Lustration in Central and Eastern Europe

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Lustration in Central and Eastern Europe

lustration political system totalitarianism

Lustration - the political form of legitimization of the new state regime (democratic or totalitarian). It is not necessarily in the strict legal framework, as its goal - "Vengeance is mine and I will repay" - is mainly of the ideological confrontation between the ruling elite and a new stage of history, descending from the bankrupt political clique.

Effort in 1999 to close the mausoleum and buried its inhabitants in the Christian tradition is the Russian equivalent of the Eastern European lustration extends not only to the living. Father lustration in the former Soviet Union after Stalin's death was Khrushchev, who made a presentation on the lustration "cult of personality" at the XX Congress of the CPSU in February 1956. Later, at the June plenary session of the Central Committee of the CPSU in 1957, were subjected to lustration LM Kaganovich, Malenkov, Molotov, and joined them DM Shepilov. Finally, in October 1961 at the XXII Congress of the CPSU lyustrantov list has expanded to include a Voroshilov, Bulganin, MG Pervukhina, MZ Saburova etc.

However, at the October Plenum, 1964, when Khrushchev was subjected to lustration, he was forced to give up the post of First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee and Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers.Lustration character wore and the process of the Constitutional Court in the case of the Communist Party in Russia in the early 90's.

In the former communist block legislation and practice of preventing in offices, law enforcement agencies, other important offices and institutions of the system of education for those who displease the ruling circles of political, religious, etc. reasons, called lyustratsii1. Litigation and mass layoffs of persons who were in the past because of the security service, were designed to demonstrate the desire of the new government to integrate with Europe. Human rights violations in the state-party system took the form of mass surveillance, not mass murder (as opposed to fascism).

Some researchers believe that the transformation of such taking place in Central and Eastern Europe can be seen as a movement from "ekstrakonstitutsionnyh" to the constitutional state. Transformation processes are often governed by "contracts" (political agreement) that control the use of coercion in transformation. The contracts may be established (and experience has shown that this was the case quite often) the general conditions of lustration. These documents can be constitutionally justified acts, as they govern the use of organized violence (including criminal law) during the transfer of power. However, treaties are exceptional documents that can only use a certain historical moment.

Eastern society is divided into anti-communists and communists, supporters and opponents of lustration. L. Walesa, Havel, V., J. Zhelev and other opponents of lustration fought for the retention process decommunization within narrow limits, warned against settling of accounts with the former ruling nomenklatura. The Conference of European Churches, advocating for the rights of persecuted staff disbanded security forces in Eastern Europe. Chairman of the Secretariat of the international organization drew attention to the fact that the suspects are often deprived of the possibility to use legal methods and means of defense against the charges.

The following is a material that reveals the process of lustration in Eastern Europe, its sequence determined by the size of the presentation lustration procedures in each of the states.

Hungary

In Hungary, the Act Zeteni Takбcs-1992 set to prosecution without a limitation period of perpetrators in December 1944 - May 1990, the betrayal of the Motherland. Provides for punishment of up to life imprisonment. Under the words "treason" could be if you want to bring any member of the Soviet-Hungarian cooperation in those years. The Constitutional Court considered the request of President A. Gцncz, ruled unconstitutional this "law of retaliation."

In December 1994, the Constitutional Court of Hungary made ??a major decision regarding the fate of secret documents and those who provided the information gathering. This decision declared unconstitutional several provisions of the 1994 Act governing the "Biographical control" with respect to persons in key public positions while maintaining the secrecy of the relevant documents. The content of the law is as follows.

1. Members of Parliament, Ministers, President, Constitutional Court and ordinary courts, some journalists, senior executives of state owned universities or companies with majority state ownership and other senior officials were to be "a biographical control." The law classifies the following activities as "lyustriruemuyu": a) activities in favor of public safety agencies as an official agent or informant, b) membership in the Nazi Party.

2. The law provided for the establishment of chambers of three judges, who are granted special privileges and immunities, including access to classified documents and determine whether any of these persons was an agent or informer for the state-party regime.

3. Lustration process was carried out in secret, without public hearings and participation lyustriruemyh people who are informed about the investigation until it is completed.

4. If the person had a "past", then they should resign. In this case, the information is not disclosed. Otherwise, documents made ??public. If lyustriruemye persons wanted to appeal the decision, they can take the matter to court.

Decision on lustration was not only a sensitive political issue, but also the delicate constitutional problem, because it allegedly violated two constitutional principles: the right to informational self-determination of individuals (in this case the informant) and the right of public access to publicly significant information. The problem of secret police documents originated in Hungary as part of the transition agreement, and as part of the new constitutional order. The Constitutional Court ruled that the lustration process should take place in accordance with the principles of the rule of law, protect the rights of all citizens, including the informants. The Court emphasized that the legal provisions governing the secret police documents, should not differ from the general principles governing government documents, and that informants should not be treated differently from other citizens. In contrast, for example, in the former German Democratic Republic of the rule of the secret documents were created as part of the transitional contracts and important exception to the principles that should apply to other documents.

According to the Constitutional Court of Hungary, the issue of lustration should be solved in accordance with the general legal principles: the principle of public access to information of public interest, and the principle of people's self information of individuals in relation to the information gathered against them and contained in government documents. The problem of secret police documents have a potential constitutional dimension in the long run. One and the same person has a negative right to information self-determination (ie, the other person may have information about anyone) and a positive right to informational self-determination (the right to know about it is reported in the documents).

In its reasoning the Constitutional Court found that the impugned Act violated the constitutional right of access to information of public interest, which is part of the fundamental "right to communicate." The Court considered that the data on persons occupying positions in the public administration, and those involved in political life, including those who are responsible for the formation of public opinion as part of their work, are considered information which the public interest in accordance with Art. 61 of the Constitution of Hungary (which provides a right of access and dissemination of information of public interest), if these findings suggest that people used to engage in activities, contrary to the principles of the constitutional state, or belonged to the state authorities, who have participated in this activity. The Court also found that trying to solve the problem of the legislator documents were constitutionally incomplete (white space), because they were not able to guarantee the right to privacy and information self-determination of all citizens. Since the Parliament has not provided the right to informational self-determination and especially the right of access to their own documents, the Court in the lustration actually said that Parliament has created a situation in view of the unconstitutionality of the gap in the law.

The final decision of the Constitutional Court of the lustration case can be presented in the following positions.

Storing large number of secret documents is incompatible with the idea of the rule of law, as this information would not have been received in the way of constitutional rule of law.

Persons holding public office, have a smaller scope of personal "privacy" than other individuals in a democracy.

Court "handed" issue to parliament as a "political question", noting that Parliament has no right to either destroy all documents or maintain their absolute secrecy, as they contain much of the information is information of public interest.

According to the Court, requires a change in the list of persons lyustriruemyh because it is unconstitutionally arbitrary. Category lyustriruemyh journalists, on the one hand, too broad: it includes those who made the music and entertainment programs, and on the other - is narrow, as it removes some obviously influential journalists working for the private electronic media. Or all of the journalists who, as part of its work to shape public opinion, should cussed, or none of the journalists should not be subjected to this procedure. Parliament could choose either option. The Court found no violation of freedom of the press, or the information in the self-determination of journalists for an expansion in the lustration process in the journalists of private media. The Court considered the constitutionality of provisions of the Law, allowing publishers cussed private weeklies and daily newspapers with a circulation of over 30,000 copies. It held that the list of persons lyustriruemyh be included publishers, opinion, although no public authority. In contrast, the spread of lustration to officials of universities and colleges and the top management of the state (or to the public) companies declared unconstitutional, because they had never exercised the power and did not participate in public affairs. Position to expose the lustration clergy members, was rejected by the Court on procedural grounds, as the procedures applied to the clergy, did not include many of the guarantees provided by others.

Another unconstitutional gap in the law concerning the rights of victims, followed by personal information, and which are also contained in the documents. Indicating that these persons have a right of access to documents and the right to destroy the documents, the institution to which the Court found a 6-month period for legislative regulation of these rights.

The Constitutional Court held that, technically, it will be very difficult to fake secret reports and documents, as the information about the agents contained in several different documents of different security agencies.

The Court indicated that informants (informants) also have the right to informational self-determination, if they are individuals and not to hold public office. List of agents can be open to society, if there is a public interest in the disclosure of the past agents. Public interest would be justified if the person wants to take the contested public office.

Victims of surveillance should be allowed access to the documents with information about them, except for the informant.

Court demanded that Parliament has provided the right to informational self-determination.

Constitutional Court's decision shows that the lustration law may have two purposes, depending on the historical moment. At the beginning of the transition complete lustration served to show irreversibility and ritual purification of society. But after more than five years after the "rule of law revolution" can be found improved goal - cycle definition of freedom of information through the "lustration rule of law." The past behavior of the people, now known in politics, society should know. Lustration known representatives of the state constitutionally reasonable, but the publication of the complete list of agents is not.

The decision of the Constitutional Court in the lustration based on the principles set out in the preceding five years, the Court, in a decision aimed at protecting the right to privacy and the right of access to public documents. The decision on the closure of local government meetings of 29 May 1992 year3 Constitutional Court declared that the right of access to information of public interest, rather broad, but not unlimited. Right of public access to information is constitutionally protected as a condition for the exercise of freedom of expression (that is, when everyone has the right of access to information of public interest, to form an opinion, which he can then speak freely), and as part of the freedom of communication (that is, when the access to information of public interest, a separate law, regardless of their place in the formation of opinion).In a decision of 24 June 1994 (entered into force on 30 June 1995), the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional ex futuro order of the Presidential Council, which regulates the state secrets, according to which originally formed and persisted documents secret police. This order is identified as a potential state secret any information dangerous to the Hungarian state or any other political, economic and defense interests. He let the speaker of parliament, the prime minister, the president of the Supreme Court, the Attorney-General, the heads of government or leaders of public organizations to attribute any information to the secret. The provisions of the order created an absurd situation: Hungarian Prime Minister could choose names that he liked (or disliked) from the list of secret agents the previous system, since only high-ranking officials may have access to information about what the person was informed of their fellow citizens in the period party-state regime. Defining the ability to access information about the former Hungarian Socialist Workers 'Party (Socialist Workers' Party), the Court emphasized the importance of freedom of information, finding that the right of researchers to access these documents were more sound than competitive requirement to keep documents secret. In this case, there are state secrets regulation declared unconstitutional. The Court affirmed that the right to protection of personal information also applies to legal entities. However, the archive of the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party is a special case because it is in direct violation of the Constitution to exercise political power. The court noted that these issues should be addressed in other cases.

Poland

In Poland, a long-time activist of "Solidarity", MP, historian B. Geremek argued that the people of Eastern Europe must choose between Nuremberg and postfrankistskoy Spain, "close the door to the past." "Politics of hate is normal for totalitarian regimes and remains the norm immediately after the fall of those regimes. Now is the time to decide whether we are prepared to learn the politics of compromise." After 1989, the government formed the leaders of "Solidarity", guaranteed the inviolability of former communists. At the same time had been denied access to power other activists "Solidarity." Last L. Valencia rallied around, and when he did not live up to expectations, unfurled decommunization policy that began with the famous resolution of Parliament. Coalition ABC SS managed to push through parliament a resolution condemning the totalitarian communist regime. The resolution states that the PZPR largely responsible for the existence in Poland of the communist system.

The list of collaborators was announced Interior Minister A. Matsirevichem. Most supporters decommunization never been Communists and fellow travelers feel moral superiority over those who have not worked in the underground. In January 1992, a radical anti-communists formed a government led by J. Olszewski, which released a list of agents, there were the names of the President and many of his aides, the leaders of the other parties that were created on the basis of "Solidarity." The list was prepared in haste and in violation of the resolution of the Diet (later recognized as unconstitutional by the Constitutional Tribunal). According to a public opinion poll, the majority of the Polish population supported the idea of publicizing the names of agents of the secret police, but quickly lost interest in this issue.

In January 1993, President Walesa vetoed the law on old-age pensions, and military personnel in some state institutions. On the basis of this law persons who were in the period of 1944-1989 years. members of the state security and the law is broken or participated in the repression against anti-communist groups, lost their right to personal pensions higher level. Deprived of the right persons who were in the 1944-1956 years. military prosecutors and military tribunals, and pursuing people suspected in the struggle for independence. Vetoing, Walesa said that the transfer of the special non-judicial investigation committee is against the Constitution and the European Convention, ratified by Poland in October 1992. No more than one fifth of influential politicians in parliament 1991-1995. decommunization welcomed. Despite the failure to lustration, which cost the resignation of the Cabinet of Jan Olszewski, right-wing and centrist groups in the Polish Parliament demanded a law prohibiting participation in the political life of former regime figures.

The general public accepted the resolution, the Parliament as a step towards the adoption of a decommunization countries in developing a group of MPs from the FAA. Under the bill, those engaged in secondary and higher positions in the former Polish United Workers Party, the members of the committees of senior officers of the People's Army, the leaders of the regional level, the chairmen of local councils and all the members of the security was forbidden to work in state and local governments, as well as in the state media information within 5-10 years. However, this prohibition does not extend to the members of Parliament and the President. Violation of the ban on trade punishable by imprisonment for a term of 1 year to 5 years. Decommunization meant depriving individual awards and honors, and the revision of existing street names and monuments. Prime Minister Jerzy Buzek in his speech supported the bill.

In July-August 1993, the Speaker of the Sejm was proposed six bills in September, a draft law proposed to the President. None of the parties represented in the Sejm (including former communists) is not categorically rejected the idea of lustration. A number of bills proposed to exclude from the political life not only of former employees and whistleblowers Security Service (SB), and informants in the early stages of recruitment, employee of the former military police and their informants, as well as party secretary of factories, offices and cells in the community. Based on some of the bills submitted to be elected or appointed to a number of posts and positions, including the head teacher of the school, would have lost more than 2 million people. In the bill provides that the only source of information should be considered dossier SB (not fully trust, and the list is a lot of "dead souls," "malingerers"), the burden of proof lay on innocence of the accused, to oversee the decisions made shall be established a special commission (extra-judicial agency that carried a threat to civil liberties.) Individual projects include the possibility of judicial review of cases, but mostly behind closed doors.

Polish Helsinki Committee (a non-governmental human rights organization) offered his own version of due diligence:

Rejection of collective responsibility and decommunization, deprivation of rights of all members of the former nomenclature, responsible only for certain activities and strictly on the basis of the ordinary civil and criminal procedures.

The need for precise definition of "collaboration with the secret intelligence agencies," taking into account the reasons why to osvedomitelstvu, deadline functions, the scale of damage.Decisions exclusively by the court in compliance with the principle of presumption of innocence, the right to defense, the right to compensation in the case of unproven allegations.

Decisions exclusively by the court in compliance with the principle of presumption of innocence, the right to defense, the right to compensation in the case of unproven allegations.

Validation of data archives Sat other evidence.

Determination of sanctions to personnel staff Sat, assuming voluntary osvedomitelstvo offense. Rejection of unjustified equating to normal activities whistleblower actions of persons who collaborated with the military intelligence.

Only the need for security checks of persons who occupied elective office: President, Members of Parliament, senior government officials - Prime Minister, ministers and their deputies, the officials in charge of the district administration (governor) of the judge.

Ban requirements entrepreneur or institution to its employee on the presentation of evidence to the lack of communication with Sat.

February 1, 1996 The President submitted a bill to the Diet on the audit of the political reliability, providing access to citizens on request to its dossier to the security services, as well as mandatory audit the political past of senior officials. The Commission shall be a public trust, which officially confirmed the fact of cooperation with the security services. The Commission included the Chairman appointed by the President, the six judges of the Supreme Court, six judges of the Court of the Chief Executive and ten judges appointed by the National Council of Justice. Investigation of the alleged conduct of all persons in positions of judges, prosecutors, investigators, ambassadors, consuls, heads of central and local government agencies. On request Gosizbirkoma Commission had the right to conduct background checks of the persons holding public positions in central and local government institutions. Materials testing, to establish the fact of cooperation made public if the candidate did not give up the intention to run. Evidence of conscious cooperation of government officials with security from July 21, 1944 is the basis for their dismissal from office. The Commission's decision can be appealed to the division of criminal cases of the Supreme Court. All materials of the Ministry of Public Safety and Security Services were given to the Commission. The bill was criticized by the opposition parties. In their view, it provides for the establishment of guilt based solely on evidence of the transfer of the secret services information directly harmful to people or organizations involved in opposition activities. In addition, the bill indicates only cases of cooperation with the secret police, but not with intelligence and counterintelligence.

In August 1997, the Polish Parliament adopted the Law on Lustration to verify the statements of senior officials for their alleged links with the security forces in the communist period. The law has not been applied in practice, because it was created by controlling the court, considering the application of state officials. Suggested that the issues related to lustration, are the responsibility of the Warsaw Court of Appeal, and the appeal - the Supreme Court. The government has proposed amendments to the law on lustration, which aim to improve the terms of positions and professions, to be verified. Under the amendments, statements about their work or cooperation with the security agencies in the communist period should provide lawyers and candidates for parliament. Attempt to hide these facts attracted a penalty of suspension for a ten year period of national service. Statements of government officials about their past should be sent to the Warsaw Court of Appeal - its role is limited to the collection of data. The proposed amendments create a position of representatives of public interest, which verifies the claim. Representative, acting as an independent prosecutor, has the authority to cross-examine witnesses and examine documents to decide whether to bring a case to court. If the case was transferred to the court, it will be processed in accordance with the established procedure of the proceedings, and the defendant had the right to appeal to a higher court or the Court of Cassation. The representative of the public interest, selected from among the judges, appointed for a six-chairman of the Supreme Court and before taking office passed the lustration. The amendments also had a controversial article, according to which members of parliament, questioning the authenticity of the statement submitted by one of the deputies to contact a representative of public interests with the request to reconsider the questionable statements. All-Poland Judicial Council, endowed according to Art. 186 of the Constitution the authority to ensure the independence of courts and judges, recommended to remove the provisions that give the right to the representative of the public interest to review the decisions of the court.

The bill on amendments to the law on lustration was adopted by 242 votes in Parliament "for" and 148 "against" and 19 "neutral." After the vote in the Diet passed the Law on the President of the Constitutional Tribunal, considering that the amendments to the representative of the public interest given too much discretion and grant him the right to require the courts to check all submitted applications, which means that in fact act as prosecutor. He also expressed concern about the fact that the law violates the constitutional right of the judges. Judge accused of distorting the truth (the assumption in the statement, made in accordance with the procedure lustration) shall be promptly removed from office. At the same time, under the current law, a judge can be dismissed only by the decision of the Disciplinary Court. Article 180 of the Constitution states: "The shift from office, suspension of the execution of his duties, his transfer to another location or to a different position against their will can only take place by virtue of a court decision and only in the cases specified in the law."

Polish Constitutional Tribunal also considered the President's objections to the amendments to the Law on General Courts. Parliament adopted the amendments proposed by the government, according to which provides legal sanction to the judges who had collaborated with the previous regime. According to these amendments, the judges shall be made in the period from 1944 to 1989, unjust sentences, violating basic human rights, and the judges, in any way violates the rights of the accused to a defense, to the year 2000 will not raise wages and even could face dismissal. The Constitutional Tribunal declared unconstitutional lustration judges who violated the principle of pre-1989 judicial independence (two judges of the Constitutional Tribunal expressed disagreement with this decision.) As noted by Marek morocco, President of the Constitutional Tribunal, the latter is not discussed or evaluated the idea of checking the judges as such, but pointed out that the adoption of the Law on Amendments to the Law on General Courts were made procedural errors. The Tribunal found that all of the proposals can not be accepted as amended, and must be considered on the basis of a separate legislative initiative. Deputies from the ABC did not bother this decision of the Tribunal, and 24 July 1998, they have introduced a new Diet a bill to check the political reliability of the judges.

Attracted great attention of Wroclaw regional court ruling on the case of three police officers accused of killing three protesters in the city of Lublin in 1982. The court found the defendants guilty of involuntary manslaughter, but based on the amnesty of 21 July 1984, followed by the abolition of the death penalty, dismissed the case. Many lawyers believe that the court did not consider the provisions of the Act, adopted May 31, 1996, under which the Amnesty Act in force in the communist period, does not apply to officials who committed crimes while in office. Andrzej Wawrzyniak, a representative of the Wrocіaw Regional Court, said that the verdict in criminal cases shall be made on the basis of existing legislation, but if the law in effect before, called for a lighter penalty, that penalty should be imposed on the basis thereof. This argument can lead to consequences as would be impossible to bring to justice those who committed crimes during the communist period.

Germany

In Germany, in accordance with the documentation of the Stasi, the German security services, adopted by the Bundestag in 1991, officially opened its archives. (The service had 85,000 employees and a half-million emergency informants). In January 1992, more than 3,000 applications from those who want to get information about the institution they dossier submitted to the Office for the dissemination of archives; projected supposed to provide for review of more than 70,000 cases per month. Due to the vast array of information researched lustration process in Germany could take several years. Unlike in other states cleansing, cleansing of East Germans had made "unauthorized" West Germans because of the parallel process of unification and the development of institutions in West Germany. In connection with the lustration were differing points of view, including the proposal to exempt from legal liability of those responsible, as the guilt of each individual is difficult to prove. However, the required repentance and Christian forgiveness, open and honest dialogue between past "persecutors" and "persecuted". Former employees of the Stasi threatened revenge by colleagues - East Germans and West Germans competition - all this gave rise to early retirement and unemployment. Lustration of former communist leaders was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Constitution by the courts in West Germany, where he worked mainly Germans. The liberation of Germany from communism to purchase extra dramatic, because the older generation experienced a second purge after denazification, which was held against lawyers who had collaborated with the Nazi regime. With the lustration procedures - to bring to justice those who bear responsibility for the old regime - it was supposed to restore justice to those who suffered from repression, and to take control of the state apparatus of persons who wanted to deprive the new mode of influence on the process of establishing a new order.

Lustration proceedings against the former leaders were excited in the interim period between the fall of the communist regime in East Germany in November 1989, and its accession to the Federal Republic of Germany October 3, 1990. Last Communist Prime Minister initiated the destruction of evidence Modrou inglorious past political apparatus. Many of the documents were burned. In the lands of the former GDR lawyers illegally denied the right to apply for information, documents, help in the archives of the former State Security Service. Security officers intentionally included in the lists of agents and also those who have refused to cooperate with the Stasi (the publication of lists of agents in Germany in which the names were not implicated). These people as a result of lost work and publications have become pariahs press leans German society.

A few months after the fall of the Berlin Wall brought to power a bourgeois coalition, which suspended the destruction of documents and the first political initiated criminal proceedings (against the former party leader Eric Honecker and former union leader Harry Tisch). German merger agreement stipulated that any degrees from the Academy in Potsdam-Eiche (Academy of the Secret Service), are invalid. The treaties contain provisions to the effect that civil servants and members of the judicial personnel must re-apply for admission to work, that is, the re-employment. It has affected hundreds of thousands of teachers, holders of public office, and most lawyers. In order to control the files of the former secret service was established a special body - the Commission Gauck (on behalf of his head). Law adopted in 1991, provides for strict rules of access to personal profiles of victims and to provide protection against unauthorized use of the information. Public servants can request one to this body scan documents on cooperation for each candidate for public office. The federal and provincial parliaments "translucent" of its members. Was made a mass purge of civil servants have been in contact with the former secret service. In case of the participation in the work of the secret service (as a formal or informal employee whistleblowers) should dismissal. Employees also have been charged if the courts of the united Germany shall consider appropriate action as a crime.

Lustration process conducted by the ordinary courts, which included judges from West Germany or the judge, tested and re-appointed to the position in East Germany. Under the principle of "no punishment without law" apply the criminal law of the GDR, as it operated at the time of the commission of crimes, but the CCP used in West Germany, which came into force at the end of the GDR. The limitation period shall be interrupted for the period of the GDR - because it was believed that the country was guided by the desire for effective law - but was due to expire at the end of 1995 for minor offenses (punishable by not more than 3 years) and at the end of 1997 - for misdemeanors (maximum penalty - not more than 5 years). The Minister of Justice has established the joint Berlin prosecutors special unit that performs the task of investigating the exceptional political crimes, meant as criminal offenses: violation of border regime (affecting all members of the National Defense Council and many military leaders), election fraud (directed against all mayors, as well as employees, responsible for local and national elections), corruption, embezzlement, misuse of public funds (for national and local nomenclature).

To bring to justice individuals for criminal offenses throughout the ruling class was not easy. The post-communist law was designed so as to observe the criminal standard of "no punishment without law." The result is a procedural hurdles, and the question of how much of the responsibility for the established system of repression can be charged to the individual, considering factors such as the forced cooperation psevdosoglasie for cooperation and even active resistance.

Courts have stated that the East German judges had to declare invalid the border regime in accordance with the constitutional law and the international obligations of the GDR. Courts actually reinterpret the law of the GDR, have created their own, the perfect right of the GDR, in part interpreting codes stricter than the judges of the GDR, partly correcting the laws of the German Democratic Republic on the basis of natural law theory of basic human rights. In the first judgment in the case against the soldier who had shot the fugitives at the Berlin Wall, it was stated that if the statutory law of the GDR ignore human rights, the duty of any soldier, public servant, official or any court of civil disobedience was unconstitutional provisions, violations of the principles of government and rule of law human rights. Appellate court - Federal Court - Adjusted argument, pointing out that under the law of the GDR opening fire on the border was determined by the constraints of relevance. This theory implies a retroactive effect of the law, which had never been valid at the time of the alleged violations. Positive law is valid only within the framework of human rights. In proceedings against Honecker and other Politburo members disobedience duty was extended to those who gave the orders. The charge is imputed political leaders responsible for border management, only provoking murder; federal court sentenced guilty of promoting murder. Only after the first cases were reviewed by the Federal Court and the Constitutional Court, the opportunity to bring other charges for crimes committed. Then supposed to start high-profile cases against nomenclature - for Honecker and other members of the National Defense Council, based on the doctrinal structure of criminalization of the border regime, confirmed by the appellate court for some minor cases of border control. For a number of cases the accused had to be abandoned due to their disease state (including in relation to Honecker). More than half of the former lawyers were excluded from the members of the judiciary, the public services and universities. East German prosecutors, judges and public servants have been cleaned before they are allowed to return to their jobs. The term "Berufsverbot" - separation from work and profession - has been used in 70 years in West Germany to mean "knockouts" of all applicants for the job in the civil service for participation in the past leftist activities. Check for reliability of the legal profession was made very carefully. Although the documents for admission to practice law practice and law degrees East Germany (except diplomas Academy in Potsdam-Eiche) recognized in the united Germany to be admitted for judicial office was required to pass a West German law. Lawyers may have been tested for their activities in the past in accordance with the verification of lawyers in 1992, which allowed to exclude from the number of practicing lawyers who have acted in violation of the fundamental rights and does not qualify for the rule of law. The law allows the use of a wide margin of appreciation. Some German states (the Free State of Saxony) checked each working lawyer, in most land application scans a person against whom statements were made. Parliamentary Commission on repeated statements made decisions to continue the work as judges and prosecutors, based on the data card files that store copies of all documents the political process in a special archive prison Berlin - Rummelsberg and files of the secret service.

Many former judges decided not to make application and began to receive unemployment benefits, others have retired early and got right to a pension. In Berlin, only 10% of the judges and prosecutors were appointed again in other former East Germany GDR judges for reappointment had an average chance of 55%, the prosecutors - 45%. Cleaning the court staff has become a problem for six new eastern lands and joint city-state Berlin. About half of the respective Departments of Justice took the West German lawyers. The courts were involved venerable West German judges are interested in improving their pensions, and young graduates in Law, who intended to make a career in the eastern states.

"Witch Hunt" or "New Nuremberg" - the so-called many public figures in Czechoslovakia (Czech Republic and Slovakia), the measures taken after the passage of the 1991 decommunization, according to which the former communist nomenklatura, employees of state security and the collaborators were fired or demoted . President Havel was forced to sign the law, asked the Parliament to amend it.

The list of persons who had collaborated with the communist regime in 1948-1989 gg., Included 140,000 names. These people for 5 years were to be monitored. Persons involved in the suppression of human rights and freedoms (HR employees and agents, functionaries of the Communist Party, politically directed a State Security), 5 years not allowed to hold positions of responsibility in government agencies. The Act established the following basic rules of the political rituals of purification: 1) Do not hold any important government positions to former party functionaries, were held in the years of the communist regime in positions above a certain level, the officers of a certain rank, and all the employees and volunteers of security services, and 2) be cleaned Only those persons who could reasonably be accused of violating human rights. The government was required to provide evidence of their guilt, and defendants receive certain procedural safeguards, including the right to appeal, and 3) were subjected to lustration all officials holding certain public offices or applying for these positions. The names of these men were entered in the lists sent to the special commission of the Ministry of Interior. Commission within two months of checking their receipts on file cabinet on cooperation in public security Czechoslovakia. After the investigation people were given special certificates, certifying that they are the owners of "STB-positive" or "STB-negative" (STB - the name of the security of Czechoslovakia). Owners of negative references to retain their positions. If anyone received a positive opinion, he should immediately resign from the service. Application of the Act in respect of classified freelancers STB - confidential informants - was complicated by the lack of reliable information on cooperation.

Lustration campaign initiated concern of international organizations (International Labour Organization in Geneva, New York Helsinki Group). They denounced the dubious reliability of filing STB, it is based on the inability to divide people into groups of guilt, insecurity procedures legal aid to victims of lustration (including too narrow right of appeal and the enforcement of the requirement for the government to take evidence for the prosecution), the probability of release of this campaign beyond mere senior civilian and military positions. In connection with the ILO resolution on cancellation or amendment of the Law on decommunization because it discriminates against people based on their political views, and based on the concept of collective guilt, 99 members of parliament voted in 1993 for having to refer the law to the Constitutional Court.

The desire to hold a "moral disinfection" collaborated with the totalitarian regime of persons generated lustration fever. Journalists began to use archive STB as a library card.

Czech Republic and Slovakia

In Slovakia, for example, the process of lustration was completely ineffective, because the communists were popular among the population. Many judges with questionable track record and have been in office under the current government. However, the Minister of Justice Novak announced that the judiciary free from communist judges: only a quarter of the previous judges have retained their positions (and only a third of them in 1989 belonged to a political party). The last Minister of the Interior under the communist regime Frantisek Kienzl was released after serving about half of his three-year period specified in prison. He was convicted in October 1992 for abuse of power, the organization of repression against dissidents and demonstrators in 1988 and 1989. Kienzl released on parole two years of probation. Terminated the proceedings by Milos Jakes, the former secretary general of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, and Karel Hoffman, a former union leader, accused of illegally armed militia of the Communist regime. The guilty verdict in 1993 in the case of Pavel Minarik, an intelligence officer who prepared the explosion of the Munich branch of Radio Free Europe in the early 70's, has been canceled by a higher court, and the case was sent to the prosecutor. The state prosecutor decided to drop the case, and this raises the suspicion of links with the Communists Investigative Service. Ministry of Interior appealed the second judgment, which led to its cancellation and renewal proceedings.

In addition to the Law on decommunization attempts to develop legislation concerning access to the archives of the secret police. Provides that all persons for whom security kept watch for a small fee to get acquainted with his dossier. In contrast to Germany, the full opening of the archives is not expected: do not reveal the names of the officers of the secret police, informers will retain the code numbers and the names of third parties - tainted. Against this bill were organization of former political prisoners, requiring full declassification. V. Havel, speaking on the radio, said: "We are all part of Communism, we all voted for the Communists, and they get most of the 99.99 per cent. And now people fawn debolshevizatorami. Those who did work against the Communists have no need to get even. "The president vetoed an extension of the decommunization to 2000 (Act should cease to have effect in 1996), indicating that the revolutionary phase of the development of the country over. However, Parliament has overcome the veto and the law remains in effect.

Romania

In Romania, perhaps, the issue of lustration was discussed, but in Russia, the information available on this. As far as we know, in Romania was not adopted legislation on lustration. (Adopted a law on restitution of property unjustly seized from citizens during the communist regime, but that is another issue). Physical removal of Ceausescu not directly related to the topic, so we deliberately do not consider this issue. It seems that one of the reasons for the refusal of lustration in Romania was actually staying with the communist government (including former President Ion Iliescu). The government continued to be political bureaucracy (former party apparatchiks). After the legalization of political parties in 1990, the Communist Party of Romania ceased to exist. Separate groups, its member, continued to work, joining the different trends United Front for National Salvation, and later united with the formation of the decay of the Front by different parties. In 1996, won by anti-Communists, but as far as we know, they did not take any repressive measures against their political opponents (except for the many revelations of corruption).

Romanian civil society requires lustration officials, who held the post for seven years after the fall of Ceausescu

Romanian civil society requires lustration expose all officials who have held positions in the leadership of the country for seven years after the December revolution and the fall of the regime of Nicolae Ceausescu. This initiative was made organization Noua Republica, noting that the prohibition to engage poiltikoy to contact or current president Traian Basescu.

"The overthrow of Nicolae Ceausescu 22 December 1989 is not the end of communist totalitarianism in Romania. Regime established after the coup, which claimed many victims, was authoritarian. Economy in the hands of the state was deliberately sacrificed. Securitate agents were protected and their salaries paid on time. Media controlled, and the government announced a campaign against nasilsvtennuyu poilticheskih opponents. This regime was authoritarian, and the parliament was only a facade, "- said the head of the organization Mikhail Neamt.

 In this regard, Noua Republica requires podvergunt lustration - that is the ban on employment policy and substitution management positions with government agencies for the officials who were in power from 1990 to 1996.

If such iintsiativa passes will be deprived of his office and President Traian Basescu, who served from 1991-1992 and 1996-1998, the Minister of Transport in Petre Roman pravitelsvta - 2, Theodore Stolozhana, Victor Ciorbea, Radu Vasile and Mugur Isarescu.

Bulgaria

In Bulgaria during 1992 united anti-Communist majority failed to include some of the laws adopted by the Parliament on specific articles decommunization, contrary to the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. Upheld the constitutionality challenge the lawfulness of their main body, the Court declared them null and void to the extent that is contrary to the Constitution. Another decision of the Constitutional Court to the Law on decommunization science and education, adopted in December 1992, and prohibit a former activist of the Communist Party, the Communist ideology teachers to assume leadership positions at research institutions and universities. (The decision was taken at an identical case in July 1992, when it was appealed by the Banking Act, which prohibited a former activist of the Communist Party in five years to hold elective office in the governing bodies of the state banks.) Relevant Article of the Banking Act was repealed by a majority (7 votes against 4 ).

February 11, 1993 the Constitutional Court of Bulgaria by 6 votes to 5, with one missing a decision on the constitutionality of the Law on Science and Education decommunization 1992. This decision was seen by some observers as a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. In order to restore the influence of the Bulgarian Socialist Party in the Bulgarian Academy of the said Act was repealed. Final provisions of the Act provide for the dissolution of all the existing authorities of the university authorities and the holding of new elections. President Zhelev J. vetoed the final provisions of the Act that abolished decommunization science and education. However, the Act of Parliament that prohibits the disclosure of the secret police files, prevented these efforts in decommunization. According to the Criminal Code a person who promotes the activities of the secret police, a prison sentence of up to three years, a government official or a member of the media, this period may be extended up to six years. The Criminal Code also contains a ban on the publication of the documents confirming the lack of communication of politicians and government officials with public safety.