crimes committed by totalitarian regimes - Ministrstvo za pravosodje

crimes committed by totalitarian regimes - Ministrstvo za pravosodje crimes committed by totalitarian regimes - Ministrstvo za pravosodje

22.11.2013 Views

Crimes committed by totalitarian regimes formalism” which only causes delays, and “use their judicial power”. This speech reported in Delo 21 seems to mean that judges should have the right to decide issues according to their own lights. “The rule of law cannot depend on the magnanimity of a state regime”, Zupančič continued. This appears to mean that governments and parliaments may well decree that confiscated property be returned, yet the (Marxist) judges have every moral and political right to refuse and judge accordingly. In fact, the leading Slovene professor of criminal law, Ljubo Bavcon, supported the Slovene deputy human rights Ombudsman when he claimed that property was not a human right at all. 22 Furthermore, the ad hoc Slovene judge in the ECHR Sirc case, Rajko Pirnat, was the Slovene Minister of Justice when the 1947 Sirc sentence was quashed in 1991. If it was up to him that Sirc first had to appeal for restitution of property, Pirnat did not answer his draft request. On the basis of the preceding argument, the Applicant puts forward the following (draft) request: 1. That a panel of five judges of the Grand Chamber ECHR should accept the request for the referral of this case to the Grand Chamber because it raises serious questions affecting the interpretation and the application of the Convention and two protocols thereto; simultaneously, the case raises issues of general importance in view of the character of the communist regime in Eastern Europe for fifty years. 2. The serious questions affecting the interpretation and application of the Convention and the protocols thereto are: – If a judiciary or a last instance national court is accused of being biased and/or dependent, in line with Article 6, this point has to be decided first when the case is submitted to the European Court – It has to be assumed, if the accusation is accepted, that the domestic remedies have been exhausted. – If a judiciary or a last instance national court is decided by the European Court to be biased and or dependent, their decisions and judgments must not be considered valid, but both facts and legal questions have to be re-examined and a new decision or judgment passed. – If national law has been made worse, the party to which the more favourable law applied, must be judged under the original law and the case should be admitted without delay in the European Court, if the change of law has been confirmed by the highest court of the country concerned. 3. Should it be confirmed that either a national judiciary or the last instance national court of a country is biased or dependent, and/or that the national law has been worsened ex-post facto, and that deterioration has been confirmed by the last instance national court, the European Court, possibly the Grand Chamber, has to establish the factual situation anew and apply the original national law in a new judgment. Arguments about biased and or/dependent courts or about ex post facto deterioration of law cannot be declared inadmissible. 21 Delo, 24 December 2004. 22 Delo, 27 January 1995. 142

Crimes committed by totalitarian regimes Appendices Appendix A: Foreign office documents on the 1947 show trial 23 1. From Foreign Office to Belgrade, 15 August 1947 Waddams, vice-consul Ljubljana 1945, considers he may be the diplomatic representative referred to in the trial, as both Furlan and Sirc were the only people who helped him to get the Ljubljana consulate going when he first opened it. He considers this the probable reason for their sentence. 2. British Consulate, Ljubljana to British Ambassador Belgrade, 22 August 1947 A brief reading of the newspaper reports, however, will suffice to make it clear that the trial was first and foremost a gigantic political propaganda stunt whose double aim was first to show Britain and America as the irreconcilable enemies of the new Yugoslavia, and second, finally to frighten off anyone who might still think that it is possible to associate with officials of the Western countries and get away with it. 3. Observations on the trial of Prof Furlan, July–August, 1947 In the second place, he (Furlan) has been, since the end of the war, friendly with the British Consul at a time when, for fear of the consequences, the majority of the people of Ljubljana have not dared to have any social contact with British personnel. In this context, it is interesting to note that the third death sentence was passed on Ljubo Sirc, who was the only other person among the accused to be friendly with the British Consul. It would, therefore, suggest that friendliness is itself taken for espionage, for which the perpetrator must pay the highest penalty. Virtually no other person, besides Furlan and Sirc, dared to behave openly as the friend of the British Consul. 4. British Embassy, Belgrade to Western and Southern Department, London, 17 December 1952 Remark: Sirc’ mother asked for affidavits from former British personnel in Ljubljana to the effect that their contacts with Ljubo Sirc were exclusively social. Eventually she was given such affidavits but still did not quite dare to use them. Text: 3. We should ourselves be glad to do anything possible to assist Ljubo Sirc. The Secretary of State intended to mention his case to Mr Kardelj last September … (signed) Chancery. 5. Memo from Waddams to Tufton Beamish and on to the Foreign Office, 21 April 1954 Things there (Slovenia) are getting better, no doubt. But in respect of these two people, Professor Boris Furlan and Ljubo Sirc, both of whom were sentenced because of their refusal to betray their friendliness to Britain, the recent professions of the Yugoslav Government are scarcely lived up to. 23 Public Records Office, London, FO 371/67466, 46305 and FO 371/102257, 46477. 143

Crimes <strong>committed</strong> <strong>by</strong> <strong>totalitarian</strong> <strong>regimes</strong><br />

Appendices<br />

Appendix A: Foreign office documents on the 1947 show trial 23<br />

1. From Foreign Office to Belgrade, 15 August 1947<br />

Waddams, vice-consul Ljubljana 1945, considers he may be the diplomatic representative referred<br />

to in the trial, as both Furlan and Sirc were the only people who helped him to get the Ljubljana<br />

consulate going when he first opened it. He considers this the probable reason for their sentence.<br />

2. British Consulate, Ljubljana to British Ambassador Belgrade, 22 August 1947<br />

A brief reading of the newspaper reports, however, will suffice to make it clear that the trial was<br />

first and foremost a gigantic political propaganda stunt whose double aim was first to show Britain and<br />

America as the irreconcilable enemies of the new Yugoslavia, and second, finally to frighten off anyone<br />

who might still think that it is possible to associate with officials of the Western countries and get away<br />

with it.<br />

3. Observations on the trial of Prof Furlan, July–August, 1947<br />

In the second place, he (Furlan) has been, since the end of the war, friendly with the British Consul<br />

at a time when, for fear of the consequences, the majority of the people of Ljubljana have not dared to<br />

have any social contact with British personnel. In this context, it is interesting to note that the third death<br />

sentence was passed on Ljubo Sirc, who was the only other person among the accused to be friendly<br />

with the British Consul. It would, therefore, suggest that friendliness is itself taken for espionage, for<br />

which the perpetrator must pay the highest penalty. Virtually no other person, besides Furlan and Sirc,<br />

dared to behave openly as the friend of the British Consul.<br />

4. British Embassy, Belgrade to Western and Southern Department, London, 17 December 1952<br />

Remark: Sirc’ mother asked for affidavits from former British personnel in Ljubljana to the effect<br />

that their contacts with Ljubo Sirc were exclusively social. Eventually she was given such affidavits but<br />

still did not quite dare to use them.<br />

Text: 3. We should ourselves be glad to do anything possible to assist Ljubo Sirc. The Secretary of<br />

State intended to mention his case to Mr Kardelj last September … (signed) Chancery.<br />

5. Memo from Waddams to Tufton Beamish and on to the Foreign Office, 21 April 1954<br />

Things there (Slovenia) are getting better, no doubt. But in respect of these two people, Professor<br />

Boris Furlan and Ljubo Sirc, both of whom were sentenced because of their refusal to betray their<br />

friendliness to Britain, the recent professions of the Yugoslav Government are scarcely lived up to.<br />

23<br />

Public Records Office, London, FO 371/67466, 46305 and FO 371/102257, 46477.<br />

143

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!