crimes committed by totalitarian regimes - Ministrstvo za pravosodje

Crimes committed by totalitarian regimes
In spite of their membership in the political police and their roles in the killing of political opponents
and staging trials, Ribičič and Avbelj remained leading officials around whom young communists
assembled. Among them was Milan Kučan, whose first position was as leader of Communist Youth;
as such he participated in the suppression of the students’ protests in 1968. Later, when Ribičič was
Chairman of the Workers’ Alliance of Slovenia, Kučan was appointed its Secretary. In 1978, Kučan
was promoted to the Chairmanship of the Slovene Parliament at Ribičič’s recommendation. In 1982,
when Ribičič went to Belgrade to join the Communist League leadership, Kučan accompanied him.
They both returned to Slovenia in 1986, Ribičič to retire and Kučan to become President of the Slovene
League of Communists. 7
Thus, Kučan was the leader of the Slovene Communists when communism collapsed in Europe.
In Slovenia, DEMOS (the Democratic Opposition of Slovenia) formed a government, separated from
Yugoslavia, and for a few years was generally influential. Yet, Kučan succeeded in being elected
President of the country, while Ribičič’s son Ciril became the transitional leader of the League of
Communists, eventually renamed the Social-Democratic Party.
After a few years of Western democratic influence, Kučan’s Social Democrats together with Liberal
Democrats (the renamed Communist Youth) took over the parliament. In the mid-1990’s, when this body
had to form a new Constitutional Court, it unsurprisingly elected communist judges as Kučan had put
forward all the candidates. 8 One of the new constitutional judges was Ciril Ribičič, Mitja’s son.
The atmosphere in Slovenia in the 1990’s is best shown by the half-page death announcement of
Viktor Avbelj - Rudi after he committed suicide in 1993. 9 President Kučan, Prime Minister Drnovšek,
and President (Speaker) Rigelnik of the Parliament signed Avbelj’s obituary. Despite Avbelj’s past in
the political police, they proclaimed “glory to his memory”.
Before 1989, a Marxist moral-political orientation was considered an essential qualification for a
judge. However, as no judges were dismissed, those with this ‘qualification’ remain in situ. It is hardly
surprising, therefore that Prime Minister, Janez Janša expressed the following view of the Slovene
judiciary: “Those who have ruled Slovenia almost without interruption for the last 60 years, succeeded in
establishing during that time a special one-party judicial system controlled by their own power ... They
dominated everything – from professorships at the universities to prison guards ... This network has never
been fully dismantled. The judiciary reform of 1994 even attempted to rebuild it in some way ... Perhaps
measures such as the European Union has recently demanded from Bulgaria could help ...” 10
Peter Jambrek, Slovenia’s judge in the European Court of Human Rights until 1998, is of a similar
opinion as quoted in Delo’s Saturday supplement. 11
On the other hand, Milan Kučan, who as President selected Constitutional Court judges, has
maintained close contact with other political policeman, such as Zdenko Roter, who had specialised in
the persecution of priests, and Stane Saksida, who explained Kučan’s idea of ‘civil society’ when Forum
21 was set up. 12 Forum 21 is to teach Slovenes – supposedly confused by the multi-party system – how
to run their country.
1.3. Ex post facto changes in law
It is not just that courts in Slovenia are neither impartial nor independent; it was the legislative
branch, i.e. the Slovene Parliament, that violated the principle of no retroactive legislation, in 1998.
A description of how the legal provisions were altered ex post facto in 1998 is contained in the
Order (Sklep) of the Higher Court in Ljubljana 13 English translation: “The first instance Court adopted
the view that the legal basis for the solution of this case is contained in the Act on the Implementation
of Penal Sanctions (Official Gazette of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia 17/78 – 8/90 and of the
Republic of Slovenia 12/92). Simultaneously it adopted the view that financial claims were included
in the confiscation pronounced with the criminal sentence issued by the depending party, i.e. the
State. Regarding these claims, the first instance court was of the opinion that the accused party was
7
Mladina, 31 August 1993, p. 23.
8
Mag, 3 January 2007, p. 28.
9
Delo, 7 April 1993.
10
Demokracija, 31 June 2006.
11
Delo, 9 December 2006.
12
Delo, 10 June 2004, p. 5.
13
Dated 16 April 1999, No II Cp 326/97, p. 8.
137