crimes committed by totalitarian regimes - Ministrstvo za pravosodje

Crimes committed by totalitarian regimes
Commenting on this, the International Herald Tribune wrote: “Fearing that the legislation could be
hijacked by groups trying to right historical wrongs, a majority of EU countries rejected a demand by
the formerly communist Baltic countries that the law criminalize the denial of attrocities committed by
Stalin during Soviet times.” 4
Such is the understanding of today’s Europe! How should those people feel, who suffered under
the Soviet totalitarian regime and who are still alive today? Today they too are inhabitants of EU
Member States, and thus citizens of the European Union.
Thanks goes to Commissioner Franco Frattini, who as as a political gesture promised that the
EU would organize public hearings on the “horrible crimes” of the Stalin era. It is only thanks to his
initiative and courage that we had the opportunity on 8 April 2008 to be participants at this historic
Public Hearing.
Taking advantage of this, and as a Member of the European Parliament from Latvia, and as the
head of the European Parliament Initiative Group, I ask Commissioner Barrot and the specialists from
the European Commission’s Civil Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Directorate to accept
and familiarise themselves with the documents drafted by our Initiative Group, which were distributed
during the Hearing. They characterise our efforts to lay a foundation and solutions to the renewal of
the truth and justice of European history. I invite you, in your future work which Commissioner Barrot
promised to continue, to make use of our proposals. One of our aims was to help the Commission
attain a greater knowledge of the various aspects related to these issues and to identify the relevant
subject matter, and also to prepare proposals to assist the Commission in working successfully. Another
of our aims is to achieve the reconciliation of society, to overcome those contradictions which still
evoke enmity in those who suffered under the communist regimes, and those who themselves were
perpetrators. That is not simple. One can only reconcile if one knows what is being reconciled, and
if before hand, there has been a clear attempt to establish the facts. That brings about the necessity to
achieve a great degree of objectivity, similar to that which France and Germany were able to achieve
over World War Two.
Some European politicians prefer to wash their hands of these issues and take the expedient line
by saying – “let’s leave history to the historians”. That is in complete contradiction to the stated aims
of the Framework Decision, which imposes criminal responsibility for publicly condoning or grossly
trivializing crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Nazi crimes have been evaluated
by judicial means; if they are grossly trivialised, it is possible to have them appropriately evaluated
judicially and to impose criminal liability. However, if in relation to Soviet totalitarian crimes, or crimes
committed by totalitarian regimes in other European States, one uses only historical assessments, then
one can confidently predict that the evaluations of historians will neither be consistent politically, nor
judicially.
This shows that it is essential to have a more authoritative method of analysis. Such a method
would endeavour to give a legal basis to the evaluation of recent history, especially those cases which
are politically contradictory or distorted.
I would also refer you to the “On the United Europe – United History Initiative at the European
Parliament” document of the EP Initiative, which reflects recommendations of EP deputies.
In my view:
1. The Commission must adopt a new law, which unequivocally reflects the truth, and a reference to
the crimes of totalitarian communist regimes must be incorporated into existing European laws. The
historical truth about the events of Europe’s recent undemocratic past and the crimes of the Stalinist
Soviet regime must not be left out from a Framework Decision on combating certain forms and
expressions of racism and xenophobia.
2. The undemocratic past of European States can be evaluated by legal means, e.g. by using the
established legal principles and precedents of international and national courts. For example, in the
judgment of the European Court of Human Rights versus Streletz, Kessler and Krenz (senior officials
of the GDR), it was stated that “if the GDR still existed, it would be responsible from the viewpoint
of international law, for the acts concerned”. 5 The Court also underlined that “Democratic States can
4
International Herald Tribune, EU adopts prohibition on Holocaust denial, but national laws can take precedence, 20 April 2007.
5
European Court of Human Rights, Judgements in the cases of Streletz, Keslr and Krentz v. Germany and K.-H. W. v. Germany, Summary
of the judgments, 22. 03. 2001.
224