No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Extradition in the USSR’s Treaties on Legal Assistance with Non-“Socialist” States
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 March 2016
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 29 , 1992 , pp. 92 - 141
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 1992
References
1 Menzhinskii, V. I., Mezhdunarodnoe pravo 317 (Kozhevnikov, F. I. ed.) (Moscow, 1987, 5th ed.).Google Scholar
Blatova, N. T., Mezhdunarodnoe pravo 283 (Modzhorian, L. A., Blatova, N. T. eds.) (Moscow, 1979)Google Scholar: “The institution of rendition occasions special difficulty when enter into relations on that score states of different socio-economic systems or states displaying vital distinctions of socio-political bases, for example, capitalist and developing countries.”
2 Ved. SSSR 1974 No. 19, Art. 293; SDD, 30, 91–100; 941 UNTS, 114–56.
3 Ved. SSSR 1982 No. 45, Art. 839.
4 Ved. SSSR 1984 No. 15, Art. 213.
5 Ved. SSSR 1986 No. 48, Art. 1010.
6 Ved. SSSR 1986 No. 28, Art. 525.
7 Ved. SSSR 1987 No. 15, Art. 199.
8 Kravtsov, B. V. , in Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn 1989 No. 2, at 21 Google Scholar. Apropos Ghana, the Soviet ambassador to Ghana in 1974–79 recounts an interesting story that bears on the topic:
In Ghana, there lived around 90 Soviet citizenesses married to Ghanaians who had studied in the Soviet Union. The majority of the families were harmonious, the Soviet women quickly adapted to the unusual African conditions and traditions, learned the English language and many worked in their field of expertise. But there were also those who left their husbands and even children and engaged in prostitution. In one of the Ghanaian newspapers an item was published under the loud headline ‘Russian prostitutes crowd the town of Kumasi.’ In Accra, a group of Soviet citizenesses opened the ‘Flamingo’ bar, in fact running it as a brothel.
I informed Moscow of this and sought consent to their expulsion from Ghana, particularly so when the Ghanaian authorities did not know how to get rid of them since they were restrained by the fact that these women possessed Soviet passports. When the embassy contacted the Ghanaian authorities with a request for assistance in this matter, they reacted at once. Given that these women had not maintained ties with their husbands, the Ghanaian police suggested that they leave the confines of Ghana. True, the affair stalled because the citizenesses declared that they did not have the means to return home. Then I asked for permission to dispatch them on board Soviet vessels lying in the ports of Ghana. I got the permission. But then the captains of the ships started objecting … Nevertheless, we did manage to send off a few women that way. But many of them after bribing Ghanaian officials and even their former husbands, obtained certificates attesting that they led normal family lives, remained in Ghana and continued pursuing their ancient profession.
Bernov, Iu. V., “Iz dnevnika sovetskogo posla ν Ghane,” Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn’, 1991, No. 2, at 128.Google Scholar
9 Vestnik Ministerstva Inostrannykh Del SSSR 1990 No. 17, at 64.
10 Gridin, V., “Sotrudnichestvo ν oblasti ugolovnogo prava,” Sotsialisticheskaia zakonnost 1980, No. 6, at 62.Google Scholar
11 Polents, O. E., Mezhdunarodnoe pravo 254 (Korovin, E. A. ed.) (Moscow, 1951).Google Scholar
12 Soviet scholars are aware that “the rendition of citizens of third states is regulated differently in various treaties on rendition”: “In some of them there is foreseen the obligation to notify the third state, in some the further obligation to get the consent of that state to the rendition.” E.g., Menzhinskii, V. I., Kurs mezhdunarodnogo prava 316 (Kozhevnikov, F. I. ed.) (2nd ed., Moscow, 1966)Google Scholar; idem, ibid., 194 (3rd ed., Moscow, 1972); idem, Mezhdunarodnoe pravo 239 (E I. Kozhevnikov ed.) (4th ed., Moscow, 1981) idem, op. cit. supra note 1, at 318.
13 Marysheva, N. I., “Pravovaia pomoshch po ugolovnym delam (mezhdunarodnyi aspekt),” Materialy po inostrannomu zakonodatektvu i mezhdunarodnomu chastnomu pravu 157 (Moscow, 1989, Trudy 44).Google Scholar
14 Ibid., 161; Galenskaia, L. N., Mezhdunarodnaia borba s prestupnostiu 127 (Moscow, 1972)Google Scholar; Valeev, R. M., Vydacha prestupnikov ν sovremennom mezhdunarodnom prave 96 (Kazan, 1976).Google Scholar
15 Shupilov, V. P., “Mezhdunarodnaia pravovaia pomoshch po ugolovnym delam,” Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo 87 (1974 No. 3).Google Scholar
16 Marysheva, op. cit. supra note 13, at 162.
17 Mokrinskii, S., “Iuridicheskaia priroda vydachi prestupnikov i tipovaia konventsiia Soiuza SSR,” Sovetskoe pravo 58 (1924 No. 6(12).Google Scholar
18 Egor’ev, V. V., Lashkevich, G. N., Plotkin, M. A., Rozenblium, B. D., Zakonodatelstvo i mezhdunarodnye dogovory Soiuza SSR i soiuznykh respublik 0 pravovom polozhenii inostrannykh fizicheskikh i iuridicheskikh lits (Sistematizirovannye materialy s kommentariiami) 90 (Moscow, 1926).Google Scholar
19 Dokumenty vneshnei politiki SSSR, Moscow 1968, Vol. 14, 103–6; Sovetsko-Mongolskk otnosheniia 1921–1974, dokumenty i materialy, Vol. 1: 1921–74, at 249–52 (Moscow, 1975).
20 Polents, op. cit. supra note 11, at 254.
21 Solodkin, I. I., in Sovetskoe ugolovnoe pravo, chast obshchaia 191 (Shargorodskii, M. D., Beliaev, N. A. eds.) (Leningrad, 1960)Google Scholar Idem, in Kurs sovetskogo ugolovnogo prava, chast obshchaia Vol. 1, at 143 (N. A. Beliaev, M. D. Shargorodskii, eds.) (Leningrad, 1968); Geifer, M. A., in Sovetskoe ugolovnoe pravo, obshchaia chast 80 (Chkhikvadze, V. M. ed.) (Moscow, 1959)Google Scholar. See, too, Marysheva, op. cit. supra note 13, at 162.
22 Savitskii, P. I., Mezhdunarodnoe pravo 209 (Ignatenko, G. V., Ostapenko, D. D. eds.) (Moscow, 1978).Google Scholar
23 Marysheva, op. cit. supra note 13, at 162–63. An identical thesis is propounded by Romanian scholar, Conesco, R. M., “L’extradition dans les traités d’assistance juridique conclus par Γ E tat socialiste Roumain avec les autres E tats socialistes d’Europe,” Revue roumaine des sciences sociales 283 Google Scholar (séries de sciences juridiques, 1965, No. 2). The author cites Art. 69(5) of the corresponding treaty between Romania and Czechoslovakia which stipulates that extradition is not afforded where on the date when the request for extradition is received, the de cujus qualifies as a citizen of the requested contracting party, and adds: “This specification does not exist in the other treaties, but in the absence of explicit mention the solution must, in our opinion, by medium of interpretation be the same, for it calls for acceptance as a corollary of the inadmissibility of extradition of one’s own citizens.” Art. 7 of the 1978 statute on USSR citizenship recurs as Art. 10 of the 1990 statute and simply states: “A citizen of the USSR cannot be surrendered to a foreign state.” Ved. SSSR 1978, No. 49, Art. 816 and 1990, No. 23, Art. 435. Slovar mezhdunarodnogo prava 48–49 (Moscow, 1986, 2nd ed.), likewise refers to Art. 7 to make the point about non-rendition of one’s own citizens, without further qualification.
24 See Uibopuu, H.-J., “The Soviet Approach to the Right of Asylum,” A.W.R.-Bulktin 152–69 (1971 No. 4).Google Scholar
25 Egor’ev et al., op. cit. supra note 18 at 90–91.
26 Ved. SSSR 1981 No. 26 Art. 836.
27 Chizhov, K. la., Mezhdunarodnoe pravo 165 (Kozhevnikov, F. I. ed.), Moscow, 1957.Google Scholar
28 Galenskaia, L. N., Mezhdunarodnoe pravo 240 (Tunkin, G. I. ed.), Moscow, 1974.Google Scholar
29 Iastrebova, lu., “Institut ubezhishcha i status bezhentsev v mezhdunarodnom prave,” Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo 1990 No. 10, 130.Google Scholar
30 “Beseda tovarishcha Stahna s g-nom Roi Govardom,” Bolshevik 1936 No. 6, 4.
31 Polents, op. cit. supra note II, 254. See also Blatova, N. T., Mezhdunarodnoe pravo (Blatova, N. T., ed.), Moscow 1987, 324 Google Scholar; Samartseva, N. T., Mezhdunarodnoe pravo (Levin, D. B., Kaliuzhnaia, G. P., eds.), 168, 170 (Moscow, 1964).Google Scholar
32 Pervaia sessiia Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR, Stenograficheskii otchet, 153 (Moscow, 1938).
33 Lisovskii, V. I., Mezhdunarodnoe pravo, 125. (2nd ed., Moscow, 1961)Google Scholar. In the 1970 edition, the passage has been trimmed to the bare-bones statement that “the Soviet Union disapproves of terrorism and wages battle on it.” Mezhdunarodnoe pravo, 136. (Moscow, 1970).
34 Chizhov, op. cit. supra note 27, 172. Also, Polents, 5 op. cit. supra note 11, at 250; Lisovskii, op. cit. supra note 33 (1961 ed.) at 120.
35 Vneshniaia politika Sovetskogo Soiuza v period Otechestvenrmi voiny, 276–77 (Moscow, 1944., Vol. I).
36 Stalin, I. V., O Velikoi Oiechestvennoi mine Sovetskogo Soiuza, 125 (Moscow, 1950).Google Scholar
37 Declaration on the punishment for crimes committed in the course of the war of January 13, 1942, signed by Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Norway, Greece, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Free French; the Declaration on the responsibility of the hitlerites for the atrocities committed by them, published by the Moscow conference of three Ministers of October 30, 1943. See Polents, op. cit. supra note II, 254–55, and Lisovskii, 5 ibid., 548–50. Vneshniaia politika, supra note 35, 363–64.
38 Polents, op. cit. supra, note 11, at 255. See also Bazhenov, N. A., “Nerushimost print-sipov Niurnberga i sotrudnichestvo gosudarstv v presledovanii natsistskikh voen-nykh prestupnikov,” Uroki Niurnberga, Materialy Mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii, Moscow, November 11–13, 1986 Google Scholar (Doklady uchastnikov konferentsii), 11–20 (Moscow, 1988, Vol. 3); Valeev, R. M., “Niurnbergskie printsipy i voprosy vydachi lits, sover-shivshikh prestupleniia protiv chelovechestva,” Ibid., 149–67 (Moscow, 1986, Vol. 1).Google Scholar
39 The gist of the Soviet position here is that “rendition is an indispensable instrument both for the trial of already unmasked war criminals and for their detection. However, for the rendition of war criminals there must be set conditions substantially different from those which constitute the institution of rendition of criminais in the context of normal relations between states. The guarantees which are absolutely indispensable in normal conditions of peace time and normal relations between states cannot be applied in respect to persons who have eternally covered themselves with shame through crimes the cruelty of which does not lend itself to description.” Polianskii, N. N., Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie i prestupniki voiny, 106 (Moscow, 1945)Google Scholar. In legal terms, this translates into the postulate that: “The duty to surrender persons who committed crimes against humanity exists independently of the existence between states of conventions and bilateral treaties on rendition. In this finds reflection one of the particularities of the application of the institution of rendition to the given category of crimes.” Valeev, op. cit. supra note 36, 157. See also Haraszti, Gy., “The Right of Asylum,” Acta Juridica 372–73 (Budapest), 1960, fase. 3–4.Google Scholar
40 Polents, op. cit. supra note 11, at 251, 253, 254; likewise, Romashkin, P. S., Prestupleniia protiv mira i chehvechestva, 256–57 (Moscow, 1967).Google Scholar
41 See Vyshinskii, A. Ia., Voprosy mezhdunarodnogo prava i mezhdunarodnoi politiki, 370 (Moscow, 1949)Google Scholar. In the same vein, see Valeev, op. cit supra, note 38, at 157: “To persons who committed crimes against humanity likewise do not extend the principles of non-rendition of one’s own citizens and political offenders.”
42 Polents, op. cit. supra, note 11, at 255. On July 29, 1943, the Soviet government had already taken the initiative of instructing the Soviet envoys to Turkey and Sweden to furnish the latter with the text of the notes in which it called on the neutral countries to refuse sanctuary to war criminals and let it be known that the Soviet government would consider the granting of asylum, assistance and succor to such persons as a violation of the principles for which the United Nations were fighting. Vneshniaia politika…, supra note 35, at 348.
43 Trainin, I. P., Grabar, V. E., Polianskii, N. N., Trainin, A. N., Durdenevskii, V. N., and Levin, D. B., “Ugolovnaia otvetstvennost prestupnikov voiny,” 77 Sotsialisticheskaia zakonnost 1945 No. 6, 10.Google Scholar
See also N. T. Samartseva, op. cit. supra note 31, 168–69; Kozhevnikov, F. I., Kurs mezhdunarodnogo prava (Kozhevnikov, F.I ed.), 381 (3rd ed., Moscow, 1972).Google Scholar
44 N. T. Samartseva, op. cit. supra, note 31, 211. See also Blatova, N. T., Mezhdunarodnoe pravo (Modzhorian, L. A., Blatova, N. T., eds.), 277 (Moscow, 1970)Google Scholar: “War criminals are not entitled to the right of asylum…that is a universally recognized rule of contemporary international law.”
45 Samartseva, op. cit. supra, note 31, at 212.
46 Cf. Kozhevnikov, F. I. and Romanov, V. A., Kurs mezhdunarodnogo prava (Kozhevnikov, F. I., ed.), 633 (2nd ed., Moscow 1966)Google Scholar. See also Levin, D. B. and Tunkin, G. I., Mezhdunarodnoe pravo (Tunkin, G. I., ed.), Moscow 1974, 572–73.Google Scholar
47 Samartseva, op. cit. supra, note 31, at 172. Blatova, op. cit. supra, note 44, at 27g, reproduces the statement with the substitution of “socialist countries” for “the Soviet Union.”
48 International Law, 216 (Moscow, 1990).
49 Samartseva, op. cit. supra note 31, at 168. See also Blatova, op. cit. supra note 44, at 276.
50 Lisovskii, op. cit. supra, note 33 (1970 ed.), at 132.
51 Movchan, A. P., Mezhdunarodnoe pravo (Tunkin, G. I., ed.), 345 (Moscow, 1982)Google Scholar.
52 Savitskii, op. cit. supra, note 22, at 210.
53 Menzhinskii, op. cit. supra, note 12 (1981 ed.), at 237. Idem, op. cit. supra, note 12 (1966 ed.), at 314.
54 Lisovskii, op. cit. supra, note 33 (1970 ed.), at 134. Idem, op. cit. supra, note 33 (1961 ed.), at 124.
55 Merzhinskii, op. cit. supra, note 12 (1981 ed.), at 238.
56 Idem, op. cit. supra, note 1, at 307. See also Movchan, op. cit. supra, note 51, at 345.
57 Blatova, op. cit. supra, note 31, at 311–12.
58 Galenskaia, op. cit. supra, note 28, at 239.
59 Menzhinskii, op. cit. supra, note 1, at 310.
60 Blatova, op. cit. supra, note 1, at 279, 282. For other recent versions and attempts to divide these phenomena into two categories -international crimes and crimes of an international nature — see Karpets, I. I., Prestupleniia mezhdunarodnogo kharaktera (Moscow, 1979)Google Scholar; Galenskaia, L. N., “O poniatii mezhdunarodnogo ugolovnogo prava,” Sovetskii ezhegodnik mezhdunarodnogo prava 1969, 247–60 (Moscow, 1970).Google Scholar
61 Marysheva, op. cit. supra, note 13, at 163.
62 Ibid.
63 The draft of the Model Convention of the USSR on the rendition of criminals, approved by the Council of People’s Commissars on October 3, 1923, indicated (Art. 5, Part II) that “rendition is not effected if prior to receipt of the demand for rendition the statute of limitations on criminal prosecution or punishment of the given crime has tolled.” The legislation of the country to which the demand was addressed controlled.
64 E.g., Valeev, op. cit. supra, note 14, at 58; Dereviashkin, A., “Materialy po mezh-dunarodnomu ugolovnomu pravu,” Gosudarstvennyi institut po izucheniiu ugolovnoi ispravitelno-truaovoi politiki pri Prokurature Soiuza SSR, 1934, biul, 8–9, 47.Google Scholar
65 Marysheva, op. cit. supra, note 13, at 165.
66 Valeev, op. cit. supra, note 14, at 59–60. According to this source, that is why Art. 5 of the Fundamentals of criminal legislation of the USSR provides that if a citizen of the Soviet Union who committed a crime abroad has incurred punishment abroad, the court may commensurately lower the punishment it has pronounced or entirely exempt the guilty person from undergoing punishment.
67 Valeev, op. cit. supra, note 14, at 25; Durmanov, N. D., Kurs sovetskogo ugolovnogo prava, Vol. 1, 222–23 (Moscow, 1970).Google Scholar
68 Pro, Gertsenzon, A. A., Ugolovnoe pravo, Chast obshchaia, 232–33 (Moscow, 1948)Google Scholar; Solodkin, I. I., Kurs sovetskogo ugolovnogo prava, Vol. 1, 135 (Leningrad, 1968)Google Scholar. Anti, Shneider, M. A., SovetsL.e ugolovnoe pravo, Chast obshchaia, 46–47 (Moscow, 1955)Google Scholar; Durmanov, op. cit. supra, note 67, at 223.
69 Conesco, op. cit. supra, at 287.
70 Samartseva, op. cit. supra, note 31, at 172; Menzhinskii, op. cit. supra, note 12 (1966 ed.), at 316; idem, op. cit. supra, note 12 (1972 ed.), at 194; idem, op. cit. supra, note 12 (1981 ed.), at 239; idem, op. cit. supra, note 1, at 318; Isakovich, S. V., Mizhnarodno pravo (Lukashuk, I. I., Vasilenko, V. A., eds.), 112 (Kiev, 1971)Google Scholar; Blatova, op. cit. supra, note I, at 282; idem, op. cit. supra, note 31, at 331; idem, op. cit. supra, note 44, at 279; Chizhov, op. cit. supra, note 27, at 165; Polents, op. cit. supra, note 11, at 254; Kurs mezhdunarodnogo prava, Vol. 3, 101 (Moscow, 1967).
71 E.g., Lisovskii, op. cit. supra, note 33 (1970 ed.), at 136; idem, op. cit. supra, note 33 (1961 ed.), at 124.
72 Menzhinskii, op. cit. supra, note 12 (1981 ed.) at 239–40; idem, op. cit. supra, note 12 (1966 ed.) at 317.
73 Ved. SSR 1963 No. 36 Art. 389.
74 Mary she va, op. cit. supra, note 13, at 148.
75 Ibid., 169.
76 Ved. SSR 1980 No. 34 Art. 690.
77 Marysheva, op. cit. supra, note 13, at 172.
78 Ibid., 169, 171–72.
79 Gardocki, L., “Mezhdunarodnoe sotrudnichestvo po ugolovnym delam,” Sotsialisticheskaia zakonnost 1979 No. 6, 61–2Google Scholar. See also Plachta, M., “Transfer of Proceedings and Transfer of Prisoners: New Instruments of Cooperation in Criminal Matters among the Socialist Countries of Eastern Europe,” 2, Conn. J. Int’l L., 311–43 (1988).Google Scholar
80 Bastrykin, A. I., “Vozbuzhdenie ugolovnogo presledovaniia po dogovoram o pravovoi pomoshchi mezhdu sotsialisticheskimi gosudarstvami,” Vestnik Leningradskogo universiteta (1984), No. 17, vyp. 3, 84Google Scholar. The size of the traffic generated by the transfer of prosecution assignments may be quite significant. See Galenskaia, L. N., Kuzmin, S. V., “Sovremennye tendentsii razvitiia dogovornogo sotrudnichestva gosudarstv v borbe s prestupnostiu,” Sovetskii ezhegodnik mezhdunarodnogo prava 1986, 323 (Moscow, 1987)Google Scholar, citing Gardocki, L., Zagadnienia internacjonalizacy odpowiedzialnosci karneza preseslwe popelnione za granica, 38–39 (Warsaw, 1979).Google Scholar
81 Gardocki, op. cit. supra, note 79.
82 Krylov, S. K., Mezhdunarodnoe pravo (Durdenevskii, V.N. and, Krylov, S. B., eds.), 426 (Moscow, 1947).Google Scholar
83 Ibid., 427. Cf. Samartseva, op. cit. supra, note 31, at 172: “The Soviet Union visas the possibility of surrendering criminals on condition of reciprocity, in particular, war criminals and persons guilty of crimes against peace and humanity.’ ‘ See also Blatova, op. cit. supra, note 44, at 279: “The socialist countries visa the possibility of surrendering criminals on conditions of reciprocity, in particular, war criminals and persons guilty of crimes against peace and humanity.” See also Chizhov, op. cit. supra, note 27, at 164: “The Soviet Union does not deny the possibility and advisability of international cooperation in the realm of struggle against criminality”
84 SZ SSSR 1929 No. 76 Art. 732.
85 Durdenevskii, V., “Zakon o grazhdanstve Soiuza Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik,” Problemy sotsialisticheskogo prava (1938), No. 6, 63.Google Scholar
86 Detstvo v tiurme, Memuary Petra Iakira, 59–60 (Munich, 1972).
87 Weissberg, A., The Accused, translated by Fitzgerald, E., 502 (New York, 1951).Google Scholar
88 Inter alia, Galenskaia, L. N., Pravo ubezhishcha, Mezhdunarodnopravovye voprosy, 42, 65, 79, 83 (Moscow, 1968)Google Scholar; Iuridkheskii slovar (Kudriavtsev, P. I., ed.), Vol. 2 (2nd ed., Moscow, 1956), 196.Google Scholar
89 New York Times Book Review, November 18, 1990, at 46.
90 Davidovich, D. S., “Tragicheskie stranitsy istorii KPG,” Novata i noveishaia istorila (1990), No. 4, 225 Google Scholar, referring to figures circulating in the West. Iakushevskii, A. S., “Sovetsko-Germanskii dogovor o nenapadenii: vzgliad cherez gody,” Voprosy istorii KPSS (1988), No. 8, 91 Google Scholar, strikes a strange note in a cursory reference to how “Discontent was engendered among the anti-fascists living in the USSR also by the individual unfriendly acts of the Soviet leadership toward some of them. In the beginning of 1940, a few groups of German and Austrian anti-fascists who had suffered repression in the thirties and were undergoing investigation or confinement in the USSR were transferred to the German authorities. What is especially unfortunate is that in a majority of cases this was done against the will of those being transferred,” citing Leonhard, W., Der Schock des Hitler-Stalin-Paktes, 66–68, 79–84 (Freiburg, 1986).Google Scholar
91 Pravda, April 30, 1989. According to a recent exposé, co-operation between Germany and the Soviet Union resulting in the deportation of certain prisoners from the USSR began as early as 1937. “Among the deportees are ‘specialists,’ political emigrés (quite often the German authorities had no idea that these people were in the USSR) and people who had lived in Russia for decades. They had one thing in common — all were arrested … Prior to 1939, a deportee was issued a passport, although with a short-term visa. There was a chance to run away en route since there is no common border with Germany.” After 1939, direct handing over was practised. Shcherbakova, I., “NKVD and Gestapo: Partners by Vocation,” Moscow News (1991), No. 22, at 16.Google Scholar
92 Soviet Foreign Policy during the Patriotic War: Documents and Materials, Rothstein, A. tr., Vol. 2, 198 (London, 1945).Google Scholar
93 Vneshniaia politika Sovetskogo Soiuza, 1950 god, 154–55 (Moscow, 1953); Izvestiia, April 22, 1950.
94 “A War Mystery: Return of Reluctant Prisoners to Soviet,” New York Times, February 24, 1980, at 34; Elliott, M. R., Pawns of Yalta: Soviet Refugees and America’s Role in their Repatriation (Urbana-Chicago-London, 1982)Google Scholar. A precedent had already been set with the treatment accorded 90 servicemen who fell into Japanese hands in the course of border clashes in the Far East and were repatriated in 1940. Each received 10 years in strict regime labour camps which nobody was expected to survive. Post-Second World War returnees uniformly got 6 years at hard labour. Gritsenko, V., “Togda vse byli prestupnikami. Dazhe loshadi,” Izvestiia, August 9, 1991.Google Scholar
95 New York Times, November 15, 1989, at B28.
96 Saxena, J. N., “Extradition of a Soviet Sailor,” 4, Am. J. Int’l. L., 883–88 (1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
97 New York Times, February 19, 1986, at A2, and Sharansky, N., “Rights Parley — or Sham?” ibid., January 22, 1989, at 25.AMBIGUOUS (66123 citations)Google Scholar
98 New York Times, April 30, 198g, at 18. Per the Sino-Soviet Joint communique of May 19, 1991, both sides agreed “to promote exchanges and cooperation in the legal sphere, and work out and conclude an accord on judicial assistance in handling civil and criminal cases. The responsible organs of the PRC and the USSR will coordinate in the fight against organized crime, international terrorism, drug trafficking, smuggling and other criminal activities. The forms and methods of cooperation in this respect will be discussed on separate occasions.” Pravda, May 20, 1991, and 21 Beijing Review, 1991, at 17–19.
99 Ten Years Later: Viohtions of the Helsinki Accords, August 1985, A Helsinki Watch Report, 186, 279 (New York, 1985).
100 Izvestiia, March 13, 1991. Kiselyov, V., “The Gentlemen from Interpol Live in a Computerized Paradise South-East of Moscow but Catch Criminals with Bare Hands,” Moscow News (1991), No. 31, p. 15 Google Scholar; Liutyi, A., “Ostap Bender pozavidoval by,” Pravda, April 6, 1991 Google Scholar; Sakhnin, A., “Na teplokhod ne vernulsia…,” ibid., March 15, 1990 AMBIGUOUS (409350 citations)Google Scholar; Kovalenko, lu., “Ot Interpola ne skroeshsia dazhe v Kaunase,” Izvestiia, July 15, 1991.Google Scholar
101 E.g., Soviet-Argentinian declaration of October 25, 1990, Izvestiia, October 26, 1990. Soviet-South Korean declaration of December 14, 1990, Izvestiia, December 15, 1990. Treaty between the USSR and the FRG of November 9, 1990, Pravda, November 10, 1990, and Vestnik Ministerstva Inostrannykh Del SSSR 1989 No. 9, 25, and 1990 No. 4, 35; Report on the USSR, 1991, No. 22, p. 37, Pravda, Aug. 12, 1991. The Netherlands: Vestnik 1989 No. 9, 26. Treaty between the USSR and Italy of November 18, 1990, Pravda, November 19, 1990, and Vestnik 1989 No. 10, 38, and Izvestiia, April 24, 1990. Treaty between the USSR and France of October 29, 1990, Pravda, October 30, 1990, and Vestnik 1989 No. 5, 25. Soviet-Spanish Political Declaration of October 27, 1990, Pravda, October 28, 1990, and Soviet News 1990 No. 6550, 363, 366, and Vestnik, 1990 No. 13, 76, and No. 18, 40–41; Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation of July 9, 1991, Pravda, Izvestiia, July 13, 1991. United States: New York Times, April 7, 1989, at A6; Report on the USSR 1989 No. 40, 35; Vestnik 1989 No. 24, 76; “Professionals Talking Shop, KGB and CIA: A Joint Answer to Terrorism?,” New Times 1989 No. 43, 34–35; Soviet News 1989 No. 6457, 5; Izvestiia, October 3, 1989, December 3, 1990, February 2, 1990, and May 20, 1990; Chelovek i zakon 1990 No. I, 77–80. Great Britain: New York Times, May 1, 1988, at 25. Canada: Pravda, April 20, 1990. Joint Soviet-Norwegian Statement of June 5, 1991, Pravda, Izvestiia, June 7, 1991. Joint Soviet-Mexican Declaration of July 4, 1991, Pravda, Izvestiia, July 6, 1991, mentioning the signature of an agreement on cooperation in the struggle against trafficking in drugs and psychotropic substances and their use. A similar agreement was signed with Turkey in 1990, Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn’, 1991, No. 8, p. 158. In May 1991, it was announced that the USSR Minister of Internal Affairs and the state secretary of the German Interior Ministry had signed an agreement intended to increase co-operation in fighting organized crime, the narcotics trade, illegal arms dealing, the trade in human beings, illicit gambling, fraud, blackmail, and economic crime, Report on the USSR, 1991, No. 22, p. 37.
See, also the section on “condemning terrorism” in the Final document of the Vienna meeting of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, January 1989, and the letter to the UN Secretary-General from the representatives of Bulgaria, Hungary, the GDR, Poland, Romania, the USSR, and Czechoslovakia of July 23, 1987, on measures to prevent international terrorism, Vestnik 1988 No. 10, 18–19. For a sampling of recent Soviet pronouncements on the need for closer international cooperation in dealing with these matters, Vestnik 1989 No. 1, 55–56, and No. 9, 38, and 1990 No. 4, 45; Soviet News 1989 No. 6492, 303.
102 Kuznetsov, Iu., “Prestupniki na eksport,” 5 Pravda, February 8, 1991.Google Scholar
103 Soviet Weekly, January 31, 1991, at 4.
104 To that effect, see Krivopalov, A., “Nashi syshchiki na rodine Sh. Kholmsa,” Izvestiia, April 9, 1991 Google Scholar, who correctly observes that at the moment the cupboard is bare here. “Dvesti piatdesiat dogovorov,” Mezhdunarodnaia Zhizn’, 1991, No. 8, 158.
105 Cf. Vostrukhov, E., “Za reshetkoi, Reportazh o sovetskikh turistakh, okazavshikhsia v iugoslavskoi tiurme,” Izvestiia, March 11, 1991 Google Scholar. See also Tagliabue, J., “Smugglers Overrun Germany’s Border with East,” New York Times, February 18, 1991, at 3 Google Scholar; Borecki, R., “Russians Are Coming!: A New International Mafia Born from the Economic Chaos of Socialism,” New Times, 1991, No. 26, at 24–25 Google Scholar; “Spekulianty odoleli,” Izvestiia, July 18, 1991.
106 See the author’s “The Soviet Union and International Co-operation in Legal Matters: Criminal Law — The Current Phase,” Int’l Comp. L. Qu. (1970) Part 4, at 626–70.
107 Report on the USSR, June 29, 1990 at 33; New York Times, December 1, 1989, at A5.
108 E.g., Zholkver, N., “The Honecker Affair,” New Times, 1991, No. 5 at 24–25 Google Scholar; Report on the USSR, 1991, No. 23, at 40; Ostalskii, A., “E. Khonekker dolzhen byt nemed-lenno vozvrashchen v Germaniiu,” Izvestiia, Sept. 6, 1991 Google Scholar. For the Todorov case, see New York Times, July 22, 1991, at A2.
109 Report on the USSR 1991 No. 14 at 35. See also “Seeking Political Asylum: Who Can Expect to Be Granted Political Asylum in the Soviet Union?,” New Times, 1987 No. 41, at 27.
110 Isakov, K., “Patient of Ward 603,” New Times, 1991, No. 23, at 32–3Google Scholar; New York Times, October 18, 1991, at A6.
111 Thus, mentioning that the Soviet Union has 20 or so treaties envisaging the extradition of criminals, a Soviet parliamentary deputy has noted that “they were all drawn up differently and in some instances one procedure is contemplated, and in others something else.” What was badly needed here was standardization, along the lines of the model treaty prepared by the UN Committee for the Supres-sion of Crime and the Treatment of Criminals. Pravda, September 19, 1990.
112 For the parlous situation on the law enforcement front, see the item cited in the previous footnote; Kozhemiako’s, V. interview with Barannikov, V. P., Minister of Internal Affairs of the USSR, Pravda, Sept. 26, 1991 Google Scholar; Maleev’s, V. interview with Kravtsev, V., Procurator General of the USSR, “Zakon vne zakona,” Ekonomika i zhizn’, 1990, No. 47, p. 9 Google Scholar; Reinieks, A. (First Deputy of the Procurator of the Latvian SSR) “Dve prokuratury — dva zakona,” Pravda, December 27, 1990.Google Scholar
113 New York Times, September 4, 1991, at AI.
114 Izvestiia, August 27, 1991.
115 Izvestiia, August 2, 1990; Moscow News, 1991, No. 5, at 7.
116 Izvestiia, September 14, 1991.
117 Report on the USSR, 1991, No. 31, at 48.
118 Izvestiia, September 26, 1991.
119 Ibid., September 24, 1991.