hr aN ee

LENINGRAD. TRIAL OF HIJACKERS

Criminals caught with the

By V. BARSOV and
A. FEDOSEYEV

The planned operation was
code-named “Wedding.” It was
to take place at the Leningrad
airport of Smolnoye and the air-
port of a town in Leningrad re-
gion on June 15, 1970. Its aim
was to hijack a Soviet plane,
AN-2. This is how the attackers
planned their hijack: after the
take-off from the former airport
they were to destroy physically
the pilots, take on board the
other members of the gang at the
intermediate airport and then
leave the country. The criminals
prepared carefully for two years
to carry out their plan. They
made knuckledusters, firearms
and clubs, and provided them-
selves with axes, cords, gags and
Sleeping bags into which they
wanted to put the stunned or
killed pilots (whatever the case
might be).

On June 15, having bought all
tickets for a flight in a small
plane, the criminals went to the
gangway. At that time their ac-
complices were waiting for them
at the airport of a town in Lenin-
grad Region. Their aim seemed
to be near in sight. But right at
the gangway, that is, at the last
moment, they were seized and
rendered harmless.

The 11 hijackers were brought
before the Collegium for Crimin-
al Cases of the Leningrad City
Court presided over by N. A.
Yermakov at the open trial.
Leningrad Prosecutor S. Y. So-
lovyev appeared for the prosecu-
tion and each of the defendants
had his or her own lawyer.

Who They Are

But who are they, these elev-
en? The leader of the criminal
group M. Dymshits, formerly a
pilot, was, according to plan, to
take over piloting after making
short work of the crew. As was
established at the trial, he forced
his wife and two daughters to
join in the venture.

Then follows the family trio—
E. Kuznetsov, his wife Silva and
her brother Zalmanson, a stu-
dent. Kuznetsov, one of the lead-
ers of the gang, manufactured
the weapons himself — made
knuckledusters and clubs, at
which he was an old hand — it
was only three years ago that he
was released from detention,
where he was serving his term
for a criminal offence. —

Y. Fyodorov and A. Murzhen-
ko are bound together by a dif-
ferent principle—they served to-
gether a sentence for a criminal

offence. I. Mendelevich (he got
a higher education but was a
loafer), A. Altman (a student
who dropped his studies), M.
Bodnya (a man who has no defi-
nite occupation), L. Khnokh and
B. Penson (who were earlier con-
victed for a rape attempt)—are
the other members of the crimi-
nal group.

Almost all of them did not
work anywhere recently and
were leading a parasitic way of
life.

To the procedural question:
“Do you plead guilty?” the de-
fendants answered one after
another: “Yes, I do,” adding “I
admit the charge.”

Proof Is Provided

As is known, in Soviet court
procedure the admission of a
guilt is not considered the main
evidence. Other evidence, objec-
tive proof, of a crime are
required. And these were exam-
ined by the Collegium very
carefully.

The judges had before them
material evidence — weapons,
‘which were mentioned earlier.
These weapons in themselves
testify to preparations for a
grave crime. Other pieces of evi-
dence concretize how the crimin-
als planned their actions. Dym-
shits was found to carry a map
on which the plane’s route was
extended to the Swedish city of
Buden. The gagged and bound
pilots were to be left in sleeping
bags in the nearest forest and
Boris Penson was instructed to
fix a sign: “The road is blocked,
danger to life.” Such a sign had
been prepared beforehand. Un-
der the plan Kuznetsov was to
deal with the first pilot with the
help of his knuckleduster and
Bodnya with the other.

The “instruction” worked out
by the criminals provided also
for another version of attack.
Even the spot from which gun-
shots were to be made — they
were going to shoot in the back
—was determined beforehand.

Twenty-six witnesses testified
to the criminal actions of the
persons in the dock who failed to
carry out their bandit design.
Article 15 of the Criminal Code
of the Russian Federation says
that preparation for a crime or
an attempt to commit a crime is
punishable in the same way as
the crime actually committed.
Thus preparation for a murder or
a murder attempt carries the
same penality as murder itself.

Such a legal norm is part and
parcel of any criminal code. And

Israeli military are perpetrating heinous crimes on the occupied
Arab territories. Above, some of the victims of Israeli missile bombing
of the city of Irbid in Jordan, in which 30 civilians, including old
people, women and children, were killed and many others wounded.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, JANUARY 15, 1971—PAGE-6

if some people in the West are
trying to raise a fuss over the
“harshness” of the sentence they
are doing so with the evident
purpose of passing off white as
black. Of all people, critics of the
Leningrad trial know well that
the rule of law which calls for
the same punishment for a crim-
inal attempt as for the crime it-
self exists in the United States,
Britain, France and a number of
other countries.

piratic attack on a plane’s crew.

Marcus Avrelius used to say:
“What is in accord with the law
cannot be unjust’. Indeed, it is
necessary to proceed not from
emotions but from the law. And
justice must operate on the basis
of the law and the facts invol-
ved. And the facts were such
that the strictest punishment
was called for. Lenience to crim-
inals is always inhumaneness to
their victims.

Harsh Sentence?

Appeal Results

Let’s take the Federal Legisla-
tion of the USA, for example.
Paragraph 1472, Section 49
(point 1) of the Code of laws of
the United States — lays down
a norm which applies to air pi-
racy. Under this norm and the
general principles of the Criminal
Code of the United States a per-
son who has committed or tried
to commit an act of air piracy is
subject to death penality.

The accused tried by the Len-
ingrad court were planning not
only an act of air piracy. They
had prepared everything in order
to attack with arms in hand the
pilots and, in the event of their
resistance, to destroy them phys-
ically. It was proceeding from
this irrefutably proved fact that
the Collegium of the Leningrad
city court found the defendants
guilty of organized activity aim-
ed at committing highly danger-
ous crimes as well as a number
of other punishable actions. Tak-
ing into account the require-
ments of the law, the dangerous-
ness of the crime as well as the
personalities of the accused, the
court sentenced Dymshits and
Kuznetsov to an exceptional
measure of punishment — death
penalty. The others were sen-
tenced to different prison terms.

It was decided, out of consid-
ations of humaneness, not~ to
hold legally responsible the per-
sons who assisted the crime in
this way or other and knew ab-
out its preparations—the daugh-
ters of Dymshits, their mother as
well as Khnokh’s wife.

Not ‘Innocents’

So justice has been done.
People who planned a crime ag-
ainst their Homeland and endan-
gered human lives have been
Strictly and deservedly punished.
There is hardly an honest person
who would question. the justness
of this retribution. Certain West-
ern cirles are trying to picture
this crime as an innocent at-
tempt by 11 persons to leave
their country. But this has noth-
ing to do with facts: there is, in-
deed, a vast distance between a
desire to move to another state
and the setting up of an armed
gang and a carefully planned at-
tack on people with arms in
hand.

Those in the West who declare
in defence of the accused crim-
inals pretend not to understand
the corpus delicti and, what is
more, try to create the impres-
sion that no crime was commit-
ted. But they cannot mislead
anyone. For justice has facts at
its disposal. And these facts
show that preparations of the
crime went so far that it was
only the timely actions for rend-
ering the bandits harmless that
saved the lives of people. If it
were not this timely interference
that frustrated the criminal plot,
the crew of the AN-2 would have
met the fate of air-hostess Nade-
zhda Kurchenko who was killed
by air pirates. Dymshits and Co.
were tried for the real crimes
they had committed—for prep-
aration of a dangerous crime, a

The accused and their barrist-
ers appealed to the Supreme
Court of the Russian Federation.
The appeals did not deny any
facts established at the trial. The
point in question was only the
punishment. Prosecutor Pokhle-
bin (the Procurator’s Office of
the USSR) came out for commut-
ing the sentences.

The Collegium for criminal
cases of the Supreme Court of
the Russian. Federation, consist-
ing of Chairman of the Supreme
Court of Russian Federation L.
N. Smirnov, and members of the
Supreme Court M. A. Gavrilin
and V. M. Timofeyev discussed
the appeals. The Collegium came
to the conclusion that the ver-
dict of the court of the first in-
stance is lawful and justified. All
the circumstances of the crime
were proved. But the Collegium
of the Supreme Court found it
possible not to impose capital
punishment on the accused Dym-
shits and Kuznetsov, since their
criminal activity was cut short
in the stage when they were at-

tempting .to commit the crime.

and capital punishment, in ac-
cordance with the Soviet penal
code, is an exceptional measure
of punishment.

In view of this circumstance,
the Collegium of the Supreme
Court of the Russian Federation
decreed that Dymshits, Kuznet-
sov and Fyodorov are sentenced
to 15 years of deprivation of
freedom each, Murzhenko is sen-
tenced to 14 years, Mendelevich
to 12 years, Khnokh, Altman,
Penson, S. Zalmanson to eight
years and Bodnya to four years.

The verdict came into force.

Zionist Campaign

The trial is over. But we would
like to add some words.

Zionist organizations in many
capitalist countries have sharply
intensified their activites of late,
in connection with the construc-
tive policy that the Soviet Union
conducts for peaceful political
settlement in the Middle East.
Trying to justify its aggressive
policy, Tel Aviv launched a rabid
anti-Soviet campaign. The Zion-
ist press organs and organiza-
tions are trying to mislead the
world public and to shift else-
where the blame for their crimes
against the Arab peoples.

But it would not be enough to
say that the anti-Soviet attacks
of the Zionist organizations are
exclusively the reaction to the
consistent and constructive posi-
tion of the Soviet Union in the
Middle East question. The source
of anti-Sovietism lies in the class
hatred of the international Zion-
ism for the Soviet Union. It is
common knowledge that Zionism
is the ideology, policy and pract-
ice of the monopoly Jewish bour-
geosie which is constantly striv-
ing to poison with its slanderous
propaganda the minds of politi-
cally immature, gullible people.
The Zionist organs of press and
radio, conducting an unbridled

Campaign against the Soviet Un-

ion and other socialist countries,

Nadya Kurchenko, 19-yé
Soviet stewardess, was killf
hijackers Oct. 15, 1970 6
tried to bar the way to thef
cabin on a regular Batumil
humi flight. The plane was”
to Turkey. oo,

are urging the people of J
extraction to emigrate
these states to Israel or
capitalist West and are Cc
artificially the spurious “J
question”.
What is more, the 2”
thugs in New York and?
other cities of the United ¥
lost all restraint of late. F
cateurs from the “Jewis#
fence League” behave in #
ticularly brazen way. #
thugs organized a number °
minal sorties against thé
bassy of the USSR and
Soviet institutions in thé
States: The Zionists b#
broke into the premises
exploded a bomb in the’
of the representation of
Aeroflot and Intourist im)
York and try to disrupt petF
ances of Soviet actors. An@™
is surprising is that at the’
when these abominable a
are being committed, th!
authorities limit themsel¥®
“expressing regrets” and 7
assurances that they will —
measures”. And nothing ©
This, naturally, makes 0
arrive at the conclusion ©
such a position of con
only serves to inspire the:
thugs.

Wolves’ Chorus ~

Another wave of anti-3%,
ism; of hooligan actions,
leashed by the Zionist ©
and the rulers of Israel wa,
nected with the Leningra@
of Dymshits and others. *¢
Minister of Israel Golda }
hastened to come out W
brazen statement. Her
diary interview to the
radio was immediately take! r
by the organs of bourge0l jt
paganda. The notorious
dom” radio station joined
noisy chorus of anti-Soviet
paganda. 'e
And this is understandab
the whole world, the entif@]
gressive public stigmatiZ®
criminal actions of the me
extremists on the unla¥
occupied Arab lands. Seek!
avoid strong denunciation
the masses of the people,
onerate its criminal actiom,
Aviv, jointly “ with ‘the 4!
Zionism, raise a hue alt 4
about the verdicts of the
grad court.
But no matter how m
Zionists exert themselves | I:
represent this case, they Wey
be able to conceal their U4
ture, to mislead the
opinion.
. : (In

uch 4.