush. Then one of the frontier-guards went away, while the other remained with the wrounded man, covering him with his rifle. Jakopanecz remained thus, seriously wounded, without medical assistance, and died about 9 that evening. According to the concordant depositions of all the eye-witnesses, Jakopanecz wras not carrying any packet on him. Hence, the fact mentioned in point 1 of the above-mentioned note verbale is not in accordance with the truth. Nor could he have got rid of the packet as he fled, as is also clear from the fact that the frontier-guards did not even try to find this alleged packet, whereas it could easily have been recovered in shallow water. • u Similarly; it out °f the question that Jakopanecz had any intention to commit an offence 111 broad daylight and clad only in a bathing-slip. With reference to point 3 of the aforesaid note verbale, the Legation desires to point out that, even if the wound had been fatal—and this was not proved until the post-mortem— tlie timely medical assistance offered by the Hungarian frontier-guard and local residents would have offered better hope of saving the wounded man. The seriousness of the wound in no way^ excuses the inhuman attitude of the frontier-guard, who, instead of pointing his rifle at the dying man, ought, in accordance with the general sense of paragraph 15 of the " Regulations ”, to have permitted the doctor offered by the local residents who had congregated at the scene of the incident to cross on to Yugoslav terri- t°iy, or, at all events, have accepted the dressing offered and used it to bandage the wound. Further, even if the peaceful subject of a neighbouring country was regarded as an enemy )y the Yugoslav authorities, the latter were not entitled to leave him to die without medical relief, in consideration of the terms of paragraph 1, Chapter 1, of the Geneva Convention of July 27th, 1929, for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies m the Field. Nor, lastly, could it be described as a humanitarian act to expose a dying man for hours to the bites of mosquitoes, which are intolerable even for a healthy man able to protect himself. It may thus be affirmed beyond all doubt that the neglect of any care was the direct cause 0} death and not the gravity of the actual wound, as the Yugoslav reply claims. In conclusion, with reference to point 4 of the note, impartial witnesses unanimously declared that the frontier-guard Vassiljevic only called upon Jakopanecz to stop once, when ue was about ten metres away from him, and immediately fired a single shot at him, causing the wound that cost Jakopanecz his life. — i8 —
In view of the divergence as to the facts between the findings of the Hungarian and Yugoslav enquiries, the Legation has the honour, acting upon instructions from its Government, to propose that a joint Hungaro-Yugoslav Commission be appointed to elucidate on the spot the circumstances of Jakopanecz’s death, in order that a just and equitable settlement may be found for this most regrettable incident. Belgrade, July 19th, 1933. To the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Belgrade.
Ad A n n e x i , P a r a g r a ph 5. Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade. No. 107/132. [Very urgent.] Note verbale. A Hungarian national, M. Aladâr de Gyertyânffy, an inspector of stud-farms, travelling through Gyékényes, missed his way when walking and, having entered Yugoslav territory, was arrested by the Yugoslav frontier authorities. Acting upon instructions from its Government, the Royal Hungarian Legation has the honour to request the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs to be good enough to take urgent measures on such action as the law may require for the release of M. Gyertyânffy, who crossed the frontier by mistake. Belgrade, September 1st, 1932. To the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Belgrade.
Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade. No. 115/1932. Note verbale. With further reference to its note verbale No. 107/res, dated September 1st, 1932, the Royal Hungarian Legation has the honour to repeat its request for the release of M. Aladâr de Gyertyânffy, who was arrested on August 31st, near Gyékényes on Yugoslav territory. The Hungarian diplomatic mission desires to direct the courteous attention of the Royal Department to the fact that, contrary to the statements of newspapers which have recently given much space to the question of M. de Gyertyânffy’s arrest, the latter crossed the Yugoslav frontier by mistake, when he had gone for a walk near the station at Gyékényes, while waiting for his train connection. M. de Gyertyânffy, a captain on the retired list, at present holds the post of inspector under the Administration of the Government studs at Nagykanizsa. Accordingly, as he is a Hungarian civil servant and entered Yugoslav territory uninten tionally, all the imputations that have gone the round of the Press are entirely groundless. Acting upon instructions from its Government, the Royal Hungarian Legation ventures once more to request the friendly intervention of the Royal Department, in order that M. de Gyertyânffy may be set at liberty without delay. Belgrade, September 14th, 1932. To the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Belgrade.
Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Pov. No. 15791. M.14. Note verbale. The Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs has the honour to acknowledge receipt of the note verbale from the Royal Hungarian Legation No. 115/res, dated September 14th, 1 9 3 2 ' concerning the arrest of M. de Gyertyânffy, and to inform it that it duly transmitted the contents of that note to the competent Minister immediately upon receipt. — i9 —
The Royal Ministry trusts that the information which the Royal Hungarian Legation has kindly supplied concerning the said Gyertyânffy will be of assistance in enabling the preli minary proceedings instituted by the competent Yugoslav authorities against the above- mentioned person to be conducted with a full knowledge of the necessary facts and concluded as soon as possible. Belgrade, September 16th, 1932. [Seal,]
To the Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade.
Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade.
No. 124/1932. Note verbale.
With further reference to its note verbale of September 30th, 1932, No. 123/res, by which the Royal Hungarian Legation ventures to request the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs to have two parcels conveyed to M. de Gyertyânffy, the Royal Hungarian diplomatic mission has the honour to inform the Royal Department that the addressee is in custody at Zagreb and not at Belgrade. The Royal Department is requested to forward the parcels to Zagreb or else to return them to the Royal Hungarian diplomatic mission, which will, in that event, take steps to forward them to the lawful recipient, through the Hungarian consulate at Zagreb. At the same time, the Hungarian Legation desires to repeat its request that steps may be taken to expedite the conclusion of the preliminary proceedings instituted by the competent Yugoslav authorities against M. de Gyertyânffy.
Belgrade, October 10th, 1932.
To the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Belgrade.
Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Pov. No. 17343. Note verbale.
With reference to the note verbale of the Royal Hungarian Legation, No. 124, dated October 10th, 1932, the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs has the honour to return to the Royal Legation the two parcels belonging to M. de Gyertyânffy, Hungarian national, who is at present in custody at Zagreb.
Belgrade, October 17th, 1932. [Seal.] To the Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade.
Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Pov. No. 20185. Note verbale.
With reference to the note verbale of the Royal Hungarian Legation, No. 115, dated -eptember 14th, 1932, concerning the case of M. Aladâr de Gyertyânffy, the Royal Ministry Foreign Affairs has the honour to inform the Legation that the Ministry of the Interior has already given the necessary orders for the release of M. de Gyertyânffy, who was arrested 011 Jugoslav territory on August 31st.
Belgrade, November 30th, 1932. [Seal.]
To the Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade. — 20 —
Ad A n n e x i, Paragraph 9.
Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade. No. 9225/1932.
[Urgent,] Note verbale.
The Yugoslav frontier authorities have informed the Hungarian frontier authorities that Yugoslav frontier-guards have shot a Hungarian national named Mihâly Hacsek, near Bâcsmadaras, in Yugoslav territory. As no further details are forthcoming, the Royal Hunga rian Legation has the honour to request the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs to be good enough to see that the proper authority investigates, at the earliest opportunity, the circumstances in which Hacsek was killed, and to transmit the information to this Legation as soon as possible.
Belgrade, November 26th, 1932.
To the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Belgrade.
Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade.
No. 4197/1933. Note verbale.
On November 23rd, 1932, a person crossing the frontier near the commune of Bajmok failed to stop when challenged by the Yugoslav frontier-guard, and was killed by two rifle shots, in Yugoslav territory, some thirty metres from the frontier. The Yugoslav Commission of Enquiry refused the Hungarian frontier-guard officer's request to be allowed to attend the inspection of the body, but promised to send him one of the photographs taken of it. As no photograph has been received, the Royal Hungarian Légation ventures, on the strength of the above-mentioned promise, to request the Royal Ministry to be good enough to see that the competent Yugoslav frontier authorities deliver this photograph to the Hungarian authorities, so that the latter may be able to establish the person’s identity.
Belgrade, January 19th, 1933.
To the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Belgrade.
Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Pov. No. 1093. Note verbale.
In reply to note verbale No. 9225/A., of November 26th last, concerning the misadventure of a Hungarian national, one Mihâly Hacsek, at the frontier near Bâcsmadaras, the R o p Ministry of Foreign Affairs has the honour to inform the Royal Hungarian Legation that, according to information received from the competent authorities, there is nothing to show that the Hungarian national, Mihâly Hacsek, was killed by frontier-guards in Yugoslav territory. On the contrary, it has been proved that the person who was killed after unlawfully crossing the Hungarian-Yugoslav frontier between Bajmok and Bâcsmadaras was a Yugoslav (not a Hungarian) national, named S tevan Kovac.
Belgrade, January 21st, 1933. [Seal.] To the Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade. — 21 —
Kingdom of Yugoslavia Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Pov. No. 6058. Note verbale. In reply to note verbale No. 4197/1932/A, of January 19th, 1933, the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs has the honour to inform the Legation that the competent Yugoslav authorities have identified the person who, on November 23rd, 1932, was killed by a Yugoslav frontier- guard near the commune of Bajmok, in Yugoslav territory, as one Stevan Kovac. He is deemed to have been a Yugoslav national, seeing that he derived his citizenship from the commune of Conoplii, Sombor district. Belgrade, March 30th, 1933. [Seal,] To the Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade.
Ad A n n e x I, P arag raph 10. Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade. No. 4238/1933. Note verbale. The Royal Hungarian Legation has the honour to inform the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the Hungarian national Sândor Treiber, who had crossed the frontier unlawfully, was killed by three rifle-shots, fired by a Yugoslav frontier-guard, near the commune of Lenti, in the neighbourhood of Szalolak farm, in Yugoslav territory, five metres from the frontier. This Legation is instructed by the Royal Hungarian Government to request the Royal Ministry to be good enough to institute an enquiry into this matter, and to inform it of the results as soon as possible. Belgrade, January 19th, 1933. To the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Belgrade.
Royal Hungarian Legation, B e lg r a d e .
No. 4334/1933. Note verbale. With reference to its note verbale No. 4238/1933, of January 19th, 1933, the Royal Hunga rian Legation has the honour to inform the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the details of the frontier incident which caused the death of the Hungarian national Alexander Treiber, resident at Gosztola. On January 15th, 1933, at about 5.30 p.m., Treiber left Szabolakos farm, near the frontier to the south-west of the commune of Rédics, in Hungarian territory, and proceeded along the road running near the frontier towards the Hungarian commune of Lendva-Kecskés. A few minutes later, at about 5-45 p.m., the Hungarian frontier-guard, and Stephen Dezzô and Stephen Toth, two employees at the farm, heard shouts for help and cries of pain, followed a few minutes later by three rifle-shots. The Hungarian frontier-guard sergeant Lajos Dôczi, hastening towards the farm, met four Yugoslav frontier-guards, who told him that a Yugoslav frontier-guard had shot a civilian dead. Arriving on the spot, Sergeant Dôczi found a dead body, lying twenty-eight metres to the south of frontier-stone No. 460, in Yugoslav territory, about five metres from the frontier, face downwards, with the head towards the frontier. The body was identified by the farm- servants, who had come upon the scene, as that of Alexander Treiber. The Yugoslav frontier-guards asserted that they had arrested Treiber on Yugoslav territory, and that when they were taking him to the police-station he had escaped and had made for Szabolakos farm, whereupon they had fired at him. The facts, however, that (1) Treiber only crossed the frontier by mistake-—he was, more over, slightly jfeeble-minded—and could consequently not have been suspected of any offence ; and (2) he had already been taken prisoner by the Yugoslav frontier-patrol, consisting of several persons, warrants considerable doubt as to the justifiability of the use of firearms, the use of which has once more caused the death of a Hungarian national. Belgrade, January 28th, 1933. To the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Belgrade. — 22 —
Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Pov. No. 2256. Note verbale. In reply to note verbale No. 4238/A, of January 19th, 1933, the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs has the honour to inform the Royal Hungarian Legation that, according to information obtained from the competent authorities, Alexander Treiber, a Hungarian national, whose home town is Gostala, in the Lenti district, crossed the Hungaro-Yugoslav frontier on January 15th, at 5.45 p.m., near frontier-post A.460, in the neighbourhood of Szalolak farm. Enquiries made on the spot in connection with this misadventure prove that Treiber crossed the frontier unlawfully at a point where crossing is not allowed. No doubt was left in the minds of the investigators that the Yugoslav frontier-guard who fired on Treiber acted in accordance with the regulations, and did not fire without due cause. It was also proved that Hungarian territory was not violated, the Yugoslav guard having fired in the direction of Yugoslav territory, so that the bullets did not fall beyond the frontier. This is confirmed by the official record of the post-mortem examination of Treiber’s body. Belgrade, February 8th, 1933. [Seal.'] To the Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade.
Ad A n n e x i , P a r a g r a ph 12.
Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade. 5218/1933. Note verbale. The Royal Hungarian Legation has already had the honour to draw the attention of the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the frontier incidents which have become more numerous lately owing to the frequent and often unjustified use of firearms by the Yugoslav frontier-guards. Fresh cases which have occurred quite recently near the boundaries of the Cakovec district have just been reported. On March 17th last, at 8 a.m., several shots were fired by the Yugoslav frontier-guards stationed on the Yugoslav bank of the River Mur, opposite the commune of Alsoszemenye, at Louis Fehér and his seven companions, Hungarian nationals, domiciled at Kerkaszentkirâly, while they were walking along the road near the Mur. On the same day, a shot was also fired by a Yugoslav frontier-guard at Stephen Horvath and John Horvath, Hungarian nationals, when they were in the neighbourhood of the Mur, between the communes of Aligvâr and Murarâtka. On March 16th last, ten or twelve shots wrere fired from the Yugoslav side at the frontier- guard at Murarâtka. As a result of these incidents, the authorities no longer dare approach the River Mur, which here forms the frontier between Hungary and Yugoslavia. The Royal Hungarian Legation has therefore the honour to request the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs to be good enough to take, or cause to be taken, urgent steps to avoid the repetition of acts like these which endanger the lives of Hungarian nationals. The Hungarian Legation would be grateful if the Royal Department would be good enough to inform it also of the results of the action it has taken following the receipt of aide- mémoire No. 4131/1933, of January 14th. Belgrade, April 3rd, 1933. To the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Belgrade.
Ad A n n e x i , P a r ag r a ph 18.
Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade. No. 6991/1933. Note verbale. A Hungarian national, John Bali, shop assistant, aged 19, born and domiciled at Kaposvâr, desiring to proceed on May 27th last from Porogszentkirâly to Berzence, via Gyékényes and " Lankôc ” farm, lost his way near “ Perdôc ” farm and thus reached Gola, in Yugoslav territory. Realising his mistake, he immediately directed his steps towards the Hungarian frontier, which he hoped to reach between the communes of Gola and Gotalovo ; but on the way he was arrested by a Yugoslav frontier-guard. On the same day Bali was escorted by several Yugoslav frontier-guards, first to Gotalovo barracks and then to the commune of Drnje. The Yugoslav frontier-guards say that they had hardly left the commune of Gotalovo when Bali tried to escape. The guards thereupon fired several shots, one of which hit the fugitive, who fell dead within about five metres of the frontier. According to the information of the Hungarian authorities, the Yugoslav frontier-guards seized on Bali’s person, at the time of his arrest, a savings-book for thirteen pen go, twTo school certificates, one employment-book, and several post-cards. The Royal Hungarian Legation has the honour to draw the attention of the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the fact that similar cases, in which Hungarian nationals have been killed along the frontier, have become so frequent of late that people of the frontier- zone hardly dare approach the frontier to till their fields. Consequently, the Hungarian Legation has the honour to request the Royal Department to be good enough to take, or cause to be taken, action to ensure that a minute and detailed enquiry be instituted, that the officials whose guilt is proved be punished, and that the articles seized on the person of Jânos Bali be placed at the disposal of the Hungarian authorities. Belgrade, July 14th, 1933. To the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Belgrade.
Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Pov. No. 1271. Note verbale. In reply to note verbale No. 17/33, of January 16th, the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs has the honour to inform the Hungarian Legation that, according to information received from the competent Yugoslav authorities, John Bali, a Hungarian national, crossed the frontier secretly on May 27th, 1933, at about 4 p.m., and entered Yugoslav territory near frontier-post No. 308. When he was about fifty metres distant from the frontier-line, the frontier-guard, who was in hiding, saw him and called upon him to give himself up. This he only did after the frontier-guard had fired a shot into the air. The frontier-guard then took him to guardhouse No. 25, at Gotalovo. Thence, at about 6.15 p.m., he was escorted to Botovo along a by-road. On arriving with his escort, which consisted of two frontier-guards, near frontier-post No. 241, and having noticed the Hungarian inscription marking the frontier- line, he started to run as fast as he could in the direction of the frontier, with a view to re entering Hungary. The frontier-guards then fired a few shots in the air in order to intimidate Bali and make him stop ; but, as the fugitive continued to run towards the frontier, one of the frontier-guards shot him fatally. The Yugoslav authorities found on the victim a savings-book for twelve pengô and several documents, including a propaganda map showing Hungary with her pre-war boundaries, and a card bearing the following inscription : “ Csonka Magyarorszâg—Egész Magyarorszâg menjorszâg. Nem ! Nem ! — Edes jô Istenünk hallgasd meg imânkat, add vissza a mi ezeréves gyônyôru hazânkat Belgrade, January 25th, 1934. [Seal.] To the Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade.
Ad Annex i, Paragraph 19. Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade. No. 9428/1932. Note verbale. The Royal Hungarian Legation has the honour to draw' the attention of the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the following facts : On October 20th of this year, at about 3 p.m., Joseph Tiiske, a Hungarian national, domiciled at Rédics, was gathering chestnuts in his vineyard at Felsôtenke, near frontier-post No. 494, when an armed Yugoslav frontier-guard appeared and ordered Tiiske to follow him to the Yugoslav guardhouse. Tiiske refused to accompany the guard, seeing that he was in ms own vineyard, in Hungarian territory, but the frontier-guard forced him to do so with blows from the butt of his rifle. The guard led Tiiske to within a hundred or a hundred and - M -
fifty paces of the guardhouse, continuing to beat him. Hearing Tüske’s cries, Stephen Horvath and his wife, who were working in the neighbourhood, ran up. The frontier-guard, after tearing up Tüske’s wallet, then left him. The wounds caused by the Yugoslav frontier-guard’s blows will take from eight to twenty days to heal. Stephen Horvath and his wife both deposed that they saw the Yugoslav frontier-guard insult Tiiske in Hungarian territory. In bringing this matter to the knowledge of the Royal Ministry, the Royal Hungarian Legation is instructed to request the Royal Ministry to be good enough to take steps to ensure that an immediate enquiry be held into this further violation of the frontier by a Yugoslav State official, and to communicate the results of this enquiry as soon as possible to the Legation. Belgrade, December 7th, 1932. The Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Belgrade.
Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade. No. 4404/1933. Note verbale. With reference to its note verbale No. 9428/1932, of December 7th, 1932, the Royal Hungarian Legation has the honour to request the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs to be good enough to state what action has been taken in connection with the request contained in the said note. At the same time, the Royal Hungarian Legation begs to inform the Royal Department that, at an enquiry held on October 22nd, 1932, in the presence of the frontier- guard at Lenti, the Yugoslav guard Peron himself admitted that he had maltreated the Hungarian national Tiiske. ; Belgrade, February 4th, 1933. To the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Belgrade.
Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Pov. No. 10085. Note verbale. With reference to note No. 9428, of December 7th, 1932, from the Hungarian Legation concerning the case of the Hungarian national Joseph Tiiske, the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs has the honour to inform the Legation that the competent Royal authorities, in spite of the most careful enquiries, have been unable to ascertain that the allegations of Joseph Tiiske and his friends Horvath are in conformity with the truth. On October 20th, 1932, towards 2 p.m., the Yugoslav frontier-guard saw near frontier- post No. 493/494 an aged man who had taken a few steps across the frontier to collect chestnuts. He sent this man back to Hungarian territory and advised him not to cross the frontier again. One of two young people who were near the old man took up a piece of wood and, for no reason whatever, threw it at the Yugoslav frontier-guard. The latter merely went on his way. This is all that occurred between the Yugoslav frontier-guard and the Hungarian national Tiiske and his friends the Horvaths. There can therefore be no question of a violation of the Hungarian frontier. For its part, the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs ventures to draw the Hungarian Legation’s attention to the testimony of the Horvaths, which it considers very strange. According to the note referred to above, “ Horvath and his wife both deposed that they saw the Yugoslav frontier-guard insult Tiiske in Hungarian territory” ; then, “ hearing the cries of Tiiske, who, conducted by the frontier-guard, was at a distance of 100 or 150 paces from the Yugoslav guardhouse, Stephen Horvath and his wife ran up, so that the frontier-guard was obliged to let Tiiske go ” , The Ministry finds it hard to believe that the Horvaths had the courage to intervene on Tüske’s behalf when the latter was 100 paces away from the Yugoslav guardhouse and yet did not stir a finger when the Yugoslav frontier-guard was insulting Tüske on Hungarian territory and “ forced Tüske with blows from the butt of his rifle to follow him on to Yugoslav territory ”. Belgrade, May 27th, 1933. [Seal.] To the Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade. — 25 —
Royal Hungarian Legation, B e lg r a d e . No. 7065/1933- Note verbale. With reference to note verbale No. Pov. 10085, dated May 27th, 1933, the Royal Hungarian Legation has the honour to inform the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs as follows : x. The violation of the frontier committed by the Yugoslav Frontier-Guard Peron occurred about three metres from frontier-post No. 494, where the Hungarian national Tiiske was picking chestnuts in his own vineyard situated on Hungarian territory. As already stated in this Legation’s note verbale No. 9428, the frontier-guard must therefore have crossed the frontier in order to reach Tiiske and compel him by force to follow. 2. The spot wThere Horvath and his wife wrent to his assistance was about 100 metres distant from frontier-post No. 490 and not 100 metres distant from the Yugoslav guardhouse (as erroneously stated in the above-mentioned note verbale), to which the frontier-guard was taking this old man of 60, who is paralysed in his left hand, and whom he continued to mishandle 011 the way. 3. Frontier-Guard Peron himself admitted before a Hungarian official authority—the chief of the Hungarian frontier-guard of Lenti—and the witnesses Horvath and his wife, during the enquiry on October 22nd, 1932, that he had maltreated Tiiske. This important fact was also mentioned by this Legation in its note verbale No. 4404/1933, dated February 6th of this year. The act alleged against the two young people certainly does not justify the frontier- guard’s attitude towards this peaceable and paralysed old man. In view of the foregoing facts, and particularly of the avowal of Frontier-Guard Peron, this Legation regrets that it cannot share the opinion of the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as set forth in note verbale No. Pov. 10085. It therefore takes the liberty of reverting to this matter and requesting the Royal Department to be good enough to take into consideration, not only the facts established and set forth above, but also the great anxiety caused to the inhabitants of the frontier-zone by such incidents w'hich are constantly recurring on the frontier, and to institute a further enquiry in order that an equitable solution may be found.
Belgrade, J u ly 17th, 1933. To the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Belgrade.
Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Pov. No. 17189.M.19. Note verbale. In reply to note verbale No. 7065/A, dated July 17th of this year, the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs has the honour to inform the Hungarian Legation that, at the latter’s request, the competent Yugoslav authorities have carried out a further enquiry into the case of the Hungarian national Tiiske. The result of this enquiry is, however, the same as that °f the investigations originally instituted in the matter by the said authorities, which was communicated by note verbale No. 11085 from this Ministry, dated May 27th last. Belgrade, October 19th, 1933. [Seal,] To the Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade.
Ad A n n e x i , P a rag raph 21. Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade. Xo' 834i/i933. Note verbale. St Pn ^th last, about midday, John Zsobrak, his wife (born Elizabeth Jakopovics) and ephen Jakopovics, Hungarian nationals, all residing at Vizvâr (Hungary) went to the place nown as “ Almâsi berek ” , part of Prince Festetich’s property, near the commune of Bélavâr, inth hank of the “ Old Drave " between frontier-posts No. 539 and 540, to" gather he hay. As showrn by the attached sketch1, this land belongs to Hungary.
Not reproduced in this document. — 20 —
The above-mentioned persons had hardly begun work when a Yugoslav frontier-guard, accompanied by a civilian, Andrew Varga, a Yugoslav national residing at Zdala, entered Hungarian territory near frontier-post No. 540 and arrested John Zsobrak and Stephen Jakopovics on the ground that the land where they were working belonged to Yugoslavia. The frontier-guard struck Zsobrak several times with the butt of his rifle and wounded Jakopovics with his bayonet. Zsobrak and Jakopovics were taken on the same day to Zdala, whence they were sent on July gth to Gola, Gotalovo and Drnje, and, on July 10th, to Kopriv- nica, from which place they were sent back on July nth, via Gyékényes, to Hungary. During the numerous examinations which the prisoners had to undergo, the Yugoslav authorities told them that the territory in question belonged to Yugoslavia. The guardhouse commandant at Zdala, a frontier-guard lieutenant, even showed them the Yugoslav map, on which the frontier at this spot is indicated as being the median line of the “ Old Drave The Royal Hungarian Legation has the honour to request the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs to be good enough to open an enquiry into the matter and to punish the officials guilty of violating the frontier. Belgrade, September 25th, 1933.
To the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Belgrade.
Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Pov. No. 755. Note verbale. In reply to note verbale No. 8341, dated September 25th, 1933, the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs has the honour to inform the Hungarian Legation that, according to the reports received from the competent frontier authorities, the circumstances of the case of the Hungarian national John Zsobrak were as follows : On July 8th, 1933, Zsobrak, in company with his wife (born Elizabeth Jakopovics) and Stephen Jakopovics, crossed the river Zdalica and Lake Cambiné in the boat belonging to a Hungarian fisherman named Anton Fola. As the)' had landed on the Yugoslav bank, the frontier-guard on duty arrested them and took them to the higher frontier authorities who, after questioning them as to the reason for their having illegally crossed the frontier, sent them back to Hungary. This was all that happened to the persons in question. It should be mentioned that the Hungarian nationals mentioned above were arrested under the eyes of the Hungarian Sergeant Istvân Dzeraj, but that the latter did not consider it necessary to intervene and have the matter cleared up on the spot. However, in order to decide once and for all to which country the territory in question belongs, the Royal Ministry will send an expert to the spot as soon as the weather improves. Belgrade, January 13th, 1934. [Seal.']
To the Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade.
Ad A n n e x I, P a r ag r a ph 22.
Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade.
No. 8475/1933. Note verbale. The Royal Hungarian Legation has the honour to inform the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs that, according to the report of the competent Hungarian authorities, a Yugoslav frontier-guard crossed the Hungarian frontier on August nth, 1933, at 5.45 p.m., between frontier-posts 477 and 478, advanced for a distance of 280 metres into Hungarian territory, arrested four Yugoslav nationals who had illegally crossed the frontier and took them bac to Yugoslav territory. . These facts urere corroborated by several eye-witnesses ; further proof was found in the form of the footprints of the frontier-guard, the mark of the body of one of the persons arreste who h a d been knocked down by the g u a r d a n d the footprints of all the four persons arreste • The Legation ventures to draw the Royal Department’s particular attention to t strange explanation given by the Yugoslav frontier-guard when the Hungarian frontier-guar informed him that he was violating the frontier. He claimed that, under their regulations^ the Yugoslav frontier-guards are entitled to enter Hungarian territory up to a distance 0 200 metres in pursuit of fugitives. — 27 —
The Legation accordingly has the honour to request the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs to be good enough to furnish explanations as to this alleged rule and to take the matter up with the persons concerned, in order that the territorial sovereignty of Hungary may be respected by the frontier-guards. Belgrade, October 6th, 1933. To the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom ol Yugoslavia, Belgrade.
Ad Annex i, Paragraph 23.
Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade.
No. 9633/1933. Note verbale.
According to a report by the Hungarian authorities, on September 23rd last, at 3 p.m., Joseph Istvânfi, Hungarian national residing at Babocsa, was fishing in the Drave near frontier- post No. 811 on Hungarian territory, when a frontier-guard crossed the frontier, seized Istvânfi and dragged him into Yugoslav territory. Istvânfi resisted, whereupon the Yugoslav frontier-guard fired at him, but Istvânfi managed to deflect his aim by jerking the barrel of his rifle and the bullet fell into the Drave. Istvânfi’s cries brought his wife and his father, Francis Istvânfi, to the spot and a scuffle took place between them and the frontier-guard, three steps away from the frontier on the Yugoslav side. Hearing the shot, a Hungarian frontier-guard approached the frontier, w'hich put an end to the affray, as the Yugoslav frontier-guard then went away. As a result of the enquiry opened on the spot, it was established that the Yugoslav frontier-guard had crossed the frontier and entered Hungarian territory. This is proved by the depositions of the Istvânfi family and of two eye-witnesses, John Peter and Frederick Kleinhappel, who were present. Moreover, their statements are confirmed by the fact that the Yugoslav frontier-guard’s cap was found on Hungarian territory and is now in the possession of the Hungarian authorities. The Royal Hungarian Legation has the honour to request the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs to be good enough to take the matter up with the authorities concerned, in order that an enquiry may be held and the Yugoslav frontier-guard made responsible for this viola tion of the frontier.
Belgrade, December 5th, 1933.
To the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Belgrade.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Pov. No. 5705/V.
In reply to note verbale No. 4922, dated February 27th last, the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs has the honour to inform the Hungarian Legation that, according to the results of the Jugoslav enquiry, the incident, which took place on September 23rd last near frontier-post No. 811, occurred in the manner described in the note from the Royal Legation at Budapest sent to the Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on October 28th, 1933, under No. 990. The Yugoslav enquiry has proved that the frontier was violated by three Hungarian fishermen and also by three Hungarian frontier-guards. The statement to this effect made °y the Yugoslav Frontier-Guard Milovanovic Sava is confirmed by the deposition of two eye-witnesses—namely, a farmer, Ficko Toma, and a rural-guard, Ivolar Andrew, residing at Mekis, a commune of Podravska Sesveta. At the time the incident occurred, the latter "ere on the right bank of the Drave between 100 and 120 metres from the spot, so that they must have been able to see everything that went on. Their deposition must therefore be 1 yarded as trustworthy, especially as they are in no way concerned in the matter. Contrary to the assertions contained in the Legation’s note verbale, it is hard to believe lat a single Yugoslav frontier-guard—namely, Milovanovic—would have dared to cross >nto Hungarian territory in order to seize Hungarian fishermen and thus expose himself to fie risk of being seized or even killed by the Hungarian frontier-guards. As regards the cap found in Hungarian territory, which, in the Legation’s view\ constitutes !Jlle °f the proofs that the frontier was violated by Milovanovic, the Royal Ministry has the 'onour to inform the Legation that, according to the Yugoslav enquiry, Milovanovic’s cap * while he was struggling with the Hungarian fishermen and was carrried by the stream — 28 — to the Hungarian bank. It was subsequently found by the Hungarian frontier-guard, and this explains how it has come into the Hungarian authorities’ hands. It follows that the Yugoslav frontier-guard committed no inconsiderate act in all this affair and he cannot therefore be made responsible for any of his actions. Belgrade, March 27th, 1934. [Sea/.] To the Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade.
Ad Annex i, Paragraph 24.
Royal Yugoslav Legation in Hungary. No. 1112. Note verbale.
On the night of September 25th-20th last, a Polish national, Stephen Kocun, worker, was killed on the frontier between Hungary and Yugoslavia by a rifle-shot fired by the Yugoslav frontier-guards. Another individual in Kocun’s company, Marjan Makowski, also a worker and a Polish national, was arrested by our guards. Makowski stated under examination that he and Koczun had been arrested at Pécs and taken to Magyarbôly and then to Beremend, where the police authorities had ordered them to cross into Yugoslavia by the main road : they were to be careful not to turn back or they would run the risk of being killed. They were, they said, told that, after crossing the Yugoslav frontier, they should run on without taking any notice of the Yugoslav guards’ orders to stop. The two workers obeyed these instructions ; one paid for his obedience with his life, while the other, who was more cautious than his companion, stopped when ordered to do so by the Yugoslav frontier-guards. The Royal Yugoslav Legation has the honour to bring these facts to the notice of the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs and to request it to institute an enquiry into the matter and to punish the persons who, by giving wrong advice, were responsible for the loss of a human life. The Royal Legation will be glad to be informed of the result of the enquiry. Budapest, December 13th, 1933. [Seal.] To the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Budapest.
Kingdom of Hungary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. No. 302/7.1934. Note verbale.
With reference to note verbale No. 1112, dated December 13th, 1933, concerning the death of the Polish national, Stephen Koczun, caused by a Yugoslav guard, the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs has the honour to communicate the following information to the Royal Yugoslav Legation : Careful enquiries were instituted by the Hungarian authorities with a view to ascertaining the circumstances in which Koczun and his companion, Mar j an Makowski, left H ungarian territory. During these investigations it was established that they were not arrested at Pecs, where they are quite unknown, but were stopped, on September 25th, 1933, when walking along the Magyarbôly-Pélmonostor railway-line, by a frontier-guard patrol, since they proposed to cross the frontier by a road reserved exclusively for persons owning land on both sides of the frontier. As their passports were in order, these two Polish nationals were taken to the police-station at Magyarbôly, so that they could go on to Yugoslavia by train. As, however, they had no money on them, the Chief of Police was obliged to put them on the road passing through Beremend, by which pedestrians whose passports are in order are allowed to cross the frontier. It should be noted that this procedure is followed by the police in all cases w which aliens travelling on foot wish to cross into Yugoslavia. The guard on duty noticed two men approaching the frontier at 8.45 p.m., still on Sep tember 25th. He ordered them, in Hungarian and in German, to stop, but they did not do so until he had repeated his order three times. When the examination formalities had been completed, Corporal Francis Paré, who was in charge of the post, advised the men to ta ' care when crossing the frontier and to stop as soon as they were ordered to do so by t Yugoslav guards, as otherwise the latter would make use of their arms without warning- — 29 —
At 9 o’clock, the two men crossed the frontier-line. At 9.30, Corporal Paré heard a shot. He learned next day, from a passing traveller, that one of the two Polish nationals had been killed by Yugoslav frontier-guards. As is shown by the foregoing, the antecedents of the frontier incident in question were quite different from what is stated in the above-mentioned note verbale. It seems somewhat strange to attempt to lay upon the Hungarian frontier authorities the responsibility for this further fatal incident, which was due not to the bad advice of the Hungarian officials but simply to the, perhaps over-precipitate, use of firearms by the Yugoslav frontier-guards. On this account, the Royal Hungarian Government is obliged to state most explicitly that the Hungarian authorities are in no way responsible for the affair in question.
Budapest, April 28th, 1934.
To the Royal Yugoslav Legation, Budapest.
Ad A n n e x I, P a r ag raph 25. Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade.
No. 9210/1933. Note verbale.
On November n th , 1933, several Yugoslav frontier-guards entered Hungarian territory at the frontier-point Pitomaca-Babocsa and, after firing a few shots to frighten the swineherd, drove 107 (one hundred a,id seven) pigs across the frontier into Yugoslav territory. The pigs belonged to Julius Merész, a Hungarian national and a holder of property on both sides of the frontier, at Babocsa. The Hungarian authorities, having immediately demanded explanations concerning this unusual occurrence, were informed by the Yugoslav frontier authorities that the pigs were driven away in order to ensure payment of arrears of taxes which M. Merész owes in respect of his property in Yugoslav territory. According to information which M. Merész has received, Heler, the tax collector, and KovaciC, captain of the Yugoslav frontier-guard, are selling the pigs at Pitomaca, despite the fact that M. Merész has, on several occasions, offered to pay the sum demanded of him on account of taxes. The Royal Hungarian Legation, in bringing the foregoing by order of its Government to the knowledge of the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is convinced that the Royal Government will not fail to take the most effective measures to deal severely with this extra ordinary action of the frontier-guards in question, to stop the sale without delay and to restore to their owner the animals. While requesting the Royal Department to be good enough to inform it of the measures taken in the matter, the Hungarian Diplomatic Mission avails itself of this opportunity, etc.
Belgrade, November 17th, 1933.
To the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Belgrade.
Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade. 9626/1933. Note verbale.
By its note verbale of November 17th, 1933, No. 9210 A, the Royal Hungarian Legation had the honour to direct the attention of the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the fact that, at the frontier-point Pitomaca-Babocsa, Yugoslavia frontier-guards entered Hungarian territory and drove away a herd of pigs belonging to M. Julius Merész, Hungarian national and owner of land on both sides of the frontier, at Babocsa. While expressing its regret that an adequate reply has not yet been given, the Hungarian Diplomatic Mission ventures, acting upon instructions from its Government, to repeat its representations to His Majesty’s Government, and to add to its aforesaid note verbale the following : The Royal Hungarian authorities, to whom the affair in question was submitted, established beyond question that the pigs were on the frontier-line, so that a dozen of the animals were feeding on M. Merész’s land in Yugoslav territory, while the rest (ninety-four) were in Hungarian territory. Further, it has been proved that the Yugoslav frontier-guards crossed the frontier and entered Hungarian territory with the object of driving away the herd. — 30 —
This matter cannot be regarded as a mere accidental happening on the frontier. In entering Hungary armed, with the object of carrying out a forced seizure, the Yugoslav frontier-guards not only injured the interests of a Hungarian subject—that is, of a private individual—their action assumes a more comprehensive and more serious character, for they seriously violated the sovereignty of Hungary, a fact against which the Hungarian Government formally protests and for which it demands full moral and material satisfaction. In view of the gravity of the case, the Hungarian Legation is inclined to believe that the Royal Government does not approve the conduct of its subordinate officials and that, apart from moral satisfaction, it will grant material satisfaction by restoring without delay the herd of pigs, together with the increase, if any. If, however, this should be impossible owing to the sale of the animals, the Hungarian Government demands compensation to the amount of 35,000 (thirty-five thousand) pengô. While requesting the Royal Department to be good enough to reply to the present note at an early date, the Hungarian Legation avails itself of this opportunity, etc.
Belgrade, December 6th, 1933.
To the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Belgrade.
Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Pov. No. 23977. Note verbale.
In reply to note verbale No. 9210/A, dated November 17th, 1933, the Royal Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has the honour to inform the Hungarian Legation that, according to information received from the competent Yugoslav authorities, Count Sommsich, a Hungarian national, to whom the 106 pigs referred to in the Legation’s note belonged, owed the sum of 85,000 dinars for arrears of taxes on his property in Yugoslavia. At his request, the Yugoslav authorities granted him a respite on several occasions, so as to make it easier for him to pay the said taxes. But as the due date always passed without the Yugoslav Treasury receiving payment, the authorities were obliged to seize his pigs in Yugoslav territory and recover the taxes due to the Yugoslav State by selling the animals. The auction was fixed for November 21st, 1933, a fact which was duly brought to the knowledge of the management of Count Sommsich’s property (evidence of this may be found in the archives of the Fiscal Administration at Djourdjevac), and the pigs were sold, on the date named, for a total of 52,363.70 dinars.
Belgrade, December 8th, 1933. [Seal,]
To the Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade.
Letter from the Hungarian Minister at Belgrade to the Yugoslav Minister for Foreign Affairs,
No. 9961/1933. Belgrade, December 18th, 1933. Y our Excellency, I duly brought to my Government’s knowledge the contents of note verbale No. 23977, dated December 8th last, by which the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed the Hunga rian Legation that the seizure of a herd of pigs belonging to M. Merész was carried out in Yugoslav territory. As this statement is quite contrary to the findings of the Hungarian authorities, I venture, acting upon instructions from my Government, to propose that a joint commission be appointed to elucidate the matter in question. While requesting Your Excellency to be good enough to inform me of the names of the Yugoslav delegates and of the place and date of the meeting, I avail myself of this opportunity, etc. (Signed) A l t h , Hungarian Minister. To His Excellency Monsieur Bogoljub Jevtic, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Belgrade. — 3i —
Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Pov. No. 25261. Note verbale. With reference to the letter which His Excellency the Hungarian Minister addressed on the 18th instant to His Excellency Monsieur Jevtic, under No. 9961, concerning the 160 pigs seized and subsequently sold by auction by the Yugoslav fiscal authorities, the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs has the honour to inform the Legation that the official reports supplied by the competent Yugoslav authorities are all identical and leave no possible doubt as to the cause of the affair in question or the circumstances in which it occurred. As already indicated in the note of this Ministry, No. 23977, dated December 8th, 1933, the herd of pigs referred to in the Legation’s representations did not belong to M. Marech but to Count Sommsich ; the Yugoslav authorities possess irrefutable proof of this fact. M. Marech, contrary to the Legation’s statement, is not even a dual landowner, for he has no property on either side of the frontier, in the so-called “ frontier-zone”. Count Sommsich is a dual landowner. He is the sole proprietor of 240 jugars of land, situate on the right bank of the Drave, for which he had not paid the taxes, amounting to 85,000 dinars, due to the Yugoslav State. To recover these taxes, the Yugoslav fiscal authorities proceeded, as far back as August last, to seize in Yugoslav territory various agricultural products, together with the pigs belonging to Count Sommsich, a fact which was duly noted in a special report signed by Andria Yazbérini, the manager of Count Sommsich’s estates. The agricultural products and the pigs, though seized as far back as August last, were not at that time removed from Count Sommsich’s land, the Yugoslav authorities having obtained a promise that the taxes would shortly be paid into the Treasury of the Yugoslav State. This promise not having been kept, the pigs, numbering 106, were actually seized on November 10th last, in Yugoslav territory, at a distance of from 200 to 300 metres from the frontier-line, and eleven days later were sold by auction for 52,363.70 dinars, while the agricultural products, despite the explicit prohibition of the Yugoslav authorities to alienate them, were removed and sold, previous to that date, by the management of Count Sommsich’s property. It may be noted further that the Yugoslav authorities did not need to go across the frontier in order to seize the pigs, seeing that the herd was driven every day on to the Yugoslav side for food. It is clear then from the foregoing that the Hungarian information, which describes the whole affair in a different light, is entirely inaccurate. The pigs having been seized in Yugoslav territory and the Yugoslav authorities, in consequence, being alone competent to examine all that happened in the said territory and to report on it, the Royal Government regrets that it cannot, in the circumstances, comply with the Hungarian Government’s request to entrust to a joint commission the examination of this question, which has already been elucidated in a clear and adequate manner by the competent Yugoslav authorities. Belgrade, December 30th, 1933. [Sea/.] To the Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade.
Ad A n n e x i , P a r ag raphs 26 a n d 27.
Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade. No. 10185/1933. [Urgent.] Note verbale. The Royal Hungarian Legation has the honour to inform the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs that Charles Dravec and Stephen Makos, Hungarian nationals, were killed during the last few days by rifle-shots fired by Yugoslav frontier-guards in the neighbourhood of Budinci (srez Murska Sobota, Dravska Banovina), in Yugoslav territory, at a distance of 600-700 metres from the Hungarian frontier. The Royal Legation, acting upon instructions from its Government, has the honour to request the Royal Department to be good enough to open an enquiry without delay and to inform it of the results. Belgrade, December 28th, 1933. To the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Belgrade. — 32 —
Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. No. 288. Note verbale. In reply to note verbale No. 10185/A, dated December 28th last, the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs has the honour to acquaint the Hungarian Legation that, according to information received from the competent Yugoslav authorities, Yugoslav frontier-guards, on December 23rd last, surprised, in the neighbourhood of Budinci (administrative area of Mur ska Subota), two smugglers of brandy—Charles Dravec and Stephen Mâkos. As the said individuals, after their apprehension, attempted to run away in the direction of the frontier, the frontier-guards called out to them repeatedly to stop. No notice being taken of this order, the guards fired and killed both men on the spot. The Yugoslav authorities found near the bodies six bottles filled with brandy, one of which alone contained eight litres. Belgrade, January 5th, 1934. [Seal.'] To the Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade.
Ad A n n e x i , P ar a g r a ph s 26 a n d 27.
Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade. No. 4756/1934. Note verbale. The Royal Hungarian Legation brought duly to its Government’s knowledge the contents of note verbale No. 288, of January 5th last, concerning the death of Charles Dravec and Stephen Mâkos, Hungarian nationals, killed by Yugoslav frontier-guards in the vicinity of Budinci. The explanations that the Royal Department was good enough to give in the matter were not, however, such as to remove the unfortunate effects which this fresh incident produced in public opinion in the frontier-zone, where the population are convinced that Dravec and Mâkos, although smugglers, were none the less victims of the frontier-guards. The rumour went about, in particular, that the unfortunate men, having been arrested in Yugoslav territory a kilometre from the frontier, were led barefoot to the Cepinci guardhouse, where the officer in command at last permitted them to put on their boots. After being heard, they were sent on to Hodos, not by the good road—Cepinci-Markovci-Hodos—but—a somewhat suspicious circumstance—by the bad roundabout road—Cepinci-Budinci-Hodos—close to the frontier. The population regards this as a trick and is specially indignant, as witnesses have proved that Dravec was not only struck by three bullets but also received a bayonet wound, for which there is no explanation. In order to calm the unrest of the population in the frontier-zone, and in the interests of neighbourliness, the Royal Hungarian Legation, acting upon instructions from its Govern ment, has the honour to request the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs to be good enough to employ its good offices in order that a fresh enquiry may be opened with a view to obtaining detailed information as to the proceedings of Lelkovic and Milotic, the frontier-guards. While requesting the Royal Department to be good enough to reply to the present communication as soon as possible, the Hungarian Diplomatic Commission avails itself of the opportunity, etc. Belgrade, February 20th, 1934. To the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Belgrade.
Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Pov. No. 6587/V. Note verbale.
In reply to the note verbale of the Hungarian Legation, No. 4756, of February 20th last, concerning the shooting of two Hungarian smugglers, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has the honour to acquaint the Legation that, at the express request of this Ministry, the c o m p e te » Yugoslav authorities carried out an exhaustive enquiry into the matter and informed the Ministry as follows : — 33 —
The two Hungarian smugglers, Charles Dravec and Stephen Mâkos, were surprised at dawn on December 23rd last, in the vicinity of the village of Budinci (administrative area of Murske Subote), by the frontier-guard Lelekovic. Having found on them bottles filled with alcohol and brandy, he took them to Major Vukotic, who was at the neighbouring post. By Vukotic’s orders, the smugglers were to be conducted to the proper guardhouse, Veliki Dolenac. Accordingly, the escort and the smugglers took the usual road for Veliki Dolenac, and in consequence cannot have taken the Hodos road. As the smugglers attempted to escape, the frontier-guards, Lelekovic and Stoiljkovic, fired and killed them. Major Vukotic stated that the smugglers were brought before him fully dressed and with their boots on. The state ment that the men had walked barefoot is both incorrect and improbable, seeing that the snow was half a metre deep. A commission consisting of competent persons visited the spot immediately, but could only certify that one of the smugglers was dead and that the second succumbed shortly afterwards, despite the efforts made to save him. It could find no trace of bayonet wounds on the bodies. It is clear then from the foregoing that the information communicated to the Royal Hungarian Legation is not in accordance with the findings of the enquiry. Belgrade, April 3rd, 1934. [.Seal.] To the Royal Hungarian Legation, Belgrade.