Emigration of Soviet Jews

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Emigration of Soviet Jews
Physical Description:
Book
Creator:
United States -- Congress. -- House. -- Committee on the Judiciary
United Nations -- General Assembly
Publisher:
U.S. Govt. Print. Off. ( Washington )
Publication Date:

Record Information

Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 26206405
oclc - 2225620
System ID:
AA00022628:00001

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page i
        Page ii
    Front Cover
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Table of Contents
        Page v
        Page vi
    1. Background information
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
    2. Official Soviet views of emigration
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
    3. Private views and experiences
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
    4. Summary of observations
        Page 35
        Page 36
    5. Nazi war criminals
        Page 37
        Page 38
    Appendix 1. Correspondence between Chairman Joshua Eilberg and the Department of State, relating to emigration cases and the U.S. exit representation list
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
    Appendix 2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
    Appendix 3. News articles relating to Soviet emigration
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
    Appendix 4. "Freed Soviet Tells of Stay in Asylum," from the Washington Post, February 4, 1976
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
    Back Cover
        Page 57
        Page 58
Full Text
,\/ 4--f f


94th Congress
2d Session I


COMMITTEE PRINT


EMIGRATION OF SOVIET JEWS





REPORT OF A SPECIAL STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE OF
THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON ITS TRIP
TO THE SOVIET UNION

MAY 24-JUNE 1, 1975




COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
I
NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
IJ


JANUARY 1976


,gMAR
". 191


-Y 4's


Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary


U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1975


56838


I


eI














COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PETER W. RODINO, JR., New Jersey, Chairman


JACK BROOKS, Texas
ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, Wisconsin
DON EDWARDS, California
WILLIAM L. HUNGATE, Missouri
JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan
JOSHUA EILBERG, Pennsylvania
WALTER FLOWERS, Alabama
JAMES R. MANN, South Carolina
PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
JOHN F. SEIBERLING, Ohio
GEORGE E. DANIELSON, California
ROBERT F. DRINAN, Massachusetts
BARBARA JORDAN, Texas
RAY THORNTON, Arkansas
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, New York
EDWARD MEZVINSKY, Iowa
HERMAN BADILLO, New York
ROMANO, L. MAZZOLI, Kentucky
EDWARD W. PATTISON, New York
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
WILLIAM J. HUGHES, New Jersey
MARTIN A. RUSSO, Illinois


EDWARD HUTCHINSON, Michigan
ROBERT McCLORY, Illinois
TOM RAILSBACK, Illinois
CHARLES E. WIGGINS, California
HAMILTON FISH, JR., New York
M. CALDWELL BUTLER, Virginia
WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine
CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California
JOHN M. ASHBROOK, Ohio
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
THOMAS N. KINDNESS, Ohio


EARL C. DUDLEY, Jr., General Counsel
GARNER J. CLINE, Staff Director
HERBERT FUCHS, Counsel
WILLIAM P. SHATTUCK, Counsel
ALAN A. PARKER, Counsel
JAMES F. FALCO, Counsel
MAURICE A. BARBOZA, Counsel
THOMAS W. HUTCHISON, Counsel
ARTHUR P. ENDRES, Jr., Counsel
DANIEL L. COHEN, Counsel
FRANKLIN G. POLK, Counsel
THOMAS E. MOONEY, Counsel
MICHAEL W. BLOMMER, Counsel
ALEXANDER B. COOK, Counsel
CONSTANTINE J. GEKAS, Counsel
ALAN F. COFFEY, Jr., Counsel
KENNETH N. KLEE, Counsel
RAIMOND V. SMIETANKA, Counsel


SUBCoMMIrrEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
JOSIIUA EILBERG, Pennsylvania, Cliuirman


PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, New York
CHRISTOP'HER J. DODD, Connecticut
MARTIN A. RUSSO, Illinois


HAMILTON FISH, JR., New York
WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine


GARNER J. CLINE, Counsel
ARTHUR P. ENDRES, Jr., Counsel
JANICE A. ZARinO, Assintant Counsel
ALEXANDER B. COOK, Associate Counsel
(II)












FOREWORD


BY THE HONORABLE JOSHUA EILBERG. CHAIRMAN OF
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,. CITIZEN-
SHIP, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW, COMMITTEE ON
THE JUDICIARY
On May 24, 1975, a Special Study Subcommittee of the House Coin-
mittee on the Judiciary travelled to the Soviet Union to review Soviet
emigration policies and procedures and to discuss with Soviet officials
the need for their cooperation in our Government's ongoing investiga-
tion of alleged Nazi war criminals currently residing -i the United
States.
The Special Study Subcommittee was composed of four of the seven
members of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship and Inter-
national Law and another member of the full Committee on the Judi-
ciary. In addition to myself, the membership included:,the Honorable
Hamilton Fish, Jr.:, the Honorable Elizabeth Holtzman; the Honor-
able Edward Mezvinsky; and the Honorable Christopher J. Dodd.
The primary purpose of the study trip was to discuss with Soviet
officials the following issues: emigration of Soviet Jews and various
ethnic groups; its impact on United States-Soviet relations; the
various problems experienced by Soviet Jews and activists; and
human rights in the Soviet Union.
The members of the delegation were impressed with the assistance
and cooperation provided by the Soviet authorities and the high level
meetings were a clear indication of the importance which the Soviet
Union attached to our visit, which took place one month before the
opening of the European Security Conference at Helsinki.
In this regard, we were the first Congressional delegation to visit
the Soviet Union with the announced purpose of studying these
"sensitive" issues, and our trip preceded official delegations from the
Senate and House of Representatives which travelled to the Soviet
Union ii July and August respectively.
Considerable time was also spent in each of the cities visited-
Leffingrad, Moscow and Kiev, discussing the aforementioned issues
with private citizens and with individuals whose applications for exit
visas had been denied. Their cases, as well as several others which had
come to the attention of the members of the Special Subcommittee
were presented to the appropriate Soviet officials and on each occasion
we were assured that the emigration cases would be individually
reviewed.
In addition, I personally wrote to each of these officials following
our visit requesting a status report on these cases. To date, I have not
received a response to my letters and of the cases raised, only Leonid
Plyushch and his family have received exist visas.
(M)







Tle delegation was gratified that Russian officials did not attempt
to restrict our activities or interfere with the conduct of meetings
which were held vith Soviet Jews except in Kiev. In that city, a
number of persons, representing the leadership of the Soviet Jews in
Kiev, were temiporarily assigned to work elsewhere in the Soviet
Union for the (dur'ation of the delegation's visit.
We were also extremely fortunate to have had the opportunity to
meet at length with Andrei I). Sakharov who was recently awarded
the Nobel Peace Prize, and with his Wife, Yelena, who was recently
permitted to depart from the Soviet Union in order to receive medical
treatment in Italy.
In the course of our meetings with officials from the Office of Visas
and Registration (OVIR), the complex and often confusing emigra-
tion procedures were (lescribel in detail. I am therefore encouraged
1)y recent press reports that these procedures are undergoing revision
at the present time. It remains to be seen whether any changes will be
made and whether they will facilitate or increase the emigration of
Soviet Jews.
Another priiici)al objective of our trip was to personally convey to
Soviet authorities the dee) concern of the United States Congress and
the American people rewarding the problem of Jewish emigration.
Consequently, the members of the delegation raised this matter at each
and every meeting with Soviet officials and strongly urged a substan-
tial liberalization of their current emigration policy. This report will
set forth a summary of these meetings with particular emphasis on the
issue of Soviet Jewry.
Finally, the issue of alleged Nazi war criminals currently residing in
the United States was also discussed during the trip with appropriate
Soviet officials an(d with Simon Wiesenthal, Director of the Docu-
mnentation Center in Vienna, Austria.
I was particularly pleased by the generous offer of the Soviet Gov-
eiment to assist our I)epartments of State and Justice in their
investigation of alleged Nazi war criminals. Subsequent to the trip,
f asked the Department of State to follow up on the Soviet govern-
ment's offer of assistance, and I am pleased that the Department of
State formally al)proached the Soiet "Union on this matter on Janiu-
ary 26, 1976. _a


Ckaiwman.
















CONTENTS


Page
Foreword -II
I. Background information ------------------------------------------1
Emigration levels ------------------------------------------1
International law and the right to emigrate -------------------------1
Congressional support of Soviet Jews 2
Parole of Soviet Jews into the United States --------------------3
Brief -chronology of trip -------------------------------------4
II. Official Soviet views of emigration --------------------------------- 7
Office of Visas and Registration (OVIR) ----------------------------7
Organization and functions of the Office of Visas and Registra-
tion ------------------------------------------------------7
General emigration policy and procedures --------------------- ,8
Denials of exit visas ------ 11
Leningrad ----------------------------------------------11
Moscow -------------------- ---------------------------- 11
Kiev ---------------------------------------------------12
State Security denials --------------------------------------- 12
Technical or expert commission ---------------------------12
Rights of exit visa applicants -----------------------------13
Review of the technical commission's decision -------------- 13
Family reunification ----------------------------------------- 14
Official policy on emigration of Soviet Jews -------------------- 14
Discussion in Kiev of specific cases ------------------------ 15
Case of Leonid Plyushch ----------------------------------16
Absence of Soviet Jews in Kiev ---------------------------16
Reported emigration statistics and trends ---------------------- 16
Official reprisals denied ---------------------------------------is
Office of the Procurator General -----------------------------------
Supreme Soviet ------------------------------------------------19
Moscow ---------------------------------------------------19
Operations and organizations -----------------------------20
State Security denials -------------------------------- 20
Reprisals against those who apply for exit visas -------------21
Decline in exit visa applications ---------------------------21
Emigration and foreign relations -------------------------21
Jackson-Vanik amendment --------------------------------22
Kiev --------------------------------------------------------
Exit visa denial appeal to Supreme Soviet -------------------23
Travel restrictions -------------------------------------- 23
Passport identification ----------------------------------- 23
Anti-Semitism in the Ukraine -----------------------------23
Ukrainians in the Inited States ---------------------------24
Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R -------------------------------------24
Organization and structure -----------------------------------24
Judicial review of emigration decisions -25
II. Private viewv and experiences -------------------------------- 2
Meeting with Soviet Jews in Leningrad 2--------------------------- 6
Meeting with Soviet Jews in Moscow. ------------------------------- 2
Emigration trends -------------------------------------------2
Reprisals against those who apply for exit visas ------------------29
Emigration procedures ---------------------------------------29
Summary of Individual Cases --------------------------------- 0
(v)









Page
Meeting with Dr. Andrei D. Sakharov ......... 31
Emigration trends ------------------------------------------ 31
Jackson-Vanik amendment -----------------------------------32
Right to emigrate -------------------------------------------32
Mental institution confinement --------------------------------32
Human rights in the Soviet Union ----------------------------33
IV. Summary of observations ---------------------------------------- 35
V. Nazi war crimnals. ---------------------------------------------37
Meeting with Procurator General-U.S.S.R -------------------------37
Meeting with Simon Wiesenthal, Director, Documents Center, Vienna,
Austria ------------------------------------------------------38
ApIpndixes-
Appendix 1.--Correspondenee between Chairman Joshua Eilberg and
the Department of State, relating to emigration cases and the
U.S. Exit Representation List -----------------------------------39
Appendix 2.-Universal Declaration of Human Rights ----------------43
Appendix 3.-News articles relating to Soviet emigration -------------49
Appendix 4.-"Freed Soviet Tells of Stay in Asylum," from the Wash-
ington Post, February 4, 1976 -----------------------------------53











I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION


EMIGRATION LEVELS
Soviet emigration was minimal until 1967 and it has been estimated
that approximately 2.000 Soviet Jews emigrated to Israel annually
prior to the "six day" war. There was a gradual increase in the emigra-
tion of Soviet Jews from 1967 through 1973, and in 1971 almost
14,000 left the Soviet Union.
As a result of the relaxation of Soviet emigration policies and pro-
cedures in 1972 and 1973, there was a substantial increase in emigra-
tion in each of these years with approximately 32,000 and 35,000
persons emigrating from the Soviet Union, respectively. After this
peak year of Soviet emigration in 1973, there was a drastic decline
in the number of Jews who were allowed to emigrate in 1974 and 1975.
The following table, published by the National Conference on Soviet
Jewry, sets forth the emigration figures for the years 1972-1975.
EMIGRATION OF SOVIET JEWS
1972 1973 1974 1975
United United United United
Israel States Israel States Israel states Israel States
January ------------------- 3,004 16 2,500 43 2,365 289 899 155
February ----------------- 1,796 28 2,751 33 1,581 268 890 244
March -------------------- 1,977 29 2,174 52 1,726 324 525 345
April --------------------- 2, 845 19 2,821 44 1,597 341 708 1,093
May -------------------2,804 34 2,171 51 1,222 256 477 781
June -------------- 3, 070 34 1,926 55 1,230 218 648 336
July-- .....2,163 10 2,240 57 1,293 355 448 414
August ------------------ 2,061 61 2,660 193 1,318 209 627 326
September --------------- 2, 128 55 3,065 329 1, 092 258 624 469
October ------------------- 2,840 92 4,200 208 1,384 449 673 377
November ---------------- 3, 760 31 3, 814 223 1,214 265 872 390
December ------------------ 120 44 3,039 169 864 258 904 496
Total -------------- 31,568 453 33,361 1,457 16, 886 3,490 8,295 5, 426

Immigration officials in Israel have advised that of the 115,000
Soviet citizens who have emigrated since 1969, 105,756 have resettled
in Israel.
At the same time, it has been estimated that between 140,000 and
160.000 Soviet Jews are currently awaiting the issuance of exit visas.
while others fearing reprisals have not formally submitted their ap-
plications. Soviet authorities have consistently denied the existence of
such a backlog and the fact that those who have been refused exit visas
are subject to harassment.

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE RIGHT TO EMIGRATE
The right to emigrate was proclaimed as a basic human right in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was unamniousiy
adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948. Article
(1)






9

13(2) of the Declaration specifically provides that "Everyone has the
right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his
COnlnt r'y'.
This right is also contained in the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights and the lanmuag, contained in the Covenant is
]Isical1y derived from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This Covenant was signed by the Soviet Union on March 18, 1968 and
was ratified by the Soviet Union on October 16. 1973. Concern was
expressed by tile United States Delegation to the UN that this Cove-
nant did not go far enough in protecting the rights of all individuals.
and the Convenant also contained an "escape clause" which testricted
the rights Set forth in the Covenant. In particular, Article 12(3) of
the ('ovenant stated that the enumerated rights "shall not be subject
to an r" estrictimns except those which are provided by law, are neces-
sary to protect national security, public order, public health or
morals . ." The Covenant also provides for the establishment of a
Iuman Rights Committee which may receive and consider communi-
cations from a state party alleging that another state party is violat-
in') provisions of the Covenant. This Covenant is scheduled to come
in1to force March 23. 1976.
TIhe riglt to leave one's country is also guaranteed in Article 5 of
tie International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discriniination which was signed by the Soviet Union on
Mlarih 7. 1966 and ratified with reservation on February 4, 1969 by
the Soviet 11io.
Th, Smiet Union has also signed the Final Act of the Conference on
Security and Cooj)eration in Europe (Helsinki Aoreement) which
coiitains additional gui a rantees relatingc to human rights, freedom of
travel. and ],"]IIIficat on of families. The last paragraph of the Der-
lar:ition of Principles (VII) in the Helsinki Agreement specifically
)Irides that :
"II the field of human ri hts and fundamental freedoms,
the participating States will act in conformity with the pur-
)oses and 1inciples of the Chal ter of the I 1ited Natins anid
with the Ulniversal )eclaration of Human Rights. They will
1,-so fi ll ill t]he,' I.(]1"' "1 .1' il til
SI oligatIns as set forth in the iternatonal
declarations anld agreements ill this field. including inier alia
tHe Inernal ional Covenants on human Rights. by which they
uiay he 1)1ound."

Cox NRESS~tNArL SUPPORT OF SO-r-T J.Ws
In enactin tihe Jackson- anik amendment as a tpart of tHie Trade
Act of 1974, Congress linked the issues of trade relations and the right
t) (eI I Irate.
Sp~ec'ifically. the kson-Vanik amendment pr1ohliNted the extension
of 'redits or most-favored-nation treatment to a country if the Presi-
(It dte ti1i11 es that sn l1 country "(denies its citizens the rirht or
O Iort it \ to emigrate" or undul taxes the emigration of itS cit izens.
IT1 le'rislation also contained similar prohibitions with regard to
countries which deny their "citizens the right or opportunity to ioin
,'eranentlv through emigration a very close relative in the Inited
States, such as a spouse. parent, child, brother or sister.








In addition, the Stevenson amendment to the Export-Inport Bank
Amendments of 1974, limited to $300 million the amount of Export-
Import Bank credits and guarantees that could be provided for United
States exports to the Soviet Union, unless Congress, by concurrent
re solution, approved a higher amount.
Subsequently, in January 1975, the Soviet Union advised the United
States that it would not put into force the Trade Agreement which it
had signed with the United States in October 1972.
Congress has also authorized and appropriated several million dol-
lars to assist in the movement and resettlement both in Israel and in
other countries of Soviet Jews. Between 1972 and 1975 $133.5 million
has been appropriated in order to assist Soviet emigrants. Another $20
million has been authorized for Fiscal Year 1976 and not to exceed
20 percent of that amount can be used for resettling refugees outside
of Israel.
A breakdown of the funds provided and the expenditures for the
years 1972 through 1975 is as follows:
1975
1972
Presidential 1973 1974 Presidential
Purpose determination appropriation appropriation Appropriation determination
For resettlement in Israel-grants to
United Israel Appeal (UIA) ....... 0 $44, 000, 000 $30, 500,000 $34, 115,000 0
For transportation loans-I ntergovern-
mental Committee for European Migra-
tion -------------------------$1,850,000 5,000,000 2,500,000 1,000,000 0
For refugees going to other than Israel .-- 150,000 975, 000 3,400, 000 4, 800, 000 $5,000,000
Other expenses ----------------------- 0 25,000 100,000 85, 000 0
Total ---------------------- 2,000, 000 50,000, 000 36, 500, 000 40, 000,000 5,000, 000

PAROLE OF SOVIET JEWS INTO TIE UNITED STATES
Section 212(d) (3) (5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
authorizes the Attorney General in his discretion to "parole into the
United States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe
for emergent reasons, or for reasons deemed strictly in the public in-
terest, any alien applying for admission to the United States."
Over the years, this authority has been exercised to admit refugees
f rom Cuba, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, China, Soviet Union, Uganda
and most recently, Indochina.
In1 1971, at the urging of members of the House Judiciary Collnlit-
tee, the Attorney General agreed to "exercise his discretion if the
situation demanded and parole Soviet Jews who are able to leave
the Soviet Union".
As a result, the United States has adopted an open door policy
with regard to the admission of those persons who are able to obtain
exit visas from the Soviet Union and who designate the United States
as their intended country of resettlement.
Those who depart from the Soviet. Union and designate the IFnited
States are moved to Rome from Vienna by the Hebrew Migration
Society (HIAS) where 'thev are, assisted il processing a pplicat o0
for admision to the United States. Every effort is made to admit
these Soviet eilorants under normal immu gration procedur1,s whicl
includes processing under the conditional entry (refugee) prov-isions


56-138-76-2








set folth ill Section 203(a) (7) of the Immigration and Nationality
A.ct. It should be noted that the number of conditional entries are
liitedI to 10..00 per year. In addition, nonpreference visas are cur-
rently lbing issued to the accompanying spouses awd children of the
principal applicant because of the limited number of conditional ell-
tries. In addition, the parole procedure has also been utilized on oc-
casion due to a lack of conditional entry numbers and to prevent long
processing delays for Soviet Jews in Rome.
Some problems have developed, however, with respect to those
Soviet Jews who have initially resettled in Israel but thereafter seek
admission to the United States. Large numbers of such individuals
were paroled into the United States during 1974. but in January 1975
a legal opIinion was rendered by the General Counsel of the Imliigra-
tion and Naturalization Service with respect to the eligibility of such
I)ersos1 to enter the United States. The memorandum specifically con-
vlu diles that :
"It is my opinion that in the absence of an overt act sig-
nifying IWCcep)tance of Israeli nationality. its involuntary ac-
(1liisitioJ 1neither preclu(es a Jew from the Soviet Union
front eliibhilitv for conditional entry nor constitutes evi-
dence in itself of firm resettlement. Further, it is m1y opinion
1h'wt admission to Israel as an immigrant upon the individ-
al's applicati(u (reates a I)reul ption of firm resettlement,
that the pre-ciiption is rebuttable, and that a conditional en-
try .;plifaiit who climis that he can I ove that he was not
irmnly resett led should l)e given an opportunity to present his
(eviden ce."
"Illi lim:1tter WaS (liclssedl in! *ienna at length during the trial) with
Ilenrv A. Falcr. I)istrict I)irector. Rome. Italy, anld with the honor-
aJ!e Avigior I )aganl. Israieli Anl)ass adoI to Austria.

BmIv (IEmIIN)LO(IY OF TnR

Tm f11oinr is a brief chronological sunimary of the me, tings
helid y the delegation in each of the cities visited. This sunmarv
inwluees oly tlhoe meetings which were scheduled for the entire del-
(,gatioi and'l does not incld(le separate meetings between individual
111CmIwrs ()f thw deegati(n and Soviet oficils on a variety of subjects.

1LN I NGRAD
In SaI1rlaN e uveIng 1 4,1 11 24, t ie delegation rriIved in Leningrad.
EIIra tI o I1 l1hot(l fron tI I airport the SIIbco mmittee attended
lrvices at Iw lie I n a ill sInagolue iii Letiigrd and following the srv-
ices spIoke briefly wil the 1)rsident of the syiagogle.
Later tHlat eveniu. tHe -1l)con)it tee received a hriefilig from I )e-
1 1rtIment of Statc fodficals at the I.S. Consulate. On Sunday, May 2:),
ilme deler'.atim nIet for tw() 10orns with thirteen Soviet Jews whose
a-l)lications forexit visas for Israel had en denied.
The following day Monday. May 2G6, the delegation mel with the
folloying oicials from tl officee of Visas and Registrmtoni (com-
1IM1olv and hereinfter refk"rred to as OVIR) : V. P. Bokov, Chief
of M)VIt, and A. N. Suvorov, l)eputy Chief of OVIR.






5

Following extensive discussions with these officials, the delegation
met with the Women Deputies of the City Soviet.
Enrouto to the airport, the delegation also visited a mental health
out-patient dispensary and a mental health institution in order to
observe the conditions of and care provided'at these facilities.
MOSCOW
On Tuesday morning, May 27, the delegation met with the follow-
ing members of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R.:
Aleksey P. Shitikov, Chairman, Council of the Union; Lev N. Smir-
nov, Chairman, U.S.S.R. Supreme Court; Georgiy A. Zhukov, Jour-
nalist, "Pravda" Commentator. Political Observer; Georgiy A.
Arbatov, Director. U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences, Institute of USA
and Canada Studies; Aleksandr B. Chakovskiy Editor-in-Chief,
"Literary Gazette"; Nikolay N. Inozemntsev, Director, U.S.S.R. Acad-
emy of Sciences, Institute of World Economy and International Re-
lations (IMEMO).
A meeting was held later that day with the following officials from
the Ministry of Internal Affairs and OVIR:
Colonel Ovchinnikov, Deputy Chief, of the All-Union OVIR; Vlad-
imir G. Borisenkov. Deputy Chief for Administrative Services, Min-
istry of Internal Affairs; Anatoliy A. Tkachev, Chief, Foreign
Relations Administration, Ministry of Internal Affairs.
An evening reception was held for the delegation by the Honorable
Walter J. Stoessel, Jr., U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union.
The delegation also met later in the evening with a group of ten
Soviet Jews whose applications for exit visas had been denied.
On Wednesday, May 28, a meeting was held with Mikhail P. Mal-
yarov, First Deputy Procurator General, U.S.S.R. Procuracy, fol-
lowed by a meeting with Lev N. Smirnov, Chairman, U.S.S.R.
Supreme Court.
A later meeting was held at the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences, In-
stitute of USA and Canada Studies with Mr. Georgiy Arbatov,
Director, and Mr. Yevgeniy Shershnev, Deputy Director.
On the night of May 28, the delegation met for three hours with
Andrei 1). Sakharov and his wife, Yelena.

KIEV
The Special Study Subcommittee arrived in Kiev on May 29. and on
May 30 met with the following members of the Supreme Soviet of the
Ukra'ine:
Mikhail U. Belyy, Chairman, Supreme Soviet; Vladimir I. Zaychiuk,
Deputy of Supreme Soviet and Minister of Justice; Vladimir A.
Kravets, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs; Fedor G. Burehak,
Chief, Legal Section, Presidium; Ivan G. Podoprigora, Chief, Secre-
tariat. Presidium; )mitriy G. Apanasyuk, Deputy of Supreiiie
Soviet hnd Chairman of Commission.
In the afternoon on May 30 the delegation met with Fedor K. (41ukh,
Procurator, Ukrainian SSR, and Mr. Samoyev, Deputy lrociurator.
Following this meeting the Subcommittee met with the architect (-
signing the Babi Yar monument and subsequently visited Babi Yar.








On Saturd )Ia 3 the Subcommittee attended services at the
main synagogue iII Kiev and met briefly with the President of the
synagogue. A meeting was held in the afternoon with the following
officials f ron the Ministry of Internal Affairs and OVIR:
General Lieutenant Vitaliy F. Zakharov, Deputy Minister for Do-
mestic Affairs; Armur A. Petrenko, Chief, OVIR, Ukrainian SSR;
Vladimiri- N. Siforov, Chief, OVIR, City of Kiev.
Later, some members of the delegation visited a collective farm out-
side of Kiev and were given a tour of the farm by its Director, Mr.
Bosnitsky.
A meeting was held late in the evening with Mrs. Leonid Plyushch.
The following day the delegation departed from Kiev and arrived in
Vienna, Austria.
VINNA

Th1 Special Subcomnittee met with the Honorable Avigdor Dagan,
Israeli Anbassador to Austria, and Simon WViesenthal, Director, )oc-
unientation Center on June 1.











II. OFFICIAL SOVIET VIEWS OF EMIGRATION
OFFICE OF VISAS AND REGISTRATION (OVIR)
The administrative aspects of Soviet emigration are officially the
responsibility of local and regional divisions of the Office of Visas and
Registration, commonly referred to as OVIR. The Special Subcom-
mittee participated in a series of discussions with OVIR officials re-
garding both official Soviet emigration policy and procedures, and
the administrative functions of OVIR. The members of the Subcom-
mittee also presented individual emigration cases to the officials and
requested review or reconsideration of the denials in these cases.
On May 26, 1975, members of the delegation met in Leningrad with
Mr. V. P. Bokov, Chief of OVIR, Leningrad, and with Mr. A. N.
Suvorov, Deputy Chief of OVIR.
On May 27 members of the special subcommittee attended a meeting
with the Deputy Chief. All-Union OVIR, Colonel Ovchinnikov. Other
officials present were: Vladimir Borisenkov, Deputy Chief for Admin-
istrative Services, Ministry of Internal Affairs, and Anatoliv A. Tka-
chev, Chief, Foreign Relations Section, Ministry of Internal Affairs.
On May 31,'the delegation met with the following officials in Kiev:
General Vitaliy F. Zakharov, Deputy Minister for Domestic Affairs,
Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine; Armur A. Petrenko, Chief of
OVIR for Ukraine; and Vladimir N. Siforov, Chief of OVIR, Kiev.
Organization and functions of the Offlee of Visas and Registration
(0 VIR) and the Ministry of Internal Affairs
The All-Union OVIR in Moscow is responsible for issuing exit visas
and for- registering- foreigners in the Soviet Union. OVIRI divisions
are found in the regional offices of the Ministry of Internal Affairs,
and the primary function of the All-Union OVIR is to co-ordinate
and supervise the activities of these local offices. The local OVIR di-
visions administer the regulations concerning the eparture of Soviet
citizens for both temporary visits abroad or permanent emigration;
and implement the regulations concerning foreigners residing tem-
porarily or permanently in the Soviet Union.
According to the Deputy Chief of the All-Union OVIR in Moscow.
Colonel Ovchinnikov, OVIR officials do not have the authority to
make the final decision on exit visa applications. In effect, they i)er-
form only the ministerial function of gathering the documents and in-
formation from the applicant and from the technical com111issions for
forwarding to the Ministry of Inernal Affairs where the final deci-
sion is made. In other words, OVIR is assigned the task of "making the
technical preparation of the (locuiments" but the final decisionniaking"
authority rests with the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
General Zakharov, Deputy Minister for Domestic A affairs, Min isti.v
of Internal Affairs of the Ukraine, told the delegation during the
meeting in Kiev that he had final decisionmaking authority in all
(7)








eases with respect to emigration in the Ukraine, including the power
to request the technical commissions to reconsider "state secret" de-
nials. Significantly, however, the Ministry of Internal Affairs does
not appear to have final authority over the industry-based technical or
expert commissions, a point discussed subsequently in more detail.
In addition to processing exit visas, the local and regional offices of
the Ministry of Internal Affairs are responsible for passport issuance,
law enforcement, and the general ainintenance of public order.
In Moscow, the Deputy Chief of All-Union OVIR indicated that no
central directive has been issued to the local OVIR divisions with
respect to the time to be allocated for the receipt and adjudication of
applications for exit visas. During the course of the discussion in
,Mfos(cowN of general OVIR operations, various complaints which had
been received by the Special Subcommittee were communicated to the
Soviet officials. These complaints included the inadequate number of
()VIR offices; the hours of operation which are insufficient to receive
applications for exist visas; and the difficulty in receiving "letters of
invitation" from relatives through the mail. In response, OVIR offi-
cials state(l they have received no complaints respecting the lack of
filing time at the various offices and that any problems concerning
interruptions in mail service should be directed to the Ministry of
Cominmnunications since such matters "are not within the competence
of the Ministry of Internal Affairs."
general emigration policy and procedures
The following statement of Soviet emigration policy and procedures
was (riven to the Special Subcommittee by Mr. Bokov, Chief of OVIR,
Leningrad, in resImnse to an inquiry about the criteria used in grant-
ing exit visas, He stressed that this policy statement was a matter of
public record, and that it had been published in various Soviet news-
l)ai)ers amin( was generally available. The statement, provided in Rus-
,iiaui, is translated below:
I)OCUMENTS PRESENTED) BY SOVIET CITIZENS IN APPLYING FOR TRAVEL TO
1APITALST AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
1. Application form in two copies (see the example). The form is filled out by
typewriter or in clear, legible hand. Complete answers must be given to all
v(,esti(ns. Underlining and short answers (yes, no) are not acceptable.
2. A ceatificte from one's place of residence (form No. 9) which indicates
-ill members of the family who live with the applicant. If several family mem-
Iers vrc applying for foreign travel, one certificate may be presented for all of
t henl.
A character reference from one's place of work (or study), which must indi-
e-t1e that it is issued in connection with foreign travel (including the specific
country nid the person who has invited the applicant), and also must give the
4oi1OJ (if the administration, party organization and local trade union commit-
tee, regarding the essence of the application, as well as show the official number
if the document and the date of its official formulation.
'ie characterr reference must be typewritten. Corrections and errors must
be initialed.
Thle haracter reference will he accepted (nly if no more than 2 months have
t'npsel from the day it was issued.
Working members and candidate menmhers of the ci(SU. and m ein'brs of the
k isoiiol, mi1ust present a selrvice-pa rty (service-kosol) character reference.








certified by the raion party committee (raion komsomol committee). Nonwork-
ing members and candidate members of the CPSU, and komosomol members, must
present a character reference to their party (komsomol) organization, certified
by the raion party (komsomol) committee.
The character reference must be signed by the head of the enterprise (firm,
or place of study), the secretary of the party committee and the chairman of
the trade union organization. For members of the komsomol, it must also be
signed by the secretary of the komsomol organization. Of these signatures, only
one may be that of the deputy of the listed officials.
A character reference signed by the chief of a work unit or branch, or by a
dean of faculty or having the indication "signed by," is invalid.
A character reference may be sent by mail by an enterprise, firm or academic
institution to the militia office where the application was originally submitted.
Character references are required when the applicant is age 14 or older.
4 Six photographs, 4 by 5 centimeters from the right lower corner, full-face
without adornment on the head, on white mat, with signature on the reverse
side.
Photographs are to be presented for children under 16 years of age who are
traveling abroad without their parents for a temporary stay, accompanied by
relatives, or friends. (In these cases the fee for exit must be paid in full).
Children from 7 to 16 years of age who travel with parents for a temporary
stay abroad, or to Israel for permanent residence, may be photographed with
their parents. Photos are not required for children under 6 years of age.
5. A receipt from the State Bank regarding payment of the exit fee in the
amount of 40 rubles (10 percent of the overall fee). In case of refusal, this sum
is not returned.
NOTE.-The receipt from the State Bank regarding payment of the re-
remainder of the fee (360 rubles) is presented when doucuments for foreign
travel are received. At the same time (for those going to Israel) a receipt
or stamp for one ruble for a blank foreign passport must be presented.
The state fee can be paid at any branch of the State Bank. The nearest
branch is located at
C. Written agreement of spouse remaining in the U.S.S.R. is certified at the
place of residence or work.
If a person applying for exit documents has in his or her Soviet internal pass-
port a stamp of marriage registration, and in fact the marriage has been termi-
nated, it is necessary to present a document which confirms the fact that the
marriage has ended (in case of the death of a spouse, a death certificate is to be
presented).
7. Statement of parents remaining in the U.S.S.R. certified at the place of resi-
dence or work, regarding their attitude toward the departure, with indication
of the presence or absence of material claims against the applicant. In case of
disagreement, justifying grounds are to be indicated by those wishing to travel
abroad for permanent residence.
If the marriage of the parents was not registered, evidence regarding their
marriage is to be presented. If parents are dead, evidence regarding their death
is required.
8. Certified statement of a previous spouse giving his or her attitude toward
the departure of his/her minor children-when children from a previous mar-
riage are traveling abroad for permanent residence.
9. Statement of husband/wife regarding joint departure from the U.S.S.R.,
when the accompanying spouse is a foreigner who entered the U.S.S.R. under
other than visa-free conditions.
10. An invitation, with certified translation into the Russian language, or a
letter with a return address, received from relatives or friends, which contains an
invitation to visit them and gives their foreign address. The invitation must
indicate the address of those invited.






10


Translations of invitations, letters, telegrams, and so forth in Russian are
done by the firm "Nevskve Zori," translation branch, at Srednegavansky
prospect No. 9 (bus 7, 35; trolley 10, 12).
Translations, received from abroad, are valid as shown, but not for more
than 1 year from the day of their issuance.
11. Passport When exiting from the U.S.S.R. with children (or spouse) one
must present evidence of the birth of the children (of marriage), if the applicant
does not have the pertinent signatures in his or her passport.
NOTE.-When applying for travel for a burial, for visiting the graves
of relatives, for receiving an inheritance, for medical treatment, and also
for permanent residence in Israel, it is necessary in advance to consult with
OVIR officials or officials of the passport office.
Similarly, members of the military, workers and staff members of the
Soviet Army and Navy and members of their families, when intending to
travel abroad privately, must apply for consultation.
2. Documents for travel abroad must be submitted by the applicant per-
sonally.
Applications for travel abroad are not accepted and are not considered unless
all necessary documents are presented.
In Leningrad., the delegation further inquired of Mr. Bokov if more
detailed and specifeinfoImatioln relating to the actual procedures
which are followed il issuing exit visas was either available ora matter
of public record. I Ie responded that the availability of these instruc-
tions was limilte(d to employees of OVIR. They were described as "in-
ternal documents" relating solelv to processing l)procedures and as a
result their "publ Icat lon was not necessary.'
lie explained furIther that these instructions consist of: (1) the tyl)es
of documents which are required to be sublllitted: (2) prOceSSIng" Ill-
structions for those adjudicating the al)l)licatiolI : and (3) other direc-
tions to the statf relating to eligible applicants-for example, an in-
st riction is set forth that, persons of military aOe are not permitted
to depart from the Soviet Union.
Mr. Bokov further stated that lie was "not coItipetent" to comment
on en igrat ion lprocedrll-es and regulations respecting the Baltic Re-
plublics and that lie was oly 'Iompetelit to dcus1s procedure for the
city of Leningrad. lie 5tressel the autonloiv of tie various OVIR's
and would not coilent frllther on procedll'es followed in other re-
l)1lIlics 'or in other cities within the RepIuplic of Russia.
According to Mr. Bokov, the first steps in applying for an exit visa
weIe to obtain (1) a letter of invitation froI i eIative; and (2) a
let ter-"kha ra kt erisika"- fronI the applicant *s place of employment.
This latter stel) involves tie technical or expert commissions, which
pi ay a key role in Soviet emnigriation and are discussed in some detail
i(Ow.







In Moscow, the Deputy Chief of All-Union OVIR explained to the
delegation the rules and regulations which govern emigration from
the Soviet Union, and indicated that the same criteria are applicable
to all citizens desirous of leaving the Soviet Union. He described the
procedures in the following manner:
(1) an application is submitted to the Administrative Services Divi-
sion, Ministry of Internal Affairs accompanied by the applicant's bi-
ography as well as a character reference ("kharakteristika") from the
last place of employment; (2) the applicant's relatives in the Soviet
Union are contacted to ascertain whether they object to the proposed
departure, and documents indicating their objection or agreement are
submitted by the relatives to the Administrative Services Division of
the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
The organization of the Ministry of Internal Affairs as it relates to
the processing of exit documents was described as follows: In each of
the 29 districts of Moscow there is a local or regional department of the
Minist y of Internal. Affairs which operate entirely wider the central
ofic of the Ministry. In rural areas there are additional local office
which are suboffices of the various regional offices of the Ministry of
Interior.
Den iahl of exit visas
Reasons for the denial of exit visas were discussed by the delegation
at the meetings in Leningrad, Moscow, and Kiev. Following a brief
summary of the discussions in each city, the two major reasons given
for denials-state security and family considerations-are considered
in more detail.
Leningrad
Mr. Bokov, Chief of OVIR, Leningrad, gave the following factors
as the primary reasons for applications being refused: (1) parental
objections (it was later learned that the parental objection denial
applies notwithstanding the age of the child involved, which in one
particular case was over 50 years) ; (2) state security; or (3) the appli-
cant is of military age.
Other reasons for refusal given by Mr. Bokov included outstanding
debts or obligations, or being a defendant in an on-going criminal case.
He vehemently denied that any refusals have ever been based upon
the intellectual potential of an individual. He also denied that any
special procedures exist regarding the emigration of Jews.
Moscow
Colonel Ovchinnikov, Deputy Chief, All-Union OVIR, told the
delegation that refusals occurred in cases where state security was


56-138- 76 3






12


involved, or where the relatives objected to the departure of the appli-
cant. Both, Colonel Ovchinnikov and Mr. Bokov (Lenigad) said
that many persons voluntarily leave sensitive jobs involving state
secrets in order to facilitate their future emigration.
With respect to the possibility of emigration for those who are in-
carcerated or institutionalized, Colonel Ovchinnikov commented that
their applications will not be considered until their release f rom prison
or from the institution. In the case of a release from a mental institu-
tion, a medical opinion is required as to whether the health of the in-
dividual prevents his movement or transportation out of the country.
Kiev
General Zakharov enumerated the primary reasons for refusing
applications for emigrant visas as follows: (1) the request to depart is
not adequately substantiated or justified by the documentation sub-
mitted; (2) state security; (3) failure to disclose derogatory informa-
tion or misrepresentation in the application itself; ajid (4) the
applicant has outstanding debts.
State sectur eity denials
Technical or expert cOm/m, wissio
Concerning decisions relating to "state secrets" and "state security,"
Mr. Bokov (Leningrad OVIR) advised the delegation that technical
commissions have been formed at the various enterprises and plants
for the purpose of making such decisions. It is these commissions wl-hich
decide on the issuance of the letter-"k ] Vakteristika "-from the ap-
pllicant's place of employment which must accompany all applications
for exit visas.
Mr. I3okov indicated that the regulations governing the activities
of the technical commission are different for each industry, but gen-
erally the commission is composed of fellow employees in that industry,
technical experts, etc.
Mr. Bokov stated that they are experts in their own branch of in-
dustry and certainly "know what information is publicly available"
or )1reneraly known in other countries of the world.
These commissions were discussed further in Moscow, althoug-h the
officials from the Mini11st"ry of Internal Affairs in Moscow were un-
familiar with the term "technical commission" that was used by Mr.
Bokov, Chief of OVIR in Leningrad. The officials in Moscow described
an ad hoc advisorV body. as opposed to an ongoing permanent con-
mission. It was indicated that there are no rules and regulations gov-
erning the composition of or procedures to be followed by these
(comrmssions.
Acc.)rdlill! o S(oviet offiials ill MOSc, if a character reference
discloses that :In a1)1)lic(ant has been in vol ved with classified informa-
1ion or sensitive: work. the nianagement of that particular enterprise
or 11(l listry is (,itacted for its posit1o1 on the p1oposd emigration of
the aThe icant. Th-e 'inagrer of th1e enterprise does not have the aI-
thorit v to make i+l( ievinh, nl decisions. but rather is required to obtain
tl1e advice and opiiioiis of exJperts who are more familiar with the
state of the a1t in a )articula: Jindstr., as well as with the degree of
classification of information il that industry. Tile number of such
experts or consultants is determined by the manager of the industry.






13


*Right8 of exit visa applicants
According to Mr. Bokov, the letter or "kharakteristika" is not made
available to the applicant, or even to those individuals who are refused
permission to leave the Soviet LUnion (commonly referred to as
"refuseniks"'). Mr. Bokov said further that the applicant does not have
the right to appear before the technical commission, and that he has
discussed this particular problem with the "refuseniks."
He explained that an appearance before a technical commission to
contest a "state secret" denial would create additional problems in
that the "refusenik" may acquire up-to-date information on those
subjects which are currently classified. This knowledge of what sub-
jects are presently classified as secret could then extend the period of
his ineligibility based upon possession of secret information. In other
words, an awareness that a particular subject remains classified may
in itself be considered classified information, thereby further delaying
one's departure.
Mir. Bokov also told the Special Subcommittee that the "refusenik"
has no appeal rights from a decision of the technical commission other
than an administrative appeal to his plant manager or to the Minister
of the particular industry in Moscow. The applicant's right of appeal
was described in a similar fashion in Moscow. The delegation was told
by Soviet officials there that the applicant receives only an oral report
from the OVIR setting forth the conclusion reached by the expert
commission. If an applicant is refused by this expert commission, he
may appeal to higher authorities within the industry itself, or to the
respective Minister of that industry.
Review of the technical commission's decision
It was apparent from the Leningrad meeting that the authority
of the OVIR is rather limited, in view of the fact that the Chief of
OVIR cannot overrule the decision of the technical commissions. Mr.
Bokov indicated that he was unaware of the procedures followed by
a technical commission in reaching its decision, and he emphasized
that it"is not within the sphere of my authority" to overrule a technical
commission's decision.
Mr. Bokov stressed that the issue of state secrets and the deter-
minations by the technical commissions are extremely complicated
issues-beyond his "competence'-but that, in his opinion, no
"refusenik" will ever acknowledge the fact that he has had access to,
or is in possession of, secret information. He unequivocally stated that
"state security is not used as a pretense," and that information is
generally declassified after the expiration of a three year period,
meaning that state security denials are not necessarily final.
Mr. Bokov noted that he had no reason to "disbelieve the state-
ments contained in these letters, particularly since the members of
the technical commission have no interest in preventing the departure
of the applicant." He did state, however, that he is in a position to
reevaluate the facts of a paiticulai case and to call the technical con-
mission's attention to any oversights which nmay have occulrred. lie
noted that 50 percent of the initial refusals are ultimately approved
by the technical commissions.
Based on the discussion with the various OVIR officials, it becanw
apparent that the expert or technical commissions play a major role





14


in the approval or denial of exit visas. They are not answerable to
OVIR nor, it appears., ultimately to the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
The delecation was told in Moscow that, if requested to do so, the
Ministry of Internal Affairs may request a written report from..he
expert commission setting forth its final decision. However, neither
OVIR nor the Ministry of Internal Affairs will interfere with the
decision of the expert commission, which is comprised entirely of
)ersons from within the industry in question and does not include
government officials. Similarly, General Zakharov told the commission
that he had the power to request the technical commission to re on-
sider "state secret" denials although not, apparently, to override
them.
Ja/f ily Pefn fleation
The Special Subcommittee was told by Mr. Bokov in Leningrad
that the primary policy with regard to emigration is the reunification
of families. "and the Soviets make every effort to accomplish this
o1)b jetiNe for all nationalities." Similarly in his introductory remarks
in 'Moscow. Mr. Ovctiinnikov explained to the delegation the difficult
problem of family dislocation which resulted from World War Ii,
.11l(l emilphasized that the Soviet Government has adopted a very com-
pasionate policy of family reunification.
IIowever, it became apparent that this officially promulgated goal
of prevent-i the separation of families was also a major factor in
the denial of requests for exit visas. As has been noted, objections on
the part of relatives, regardless of the age of the applicants, was given
as a major reason for the refusal of applications in both Leningrad
and Moscow.
Further ramifications of the factor of family ties as a potential
barrier to emigration were discussed in some detail with General
Zakharov ill Kiev.
WNlmeni questioned whether "state secret" denials extend to the
family members of the principal applicalit. he responded that there
is no official policy or law preventing the family members from de-
patilng when one mel!)er has been denied because of "state secrets"
Nut that the Sov'let Governennt has every interest in "trying to prevent
faiiiily sep1arationl." In other words. he explained that while it is not
-iim official policy, there is a personall policy of not encouraging family
sCl)aration.
The delegation was also interested whether a similar policy applied
to the depar-ture of families wNhen one family member is imprisoned.
Once again there was no official policy to prevent departure in these
(ass unless the individual In prison has outstanding debts or other
financial obligations to the Soviet Government. But General Zakharov
added that "the family is not a notion outside of society" and that
since the family is the basic societal uit they prefer the family to
renllin together.
Olffcad policy Qn ern&,ratn of SoI;t ,Je'lr
According to Mr. Bokov, Chief of OVIR, Leningrad, no special
procedures exist for Jews. He indicated that the general policy st-
ItIIent provided by him to the delegation and quoted in translation
gbovtN applies to all Soviet citizens who desire to permanently d.epart
from the Sovit Union. At the saine time, he noted that "no privileges








are extended to any particular group". The primary policy with re-
gard to emigration is the reunification of families "and the Soviets;
make every effort to accomplish this objective for all nationalities"..
Mr. Bokov firmly stated that no artificial obstacles are being cre-
ated to prevent the departure of Soviet Jews, but at the same time he
conceded that he could not "guarantee the absolute correctness of all
of his decisions".
He concluded the discussion of the subject by noting that "my con-
science is clear," and that the issue of Jewish emigration is "much ado
about nothing" and that the established policy of the Soviet Govern-
eient is to permit the departure of those who deserve to leave.
In Moscow, Col. Ovchinnikov, Deputy Chief, All-Union OVIR.
vehemently denied that there are any preexisting quotas or ceilings
on the emigration of Soviet Jews. No directives are issued by the Sov-
let Government concerning this matter since, according to him, "emi-
gration levels cannot be planned or anticipated."
On a related point, the delegation inquired of General Zakharov in
Kiev as to the reason the term "Jew"' appears in the internal passports
which are issued to individuals who are Jewish. He responded that
this identification is one of nationality, not religion, and that a per-
son of mixed parentage is peir-iitted to select his nationality at age 16.

DISCUSSION IN RIEV OF SPECIFIC CASES
Specific discussion took place between Mr. Eilberg and General
Zakharov concerning five individual cases of Soviet Jews whose appli-
cations for emigration were refused. General Zakharov summarized
these cases as follows:
Mizrukh'n, A leksandr and Mila.-The applications were submitted
in 1974. considered in December of that year, and refused in January
1975 because the husband had access to military secrets. Gen. Zakliarov
offered to meet with them personally in a few days.
Vladimir Kislik.-He was involved in work with a research in-
stitute until 1973 and possesses classified information which may be
a matter of public information within 6 months to a year. At that tine,
the information will become declassified and that case will be lifted.
Vadim Sheinis.-He was closely connected with secret work for the
military and his case was referred to Moscow May 6, 1975, and any
further decisions will be made by the Ministry of Internal Affairs or
the All-Union OVIR in Moscow.
Ilya Zlobinsky.-Mr. Zlobinsky was also em ployed in an enterprise
which dealt with classified information. On April 4, 1975, his case was
reconsidered by the -Ministry of Internal Affairs and once again lis
exit visa was refused and General Zakharov indicated his agreenient
with the decision of the enterprise that "state security" should prevent
his departure at this time. General Zakharov stated that he had not 1tt
personally with Mr. Zlobinsky to discuss his case but he did indicate
that he would be agreeable to reviewing and reconsidering this case
in the near future.
Km Fidman.-Mr. Fridmnan works in a plant where certa Ili classi-
fled radio equipment is located. Once this equipment is removed Mr.
Fridman will be permitted to depart. General Zakharov indicated thIt
this case would also be reviewed in the near future.






16


CASE OF LEONXID PLYUSHCH
The case of Leonid Plyushl was brought to General Zakharov's at-
tention by the delegation. Mr. Plyushch was convicted of anti-Soviet
propaganda in 1973. General Zakharov gave his opinion as to Dr.
Pl.vushcl's mental condition and also committed himself to a personal
review of the case. In doing so, however, he indicated that a "positive
decision could only be made in the event a specialist makes a deter-
mination that Dr. Plyushch is not a socially dangerous person". Gen-
eral Zakharov further explained that it is necessary to obtain a medical
release from the physician but in this case there has been a conclusive
determination by a medical commission at the time of his 1972 trial
that he was "socially dangerous". He added that the Soviet Govern-
iment take two items into consideration in determining whether an
exit visa could be granted in cases such as Dr. Plyushch : (1) Whether
or not he would be a (langer to society; and (2) whether and under
what conditions another country will accept him. General Zakharoxv
further explained that if a medical clearance is forthcoming, he would
issiie an exit visa "at any time". With respect to Mrs. Plyushch who has
applied for emigration., he stated that he will "invite her tomorrow to
his office in order to personally discuss her case". This case was also dis-
(ussed during a meeting with the Procurater General in Kiev, Mr.
Glukh who indicated that Mr. Plyushch's illness had been diagnosed
1) a medical commission as schizophrenia and he emphasized that this
is entirely a medical judgment. Upon first mentioning this case to
the Supreme Soviet in Kiev, the delegation was told to discuss these
cases with the Procurator's Office.
The delegation visited later with Mr. Plvushch's wife, Tatana, at
some length and discussed her husband's current situation and their
desire to emigrate from the Soviet Union.

ABSENCE OF SOVIET JEWS IN KIEV
The Members of the delegation expressed their serious concern to
Mr. Glukh, Procurator of the Ukraine and to General Zakharov with
regaI'd to the absence of the afore-mentioned "refuseniks" whom the
(lelegatien had planned to meet with in Kiev.
According to relatives of the "refuseniks" these individuals had been
assl,,ned to temporary duty ("Komandirovkas") outside of Kiev for
a period of time which coincided with the delegation's visit. Mr. Gili
N tId General Zakharov indicated that this was not "such a serious mat-
tor' but General Zakharov offered to make every effort to ascertain
their whereabouts. Ife also stated he would expedite their return to
Kiev and upon their arrival he would personally meet with each of
the refusenikss" for the purpose of reviewing their emigration cases.
Reported emgqr t/on /,(/ t(MtSt a tred8
In Leningradl. Mr. llokov stated that flere had beon no decrease in
thle emigation levels for Soviet Jews during the last two yea, and
that there is no predetermined quota target or ceiling on immigration
figures. Tie supplied fires for 1973, 1974, and 1975 to date on the
applications by Jews for emiration from the Soviet Union which
h,d come through the Leningrad office. During this period, a total of
2,304 amplications were received, with 1,751 in calendar year 1973,
668 in 1974, and 320 to date in 1975.








According to Mr. Bokov only 8.4% of the total figure were denied,
primarily on the grounds of state security (i.e., those who have been
working in the "recent past" in sensitive positions such as in enter-
prises producing military equipment). He emphasized that "the
refusal rate of 8.4 percent is not exorbitant, particularly when you con-
sider that Leningrad is one of the major industrial centers in the
Soviet Union."
In Moscow, the delegation was told that at the current time only
1,450 applications for exit visas were pending in the entire Soviet
Union (consisting primarily of those submitted in April 1975).
According to the Soviet officials, there has also been a steady decline
in the number of applications over the last several months.
Colonel Ovchinnikov advised the delegation that approximately
114,000 persons had emigrated from the Soviet Union to Israel since
1945 and during this period only 1,850 applicants have been refused.
These refusals relate to cases where state security was involved or
where the relatives objected to the departure of the applicant.
Colonel Ovchinnikov added that state secret cases, however, are not
final and that these cases are reviewed as technology develops and as
security information is declassified, a point which was also made by
Mr. Bokov in Leningrad.
General Zakharov told the delegation in Kiev that in 1974 a cumula-
tive total of 12,000 exit visas were approved in the Ukrainian Re-
public, and that these included temporary as well as permanent exit
visas. However, he was unable to distinguish what percentage were
applications by Soviet Jews for emigration to Israel.
General Zakharov rejected the suggestion that there may be a pre-
determined quota for emigration, and he set forth several statistics
and suggested several reasons for the decline in emigration.
According to General Zakharov, emigration levels were on the in-
crease prior to 1973 but that in 1973 both applications and actual de-
partures declined. There was a 29 percent reduction in departures
for Israel in 1974 and during the first quarter of 1975 there was a 50
percent reduction in departures as compared with the same period in
1974. The primary reason that was given for this decline was that
Soviet emigrants were unhappy in Israel, and he exhibited "some of
the 300 official letters from Soviet emigrants which had been for-
warded to OVIR in Kiev and which described unfavorable conditions
in Israel and Italy."
On the subject of predetermined quotas, General Zakharov stated
that, because "there is a law" on this matter, it is not only impossible
but' also "illegal" to establish a quota or ceiling on emigration.
General Zakharov supplied the following figure on refusal of exit
visas: 500 total refusals in the entire Ukrainian Republic, 116 refusals
in Kiev of which 54 were ultimately approved over the last 21/> years
following review and reconsideration. He indicated the insignificance
of these few denials and referred to the large number of exit visas
which had been issued over the past few years and that every effort
would be made to "solve this problem."
On the subject of predetermined quotas. General Zakharov stated
that, because "there is a law" on this matter, it is not only impossible
but also "illegal" to establish a quota or ceiling on emigration.








Official Teprtqal8 denied
The Deputy Chief of All-Union OVIR. Colonel Ovchinnikov, denied
that official reprisals are taken against those who apply to leave. He
was unable to provide any information on dismissals or demotions of
"refuseniks." but he did state that a "refusenik" may experience diffi-
culty in obtaining reemployment after leaving a particular job.
Similar points were made by Mr. Bokov, Chief of OVIR, Lenin-
grald. lie told the delegation that no official reprisals are taken against
a person who has applied for and been refused an exit visa. However,
he added that some persons may be discriminated against by their
fellow workers or by the members of their enterprises because they
hae applied to leave the Soviet Union.
General Zakharov told the delegation that he was not aware of any
cases during his time in Kiev or during the 10 years he spent in the
Crime where a "refusenik" had been confined in a mental hospital.

OFFICE OF TIiE PROCURATOR GENERAL
On fay 2S the delegation met with Milkhail Malyarov, First
Deputy Procurator General. in Moscow.
The Procurator General of the U.S.S.R. under Article 114 of the
Constitution is appointed by the Supreme Soviet for a term of seven
years, and the procurators of the republics are appointed by him and
su1chi organs perform their functions independently of all local bodies
being subordiiiate solely to the Procurator General of the U.S.S.R.
The Sulbconimittee pursued the question of 1)olitical trials in the So-
viet Union and the harsh sentences which have been received by several
individuals. Mr. Malvarov explained the various degrees of he comn-
monl referred to crime of "hooliganisin" and concomitant penalties
as follows: (1) petty disorder. 15 (lays; (2) petty disorder with a
threat of violence, one year iml)risonient ; (3) the same crime-with
:I previous conviction, five years in )ison; (4) the same crime corn-
te while, in possession of d lagerous weapon. seven years im-
risonmlent. Mr. Malyarov state(l that all trials are open to the public
less state security is involve(l. lHe also stated that after conviction a
family can apply directly to the court forI a reduction il sentence or
may later request a reduction from the supervisor of the prison who
will sul)mit his advisory opinion to the court which retains that
lilt lority.
On May 30 members of the Subeomitittee met with Fedor Glukh,
Prowilrator of the Ukraine and Mr. Samoyev% )eputv Procurator.
Prior to the cmlnlitellnililt of this me(etin, the delegation learned
that the eads of hmlselmid of fir'e Jewish families had been sent on
temporal rv business trips outside Kie\ for the duration of the dele'ra-
tiom's visit, hese represented the key families in the "refusenlik"
groups in Kiev,. Mr. Eillerg raised this issue with Mr. -lukh
who respImled that these .matters are not "within mY comltpetence"
and tha1 only the in(ulstrial enterprises or plants where these in-
(ivi(lals work have the altihoritv to make such assiptaents. Mr.
Eilewrg also inquired whether these inhividuals were engaged in oc-
cupations which he understood did not normally involve special trips







outside of the city. Mr. Glukh responded that he was unaware of the
practices followed by the various industries with respect to out of town
business trips and that he did not possess any information on these
individuals.
At this point, Mr. Eilberg stated to Mr. Glukh that he did not wish
to participate further in the meeting
Mr. Mezvinsky then asked Mr. Glukh to provide the delegation with
a complete report on this matter and to make arrangements for the
return of these individuals prior to the departure of the delegation.
The other members of the delegation expressed their deep concern with
respect to the absence of these "refuseniks" as well as their hope that
these individuals could be rapidly returned to Kiev and their emigra-
tion cases closely reviewed by appropriate officials.
There was extensive discussion concerning the interpretation of
Article 125 of the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. which provides that
" n conformity of the interests of the working people, and in order to
strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaran-
teed by law: (a) freedom of speech; (b) freedom of the press; (c)
freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings; (d)
freedom of street processions and demonstrations".
The cases of Mikhail Shtern, Marc Nashpitz, and Valentin Moroz
were discussed with Mr. Glukh and Mr. Malyarov as well as General
Zakharov and with the members of the Supreme Soviet both in Mos-
cow and Kiev.
Marc Nashpitz was sentenced to five years of exile in March 1975
under Article 190-3 (for violating public order) of the Soviet Criminal
Code which prescribes a maximum punishment of three years in pl)son.
Mr. Malyarov, in the Procurator's office in Moscow, was unfamiliar
with the specifics of the case, but noted the distinction in the penalties
of exile and imprisonment. Under Article 21 exile from 2 to 5 years
was an appropriate penalty and is considered to be a lesser punishment
than imprisonment. It was further added that this exile period is very
often reduced.
Mikhail Shtern was sentenced to eight years in prison following a
conviction of bribery for receiving 700 rubles over a ten year period
from his patients. There was extensive discussion concerning the legal
interpretation of the bribery statute and those who are considered
"public officials" within the terms of the Soviet criminal code. The
members expressed their deep concern relating to his conviction and
harsh sentence.
Valentin Moroz, a Ukrainian historian, is currently serving a 14-
year prison term to which he was sentenced in 1970 for "anti-Soviet,
agitatioi and propaganda". Mr. Moroz is now in a special psychiatric
hospital-prison receiving "treatment" consisting of injections of di-us
anmd chemicals after having been on a 145-day hunger strike last year.

SUPREME SOVIET
Mo8 cOw
On May 27 the delegation met with officials of the Supreme Soviet.
Present were: Georgiy A. Zhukov, Journalist, "Pravda" Commentator,


56-138-76-4






20


Political Observer. Georgiy A. Arbatov, Director, U.S.S.R. Academy
of Sciences, Institute of USA and Canada Studies, Aleksandr B
Chakovskiy, Editor-in-Chief, "Literary Gazette", Nikolay N. Inozent-
sev, Director, U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences, Institute of World
Economy and International Relations, Aleksey P. Shitikov, Chairman,
Council of the Union, and Lev N. Smirnov, Chairman, U.S.S.R.
Supreme Court.
Mr. Zhukov presented a general briefing of the overall operations
and organization of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., which is sum-
marized in part below:
Operation, and organization
The U.S..S.R. Supreme Soviet, consisting of 1,517 total deputies, is
elected every 4 years by direct balloting but without choice of candi-
date. The last election occurred in the summer of 1974. The two
"houses" are roughly the equivalent of the British Parliament. The
upper chamber, the Soviet of the Union, has 767 deputies elected on the
basis of 1 representative for every 300,000 people (similar to our own
House of Representatives); and the lower chamber, the Soviet of
Nationalities. has 750 deputies elected on the basis of territorial units,
each Soviet Socialist Republic has 32 representatives, each Autonomous
Republic 11, and the small provinces 5 or 1 delegates. The Supreme
Soviet meets twice annually for 6 to 7 days, basically to ratify decrees
of the government issued between its sessions.
The Supreme Soviet has 28 permanent or standing committees (14 in
each body) and these committees continue their work between legisla-
tive sessions under the direction of the 1.000 deputies who serve on
these committees. These permanent committees are the working bodies
of the Supreme Soviet which are primarily responsible for drafting
amendments to legislation proposed by the Soviet Government.
The legislative sessions of the Supreme Soviet are announced in the
media and these annouicements include a description or copy of the
draft agenda to be considered at that session. The most significant draft
laws which affect the Soviet people (i.e., family law; labor law) are
published 1 year in advance for discussion by the citizenry as well as by
the national and local media.
Following this briefing by Mr. Zhukov, Mr. Eilberg stated the con-
cern of the delegation regarding both the issue of freedom of emigra-
tion by Soviet Jewr. as well as the inability of many non-Jews to
emigrate from the Soviet U7nion. The members of the Supreme Soviet
reslonde(d that the issue of Soviet Jewry emigration is overplayed and
overblown by the media. They indicated that the Soviet Uinion is
guided by international law and that exit visas are issued pursuant to.
that law. If any restrictions do exist, they are found in the administra-
tive regulations regarding exit visa applications. However, Mr. Zhu-
kov M(icated that the right of a citizens to depart fromI the Soviet Union
may be propIerly restricted in cases connected with "state security, pub-
lic order, health, and morality."
State S;curty denal18
It was noted that 98.3 percent of all applications for emigration
froi the Soviet Union to Israel were approved between 1970 and 197h.
T'e Soviet official ad(led that lost of the remaining 1.7 percent of
applications were refused on the grounds that the appiwants pressed






21


information or knowledge relating to state secrets, state security, or
military operations. In this regard, the members of the Supreme So-
viet stated that each country must determine its own policy of "na-
tional security" and that in the Soviet Union, the Minister of Internal
Affairs is the most competent individual to decide such issues. It was
also noted that it was very possible that our criteria for national secu-
rity differs significantly from the policy of the Soviet Government.
Reprisals against those who apply for exit visas
The members of the Special Subcommittee cited specific problems
which have developed for those Jews who have been refused permis-
sion to depart from the Soviet Union, such as demotion, constant sur-
veillance, or harsh sentences for political crimes. In response, it was
stated that those who have applied to leave should be released (dis-
missed) from sensitive work and that, in fact, this would facilitate
their departure. With respect to reprisals against those who have
applied to leave, they noted that only those demonstrators who disturb
the public order or damage property are arrested and convicted. In
support of this statement, they cited clause 123 of the Russian Code of
Federation which imposes criminal penalties on those who "partici-
pate in any activity which rudely violates the public order * or
entail violation of the public transportation of government officials."
These were referred to as cases of "sheer hooliganism" and it was
stated that only these types of demonstrators are presented for
prosecution.
The delegation was initially told that, in the case of refusals to
emigrate, an applicant could complain to any court including the
Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R. However, in a subsequent meeting
with Mr. Smirnoff this statement was modified and Mr. Smirnoff inldi-
cated that only administrative review of exit denials was available
because it was not a proper subject for judicial review.
Decline in exit visa application
The members of the Supreme Soviet then raised the issue of those
Soviet citizens who are unhappy and dissatisfied with life in Israel.
They maintain that this was one of the primary reasons why there
has been a. decline in the number of applications for exit visas, as well
as in the total number of those actually emigrating. The delegation
was advised that during the first quarter of calendar year 1973, approx-
imately 9,600 Soviet citizens emigrated to Israel while in the first
quarter of calendar year 1975 this figure declined to 4,800. It was
stated that emigration from all countries to Israel had shown a similar
reduction, and that 500 Soviets have left Israel for other countries such
as the United States, Italy, West Germany, Canada,, and Australia.
They also observed that Soviet consulates in various countries are
beseiged with requests from Soviet Jews to return to the Soviet Union
and "most originally departed for Israel because of Israeli prol)a-
ganda, but they are shocked upon arrival in that country. "They com-
mented that reports have been received that dissatisfied individuals in
Israel have committed suicide and that knowledge of this situation
has discouraged many individuals from applying for emigrant visas.
Emigration and foreign relations
Mr. Shitikov then presented a brief statement explaining the differ-
ent traditions, history, and attitudes of the U.S. Government and





22


the Soviet Government. Ile pointed out that the United States, with
tile exception of the Indians, is a nation of immigrants and that .he
legal and legislative systems in our two countries cannot be realisti-
cally compared. He added that 98 percent of the U.S. population does
not know the real facts or understand the most-favored-nations con-
cept: and he said that the task of legislators in the United States is
to 'educate your own people about these issues." He explained that the
Soviet Government does not understand the deep interest of the U.S.
(iovernmient and the American people in issues such as Soviet Jewry.
Ile further maintained that the emigration issue should not be "the
cornerstone" of our foreign relations.
fJwae/'on-Van 'k amendment
Concerinig the Jackson-Vanik amendment, the Soviet officials stated
that "Jackson demanded us to guarantee the emigration of 60,000 per-
S("s each year while there was no similar movement of Jews from the
United States to Israel"
At this point they observed that the discussion had centered pri-
iiiarily ou the Soviet Jew issue and that overemphasis of this issue was
inhibiting the delegation's opportunity to discuss economic and trade
is ues as well as cultural and interparliamenta ry exchange matters.
They commiented that all issues, including Soviet Jews, should
be approached in a spirit of "good will, commiion-ense, and cooperation
and not in a manner of confrontation" which will not achieve positive
results. Stating theii belief that public opinion in the U.S.S.R. has
been adversely affected by the U.S. approach to the issue of Soviet
Jews, the members of the Supreme Soviet were adamant in their posi-
tion that this issue should be divorced entirely from issues of trade
and most-fa\ored-nations treatment.
T hemembers of the Supreme Soviet expressed their deep interest
in improvini ig relations between our countries, particularly in order to
elimlinate tHe threat of clear warfare notinY that we must not "let
iii inor probl ems" presumablyy referring to cIm ig ration of Soviet Jews]
stand in the way of achieving this major task."
In conclusion they mentioned that pIroper priorities must be at-
tached to each issue of mutual interest to our countries, and that we
imist continue our progress to Ciprove our relations.

The elegat ion met with the following officials of the Supreme
Soviet of the Ukraine on. May ;30: Mikhail ['. Belvy Chairman of the
S prelue Soviet, Vladimir I. Zaychuk. l)eputy of the Supreme Soviet,
t11d D1niitriy (. ApanasyGk. l)eputy of the Suplreme Soviet.
The grolu) also nclued VlalitIr A. Kravets. Deputy Minister of
Forevii Affairs. Fedor G. Burchak, Chief. Legal Section, Presidium,
]van (G. Podo"pgor a, (h ief. Secretariat, Presidilumn.
After l)riCf introduictory remarks the Soviet officials discussed the
I akrainian Reptiblic, I of 15S in the U.S.S.R.. and its close listorical
as )c atimn with the Russian Reimblic and its people. The Urain
entered the .S.S.R. in 191s. Its preset lpol)ulationI is approximately
5 1iii lioi. 1.C l)erent of which is Jewisl. The population of Kiev is
l.:) iilli,,: tlie semond laHigest city is Kharkov with a population of
1 16millin.






23


The meeting with the Supreme Soviet of the Ukraine was far-
ranging in the subjects discussed, including the history and economic
development of the Ukraine, and the organization and operations of its
Supreme Soviet. The delegation was informed that there was no un-
employment in the Ukraine; the Deputy explained that those, who
cannot work are assisted by the State, but that those who refuse to
work are considered criminals and sent to a labor camp.
Topics discussed which had a general bearing on Soviet Jewry
and/or emigration are summarized in more detail below.
Exit visa denial appeal to Suprene Soviet
According to the Soviet officials, a person whose application for
an emigrant visa has been denied may appeal to the Supreme Soviet
in the Ukraine. The delegation was told that if a person is not en-
gaged in secret work, generally the application is acted upon posi-
tively, but if his employment is of a secret nature, he may be forbid-
den emigration for some time. The option is open, however, for
appealing to the competent authority at the place where he works. The
delegation was advised that the Supreme Soviet can reverse the deci-
sion of the technical commission, but when asked for a concrete ex-
ample of such an instance, he was unable to cite a particular case. The
delegation was also told that the. labor code provides that the "refuse-
nik" need not be dismissed from his place of employment, and the
Soviet officials, denied that such dismissals took place.
Tra-vel reshictions
There was discussion regarding the internal passport system and
the travel restrictions upon Soviet citizens. According to the official
of the Supreme. Soviet there were "no restrictions for traveling for
Soviet citizens" and the new passport to be issued in 1976 was for
"the right and the convenience of Soviet citizens." This new means of
identification will contain the persons name, place of birth, mari-
tal status, members of his family, and any record of judicial proceed-
ings. Permission is not required to leave the city, but upon arrival at
his destination that person should register his presence in that location.
It was strongly emphasized that there. were "no restrictions" on the
movement of people, but that. there were problems which had "to be
settled" such as residence, schooling for children, and a job when a
family decides to relocate. For example, in the case of a farmer, the
agreement of the management of his collective farm is needed before
he can even start to choose his new residence.
Pa.ssport eden tifliat i0n
The delegation attempted to pursue the method of identifying Jews
on their passports. A Soviet official responded that only the national-
ity is stamped. However, if a person is born in the Ukraine, and he
is a tJew his nationality is marked as .Jewish rather than Ukrainian.
In effect. Jews are the only persons whose religion and nationality
are one. No matter where a. Jew is born-the Ukraine, Russia, LIatvia.
etc.-his nationality is considered to be Jewish.
A nti-Semitism in the Ukiraine
In response to a question by the (-peial Subcommittee on the subject
of anti-Semitism in the Ukraine. it was stated unequivocally that it did
not exist, and that this was a matter of "national policy."






24A


The delegation inquired as to what steps were taken to enforce this
national policy. No direct answer was provided. The Soviet officials
merely stated that in the constitution "equality of nations" in all
sI)heres of life is guaranteed and any violation is punished by law. In
accordance with their labor code it is spelled out that nobody can be
refused work because of nationality. Mr. Eilberg pressed them on
whether there was any record of prosecution for anti-Semitic action.
The answer was that it is "prosecuted by legislation," but at the same
time it was insisted "we don't have such a phenomenon as anti-
Senit ism."
In view of the approximately 800,000 Jews in the Ukraine, the ques-
tion was raised as to why there was only one synagogue in Kiev. In
response it was stated that, "the church is separated from the state. I
don't lkow." Another official added that actually there were even fewer
('hristian churches in the Soviet Union, so the absence of synagogues
4'did not prove anything."
Ukrainians in the United State8
Mr. Eilberg explained to the Soviet officials that there is a large
Uk-ainian population in the United States, and it was understood from
them that there was a strong movement for Ukrainian independence.
They replied that "our country is independent," and they did not un-
derstand why such a question would be raised.
Another member of the Supreme Soviet related that he was ac-
qua inted with many Ukrainians who resided in the United States,
and that there are two distinct groups whose political app roaches are
di ffierent. The first group to which he referred are the labor emigrees
who came to the United States to work. These people have strong ties
with the Ukraine and return occasionally to visit and share in the
successes of the Soviet Union. The other immigrants are the political
immigrants from the Ukraine who left in 1941. They did not like the
.ew social order and many were "collaborators with Nazis and mili-
tary criminals." Such people, according to the officials, have been the
advocates of independence and use organzations to slander the Soviet
nion and cooperate with the enemies of the State. It was suggested
that the delegation focus on the "labor eiigrees" who want to main-
tarn cultural ties with the IJkraine.
SUPREME COURT OF THE U.S.S.R.
On May 28 the (lelegation met with tle Supreme Court of the
I .5.5.1. in Moscow. I"resent were the following officials: Lev N.
Sni rov1 chairman of the supreme comrt (chief justice) aceolipanied
by th president of the criminal court, the president of the civil court
and the 1)resident of legislation.
ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE
Mr. SN irnov (liscussed the organization, structure, rand operation of
the Supleiw llrt of the U.S.S.R. as set fo'th it Article 104 of the
Soviet Constitution which states: "The Supreme Court of th U.S.S.R.
is the highest judicial organ. The Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R. is
,601argd with the supervision of the judicial activities of :ll the judi-
cial bodies of the I .S.S.I. and of the union republics within the limits
est i hIed by NN.."






25


The court had its origin when the U.S.S.R. was organized in 1922
and began operations in April 1924. The organizational structure has
not been altered during this time and it is composed of the following
collegia: civil, criminal, and military. The primary function of the
supreme court is to supervise the judicial activities of all the courts
in the Soviet Union
The primary activity of the supreme court concerns its appellate
jurisdiction over the supreme courts of the various union republics.
In addition, the supreme court promulgates interpretations, explana-
tions, and procedures relating to the judicial practices in the courts of
the union republics. These judicial guidelines are not connected with
the proposed legislation which would be considered by the supreme
court.
During the many plenums of the supreme court, the office of the
procurator is required to appear in behalf of the government, and
on occasion the minister of justice may take part in the proceedings.
The decisions of the plenum which include explanations and judicial
guidelines are binding on all lower courts in the Soviet Union.
Special appellate jurisdiction may be asserted at the request of the
chairman (chief justice) or the procurator general. The decisions on
these particular cases are not binding, and there is no such thing as
"precedent" in the Soviet Union. A bulletin is published o,)(e every
2 months containing these individual case decisions. The office of the
procurator general and the minister of justice also publish a journal
entitled "Socialist Legality."
The chairman of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R.. Mr. Smirnov,
also serves as a deputy of the Supreme Soviet for the Moscow region
and most of the judges in the Soviet Union are deputies of the Su-
preme Soviet of U.S.S.R. or the Supreme Soviet of their respective
union republics. The delegation raised the issues of "conflict of inter-
est" and "separation of powers." Mr. Smirnov responded that this does
not present any particular problems under the Soviet system of gov-
erment and that he does not find any conflict in his two positions.
In this regard, he noted that while the office of the procurator general
can interefere at any step during the judicial process, the chairman of
the supreme court does not have such authority.
JUDICIAL REVIEW oF EMIGRAWTION DECISIONS
In responding to a question as to whether judicial review of emigra-
tion decisions is available, Mr. Smirnov responded that "emigration
is not a judicial matter and is only within the competence of the minis-
try of internal affairs or the office of the procurator." In. other -words,
only administrative review is available, and the courts are unable to
intervene for the purpose of reviewing exit visa refusals.
On the'other hand, he stated that only courts have jurisdiction to
commit an individual to a mental institution and that this can be di-
rected only after review by a mental health panel. Mr. Sriirnov also
stated the citizenship law of the Soviet Union is currently undergoing
an exhaustive review by the legislation branch of the supreme court.












III. PRIVATE VIEWS AND EXPERIENCES


MEETING WITH! SOVIET JEWS I.N LENINGRAD
On May 25. 1975 the delegation met with various Soviet Jews whose
p)plicat ions for exit visas for Israel had been denied.
Each of the "refuseniks" orally presented the specific details of his
emigration case. including a description of the difficulties experienced
since the denial of the exit visa application. During preliminary dis-
(ussiols. it was estimated that approximately sixty to seventy families
in Leningrad have been refused permission to depart from the Soviet
Union.
In response to an inquiry from Mr. Eilberg, the group unanimously
agreed( to have the delegation raise their emigration cases with OVIR
officials.
The following is a brief biographical summary of the emigration
(a.s as presented by each of the -refuseniks'
A /YY1Wceh, Felix
The applications for exit visas of Mr. Aronovich, his brother, an
his mother were (lenlied in October 1972 based on Mr. Aronovich's pre-
vious employment as a draftsman-engineer with a secret military or-
,anization. Although he worked for nine years as a design engineer
for this ora nization. he stated that he had only a remote relationship
with any cl assified information and that all information to which he
had access has been published in Soviet journals and in the West. HIs
mother and brother were later granted exit visas and have departed
for Israel.
('k ern/yak, Irma
Application for an exit visa was made in January 1973 by Ms.
Chernak and her mother. )ina. but were ref used in May on the ground
that "you know secret data, connected with your work." Her employ-
ment lad been as an assistant professor in the Institute for the Aviation
lns1nlnients. but she state(I thii the allegations of secret data connected
with her work were not true. Once again in May 1974, Ms. chernvak
applied for an exit visa but was refused in September. She is now
employed as an elevator operator.
ertin, A lexandr, aid Oksaina
Mr. Chertin applied for an exit visU in Jamiar y 1973 and was re-
fusel June 1973. Ile formerly worked as a radio engineer at the Sci-
entific Research Institute; however, before applying for the exit visa
lie left that job. To his knowledge his work was not secret. During his
latest interview, he was told he could leave in 1982. Both are, currently
u employed.
A'kc hile; 8ky, Leopold
All application for an exit visa was made by Mr. Ekchilevsky in Jan-
uary 1974 and was refused 4 months later. His application result
(20)






27


in the loss of his job as a draftsman. His wife's prior employment had
been with a military organization in 1970, but she had left that work
before applying fora visa. They have applied for a visa again and were
told he could leave in 1985. Mr. Ekchilevsky is now employed as a
part-time delivery man.
Freydin, Mark
Mr. Freydin applied for his exit visa in September 1974 but was
refused in November. His employment had been at a dental clinic with
the military, where he claims he had no access to secret information.
He had left his job before applying for exit documents and is now
working as a night watchman. A possible date for emigration was set
for 1977.
Ginsburg, Ilia and Elleonora
In February 1974, Mr. Ginsburg applied for an exit visa which was
refused in May. The grounds for refusal were that he had done classi-
fied work. Mr. Ginsburg recalled working on a job which was con-
sidered secret in 1965. He is presently employed in a factory that
makes seatbelts.
Kartseva, Jeannette
Application for exit documentation was made by Ms. Kartseva in
July 1974 and refused in January 1975. She lost her job three days
after receiving her "invitation." Her employment had been at Scien-
tific Research Institute teaching English to scientists which she said
did not involve state secrets. Upon application for an exit visa she
was told her denial was based on the fact that "she knew people who
knew state secrets." Ms. Kartseva related that her former colleagues
at the Institute no longer speak with her.
Krtgaiz, Boris
Formerly an associate professor at a polytechnological college, de-
partment of physical chemistry, Mr. Krumgalz applied for an exit
visa in August 1973 but was denied in April 1974 on the ground that
his wife had worked as a technician at a military plant. It was his
opinion that the denial came because he is a scientist. After losing
his job, Mr. Krumgalz applied at numerous other facilities but was
told that he was "unreliable." Consequently, he decided to emigrate to
Israel. Mr. Krumgalz now works as an insurance agent.
Reines, Leonid
He and his family (including his mother, wife and two children)
applied for exit documents in August 1973 but was not notified of his
denial until February 1975. The grounds for denial were "considera-
tions of state security." He had been employed at a laboratory special-
izing in metallurgical science and thermal treatment, and formerly was
deputy director of that factory. As Mr. Reines stated, after his appli-
cation for a visa he was transferred from the laboratory to the plant
to do nonskilled labor. The KGB then approached him stating that
he should leave his job. After such abrupt notice. Mr. Reines obtained a
job with a funeral office, but when it was learned he intended to immi-
grate to Israel, he was asked to leave this position too. In December
of last year, he went to OVIR to discuss his case and the reasons of
his denial. OVIR did not indicate how long it would be before grant-





20


ing of exit documents, and that it was enough "that he had been
around secrets" and he should not complain. His mother, age 73, has
been given permission to leave; however, she will not emigrate without
the family.
,S'akir 'sy, George
Application for emigration was made by George Sakiriansky Octo-
1ber 1973 and refused 3 months thereafter. It was not until June 1974
that Mr. Sakiriansky learned that his father had been an officer in the
Soviet Armly and had deserted. These were the grounds for denial of
1is visa, "his father was a traitor." He was told, however, that if his
father returned from Israel where he has been residing, exit docu-
mets would be forthcoming. He related some background information
which revealed that at the age of 9 lie was adjudged delinquent and
sent to an institution where he stayed for 5 years. iis brother has been
accused of anti-Soviet propaganda and has been imprisoned for 4
ears. Mr. Sakiriansky was also sentenced to 6 years for robbery, but
dIetained for only 3 years. He is now 36 and has a wife and child. They
have again applied for an exit visa 3 months ago but have had no
respOnlse.
,h S;oliko-sky, Ilya
IIn 1973, Mr. Shistakovsky and his parents applied for exit visas
to enhi rrate and lie was surprised to learn that his parents could leave
but his application had been denied due to his employment 5 years
prior at a research institute. He stated that his responsihIilities at that
tine were as a jullior electronic engineer and that he certainly did not
possess any secrets. His parents were reluctant to leave the Soviet
F 1 wX-ithloult him, but finally they did emigrate to Israel. Initially;
Mr. Shistakovsky was told he may be able to depart in 5 years, but
since that time the period has been altered to 10 or 15.years.

Deal of exit docitments occurred in July 1974 because, according
to Mr. Sverdin. his brother had a job with "secrets." This job with
seclrets refers to his brother's employment as a bridge builder. When
Mr. Sverdlin was formed of the denial he demonstrated against the
Government, although warned of such action. This resulted in an
arrest for 15 (lays, His occupation is that of a draftsman whereas prior
to i' alp)lication for an exit visa he had been working as an engineer
in a (lImmlical plant.

M ETING WITH SOViETi. JEWS IN Moscow
On May 27, 1975 the delegation met in the home of Professor
Aleksandr lerner wth ten Soviet Jews whose applications for exit
visas had been refused.
A.'wa/rataon tre'nds
Professor Aleksan(1 Lernr gav e a )rief background of the inigra-
lion patterns of various Russian groies af1(l exl)laine(l that emigration
a(tilly started in the early 19()ws hut that Jews are the only na-
inalitv that have left 1he ovet In : e
A s:mmarv of t11 figures for Jewish emigration over the last
several years Wis presented tracing the pe:ik period in 1973 at which






29


time 35,000 emigrated and the 'decline since then as evidenced by the
fact that only 4,000 had emigrated during the first 3 months of 1975.
I The relationship between the so-called brain tax of 1972, the
Jackson-Vanik amendment, and emigration trends was discussed; and
Professor Lerner stated his firm belief that the amendment has played
a very positive role and was responsible for the elimination of the brain
tax and the liberalized emigration which was evident in 1973 and the
first half of 1974.
The following reasons were given for the recent decrease in emigra-
tion: (1) the strong desire of the Soviet Government for U.S. trade
and credits, and their deep disappointment when the trade agreement
fell through; and (2) the concern on the part of the Soviet Govern-
-ment that a large number of intellectuals were seeking to emigrate.
The military and economic conditions in Israel were viewed as a
,secondary factor with respect to the reduced emigration levels.
In responding to the OVIR statement made the preceding day that
there were only 1,450 pending exit visa applications in the U.S.S.R.,
the-group noted that they are "personally aware that over 3,000 fam-
ilies have applied for exit visas and have either been denied or have
received no response from Soviet authorities." In Moscow alone the
"refusenik" population is approximately 160 families. In addition,
approximately 140,000 Jews have received letters of invitation, but
for one reason or another have not applied to emigrate. He pointed
out that "the figure Of 1,450 pending applications is simply not
accurate."
RepJur-sals Agains Those Who Apply for Exit Visas
Professor Lerner gave the following examples of harassment of
the refusenikss": Exclusion of Jewish culture and religion; ostra-
cism; intimidation as well as verbal and physical assaults of the
children of "refuseniks"; physical assaults of the "refuseniks" them-
selves; required military services notwithstanding the physical condi-
tion of the refusenikk"; intimidation and persecution of the
%ref usenik's" relatives who have not applied for emigration; interrup-
tion of mail services; disconnection of telephone; criminal trials, par-
ticularly under Article 70 of the Soviet Criminal Code which prohibits
anti-Soviet activity; interrogation by the KGB; and isolation from
foreign correspondents. This harsh treatment of "refuseniks" has dis-
cou raged many' Soviet Jews from applying.
Emigration Procedures
It was stated that as soon. as a man applied for an exit visa for
Israel he subjects himself to any of the aforementioned forms of har-
assment. Another disturbing fact is the total uncertainty surround-
ing the life of a "refusenik", and this is directly attributable to the
absence of any riles and regulations governing the consideration of
exit visa applications.Likewise, there is no access to the courts to con-
test a denial, anclaccording to some of the refusenikss", "the matter
of emigration is completely outside of the law."
None of those present at the meeting had ever seen their character
reference or the conclusions of the expert commission. Neither had
they participated in or.been informed of the )roceedings or decisions
oof the expert commissions. Some even indicated a special form must






30


be executed before one is given access to classified information and'
none of those present had ever executed such a form.
The (elegation was advised that the Ministrv of Internal Affairs
and the manager of various enterprises have totally disclaimed any
jurisdiction over State security deter inations and consequently these
"refuseniks" have very little information regarding the composition.
of. and picedures followed by. these expert "industrial" commissions.
There was extensive discussion concerning several recent political
trials, and So)me of the "efuseniks" described the partic.uhar difficultieIS
they had experienced as a result of their filing applications for
emigration.
SUMMIARY OF INDIVIDUAL CASES
The following biographical sketch was prepared and submitted by
each of the "Iefusenikst'.
Re1i.n. 1o. eph atld DI'l
Mr. Beilin and his wife applied for a visa in January 1972 and were
refused 3 months later on the ground of "secrecy common with wife."
lie had been a specialist in applied mathematics and his wife's occupa-
tion was that of a specialist in chemical cybernetics. After his applica-
tion for an exit document. Mr. Beilin was demoted three times and
later dismissal. ie maintained that his wife had not been working for
almost 4 years and could not understand the reasons for denial.
Formalization of visa refusal was changed to reflect "insufficient blood
relationship. '" "important specialists," "state interests do not allow
1). Beilin go."
]elotserkovsmkaya. Soph;a
An application for exit visa was made by Ms. Belotserkovskaya in
December 1972 and was refused in April i973 on the ground of her
"-knowing the secret materials." Iler previous employment had been as
an engineer in the Research Institute of Automatic Apparatus but
this was 6 yeals prior to the visa application. Iler husband had already
left for Israel November 1972 and is now working in the United
States. She has been refused a visa upon application twice since that
time and states that she cannot wait any longer to rejoin her husband.
Ms. Belotserkovskaya plans to den1onstrate shortly for the defense of
her children against the inhumanity of the Soviet authorities.
Lerier, A ltkvlidlh
l)uring November 1971 Dr. Lerner applied for exit documents for
lI ILrration to Israel and was refused 1 month later because of "regiit
considerations." Formerly lie had held the positions of professor,
(ioctor of technolo gical sciences. Hiead of the Department of Theo.ry
of Great Systems at the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., and
professor' of the lhyil -IIechnical University. but upon refusal of an
exit visa he was (ismisse(l from all posts. )r. Lerner has a daughter,
Sophia Ii-n e, residing in Israel since 1973 with her husband and
family.
Niee, ila
Ms. Nudes application for a visa in October 1971 was refused 2
Iinths lat on the ground of "the regime onieations." Her em-
ployment was as an economist in the Institute of the Microbiological







Industry where she was concerned with the building of factories for
the production of antibiotics for the defense of plants and animals.
Ms. Nudel's sister had already left for Israel in 1972 and she no longer
has relatives in the Soviet Union.
Rubin, Vitaiy
Before his application for emigration, February 1972, Mr. Rubin
was senior researcher in the Institute for Oriental Studies of the Acad-
emy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. as a specialist for ancient Chinese
philosophy. His refusal on the ground of being "an important special-
ist" forced him to resign in July 1972. His wife, too, was deprived of
her position as a teacher of German language. Mr. Rubin's twin sister
has been in Israel since 1972 and he would like to join her. In early
1.973 and 1974 Columbia University in New York invited Mr. Rubin
to teach Chinese philosophy as a visiting professor, but he was refused
a visa to the United States. In April 1975 the president of Columbia
University refused to deal with any visitor from the U.S.S.R. "so long
as Vitaly Rubin is denied the right to teach here."
8ch araimsky. A atoly
An application for an exit visa was made by Mr. Scharansky in
June 1973 and refused in September on the ground that "it does not
accord to the state interests to let people who graduated from such
institute leave the country." The institute referred to is the Moscow
Physics-Technical University from which he graduated in June 1972.
He has been sentenced to 15 days imprisonment three times for par-
ticipation in demonstrations, and during his last interrogrations in
March lie was told that everything is ready and all the papers signed
for arrest and trial for anti-Soviet activity. His wife has been in Israel
since July 1974 and he wanted to join her as soon as he possibly could.
Sqlepak, Vladimir
Mr. Slepak and his family applied for emigration in April 1970 but
was ref used 2 months later. He was formerly head of a laboratory in a
TV research institute and his wife is a medical doctor. The grounds
for denial were given as "your leaving is not in the best interest of the
Soviet State." Subsequent to receiving his "letter of invitation" in
196.9 Mr. Slepak and his eldest son have been persecuted many times
and have not been able to find employment. As a result of these activi-
ties, he has been told that he would never get a visa.

MEETING WITHL DR. ANDRET D. SAKHAROV
EMIGRATION TRENDS
Dr. Sakharov opened the meeting by describing the trends in emi-
gration since congressional consideration of the Jackson amendment
an(d t forth the following reasons for the current decrease in emigra-
tion levels: (1) the original group of Soviet Jews had already made
its final decision to emigrate and by this time most of these individuals
have already been processed and have departed from the Soviet Union:
(2) those who had not reached a final decision, have been discouraged
from applvin, for emigration by the hardships which have been ex-
perienced by those who have previously applied-in the form of dis-
inissals, demotions, etc.; (3) artificial obstacles have been im-






32


posed on potential applicants such as requiring letters of invitation and
arbitrary decisions resulting from a lack of legal procedures and
guidelines; and (4) the situation in the Middle East.

JACKSON-VANIK AMENDMENT
He strongly objected to suggestions which have been made by the
Soviet Government that the Jackson-Vanik amendment was an insult
to the Soviet people, particularly since the Soviet Government has
agreed to the principles set forth in the Universal Declaration on
Human Rights. Likewise, he expressed the view that Soviet interest
in the trade agreement diminished because of the "credit" issue. lie
strongly recommended that the West not retreat from its demand for
the free exchange of people and ideas, and he sugested that other
countries in the West. particularly in Europe., should take action
similar to those which have been taken by the United States in pro-
testing the violation of human rights in the Soviet Union. Dr. Sak-
harov felt that the Jackson-Vanik amendment was historically im-
portant for Americans as well as for the Soviets in that it reaffirmed
the U.S. commitment to protecting the human rights of all people.
The members of the delegation briefly discussed with Dr. Sakharov
the problem of Ukrainian independence, and independence of the
Baltic Republics.

RIGHT TO EMGRATE
Dr. Sakharov explained the great significance of the ability to emi-
grate from a country and indicated that where there is no power to
leave "the country exerts great control over the life of the individual."
It is his position that every person should be able to emigrate freely
and because this right does not exist in the Soviet Union it is similar
to a "large concentration camp." He added that this right is pro-
claimed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that if this
right (lid in fact exist in the Soviet Union "all aspects of Soviet life
would be different.- In summary, Dr. Sakharov said the right of emi-
gration is fundamental and is just as essential for those who desire
to remain in the Soviet Union as it is for those who desire to leave.
ITe deemphasized the significance of the number of individuals who
desire to depart and instead stated "it is more important that they
cannot leave."
He added that the right to emigrate should be guaranteed by law
and should not initially depend upon receipt of a letter of invitation.
In this respect. lie remarked that large numbers of individuals are not
included in the total "refusenik" population because many invitations
are not received nor acted upon) by Soviet officials.

MENTAL INSTITUTION CONFINEMENT
According to Dr. Saklmrov three categories of dissidents a1e some-
times confined in mental institutions: those attempting to cross the
border; those attempting to enter the U.S. Embassy; and those who
possess fim religious beliefs Ie estimated that there ar sveral
hund red dissidents currently confined in mental institutions.
Pressure on dissidents has increased since 1972 and Soviet officials
have made numerous efforts to persuade these dissidents to renounce






33


their anti-Soviet activities. Increasing pressure has also been applied
to representatives of Amnesty International-one officer was recently
arrested, and the house of the Director of the Soviet chapter of
Amnesty International was recently searched. Noting that these indi-
viduals have scrupulously obeyed Soviet law, Dr. Sakharov observed
that they are being harassed solely because of their defense of
dissidents.
There was some discussion concerning the various methods of
harassing Soviet Jews and dissidents, and it was suggested that the
pervasive feeling of fear and isolation has discouraged many from
applying for emigration, or opposing the Soviet system in any fashion.
In addition, Dr. Sakharov pointed out that since few individuals
can exist without the State, one is faced with a difficult choice. If one
chooses to criticize the system he is almost unable to exist within that
system or to leave it.
Dr. Sakharov also described the consequences that may befall one's
relatives and children in the event he deviates from what is considered
to be normal Soviet behavior. He opined that the intellectual con-
formity that results from such a system is particularly costly in the
field of science, and the Soviet Government is falling farther and
farther behind the West in all types of technology except in the area
of defense and aerospace.
HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE SOVIET UNION
In discussing the human rights issue, Dr. Sakharov opposed the
view that these rights are ignored because of the intense preoccupation
with survival. Instead, Dr. Sakharov contended that the revolution
which introduced the concept of class struggle into politics eroded
whatever foundation existed for protecting human rights. As a result,
he is very pessimistic that the future will hold any hope for greater
progress in the area of human rights. [This view was inconsistent with
that expressed by Mr. Arbatov who indicated that the Soviet Govern-
ment will necessarily face the human rights issue in the near future.]
One member of the delegation queried Dr. Sakharov as to why
Soviet citizens passively accept "the system." He responded that their
reaction is basically dictated by a feeling of fear and isolation which
obligates them to rely upon official authorities for information, and
"this information often bears little relationship to reality." He added
that there is in many cases a dissatisfaction of and disagreement with
the Soviet system, but that most individuals must compromise them-
selves in order to exist within that system. It was his belief that at
the grassroots level there is a general dissatisfaction with the in-
justices that occur under the Soviet system, and he mentioned as one
example that women are not permitted to travel abroad without the
permission of their husbands.
There was also a brief discussion of detente, and Dr. Sakharov
stressed that the concept was necessary and good and that the improve-
ment of relations between our countries is important, but that we can-
not allow the issue of detente to divert our attention from the issue
of human rights.
He briefly described the problem of non-Jews who are desirous of
emigrating and recommended that international attention should also
be focused on this issue.





34


He strongly urged that the E.S. Government demand that the
Soviet Government enact legislation which would proscribe time
limitations on the consilderation and processing of exit visa applica-
tioms. )r. Sakharov acknowledged that this issue was more sensitive
to Soviet officials and that the Soviet Government is not anxious to
"retreat' on this issue as they had done earlier on the Jewish issue.
He then raised the issue of the ethnic Germans who were exiled
during Worhl War II an(l some who have been there since the 18th
century, and described in detail the difficult plight confronting these
people These individuals according to i)r. Sakharov have been de-
)rived of educational opportunities or education in their native lan-
uare, but that many are now returning to the Baltic republics from
Which theyv were deported. He noted that the 2 million ethnic Ger-
mans are a "humiliat.ed nationality" and that large numbers of Ger-
moans are desirous of emigrating O1' returning to their homeland in
the Crimea. Dr. Sakharov presented a list of ethnic Germans who
seek repatriation, to the delegation and asked the delegation to bring
this list to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
)r. Sakharov then solicited the assistance of the delegation in ob-
taining medical treatment for his wife. Apparently she received a con-
(iislon (hiring World War II and her eyesight is deterlorating rapidly
as a result of Llaucoma and inflation of the retina. Current techniques
Ior treating these prol)lems are complicated and controversial and are
not available in the Soviet Union. 'Mrs. Sakharov, however, has re-
ceived an invitation to visit Italy in order to obtain the necessary
treatment. They have been advise(d by OVIR that the approval of the
MHnstry of Health is required before she canI depart for treatment but
sch al)I)rO\al has not been forthcoming.
Finally, the individual cases of Anatoly Marchenko and Leonid
Plvushcl were discussed with DIr. Sakharov :
Mr. Marchenko was sentenced to seven years in exile and later
paroled cause of anti-Soviet activities and "his refusal to obey the
regime. Mr. Marchenko wanted to emigrate from the Soviet Union
to the -nited States but was Mformed that instead he should apply
for Israel. lie refuse(l to accept this "sham" arrangement, was arrested
o March 2. 197,5 and tried on March 31 sentenced to 4 years in exile
(he is the author of a book entitled ry Testimony" wlich describes
conditions in Soviet prison (amps). Mr. Marchenko engaged in a
hunger strike to protest the refusal of the Government to allow him
to depart for the United States where he had been invited by Harvard
Iniversity to lecture.
I)r. Sakharov stated that Mr. Plyushch has been committed to a
mental iustitlltion and that drugs are being adiniiiistered which are
slowly killing hin an(l concluded that it is "a simple question of
humanity and saving tle life of a man who is dying in a hor-ible way."
InI cocliion~ Ir. Sakharov explained the position of the Soviet
Governinen in attend li)t ing to connect tlI emigration with Zionism,
and lhe noted the difliclilti (s that the Soviet Government experiences
in ustifying on idologrical rounds emigration to other countries.
Although he viewed it as primarily a permna! decision, Dr. Sakharov
was in general opposition to engaging i hypocritical practices or
"shm" "arrangements in order to obtain permission to depait from
the Soviet 10nion.













IV. SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS


Since the primary purpose of the Special Study Subcommittee's trip
was to review Soviet emigration and procedures, the following obser-
vations are restricted to that issue:
1. The right to emigrate from. a country is fundamental to the
enjoyment of all other rights, and the inability to depart from
the Soviet Union has had a "chilling effect" on the exercise of
other basic human freedoms.
2. Almost all denials of exit visas are predicated upon the fact
that the applicant is in possession of "state secrets" or is involved
with "state security". The:"state secret" label is expansive and arbi-
trarily applied. In most cases the "refusenik" has not had direct
access to, nor a close relation with, any information which could
be reasonably considered as classified.
3. The decisions of the "technical commissions" (industrial ad-
visory committees) regarding "state security" are made in private
and no information is available on the composition of, and pro-
cedures followed by, these commissions.
4. An individual who has been denied an exit visa is not in-
formed of the reasons or justification set forth for the denial, and
he is not provided an opportunity to personally appear before any
body in order to present his case or to rebut any evidence which
may have been submitted relating to "state security".
5. The Chief of the Office of Visas and Registration (OVIR)
in each of the cities visited performs only administrative or min-
isterial functions. He is not the final decisionmaker with respect
to granting permission to depart from the Soviet Union. It was
not determined '"who" possesses the final authority for such
decisions.
6. Very little information is available concerning the criteria
and procedures followed by OVIR and the Ministry of Internal
Affairs in processing applications for exit visas.
7. The lack of public information on Soviet emigration policy
and procedures has created a great amount of uncertainty, confu-
sion, and frustration for those who have been denied exit visas.
8. Soviet Jews who have been denied permission to leave are
subjected to various forms of harassment (the extent of which
varies from city to city) including job loss or demotion, criminal
prosecution, exile. confinement in mental institution, interroga-
tions by the KGB., interruption of mail service, disconnection of
telep one service, and constant surveillance.
9. There was a consensus among the Soviet Jews interviewed
that public protestations by the American people and the U.S.
Congress over the treatment of Soviet Jews are necessary, desir-
able. and have had a beneficial impact. World opinion, public
pressure, and Congres ional concern for this issue have had a di-
(35)





36


rect effect on the attitude of the Soviet Government regarding the
issuance of exit visas for Soviet Jews.
10. The emigration of non-Jews or Soviet Jews seeking to re-
settle in the United States present an extremely difficult problem
for the Soviets. While Soviet officials are able to ideologically
'justify" the emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union to Israel
As a "return to their homeland," a similar "justification" cannot
be presented with respect to non-Jews who desire to emigrate and
Jews seeking to resettle in countries other than Israel.
11. Several inconsistencies exist as to the current backlog of
exit visa applications, the number of Jews who desire to emigrate,
and the exit visa refusal rate.
12. Soviet officials consistently minimized the significance of
the Jewish emigration issue and indicated it should not play an
important role in U.S.-Soviet relations.












V. NAZI WAR CRIMINALS
MEETING WITH PROCURATOR GENERAL-U.S.S.R.
During a meeting on May 28 with, the first deputy Procurator Gen-
eral, Moscow, Mikhail P. Malyarov, the delegation discussed the prob-
lem of alleged Nazi war criminals who are currently residing in the
United States and Mr. Eilberg requested the cooperation of the Soviet
Government in obtaining statements from potential eyewitnesses re-
garding atrocities committed by these alleged Nazi war criminals.
Mr. Malyarov responded by indicating that he would fully cooperate
in obtaining such statements and he explained that a great number of
documents exist in the U.S.S.R. relating to atrocities committed by
war criminals now residing in the United States. A summary of the
activities of the Soviet Government in bringing Nazi war criminals
to justice was presented. He estimated that there may be over 100 for-
mrer Soviet citizens who committed war atrocities and who are now
residing in the United States.
Since the United States does not recognize Soviet annexation of the
Baltic States, it was indicated that problems may develop in seeking
the cooperation of the Soviet Government in obtaining statements
from those witnesses who reside in the Baltic States.
Nevertheless, it was agreed that if the U.S. Government submitted
a, list of potential eyewitnesses, the Soviet Government would seek to
obtain statements from these eyewitnesses. If this was not satisfactory,
officials could enter the Soviet Union for the purposes of obtaining
affidavits or depositions from potential eyewitnesses. According to Mr.
Malyarov, officials from the Federal Republic of West Germany, the
Austrian Government, and the Polish Government have previously
been permitted to obtain such statements in the Soviet Union and Mr.
Malyarov promised his "utmost cooperation."
He also stated that witnesses would be permitted to come to the
United States for the purposes of testifying or providing statements
during deportation or denaturalization proceedings in the event prior
discussions with the witnesses demonstrate the need for their presence
in the United States. Mr. Malyarov observed that the passage of 30
years may create serious problems, but he was willing to cooperate in
every respect to bring Nazi war criminals to justice. In order to elimi-
nate some confusion Mr. Eilberg explained that the United States does
not have jurisdiction for the prosecution of these crimes and that the
interest of the United States in this matter relates primarily to the
denaturalization or deportation of those Nazi war criminals who
illegally entered the United States as a result of fraud or mis-
representation.
(37)








MEETING WITIH SIMON WIESENTI[AL, DIRECTOR, DocUMETs CENTER,
VIExNxA. AUSTPA
On June 1 members of the special committee met with Simon
Wiesenthal. director of the Documents Center in Vienna to discuss the
issue of alleged Nazi war criminals currently residing in the United
States.
Mr. Eilberg explained to Mr. Wiesenthal that the subcommittee was
extremely interested in this issue and had pressed the Immi ration
Service., the Department of Justice, and the Department of State to
place high priority on their investigation of this matter. It was further
explained that the U.S. role in this matter would be limited to the
denaturalization and deportation or possibly the extradition of alleged
NazI war criminals.
Mr. Eilbert explained the difficulties which have been encountered
by the U.S. Government in obtaining evidence and information relat-
ing to alleged Nazi war criminals as well as the need to obtain state-
enits fromi potential eyewitnesses to these Nazi atrocities (particu-
larly those currently residing in Soviet bloc countries).
Mr. Wiesenthal indicated that he was continuously engaged in the
process of accumulating information on Nazi war criminals and was
most anxious to cooperate in providing any relevant information to
the I.S. Government and to the Subcommittee on Immiration, Citi-
zenship, and International Law. Mr. Wiesenthal stated that he has
actively been supplying the Immigration Service with information on
alleged Nazi war criminals for several years but was somewhat dis-
comira ged bv the inactivity of the United States on this matter.
I)iscussion followed of individual cases which are currently under
(ctii A-e investigation 1)y the Immigration Service, and Mr. Wiesenthal
was supplied with a brief summary of each of these cases. Mr. Wiesen-
thal also added that on February 5., 1949. he caused to be -published in
a weekly newspaper in the United States a list of alleged Nazi war
criminals and that a large number of these individuals later entered
the United States under the Displaced Persons Act.
Mr. Wiesenithal also added that during the Cold War there were
verv few efforts" to b'inr Nazi war criminals to justice and that during
this tine lare numbers traveled to the Near East and to South
A nierica.
Tie miaintainied further that n we ll-orraized and well-financed effort
has benl) unde-wa v for some years to protect these individuals.
Mr. Wiesenthal also noted that current trials of alleged Nazi war
criminals in est (,ernmnv nmv produce additional information
which will be helpful to the U.S. Government in its investigation.











APPENDIXES


APPENDIX 1

CORRESPoNDENCE BETWEEN CHAIR-MAN JOSHUA ILBERG AND THE DE-
PARTMRIENT OF STATE RELATING TO EMIGRATION CASES AND THE U.S.
EXIT REPRESENTATION LIST
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
lashington, D.C., December 8,1975.
Hon. JOSHUA EILBERG,
Chairmactn, Subcomm ttee on Imm igration, Citizenship, and Inter-
national Law, Houe of Representatives, l ashington, D.C.
DEAR MAR. CHAIRMAN: The Secretary has asked me to thank you for
your letter of November 12, and inform you that at an appropriate
opportunity in the near future he will personally reaffirm to the Soviet
Government his continuing interest in the issue of family reunification
and the Exit Visa Representation List which Ambassador Stoessel
presented on August 18.
Of the 641 individuals in 249 family units on the List, the Soviets
have granted exit permission to date to 37 individuals in twelve family
units.
Thank you for informing us of your interest in this aspect of our
family reunification effort.
Sincerely,
ROBERT J. MCCLOSKEY,
Ass,'stant Secretary
for Congressional Relations.

NOVEMBER 12, 1975.
Hon. HENRY A. KISSINGER.
Secretary of State, Department of State,
Washington. D.C.
DEAR SECRETARY KISSINGER: It is my understanding that on August
18, 1975. the U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union. the Honorable
Walter J. Stoessel. Jr., presented Soviet officials with an Exit Visa
Representation List containing the names of 641 individuals and
249 family units.
During my recent trip to the Soviet Union. T discussed with several
Soviet officials my deep concern that many families were being sep-
arated as a, result of the Soviet government's refusal to issue exit
visas to a large number of relatives of U.S. citizens and permanent
resident aliens.
As a sinatory to the Final Act of the Conference on Security and
Cooperation in Europe, signed in Helsinki, the Soviet, government has
expressed its support of the principle of family reunification.
(39)






40


In order to test the extent of their commitment to this policy I would
request that you personally intercede with General Secretary Brezhnev
in order to persuade him that individuals on the Representation List
should be permitted to come to the United States with a minimum
amount of delay to reside with their relatives.
Your personal intervention in these cases will also serve to assure
those U.S. citizens and permanent resident families that every pos-
sible measure is eling taken to reunite them with their relatives who
are currently residing in the Soviet Union.
I would certainly appreciate being kept informed as to your per-
sonal efforts in this regard. and currently advised as to the issuance of
exit visas to individuals on the Representation List.
Sincerely,
"OIW ERG,


DFT TT-FNT OF STATE,
Wah7n;an. D.C.. September 16. 1975.
THon. JosT u FILnER,.
Chian7' ,SM4P baom mittee on Irmnjgra to++; Citizenhip. and Integrnz-
t;onal Law Howue of Representates Washngto, D.C.
DAF.R MR CHAIMAN: I am writip', in response to your Subhoom-
mittee staff's Senteiber .5 oral request for somO basic information about,
the U'S Exit Visa Reprosentation List which Ambassador Stoessel
recently presented to the Soviet Government.
In an effort to facilitate the reunification of divided families of
American citizens and permanent residents, we have pre ented to the
Soviet Government, over a period of years a series of lists of persons
refused Soviet exit visas to come to the United States to reside with
relatives. The List presented by Ambass ador Stoessel on August 18
was the seventeenth in the series, and contained the names of 641 in-
dividuals in 249 family units. The preceding list. Representation List
16. was presented by Ambassador Stoesscel in April. 1974; it contained
aboit 790 names in" 274 family units. About 38% of those persons re-
ceived Soviet exit visas between the date of that Lists presentation
nd the presentation of Representation List 17. While a 38% success
rate is an improvemenlt over the situation in past years, we continue tQ
hope that the rate of resolution will be higher and more rapid in the
context of the present improvement in US-Soviet relations. Almost
all the persons on oIur lists are individuals of ordinary circunistances
whoseemirationl from the Soviet Union would not. in our view, raise
any serious scurity I)roblems for the Soviet Government.
A1out ten of the individuals named in Re)resentation List 17 are
VS citizens lnder U'S liw, but Soviet citizens under Soviet law. The
Soviet autthor ies do not officially recognize the I'S citizenship of such
Soviet citizens. and we are urging the Soviets to grant them exit vsas
a> So cit iz('1-s so that tly may come here to reside in accomdaiice
wit I their desires.
In presenting Representation List 17 to the Soviets Ambassador
Stoe~ssel cited the undertakilngs to facilitate family reunlfietion em-
|iod i(ed iii t IFiual Act of t lle (l fofrene on Secl rlt : In Id (')op-rat io
in Erope, signed on Augst 1 in Ilelsinki by. a number of countries
iiie!Idiug tl I united States and the USSR. Ai the request of your snaft








I am enclosing a copy of the text; the family reunification provisions
begin on page 114.
Please continue to let us know whenever the Department can be of
assistance to you or the Subcommittee staff.
Sincerely,
ROBERT J. MCCLOSK EY,
Assistant Secretary
for Congressional Relations.


DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, D.C., August 6, 1975.
Hon. JosHuA ELBERG,
Chairman, Subeomnittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and Interna-
tional Law, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: During a recent call at the Consular Adminis-
tration of the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs, an officer of our Eim-
bassy in Moscow was given an informal Soviet response to a list of
exit visa cases which your delegation had presented to the Soviets diir-
ing your May 27 meeting at the All-Union OVIR of the Soviet Min-
istry of Internal Affairs.
I am enclosing the information as provided by the Ministry and
cabled by our Embassy; it appears some of the names may be slightly
garbled, but hopefully they are recognizable when the enclosed is com-
pared to your original list.
We note that the information provided by the Ministry indicates
that Academician Sakharov's wife, Yelena Bonner, had been refused
permission to go abroad for medical treatment on the grounds that
Soviet medical authorities did not advise such travel. That informa-
tion was apparently overtaken by events, as our Embassy was informed
by unofficial sources that she was granted an exit visa for Italy on
July 18, but has not departed because of concern about her husband's
health.
Sincerely,
ROBERT J. MCCLOSKEY,
Assistant Secretary
for Congressiotal Relatioas.















APPENDIX 2


UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
[ON DECEMBER 10, 1948. the General Assembly of the United Nations
adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of human Rights,
the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following thls
historic act the Assembly called upon all Memnber countries to publi-
cize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated,
displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other edli-
cational institutions, without distinction based on the political status
of countries or territories. "]
Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal ald
inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the founda-
tion of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in
barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, anr(
the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedoill of
speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed
as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse.
as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that hu-
man rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly re-
lations between nations,
Nhereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter re-
affirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity alld
worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and womelI
and have determined to promote social progress and better standards
of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve inl co-
operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal re-
spect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is
of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore, The General Assembly proclaims this Universal
Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievemem
for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and
eveiiy organ of society. keeping this Declaration constantly in minl.
shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these
rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and inter-
national, to secure their universal and effective recognition a1d ob-
servance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and
among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
(43)





44


ARTICLE 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with season and conscience and should act towards
one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
ARTICLE 2
Everyone its entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Declaration. without distinction of any kimid, such as race, colour, sex.
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin.
property. birth or other status.
Furthermore, no (dstinction shall be made on the basis of the politi-
cal,. jurisdictional or international status of the country or territol to
which a person belongs. whether it be independent, trust, non-self-go\'-
erning or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

ARTICLE 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

ARTICLE 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave
trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
ARTICLE 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrad-
in, t reatment or punishment.

ARTICLE 6

Everyone has the right to recoo ition everywhere as a person before
the law.
ARTICLE 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimina-
tion to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection
agaillst any discriminat ion in violation of this Declaration and against
any incitement to such discrimination.

ARTCLE 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy bY the competent na-
tional tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him
bv the cost itut ion or by law.
ARTICLE 9
No one shall b)e sulbjectedl to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

ARTICLE 1 0

E Ivery. one is entitled in full eq]uality to a fair and public hearing by
an independent and imj1patial tribunal, in the determination of his
rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.






45


ARTICLE 11
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be pre-
sumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial
at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of
any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under na-
tional or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor
shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at
the time the penal offence was committed.
ARTICLE 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy,
family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and
reputation. Ever-yone has the right to the protection of the law against
such interference or attacks.

ARTICLE 13
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residei e
within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own.
and to return to his country.

ARTICLE 14
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries
asyl um from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of pro ecutions
genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to
the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

ARTICLE 15
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor
denied the right to change his nationality.
ARTICLE 16
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race,
nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.
ihey are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and
at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full con-
selnt of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society
and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

ARTICLE 17
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in
association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.






46


ARTICLE 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought. conscience and reli-
gion this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and
fi(,edoim. either alone or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship
and observance.
ARTICLE 19
Ever"Yone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this
iLght includes freedom to 11(d opinions without interference and to
Ieek. receive and ilmp!art information and ideas through any media and
e ,+rdle. s of frontiers.
ARTICLE 20

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and
a-..... nation.
(2) No one nav be co)mpelled to belong to an association.

ARTICLE 2 1
(1) Everyonw)e has the right to take part in the government of his
county. i1 directl or through fieely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone ha the right of equal access to public service in his

(3) Tho will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of
Ioverninenlt ; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elec-
tions which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held
I)v secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

ARTICLE 22
Everyone. as a iiiembder of society., has the right to social security
entitled to realization through national effort and international
.-ol)e rat ion and in a((oldallce with the organzaton and resources
()f e (h State. of the economicc social ndI cultural rights indispensable
for i (lignity and the free development of his personality.

ARTICLE 23

(1) lvelvnoe j11:s tie right to wvork. to free cll)ice of employment,
to st and favorable coidit ions of work a11d to protection against
uiietiiploymet.
(2) Everyone. without any discrimination, has the right to equal
py fr equal wor'k.
(, ) EverYone who works hl s the riglt to just and favourable re-
iiiwii tioi w,"urItg Io' hiliself nild hiis faniily an existence worthy
,f huana dignity and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of
-4$ia j~lt~ct1011,
(I) Everyone has the rigit to form and to join trade unions for
te pr()tection of his interests.

ARTICLE 2_4
Everyone has tile right to rest and leisure, including reasonable
limitation of working hours anld periodic holidays with pay.






47


ARTICLE 25
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the
health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food,
clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and
the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability,
widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances be-
vond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and
assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall
enjoy the same social protection.
ARTICLE 2 6
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at
least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education
shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be
made generally available and higher education shall be equally acces-
sible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human
personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and
fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and
friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall
fuhrter the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of
peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that
shall be given to their children.

ARTICLE 27
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life
of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advance-
ment and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and ma-
terial interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic pro-
diction of which he is the author.
ARTICLE 2 8
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the
rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
ARTICLE 2 9
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free
and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be
subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the
purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights Ind
freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality,
public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms mav in no case be exercised contrary
to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.






48

ARTICLE 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any
State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to Perform
an- act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set
forth herein.












APPENDIX 3


NEWS ARTICLES RELATING TO SOVIET EMIGRATIO.N
[From the Washington Post, Jan. 18, 1976]
SOVIETS EASE EMIGIZATION
(By Robert C. Toth)
Moscow, Jan. 17-The Soviet Union has formally eased its emigra-
tion rules somewhat, Soviet sources said this week. Exit visa fees have
been cut 25 per cent, they said, and the documentation required of ap-
plicants has been simplified.
Two Jewish activists, when questioned, confirmed yesterday tiat
recent applicants have been charged 100 Rubles ($133) less for their
visas and that one new applicant was told ie no longer had to provide
the onerous "character reference" which created difficutltiles in the past.
The Jews cautioned that the changes inav have little real impact on
emigration. however. The two activists and a Western diplomat suig-
gested the move was "tokenism" to comply with the European Security
conference document signed in Helsinki last August by i'15 natioiis. In-
cluding the Soviet Union. Signers ple(died cooperation in va..io areas
including humanitarian fields.
Soviet sources said a number of rule changes were approved by the
government in late December. Termed "additions to rules" on Hliigra-
tion, the changes reportedly have been printed in a gazette of 1overn-
ment decisions.
So far, copies of the publication for that period are unavailable, so
the precise wording of the new regulations could not be obtained. The
Soviet sources said the most significant provisions are
-A cut in visa fee from 400 to 300 rubles (S533 to $400 at the offi-
cial exchange rate).
-Simplification of the documents required of applicants. The Jewish
activists said one applicant was told this week that he need not provide
the "character" document which had to be signed by his boss. lii- trade
union chief and the party leader where he worked. (I,-" a erti fi cate
testifying to his work place and signed by his boss was now necessary,
the man was told by a colonel in the Moscow visa oflice.
-Visa applications will now be granted or denied by local visa
authorities. In Kiev. for example, the (ity visa office wil-! on tue a-
plication first. rather than the Ukainle InteriorMinistryas Il the 1)""st.
-Appeals from refusals can be made to higher visa oilice and tlose
whose appeals are denied are to have their caes renewed everY six
months instead of each year.
-There are three grounds for refusal: If approval is aJainst "the
state interest," if it adversely affects public morals, or if it aruiS the
rights of citizens remlaining in the country.
(49)








Also significant in a broader sen-e is that this so far as is known will
he tIIe first tnie that rules for emIigration ane officially spelled out. Until
now. a foriiial list of the documents required for an exit visa was un-
available. It is believed that the only forml rule covered the "educa-
tionl tax" adopted in 1970 but later suspended after Western criticism,
'and it may be that the new changes are "addltions" to that rule.
The two Jews who confirmed that some emigration regulations have
]hauged, I)r. Alexander Luntz and Anatoli Shcliaransky, have souglit
visas for a long time. They were doubtful about the effect of the new
i'egutla tiows.
"'his, will make the )roee!ss of collecting necessary docullients
easier," acknowledged Shcharansky. Getting rid of the character refer-
Cnce 1( ans lyIpasing two formidable figlures-the party chief and the
trade union leader.
"But I think there will still be difficulties," he said. "The boss can
sl)real the word that a 1u1n has applied to emigrate. thereby triggering
harassment and even force his resignation long before his application
is even submitted, lie said.
A I eastern diplomat informed of the changes, also saw them as
"tokenism" to Helsinki anl suggested that the decentralization provi-
sion "builds in a time delay the Soviets can use to fend off refusniks"
(people denied emigration permission).












[From Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan. 11, 1976]


SOVIET DISSIDENT ARRIVES IX VIENNA
VIENNA.-Soviet dissident Leonid Plyushch, 36, arrived in Austria
yesterday, frail and trembling after his release from 21/2 years in a
Soviet mental hospital.
The mathematician, who was convicted of anti-Soviet agitation and
propaganda, in 1973. made no statement on his arrival in the West. His
wife. Tatyana. said he was concerned about other dissidents in Soviet
mental institutions, which apparently accounted for his silence.
Plyushch was taken to secret accommodations in Vienna after leav-
ing the train at the Austrian border station at Marchegg. Officials of a
private Western organization aiding political prisoners, Aninesty In-
ternational, and others who met Plyushlich apparently sought to spare
him the crush of an arrival in Vienna. They said Plyushch needed
rest.
After a short stay in Vienna. the Plyushch family was expected to
travel to Paris where French President Valery Giscard d'Estainc said
they would be welcome.
Plyushch, who had been put aboard the train from the Soviet Union
at Kiev, was joined by his wife and their children, Dima, 15. and Lesik.
10, at Chop on the Soviet-Hungarian border. There Plyushch had only
a short time to saxy good-by to his mother and sister.
Soviet officials had refused to let him see his family before Chop.
An English physician, who identified himself as Dr. (lery Low-Beer
from London, said after meeting Plyushch at Marchegg: "To me. lie
looked like a normal and intelligent person. I have noticed no signs
of a mental illness."
He said he understood that Plyushch had been given trIanquilizers
by Soviet doctors before boarding the train and that the afteer-effects
might have accounted for Plyushch's trembling.
Plvushch was tried in the Soviet Union after writing several art icles
for underground journals and becoming a founding member in 1969 of
a group to defend human rights in the Soviet Union.
In June 1973 lie was put in a psycliatric hospital at I nepopet rovsk
in the Ukraine. Soviet psychiatrists said lie suffered front messaic
and reformist ideas."
The Soviet news agency Tass said Plvushch had been relead ,(b be-
cause his health had improved lately, biut friends and relatives have
said that they believed the protest campaign on his behalf in the West
was the real reason for his release.
Soviet authorities gave Plyushch and his family permission to enmi-
grate to Israel, even though they are not Jewish. Mrs. Plysltw si i
they would not be going to Israel.
(51)














APPENDIX 4


[From the Washington Post, Feb. 4, 1976]
FREED SOVIET TELLS OF STAY IN ASYLUM
PARIS.-Soviet dissident Leonid Plyushch, still visibly weak from
almost three years in a Soviet mental hospital, today described a night-
marish world of painful sulphur injections, beatings by "nurses" and
breakdowns.
Plyushch, who was permitted to leave the Soviet Union after his re-
lease from a Dniepropetrovsk institution, told his first news conference
since reaching Paris on Jan. 8 of prisoners reduced to eating their own
excrement.
Though making it clear that he is still a committed Communist, he
said the Soviet system is "sick . and a shameful taint on the bright
ideals of socialism."
Describing life in the asylum, Plyushch said, "Patients begged the
guards to be allowed to go to the toilet. One was beaten up, and the
guard later told the doctor he had tried to hang himself, although this
was not true."
The 35-year-old mathematician was arrested in January 1972 on
charges of anti-Soviet agitation. At his trial, Plyushch was declared
insane and committed to mental hospitals where he said his diagnosis
was having "reform-making illusions."
At Dniepropetrovsk, Plyushch said, he was placed in a ward next to
a patient "who had gone completely insane, whose face had lost human
form and who masturbated all the time.
"Another ward, No. 5, was a veritable bedlam, with patients scream-
ing and yelling, urinating on the floors and fighting for the toilet. Some
ate their own excrement. One prisoner smashed a window pane and
tried to cut his own throat to end the torture of a sulphur injection."
Plyushch said there were 50 political prisoners in this hospital but
doctors "considered me the most dangerous patient" and separated him.
He said he was treated with haloperidol and triftazine, which he said
are depressants.
"Haloperidol induced a condition of torpor and it camee difficult
for me to read books . gradually I lost interest in political matters.
then in scientific problems and then even in my wife and children. I
became indifferent with great gaps in my memory.
"I thought of nothing except the toilet, tobacco and the prison food,
which would let me once again go to the toilet. Then I would make my-
self .repeat 'I must remember everything I see here, to tell others.' Alas.
I didn't remember a hundredth of what I saw."
"Their goal was to break the human being, to destroy his powers of
resistance," Plyushch said.
"I was told," he. added. "that in 1970 a prisoner named Grigoriev
died following a sulphur injection when his liver exploded. The sul-
phur shots were usually saved for those charged with bad conduct."
(53)






54


Plyushch made an impassioned appeal for the release of Mustapha
Djemilev. le said Djemilev, an activist for the Crimean Tartar
minority, is in the seventh month of a hunger strike at a psychiatric
hospital in Omsk.
Vowing to keep up the fight for political and other freedoms within
the Soviet Union, he said:
-'We soviett neo-Marxists have always hoped that the Italian, French
and English Communist parties wN-ill carry on the work of the Czecho-
slovak Communist Party and will rehabilitate Communist ideals .
putting the Soviet Communist Party in the position of having to
choo-evtween Mao-Stalinism and communism with a human face."










* UNIVERSITY OF FLOOR A
1 1111 11111 111 lii 1
i 126 05ii6i8ii ii6ilii1ii
3 1262 045.68 1615





a