U.S. Legal Community Urged to Act Against Soviet Human Rights Violations

A group of prominent lawyers yesterday called upon members of the American legal community to recognize and take action against the gross violations of human and legal rights taking place in the Soviet Union.

In light of the recent trials of Soviet Jewish dissidents, the group, which included two past presidents of the Bar Association of the City of New York and members of a recent delegation of lawyers to the Soviet Union, addressed a special session of the American Bar Association (ABA) convention at the Hilton Hotel. The seminar was sponsored by the ABA’s section on Individual Rights and Responsibilities and the New York Legal Coalition for Soviet Jewry. The Coalition is an affiliate of the Greater New York Conference on Soviet Jewry.

Robert McKay, director of the Program on Justice, Society and the Individual at the Aspen Institute of Humanistic Studies, described his visit to the Soviet Union last April at which time he met with Soviet officials, dissidents and Jewish “refuseniks.” Praising the extraordinary faith of the dissidents in the power of law, he said, “It was clear that our Russian friends have no idea of what justice is. They feel that if they could only find the right Soviet law, they would have protection against the exercise of arbitrary authority.”

McKay had introduced the resolution Tuesday, which was adopted unanimously yesterday by the ABA House of Delegates, condemning Soviet harassment of Jews and all other Soviet citizens who “attempt to exercise their basic human rights as guaranteed by international accords and Soviet law.” The resolution also called upon the ABA to establish a committee on human rights together with its legal counterparts in the USSR. The House of Delegates vote was required to make the resolution binding.

GULF BETWEEN LAW AND PRACTICE

George Ginsburgs, Professor of Law at Rutgers University and an expert on Soviet law, stressed the wide gulf separating law and practice in the USSR. Explaining that there was absolutely no uniformity of law enforcement in the Soviet Union, he described numerous abridgments of individual legal rights in connection with trial procedures, sentencing and the granting of exit visas.

He noted that, according to official Soviet practice, no grounds for rejection of an exit application need be given and that “there is no pattern, precedent or administrative review” governing this procedure. Although increasing numbers of Jews and other dissidents are granted permission to leave, Ginsburgs made it clear that for scientists, academicians and other “valuable” professionals, “the door is lightly closed and is not expected to open in the near future.” Another speaker, who has recently returned from the USSR where he received an invitation from a high-ranking Soviet official to attend the trial of Anatoly Shcharansky, was Orville Schell, former president of the New York City Bar Association. He concurred in McKay’s assessment of the Soviet dissidents, describing them as “marvelous, courageous, wonderful, sensitive people.” His frank discussion with Soviet authorities, Schell noted, offered insight into the reasons underlying Soviet objections to emigration.

OUTLINES COURSE OF ACTION

Norman Redlich, Dean of the New York University School of Law, noted that “It is long past due for American liberal intellectuals and Jewish liberal intellectuals to come out of the shadow of McCarthyism and recognize the stake that all of us have in protecting human rights in the Saviet Union.” He outlined courses of action which American attomeys are taking and can take in the future, to improve the situation of Soviet dissidents, Jewish and non-Jewish.

Urging American lawyers to travel to the Soviet Union and meet with Russian dissidents, Redlich also called upon them to document Soviet non-compliance with international law and agreements. He disclosed that a collection of legal briefs and memoranda compiled by New York lawyers, which was distributed at the session, had already been submitted to a number of international organizations including the Red Cross, UN Commission on Human Rights and State Department.

Redlich also advocated the introduction of courses in international human rights into the curricula of Law schools throughout the country and announced the development of such a program by NYU. He also recommended the establishment of law school clinical programs in which students would participate in the drafting of legal briefs on behalf of individual Soviet dissidents. Such a brief is presently being written by Prof. Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School, on behalf of Shcharansky.

STRONG BUSINESS-SPONSORED STATEMENT

Possibly the strongest business-sponsored statement to date protesting Soviet human rights violations was issued by a group of businessmen present at the seminar. Five lawyer-businessmen who recently returned from the Soviet Union after interviewing Francis Crawford, the Moscow representative of International Harvester Corp. who had been arrested, accused of violating Soviet currency regulations by buying large sums of money on the black market, signed a joint statement. It reads, in part:

“It should also be noted that the arrest of Mr. Crawford has occurred in a climate of growing repression within the Soviet Union. The trial and imprisonment of dissidents and Jewish refuseniks reflect a pattern of lawlessness which has ensnared Mr. Crawford. It is a pattern that can, at any time, reach and catch any other member of the Western business community. There is, in short, no rule of law, no protection of individual rights, in the Soviet Union today.” The statement was signed by Sidney Howell, Kurt W. Melchior, Charles Miller, E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr. and Alan Swan. The Soviet Jewry resolution, which had been unanimously adopted Tuesday by some 1000 delegates at the ABA’s Assembly, will now be implemented.