[1] In the Trubeskoi bastion, one building in the fortress.
[1a] Set Memoirs of a Revolutionist, Kropotkin.
Kropotkin says that political prisoners were not subjected to corporal punishment, through official fear of bloodshed. But he must mean by corporal punishment actual beatings, for he says also, “The black holes, the chains, the riveting to bar rows are usual punishments.” And some politicals were al- leged to have been put in oubliettes in the Alexis Ravelin[2] which must have been the worst feature of all the tortures. This meant immurement alive in cells, in a remote spot where no contact with others was possible, and where the prisoner would often be chained or riveted for years.
[2] Another section of Sts. Peter and Paul Fortress.
More recently there was some mitigation of the worst fea- tures of the prison régime and some additional privileges were extended to politicals.
All this applied to old Russia. There is no documentary proof available yet, as to how Soviet Russia treats its offenders against the present government. The Constitution of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic does not provide a status for political prisoners, but it does provide for their re lease. It specifically deals with amnesty which is proof of the importance with which it regards the question of political offenders. It says: “The All-Russian Central Executive Com mittee deal with questions of state such as . . . the right to declare individual and general amnesty.[4]
[3] Adopted by the 5th All-Russian Congress of Soviets, July 10, 1918. Reprinted from The Nation, January 4, 1919.
[4] Article 3, Chapter 9 . . . 49 q.
France has had perhaps the most enlightened attitude of all the nations toward political offenders. She absolutely guarantees special treatment, by special regulations, and does not leave it to the discretion of changing governments.
On August 7, 1834; Thiers, in a ministerial circular, laid down the fundamental principles upon which France has acted. The only obligation upon the defendant, according to this circular, was to prove the political nature of the offense,—“that it should be demonstrated and incontestable that they have acted under the influence of their opinions.”[1] Theirs advocated superior diet for political prisoners and no work.