Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T04:23:23.936Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Soviet Procuracy and Forty Years of Socialist Legality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2019

George Ginsburgs
George Ginsburgs*
Affiliation:
Center of Slavic Studies, University of California at Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Though Western and Soviet political scientists seldom see eye to eye, especially insofar as the study of Soviet institutions is concerned, there is, however, at least one point of common agreement: the uniqueness of the nature and functions of the Soviet procuracy, and, particularly, of its task of "general supervision."

For it must be noted that the Soviet system concentrates in the Procurator-General's office not only the duty of state prosecutor, as is usual in the West, but also the tasks of general supervision and of supervision over the organs of preliminary investigation, an arrangement generally regarded by Soviet jurists as a vast improvement over the Western practice.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Slavic and East European Review , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , February 1959 , pp. 34 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies 1959

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For the Russian expression “obshchij nadzor.”

2 Shifman, M. L., Prokuror v ugolovnom processe (Moscow, 1948), p. 19 Google Scholar; Vyshinsky, A. Ya. (ed.) The Law of the Soviet State (New York, 1948), p. 533 Google Scholar. It is interesting to note that the only other case of a procuracy endowed with the power of supervision over acts of local authorities which is known to the author is the tsarist procuracy, which had that power from 1723 to 1864, when it was revoked in the wake of the great wave of liberalism which swept the country after the freeing of the serfs.

3 V. S. Tadevosyan, “Obshchij nadzor prokuratury,” Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, 1951, No. 4, p. 40.

4 Studenikin, S. (ed.), Socialisticheskaja zakonnosf v sovetskom gosudarstvennom upravlenii (Moscow, 1948), p. 118 Google Scholar.

5 Karev, D. S., Sovetskoe sudostrojstvo (Moscow, 1951), p. 131 Google Scholar.

6 Bolshaja Sovetskaja Emiklopedija XXXV, “Prokuratura,” (2nd ed.; Moscow, 1955), p. 20 (italics in original).

7 Studenikin, S. S., Vlasov, V. A. and Evtikhiev, I. I., Sovetskoe administrativnoe pravo, (Moscow, 1950), p. 209 Google Scholar; similar definitions are given by Vyshinsky, A.Ya., SudostrojstDo v SSSR, (Moscow, 1936), p. 209 Google Scholar note, and Gorshenin, K. P., Strogovich, M. S. and Shifman, M. L. (eds.), Kratkij juridicheskii slovar', (Moscow, 1945), p. 206 Google Scholar. Somewhat ambiguous is the status of the procuracy's supervision over the secret police in its various forms (OGPU, NK.VD, MVD/MGB). In view of its extraordinary, quasi-judicial punitive functions, the secret police, along with the regular militia and the organs of preliminary judicial investigation, has often been included in the group of judicial organs over which is exercised judicial supervision. The law of July 29, 1922, vested the procuracy with supervisory powers over the OGPU along with the other investigative agencies. Art. 63 of the 1924 Constitution, the law of June 20, 1933 (SZ RSFSR, 1933, No. 40, Art. 239), and Art. 46d of the 1924 Constitution as amended by the law of Feb. 5, 1935 (SZ, 1935, No. 8, Art. 68), specifically named supervision over the OGPU/NKVD as a distinct separate function of the procuracy. The law of May 24, 1955, makes no special reference to the secret police, but subsumes it with all the other ministerial and administrative agencies whose activities are subject to procuratorial supervision

There is, however, convincing evidence, recently authoritatively confirmed by Khrushchev himself in his secret speech, that the procuracy in fact exercised no real control over the secret police. See, Semenov, N., Sovetskij sud i karatelnaja politika (München, 1952), I p. 86 Google Scholar note. The present Procurator-General of the USSR, R. Rudenko, admitted too that his supervision over the Ministry of the Interior left much to be desired, but promised future “constant and systematic control” of it, Le Monde, Jan. 6, 1954. It has also been reported that on April 17, 1956, a special division in the Procurator-General's office was created to supervise the investigation of state security organs, New York Times, April 24, 1956, p. 1.

8 Levin, I. and Fedkin, G. I. (eds.), Sovetskoegosudarstvennoepravo, (Moscow, 1947), p. 231 Google Scholar; similar definitions are given by Denisov, A. I. and Kirichenko, M. G., Osnovy sovetskogo gosudarstva i prava (Moscow, 1950), p. 154 Google Scholar, and Kareva, M. P. and Fedkin, G. I. (eds.), Osnovy sovetskogo gosudarstva i prava (2nd ed.; Moscow, 1953), p. 249 Google Scholar.

9 Trainin, I. P. and Levin, I. D. (eds.), Sovetskoe gosudarstvennoe pravo (Moscow, 1948), p. 482 Google Scholar.

10 SU RSFSR, 1917, No. 4, Art. 50.

11 Lenin, V. I., Works (Russian edition), XXI, 446 Google Scholar.

12 Gorshenin, K. P., Sovetskaja prokuratura (Moscow, 1947), p. 30 Google Scholar.

13 Lebedinsky, V. G., Organizacija raboty sovetskoj prokuratury (Moscow, 1953), p. 9 Google Scholar.

14 V. I. Lenin, op. cit. XXIV, 434.

15 For example, Decree “On strict respect for laws,” SU RSFSR, 1918, No. 90, Art. 908; Decree of Nov. 8, 1918, SU RSFSR, 1918, No. 93, Art. 929; Decree of Aug. 25, 1921, SU RSFSR, No. 63, Art. 456. The creation of the procuracy did not put a stop to such decrees, as witness Decree of May 20, 1925, SU, I, 1925, No. 35, Art. 247.

16 V. I. Lenin, op. cit., XXXIII, 326-28.

17 Art. 2a, Dekrety HI sessii VTsIK i instrukcii N. K. Ju., Prokuratura i Advokatura (Moscow, 1922), p. 3.

18 Art. 9a and 9b, ibid., p. 5.

19 V. I. Lenin, op. cit., XXXIII, 326.

20 V. S. Tadevosyan, op. cit., p. 42. It is true that the decree of 1922 also gave the procuracy the additional power of checking the legality of the activities of economic institutions, social organizations and individual persons; however, the decree of July 29, 1922, which supplemented it, prescribed that “the procurator exercises this supervision in those cases where there is clear evidence of a violation of the law.” Art. 1, Prokuratura i Advokatura, p. 8. The supervisory power of the procuracy over actions of personalities other than administrative agencies was thus narrowly circumscribed and practically limited to criminal prosecution, as in the West.

21 A.Ya. Vyshinsky, op. cit., (note 7), p. 166.

22 I. Ilinsky, “Kategorii zakonnosti i spravedlivosti v sovetskom prave,” Sovetskoe Pravo, 1926, No. 2 (20), p. 11.

23 A.Ya. Vyshinsky, op. cit. (note 7), p. 200

24 I. Ilinsky, op. cit., pp. 5, 12.

25 V. S. Tadevosyan, op. cit., p. 42.

26 Ibid., p. 43.

27 Arkhippov, K. A., Zakon v sovetskom gosudarstve (Moscow, 1926), p. 55 Google Scholar; David, R. and Hazard, J., Le Droit SoviHique, I, 166 Google Scholar.

28 Fedoseev, A. S. (ed.) Osnovy sovetskogo gosudarstva iprava (Moscow, 1955), p. 88 Google Scholar; Vlasov, V. A., Sovetskij gosudarstvennyi apparat (Moscow, 1951), pp. 141-42Google Scholar.

29 D. S. Karev, op. cit., p. 131, lists general supervision by the procuracy, defined as its enforcement of legality, as a means by which the tasks set for it in Art. 113 of the 1936 Constitution are to be achieved. Bolshaja Sovetskaja Enciklopedija, XXXV, 20-21, defines socialist legality as both the function of the procuracy and the procuracy's method of work; P. V. Baranov, “Ghto takoe obshchij nadzor prokuratury?” Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, 1951, No. 9, p. 47, regards socialist legality as a form, not a function.

30 Popova, V. I., Socialisticheskaja zakonnost’ v dejatelnosti mestnykh sovetov (Moscow, 1954), p. 4 Google Scholar.

31 Alcksandrov, N. G., Socialisticheskaja zakonnost'—vazhnejshee uslovie dalnejshego ukreplenija soutskogo gosudarstva (Moscow, 1955), p. 22 Google Scholar.

32 Jampolskaja, C. A. and Shorina, E. V., Administrativno-pravovye voprosy ukreplenija gosudarstvennoj discipliny (Moscow, 1955), p. 50 Google Scholar (italics in original). In general, questions of public discipline are given great prominence in Soviet political literature. See, for example, Barinov, G. P., Osnovnye voprosy Konstitucii SSSR (Moscow, 1948), p. 256 Google Scholar: “For the fulfillment of the great tasks of transformation in building socialism strict discipline of the workers and the precise work of all organs and departments is indispensable.”

33 A. Ya. Vyshinsky, op. cit. (note 7), p. 167.

34 B. Mirkine-Guetzevitch, La theorie generate de l’Etat sovietique (Paris, 1928), p. 27; R. David and J. Hazard, op. cit., p. 166.

35 V. A. Vlasov, op. cit., p. 149.

36 K. P. Gorshenin, Socialisticheskaja zakonnost’ na sovremennom etape (Moscow, 1948), p. 10

37 Art. 2 of the decree of June 20, 1933, which, until the promulgation of the newest law in 1955, regulated the procuracy's activities, still read: “supervision over the conformity of the resolutions and directives of individual institutions of the Union and Union republics and local organs of authority with the Constitution and the directives of the government of the Union,” SZ, 1933, I, No. 40, Art. 239.

38 P. I. Kudryavtsev (ed.), “Prokuror” Juridicheskij slovar’ (Moscow, 1956), II, 269.

39 KPSS v rezolucijakh i rezhenijakh s'ezdov, konferencii i plenumov TsK (Moscow, 1954), II, p. 42.

40 V. A. Vlasov, op. cit., p. 150.

41 N. Lagovier, Sovetskaja prokuratura i ee znachenie dlja krestjanstva (Moscow, 1925), p. 8

42 P. A. Aleksandrov, Kommunisticheskaja partija Sovetskogo Soyuza v borbe la kollektivizaciju selskogo khozjastva (Moscow, 1955), p. 23.

43 V. I. Popova, op. cit., p. 35.

44 V. Yakhontov, “O revolucionnoj zakonnosti,” Sovetskoe Pravo, 1926, No. 1 (19), p. 6.

45 Ibid., p. 5.

46 N. G. Aleksandrov, op. cit., p. 8.

47 V. I. Popova, op. cit., p. 35.

48 J. Stalin, Problems of Leninism (Moscow, 1947), p. 423.

49 N. V. Krylenko, Sud i pravo v SSSR (Moscow, 1927), I, p. 105.

50 SU RSFSR, 1926, No. 44, Art. 338.

51 V. Yakhontov, op. cit., p. 5.

52 A. S. Fedoseev, op. cit., p. 91.

53 SZ, 1932, No. 50, Art. 298.

54 J. Stalin, op. cit., p. 413 (italics in original).

55 SZ, 1932, No. 62, Art. 360.

56 Sergeeva, T. L., Ugolovno-pravovaja okhrana socialisticheskoj sobstvennosti v SSSR (Moscow, 1954), p. 9 Google Scholar.

57 Aleksandrov, P., Leninsko-Stalinskaja teorija kollektivizacii selskogo khozjastva i borba partii za ee osushchetvlenie (Moscow, 1951), p. 42 Google Scholar.

58 K. P. Gorshenin, op. cit., (note 12), p. 35.

59 SZ, 1933, No. 40, Art. 239.

60 M. L. Shifman, op. cit., p. 26.

61 P. D. Albitsky, Voprosy obshchego nadzora vpraktike sovetskojprokuratury (Moscow, 1956), pp. 91-92.

62 M. L. Shifman, op. cit., p. 31, notes with satisfaction that the participation of procurators in trials in courts of the first instance was: in 1936, in 9.4% of the cases; in 1937— 9.3%; in 1938—12.6%; in 1939—39.9%; in 1940—39.9%; in 1941—35.6%; in 1942— 26.2%; in 1943—39.5%; in 1944—32.8%; in 1945^0.9%; in 1946—46.5%. Taking 1937 as a base year, the author stresses that in the courts of second instance, the participation of procurators in case trials rose by: 195% in 1938; 575% in 1939; 911%, in 1940; 852% in 1941; 760% in 1942; 834%, in 1943; 895% in 1944; 957%, in 1945; 1297% in 1946.

63 V. Karpinsky, The Social and State Structure of the U.S.S.R., (Moscow, 1950), p. 145 (italics in original).

64 V. G. Lebedinsky, Sovetskaja prokuratura i ee dejatelnost’ v oblasti obshchego nadzora (Moscow, 1954), p. 69.

65 Ibid.

66 N. G. Aleksandrov, op. cit., p. 24.

67 According to one emigre author, after the passage of the March 29, 1935, law against hooliganism, a veritable political campaign was instituted against all manifestations of disorderliness. In Moscow and the Moscow area in one year a total of 45,000 individuals were prosecuted under the provisions of this law in courts and administrative and police tribunals, twenty-five new court houses had to be opened to handle this flood of cases, and sentences of five years in corrective labor camps were usually meted out. See, N. Semenov, op. cit., pp. 69-70.

68 K. P. Gorshenin, op. cit. (note 36), p. 16.

69 J . Stalin, op. cit., p. 423.

70 V. C. Lebedinsky, op. cit., (note 64), p. 40.

71 Berezovskaja, S. G., Prokurorskij nadzor v sovetskom gosudarstvennom upravtenii (Moscow, 1954), p. 51 Google Scholar (italics in original).

72 See above, note 23.

73 P. D. Albitsky, op. cit., p. 63.

74 V. G. Lebedinsky, op. cit. (note 64), p. 52; I. P. Trainin and I. D. Levin (eds.), op. cit., pp.479-80.

75 Lunev, A. E., Gosudarstvennyi kontrol v SSSR (Moscow, 1951), p. 13 Google Scholar.

76 R. David and J. Hazard, op. cit., I, 162.

77 Vyshinsky, A. Ya., O vnesenii izmenenii i dopolnenii v tekst Konstitutsii SSSR (Moscow, 1947), p. 11 Google Scholar.

78 Institut Prava Akademii Nauk SSSR Osnovy sovetskogo gosudarstva i prava (Moscow, 1947), p. 188 Google Scholar. The post of Procurator of the USSR (later Procurator-General of the USSR), since its creation in 1933 has been occupied by: I. A. Akulov, 1933-35; A. Ya. Vyshinsky, 1935-39; M. I. Pankratiev, 1939-43; K. P. Gorshenin, 1943-48; G. N. Safonov, 1948-53; R. A. Rudenko, 1953-present.

79 Vestnik TsIK, SJVK i STO SSSR, 1923, No. 10, Art. 311; SZ SSSR, 1929, No. 50, Art. 445.

80 SZ, 1933, No. 40, Art. 239.

81 . SZ, 1936, No. 40, Art. 338.

82 V. G. Lebedinsky, op. cit. (note 13), p. 179.

83 Golunsky, S. A. and Karev, D. S., Sudostrqjstvo SSSR (Moscow, 1946), p. 174 Google Scholar.

84 Vyshinsky, A. Ya. (ed.), Sovetskoe gosudarstvennoe pravo (Moscow, 1938), pp. 474-75Google Scholar.

85 A. Ya. Vyshinsky, op. cit. (note 7), p. 166.

86 See, supra, note 61.

87 I. T. Golyakov, “Stalinskaja Konstitutsija i pravosudie,” Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, 1951, No. 12, p. 36, quoting J. V. Stalin, Works (Russian ed.), Vol. 11, p. 4.

88 A. Ya. Vyshinsky, op. cit. (note 2), p. 498. 89 M. L. Shifman, op. cit., p. 31.

89 V. G. Lebedinsky, op. cit. (note 64), p. 45.

91 J. Stalin, 0 Velikoj Otechestvennoj voine Sovetskogo Soyuza (Moscow, 1946), p. 14.

92 Vedomosti Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR, 1947, No. 19, p. 1.

93 Prior to this decree, the criminal code of the RSFSR provided for two years loss of freedom or one year of corrective labor; of the BSSR, in aggravated cases, up to five years of loss of freedom; of the Tadzhik SSR, up to three years. Theft by warehouse officials and employees, or chronic offenders, or with burglary, was punishable in the RSFSR with imprisonment up to five years; in the UkSSR—up to ten years; in the Armenian SSR—up to seven years. The law of June 4, 1947, uniformly prescribed seven to ten years in corrective labor camps with or without confiscation of property. For a second offense, or in cases of theft committed by an organized group or gang, or in cases of serious thefts—ten to twenty-five years in a corrective labor camp with confiscation of property. Similar penalties of five to eight years and ten to twenty years were provided for corresponding offenses against the property of collective farms, cooperatives and public institutions. Anyone knowing of thefts and failing to report them to the proper authorities received a prison sentence of two to three years, or exile from three to five. For theft of private property, the law of June 4, 1947, foresaw five to six years in a corrective labor camp, or six to ten years if committed by a gang. Robbery with violence was made punishable by ten to fifteen years in a corrective labor camp with confiscation of property; if violence had endangered a life, or the robbery was committed by a gang, or was a second offense— fifteen to twenty years with confiscation of property; failure to report robbery or plotted robbery, one to two years of imprisonment or four to five years in exile.

94 Ministry of Justice, Ugolovnyi Kodeks RSFSR (Moscow, 1953), pp. 70-73.

95 Vedomosti Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR, 1950, No. 3, p. 1. This law amended that of May 26, 1947, “On abolition of the death penalty,” ibid., 1947, No. 17, p. 1.

96 V. I. Popova, op. cit., p. 5.

97 N. G. Aleksandrov, Zakonnost'i pravootnoshenija v sovetskom obstwhestve (Moscow, 1955), p. 72.

98 A. Ya. Vyshinsky, op. tit., (note 7), p. 210.

99 M. L. Shifman, op. cit., p. 61; also V. I. Lenin, op. cit., Vol. XVII, p. 298.

100 In the early years this practice, now condemned, was regarded with high favor. See, for example, N. Lagovier, op. cit., pp. 15-16; also, supra, note 24.

101 M. L. Shifman, op. cit., p. 28.

102 P.I. Kudryavstev (ed.), “Prokuror v sovetskom ugolovnom processe,” op. cit., II, 270.

103 D. S. Karev, op. cit., pp. 136-37

104 M. L. Shifman, op. cit., p. 50.

105 M. L. Shifman, Osnovnye voprosy teorii sovetskogo dokazatelnogo prava (Moscow, 1956), p. 21.

106 M. B. Barsukov, “Za dalnejshee sovershenstvovanie organizacii i dejatelnostisovetskoj milicii,” Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, 1957, No. 2, pp.. 42-43.

107 V. G. Lebedinsky, op. cit. (note 64), p. 69.

108 P. D. Albitsky, op. cit., p. 31; in some districts there are, too, assistant district procurators; in many more, however, the entire staff consists of the district procurator and an investigator. V. G. Lebedinsky, op. cit. (note 13), pp. 14, 52.

109 See, in particular, A. Ya. Vyshinsky, op. cit. (note 7) pp. 210-11, 221; V.I. Popova, op. cit., pp. 198-200.

110 Notably, V. S. Tadevosyan, op. cit., pp. 44-45.

111 V. G. Lebedinsky, op. cit (note 64), p. 69; N. G. Aleksandrov, op. cit. (note 31), p. 24.

112 P. D. Albitsky, op. cit., pp. 63-65. This author considers the procuracy's function as defined by the Constitution of 1936 to be broader and more encompassing than the original supervision over legality concept, but attempts to resolve the problem as one of scope and degree, rather than of kind.

113 S. G. Berezovskaja, op. cit., pp. 67-68, 68 note 2.

114 Vedomosti Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR, 1955, No. 9, Art. 222.

115 R. A. Rudenko, “Zadachi dalnejshego ukreplenija socialistocheskoj zakonnosti v svete reshenii XX s'ezda KPSS,” Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, 1956, No. 3, p. 15.

116 In Art. 10, supervision over legality is listed first [sub-paragraph (1)]. Supervision over strict execution of the laws is mentioned in one line in sub-paragraph (2).

117 In theory, however, the Constitution of 1936 still reigns supreme as the basic law of the land, including its provisions on the “positive” aspects of the procuracy's functions.

118 Art. 13.

119 Art. 11(3).

120 R. Rudenko, Statement at the All-Union Conference of leaders of the procuracy, Socialisticheskaja zakonnosC, 1948, No. 7, p. 33.

121 R. Rudenko in Socialisticheskaja zakonnosf, 1955, No. 1, p. 11, cited by P. D. Albitsky, op. cit., p. 65.

122 The Party's complete control over the work of the procuracy is made quite clear in the works of Soviet jurists. See, A. Ya. Vyshinsky, op. cit. (note 2), pp. 525-26; V. G. Lebedinsky, op. cit. (note 13), pp. 181-83; the leading editorial in Kommunist, 1953, No. 10.

123 Ts. A. Yampolskaja, Organy sovetskogo gosudarstvennogo upravlenija v sovremennyi period (Moscow, 1954), p. 145.

124 However, a modification of the Procurator-General's formerly nearly absolute power of appointment and promotion has taken place. The law of Sept. 16, 1943, had instituted the following ranks: Acting state councellor of justice; state councellor of justice 1st class, 2nd class and 3rd class; senior councellor of justice; councellor of justice; junior councellor ofjustice; “jurist” 1st, 2nd and3rd class; junior “jurist.” Acting state councellors of justice were appointed by order of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet; all others, by order of the Procurator-General. The decree of the Presidium of July 13, 1955 (Vedomosti Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR, 1955, No. 14, Art. 288), made the top four ranks appointtive by the Presidium, the second, third and fourth upon nomination by the Procurator- General; the other seven were left to the personal discretion of the Procurator-General. At the same time that the Procurator-General's power of promotion was thus seemingly weakened and that of the Presidium strengthened (in line, it would seem, with the Twentieth Party Congress’ decisions to increase the power, status and prestige of the legislature), the Procurator-General's power of dismissal was increased. Formerly loss of a rank by a procurator could only take place as a result of a court ruling, enforced by the Procurator-General. Now loss of the top four ranks occurs at the order of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, the others, at the order of the Procurator-General. As a result of this reshuffling the Procurator-General seems to have lost no real power, but has come to share it more, on paper, with the Presidium, while the courts have completely lost their slight control over members of the institution. The procuracy has thus become even more tightly organized, with the independence of the individual members being even further reduced and their dependence on administrative discretion further increased, and no possibility of a court appeal.

125 Of the six men who held the post since 1933 of Procurator of the USSR or Procurator- General, the first, I. A. Akulov was named in 1935 to the post of Secretary of the Central Executive Committee of the Supreme Soviet and fell out of sight during the purges of 1938; A. Ya. Vyshinsky was named, in 1939, Deputy Commissar for Foreign Affairs; K. P. Gorshenin became Minister ofjustice in 1948. R. A. Rudenko still occupies the post. The other two men, G. N. Safonov and M. P. Pankratiev, came to the post as unknowns and fell out of sight again, one in 1953, the other in 1943. Whereas most AU-Union institutions in the USSR are noted for the high percentage of their cadres of Great Russian origin, the Procuracy is remarkable in its conscious effort to enroll members of ethnic minority groups, due primarily to the nature of its work. It seems to be for the Soviets a matter of no little pride that in the Latvian SSR, 61.2% of the procurators are Latvians; in the Estonian SSR—75% of the procurators and 72% of the investigators are Estonian. In Azerbaidzhan, members of the native population comprise 78.2% of the district procurators; in the Georgian SSR—84% of all procuratorial workers and 95% in the Armenian SSR. See, K. P. Gorshenin, op. cit. (note 12), p. 61.

126 “Prokuror i socialisticheskaja zakonnost',” Izvestia, May 28, 1938, p. 1.