10th ANNIVERSARY OF THE UKRAINIAN HELSINKI GROUP

Memorandum No. 1

The effects of the European conference
on the development of legal consciousness in Ukraine

(EXCERPTS)

1. The Formation of the Ukrainian Public Group to Promote [the Implementation of the Helsinki Accords].

The evolution of the movement for Human Rights in the Soviet Union led to the formation on May 12, 1976, of the Group to Promote the Implementation of the Helsinki Accords in the USSR. Yuri F. Orlov, a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR, was elected its leader. At first Orlov was summoned by the KGB and warned that his efforts to organize the group were provocative and could be classified as anti-Soviet activity. The broad support extended to the group by the world community, however, forced the KGB to refrain from repressive measures against its members, and within a few months the Moscow Group accomplished much in promoting the implementation of the humanitarian articles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Today, the group's activities are winning support even among the Communist Parties of the West.

Although the authorities so far have not stopped the repressive measures against the fighters for civil rights, these measures are clearly becoming ever more undesirable. Government officials are forced to conclude that prisons and concentration camps not only do not strengthen their position, they weaken it. In fact, they weaken it more than would the unhindered activity of dissidents, if such were indeed allowed.

But then, excessive optimism is as dangerous today as underestimating the democratic forces and their effect on the state apparatus. One thing can be said with certainty: the struggle for Human Rights will not cease until these Rights become the everyday standard in social life.

In these circumstances, the Ukrainian Public Group to Promote the Implementation of the Helsinki Accords was formed on November 9, 1976.

[A list of the 10 founding members and brief biographies follows.]

* * *

Immediately after the formation of the group, a brutal act was perpetrated against it. On the night before November 10, 1976, the apartment of the group's leader, Mykola Rudenko, was devastated. Unknown persons threw bricks through the windows. For several minutes the building shook from the hits; the neighbors thought there was an earthquake. Following the attack, eight sharp brick fragments, ranging from one-half to one-fifth of a brick, were found amid the broken glass in M. Rudenko's apartment. A member of the group, Oksana Meshko, was injured by one of the fragments. The police, summoned to the scene, refused to file a report. A week later, however, police officials confiscated the brick fragments, gathered after the pogrom, explaining that they wanted to study the fingerprints. In fact, no further attention was paid to that case. Obviously all that mattered was that the material evidence be confiscated from the victims.

If one takes into account that M. Rudenko lives in the woods, where highly placed officials come to hunt boar and elk, it becomes clear that the destruction of his apartment was a rather transparent hint. Only the support of the world community can protect the group from merciless reprisals.

2. Typical Violation of Human Rights

From the first years of the Stalinist dictatorship, Ukraine became the scene of genocide and ethnocide. To show that we are not exaggerating, let us recall the academic definition of genocide. Here it is:

Genocide - one of the gravest crimes against humanity, consisting of the destruction of national, ethnic, racial or religious population groups...especially the deliberate creation of such living conditions that are calculated to lead to the total or partial physical destruction of any population group.

That is what is said about genocide in the Ukrainian Soviet Encyclopedia. The authors of the article, however, do not cite examples of genocide - examples for which they would not have to search very far.

In 1933, the Ukrainian nation, which for many centuries had not known famine, lost over 6 million people, dead from starvation. This famine, which affected the entire nation, was artificially created by the authorities: wheat was confiscated to the last grain. If we add to this the millions of kulaks who, their property confiscated, were deported with their families to Siberia, where they died, then we can count 10 million Ukrainians who were destroyed, quite deliberately, just in the short span of some three years (1930-1933). One quarter of the Ukrainian population! And yet to come was the year 1937, when Ukrainian prisoners would be shot by the hundreds of thousands. Later, there would be the war with Germany, which would destroy not less than 7 to 8 million more Ukrainian citizens. And after this, another war would begin: the destruction of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, which took up arms against Hitler and did not put them down when Stalin demanded it. The peaceful population was being destroyed along with the insurgents. Hundreds of thousands of minors, women and the elderly ended up in concentration camps only because some insurgent drank a cup of milk or ate a crust of bread in their home. Some "insurgents" turned out to be Chekists [Soviet security police] in disguise. The prison term was uniform: 25 years. Later, more were added. Few of these martyrs returned to their homeland.

If one were to glance at the last half-century of our history, it would become absolutely clear why our native language is not heard today on the streets of Ukrainian cities. Here is what Ukrainian political prisoner M. Masiutko wrote from a concentration camp in 1967, that is, at a time when it seemed to us that the barbed wire had been destroyed forever:

"If a traveler, despite all the categorical prohibitions, were to succeed in spending some time in a camp for political prisoners in Mordovia, of which there are as many as six here, he would be greatly astonished. Here, thousands of kilometers from Ukraine, he would hear at every step the unmistakable Ukrainian language in all the dialects of contemporary Ukraine. An involuntary thought would arise in the traveler's mind: 'What is happening in Ukraine? Disturbances? A revolt? How do you explain such a large percentage of Ukrainians among political prisoners, a percentage that reaches 60 and even 70 percent?' If this traveler were also to spend some time in Ukraine soon after this, he would immediately see for himself that there is no revolt nor disturbances in Ukraine. But then a new question would come to mind: 'Why is the Ukrainian language heard so rarely in the cities of Ukraine, but why is it heard so often in the camps for political prisoners?'"

Where, in what should one search for the roots of these horrors that so much like an avalanche have befallen the Ukrainian people? In our opinion, the answer can be found in that in the course of three decades of Stalinist dictatorship, human rights, which were proclaimed in the Declaration of the Rights of Working and Exploited Masses and in the Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia, were reduced to naught. As a result of the bureaucratic destruction of the principles of the Declaration of the Formation of the USSR, the national rights of Ukraine as a member of the [Soviet] Union ceased to be a social reality.

In the 1960s Ukraine suffered another calamity: the most talented members of the young Ukrainian intelligentsia were thrown into prisons and concentration camps. These, now, were people who had grown up under Soviet rule. They had been taught to believe Lenin's every word. And they believed. Precisely for this belief of theirs they ended up in concentration camps and special psychiatric hospitals.

Here, the nationality issue is paramount. For decades, the Ukrainian had it pounded into his head that for him there are no nationality issues, that only the sworn enemies of Soviet rule were capable of contemplating the separation of Ukraine from Russia. Even the very thought on this subject - yes, even when it flashed inadvertently - seemed to be so horrible that it had to be immediately driven from the head. And God forbid that someone should share it with a friend, or even one's brother! A worse crime has never existed during the entire thousand-year history of Ukraine.

Then behold, a young person begins to study Soviet law and unexpectedly discovers that such yearnings cannot be a crime at all: they are made legal by the Soviet Constitution. Nor is it said anywhere in the Criminal Code of the Ukrainian SSR that agitation for the separation [of Ukraine] from Russia is punishable by law. The code (Article 62) speaks of something else: "Agitation or propaganda conducted with the intent of undermining or weakening Soviet rule." Such agitation is punishable by deprivation of freedom for a term of from six months to seven years.

Yet, the secession of a republic from the Soviet Union does not necessarily involve the weakening of Soviet rule. On the contrary, this rule could find greater support among the populace - the republic remains soviet [soviet in the sense that it is based on rule by the soviets, that is, councils of peasants, soldiers and workers] but is completely independent. So, in this case, there is absolutely no agitation against Soviet rule. Or else it should then be noted that such "agitation" is also present in the Treaty of December 27, 1922, on the basis of which the USSR was formed:

"The union must be set upon a foundation of the principles of voluntariness and equality of the republics, with the right of each republic to freely leave the union."

We could cite dozens of quotes from Lenin, which show that it is precisely in this voluntariness that the spiritual and political essence of the Soviet Union should be seen.

As a rule, it has not been possible to prove that a young person who dreams of the secession of Ukraine from the USSR simultaneously yearns to weaken Soviet rule. After all - to give an example - the restructuring of the economy on the basis of "capitalism which exists alongside communism" (NEP) was just another form of Soviet rule - a truly Leninist form, on top of it all!

And still, in spite of this, Levko Lukianenko, who had been gripped by the ideas of national independence, was sentenced to be shot, his sentence later commuted to 15 years' deprivation of freedom. Levko Lukianenko certainly did not intend to eliminate Soviet rule in Ukraine; he simply wanted the Ukrainian people to realize their constitutional rights. With this as their goal, the young lawyers L. Lukianenko and I. Kandyba, who sincerely believed in the Soviet law they had learned so conscientiously, prepared a relatively moderate draft of a "Program" of the Ukrainian Workers' and Peasants' Union. And nothing more. The union itself, naturally, was never formed.

But several persons sitting around a table and seriously discussing something - that, according to the standards of the KGB, is an "organization." In this case, Article 64 of the Criminal Code of the Ukrainian SSR permits the application of all articles contained in the section titled "Especially Dangerous Crimes Against the State" - Articles 56-63. Also included here is treason (Article 56), which is punishable by death. That was the justification for the death sentence for one of the authors of the "Program."

Actually, there was no legal basis for sentencing L. Lukianenko and I. Kandyba. There was none because they never agitated against Soviet rule, and only such agitation is considered a crime. And it is totally incomprehensible how punishment that the code prescribes for treason could have applied to them.

Here, perhaps, it is necessary to mention Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, according to which even anti-Soviet agitation (if non-violent) is not a crime but merely an expression of personal convictions. Can a state be considered civilized if, having ratified international agreements that guarantee the highest human rights, it then passes laws for domestic use that nullify these rights?

But then, anti-Soviet propaganda is not at all what the issue in Ukraine is about; none of the members of the young intelligentsia who were arrested in the 1960s and 1970s called for destruction of Soviet rule. Most of these young people did not even dream of the constitutionally unassailable separation of Ukraine from Russia. The only issue involved was that Russification, thinly disguised as "internationalism," has spread much too far. The inspiration for this movement was I. Dzyuba, who later, having spent almost a year in KGB prisons, repudiated his own convictions. But they were not repudiated by V. Moroz, V. Chornovil, V. Stus, O. Serhiyenko, I. Svitlychny, Y. Sverstiuk and many others. Prisons, isolation cells, concentration camps, special psychiatric hospitals, strict KGB surveillance and an existence halfway to starvation - these are the cruel wages for an ardent belief in the sanctity of the spirit and the letter of the Soviet Constitution.

It is Power that sits in judgement and not Law. And Power always interprets the laws in a manner that is advantageous to it. That which is Soviet, i.e., that which has been defined by the Treaty on the Formation of the USSR and the Soviet Constitution, is labelled as anti-Soviet.

What gives even the illusory right, a right nowhere recorded, to conduct such trials? We often hear that the Constitution of the USSR should not be interpreted literally, because it contains Article 126, which establishes that the leadership nucleus of our society is to be the Communist Party. The party issues its decisions and resolutions, and it is they, and not some other documents, that explain how this or that problem should be interpreted today. If, for instance, a party resolution on combating nationalism has been issued, then it - nationalism - should be considered an anti-Soviet activity. Efforts to instill in one's compatriots a love for the Ukrainian language and national culture are beginning to be considered anti-Soviet and bring sentences of 10 to 12 years of imprisonment.

These legal contradictions are convincingly exposed by Ukrainian political prisoner Hryhoriy Prykhodko in his letter of November 17, 1975, to the Fourth Session of the Ninth Congress of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR:

"Externally, the Soviet Union is the most enthusiastic supporter of the Declaration of Human Rights, while inside the USSR citizens are still so disenfranchised that they dare not even demand those rights; furthermore, the Declaration has never been printed in Ukrainian.

"Externally, the Soviet Union speaks out against colonialism and for the right of nations to self-determination, while inside the USSR it smothers any effort of non-Russian nations toward separation from Russia and toward the creation of independent states...

"In fact, the actions of the government of the USSR contradict the very laws of the USSR."

They contradict because these laws must always be interpreted not as they are written but as the party leadership demands. In fact, a law in the USSR is a trap for the naive - it provokes but does not protect from arbitrariness.

Even if it is accepted, however, that the party must be the leadership nucleus of society, it does not automatically follow from this that any other form of thinking other than the party's is anti-constitutional. The Constitution gives Soviet citizens freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and demonstration. The leadership nucleus does not have the right to interpret these democratic articles of the Constitution for its own benefit; its sole task is to make these democratic freedoms real and not just formally declarative. If it acts otherwise, then the activities of the nucleus itself are unconstitutional and not those of the citizens who struggle to gain those democratic freedoms. The Constitution is above the will of the government; it is above because, theoretically and historically, the Subject of the Law is not the Party nor the State, but the Individual.

The bureaucracy seeks to liquidate this thousand-year-old legal norm and as a result, in practice, the situation arises about which the Ukrainian Soviet Encyclopedia writes, "He (the slave) was the victim and not the subject of the law."

3. The Savageness of the Sentences

In 1972, massive arrests began in Ukraine. Arrested were scores of young people who sympathized with I. Dzyuba, whose book "Internationalism or Russification?" became popular in the samvydav.

Vasyl Lisovy, a Ph.D. [candidate] in philosophy, never voiced his sympathies for the "Sixtiers" [Shestydesiatnyky], as the young people began to be called; he was absorbed in his scholarly work. But when Lisovy heard of the arrests of I. Dzyuba, I. Svitlychny, Y. Sverstiuk, V. Stus, O. Serhiyenko and others, his conscience bade him: You must not be silent! Lisovy clearly saw that neither universal laws nor Soviet law provided any basis for these arrests. They were, in essence, anti-legal and anti-constitutional, and, as such, anti-Soviet. Filled with belief in the sanctity of the Soviet Constitution, Vasyl Lisovy, a Communist, wrote the party and government leadership a letter in which he argued the illegality of the arrests. Toward the end of his letter he wrote something like the following: "If these people are criminals, then I also am a criminal, because I share their views." Socratic consistency then led him to the conclusions: "It follows from this that I, too, should be arrested and tried along with them." Naturally, in writing these lines, Lisovy did not actually believe he would be arrested for them.

But the soulless machine of the KGB immediately took care of that. V. Lisovy's "request" was granted with fantastic generosity: he was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment and three years' exile.

For what? After all, no one other than government officials and judges had read his letter. The question arises: can it be that these people are so uncertain of their Soviet convictions that they decide to protect themselves immediately from Lisovy's "agitation"?

And here is another example. Sviatoslav Karavansky and Hryhoriy Prokopovych never concealed this nationalism; it forms the essence of their beliefs. It is known that V. I. Lenin insisted on differentiating between the nationalism of an enslaved nation and the nationalism of a nation that enslaves. Lenin not only did not condemn the nationalism of an enslaved nation, but justified it morally and politically, especially if it was not of an offensive nature but characterized by the defense of rights. Yet S. Karavansky and H. Prokopovych and hundreds of other Ukrainian nationalists who peacefully demanded the independence of Ukraine were sentenced after the war to 25 years' imprisonment because of their convictions. Later, under Khrushchev, some were released for a few years. But immediately after the end of the Khrushchev thaw, they were again rounded up into concentration camps for the same thing - for their convictions.

* * *

The scheme by which the KGB operates in order to transform the legally oriented nationalism of enslaved nations - a phenomenon which, according to Lenin, is completely natural and politically justified - into a "serious crime against the state," is well illustrated by the case of Valeriy Marchenko. A philologist and linguist, he was simultaneously indicted for Ukrainian and Azerbaijani nationalism. This by itself is enough to understand that no nationalism was involved here at all.

At the trial, the Azerbaijani nationalism was dropped (Article 63, Criminal Code, Azerbaijan SSR); only the charge of Ukrainian nationalism was retained.

The court (we quote the decision of the court) "determined that from the end of 1965 to 1973, while residing in Kiev, Marchenko, V.V., under the influence of nationalist convictions that resulted from his becoming acquainted with illegal, anti-Soviet literature, listening to hostile broadcasts of Western radio stations and misinterpreting isolated issues of the nationalities policy of the Soviet state, with the intention of undermining and weakening Soviet rule..."

We quote no further, for it is already abundantly clear: simple, normal acts that are the natural expression of public life, in no way fall under any of the articles of the Criminal Code of the Ukrainian SSR, not to mention international conventions. But to force the Criminal Code to work for the KGB, the following formula is arbitrarily invoked: "with the intention of undermining and weakening Soviet rule..." By applying this formula where it just will not fit, it is possible to impute "a serious state crime" to a talented linguist because of his love for the Ukrainian and Azerbaijani languages.

On the basis of these openly demagogic charges, V. Marchenko was sentenced to six years' imprisonment in a strict-regimen corrective labor colony and two years in exile.

* * *

We could cite dozens of examples where Ukrainian nationalism, real or imagined, leads to inhuman sentences. This clearly shows that it is not Soviet authority that conducts the trials (Soviet laws do not permit trials for nationalism protective of rights), but fanatical great-power chauvinists. Power, not Law, sits in judgement.

4. After the Helsinki Conference

When the European Conference was being prepared, rumors circulated within the Ukrainian community: there would soon be an amnesty. Children, now of school age, would embrace their emaciated fathers, whom they had never seen as free men.

But these hopes turned out hollow. The Helsinki Accords, just as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ended up between the propaganda millstones, from where always the same old grist has emerged: bombastic words that have nothing in common with reality.

We will say nothing about free contacts among people of various countries and continents. That is a luxury about which a Ukrainian does not even have the right to dream. The main issue is that government organs, which consider themselves Soviet, should adhere to their own laws.

Our group could cite many examples of prison authorities forcing Ukrainian political prisoners and their families to speak only in Russian during visitation. No doubt this is explained by practical considerations: they want to monitor the conversation. But when you analyze it deeper, this administrative measure takes on symbolic meaning: for the sake of the jailers' convenience, you are forced to renounce your greatest spiritual treasure - your native language.

Or, for example, Article 6 of the Corrective Labor Code of the Ukrainian SSR states:

"Persons sentenced to deprivation of freedom for the first time, who prior to their arrest lived or were sentenced within the Ukrainian SSR, are to serve their sentence, as a rule, within the Ukrainian SSR."

A perfectly natural question arises: How did those tens of thousands of Ukrainians end up in Mordovian camps, where, according to the testimony of M. Masiutko, they comprise close to 70 percent of all prisoners? Or, perhaps, has the situation fundamentally changed since the Helsinki Conference? And yet, the group has abundant evidence that no changes for the better have occurred in this matter.

Article 6 of the Corrective Labor Code of the Ukrainian SSR recognizes exceptional cases, when, "for the sake of a more efficient rehabilitation," it is permissible to send Ukrainian prisoners to other republics. It is unclear what educational principles are involved here. One thing is known: in the past half century, more Ukrainians have died in Mordovia than Mordovians were born.

Our group does not have at its disposal complete data about Ukrainian political prisoners. We only have separate bits of information that we were able to gather. We list some of them.

[A list of 75 political prisoners organized according to their places of confinement follows.]

* * *

The group's goal is to continue to collect information about Ukrainian political prisoners. The information at hand, however, is quite sufficient to conclude that the "exceptional occurrence" mentioned in Article 6 of the Corrective Labor Code of the Ukrainian SSR has become the norm: none of the above-mentioned political prisoners is serving his punishment - handed down by a court - in his homeland. For writing poems that were never made public, the talented poets Ihor Kalynets and his wife Iryna Kalynets have been taken from Ukraine for nine years to be subjected in the snows of Mordovia to KGB re-education "in the spirit of an honest attitude toward work" (Article 1, Corrective Labor Code of the Ukrainian SSR). Where else but in the USSR and China are poets thus "re-educated"?

On the other hand, Ukraine is well supplied with psychiatric hospitals.

By a decision of the Kiev Regional Court, Vasyl Ruban, in September 1972, was placed in the Dnipropetrovske special psychiatric hospital for a manuscript which had been confiscated from him, one with the expressive title "Ukraine - Communist and Independent." This topic has already been discussed in previous sections. For Ukrainian political prisoners, this manner of thinking is typical.

Anatoliy Lupynis was placed there without a court decision; in 1971 he was taken for a "little therapy." They took him and "forgot" to discharge him. From 1957 to 1967 Lupynis was deprived of his freedom; he took part in a strike in Mordovian Camp 385/7. For this he was placed in Vladimir Prison. He maintained an eight-month-long hunger strike that left him an invalid. He was bound to a bed in a camp hospital for approximately two years until finally released in 1967. His family and friends assume that Lupynis is in a psychiatric hospital for reading poetry at the Taras Shevchenko monument on May 22, 1971.

On November 2, 1976, Yosyp Terelia was thrown into the psychiatric hospital in Vinnytsia. Terelia has spent 14 of the 33 years of his life in camps, prisons and special psychiatric hospitals for his religious and nationalistic convictions. In April 1976, he was released. He was pronounced perfectly healthy and even subject to military service, although, in fact, he became an invalid: his spine was injured while he was tortured in prison. He worked as a cabinetmaker in a district hospital. It was there that the ambulance picked him up to take him to an insane asylum.

Y. Terelia is a promising poet. He was never given the opportunity to study, but nobody is capable of suppressing the emotions he expresses in his poems. It was precisely for his uncompromising nationalistic and religious stand, expressed in large part in his poetry, that Terelia has left almost half his life in the camps, Vladimir Prison and special psychiatric hospitals.

* * *

Among the gross violations of Human Rights, which have not abated since the Helsinki Conference, one must include the "camp trials," a method borrowed directly from Beria's version of jurisprudence. The "trial" is held without witnesses without counsel and often without a representative of the local authority that is obliged to monitor. A typical "troika " from the Stalinist times! With the aid of such a "troika," the camp administration throws the active people who demand political prisoner status into the Vladimir Center to undergo torment, while maintaining the entire zone in fear and submission. That is how they pacified Zone 36, by transferring Krasniak, Vudka, Serhiyenko and others to the prison. Of the 14 Ukrainian political prisoners in Vladimir, 12 were sent there by "camp courts," in most cases for three years.

Finally, a summation is in order. It is far from encouraging. More than a year has passed since the Helsinki Conference, yet it has not brought the Ukrainian people any improvement. Now prisons are being built and the ranks of the KGB continue to grow. Today, every establishment has its own KGB curator. Monitoring of telephone conversations, the censoring of private correspondence, microphones in ceilings, attacks by "hooligans" on Human Rights advocates, planned in advance - all of these have become daily phenomena. And there is no one to complain to.

True, there are fewer politically motivated arrests today than in 1972; on the other hand, all those considered "unreliable" lose their professional positions. The ranks of guards, engine stokers and common laborers are filled by writers, lawyers and philologists. Psychiatric hospitals are still used as institutions for "re-educating" those who think differently. Criminal cases without political motives - bribery charges, for example - are artificially fabricated. A lack of desire to cooperate with the KGB, that is, to be an informer, brings sadistic, vicious reprisal; informers, on the other hand, get immediate promotions in their jobs.

In fact, all life in the country today is controlled by the KGB, from the employee's bed, above which microphones protrude (often unconcealed!), to the writer's study.

* * *

In the meantime, former political prisoners are returning; they return unbroken, hardened and filled with a determination to continue the struggle for human rights. It is enough to examine the make-up of our group to be convinced of this. This is a new and strange social phenomenon, for which the authorities are not prepared. It appears that prisons, camps and psychiatric hospitals are incapable of serving as dams against a movement in defense of rights. On the contrary, they temper cadres of unyielding fighters for freedom. And the KGB is no longer capable of acting in such a manner that the political prisoners will not return.

And if the world community does not lessen its moral support, if the press and radio of Western countries focus more attention on the struggle for Human Rights in the USSR, then the coming decade will become a period of great democratic changes in our country.

Since the collapse of feudalism, the individual has become an active subject in the formulation of government policy, in other words, a Subject of the Law. This means that if there is but a single person that does not think as does society as a whole, the law must protect the person's convictions. Otherwise the Aristotles, Copernicuses, Einsteins and Marxes would never see the light of day, for they would always be thrown into psychiatric hospitals and concentration camps.

There is but one Civilization - this is clearly seen from the Cosmos. To a ray that comes from the Sun, there are no boundaries on Earth. Man is formed from the rays of the Sun; he is a child of the Sun. Who has the right to restrain his thought, which reaches for Infinity? For the sake of life on Earth, for the sake of our grandchildren and their children, we say: Enough! And our call is echoed in the Declaration of Human Rights and the Helsinki Accords, which were ratified also by the Soviet government.

November-December 1976

Oles Berdnyk
Petro Grigorenko
Ivan Kandyba
Levko Lukianenko
Oksana Meshko
Mykola Matusevych
Myroslav Marynovych
Mykola Rudenko (Group leader)
Nina Strokata
Oleksiy Tykhy

Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, November 9, 1986, No. 45, Vol. LIV

| Home Page |