On May 22-23, 1984, ballots were being counted in the election of representatives to the Priests' Council of the Archdiocese of Vilnius. When Religious Affairs Commissioner Petras Anilionis was informed of the results of the voting, he severely reprimanded the administrator of the archdiocese, Father Algirdas Gutauskas, for conforming with the directive of Bishop Julijonas Steponavičius to conduct the elections by secret ballot, and for not interfering with the election to the Priests' Council of Fathers Algimantas Keina, Jonas Lauriūnas and Donatas Valiukonis.
Anilionis told Administrator Gutauskas whom he was supposed to appoint to the Priests' Council, and who should constitute the Board of Consultors. Of those elected to membership in the council, only one priest is suitable for the board of consultors in the opinion of Anilionis. Eight priests were elected to the Priests' Council, but Anilionis is allowing only six; he refuses to acknowledge two of the priests elected, Kazimieras Vasiliauskas and Jordanas Slėnys. If the aforesaid priests join the Priests' Council in spite of the interdict, Anilionis said, he would immediately move Father Vasiliauskas out of Vilnius, and release compromising pictures of Father Slėnys in the press.
Anilionis threatened the Apostolic Administrator of the Archdiocese of Vilnius, Bishop Julijonas Steponavičius, that for interfering in what was not his business, (i.e., the makeup of the Archdiocesan Priests' Council and Board of Consultors — Ed. Note), he would be exiled from Žagarė to a place where no one would be able to reach him. The commissioner was annoyed because priests of the archdiocese visit their bishop and associate with him.
Similarly, Anilionis pressured Panevėžys Diocesan Administrator, Kazimieras Dulksnys, directing him how to put together a Priests' Council and Board of Consultors acceptable to the atheists.
In May, 1984, the Deans of the Archdiocese of Kaunas and the Diocese of Vilkaviškis were summoned to a meeting with Religious Affairs Commissioner, Petras Anilionis. The Commissioner devoted his lecture to justifying the conviction of Fathers Alfonsas Svarinskas and Sigitas Tamkevičius. He argued that even in "bourgeois" Lithuania, priests were put on trial. For example, he mentioned the case of Msgr. Olšauskas. "Besides, even in pre-War days, priests were attacked, robbed, and even murdered," Anilionis explained, and immediately quoted a number of news items from Ūkininko patarėjas (The Farmer's Advisor). The commissioner claimed that in those days, no one blamed the government, and no one sent such news items abroad (But he "forgot" to say that the government did not forbid it, and that even the foreign press wrote about the case of Msgr. Olšauskas, raising the question of the court's objectivity and the lack of evidence — Ed. Note)
Anilionis urged the deans to acknowledge the convicted priests, Alfonsas Svarinskas and Sigitas Tamkevičius, as state criminals, and in return, he promised to consider the possibility of increasing the number of students admitted to the seminary.
In his talk, Anilionis expressed dissatisfaction with the behavior of the deans of the Archdiocese of Kaunas and the Diocese of Vilkaviškis: It seems that what he had said to them a year ago had all been transmitted to the Vatican, "and you can't call that anything but swinish behavior!" Anilionis angrily ended his lecture.
Nevarėnai (Telšiai Rayon)
On March 4, 1984, at about 6:00 PM, the telephone rang in the apartment of the pastor of Nevarėnai. When Father Šikšnys picked up the phone, the following conversation, more or less, took place:
"Pastor, you did not vote. Perhaps you are ill, and we should come to your home, so that you might vote."
"I'm well, and you needn't send the box. And to whom am I speaking?"
"This is the chairman of the election committee." "And what is your name?"
"That's not important," the chairman of the election committee tried to evade the question.
"If you won't introduce yourself, then I'm hanging up!" the pastor categorically stated.
The one speaking said that he was Keliauskas (Secretary of the Nevarėnai Party Organization). When Father Šikšnys explained that the elections were free and that he refused to vote, Secretary Keliauskas still tried to convince him, "But Pastor, you should do your duty as a Soviet citizen."
"When you let Fathers Alfonsas Svarinskas and Sigitas Tam-kevičius out of prison, I will come and vote without any urging," replied the pastor.
With this, the first conversation ended. Less than ten minutes later, the phone was heard again. Now it was Vice Chairman Mikalauskas of Nevarėnai, calling Father Šikšnys about the elections. The questions and answers were similar to the first conversation. When the Vice Chairman asked what he should tell the Rayon about the pastor's failure to vote, Father Šikšnys replied, "Tell them everything I told you."
Dubičiai (Varėna Rayon)
On May 2, 1984, the pastor of the parish of Dubičiai, Father Mykolas Petravičius, was summoned to see Rayon Executive Committee Vice Chairman Laukelis. Father Petravičius was read a written warning from the Commissioner for Religious Affairs, Petras Anilionis, because during the Lenten retreat this year in Byelorussia, in the parish of Naujadvaris, he helped the priest serving that parish to hear confessions. In this way, Father Petravičius was alleged to have transgressed Article 19 of the Regulations for Religious Associations, forbidding the carrying out of functions without permission of the local authorities. (Such permissions are never given to priests from Lithuania, so they are prevented from assisting priests in Byelorussia, who have to serve three or four parishes. — Ed. Note)
The warning stated that if the priest did not comply, sterner measures would be taken. This is the third such warning for Father Petravičius. Since Vice Chairman Laukelis would not allow him to make a copy of the warning, Father Petravičius refused to sign any acknowledgement.
Vice Chairman Laukelis warned the priest that news of this conversation had better not reach the Chronicle; otherwise, the rayon government would not grant a fuel allotment to heat the church. "Don't spit in the well you'll have to drink from yourself," said Executive Committee Vice Chairman Laukelis ending the discussion.
Kalesninkai (Šalčininkai Rayon)
On June 7, 1984, the pastor of the parish of Kalesninkai, Jonas Vaitonis, was summoned to see Executive Committee Vice Chairwoman, Mrs. Tamašauskienė. The Vice Chairwoman read a written warning from Religious Affairs Commissioner Petras Anilionis, forbidding Father Vaitonis to assist priests in hearing confessions during religious festivals and retreats in Byelorussia. Mrs. Tamašauskienė would not give the priest the text or even allow him to copy it. Father Vaitonis would not sign the warning.
Padubysis (Kelmė Rayon)
During the summer of 1983, near the pine grove of Padubysis, a cross was erected with a little shrine attached. People used to come to pray before the newly erected cross, and they planted some flowers. All this displeased Party Secretary Kerbedis of the Tarybinis Artojas (Soviet Plowman) Communal Farm, and he began urging the tractor drivers to knock down the cross, promising for their efforts to give them a new tractor. Tractor driver Antanas Marozas, a Party candidate, agreed to knock down the cross. One night at the end of December, 1983, the cross was overturned using a Kiroviec tractor, and taken, no one knows where.
Party Secretary Kerbedis kept his promise: Since the demolition of the cross, tractor driver Marozas is driving a new tractor.
On September 21, 1983, in Telšiai, Catholic Antanas Droba was being buried. Coworkers went to the Rayon Executive Committee, asking permission for the funeral procession to proceed through the city streets. Permission was given on condition that no priest would accompany it, and no religious symbols — cross or banner — would be carried. Usually, only non-religious parades are allowed on the city streets. Thus, as the funeral procession preceded through the city, Father Juozapas Pačinskas was driven to the cemetery separately.
Žlibinai (Plungė Rayon)
In 1982 the faithful of Žlibinai in Plungė Rayon sent a petition (signed by 300 of the faithful) to the LSSR Council of Ministers and the bishop, demanding the return of their church, which had been turned into a warehouse. In the petition, it was pointed out that it is difficult for the faithful to carry out their religious duties without a church: There are no buses to other places where there are churches, and to bury the dead, they are forced to drive 5 km along impossible roads to the church in Kantaučiai and afterwards back to the cemetery in Žlibinai.
Instead of a reply, interrogations began. Workers, high school students and university students who had signed the petition were threatened with expulsion from work and schools, and were pressured to retract their signatures. At the beginning of 1983, 106 of the faithful again went to the LSSR Council of Ministers, requesting that their religious association be registered, and that they be allowed to open a house of prayer in Žlibinai.
On May 18, 1983, Plungė Rayon Executive Committee Vice Chairman, Henrikas Buivydas, replied in writing to the faithful, regarding why in Žlibinai, the religious association was not allowed to be registered, and they were not allowed to open a house of prayer:
1. Buses are operating, hence, it is possible to ride to church and elsewhere. True, there are no buses from Žlibinai, but a route is planned for the future. (When? — Ed. Note)
2. Žlibinai is an uncertified place of residence, and so, in the future, it would not need a church — all the homesteads will be transferred.
The faithful of the Village of Paveisininkai, Vikališkė, Sapie-giškiai, Navikai and Alekniškiai applied to government agencies the Village of Paveisininkai. In November, 1983, they received an answer to their petition to the Commissioner for Religious Affairs signed by 130 of the faithful:
LSSR Commissioner of the Council for Religious Affairs Attached to the Council of Ministers of the USSR November 14, 1983, No. 46
To: Citizen Antanas Janukonis Lazdijiai Rayon Kapčiamiestis Post Office Village of Paveisininkai
We wish to inform you that the religious association of Paveisininkai is not registered, and so does not have the right to use the house of prayer.
Your petition, based on Art. 5 of the Regulations for Religious Associations, has been directed to the Executive Committee of the Lazdijai Rayon Council of Workers' Deputies for consideration, as required.
Commissioner for the Council P. Anilionis
Lazdijai Rayon Council of Workers' Deputies Executive Committee November 30, 1983 No. 147
Response to a petition written to the LSSR Commissioner of the Council for Religious Affairs, attached to the Council of Ministers of the USSR.
To: Antanas Janukonis
Residing in the Village of Paveisininkai
In the District of Kapčiamiestis
The Executive Committee of Lazdijai Rayon, having considered your collective petition regarding the opening of a church in the Village of Paveisininkai, reports that we do not accede to the petition on account of the following circumstamces.
In 1984, when the registration of religious associations was being carried out in the republic, the Catholic community of Paveisininkai failed to register, and no contract between the religious association and government organs for the transfer to the association of the house of worship and of church property belonging to it was entered into. The Village of Paveisininkai formed part of the District of Kapčiamiestis, and by the same token the religious association was registered as part of the Catholic religious association of Kapčiamiestis. In 1950, the church building was turned over by the Council of Ministers of the Lithuanian SSR to the Veisėjai Rayon Executive Committee for administration, which gave it to the Zygis į Gyvenimą (Venture into Life) Communal Farm, to use for cultural purposes.
The communal farm did not demolish the building, nor did it move the building to the planned central residential area in Semoškai.
When the Veisėjai Rayon was amalgamated with Lazdijai, and the communal forms were later merged, the former house of prayer became the responsibility of the Kapčiamiestis Communal Farm in Lazdijai Rayon, and presently belongs to it. Part of the former inventory and other church property was turned over to the Museum of Atheism, part was reclaimed by the residents themselves, and part was turned over to the Catholic religious association of Kapčiamiestis (Part of the property was turned over, not to the religious association of Kapčiamiestis, but to that of Veisėjai, because Paveisininkai was served until 1969 by the pastor of Veisėjai — Ed. Note.)
Thus the building, which has not been used as a house of prayer for several years, has lost its functional value and meaning.
Secondly, there are no grounds for reconsidering the question of the registration of the Catholic religious association of Paveisininkai and the transfer to it of the former house of prayer since the Village of Paveisininkai is not growing, and has no future. At the present time, the village has twenty-five homesteads, with sixty-two residents. Nor are there any substantial residential areas nearby from which it would be convenient for the faithful to go to Paveisininkai rather than to Kapčiamiestis, Veisėjai or Kučiūnai.
On the basis of the facts set forth, the Rayon Executive Committee has decided not to honor your request.
Vice Chairman of the Executive Committee
To: The Prosecutor of the Lithuanian SSR
The Chief of State Security of the Lithuanian SSR
From : Vladas Lapienis
Residing at Gelvuonių 47-7 Vilnius
"Everyone is allowed to speak and write whatever he pleases, without restriction," said the founder of the Bolshevik (now the Communist) Party. ("Writings of Lenin, Vol. 10, p. 195)
After the October Revolution, this party, having seized power, proclaimed in the Constitution, "The right of religious and anti
religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens." (Jaroslavskis, Apie religija — Concerning Religion, 1959, Vilnius, p. 27) This Constitution declares the equality of all citizens before the law, independent of their relationship to religion. But when this Party became intrenched in the government, they proclaimed a new Constitution which declares only the right to conduct atheistic propaganda. (Art. 52) In this Constitution, believers are already victims of discrimination, since they are denied the right of religious propaganda.
Moreover, the same article of the Constitution declares, "Inciting discord and hatred in connection with religious cults is forbidden." This also discriminates against believers since the Constitution does not mention inciting discord and hatred in connection with atheistic propaganda. Hence, Article 52 of the Constitution nullifies the equality before the law proclaimed in Article 34 of the Constitution. This is where a host of conflicting situations between religiously believing citizens and the state arises. And as long as this mistake is uncorrected, to use Lenin's words, "Unless this is done, any words about tolerance or religious freedom will be a regrettable game and a dishonorable lie!" ("Patval-dystė svyruoja — Autocracy is Tottering, Lenin, Complete Works V 1978, Vol. 7, p. 121)
We often hear from the lips of atheists on radio and television, and especially in the press, disrespectful and untruthful references to God and the Catholic Church, profaning the teaching of Christ, untruthfully setting forth the truths of faith, abundantly spewing viciousness, calumnies against the Pope, the bishops, priests and religious. We hear and in the press we read insults against believers, and wrong-doings are very often attributed to the faithful without foundation. In a word, when atheists, supported and incited by the government fight against God and the Catholic Church with the help of mass media, the faithful must defend themselves. By what means? The government does not allow believers to defend themselves through the mass media. The faithful defend themselves in the Chronicle of the Catholic Church in Lithuania, publicizing the injustices perpetrated against them, within the LSSR Criminal Code's definition of essential defense, that is, defending the interests of the public (in this case, the believing public) from attacks and accusations, as long as the limits are not exceeded.
Since the atheists, in their attack against the believing public use periodical publications printed in massive editions, brochures, books, radio and television, while the faithful can defend themselves only with the Chronicle of the Catholic Church in Lithuania, just a few pages long, typed for small circulation, it is self-evident that the Catholics do not exceed the limits of essential self-defense. Hence, there are no grounds for accusing the Catholics of publishing and disseminating the Chronicle of the Catholic Church in Lithuania, since they do so within the definition of necessary self-defense.
On July 2, 1975, Tiesa wrote, "During the fascist dictatorship in Spain, with terror and repression rampant, the political, social and economic achievements of the Spanish nation were destroyed... In 1939, the activities of all political parties, except the ruling political party, were forbidden... Some ministers of cult, in their sermons, make harsh statements against the state..." (sic)
J. Grigulevičius in his book, Vatikanas XX amžius (The Vatican — The Twentieth Century), published in Vilnius, 1982, p. 138, wrote: "Events in Nazi Germany developed in the same way that they did in Fascist Italy. However, Mussolini did not decide to cut off all ties with the Church, and chose compromise. The German Fuehrer recognized only the kind of Church which shouted, 'Heil, Hitler!' Catholic organizations were taken over by the Nazis, and all church people were transformed into servants of the Third Reich; the Central Party was dispersed. Those who opposed such a policy, the Nazis crammed into concentration camps, or killed outright."
The Czarist government in Russia, and the Nazis during their regime in Germany, increased repressions against dissenters: They terrorized people and tried to get rid of them physically, hoping to reppress oppositions, and in this way they became bogged down in a still greater crisis until finally they collapsed. So we clearly see that today we need, not oppression, not repression, the proliferation of greater punishments, but democratic reforms, among them equal rights and the granting of freedoms to all citizens, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Human Rights and other documents dealing with human rights and basic freedoms, and that those rights be not just on paper, but in actuality.
Every day of the preliminary investigation, it becomes more and more clear that justice is overruled by anger, hatred and even vengeance. It is becoming increasingly clear that they have a growing desire, if not to destroy me, then at least to curtail my freedom, to foist on me their own convictions which are essentially opposed to the implementation of freedom.
In my work, I was guided by natural law, the Commandments of God and the Church, Articles 34, 39, 49, 50 and 52 of the country's Constitution and other publicly promulgated Soviet laws, the applicable articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and especially Article 2, which says:
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as... political... jurisdictional or international status...
Article 19: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Article 30: "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."
And in Soviet law, it says: "If an international agreement of the USSR sets forth rides which are different from those set forth in Soviet Law, the rules of the international agreement apply." (LSSR Codex of Civil Procedings, Article 482. "The Foundations of Public Education in the USSR". Moscow, 1973, Article 65, et. al.)
Thus in my work, I based myself on natural law, the country's Constitution and Soviet law which has been promulgated, international agreements dealing with human rights and basic freedoms, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion and beliefs, and not requirements thought up and imagined by some officials, who, in committing offenses against Socialist justice are mistaken themselves and lead others astray. For "to respect the person of citizens, to defend their rights and freedoms, is the duty of all state organs: public organizations and officials," proclaims Article 57 of the Constitution.
The explanation of some state organs and officials failing to respect the persons of their country's citizens, and failing to guard their rights and freedoms, that they do so in the name of the law, are similar to the explanations of the Nazis who crowded people into concentration camps or death camps in the name of the law; during the era of the Stalin personality cult, innocent people were put in prison or behind barbed wire, and exiled. These deeds, said to be "in the name of the law", the XX Party Congress later resolutely condemned.
Among the bases of peace is respect for inalienable human rights, for peace is justice, and war arises from the transgression of rights. If human rights are violated under peacetime conditions, then particularly important and, from the aspect of progress incomprehensible, is any manifestation of war against humanity, which cannot be reconciled with any program calling itself "humane".
Struggling for true and complete freedom of religion, for the right to proclaim one's beliefs publicly, I am determined again to be unjustly accused and unjustly sentenced.
Justice elevates a nation. Injustice makes it unhappy, and even kills it.
March 9, 1984
Vladas Lapienis sent petitions of similar nature, showing the absurdity of the trumped-up accusations, and their utter lack of foundation in the juridical sense, to the Prosecutor of the LSSR and the Chief of the KGB, on April 13 and 19, 1984.
Leipalingis (Lazdijai Rayon)
At the beginning of 1984, officers, including Major Marchenka, Major Gorbatsky, Major Kim and others, told Private Robertas Grigas, who is doing his military service at Badam Station, Kazakh, that if he continued refusing to take the (military) oath, (See Chronicle No. 54 — Trans. Note), that he risked five years deprivation of freedom according to the Criminal Code of Kazakh. The young man reiterated his decision, saying, "I don't expect anything better from you," and in a written report to the Chief of the Political Division, he explained that, being a Catholic, he could not swear allegiance to a system based on atheistic ideology. During the discussion, the officers kept using profanity and threatening the young man with the horrors of Soviet prison.
In May, 1984, Robertas Grigas' compulsory military service ended. One of the superior officers who earlier ridiculed him, told him, in parting, "It is my wish for you that you always be steadfast as befits a human being and a man. I would like my sons to be like you."
A 1976 photo of the Queen of Peace Church in Klaipeda, which was confiscated from the faithful in 1962 and converted into a concert hall.
To: Yuri Andropov,
General Secretary of the Central Committee,
Communist Party, USSR Copies to: LSSR Council of Ministers
Commissioner Kuroyedov of the
Council for Religious Affairs
attached to the USSR Council of Ministers From: The Church Committee and Faithful of Klaipeda
We request that you allow us to use the church which we erected in 1961, at our own expense and with our own labor, and which was confiscated from us during the rule of Krushchev, and turned into a philharmonic hall. The construction of the church, and all permits necessary, were cleared not only with the governmerit of the republic, but with that of the entire union. But when the church had been completed, they confiscated it, and we believers felt practically thrown out on the street. This situation has lasted to this day. The present church is very small, barely 220 square meters, and cannot hold all of the faithful, so that during services we are forced to stand in the street, even when it is raining and when it is cold.
After the churches in Nida and Juodkrantė were closed, there were 130,000 Catholics living in Klaipėda and its environs. We believers have directed a whole list of petitions to the government organs, requesting that the wrong committed be righted.
· In 1974, we applied to Commissioner Kuroyedov of the Council for Religious Affairs, attached to the USSR Council of Ministers. The petition was signed by 3000 believers.
· In March, 1979, to Chairman Leonid I. Brezhnev, Chairman of the Presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers.
· In October, 1979, we again applied to Leonid Brezhnev and Kuroyedov with a petition signed by 148,149 of the faithful.
· In 1980, a petition with 600 signatures was sent to Leonid Brezhnev and Kuroyedov.
· In June, 1981, a delegation of three people personally presented petitions to Commissioner Kuroyedov of the Council for Religious Affairs.
· In September, 1981, a delegation of ten persons presented petitions to Brezhnev and Kuroyedov.
· In April, 1981, we sent a petition to Leonid Brezhnev with 21,033 signatures.
· In June, 1982, for the third time, a delegation of ten presented the petition to Brezhnev and Kuroyedov.
We cannot content ourselves with the reconstruction of the present church, because even after remodeling, it will not be able to hold all the faithful, and during the reconstruction, we would be left for several years completely without a house of prayer.
Few people patronize the church converted into a concert hall. A large proportion of the faithful also do not go to concerts taking place in the church which has been converted into a philharmonic hall, (sic) Lately, with the erection of the Žvejai Cultural Center, holding 1200, barely a few concerts a month are held in the philharmonic hall, which seats only 600.
We constructed the church ourselves. Without the necessary tools, we drained swamps, dug the foundation with shovels and carried bricks and other foundation materials by hand. More than one person weeps when remembering the conditions under which the Church of the Queen of Peace was erected.
We again request that you correct the injustice done to us during the reign of Krushchev: To return the church even in the condition it is in now — at least the walls. We would not complain; we would be grateful for its return. Thus, the world will see and believe that the Soviet government and the Party are concerned about people. We await an affirmative reply. Enclosed is a supplement of 91 pages, bearing 22,539 signatures.
Klaipeda, January, 1983
In September, 1982, Commissioner for Religious Affairs Petras Anilionis, in reply to the demands of the faithful for the return of the confiscated church of the Queen of Peace in Klaipeda, offered to remodel the present church in Klaipeda, to increase its capacity three-fold, but the faithful would not agree, and demanded the return of the church which they had erected. In December, Director Galustian of the Moscow Department for Religious Affairs, Petras Anilionis and the Executive Committee of Klaipeda offered to enlarge the present church to 800 square meters, but the faithful again demanded the return of the church which they had built. (This was the origin of the petition of January, 1983, written to General Secretary Yuri Andropov of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, USSR — Ed. Note.)
In May, 1983, a delegation of ten people went to the Religious Affairs Council in Moscow, demanding that the injustice perpetrated by the council be repaired. Coming some time later from Moscow, Galustian summoned the faithful and told them, "The government will construct a church in Klaipeda, tell us your preferences." 4600 of the faithful told Kuroyedov in writing (copies to Petras Anilionis and the Eecutive Committee of Klaipeda) that they wanted to have a church as large as the one which had been confiscated. Government officials told the faithful to establish a new church committee, but with the deterioration of USSR foreign and domestic policies, Anilionis has forgotten all his promises and keeps repeating, "We will give them nothing, and will allow them nothing!"
To: The Chief Justice of the LSSR Supreme Court The Prosecutor of the LSSR
From: Convict Jonas Sadūnas Jonava, Dariaus-Gireno 19, Speckomendatura
September 19 and 20, 1983, I was interrogated at the headquarters of the Lithuanian SSR KGB, by Interrogator-Lieutenant Vidas Baumila of the Interrogation Section, as a witness in the case of Father Sigitas Tamkevičius.
Some of the interrogator's questions:
1.Your sister, Nijolė Sadūnaitė, comes to Jonava to visit you. When did you last see her?, etc.
2.How did copies of letters and greetings from Nijolė Sadūnaitė, Petras Paulaitis, Petras Plumpa Pluira and others, copied in my (sic) hand, get to Father Tamkevičius' apartment?
3.How, from the above-mentioned letters, did two excerpts from two of Nijolė Sadūnaitė's letters get printed in the Chronicle of the Catholic Church in Lithuania"?
4.Did Father Sigitas Tamkevičius visit our (sic) apartment?
5.Why did you copy the letters?
6. Did you read the Chronicle of the Catholic Church in
7. To which political prisoners did you write letters?
Moreover, the investigator would not consent to these two
demands of mine:
1. To show me the search record, to see whether copies of letters made by me were found in Father Tamkevičius' apartment during the raid.
2. The interrogator strictly forbade me, as a witness, to make a note of the dates of letters I had copied, showing who had written them, and from where.
3. To arrange a confrontation for me with Father Tamkevičius, in order to answer the following questions:
a. Was the priest in our apartment?
b. Were copies of the aforementioned letters found in the
priest's apartment during the raid?
c. Did the priest, during interrogation, really say that I had given him copies of the aforesaid letters, as the investigator had told me during the interrogation, September 19, 1983?
When I refused for the aforesaid reasons to sign the record of interrogation, the interrogator said: "We have the right to hold you until October 10; you will suffer extreme unpleasantness, because you are a criminal offender, and will remain such all your life. If you don't testify in court that Father Sigitas Tamkevičius visited your apartment, we will put you on trial again, after the trial of Father Sigitas Tamkevičius, either for refusal to testify, or for giving false testimony in the case of Father Sigitas Tamkevičius, etc."
In the record of interrogation, the interrogator wrote, "I have read the record. Everything has been written truthfully, I have no additions, I refuse to sign, and I refuse to take part in the trial", etc.
I told the interrogator that I had not said that everything in the record had been correctly written down, that I refused to take part in the trial, etc., but that I refused only to sign the record. The interrogator replied, "We'll get along without your signature. I have signed, and the court, the judge, will take my word that everything in the record has been written down faithfully."
I request the Chief Judge of the USSR Supreme Court and the Prosecutor for the LSSR:
1. To attach my statement to Father Sigitas Tamkevičius'
2. To allow me, as a witness, to participate in the trial of Father Sigitas Tamkevičius, so that I might be able to read this statement during the aforesaid trial.
3. To consider the record of interrogation written by Investigator Vidas Baumila on September 19-20, 1983, invalid, since it does not bear my signature, and I did not give the interrogator authorization to draw up an interrogation report in my name, and in his own way.
September 20, 1983