crimes committed by totalitarian regimes - Ministrstvo za pravosodje

Crimes committed by totalitarian regimes
The kulak processes were political processes, as their implementation was influenced by various
measures of the authorities in the field of agriculture and the instructions of the Party and political leadership
on their implementation. The courts imposed harsher sentences in these processes than in previous years
and sentenced farmers to severe prison terms and monetary fines, and in most cases also to the seizure of
their property. However, even during the time of the most severe repression against farmers, the presidents
of the courts established that many of the property seizures were unjustified, and they warned against the
improper practices of certain courts, which treated the sentence of seizure of property as an “accessory for
faster establishment of agricultural collectives”. They emphasised that this punishment may not be the basis
for establishing collectives, 49 but the exact opposite was true in practice. The seizure of property most often
occurred so that the authorities could obtain necessary land, commercial structures and livestock, which
they then allocated to the agricultural collectives. In this way they established collectives in places where
they could not get farmers to establish them. 50 The courts handed down the greatest number of property
seizures in 1949 and 1950, and large and medium-sized farmers were the most frequently sentenced. 51
Thus through seizures a huge amount of arable land, vineyards and forests came under state ownership, as
along with confiscated produce and livestock.
One consequence of the various pressures and measures applied by the authorities was that in the
autumn of 1951 farmers began to leave the collectives and nearly stopped establishing new ones. The
number of kulak processes was reduced, partially because in 1951 and 1952 the authorities gradually
began to abolish administrative measures such as compulsory delivery and purchases. Despite this, the
goal was not definitively abandoned, and in 1953 a new maximum landholding was established which
determined how much arable land farmers could hold. Surplus land was expropriated and allocated to
the General People’s Property Fund. Thus the class of large farmers was eliminated in Slovenia. 52
The question of the rehabilitation of farmers who had undergone kulak processes was posed in
July of 1970 by Ivan Pučnik, a deputy in the Republican Assembly of the Parliament of the Socialist
Republic of Slovenia. He stated that in carrying out the various measures, the authorities had also used
methods through which gross injustices were committed upon individuals who voiced concerns about
the inappropriate methods of the authorities. The Republican Public Prosecutor at the time, Dr Viktor
Damjan, rejected Pučnik’s “hints about unjust sentences”, claiming that the courts had adjudicated
according to the laws then in force, which he alleged were a reflection of the political and economic
development of the country at the time. He rejected the possibility of the rehabilitation of the convicted
parties and stated that the sentence of seizure of property would not be overturned. 53
6. Epilogue
The organisation of the judicial system after the end of the Second World War, which was a
consequence of the monopolistic and totalitarian authorities of the Communist Party, paved the way
for serious and systematic violations of human rights and freedoms. On the basis of the Constitution
of the Republic of Slovenia of 1991, which guarantees human rights and freedoms, in the 1990s the
Constitutional Court adjudicated the constitutionality of the laws regulating the criminal offences
mentioned in this paper. One of the tasks of constitutional adjudication was to recognise historically
proved violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms and to clearly define the various forms
of encroachment of human rights, especially if they were a component part of the monopolistic Party
authorities’ ways of controlling people. 54
49
Šturm, Background of the Slovenian Judicial System I.; Minutes of the sectoral conference with the presidents of the district courts in
Maribor, 27 June 1949; Minutes of the conference with the presidents of the district courts, 4 March 1950; CHA, Celje Regional People’s
Committee (Celje RPC), box 232, Report of the Celje District Court, 12 July 1949.
50
Mikola, Confiscation of Property, p. 229.
51
Cf. MRA, Ljutomer RPC, box 381, Report of the president of the Ljutomer District Court, 18 August 1949 and 30 May 1950; Murska
Sobota Regional People’s Committee (Murska Sobota RPC), box 545, Report of the president of the Murska Sobota District Court, 23
November 1950; box 546, Report of the president of the Murska Sobota District Court, 24 April 1951; Gornja Radgona (Gornja Radgona
Regional People’s Committee ), box 112, Report of the president of the Gornja Radgona District Court, 23 February 1950.
52
Mikola, Documents, pp. 5–6.
53
Archive of Dr Milko Mikola, Question of Deputy Ivan Pučnik, 8 July 1970 and Response of secretary of judicial administration, 23
September 1970; Munda, In the Name of the People, pp. 133–134, 147.
54
Lovro Šturm, “On the Encroachment of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Slovenia 1945–1990”, in: The Dark Side of the
Moon, p. 67.
69