(00:00:00) King today about human rights. They're just getting into the room after all the the Bedlam that's been going on in the news room. Thank you for being patient with us. Last Tuesday, if you were listening to mid-day, you may have heard excerpts from the Nuremberg trials and that those Trials of course put leaders of the Nazi regime on trial for crimes against humanity today on midday. We discussed human rights violations that are occurring today with three attorneys Walter Anastos is with us. He is a law professor at the William Mitchell College of Law in st. Paul. He was born in the Ukraine and is of Jewish Heritage. His work is with human rights violations of Jews. Did I get it wrong? Okay. (00:00:42) I'm not I'm joking Jerry. (00:00:44) Okay. Well as human rights violations in that part of the Soviet Union Barbara fry is also with us today is vice pres. She is Vice President of the Minnesota lawyers committee for international human rights. She has spent time in Chile where she lived with people who were persecuted for their work against the government there. She continues to occur. Spawn with them and follow their work in that South American country and joining us at a very last-minute invitation to replace Jim Dorsey. Today is Jerry ingeborg. He is an immigration lawyer in the Twin Cities who was familiar with political Asylum issues. I particularly want to thank you Jerry for being here this afternoon and to Walter and Barbara as well. I think before we can start talking about any specific human rights violations with which you are familiar personally that it's necessary to First Define what human rights abuse is maybe one thing in one country and another thing in another some of our freedom of speech may seem totally natural in this country, but may be right that simply is unheard of in other countries. Is there an international law that standardizes human rights Barbara? Well, the attempt to Define human rights is proved to be a difficult one during this Century, which is the first time that any countries our governments have attempted to do so and as you said before human rights is defined differently depending on the mentality or ideology of a given country so that the civil and political rights that we find so important under our constitutional scheme in the United States are not seen as the most important rights and in Soviet or Eastern mentality, their emphasis is more on the economic and social rights of their citizens. So the best attempt at standardizing what our international human rights has come out of the United Nations through its own Charter and the international human rights documents that it has put forth. Unfortunately, those are the best summary of Human Rights internationally the covenants and the documents put forth by the United Nations have not been accepted by most major countries, including the United States. So even though it has been an attempt to distill the concept of basic human rights countries continue to insist that their Viewpoint of Human Rights is the correct one. So when we hear about the the United States tying their aid to El Salvador on improvements in the human rights situation, it is on the United States view of what human rights laws are exactly the Marxist countries may see an attempt to turn a country into a socialist form of economy as furthering human rights much more than our notion of Right switches to hold a an election and and establish some sort of democratic form allowing free speech and right to assemble. It seems that the the human rights laws of a particular country are based on the cultural differences of each of those countries those differences of course are so great that it would be difficult to support the laws of the Soviet Union by those of us in that in the United States and vice versa and mr. Anastos. I know that you are familiar with that problem in your work with human rights violations in the Ukraine. How does Western and Eastern thought differ when it comes to Human Rights abuses? (00:04:45) Well, there are substantial differences. I'm not sure that I would categorize them as being differences between eastern and western thought I would not attach Geographic labels to them. I would attach more philosophical labels. I would describe them as maybe Marxist or socialists approach to Human Rights and the conception of Human Rights and then I suppose the the Western for a lack of a better term. Term approach to those in in the Soviet Union. I think the problem of human rights is divisible into two broad categories. First of all, they have laws on their books which in our view would be taken as denying what we might consider to be fundamental human rights, for example, such things as freedom of speech and assembly we consider those to be fundamental human rights the the Marxist philosophy does not attach any particular importance to that and they have laws which prohibits the and severely punish such things as anti-soviet agitation and propaganda just think in our own terms what our reaction would be if we had on the books here a law that would punish criticism of our government that just completely foreign to our thought also we view as one of the aspects of freedom of speech and assembly Our ability to follow what our government does and to comment on what our government does and of course the Soviet Union in the Soviet Union and the other Marxist countries that is not an accepted human, right that's not viewed as right of individuals a freedom of travel is another one of those rights that we would consider as being fundamental human, right, but they don't view it that way they consider that a person must have some legitimate reason for travel and not just international travel, but even travel within their own country. Those are just examples the other category that I would view as human rights problems would be the failure or refusal to observe the rights that are actually provided for guaranteed by their own laws. In other words ignoring their own laws to achieve certain political ends, and that's reflected in our jurisprudence and our court procedure and their trials the eye. Hear that trials are supposed to be open trials, but yet most Trials of quote political nature are closed if they're not closed the courtroom is packed with a pre-arranged audience and everyone else including relatives. The most immediate relatives of the defendants are told they can't enter the courtroom because the courtroom is full and those are the the the categories that I think we might consider as involving violation of Human Rights both in terms of what the law says their rights are and in terms of the way those rights are observed, even if they are in the law, even if they're present there. (00:07:52) Mr. Engler in your work as an immigration attorney. How tied our efforts of people to get to the United States to their economic conditions. Well, of course international migration is a reflection of both the push and the pull Theory there is a certain pull to this country, but there's also a very significant push within the individuals home country. Economic reasons are certainly reasons that people want to (00:08:25) leave their country. (00:08:27) Unfortunately economic reasons. Sometimes gets fused with other reasons and interestingly as I was listening to the other participants up until 1980 the United States philosophy of who is a refugee was primarily a factor of the geographic area that the individual is coming from in other words people that were coming from Eastern Europe and from communist dominated countries and from certain areas in the Middle East were considered to be individuals who would be classified as refugees and in 1980. We in this country codified, we now have a statutory provision in our laws that essentially describes who is a refugee and who is somebody that qualifies for Asylum. And that is essentially a definition that has been used by the United Nations for many years. That is an individual who has a well-founded fear of persecution based either upon political opinion race religion nationality or membership in a particular social group. Those are reasons. Now, I did not mention economic problems. However, especially those individuals coming from the Caribbean by many people in the administration have been seen to be coming primarily for economic rather than those five mentioned those five reasons that I mentioned. In your working Chile Barbara have there has there been an effort by people who have been persecuted to come to the United States or is there more of an effort to try to change the situation internally? Well immediately following the military coup in 1973. There was a dramatic Exodus of people who were Affiliated or sympathized with the former government of Salvador Allende. Now a number of those people came to the United States, but most of them stayed in other Latin American countries, or went to Europe if I'm not mistaken because even though there are there is a pull to United States the United States supported the military coup. And so they were the chilean's were not welcomed here. There have been well the military after the coup attempted to wipe out all political dissidents. And so there were very few politically active people who remained in the country in the four or five years after the military took over. However recently there has been a regeneration of political activity. The government has allowed various heads of political parties, not the most extreme ones but for instance the Christian democrats back into the country and there is a bit more political activity, but still in Chile political parties are still outlawed in any political Gathering or activity is a violation of the law in someone can be put in prison for it. So whatever political activity goes on in Chile is underground. That seems I guess from from where we come from the United States to be a human rights violation of not being able to express your opinions. We have a similar story that just came across the news today in the Soviet Union the wife of Andrei sakharov has been she going to be put on trial (00:12:18) Walter or it says here in the news report that you were so kind as to hand me that she has been accused of anti-soviet slander and ordered to stay in the city of Gorky whereas, you know, her husband Andrei sakharov has been sort of exiled informally Exile. This is obviously an attempt to keep her from talking to foreign visitors and foreign news reporters, which he has been doing. She has been traveling to other parts of the Soviet Union Gorky being closed to foreigners and has been having conversations about her husband and her husband's condition of health and generally his his life in Gorky to others and here apparently isn't Attempt to keep her in the place where she will not have any contact with foreigners. She was accused of anti-soviet slander, which is a sort of a junior version of anti-soviet agitation and propaganda, but she was also told that she might face treason charges which is pretty serious a death penalty is provided for for treason charges and the person who reported this to to the news media a friend of the Sahara waves traveled to Gorky from Moscow to speak to them and was had an opportunity to talk to soccer of only for about three minutes before police arrived and arrested her. That's the friend and she spent the night in jail next day was tried and convicted of resisting arrest find 15 rubles and told to get back to Moscow soccer of said that he would go on a hunger strike to the end if his wife is kept confined in Gorky because she has been trying Get out for medical treatment. She has an eye problem threatens a loss of her eye loss of sight in her eye and she of course is quite incensed about it. Mrs. An interesting new development. Although a sad development. The threat of treason charges is a very serious threat, but they the Soviet government has a number of other laws that sort of stopped short of the very serious penalties that are attached to to the charge of treason. For example, they have just enacted a new law which makes it a crime for punishable by imprisonment from 2 to 8 years for anyone in a Soviet Union transmitting information to foreign organizations or foreign individuals, which information is viewed as being inimical or or dangerous to the Soviet Union short of being sick. Adore can't fit or restricted or otherwise some sort of governmental secret and that's viewed by the dissidents group dissident groups in the west and by commentators as being an attempt to provide still another intermediate crime a penalty that would stop short of the treason charge since they're not quite ready to execute people in a slightest provocation now as it used to be but yet stop contacts by Soviet citizens with westerners with Western reporters with visitors from the West to me that's another crass example of a violation of human (00:15:33) rights. Of course, we're all familiar with the sakarov situation. It's been in the news for quite some time. Perhaps you could discuss among yourselves. Also the is there do government's tend to concentrate their charges and what might be called harassment on outspoken people who do contact the Press who are well known or does it occur to you? One who happens to have an opinion that the government doesn't want to hear. Well, I could possibly comment since I was in the Soviet Union myself traveling throughout the Soviet Union only eight months ago just the day before entering just the day before the Korean Airline that were shot down and I personally had many many contacts with people throughout the Soviet Union dissidents refuse next people who had been denied permission to leave. You see that's also incidentally a very good example of a human right the right to leave one's country. We in America do not have to have exit visas. We may need to certain countries visas to enter their countries not many but we do not have to get permission from the United States in order to leave people coming from the countries that we are describing must obtain permission in advance from their country to leave. The there are certainly key individuals that are that are decided upon by the government by the governments in these foreign countries to focus on them. They are people that have notoriety have achieved some International recognition for their work or for their outspokenness. However, in the Soviet Union is an example because of the tremendous dominance of the KGB of the internal police of the various police associations and the militia, there is either a real or very much a perceived feeling amongst all Soviet citizens and indeed amongst all foreign visitors that there is constantly eyes and ears upon you and that is true for anybody that happens to be present in the Soviet Union. So I think that that is True also of other countries especially in this day and age where there are sophisticated seeing an eyeing and seeing and hearing devices. If I might add to that I would turn that around and say that the well-known figures come to the public view Sakura for Aquino in the Philippines or one of the heads of the Chilean political parties. Those are newsworthy figures. So that comes to International attention and because of that the those figures often have a better chance of getting some relief or having their human rights respected because people will go to bat for them. It's it's the poor peasant in the community who has no notoriety and no no one to protect his or her interest who is the one who truly suffers and I found this time and I am again in the in the Barrios outside of chilly outside of the of Santiago On The Border's it was estimated that 1 out of every 10 people was a government spy, in other words, you know, the next door neighbor might be getting paid, you know, a few pesos a month to keep track of his neighbor's and so that any time a community meeting is held your name is sent to the government investigating unit people. I had an interesting conversation with a Chilean about the movie missing which Illustrated the terrorism inflicted upon upon the country by the Chilean government and focused on an American citizen who was was killed by the Chilean Government after the coup and his this movie was going through the underground in Chile while I was there and my friend commented that when I saw the movie I should I should know that everything that happened everything that is shown happened and is true but that because the victim in the movie was an American his father was able to come and investigate the situation and find out what really happened whereas thousands of Chilean children were killed or Chilean Sons and Daughters were killed whose parents could do nothing because they were Chilean citizens (00:20:30) incidentally when when you asked Paula about certain people being the the targets of of persecution or human rights violations in the Soviet Union and the other Marxist countries, but particularly in a Soviet Union this frequently focuses on writers and authors because of the fact that by writing Works written works that are preservable and transmissible to other people as distinguished from Word of Mouth they are viewed as being particularly dangerous and this slander the anti-soviet slander statute is specifically directed at people who write Works which of course cannot be published in a Soviet Union because of the censorship system, but which are then somehow sent to the outside sent to other countries and are published there. We would of course be shocked at the suggestion that some American author who wrote something and chose to have it published in another country and sent his manuscript to some other country, whatever the country whatever country that maybe would somehow be viewed to have violated the law or have committed a crime by doing that but in the Soviet Union, this is constantly the case and you have trials and convictions all the time. I happen to have in my hand here the Bye Max Heyward entitled on trial which describes the trial of the two Soviet writers. See now ski and Danielle. It's kind of old occurred back in 1966, but it's a fine example of two writers being tried convicted and sentenced to eight or ten year prison terms simply for sending their manuscripts out of the country for publication their entire crime consisted of quote-unquote smuggling out anti-soviet slander and propaganda for publication to the West in that sense, of course writers and other publicists are frequently made targets of the of the persecution. (00:22:38) You mentioned that there was a trial when we think of a fair trial, I guess in this country. We think of defense attorneys and judges and prosecutors a jury. How common is that around the world? It's not very common at all. Usually there is a judicial system that is set up but most often in countries that are either run by authoritarian regimes or other sorts of dictators. The judicial system is intimately connected with the regime. And in fact, it's a requirement in order to be a judge in the system that you believe in in the country and that you're a mouthpiece for the government. So that in Chile there there is there are no balance Powers as it were the judges are appointed by Pinochet the The Dictator And they uphold the law which as welder pointed out in Russia is often not up to what we would see as human minimum human rights standards to begin with in Chile right after the coup and and even up until this time. There are Provisions in the law for detaining people without trial and even without charges if they're suspected of being a quote terrorists and often people have been exiled or sent to or banished to remote regions of the country without trial and sometimes now there they give the charges more than they did before but there is no judicial process or due process as we have in this country in most countries. Walter I know that you had mentioned the previous time that we talk that there are Trials, of course in the Soviet Union, but they don't necessarily start out on a on a good footing. How can that work? (00:24:51) Well the the Soviet legal system which I guess is certainly an appropriate subject for us to discuss since we're lawyers and this is supposed to be law We Care the occasion for this program is law week that the legal system and the system of criminal trials is very unusual to say the least you have to remember that defense counsel lawyers who are available to act as defense counsel in Soviet Union are basically employees of the government. So you have a prosecuting attorney and employee of the government and your defense counsel is employee of the government. They're not maybe employees of exactly the same Department. The prosecutor is a member of the prosecution. Apartment the defense lawyer whom you might hire to defend you as a member of a lawyer's Collective. It's still part and parcel of the ministry of justice and under the discipline of the Minister of Justice and it's not at all unusual to find defense counsel in these trials performing a purely show show type role where they all they do is plead for mercy and bring to the Court's attention the immaturity and whatever other extenuating circumstances they can think of I'm looking there very few transcripts of Soviet criminal trials that have found their way to the West I managed to lay hand my hands onto verbatim transcripts both of which were made surreptitiously and smuggled out and published in a West one involving. Dr. Michael Stern in the Ukrainian city of Vinnie Chase. December of 1974 involved his being defended by a defense counsel who never even came to talk to him in jail before the trial. He met his defense counsel for the first time in the courtroom about three or four minutes before the court convened and this defense counsel was completely useless didn't do the defendant any good whatsoever in the whatever defense the dr. Stern was able to put up was strictly on his own initiative strictly by taking certain positions during the trial himself. Remember also that there is no such concept as speedy trial and there's no concept of bail. If you are arrested you're arrested for investigation and this could take a month two months three months or three years while you're incarcerated your subject to interrogation under any circumstances at any time under any rules, whatever they decide to use and there's no way you can get out on Dale it complete statement is taken from the defendant. And then at the trial the defendant is held to the statement. He made in other words the concept of a confession which we consider here to be a very untrustworthy element of a criminal trial in which we surround with all sorts of constitutional Protections. In order to prevent forced confessions from being used to convict defendants is over there a principal element that the basic element that job of the prosecuting attorney is to walk into the courtroom with a confession in hand. If the confession has not been obtained that means the investigation is not complete. They continue until they can have a confession and there are no protections whatsoever to the defendant in terms of admissibility of the confession in terms of it being forced or not forced and there's almost no way to retract that confession. No, no amount of denial on the witness stand that I didn't say it or that's not Or I was made to say it will do any good the confession speaks for itself. That's the principal element in their (00:28:43) trial. I was thinking while you were talking that because the the Chilean regime is only 11 10 or 11 years old. It hasn't affected the the legal system as dramatically as it has in the Soviet Union. So there are there exists a generation of lawyers who acted under the former democratic government and that makes lawyers one of the most persecuted groups in in Chile at this time. So that anyone who dares to defend a political prisoner is subject to be to persecution himself. And in fact, one of the the recent acts of the Chilean secret police was to burn down the law offices of a group of lawyers who represented political prisoners and workers in their trials. During your work is an immigration attorney. I assume that you represent people who are attempting to immigrate to the United States. Is that correct? That's correct. Do you find that there is a real hesitancy on the part of some people to trust the legal system in this country as a result of their experiences in other countries. Well, this is a unquestionably true. I as a matter, of course have to encourage people that I deal with that. I am a private attorney that they are Consulting with regards to rights that they may or may not have and that I am not an employee of the United States government. And that nevertheless we have certain laws and regulations in this country that the United States immigration Naturalization Service. And I myself as a private attorney advising people about their rights have to abide by it. So it is quite common that there is initially some apprehension within an alien to tell me what the problem is or to tell me what he or she is indeed seeking. This apprehension has to be dealt with and depending on where the person comes from if they're coming indeed from a country that they are fleeing persecution. They have to understand that they also have the burden of proof to establish by evidence that they do have a well-founded fear of persecution. And sometimes this is problematical well-founded the course suggests an objective standard fear is far from objective. At the Supreme Court right now the United States Supreme Court. There is a case pending a decision dealing with the standard of proof of an individual who is afraid to go back. I personally Paul don't feel that there's a tremendous difference between somebody who's desperately afraid and somebody who is desperately poor, but that is not the view of our Congress in passing the refugee Act of 1980. There is again reference to your earlier comment. No reference to economic refugees. When you talk about evidence of persecution, we get into then the question of political asylum in this country, which we touched on earlier, but which has become more of an issue since its seemingly more and more Guatemalan and Elsa El Salvadoran refugees. Come to this country churches are taking up the question of whether or not to provide Sanctuary. Is there any movement towards a law what's going to happen to those congregations? Should they offer protection to someone who is not legally in this country? There is a provision let's let's put it this way. There is no such term legal term is sanctuary sanctuary, of course is the principal room in the church or synagogue or mosque where people congregate there is a provision within our laws that deals with harboring an illegal alien. And of course, I don't believe aliens are legal or illegal. I think that they either have the proper documentation or they don't human beings are not legal or illegal the ins the immigration Naturalization Service has taken the very low profile with regards to rating churches our synagogues granting sanctuary in the public matter public manner, they they do not do so. They know that it would be adverse to their interest of they're not interested in bad publicity, but the time may come with more assertive. Churches and synagogues that indeed want to house more than a token single or two or five individuals and a confrontation may come there is currently along the Southwest border and specifically in Texas. There are volunteers who are assisting In terms of the driving and transportation of aliens fleeing problems in El Salvador Guatemala or one of the other countries and there have been arrests and there have been charges filed. But to date the ins has taken the position that they will not raid. They will not go into a church or synagogue to arrest the elders or the rabbi or the priest or anybody involved. I imagine that could happen in other countries though. Say for instance. If a church in the Soviet Union or or in Chile decided to Harbor some political dissidents what happens to those people. Well, the Catholic church in Chile is at this point, the only effective voice against the government directly after the coup. There wasn't an ecumenical group that formed that called itself the peace committee and it dealt with the human rights violations going on at that time. The the government basically broke up the the committee finding it to be performing anti-government functions and at that time the Catholic Church stepped in and took the human rights activities under its own umbrella. And at this time the Catholic church is the soul. Voice against the government. Now, the only reason that the government does not go ahead and persecute the church at large is because it knows that the church is more powerful than it is that the the tradition of Catholicism in Latin America as as is seen in Central America and all Latin America in these times is so powerful that it is the one emotional force that unites the people and the government is very hesitant to do anything about it. It also serves their purposes the Catholic Church gives fundamental subsistence to the people in the poor sectors of those countries and provide some peace of mind for people who are being persecuted. Now that doesn't mean however that the government doesn't prosecute individuals within the church either lay Or priests who had finds offensive there. I was working with a number of Catholic priests one in particular up in the northern rural areas of Chile who received a 30 days notice to leave the country because he was considered to be a radical and he had done nothing more than to work with the poor in that area the his congregation fought the the government decision and they got a delay for a period of six months or so, but and he has now been restricted to the Santiago area. I had an interesting experience of traveling with this priest about a month after he had received the edict from the government back to his the small towns that he served in the North and the word traveled fast and people were afraid to even speak with him so that the effect of someone is essentially blackballed. And and the effect that it has on people's relationships with their Community is really astounding to walk with him and he would tell me that this person had been a good friend of his and now the person acted as if he didn't even know him. So there are at this point in in Chile there is persecution of individuals, but not the church. However, we've seen reports in Central America of the Catholic church and other Church groups being overtly persecuted. We heard earlier Walter in the Sakura story that the friend who had gone to talk to Sokka, Rob's wife was herself arrested herself or himself. Whichever. He is that (00:38:09) common. Well, yes, there are all sorts of small charges that they could bring against a person whom they would like to sort of Spirit Away to try and put away for some period of time. So as to remove that person from contact with others in this particular case, it seems to have been a minor charge resisting arrest find find 15 rubles and told to leave Gorky and return to Moscow seems to be a very transparent attempt to Simply remove her from contact with a soccer Ops typical of the use of existing laws without any real basis. In fact in order to silence people in order to make Ineffective as transmitters of information or publicizes of information Paula. I I wanted to tell you and the rest of the panel about a about one particular case that I have been following. I don't want to take a great deal of time. But I think this is very illustrative of the of the way human rights are violated in today in a Soviet Union and some of the other Marxist countries. I'm referring to a 46-year old man by the name of your issue Havoc Ukrainian who has spent 27 of his 46 years in prison and labor camps essentially entirely because of his father's activities without any guilt on his part whatsoever. Now admittedly this man's father was a leader of the anti-soviet underground at the end of the war. He was fighting with arms and hand and leading and Armed armed units against the Soviet government but our conception of fairness and human right would be that even if the father were to be considered a criminal that those crimes would not be visited upon innocent children in this particular case the 16 year old boy was arrested while his father was still active and the the government the prosecutor tried to compel him to publicly denounce his father and when the boy refused he was tried at 16 years of age by a special three-man Military Tribunal and sentenced to 10 years in prison, and he served up substantial portion of those 10 years until in 1956 after the after the death of Stalin and khrushchev's condemnation of some of the pasta legalities. Under Stalin the Soviet courts themselves and the Soviet and the Supreme Soviet declared that those three men special counsels were illegal and therefore anyone who had been under been tried and sentenced by those councils for crimes committed while under the age of 18 was to be free unless exactly applied to this young man, and he was to be freed, but that the Attorney General of the Soviet Union intervened and appealed this decision in our legal system. Of course, the prosecution is not in a position to appeal a criminal verdict that goes in favor of the defendant in this particular case, the Attorney General appealed said that the young man had been in contact with under with the anti-soviet organizations abroad that he was a son of a man who had taken arms taken up arms against the Soviet state and that he the prosecutor General procurator. Enroll in is a guardian of the Socialist legality and therefore he demands that this man be re-arrested and he was and despite of it the law passed by the Supreme Soviet and the decision of the of this court. He was re-arrested and made to serve out the rest of his 10-year term when he was released the he was immediately arrested 15 minutes after his release on charges that he had carried on anti-soviet agitation and propaganda while in jail and secret trial was held again this time clearly in violation of the Soviet law because Soviet Law requires that the accused be Tried by a court in the region where the crime was committed. He was supposed to have committed this crime while in jail and Vladimir in the Russian Republic. They moved the trial to Ukraine hundreds of miles away from where he was alleged to have committed his crime principally to fully exploit the whatever exam. Revalue there was to this trial in what was considered to be a hotbed of separatism. He was convicted and sentenced to another ten year term in jail and five years of Exile. He served the substantial portion of that and when he was released well, in fact, he served the entire 10-year period he was released in 1968 four years later. He was re-arrested and charged again with anti-soviet agitation and propaganda and in a closed trial was as a recidivist was given a maximum sentence of five years in prison and five years under strict regime in a labor camp and five years in Exile and he is just recently finished serving that that particular sentence and the expectation is that he will be re-arrested again, simply because he refuses to publish a statement condemning. His father he is willing to make a statement disassociating himself from his father's activities, but he's not willing to condemn his father. Here's an example of persecution of a person purely because of activities of another person of his father for which activities, of course, he would not be held responsible under any interpretation of Human Rights or of law that we would that we would subscribe to this this man's trial and imprisonment violated in several respects that Universal Declaration of Human Rights that Barbara mentioned earlier in our conversation. For example, the one of those declarations article 11 sub 2 says that no one shall be true shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or Omission which did not constitute a penal offence at the time when it was committed but Fact the whatever may have been the offense that this man was charged with he was held guilty on account of his Omission not commission named Leo mission to denounce his father the other his other trials were in violation of article 9 and article 10 of the universal Declaration of Human Rights in that it was in those articles require a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal and he didn't get didn't get that and in addition to violating the universal Declaration of Human Rights. The treatment of this particular man is also violated a number of the of Soviet laws their own laws on their own books, but I want to take the time to go into them. I've already talked for a (00:45:44) while what recourse is there then for this individual (00:45:48) none that I can think of (00:45:51) I was just thinking as you were talking about this individual case that that kind of case It's it typifies the Soviet Union could have taken place in any number of countries in the world. And I think one of the reasons that we set up the program in this way where with Walter discussing the Soviet Union and me discussing chili is to is to show the human rights is not tied to any particular political ideology. And in fact, it's something that is probably one of the the only Universal things that that we've got going for us in the world. These days is days is violation of Human Rights. And and that's one of the problems that we often have on our lawyers committee is is as we're attempting to to form a committee to address human rights abuses people see it as a very controversial thing because they think it's either a left-wing or right-wing type of operation when in fact a advocating In protection of Human Rights is a political as far as I'm concerned and I think that's why it's appropriate that we speak from both ends of the political Spectrum today though. I think Jerry has some interesting statistics to show what countries the u.s. Thinks are committing human rights abuses and and what countries aren't well having participated in this program. Of course the question I think that we and our listeners might want to wonder about is these places sounds so very far away what responsibilities are what objective is that we as Americans have what is our responsibility and I think I'd like to just mention that of course it is in our national interest as the United States of America. To do everything that we can to make certain that people that people's rights are respected. This is of course to use the try the old phrase nation of immigrants and the many American citizens have relatives and even those that don't I think we have a responsibility as one of the leading Nations. If not the leading nation in the world to try to allow for the protection of human which I equate with civil rights every year in the fall the president through the United States coordinator for Refugee Affairs reports to Congress on what is what can be expected for the coming year. And October of 1983 was no different and in its report and this is a report that's called proposed Refugee Admissions and allocations for fiscal year in 1983 report to Congress. It is indicated that there will be a ceiling of 98 thousand individuals that will be allowed to come to this country as refugees that 98,000 curiously is divided into the regions in the world. And Africa is allocated 3,000. All of Africa East. Asia is allocated. 68,000 Latin America, and the Caribbean is allocated two thousand numbers. And Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union is allocated 17,000 and I want to point out that these are ceilings and that goals the report indicates that to the extent possible. The program will be managed to admit fewer than the authorized ceiling in the same report. There is mention of over 7 million individuals throughout the world that are indeed living in a refugee State fleeing persecution either because of political reasons or upheaval or catastrophe or religion or race. And of course as Barber indicated, this is not just true of South America and East Asia. This is true of Africa. This is true of large areas of people. I believe that we have a responsibility as the United States to assure a a home for these individuals now certainly we cannot absorb all of them and other countries are absorbing other refugees, but we do have to take a leading role in assisting. Is that what you see then is the solution to the problem is to allow more people into the United States is the situation. So hopeless in those countries that it cannot be changed. Now that that is not a solution to the problem. We don't have the resources. We don't have the means to infect solve the problems of the world. I believe the role goes beyond absorbing individuals. I think the real goes to the point of assisting and doing whatever we can as a government first and foremost and as individuals to bring pressure on foreign governments to indeed give recognition to civil rights to Human Rights. There are I believe conflict and there is a conflict in in the analysis of what our human rights and many many countries the in the rights of the individual are very secondary to the rights of the state and that's We've been hearing I believe in this past hour and when that occurs the individual will suffer. So we I believe have a responsibility to to inform people to let people know what's going on around the world and to do what we can in either a governmental or an individual role Paul. One of the reasons that I became interested in helping to form a human rights committee here is that when I was in other countries, I saw the great effect that groups in the United States could have on it on human rights, if if we can influence our own government or directly influence other governments through letter-writing campaigns through education of our own population about human rights abuses. I sincerely believe will take a significant step towards improving human rights situation for people around the world. It's it seems like an impossible task and yet there are I think innumerable cases that have been Tested by Amnesty International. We're just threw a letter writing campaign and letting those countries know that we know what they're doing has an effect and can help an individual or group of individuals. You have all traveled to other countries. And of course you've been active in the human rights field. Do you ever find yourself being watched persecuted harassed in any way? I can tell you that eight months ago and going into the Soviet Union at the same time that the international book fair was about to start I had about a dozen books that were confiscated at the airport because they were considered to be not in the best interest of the Soviet Union and as a consequence of that and a visit to the American Embassy the next day, which was the day that the Korean airliner was shot down. I can assure you that I felt very much watched and very much listen to I had an experience in Chile Where I Was travel or I was visiting a clinical program with a group of Chilean law students who are because they're in the educational system at this point tend to be a conservative lot and I was I was behaving myself and listening to what they were talking about in this program and I got into a discussion with one of the law students in the group who asked me why I was in the country and began to ask me several questions, and eventually it came out that I had an interest in human rights. And the first thing he tried to do was Peg me to a political ideology was to say well that that means you're a Christian Democrat, right? And I said, no, I'm not connected not affiliated with any political group and the next thing I knew he whipped out his little black book and asked me for my name and address and whether or not he was an Informer. It was unnerving enough given some of the things that I'd seen and heard and some of the friends who had gone through things that that I felt I feel as if there's probably a government file on me. (00:55:00) Well, I'm in a little different situation than Barbara Jerry they when they visit the countries they come they're as American citizens with the protection of an American passport. I am under the Soviet law considered still a Soviet citizen, even though I am a naturalized citizen of the United States my children born in this country are also considered Soviet citizens under Soviet law. I haven't been back to the Soviet Union for a very long time because I can't get a Visa. Maybe that's for my own protection. They won't let me in unless I go with a group of tourists and if I go with a group of tourists, I am of course subject to being continuously supervised door watched by the famous in tourist guides about whom I don't think any special comments. Required and so I wouldn't have the freedom of movement in in my country of origin that Barbara would have in Chile or South American country or that Jerry had when he went to the Soviet Union. So I'm in a somewhat different position. I haven't been back there for a long time. And if I were I would be guarded every step of the way. There's no question about that. (00:56:10) I want to thank all three of you for being with us today Barbara fry who was vice president of Minnesota lawyers committee for international human rights Jerry ingeborg who is a immigration attorney for the Twin Cities area and Walter and asked us who is a law professor at the William Mitchell College of Law. All of this discussion will lead us into next Tuesday's program, which is human rights organizations. And what is being done around the world by attorneys organizations. Thank you for being with us today. Today's midday was made possible by Twin Cities offices of Citibank citicorp providing Financial Services to the world since 1812. This has been. Midday. I'm Paula Schroeder. This is the news and information service of Minnesota Public Radio ksjn Minneapolis. St. Paul news is next that's coming up at 1 o'clock in about 7 seconds in