posal of the Committee and contributed significantly to the Committee's understanding of the character of the events in Hungary. An extensive outline of the report, submitted by the Rapporteur, received the provisional approval of the Committee at its 58th meeting in Geneva on 8 April 1957. After further hearings, the Committee returned to New York to complete the preparation of the report. The report has been adopted unanimously by the Committee, which held its last meeting on the report on Friday, 7 June 1957.

B. THE WITNESSES

6. The Committee has heard 111 witnesses: thirty-five were heard in New York, twenty-one in Geneva, sixteen in Rome, thirty in Vienna and nine in London.

7. The first three witnesses were heard in public. They were: Miss Anna Kéthly, Minister of State in the Hungarian Government of Imre Nagy; MajorGeneral Béla Király, Military Commander of the City of Budapest and Commander-in-Chief of the National Guard during the Hungarian uprising; and József Kővágó, Mayor of Budapest during the years 1945-1947 and again during the days from 31 October to 4 November 1956.3

8. These three witnesses and other prominent Hungarians requested the Committee to hear certain other witnesses. In accordance with the provisions of the General Assembly resolution and at the request of the Committee, suggestions as to persons to be heard were also made by the Governments of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. These Governments submitted data regarding Hungarians in their territory whose testimony might, in their opinion, be of special interest. During the hearings, witnesses also on occasion proposed the names of other witnesses who might confirm or supplement their statements. Some 200 Hungarians sent letters on their own initiative to the Committee requesting to be heard; a decision as to the hearing of these persons was reached after obtaining from them further information regarding themselves and the testimony which they could offer. 9. The witnesses were selected under the authority of the Chairman and the Rapporteur. The primary consideration in the selection of witnesses was their capacity to place before the Committee evidence based on direct and personal knowledge of the events in Hungary. Attention was also paid to the need to ensure that the witnesses should be drawn from all segments of the Hungarian people and from all parts of the country. Towards the end of its hearings, the Committee had to exercise increasing discrimination in the selection of witnesses in order to ensure that the testimony did not become unduly repetitive.

10. Among the witnesses the larger number were workers, skilled and unskilled, from light and heavy industry, but a number of white-collar workers, and workers who had been active in trade unions within Hungary were also heard. Many of these workers had participated in the revolt as ordinary "freedom fighters", but several had been leaders in various spheres during the uprising. Among these were members of the Revolutionary Councils in Budapest and the provinces and leading members of the Workers' Councils in Budapest and the provinces, including members of the Central Workers' Council of Csepel.

11. Testimony was also received from engineers and technicians, and from managers in state enterprises, including the uranium mines in Pécs.

12. Relatively few peasants were heard by the Committee, since comparatively little fighting had taken place in country areas. Many of the workers and students who testified before the Committee were, however, of peasant origin. 13. The witnesses included both Communist and non-Communist intellectuals. The Committee heard several members of the Petöfi Club, some outstanding Hungarian writers and journalists, an actress, an artist, an architect, professors of law, medicine, philosophy, history, science, technology, economy and agriculture, and several lawyers, including an assistant public prosecutor. The Committee also gave hearings to a number of high school students of both sexes and to young men and women from universities, including members of students' councils.

14. Besides several officers and soldiers of the Hungarian army and members of the Air Force, the Committee heard members of the National Guard and of the ordinary police as well as certain leaders of revolutionary forces, viz., the Commander and Deputy Commander of the National Guard at Csepel; the Com

mander of the Corvin Block; the Commander of the revolutionary forces of southern Budapest; and the leader of the "freedom fighters" and guerilla forces in southwestern Hungary. Valuable information was received from doctors and nurses who had taken care of the wounded and carried out Red Cross duties, and from railroad and communication workers regarding troop movements.

15. Testimony was also received from a considerable number of Government officials, including diplomats. Certain of these had held high rank or had been assistants to leading Hungarian politicians or Cabinet ministers of various parties. Some had been present in the Parliament Building with Prime Minister Nagy until 4 November and were able to provide valuable and detailed infor mation about events within the Hungarian Government during this critical period.

16. Among the witnesses were Catholics, Protestants and Jews.

17. Several of the witnesses had formerly been members of Parliament or leaders of political parties. Many of the witnesses were Communists or had formerly been Communists. Others were members of the Social Democratic Party or of the Independent Smallholders' Party.

18. The witnesses also included a convinced pacifist who, under the stress of events in Hungary, forgot his principles and found himself participating in the fighting.

19. Many of the witnesses had spent years in prison before 1945 on account of anti-Horthy or anti-Nazi activities. Some of these had spent more years in prison under the Communists. Among the witnesses were some who had been accused in the Rajk trial; all of these had undergone extreme torture, had been forced to sign confessions, and had been kept in prison or forced labour camps for many years without proper legal proceedings. Some of them had, later, after the fall of Rákosi in 1953, been released and reinstated in the Communist Party. One witness had been a stenographer for the security police.

20. None of the witnesses had left Hungary before the October revolution; some had escaped only a few weeks before being heard by the Committee; one witness had revisited Hungary several times in order to bring out his family and various friends.

21. Most witnesses gave the explanation that they had fled because they feared arrest and deportation. Eight witnesses had themselves been deported to the USSR, but had escaped or been returned; other witnesses had been liberated from deportation trains. Many stated that their apartments had been searched and were watched, so that they did not dare to return. Several had been members of Workers' and Revolutionary Councils of which other members had been arrested.

22. The great majority of the witnesses were under thirty-five years of age; many were much younger, the youngest being sixteen years of age.

23. The Committee has been impressed by the bearing of the witnesses in the sometimes trying circumstances of the hearings, and by the cogency and coherence of their evidence. Despite the events which they had lived through, their testimony was usually tendered in a level-headed and sober manner. The members of the Committee were especially impressed by the bearing and earnestness of the younger witnesses.

C. CONDUCT OF HEARINGS

24. The first three prominent witnesses, Miss Anna Kéthly, Major-General Király and Mayor Kövágó, were heard before the Committee in open meetings. It was, however, found more practical to hold closed meetings, since most of the refugees feared retaliation against their family and friends in Hungary, and since questioning could be more insistent in closed meetings. Eighty-one out of the 111 witnesses were, at their request, heard anonymously; their names were made known to the Chairman and Rapporteur, and to other members of the Committee when they so desired.

25. At the beginning of his testimony, each witness would usually give his personal data and background, and would then make an introductory statement regarding those events of which he had special knowledge. The witnesses were instructed to give evidence based on their personal experience. After the intro ductory statement, which might last from a few minutes to a few hours, the wit nesses were subjected to close cross-examination by the members of the Com mittee. Some witnesses submitted important documents and original drafts, and some prepared memoranda to support or elaborate their testimony. The verbatim records of the testimony comprise some 2,000 pages of evidence.

26. Throughout its work, the Committee has sought scrupulously to assess the value of the testimony and of the documentation placed before it. Care has been taken to subject witnesses to detailed interrogation in order to test the reliability of their evidence. The Committee has on many points been in a position to check the testimony of one witness with the testimony of others and with the documentation available to the Committee. As the hearings progressed, it became possible to put to witnesses questions of a more and more precise character.

D. DOCUMENTARY MATERIAL

27. As mentioned in the Interim Report, the Committee, through the Secretary-General, requested the Member States to make relevant information in their possession available to it. Governments having diplomatic representation in Budapest received a special request from the Committee to this effect.

28. The Committee is grateful for the helpful and voluminous material received from Member States in response to these requests. Besides other documentary material, the Governments of Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States submitted reports giving a detailed and extensive picture of events in Hungary based on information available to them. The Australian Government transmitted a valuable memorandum based on interviews with thirty-eight Hungarian refugees in Australia.

29. Several nongovernmental organizations have transmitted memoranda and documentary material. A detailed study was received from the International Commission of Jurists at The Hague. Sir Hartley Shawcross, Q. C., had the opportunity to present this material orally to the Committee, and submitted to questioning by the Members regarding the facts and the views expressed in the memorandum.

30. The initial studies of the Committee were in the main based on monitoring reports, in English and Hungarian, of official Hungarian broadcasts up to the present time and of the unofficial stations which were broadcasting during the Revolution. Use has been made of the available official Hungarian documentation, including issues of the Hungarian Gazette, the Hungarian White Book, and official statements by the Hungarian Government. The documentation utilized for the preparation of the Report comprises also Hungarian newspapers covering the time before, during and after the Revolution, including several revolutionary newspapers and leaflets published during the uprising. Annexed to the Report is a list of material of this nature available to the Committee. 31. The Committee has also had the opportunity to view certain films which were made during the uprising.

E. ATTEMPTS TO OBSERVE IN HUNGARY AND TO MEET IMRE NAGY

32. As stated in the Interim Report, the Committee requested at an early stage, through the Secretary-General, that the Hungarian Government extend assistance or facilities for the Committee's work, especially with regard to the entry of the Committee and its staff within the territory of Hungary. In his reply of 5 February 1957, the Permanent Representative of Hungary informed the Secretary-General that, in the opinion of his Government, the Committee "violates, in its function, the Charter of the United Nations", and that "conseqently, the Hungarian Government is not in a position to permit the members of the Special Committee and its staff to enter into the territory of Hungary".

33. In accordance with the undertaking stated in the Interim Report, the Committee renewed its request to the Hungarian Government during its stay in Europe. The Hungarian Government replied in a Note of 25 March 1947 that it maintained its position.

34. On 14 March 1957, the Committee also requested the Secretary-General to inform the Government of Romania that the Committee desired to meet Imre Nagy in the interest of a full and effective performance of the functions entrusted to it by the General Assembly. The Permanent Representative of Romania replied on 30 March that his Government considered the establishment of the Committee as contrary to the spirit and provisions of the United Nations Charter, as well as to the interests of international cooperation.

F. ARRANGEMENT OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

35. In deciding the arrangement of information within the report, the Committee has sought to ensure that the form of the report should reflect the nature of the task assigned to the Committee by the General Assembly.

36. The Committee noted in its Interim Report that its primary concern was "to ascertain the extent and the impact of foreign intervention, by the threat or use of armed force or other means on the internal affairs and political independence of Hungary and the rights of the Hungarian people". The internal affairs of Hungary and political and other developments of that country before 1956, were to be considered by the Committee as outside the framework of its investigation, save in so far as those developments had a direct bearing on the uprising of October 1956, the subsequent interventions of the USSR and the resultant aspects of the continuing situation within Hungary.

37. In view of these considerations, the Committee has considered that a chronological survey of events would not be an appropriate form for the report. It has seemed more appropriate that each chapter should deal with a defined aspect of the situation which the Committee has been called upon to investigate. Since this arrangement has involved a departure from chronological sequence in the presentation of information, the Committee has considered it proper in the following chapter to present a brief outline, in chronological order, of developments in Hungary from 22 October 1956, prefaced by a summary of the political development of Hungary in preceding years. In chapter II references will be found to the places in the report where points at issue are developed at greater length. At the same time, the Committee has sought to present this chaper as an account of the events in Hungary which can be read independently.

38. In chapter III the Committee has endeavoured to state objectively the contentions advanced by the Governments of Hungary and of the USSR in justification of recourse to the assistance of the armed forces of the USSR. The Committee has also endeavoured to indicate within this chapter the degree to which the general contentions of the Governments in question correspond with known facts.

39. The remainder of the report is divided into three parts. The first part covers aspects of the situation directly related to the intervention of the armed forces of the USSR. Two chapters are devoted to an account of the military movements of the Soviet armed forces within Hungary in the last days of October and the early days of November 1956. These are followed by two chapters which deal with the alleged invitations by the Government of Hungary to the Government of the USSR to intervene. This first part closes with an examination of the international instruments bearing on Soviet intervention and gives an account of the negotiations between the Government of Hungary and the Government of the USSR regarding the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Hungary.

40. Having in this first part dealt with the direct problems of Soviet intervention, the Committee has in part II endeavoured to assess the impact on the political independence of Hungary of the use of force by the Government of the USSR. For this purpose the Committee has found it essential to inquire with care into the immediate background of the uprising and into the aims of the different sections of the Hungarian people. In order to present a clear statement on their aims and aspirations, the examination of their social and political thought has been dealt with in chapter IX separately from the narrative of events. The course of events during the uprising is related in chapter X, commencing with the students' movements in the middle of October 1956.

41. Since a major aspect of the uprising was the establishment of Revolutionary Councils and of Workers' Councils in Budapest and in the provinces, the relevant information is brought together in chapter XI, which contains data regarding the course of the uprising in parts of Hungary other than Budapest. In chapter XII the Committee has sought to provide an accurate account of political developments in Hungary in the brief period between the successful termination of the uprising and its repression by a second intervention of Soviet armed force. Two further chapters of part II deal with the characteristics of the régime in Hungary since 4 November, the first providing information relating to the continuance of Soviet intervention in Hungary, and the second relating to the suppression of those political rights and freedoms which the Hungarian people had sought to establish. 42. Part III of the report deals with matters relating to the treatment of individuals within Hungary, under the heading: "Specific acts in violation of other rights of the Hungarian people". One chapter deals with evidence of the violation of human rights in general. A second chapter deals with the problem of the deportation of Hungarians to the USSR.

43. In a final chapter the Committee states its general conclusions and find

G. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE

44. The Committee regrets that the refusal of the Hungarian Government and of the Government of the USSR to co-operate has prevented it from obtaining the information which those Governments are in a position to place at its disposal. The Committee would undoubtedly have profited by the data which the two Governments could have placed before it. However, in view of the comprehensive and detailed documentation and testimony which have been made available, it is the opinion of the Committee that the data which might have been presented by the Government of the USSR and by the Hungarian Government would not have modified the Committee's main conclusions regarding what actually took place in Hungary, though it might possibly have changed or elaborated certain specific points in this report. Conscious of its obligation to take all views into account, the Committee has examined carefully all evidence, both in documentation and in testimony, which might be adduced in support of the views of the two Governments. Moreover, in the questioning of witnesses, the members of the Committee have throughout borne in mind the description and interpretation of events in Hungary maintained by the two Governments and have endeavoured to test their validity.

45. Though the Committee is aware that in the course of time further documentation and evidence will undoubtedly come to light regarding the situation with which the Committee has been concerned, the range of information at its disposal has been far greater than could have been anticipated at the outset of the inquiry. The Committee has sought throughout its work to apply to the evidence the tests of authenticity and coherence which provide the essential criteria of the objectivity of any such investigation.

46. While therefore bearing in mind the resolutions of the General Assembly, the Committee has approached its task of investigation without prejudgment, deeming it essential to present a factual report based exclusively on the careful examination of reliable evidence. It has consistently sought to avoid any emotional evaluation of the facts. It has endeavoured to depict in restrained language the situation as revealed by the evidence received. The Committee has felt that it would best fulfil its task by rendering to the General Assembly a dispassionate survey of the situation which it has been the duty of the Committee to investigate.

ANNEX A TO CHAPTER

Resolution 1132 (XI) of the General Assembly of the United Nations

The General Assembly,

RECALLING its previous resolutions on the Hungarian problem,

REAFFIRMING the objectives contained therein and the continuing concern of the United Nations in this matter,

HAVING RECEIVED the report of the Secretary-General of 5 January 1957,* DESIRING to ensure that the General Assembly and all Member States shall be in possession of the fullest and best available information regarding the situation created by the intervention of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, through its use of armed force and other means, in the internal affairs of Hungary, as well as regarding developments relating to the recommendations of the General Assembly on this subject,

1. ESTABLISHES, for the above-mentioned purposes, a Special Committee, composed of representatives of Australia, Ceylon, Denmark, Tunisia and Uruguay, to investigate, and to establish and maintain direct observation in Hungary and elsewhere, taking testimony, collecting evidence and receiving information, as appropriate, in order to report its findings to the General Assembly at its eleventh session, and thereafter from time to time to prepare additional reports for the information of Member States and of the General Assembly if it is in session;

2. CALLS UPON the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Hungary to cooperate in every way with the Committee and, in particular, to permit the Committee and its staff to enter the territory of Hungary and to travel freely therein;

3. REQUESTS all Member States to assist the Committee in any way appropriate in its task, making available to it relevant information, including testi

Official Records of the General Assembly, Eleventh Session, annexes, Agenda item 67,