What was called “crimes against state” during the communist dictatorship

Political arrests during communist dictatorship

Until the release of the first platform of internal affairs organs -- in 1944-1948 -- accused of crimes against the state have been arrested by army and state security bodies. The entire old political class defined as <x0mic people” or as “colaborationist” was sentenced in the early years. Then, from 1948, a sophisticated technique that established arrests began to operate.

Anti-state crimes were the sabotage of war and power, the betrayal of homeland, spying, organisation and participation in armed gangs, diversion, Sabotation, agitation and propaganda against popular power, war propaganda, participation in an organisation against popular power, etc. The way the arrests were carried out was put on the first platform of internal affairs bodies in 1948, under which political arrests organised security (aside from conditions of flagagranca) and ordinera police. In 1944-1966 the arrest was a very centralised procedure, defined by internal organs platforms adopted by the CPSH Political Bureau.

Arrests in 1948-1966

The branch or security section on the ground established arrest as the minister or assistant minister of internal affairs granted approval. After that, the letter was presented to the military prosecutor at the Supreme Military Court for sanctioning the arrest.

Changes were made in 1954. The competencies of the deputy minister (who approved the arrest) for Security increased, while the minister approved cases for arrests of members and PPSH candidates.

In 1958, with the approval of the other platform, competencies suffered a decentralisation. The operative worker proposed the arrest, the head of the district's internal affairs branch, while granting the approval to the deputy minister for Security, the director or deputy security directors. The minister's rights were only for arrests of the Central Committee's appointments. In all cases, the first local Labour Party secretary's opinion was taken. Following this procedure, arrest was sanctioned by the prosecutor and the investigation began. The whole investigative process developed. Finally, it compiled the indictment approved by the prosecutor. The prosecutor did not appear in court.

Arrests in 1966-1990

The platform of the 1966 internal affairs bodies and those of 1977 and 1985 no longer included details on the manner of arrest. It is regulated by other acts of Security and Investigatorry. Since 1966 the minister does not decide any kind of arrest. The relevant practices are initiated by the operating worker, approved by the head or deputy head of the internal work branch, the respective branch at the centre, and then passed through the investigation.

In the first local secretaries discussed the arrests and gave their opinion.

The Technique of Arresting Common Cases

Political arrests were done mainly by using the agent-operative security materials or by means of plagiarizations such as escapes, public agency, etc. Collars in flagwash came from denouncing citizens, police or border bodies. For other cases, so when the person had a processing file, it was passed from the secret agent-o-opportular process to that investigative public-trial (so these files were never classified). Co-operation was launched between the operational worker following the file and the investigators who would open the legal procedures for arrest. Operational elements related to reports of collaborators or recordings of operational technicians were not used in investigative and judicial processes. No such process has administered any evidence derived from the operational recording techniques (the material of which has been destroyed over time). So no investigative-trial files have inside it voice materials derived from the records. The principal practices between the operative security worker and those of the investigators were not administered in the form file, nor in that judicial-trial investigation, thus losing the most important documentary link of a letter practice.

The execution of the court's death sentences was carried out by police rather than by Security. In attendance were the prosecutor, the investigator, the doctor, and the policemen who performed the execution. Except two times ( Tuk Jakova and Mehmet Shehu, no formal files have burial schemes.

Linked to arrest practice under the model that existed in 1948-1954