The Beginning Of The Process Of Rehabilitation Of Victims Of Political Repression In The Khmelnytskyi Region In The 1950s

Abstract

The features of the amnesty of March 27, 1953, which the party leadership perceived as the beginning of mass rehabilitation, are considered, however, it did not contribute to releasing victims of political repression. Measures for employment and social adaptation of amnestied citizens are analyzed. Attention was paid to the elimination of extrajudicial bodies, changing the structure and subordination of repressive institutions to party committees. The creation of special commissions to review the cases of those convicted for political reasons, their composition, powers, and the results of the activities of the Central and local commissions were investigated. Deficiencies in the work of regional commissions were identified, in particular, their formal approach to reviewing cases, inertia in correcting judicial errors, and the dominance of the guilt factor. The main reason for the shortcomings was the involvement in the rehabilitation process of lawyers who had previously actively participated in repressions, using illegal investigative methods and ignoring the rights of convicts. It was found that the review of criminal cases mostly ended with the release of prisoners, taking into account the term of sentence served, but without the removal of criminal records, which makes it impossible to assess these actions as full rehabilitation. The work of the commissions of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and local commissions formed after the 20th Congress of the CPSU is analyzed in the context of reviewing cases of political, official, and economic crimes. Their efforts to employ illegally convicted persons are highlighted separately. Law enforcement officers' subjective and dogmatic approaches in restoring the rights of the repressed are emphasized. It has been established that the specified period of the country’s socio-political life was characterized by the active preparation of regulatory and legal documents based on party decisions that determined the legal principles of rehabilitation. The study analyzed the circumstances under which the republican and regional commissions refused to rehabilitate those repressed and extrajudicially imprisoned. The process of reviewing archival and investigative cases, as well as the activities of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Ukrainian SSR, in particular the involvement of employees of city and district prosecutor’s offices in rehabilitation activities, was considered.