Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

extreme. For instance, the preamble of this Decree-law provides: "The successes attained in the last year concerning the re-establishment of law and order make it possible to abolish summary jurisdiction introduced for a transitory period". In fact a careful examination of Decreelaw No. 62, and the Chart (Appendices V and I), discloses that while seven different Decree-laws dealing with Summary Jurisdiction have at different times been repealed or have become obsolete, the sole effect of the repeals is to discontinue certain summary proceedings primarily before Military Courts which, due to the introduction of People's Chambers, have largely fallen into disuse. The procedure before the People's Chambers is of summary nature and continues "to violate human rights in failing to provide the minimum safeguards of justice in criminal trials which are recognized by civilized nations".4 This is evident from the provisions of the Decree of June 15, 19575 the relevant parts of which may be summarized as follows:

1. There is no necessity for the prosecution to present a written accusation and the charge is made orally at the hearing; no date for trial need be fixed (Art. 8, 1).

2. The prosecutor should secure the presence of witnesses (Art. 8, 1). 3. The accused cannot be represented by Counsel of his own choice, but must select him from a list provided by the Ministry of Justice, "if the security of the State should specially warrant it" (Art. 31, 1). 4. The People's Chamber of the Supreme Court has the power to sentence an accused even if acquitted by the lower Court or to increase his sentence even if the Prosecutor has not appealed (Art. 16, 2). 5. The People's Chamber of the Supreme Court may set aside any final judgment at the request of the Chief Procurator or the President of the Supreme Court (Art. 17), and pass a decision less favourable to the accused (Art. 19). The Presidential Court of the Supreme Court has the same right to set aside a judgment of a Chamber of the Supreme Court.

The continued operation of People's Chambers is emphasized in the speech of Mr. Szenasi of December 1957 (Appendix XVI). "The introduction of summary jurisdiction had demonstrated the strength of the revolutionary Worker Peasant Government and that initial success has made it possible to start the large-scale liquidation of the counter-revolution by legal action. Steps in that direction had been the introduction of the accelerated criminal procedure and the settingup of People's Chambers of the Supreme Court and later also of the County Courts. People's Chambers have also helped to remove counter

The Hungarian Situation and the Rule of Law, published by the International Commission of Jurists, March 1957, p. 4. This report is available on request. See infra, pp. 21–30.

revolutionaries from the Law Courts and the appointment of People's Judges has further strengthened the judiciary".

The post-revolutionary laws providing for detention without trial on grounds of public security have also remained in force notwithstanding Decree-law No. 62.

Mr. Szenasi admitted in his above-mentioned speech the existence of one detention camp in which "1,869 persons were detained on December 20, 1957", and suggested that these measures of preventative detention should be extended.

Pressure on Judges and Procurators

The exercise of pressure on judges and procurators to apply utmost severity in the performance of their duties has continued. In an article in "Nepszabadsag", No. 266, November 10, 1957 (Appendix XIV), the same Dr. Geza Szenasi, the Supreme Public Prosecutor, had already complained that prosecutors had been too lenient. "They did not always apply adequate firmness when dealing with violators of the law. Public prosecutors must work in such a way that the offender's punishment is always commensurate with the offence..." He was particularly concerned that they should resist pressure by individuals and organizations and apply equal vigour in prosecuting "persons engaged in State or economic functions". He also suggested that local influence made the prosecutor's task more difficult, and cited Lenin as saying "there is no different standard of legality in Kazan and Kaluga". Finally, Mr. Szenasi expressed in different words his view already referred to: "We must liquidate the bases, remnants and consequences of the counter-revolution".

Attack on Practising Lawyers

It is of particular concern to members of the legal profession in all countries to know that the attacks on practising lawyers in Hungary have not diminished. In an article in "Nepszabadsag", No. 278, November 24, 1957, Laszlo Szabo attacked the Hungarian Bar. "After the defeat of the counter-revolution, a new leadership took over which has at disposal the list of the persons who were rehabilitated by the fascist leadership. What has been done against them? A few very conspicuous and prominent bourgeois lawyers were 'ticked off', but

6 The New York Times of December 22, 1957 and Le Monde of December 24, 1957 report that in the speeches of the President of the Supreme Court of Hungary, Mr. Jozef Domonkos and/or of the Public Chief Prosecutor, Geza Szenasi, it was revealed that half the total number of Hungarian judges had been summarily dismissed for having refused to sit on summary Courts for the trial of revolutionaries. As far as the Commission could ascertain Hungarian sources were silent on this point as regards this ground of dismissal and the number of the dismissed.

on the whole the anti-State measures of the general staff of lawyers of the counter-revolution have been left untouched. These gentlemen walk about also today with their lawyer's certificate and 'represent the laws of the People's Democratic State in the service of their clients'." He then attacked by name a number of members of the Budapest Bar. It was reported in „Nepszabadsag". on March 23, 1958 that the legal profession was to be reorganized, self-government of the Chambers of Lawyers suspended and practice as a general rule only permitted on a collective basis.

Conclusion

The present regime in Hungary has recently been anxious to show that its administration of justice corresponds with the fundamental principles recognized by civilized peoples, but the evidence of its laws and practice, as well as some of the pronouncements of its leaders, are hard to reconcile with this intention. Nevertheless it is clear that the continuing pressure of an informed world legal opinion has already had a considerable impact on the Hungarian authorities. The present report raises questions which the lawyers of the world in their individual capacity would do well to ask of the Hungarian government and those who support them.

NORMAN S. MARSH

Secretary-General

9

Your Excellency,

Letter of September 2, 1957 from the Secretary-General to UN Delegations.

[ocr errors]

On the eve of the special meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, I venture to draw your Excellency's attention to the views of the International Commission of Jurists as set out in its publications, "The Hungarian Situation and the Rule of Law", published in April 1957, and "The Continuing Challenge of the Hungarian Situation to the Rule of Law", published in June 1957. A brief summary of the reports together with additional documentation is appended to this letter.

I would firstly emphasize that the concern of the International Commission of Jurists over the Hungarian situation is based not on political or national considerations, but on the common interests of the legal profession over a wide part of the world to maintain, in international and in municipal law, respect for Human Rights as set out in the Charter of the United Nations, and for the minimum standards of justice recognized by all civilized nations.

Secondly, it may be pointed out that the information on which the Commission has based its report is exclusively drawn from the Official Laws, Government Statements and Press of Hungary. While the Commission has reason to believe that these do not give a complete picture of the situation, they do at the very least reveal conditions which are profoundly disturbing to the conscience and professional standards of lawyers in all countries.

The information published by the Commission showed that the laws and decrees of the authorities in Hungary failed to provide the minimum safeguards of justice in criminal trials as are recognized by civilized nations. In particular, these laws and decrees:

1) failed to provide for an impartial tribunal;

2) defined offences in vague terms open to abuse in interpretation; 3) gave the accused no proper notice of the charge preferred; 4) allowed no adequate time and facilities for the accused to prepare his defence, to call witnesses and to instruct counsel of his own choice on his behalf;

5) empowered a higher Tribunal to sentence an accused person previously acquitted, or to increase the sentence when no appeal had been made in the interests of the accused.

11

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »