Lat­vian courts found no traces of res­i­dents’ co­op­er­a­tion with KGB in cases viewed in re­cent years

Baltic News Network - - News -

In 2015-2018, Lat­vian courts re­ceived seven crim­i­nal cases re­gard­ing res­i­dents’ pos­si­ble co­op­er­a­tion with KGB. Five of those cases have been re­viewed so far, and no co­op­er­a­tion was proved in in any of them, as re­ported by Lat­vian Court Ad­min­is­tra­tion.

One case was re­ceived in 2015, two more in 2017, and four in 2018. Two of the last four cases have been suc­cess­fully re­viewed. The rul­ing of the last re­viewed case came to force on 27 Novem­ber.

It is noted in the avail­able text of the rul­ing that the per­son had been re­cruited in the agent cat­e­gory and that is no in­for­ma­tion avail­able on the per­son’s ex­clu­sion from the agent data­base. How­ever, Cen­tre for the Doc­u­men­ta­tion of the Con­se­quences of To­tal­i­tar­i­an­ism found no agent re­ports men­tion­ing the per­son. The pros­e­cu­tor re­spon­si­ble for the case also noted that no ev­i­dence was found dur­ing the pre-trial in­ves­ti­ga­tion to prove the fact of the per­son be­ing an in­former for KGB in the true def­i­ni­tion of the law. The per­son in ques­tion did not ad­mit co­op­er­at­ing with KGB, re­port­ing any in­for­ma­tion to KGB or per­form­ing any or­ders, adding that he was never given any.

He tes­ti­fied that he did not know about be­ing added to the KGB agents data­base, stress­ing that he had min­i­mal con­tact with KGB work­ers. As an ex­am­ple he men­tioned the time when he served in the army and KGB work­ers of­fered him be­com­ing an of­fi­cer. He said he re­fused this of­fer. The next time he con­tacted with KGB was when a rob­bery took place at his work­place and KGB of­fi­cers asked him to write a re­port. In 1983, he was con­tacted by some KGB rep­re­sen­ta­tive who asked him dif­fer­ent ques­tions.

An­other per­son tes­ti­fied in this crim­i­nal case. This per­son said he had no idea about a KGB agent card be­ing made for him, stress­ing that he had never signed any doc­u­ments re­gard­ing co­op­er­a­tion with KGB.

The court con­cluded in the rul­ing that no de­ci­sive ev­i­dence was pro­vided to prove the fact of co­op­er­a­tion with KGB. Which is why, the court con­cluded the per­son in ques­tion can­not be con­sid­ered a KGB in­former. As it is known, some of the KGB doc­u­ments were pub­lished on on 20 De­cem­ber. Since the pub­li­ca­tion, sev­eral peo­ple have turned to court in­tent on prov­ing the fact they did not co­op­er­ate with KGB, as pre­vi­ously re­ported by Court Ad­min­is­tra­tion rep­re­sen­ta­tive Ināra Makārova.

She said ‘a con­sid­er­able num­ber’ of res­i­dents have turned to courts, hop­ing to prove they did not co­op­er­ate with KGB. How­ever, courts can­not do this on their own, be­cause res­i­dents have to turn to the pros­e­cu­tor’s of­fice first.

Pros­e­cu­tor Gen­eral’s Of­fice Pub­lic Re­la­tions spe­cial­ist Una Rēķe says the of­fice has yet to re­ceive a sin­gle re­quest of this na­ture. The law states that the pros­e­cu­tor’s of­fice is to in­ves­ti­gate cases as­so­ci­ated with res­i­dents’ pos­si­ble co­op­er­a­tion with KGB only once a re­quest has been re­ceived and is to com­mence the in­ves­ti­ga­tion no later than five days af­ter re­ceiv­ing the re­quest.

The term for pre-trial in­ves­ti­ga­tion is two months. This term can be ex­tended to six months for spe­cial cases.

If the pros­e­cu­tor in charge of the case con­cludes the in­ves­ti­gated per­son did, in fact, co­op­er­ate with KGB, he writes a re­port. The pros­e­cu­tor needs to find out if the per­son’s co­op­er­a­tion with KGB was in­ten­tional or un­in­ten­tional. Af­ter that, the pros­e­cu­tor presents the re­port to the per­son.

View­ings of such cases in court are held in the same man­ner as other crim­i­nal cases.

Paula Čurk­ste/LETA

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Latvia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.