Eastern European Baptist History: New Perspectives, 2007

raight trans- lation of “administrative direction”. Colloquially it means the “heavy hand of the law’, and even this is an understatement for what was about to happen. The very men whose campaign had been principally responsible for these concessions, Vins and Kriuchkov, were about to be brought to trial. Their presence, had it been permitted at the 1966 congress, would almost certainly have laid the foundation for reconciliation: as it happened, just seven and a half weeks later they appeared together in one of the most notorious trials to have taken place in post-Stalin Russia. It was not reported in the Soviet press of the time, nor were foreign journalists permitted to attend (few of them at the time had caught up with the sensational events which had been occurring within the Baptist community). However, despite the fact that access to the trial was strictly controlled by the KGB, some supporters of the accused were present and made notes secretly, quickly writing them up into a partial transcript of the proceedings.” 2 Sawatsky, Soviet Evangelicals, pp. 211-227. ?> Sawatsky, Soviet Evangelicals, p. 215. 4 Bourdeaux, Faith on Trial in Russia, pp. 111-130. The original transcript is in the archive at Keston Institute. 129 As expected, what occurred in the courtroom was a travesty. Worst of all was the way the prosecution virtually conducted the trial, making sure that the defence was unable to call its own witnesses. Hostile written testi- mony which had nothing whatsoever to do with the Reform Baptists was admitted as evidence and quoted. The transcript bears eloquent witness to the tactics of the court to render the defendants incapable of defending themselves through exhaustion. The trial lasted only two days, but during the first Vins did not come to speak from the dock until after nine hours of proceedings, and his interrogation continued until midnight. The second day was even longer, with the guilty verdicts being brought in at 1:00 a.m. Despite being at the end of their physical tether and being denied any recess to prepare their defence speeches, both Kriuchkov and Vins spoke up forthrightly. In his “final address” (the right of any accused under the Soviet practice current at the time) Georgii Vins used the dock as though it were a pulpit: I want to say that I consider myself fortunate to be able to stand here and testify that I’m in the dock as a believer. I’m happy that for my faith in God I could come to know impris- onment, that I’ve been able to prove and strengthen myself. I do not stand here as a thief, a brigand or as someone who has infringed the rights of another person. I stand before you with a calm and clear conscience; I have honourably obeyed all the civil laws and faithfully respected the laws of God...”° Both were sentenced to three years in prison. Conclusion It would be simplistic to state that, over the two decades between this trial and the advent of