At the liar's contest
Archival documents say
"To the Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee
Comrade Khrushchev N.S.
…
Prosecutor General R. Rudenko
Minister of Internal Affairs S. Kruglov
Minister of Justice K. Gorshenin"
Number of prisoners
Prisoner mortality
Special camps
Notes:
6. Ibid. P. 26.
9. Ibid. P. 169
24. Ibid. L.53.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid. D. 1155. L.2.
Repression
Categories: Blogs, Editor's Choice, Favorites, History, StatisticsTags: ,
Interesting article? Tell your friends:
In the USSR, the term “rehabilitation” became especially widespread under N. S. Khrushchev in connection with the rehabilitation of hundreds of thousands of people repressed under I. V. Stalin, most of them posthumously. Listed below are only a small part of the rehabilitated people - known both in Russia and abroad.
The process of rehabilitation of repressed persons in the USSR began in 1953 - 1954. , illegal acts against peoples subjected to resettlement and deportation were canceled, decisions of extrajudicial bodies of the OGPU-NKVD-MGB made in political cases were recognized as illegal. However, already in the early 60s. the number of those rehabilitated is gradually decreasing, the reason for which is the relapse of the totalitarian policies of the state, including attempts to return to Stalinist ideological principles. Then the rehabilitation process, however, was continued in the late 80s. By the resolution of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee of July 11, 1988, “On additional measures to complete the work related to the rehabilitation of those unreasonably repressed in the 30s, 40s and early 50s,” an instruction was given to the USSR Prosecutor’s Office and the USSR KGB in connection with local authorities authorities will continue to work on reviewing cases against persons repressed in the 30-40s. , without the need for applications for rehabilitation and complaints from repressed citizens. On January 16, 1989, the Decree of the Presidium was issued Supreme Council USSR, overturning out-of-court decisions made in the period of the 30s - early 50s. extrajudicial “troikas” of the NKVD-UNKVD, collegiums of the OGPU and “special meetings” of the NKVD-MGB-MVD of the USSR. All citizens who were subjected to repression by these bodies were rehabilitated, excluding traitors to the Motherland, punishers, Nazi criminals, workers involved in falsifying criminal cases, as well as persons who committed murders.
According to information provided by the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, over the entire period of rehabilitation as of January 1, 2002, over 4 million citizens were rehabilitated, including 2,438,000 people who were convicted judicially and extrajudicially to criminal penalties.
The legality of commissions for the rehabilitation of political prisoners, however, seems highly questionable. Thus, the first commission created by Khrushchev, along with his personal appointee Shvernik, included persons convicted of anti-Soviet activities: O. Shatunovskaya, who provided deliberately false figures for the number of prisoners and executed. Subsequently, the Commission was headed by the ardent anti-Salinist A. N. Yakovlev, who also presented false data on both the number of those imprisoned and the number of those rehabilitated. Extremely often for propaganda purposes, like Western ones. Likewise, in Russian anti-Stalin literature, the number of prisoners in general is identified with the number of “political” prisoners. Even if the number of political prisoners includes only those convicted under Article 58 (their number never exceeded 25% of the total number of prisoners), it is not taken into account that the overwhelming part of this article was included in all later versions of the Criminal Code of the USSR and the modern Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, because it is de- in fact, included entire sections of the modern Criminal Code.
Decisions on rehabilitation were made by extrajudicial bodies on the basis of voluntary ideas about the legality of the leaders and members of the Commission, who do not have not only judicial powers, but even legal education. Yes, comrade. Shvernik had no higher education, and A.N Yakovlev had a historical education.
More on topic 30. Rehabilitation of victims of political repression:
- Social and psychological rehabilitation of disabled people. Rehabilitation of children and adolescents with developmental disabilities. activities of MSEC services and rehabilitation of disabled people.
The process of rehabilitation of those convicted in the period from the 20s to the early 50s began immediately after Stalin's death. According to the 1953 decree “On Amnesty” of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, up to one and a half million people were released.
Mass legal rehabilitation began in 1961. Then, due to the lack of evidence of a crime, 737,182 people were rehabilitated; from 1962 to 1983, 157,055 people were rehabilitated. The rehabilitation process was resumed in the late 80s. Then almost all the repressed leaders of the CPSU (b) were rehabilitated, and many of those who were declared “class enemies”. In 1988-89, cases involving 856,582 people were reviewed, and 844,740 people were rehabilitated. And finally, in 1991, the Victims Rehabilitation Act was signed into law. political repression" From the start of this law until 2015, more than 3.7 million people were rehabilitated. And yet, even with such a large-scale effort, which involved reviewing millions of cases, not all of those repressed were found innocent. Who never received rehabilitation? The 1991 law prohibits the rehabilitation of those who themselves participated in the repression.
Genrikh Grigorievich Yagoda
From 1934 to 1936 he served as People's Commissar of Internal Affairs of the USSR. It was under the leadership of Yagoda that the Gulag was created. He also began the construction of the White Sea-Baltic Canal with the help of prisoners. He officially bore the title of “the first initiator, organizer and ideological leader of the socialist industry of the taiga and the North.” The machine he created eventually crushed him too: in 1937 he was arrested, and a year later he was shot. Yagoda was accused of committing “anti-state and criminal crimes”, of “connections with Trotsky, Bukharin and Rykov, organizing a Trotskyist-fascist conspiracy in the NKVD, preparing an assassination attempt on Stalin and Yezhov, preparing a coup and intervention.”
Nikolai Ivanovich Ezhov
This man, as you know, headed the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs from 1936 to 1938. It is he who holds the dubious honor of organizing the repressions of 1937-38, known as the “Great Terror.” These repressions were popularly called “Yezhovshchina.” In 1939 he was arrested, and in 1940 he was executed on charges of preparing an anti-Soviet coup d'etat and espionage in favor of five foreign intelligence services.
Lavrenty Pavlovich Beria
Since 1941 Lavrentiy Beria - general secretary state security. Beria – “ right hand Stalin,” a man from the inner circle of the “Father of Nations,” became almost a symbol for many generations of Soviet people Stalin's repressions, despite the fact that during the period of the “Great Terror” it was not Beria who held the post of People’s Commissar of Internal Affairs. Lavrentiy Pavlovich was not spared the fate of his predecessors; he also became a victim of the flywheel of arrests and executions launched in the early 30s on strange charges. Beria was arrested in 1953, found guilty of espionage and conspiracy to seize power, and executed.
Dekanozov, Meshik, Vlodzimirsky, Merkulov
These are people from Beria’s inner circle, security officers, active participants in Stalin’s repressions. And Vladimir Georgievich Dekanozov, and Pavel Yakovlevich Meshik, and Lev Emelyanovich Vladzimirsky, and Vsevolod Nikolaevich Merkulov were arrested in the Beria case, found guilty of espionage with the aim of seizing power, and executed in 1953.
Legal incident
Experts say: with regard to these and other similar persons, there is a certain legal incident. It is obvious that neither Yagoda, nor Yezhov, nor Beria, nor his henchmen committed the crimes that were accused of them. They were not spies of countless foreign intelligence services and none of them attempted to seize power in the country. However, the rehabilitation commission refused to find these people innocent. The basis for the refusal was the indication that they themselves were the organizers mass repression, and therefore cannot be considered their victims. From a legal point of view, there may be some inaccuracy in the wording; in any case, there are lawyers who insist on this. However, to be fair, everything is true.
Over the years Soviet power millions of people became victims of the tyranny of a totalitarian state, were subjected to repression for political and religious beliefs, according to social, national and other characteristics. IN Russian Federation The law was adopted on October 18, 1991. “On the rehabilitation of victims of political repression.”
What is rehabilitation? For the answer to this question, we turned to the Small Academic Dictionary. “Rehabilitation is the restoration of the honor and reputation of an incorrectly accused or defamed person.”
How did the process of rehabilitation of the dispossessed go? The rehabilitation process in the 1930s. was complicated by the need to collect a whole package of documents, as well as by the fact that the peasants’ applications were considered by various authorities. From 70 to 90% of decisions made on complaints were negative. In fact, the “stigma of a kulak” remained, despite the restoration of voting rights, the partial return of property, the process of restoring the rights of the dispossessed, which stopped after 1937 and was resumed in 1985. - Perestroika and the policy of glasnost began. Attempts to move away from “stagnation” in society could not but lead to a rethinking of the historical past. As it turned out after a detailed study, they first started talking about the closed pages of history only in 1985. Since 1987 the rehabilitation process began, which affected politicians, in 1990 repressions against peasants during the period of collectivization were declared illegal.
According to the law “On the rehabilitation of victims of political repression” (Article 3), the following are subject to rehabilitation:
· convicted of state and other crimes;
· repressed by decision of the Cheka, GPU, OGPU, UNKVD, NKVD, MGB, Ministry of Internal Affairs, prosecutor's office, commissions, “special meetings”, “twos”, “troikas” and other bodies;
· unjustifiably placed in psychiatric institutions for compulsory treatment;
· unjustifiably brought to criminal liability with the case terminated for non-rehabilitating reasons;
· recognized as socially dangerous political reasons and subjected to imprisonment, exile, deportation without being charged with committing a specific crime.
Rehabilitated, previously dispossessed persons are also given back the real estate necessary for living (or its value), if it was not nationalized or (municipalized) destroyed during the Great Patriotic War and in the absence of other obstacles provided for in Article 16.1 of the Law “On the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression”.
In the generally accepted sense of the word, rehabilitation means any restoration of a citizen to his rights. In accordance with established legal concepts, the rehabilitation of a person who was brought in as an accused is considered to be an acquittal during a review of the case, a decision to terminate a criminal case due to the absence of a crime, for the absence of corpus delicti or lack of proof of participation in the commission of a crime, as well as a decision to terminate cases of administrative offense.
The Law of the Russian Federation “On the rehabilitation of victims of political repression of October 18, 1991, supplemented by a number of laws and by-laws, may have served as the basis for the rehabilitation of dispossessed and deported peasants. The implementation of rehabilitation revealed practical problems associated with confirming the facts of dispossession.
Undoubtedly, the rehabilitation of the dispossessed played a significant role in terms of restoring historical justice in relation to the great social group. There is no doubt that the consequences of dispossession and the losses suffered by the peasantry will affect the life of society and the state for a long time.
In 1993, my grandmother Lidiya Nikolaevna sent a request for the rehabilitation of her relatives to the Information Center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Tambov Region. In 1994, she received a letter informing her that case No. 7219 about the stay under the supervision of Ivan Ignatievich Nikitin and his family was in the archives of the Department of Internal Affairs of the Chelyabinsk Region. Lidiya Nikolaevna sent the following request to the Information Center of the Internal Affairs Directorate of the Chelyabinsk Region. In April 1994, she received a certificate of rehabilitation of Nikitin Ivan Ignatievich, who was repressed in 1931. The certificate was issued by the Internal Affairs Directorate of the Tambov Region. In June of the same year, a response came from the information center of the Internal Affairs Directorate of the Chelyabinsk Region, in addition to a certificate of being under supervision with restrictions on the rights and freedoms of Ivan Ignatievich Nikitin, a certificate of rehabilitation of Anna Ivanovna Polyanskaya (Nikitina), a questionnaire for the evicted kulak household, and a questionnaire were sent. Based on these documents, Anna Ivanovna received a certificate stating that she is a victim of political repression and has the right to benefits established by Article 16 of the Federal Law “On the rehabilitation of victims of political repression.” In 1996, Lidiya Nikolaevna Parshukova (Polyanskaya) received the same certificate and certificate. Volodar Nikolaevich Polyansky was recognized as a victim of political repression. At the ATC information center Sverdlovsk region Archival materials are stored on the case of repressions against Arseny Andreevich Polyansky and his family.
Polyanskaya (Nikitina) Anna Ivanovna died in 2005 at the age of 93.
Three incomplete years without Stalin preceded Khrushchev’s report “On the cult of personality and its consequences” at a closed meeting of the 20th Party Congress. But these years were extremely eventful, containing a fierce struggle for power between the leader’s heirs, and carried out in the traditions of the mid-1930s. the reprisal against Beria, Abakumov, and other executioners, and the bashful silence of the names of the organizers, the reasons, the scale of previous repressions, and the difficult reassessment of values that began, and the activities of the first rehabilitation commissions of the CPSU Central Committee under the leadership of Voroshilov, Mikoyan, Pospelov.
Paradoxically, the first acts of rehabilitation were initiated by a man whose name was strongly associated by public opinion with the punitive authorities and the arbitrariness that was happening in the country. In the spring of 1953, Beria showed increased activity, literally bombarding the Presidium of the Central Committee with his notes and proposals. They, however, affected only some of his closest employees, relatives of senior party dignitaries, as well as those sentenced to up to 5 years, i.e. on mild charges. It was proposed to reconsider the cases of the second half of the 1940s and early 1950s. (the so-called cases of Kremlin doctors, the Mingrelian nationalist group, the heads of the artillery department and the aviation industry, the murder of the head of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee Mikhoels and others). But there was no talk of mass repressions of the 30s. or the deportations of peoples during the Great Patriotic War, to which Stalin’s henchman had a direct connection. And it's clear why: main goal Beria's initiatives were a desire to strengthen his own position in power structures, to raise his personal authority by any means, excluding himself from number of persons responsible for the crimes of the Stalinist regime.
Beria's removal, it seemed, was supposed to facilitate the process of political rehabilitation. But that did not happen.
Malenkov, who still remained the formal leader of the country, at the July (1953) Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee introduced the words about the “cult of Stalin’s personality.” But for Malenkov, this cult meant, first of all, the defenselessness of the party and state nomenklatura from the arbitrariness of the leader. Being involved in organizing mass repressions, he, of course, could not take a large-scale approach to this problem.
Months were spent on yet another redistribution of power within the Presidium of the Central Committee, reprisals against supporters and relatives of Beria and other heads of punitive services, and reshuffle of personnel in security agencies, Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor's Office, review of the results of the amnesty announced on Beria's initiative. The military was thanked for their active role in the arrest of Beria: the rehabilitation of 54 convicted generals and admirals took place Soviet army, including those close to Zhukov - Telegin, Kryukov and Varennikov. But numerous letters received from prisoners, exiles and special settlers remained unanswered. The decisions taken during this period were distinguished only by a more definite indication of the supposedly main culprits of the repressions - former senior officials of the MGB and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, who were hastily tried.
Only at the beginning of 1954, when Khrushchev’s leading position in the party and state elite was clearly identified, rehabilitation received a new impetus, although, having set a course to expand the rehabilitation process, to establish the causes and consequences of repression, Khrushchev, like the overthrown Beria, was far from guided by selfless motives. This is evidenced, on the one hand, by the secrecy of statistical data on those arrested by the Cheka-OGPU-NKVD-MGB for 1921-1953. (they were counted, probably on behalf of the first secretary of the Central Committee, already in December 1953), and on the other hand, the rapid rehabilitation of the participants in the “Leningrad case.” Khrushchev became well versed in Stalin's methods of using compromising materials to weaken rivals in the struggle for power. Restoring justice in relation to the Leningraders compromised Malenkov, one of the culprits in the death of Voznesensky, Kuznetsov and their comrades. Conducted with wide publicity among the party apparatus, this rehabilitation strengthened Khrushchev’s authority, paving the way for him to gain sole power.
But no matter what the motives of the rulers, the aspirations and hopes of political prisoners and exiles began to gradually come true. Along with the establishment of a judicial procedure for reviewing cases (according to the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR dated September 1, 1953, the Supreme Court of the USSR received the right to review, upon the protest of the Prosecutor General of the USSR, the decisions of the OGPU board, the Special Meeting and twos and threes), in May 1954 the Central a commission to review the cases of those convicted of “counter-revolutionary crimes” held in camps, colonies, prisons and in exile in settlements; similar commissions were created locally. The Central Commission received the right to review the cases of persons convicted by the Special Meeting of the NKVD-MGB or the OGPU Collegium; local commissions were given the functions of reviewing the cases of those convicted with twos and threes. To study the situation of special settlers, a commission was formed under the chairmanship of Voroshilov, the result of which was the well-known resolution “On the lifting of some restrictions on the legal status of special settlers” dated July 5, 1954. Those previously sentenced to up to 5 years for “anti-Soviet activities” were released from exile. restrictions on special settlements were lifted for dispossessed people and citizens of German nationality who lived in areas from which evictions were not carried out.
The mechanism for making decisions about rehabilitation was not simple. Only in 1954 did the prosecutor's office gain the right to request archival and investigative files from the KGB, which made it possible to increase the number of considered personal files of victims of repression convicted in court. Prosecutors, investigators, and military lawyers were supposed to conduct a so-called review of the case, during which various information about the repressed person was collected, witnesses were called, and archival information was requested. A special role was played by certificates from the Central Party Archive, which noted the affiliation of the repressed person with one or another opposition or the absence of such data.
The employee who conducted the inspection drew up a conclusion. On the basis of this document, the Prosecutor General of the USSR, his deputies, the Chief Military Prosecutor submitted (or may not have done so) to the plenum, the Criminal Collegium or the Military Collegium Supreme Court USSR protest on the case. The court made a ruling. It was not necessarily rehabilitative. The court, for example, could reclassify the presented articles (political into criminal and vice versa), could leave the previous sentence in force, and finally could limit itself to only reducing the penalty.
Due to the complicated procedure for rehabilitation, by the beginning of 1956 the volume of unrevised cases remained enormous. In order to somehow speed up the process of release from the camps, the country's leadership decided to create special traveling commissions, which were allowed to make decisions on the release of prisoners on the spot, without waiting for a determination on rehabilitation.
One more important circumstance should be taken into account. In accordance with the established procedure in the country, all fundamental issues of the rehabilitation of especially famous people in the country were first submitted to the Presidium of the Central Committee. It was this all-powerful body that was the highest “prosecutorial” and “judicial” authority, determining the fates of not only the living, but also the dead. Without his consent, the prosecutor's office did not have the right to submit proposals for reviewing cases to the courts, and the courts did not have the right to make decisions on rehabilitation.
However, one should not think that the decisions of the Presidium of the Central Committee were always immediately implemented. For example, when special camps were transformed into ordinary forced labor camps, they retained the old internal rules that regulated the behavior of “especially dangerous state criminals.” Instead of their last name, they still called their number, which they wore on their clothes. Another example is the fate of those convicted in the case of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. After the decision of the Presidium of the Central Committee, their rehabilitation lasted for several years. Moreover, in the second half of the 1980s. I had to return to this problem again.
The Presidium of the Central Committee received generalized and varied information about the progress of rehabilitation. With each note, with each revised case, an increasingly sinister picture of crimes emerged, which was further difficult to hide from the people. The scale of the atrocities defied description. The more documents were revealed, the more pressing difficult and unpleasant questions arose, and first of all - about the causes and culprits of the tragedy, about the attitude towards Stalin and his policies, about making the bloody facts public.
The situation inside the Presidium of the Central Committee gradually became tense. Members of the party Areopagus did not argue during the rehabilitation of Chubar, Rudzutak, Kosior, Postyshev, Kaminsky, Gamarnik, Eikhe, and other famous Bolsheviks, Bulgarian or Polish communists. Voting on these resolutions, as the minutes show, was always unanimous. They did not argue even when the security ministers and the Prosecutor General of the USSR proposed issuing false certificates about the circumstances and date of death to the relatives of those executed and killed in the camps, in order to thereby obscure the true scale and course of the repressions. They also agreed that it was impossible to question the results of the internal party struggle and to rehabilitate the Trotskyists, opportunists, as well as the Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and representatives of other socialist parties; that it is necessary, if possible, to refrain from returning to former special settlers and exiles the property confiscated from them during the repressions; that Ukrainian and Baltic nationalists should continue to remain in places of exile under administrative control.
Disputes arose around another, close and sick person - personal responsibility for crimes. Of course, the question was not raised in such a direct formulation at meetings of the Presidium of the Central Committee and, for obvious reasons, could not be raised. However, the question of responsibility was invisibly present at meetings of the Presidium of the Central Committee, as soon as the discussion came up about the attitude towards Stalin’s legacy and the publication of information about repressions.
On November 5, 1955, a meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee was held, at which events in connection with the celebration of the next anniversary were considered October revolution. The question was raised about Stalin's upcoming birthday in December. In previous years, this day was always celebrated with a ceremonial meeting. And for the first time, a decision was made not to hold the celebrations. Khrushchev, Bulganin, Mikoyan spoke for this. Kaganovich and Voroshilov objected, emphasizing that such a decision “would not be well received by the people.”
A new heated debate unfolded on December 31, 1955, when discussing the circumstances of Kirov’s murder. It was suggested that security officers had a hand in the murder. It was decided to review the investigative files of former NKVD leaders Yagoda, Yezhov and Medved. At the same time, to clarify the fate of the members of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, elected at the 17th Party Congress, a commission was created headed by the Secretary of the Central Committee Pospelov. Its members included Secretary of the Central Committee Aristov, Chairman of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions Shvernik, Deputy Chairman of the Party Control Committee under the Central Committee Komarov. The commission received the right to request all materials necessary for work.
The issue of repression was also raised at meetings on February 1 and 9, 1956. During a heated discussion of materials about the so-called military conspiracy in the Red Army and the actual guilt of Tukhachevsky, Yakir and other military leaders, members of the Presidium considered it necessary to personally interrogate one of the investigators in this case - Rhodes. After his revelations, after the members of the Presidium and the secretaries of the Central Committee became acquainted with the horrific facts presented in the report of Pospelov’s commission about the barbaric methods of investigation and mass extermination in the 1930s. members of the party, Khrushchev ensured that the issue of Stalin’s personality cult and repressions was included on the agenda of the upcoming 20th Congress of the CPSU. The objections of Molotov, Voroshilov and Kaganovich could no longer be taken into account either politically or morally.
What motives determined the position of the majority of the Presidium of the Central Committee, which supported Khrushchev? Mikoyan later wrote that it would have been better to tell the party leaders themselves about the repressions and not wait for anyone else to take charge of it. Such information, Mikoyan believed, could show the congress delegates that his former comrades had recently learned the whole truth about Stalin’s crimes, as a result of a special study undertaken by Pospelov’s commission. Thus, members of the Presidium of the Central Committee tried to absolve themselves of blame for the bloody terror.
Confessions of this kind are also contained in the memoirs of Khrushchev, who not only expected to evade personal responsibility, but also understood that the publication of facts about Stalin’s crimes would primarily discredit the oldest and still authoritative members of the Presidium of the Central Committee, who had long worked side by side with Stalin. For some reason, Khrushchev was convinced that they would not talk about his involvement in the repressions.
When assessing the reasons that prompted us to choose a course towards criticizing Stalinism, in addition to subjective aspects, one more circumstance should be taken into account. By this time, the majority of the Presidium of the Central Committee had come to the understanding that using previous methods it was unlikely to be able to keep the country in obedience and maintain the regime in difficult material conditions. population situation, low level life, acute food and housing crises. The recent uprisings of prisoners in the Mountain camp in Norilsk, in the River camp in Vorkuta, in Steplag, Unzhlag, Vyatlag, Karlag and other “islands of the Gulag archipelago” forced us to remember this. In unfavorable conditions, uprisings could become the detonator of great social upheavals. Therefore, in reality, the members of the Presidium of the Central Committee had a limited choice of options.
The famous report on the cult of personality and its consequences, delivered on February 25, 1956 in deathly silence at a closed session of the 20th Congress, made a stunning impression on the delegates. This bold, revealing document for its time, despite the initial plans to keep it secret, was brought to the attention of the entire party, workers of the Soviet apparatus, and activists of Komsomol organizations. The heads of delegations of foreign communist and workers' parties present at the congress were familiarized with it. Then, in an adjusted and somewhat abbreviated form, the report was sent for review to the chairmen and first secretaries of all friendly communist parties in the world.
From that moment on, criticism of Stalinism and the crimes inextricably linked with it became public. Opened new stage in the rehabilitation of victims of repression.
A.N.Artizov
Documents and scientific reference materials for them are published in the publication: Rehabilitation: how it happened . Documents of the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee and other materials. In 3 volumes. T. 1. March 1953 – February 1956. Comp. ARTIZOV A.N., SIGACHEV Y.V., KHLOPOV V.G., SHEVCHUK I.N. M.: International Foundation "Democracy", 2000.