To: The Chairman ofthe LSSR State Security Committee Copies to: The Catholic Committee for the Defense of the Rights of Believers;

The Bishops ofthe Kaunas Archdiocese and the Vilkaviškis Diocese

A Statement from: The Rev. Sigitas Tamkevičius, pastor of Kybartai, residing in Kybartai, Darvino g. 12.

On my way to Vilnius on June 1, 1978, I was involved in an ac­cident near Pirčiupis. My car struck a pick-up truck driven by Aleksandras Razvinavičius. The Motor Vehicle Department found Razvinavičius responsible for the accident. (I enclose a copy of the ruling by the Varėna Motor Vehicle Department.)

Two months later employees of the State Security Com­mittee learned of this incident. Razvinavičius himself told me about the actions of officials of this Committee, prior to becoming your collaborator. I visited him on August 23rd, 1978. The very day he had been summoned to Šalčininkai where he met with a security police employee from Vilnius. The visiting security agent ques­tioned him closely about the accident and asked whether I could have given the motor vehicle inspectors a bribe. The agent urged Razvinavičius to contest the motor vehicle department's findings and go to court to prove me responsible for the accident. He promised to help him win the case. From what the security agent said, Razvinavičius understood that the security police wanted to help him and detested me. The official stated that I was very dangerous to them but they have nothing against me, yet I must be taken care of, at least compromised. The security official explain­ed that he knows the Supreme Court judges, therefore Razvi­navičius will certanly win this case. He also promised to "handle everything" at the Varėna motor vehicle department to Raz­vinavičius' advantage. Because the security agent let it slip that several pages were already missing from my accident file at the Varėna motor vehicle Department, it is quite obvious that security officials "are handling the documents." The agent even offered to write statements to the court, Razvinavičius would merely have to sign them. For this favor to the security police, the official promised to obtain for Razvinavičius an allotment for a new pick-up-truck from the social provisions department, which, as a disabled person, Razvinavičius could purchase for only 20 percent of the cost, i.e. 200 rubles.

Razvinavičius liked this "assistance" from the security police but it also worried him, so he did not give a concrete reply and decided to think it over.

The following day, August 24th, security agents again visited Razvinavičius at home, inspected the damaged vehicle, photographed it and again tempted him to go to court. Razvinavičius showed me the telephone number the chief of the Salčinskai security police had left so he could call if he wished.

Because Razvinavičius had strong backing, he asked me to help him repair the vehicle and pay the insurance bureau the sum it de­manded—some 800 rubles (this is what the insurance had paid me for my insured car). Seeing the poverty of Razvinavičius' family and a young man being trapped into trickery which would cause him a guilty conscience his entire life, I gave Razvinavičius 1,400 rubles. He was very pleased and handed me the ruling of the Varėna motor vehicle department and a copy of the traffic regulations in which the security agent had underlined in red pencil the points which, in his words, could be used in accusing me.

About a month later, I received a letter from Razvinavičius complaining that his refusal to go to court had cost him dearly: he angered the security agents, lost, due to being considered un­trustworthy, his job in some kind of mysterious industry and lost his turn on the waiting list to a government apartment. He demanded that I send him 1,000 rubles as quickly as possible. After speaking with Razvinavičius personally, I saw that he continued to maintain contact with security employees and was attempting to blackmail me with their help. I therefore refused to give him any further aid.

Currently, Razvinavičius again "has the trust of the security police," works as before at the aforesaid mysterious industry and is preparing to take me to court about the accident.

In view of all these actions by officials of the Committee which you head, I protest that the State Security Committee is being used to eliminate a priest (art. 246, par. I of the LSSR Criminal Code provides a sentence of three years for the person responsible in an accident).

It is clear to everyone that behind Razvinavičius are officials of the omnipotent Security Police before whom bend laws, courts, prosecutors, lawyers, expert witnesses and everything that can be used to punish or destroy their real or imagined enemies.

January 31, 1979

Rev. Sigitas Tamkevičius,

Member of the Catholic Committee for the

Defense of the Rights of Believers.


Excerpt from the Ruling of the Varėna Motor Vehicle Department


"Due to the fact that A.S. Razvinavičius himself crudely violated highway traffic regulations, sections VI, art. 70, p. 2, I have decided that, in the auto accident during which Razvinavičius suffered damages, no charges are to be brought agains driver Tamkevičius, S.J. as his actions did not contribute to the accident."

Militia Lieutenant T. Graževičius, Chief Inspector of the Motor Vehicle Department.


1 concur : Militia Lieut. Col. L. Mališauskas, Head of the VarėnaRayon VRS.

The Varėna Prosecutor's Office began to process the case at the beginning of February. The following were called for inter­rogation: Razvinavičius, Father Tamkevičius and witnesses.

A new kangaroo trial is expected, in which the unseen but main lynchers-will be the KGB. Could this be the start of a security police campaign against the members of the Catholic Committee for the Defense of the Rights of Believers?