Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Charges Made Against Leon Trotsky in the Moscow Trials
§ 8. As the Preliminary Commission pointed out in its report (PC xv) , the scope and content of the inquiry is necessarily determined by the proceedings in the Moscow trials. According to the Prosecutor, A. Y. Vyshinsky, the evidence was of two kinds:
First, there is the historical connection which confirms the theses of the indictment on the basis of the Trotskyites’ past activity. We have also in mind the testimony of the accused which in itself represents enormous importance as proof. (PR 513.)
The Commission’s inquiry, accordingly, required the examination not only of factual material relating to the definitive charges against Leon Trotsky and Leon Sedov, but also of the alleged evidence of “historical connection” introduced in the speeches of the Prosecutor or the confessions of the accused. We have been obliged to consult the relevant historical sources, and to evaluate the alleged “historical connection” in the light of the facts as revealed therein. This procedure has involved a study of Leon Trotsky’s biography, with special reference to his past relations with the accused in the Moscow trials, his relations with Lenin, his role in the October Revolution and the building of the Soviet state, and in the struggle of the Opposition against the majority of the Communist Party of the U.S.S.R. It has also required a study of his writings, with special reference to their bearing upon the credibility of the accusations, the confessions and the summations in the Moscow trials.
§ 9. In view of the failure of the Soviet government to cooperate with the Commission by producing records of the hearings preliminary to the Moscow trials and the documentary evidence allegedly in its possession, and by delegating representatives to cross-examine witnesses and offer evidence in rebuttal of their testimony, the published records of the trials embody the case for the prosecution. Since these documents are official it may be assumed, even in the case of the first, which is a summary of only i 80 pages, that the Soviet Commissariat of Justice, in presenting them to the world, considers that they sufficiently represent the case for the prosecution and justify the verdicts of the court. We shall proceed on this assumption in considering the prosecution’s side of the case.[1]
§ 10. The case for Leon Trotsky and Leon Sedov is to be found in the following materials:
(1) The official reports of the trials in so far as they engender doubt because of omissions, contradictions, falsifications, and questionable procedure.
(2) Proceedings and reports of sub-commissions.
(3) Affidavits of witnesses, letters, telegrams, passports and other official documents, press reports and other materials submitted by Leon Trotsky and Leon Sedov either directly to the Commission or to its sub-commissions.
(4) The testimony of Tarov and Dr. Anton Ciliga, taken by the Comité pour l'Enquête sur le Prods de Moscou, and transmitted to the Commission.
(5) The published writings of Leon Trotsky, Leon Sedov, Lenin, Stalin, Radek, Zinoviev and others, offered in evidence before the Commission or its sub-commissions. Also other historical materials bearing upon the charges and confessions and upon the “historical connection” alleged by the Prosecutor.
(6) The archives of Leon Trotsky, consisting of several thousand documents, to which this Commission has had unhampered access.
§ 11. The documents accepted by the Commission fall into the following categories:
(1) Documents, or photostats of documents, which are official.
(2) Holograph documents or photostats thereof, which, under Civil Law, are accepted as authentic without requirement of attestation by subscribing witnesses, notarial seal, etc. The Commission, as an international body bound by no specific legal procedure, has followed the Civil Law in accepting such documents as authentic, demanding no other attestation than reliable evidence of their source.
(3) Documents which have been, for a reasonable length of time, matters of public record, and whose authenticity has not been challenged.
(4) Press clippings; also extracts from newspapers, magazines, etc., which are readily verifiable by consultation of the originals. Such extracts as are cited in this report have been so verified.
(5) Notarized affidavits, or other notarized documents.
(6) Depositions of witnesses whose signatures were authenticated by a Special Committee created by the Comité pour l'Enquête sur le Procès de Moscou (cf. PC 301). The members of this Special Committee were Alfred Rosmer, Fernand Char-bit, and Andre Breton.
(7) Depositions of witnesses whose signatures were authenticated by mayors or police commissioners, or by official labor organizations.
(8) Depositions of witnesses whose signatures were authenticated by one or more members of this Commission. Also other documents certified by one or more members of this Commission.
(9) Documents certified by the Comité pour l'Enquête sur le Procès de Moscou, or the Internationales Komitee für Recht and Wahrheit.
(10) Originals, photostats or certified copies of letters, articles, or other documents furnished to the Commission from the archives of Trotsky, Sedov, or other witnesses.
§ 12. The Commission wishes to emphasize that acceptance of a document as authentic implies no judgment of its relevance or of its value as evidence. In judging the relevance and evidential value of each document, the Commission has been guided by accepted rules of evidence, such as: its bearing upon the case; whether it constituted direct or hearsay evidence; and the circumstances under which it was obtained.