LUSTRATION
Opinion of the President of the Republic of Slovenia, Milan Kucan, on the proposed Law on the Dismantling of the Consequences of the Communist Totalitarian Regime and on the proposed Resolution on the Unlawful Activities of the Communist Totalitarian Regime

Ljubljana, 26 November 1997


26 November 1997

Ref.: 002-00-7/97
Ljubljana, 26. november 1997


NATIONAL ASSEMBLY of the REPUBLIC of SLOVENIA
LJUBLJANA

Pursuant to Articles 102 and 104 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia and Article 294 of the Standing Orders of the National Assembly, I hereby submit my opinion on the proposed Law on the Dismantling of the Consequences of the Communist Totalitarian Regime and on the proposed Resolution on the Unlawful Activities of the Communist Totalitarian Regime.

In accordance with my duty to respect the constitutional order, to attend to the well-being of Slovenia and to protect the reputation of the Republic of Slovenia as a state based on the rule of law, I am bound by my conscience and my responsibility to inform the National Assembly, and thereby also the public, of my belief that both the submitted documents are politically and morally unjustified and harmful, and legally impermissible.

In so doing I am not in any way denying the need for a debate about our wartime and pos-twar past, and about removing those consequences which may still be impeding the consolidation of the Republic of Slovenia as a civilised and free-thinking democratic country, which is based on the rule of law and human rights, as it introduces modern political, legal and economic reforms with which it can consolidate its democratic spirit, political culture and statehood.

I substantiate my opinion as follows:

I.

The two texts prepared for deliberation in the National Assembly rest on the supposition that, since the adoption of the constitutional amendments in 1989, the plebiscite in 1990 and the attainment of independence in 1991, the new state of Slovenia has not legally, politically or symbolically broken with the previous system of one-party rule, failure to respect human and political rights and a self-managing socialist economy. And even to the extent that it has done so, it is claimed that this has been against the will of the political forces, especially the League of Communists of Slovenia, which formerly held the leading role and certain privileges that went with it. Therefore, it is asserted, only the founding of a sovereign state has so far been carried out.

Now, they say, should be the time for lustration, for a removal of those political forces which, the proposers claim, oppose a full and proper political democracy.

The submitted texts place all the former socialist systems on the same level, whether they were Eastern European "real socialist" states under Soviet political, security and party control, or Slovenia as part of the then Yugoslav federation. They also base their assertions on the claim that on the territory of Slovenia a civil war was fought during the second world war in which, following the communists' victory, in 1945 extrajudicial executions were carried out against groups of patriots who opposed the communists and who are supposed to have defended Slovenia, admittedly by force of circumstance with the weapons of the Fascist and Nazi occupying forces, against the aggression of communist totalitarianism. And finally, the material that has been submitted makes the claim that, in the circumstances following the fall of the Berlin Wall, political democracy in the countries of Eastern Europe, including Slovenia as part of the former Yugoslavia, can only be established by excluding from public life, for a certain period, the leading and other members of the so-called political nomenclature or the "old structures".

The proposers formally invoke international documents, in particular Resolution 1096 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on measures to dismantle the heritage of former communist totalitarian systems. In Slovenia, it is consequently asserted that a "neocommunist elite" still prevails, and that it supports the systematic violation of human rights, lawlessness, bureaucratisation, the militarisation of institutions, the monopolisation of political life, conformism, blind obedience and other forms of totalitarian behaviour which this Resolution states is the heritage of the Eastern European countries. There is no political elite of this nature in Slovenia. The presumptions and starting points with which the proposers justify the proposed law and resolution contradict the historical and legal facts and actual circumstances in Slovenia.

The proposers substantiate their call for the proposed law to be adopted through the fast-track procedure by invoking the supposed extraordinary needs of the Slovene state, whose democratic development, they claim, lags well behind that of certain other former communist countries and which is losing credibility in the eyes of the international public, as the failure to be accepted in this year's Nato expansion is said to demonstrate. These claims are in complete contrast with the facts. Slovenia is viewed by the world as a democratic country where the rule of law applies, in which a multi-party parliamentary system has been established and in which human rights and freedoms are guaranteed. Testifying to this are the acceptance of Slovenia as a member of the Council of Europe, the assessments contained in the EU Association Agreement, the opinion of the Commission on Slovenia's application for membership of the European Union and Agenda 2000, the election of Slovenia as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, the classification of Slovenia as one of the most genuine candidates for the anticipated new round of Nato expansion, the abolition of tourist visas for Slovene citizens travelling to the United States, and the assessments of some of the world's most respected political figures, as well as numerous international political, economic and financial institutions. Moreover, the attempt to interfere with the elections, which the proposed law clearly represents, cannot possibly be claimed to be an extraordinary need of the state, unless the state renounces the rule of law.

In Slovenia we started to introduce a democratic multi-party parliamentary political system with the elections in 1990, or indeed with the constitutional amendments in September 1989. On the basis of its permanent and inalienable right to self-determination, to make its own decision as to its fate at the plebiscite in December 1990, the Slovene nation opted for an independent and sovereign state and carried through this decision on 25 June 1991. It defended this decision it had taken through unwavering resistance against the aggression of the Yugoslav Army, defended it with weapons and with human lives. In a statement of "good intentions" issued before the plebiscite by the Slovene assembly, the principle was established that through the will of the Slovene nation, the Italian and Hungarian ethnic communities and of all other voters in the Republic of Slovenia as expressed in the plebiscite, Slovenia should become, finally and in fact, a sovereign, democratic, welfare state based on the rule of law. "It will be founded on human liberties, work and enterprise, on social justice and security for all, on ecological responsibility and on the best democratic traditions of Slovenia and Europe. In this sense it will develop a political parliamentary democracy and, to the level of contemporary understanding, protect civil rights, create its own economic system, conduct its own economic policy and independently dispose of incomes generated. This will help to achieve a better and more effective resolution of the accumulated problems and to attain new prosperity" (point 1).

It was on the basis of the full consent of the entire Slovene nation, the members of the Italian and Hungarian ethnic communities and all the other inhabitants of Slovenia, irrespective of their ideological, political, philosophical, religious and other differences, that it was possible for Slovenia to achieve independence without any serious shocks and without major victims. Because of the way they acted, all the people of Slovenia are entitled to consider the Republic of Slovenia to be their country, and to expect within it protection of their rights, equality, peace, prosperity and respect. Their democratically and legally defined will legitimately expressed at the plebiscite was of key importance for the international recognition of Slovenia. At this turning point the Slovene nation demonstrated its maturity and its capacity for democracy and independence, as well as the preparedness and responsibility necessary for inclusion in the international community. In view of this unity among all strata and sections of the population in Slovenia there was clearly no basis for Slovenia, in its legal regulation, to exclude any of its citizens, even temporarily, from enjoying all human rights and fundamental freedoms. And therefore even the Basic Constitutional Charter on the Independence and Sovereignty of the Republic of Slovenia of 25 June 1991 provides that "In accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia and with international agreements binding upon it, the Republic of Slovenia guarantees the protection of all persons within the territory of the Republic of Slovenia irrespective of their national allegiance and without any discrimination whatsoever" (III). In the Declaration of Independence adopted by the then Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia on 25 June 1991, it is stated among other things that the Republic of Slovenia is a welfare state based on the rule of law with a market economy adapted to the capacities of the environment, in which human rights and civil liberties will be respected and "in which political or other beliefs may in no way be a basis for inequality or discrimination of any kind."

Slovenia made the transition from a formerly non-democratic, one-party system to a democratic, multi-party parliamentary system with political consent and in a legally regulated manner. In the same way the country simultaneously gained its independence; from the adoption of the amendments to the Slovene constitution in September 1989 and of the electoral legislation, to the Law on the Plebiscite and a range of other legal enactments. In a legal and democratic, and hence also legitimate, manner Slovenia changed its internal legal order, and upon its independence as a new subject in international law also assumed its part of the international legal obligations of the previously unified Yugoslav state, and the international agreements which Yugoslavia had signed and which relate to the Republic of Slovenia. Political discontinuity with the previous regime was effected with the first democratic elections in the spring of 1990, discontinuity in terms of legal statehood with independence in June 1991, constitutional discontinuity with the adoption of the new constitution in December 1991, and de facto discontinuity with the plebiscite and unified resistance to the aggression of the Yugoslav Army.


II.

The proposed law is in contravention of the principle that Slovenia is a democratic republic (Article 1) and a state governed by the rule of law (Article 2), and that in Slovenia power is vested in the people (Article 3).

In contravention of the constitution and numerous international documents, the proposed law places restrictions on a range of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Expressly according to constitutional provisions these human rights and fundamental freedoms are upheld directly on the basis of the constitution. It is possible to stipulate the method for upholding human rights and fundamental freedoms by law, when so specified by the constitution, or if so required owing to the nature of the particular right or freedom. Human rights and fundamental freedoms may be restricted only by the rights of others and in cases where the constitution so provides. Judicial protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms is guaranteed, as is the right to obtain redress for the infringement of such rights and freedoms (Article 15). The constitution expressly provides that human rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the constitution may only be temporarily revoked or restricted in the exceptional cases of a state of war or emergency (Article 16). A state of emergency may be proclaimed when the existence of the state is threatened by a great or general danger, and is ruled upon by the National Assembly on the proposal of the government (Article 92). However, even during a state of emergency or war the measures adopted may not create inequalities based on political or other beliefs or "any other personal circumstances" (Article 16). In a case when rights are temporarily revoked or restricted the Slovene constitution expressly prohibits the temporary revocation or restriction in any form of certain special rights. These include the protection of human personality and dignity in all criminal and other legal proceedings (Article 21), the presumption of innocence (Article 27), the principle of legality in criminal law (Article 28) and legal guarantees in criminal proceedings (Article 29). The proposed law is not merely in contravention of these provisions of the constitution, but also the basic provision on equality before the law (Article 14), the provision on equality in protection of rights (Article 22), and the right to judicial protection, according to which each person is entitled to have all issues relating to his or her rights and obligations and any charges laid against him or her decided upon by an independent, impartial court constituted according to statute, and only a judge duly appointed pursuant to principles established by statute and in accordance with the legal order is empowered to try any such person (Article 23). Furthermore, the proposed law is also in contravention of the constitutional provision on the right to legal remedies. According to this provision each person is guaranteed the right to an appeal or any other legal remedy against a decision by a court or other body that determines the rights, obligations or legal entitlements of the person (Article 25). The proposed law is in contravention of the right to personal dignity and safety (Article 34), the provision on protection of the right to privacy and of personal rights (Article 35), and the provision on protection of personal data (Article 38); it also contravenes the constitutional provision on the inviolability of dwellings, according to which no person may enter or search the dwelling or any other premises of another person against the will of the occupant without a court order (Article 36). The proposed provision that the court shall be obliged to issue a search warrant at the request of a state authorised officer is in contravention of the constitutional provision on the independence of judges (Article 125).

The proposed law is also in contravention of freedom of work as guaranteed by the constitution. Under this constitutional provision each person is free to choose his or her employment, and all work posts are accessible to everybody under the same conditions (Article 49). Owing to the infringement of the constitutional right to freedom of work there is also infringement of the constitutional right to social security (Article 50) and the constitutional prohibition of encroachment on rights accrued (Article 155).

The proposed law is also in contravention of the constitutionally guaranteed active and passive suffrage. The right to vote is universal and equal. Each citizen who has attained the age of 18 years has the right to vote and to stand for election (Article 43). It also contravenes the constitutionally guaranteed right to participate in the administration of public affairs. Each citizen has the right, subject to law, to participate directly or through elected representatives in the administration of public affairs (Article 44).

The proposed law is also in contravention of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression of thought, speech and public association (Article 39), and the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of conscience, according to which the profession of religious and other beliefs in public and private shall be free, and no person shall be compelled to admit his or her religious or other beliefs (Article 41); it is furthermore in contravention of the constitutional prohibition of promotion of any form of inequality and incitement to hatred and intolerance (Article 63).

Where it deals with termination of office, the proposed law is in contravention not merely of the constitutional provisions on rights and fundamental freedoms, but also of those constitutional provisions that govern the assumption and termination of office by deputies, members of the National Council, the prime minister and government ministers, judges and the president. The electoral system is regulated by statute adopted by the National Assembly with a two-thirds majority of all deputies (Article 80), and elections to the National Council are also governed by statute adopted by the National Assembly with a two-thirds majority of all deputies (Article 98). Judges are elected by the National Assembly on the proposal of the Judicial Council (Article 130). According to the constitution a judge's office is permanent (Article 129), and termination of office is governed by law; dismissal from office of a judge is the responsibility of the National Assembly, which may dismiss a judge upon fulfilment of the conditions stipulated by the constitution (Article 132). Termination of office of the prime minister and government ministers is regulated in detail in the constitution (Articles 112, 115, 116, 117, 118 and 119). The constitution also governs the president's dismissal from office on the basis of a complaint by the National Assembly brought before the Constitutional Court (Article 109).

Furthermore, the proposed law is in contravention of the constitutional provisions that prohibit the establishing of extraordinary courts (Article 126) and state that the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land (Article 127). The proposed law is also in contravention of the constitutional provisions on the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, this relating to the proposal of a so-called state authorised officer for the archives of the totalitarian regime and the proposal of judges for the lustration court (Article 160). According to the constitutional provisions mentioned above all judges shall be elected by the National Assembly on the proposal of the president (Article 163). In addition it is necessary to consider the principle of separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers (Article 3). On this basis the proposed provision on direct election of judges is unconstitutional if they are not elected by the National Assembly.


III.

Resolution 1096 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, concerning measures to dismantle the heritage of former communist totalitarian systems, adopted in June 1996 and to which the proposers make express reference, deals with the issues of how to ensure that the transition from a totalitarian to democratic state will be based on the rule of law, that in measures to dismantle such a system fundamental human rights will be respected, and that the process of democratisation will be carried out. The resolution does not recommend lustration, but notes that some countries have introduced it and addresses itself to this fact. The aim of such measures, as stated in the resolution, is to exclude persons from exercising governmental power if they cannot be trusted to exercise it in compliance with democratic principles, as they have shown no commitment to or belief in them in the past and have no interest or motivation to make the transition to them now. The resolution stresses that such lustration measures can be compatible with a democratic state based on the rule of law if several criteria are applied. These criteria are that guilt must be proved in each individual case, and that the right to defence, the presumption of innocence until proof of guilt, and the right to appeal to a court of law are guaranteed. The assembly particularly emphasises that revenge may never be the goal of such measures, and political or social misuse of the lustration process should not be allowed. The aim of lustration is not to punish people presumed guilty, which is the task of criminal prosecutors, but to protect the newly emerged democracy. The assembly therefore recommends that lustration laws and similar administrative measures should comply with the requirements of a state based on the rule of law, and should focus on preventing threats to fundamental human rights and the democratisation process. In this the resolution makes special reference to the guidelines to ensure that lustration laws and similar administrative measures comply with the requirements of a state based on the rule of law. These guidelines, Document 7568 of 3 June 1996, state that lustration cannot apply to elected officials, unless the candidate himself or herself requests, as voters are entitled to elect whoever they wish. The guidelines also recommend a time limit on lustration measures, which should not be later than 31 December 1999. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe finally recommends that countries that have introduced lustration measures should check whether their laws and other regulations and procedures are in accordance with the principles of the resolution, and revise them if necessary. This would help to avoid complaints being lodged with the control mechanisms of the Council of Europe under the European Convention on Human Rights. It is also worth citing the final statement in the resolution, that the best guarantee for the dismantling of former communist totalitarian systems is profound political, legal and economic reforms, leading to the formation of an authentic democratic mentality and political culture.

The Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Resolution and the guidelines to which it refers expressly warn that in dismantling the heritage of a former communist totalitarian system, a democratic state based on the rule of law must use only those means befitting such a country. If other means are used, it would be no better than the totalitarian regime scheduled to be dismantled. The resolution tolerates, rather than recommends, lustration measures for a specific transition period, if these, based on the rule of law, apply the range of criteria specified within.


IV.

Responsibility for the transition to a multi-party system of parliamentary democracy, market economy and a welfare state based on the rule of law is borne entirely by each country itself. Each country has its problems and its past. The simple and simplistic citing of other countries which have had a different history is no kind of argument. The criticisms of the former regime in points 1, 2 and 3 of the proposed resolution may be partly true only in respect of the first few years after the war, for later Yugoslavia and in particular Slovenia broke from the Soviet model of socialism and started turning to the West. In no case can such references to the former regime justify the proposals, which are entirely and obviously at odds with the true state of affairs in Slovenia and with the valid constitution, with those international agreements that bind Slovenia and with general civilisational standards. On the basis of the valid Slovene constitution, and the generally applicable principles of international law and international agreements which bind Slovenia, there is no foundation for us to start acting in contravention of this entire legal order. Adoption of the proposed law would, I am convinced, mean not simply a crude violation of human rights and basic freedoms, rejection of the state based on the rule of law as well as being an unconstitutional encroachment on the role, position and jurisdiction of the various bodies of legislative, executive and judicial power and in the relations between them; adoption would also introduce a great deal of unrest and uncertainty into our public life, and it would distract the attention and responsibility of state bodies from dealing with the day to day priorities that are important for the life, work and prosperity of our citizens and the development of the country. By creating conditions of instability and uncertainty, or even violating our own Constitution and international agreements, and by spurning these binding acts, the law would damage our reputation and the position of our country in the international community. Violations of the principle of the state based on the rule of law will not find favour in the international community, nor can they serve as a recommendation for the country to hold an equal position. Clearly the proposers of this law desire through the abuse of state power to substitute the decision of the electorate about who should represent them and work on their behalf in competent bodies. The proposed determining of a circle of persons who would be subjected to lustration, covering the entire parliamentary, government and administrative sphere, the judiciary and public prosecutors, notaries and lawyers, local government officials, journalists, editors and others, and the undefined procedures, the unclear definition of accusations and the indeterminate length of time for these procedures would represent an exceptionally broad violation of human rights and freedoms. Such intentions demand that the National Assembly and the general public be warned about these proposed ideas.

The proposal of the law, by-passing the provisions of Article 92 of the constitution, would indeed present us with a state of emergency. According to the arguments of the proposers, we need to prevent an extreme and great danger, which is threatening the existence of the country and excludes the functioning of all the bodies of legislative, executive and judicial power authorised by the constitution and by law. A democratic state based on the rule of law - and since the adoption of the constitution in 1991 the Republic of Slovenia is most certainly such a state - has sufficient means to ensure justice and that the perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity, upon which there is no statute of limitation, and those who systematically violate human rights will also be punished in the appropriate courts and in procedures provided by law. The Republic of Slovenia has all this. We have a constitution, a Penal Code, a Law on Criminal Procedure, a Law on the Courts, a Law on Judicial Service which also governs the election of judges, a Law on Public Prosecutors and so on, as well as binding international conventions. We have courts, public prosecutors and attorneys. If there is any serious will to identify and punish the perpetrators of such criminal acts, and in this apply the principles of Resolution 1096 as well as the principles of a state based on the rule of law, this is all possible through the existing constitution and system of criminal law, in which all these principles are consistently observed. The proposers of the law should request from the public prosecutor's office that they instigate legitimate criminal proceedings against those individual and personally identified individuals suspected of criminal acts, who are accused in the proposed law - on the basis of suspicion of collective culpability and not on the basis of suspicion of personal culpability - of being undefined holders of authority and power in the former regime. In any event, the body in charge of proceedings against those suspected of criminal activities is ex officio the public prosecutor's office, which is bound in its work only to the constitution and the law. In the same way, the judges who would pronounce judgement on these accusations are also bound to the constitution and the law, and only to the constitution and the law.

The protection of archive material, the conditions governing its use and the jurisdiction and tasks of the archive service are set out in the valid law which has been in effect since April this year. This law also governs the archive material of state institutions and former sociopolitical organisations, and this material is generally accessible without limitation, except in respect of information about private individuals. However, this law provides that there are no limitations at all on access to archive material for the use of individual documents, where this involves procedures being conducted by state bodies and bodies of local self-governing communities. In the same way, according to the Law on General Administrative Procedure, clients have the unlimited right to view public archive material upon demonstration of their own legal interest in such material.

The law also governs the issue of arbitrary handling of archive documents and their appropriation. In the political life of Slovenia such activities have become the means of political blackmail and of compromising political opponents or those who are not like-minded. The provisions on archives in the proposed lustration law again open up broad possibilities for arbitrariness, abuse and the causing of other irregularities. This would legitimise the possibility of blackmail and fear-mongering, which have no place in democratic political practice.

At the same time, in view of this proposed law our attention should also be given to the principle of the legitimacy of laws. The legitimacy of a law is not ensured merely by the fact of the legislative body adopting a given law with a majority vote, if this law contains individual provisions or if the law as a whole runs counter to the principles of a state based on the rule of law, to the constitution and to the provisions of international human rights law. Given the aforementioned encroachments on both domestic law and international law, the proposed law would not fulfil the principle of legitimacy, even if it secured the required majority support in the National Assembly.


V.

It seems to me necessary also to draw attention to the ethical judgement of this law. In post-modern democratic countries, there is in the ethical judgement of laws a decisive criterion which derives from the moral values of the Enlightenment. These values are at the very foundations of modern political democracy. And the central value is tolerance. Tolerance is also applied as a fundamental criterion by the resolution of the Council of Europe. Those who do not respect tolerance are pushing the social community and state out of its space of mutually tolerant human relations towards a path of intolerance. In this way they are sending human relations from the Enlightenment back into the Dark Ages. The consequences of the earlier period of totalitarian government in Eastern countries and also in Yugoslavia cannot be eradicated through a new Dark Age. Tolerance cannot be achieved through intolerant means. The consequences of earlier coercion cannot be eradicated through new coercion. The resurrection and the spreading of intolerance which has already been overcome is therefore the main moral flaw of this proposed lustration. A return to the methods of the Dark Ages will also mean a return to the kind of procedures used by the Inquisition, with the Grand Inquisitor at its head. For in the end there can be no lustration without ritual sacrifices. For this reason, lustration is an expression of collective violence, deriving from a feeling of collective guilt. All the negative energy is directed towards certain exceptions identified as an evil that must be rejected, vilified and banished. And this means that in essence, lustration procedures are a process of banishment. In our present circumstances lustration therefore means only two things: either a return from modern civilisation and culture to political archaism and non-civilisation, or the condemnation of us all to remain at that primitive level of civilisation where we are still not able to live in a climate of modern culture, political culture and nation-building, where we are still not able to settle relations amongst ourselves through the means of a modern state based on the rule of law. The concept of lustration and the concept of a state based on the rule of law are mutually exclusive. Dismantling the consequences or heritage of former legal systems is possible here, too, only by applying the principles of a modern state based on the rule of law. In this way such procedures acquire their moral foundation.

The proposed law and resolution run counter to the action taken to date by the Slovene state towards achieving peace and reconciliation, towards correcting injustices and relieving current generations of the burden of the past, and towards all of us together embarking on the path to the future. On 8 July 1990, in the reconciliation ceremony at Koèevski rog, as President of the Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia I expressed my deepest regret that many known and unknown Slovenes, without any proper judicial trial of their possible individual guilt in what was indeed the morally and legally inexcusable wartime collaboration with the occupying forces, were brutishly and incomprehensibly put to a violent death, after the war had already ended. I stressed that in the name of the new state I was conducting this act of reconciliation through a sincerity born of my respect for all those who died, fell in action or were otherwise killed during the Second World War and directly after it. I said, and I quote: "We are burying all our dead for ever, in full dignity and full respect. Let us commit them to our memory and to the judgement of history." I called on all of us to join in a national reconciliation, to make peace with our own past, to join in a reconciliation between the living, to work together towards a common path to the future, which does not cover up or forget its history, but which looks towards a future based no longer on the burden of national and political division, but on the creation of a free Slovene society which has its own identity, homeland and state. In November 1991 the Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia proposed to the then Executive Council of the Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia that it employ the quickest possible means for correcting injustices and that it also draft a special law. Prior to the first reading of the draft legislation for correcting injustices I reminded the National Assembly deputies of this in my letter of 23 March 1994. I underlined that it would be difficult to find reasonable answers and convincing excuses for putting off the adoption of such legislation. In view of the fact that in the Slovene parliament a full consensus was achieved over the need to correct injustices, in as much as it might still be possible at this time, I expressed my conviction that the deputies would conduct their deliberation and decision-making on the Law on the Correction of Injustices in such a way that now through legal means it would be possible at the earliest opportunity to correct injustices, which is not simply a moral duty but also a constitutional obligation. In that letter I also expressed my expectation that this would not only be a piece of legislation of the highest quality, but that the debate itself would also help towards a legal and moral rehabilitation and a settling of the material position of those affected, as well as towards peace amongst our citizens and national reconciliation. The Law on the Correction of Injustices unfortunately only took effect in November 1996.

In 1994, before the 50th anniversary of the victory over Nazism, as President of the Republic I joined the initiatives for setting up a memorial honouring all the victims of the Second World War and our civil conflict which was conducted within the war. The memorial was intended to symbolise peace, reconciliation and unity of the Slovene nation, as well as the end of mutual enmity. In a letter dated 13 September 1994 to the Slovene government I proposed that a national committee should be set up to take over all the work connected with the erecting of a monument in Ljubljana, the capital city of the country.

On 22 December 1994 and again on 20 February 1995 I sent letters reminding the Slovene government that it was the duty of the Slovene state to arrange the graves at Kocevski rog and other such graveyards in Slovenia, to undertake the issuing of death certificates and the adoption of measures for correcting injustices, all of which should contribute to reconciliation and peace among our citizens. I expressed the expectation that the government would propose to the National Assembly the securing of necessary finances for fulfilling the obligations which in my opinion on this issue lie incontrovertibly with the Slovene state.

In my letter to the President of the National Assembly on 12 April 1995 I communicated my view that on the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War and of the victory over Fascism and Nazism, it was now time as a country to finally undertake those essential acts which would close the book on all our wartime and post-war wounds. The legislative remedies which are already in effect are of course necessary, but are not sufficient. I submitted for consideration and decision-making the suggestion that in the name of the successor state the National Assembly should express its condemnation and regret that after the end of the Second World War, extrajudicial mass executions took place. I expressed my profound conviction that such a decision would only serve to enhance the great uprising of the Slovene nation and its armed struggle as a component part of the victorious Allied anti-Fascist coalition as well as the great sacrifices made by the Slovene nation for its freedom and for the freedom of democratic Europe.


VI.

As I now justifiably reject the proposed law and resolution - and I wish to believe that the National Assembly will do the same - I propose that the government and the National Assembly continue to implement the structural changes which will bring Slovenia yet further towards the norms and standards of modern democratic Europe. In this way we will confirm again and again the already effected real and symbolic break with the former system. I reiterate my idea that in the name of Slovenia as a successor country, the National Assembly should adopt a declaration on the relationship of the Slovene state towards the wartime and post-war history in our territory, that it should express its condemnation of extrajudicial mass executions after the end of the Second World War and its regret that this happened. It should also act in this way in cases of systematic violation of human rights.

As we stress again the decisive role of the Slovene resistance during the Second World War on the Allied side against the Nazi and Fascist evil, we should also condemn all those atrocities carried out directly after the war had ended in 1945, when the authorities of that time ordered or permitted extrajudicial executions and other violence against people who collaborated and worked in institutions of the occupying forces.

We must take into consideration the entirety of history, and all its sides. There was an occupation and a resistance against it, there was collaboration with the occupying forces, there was also a revolution and resistance against that. During the Second World War and directly after it the Slovene nation suffered enormous sacrifices. Condemnation should be directed towards all the atrocities that took place during the war and directly after it. There can be no possible excuse for collaborating with the occupying forces at a time when the entire Slovene nation was threatened with genocide. Alliances and collaboration with an occupying force cannot be, nor are they anywhere, a national virtue.

It is high time for the new Slovene state as a whole to orientate itself towards the future. There is no declaration that can confirm history, let alone change it. And the history of the Slovenes in this century is hard, full of burdens and trials. Yet even such a history must be taken upon ourselves and we must live with it. In my opinion it would be right for the National Assembly, in addition to making an assessment of our whole past and condemning that which should be condemned, to establish what has been done so far towards correcting injustices and what still needs to be done. I have in mind the often expressed proposals about, for example, a Book of the Dead, death certificates, the arrangement of graves, protection of monuments, assessments of the progress in invalidating political trials and so on. After this it will also be possible to determine the role that the past should play in our lives. Then we will be able to commit history to the historians. Our life cannot be, nor should it be continually reinterpreted through the past.

Let us look towards the future. We stand before a new millennium. We will not be carried into it as a nation capable of providing for its future by unnecessary disputes and divisions, which distract our attention from the real problems we face in our lives. We should bring together all the creative forces we possess, so that we might respond to the challenges of our time, and secure the future for the Slovene state and the Slovene identity around the world that is now emerging, full of hope, and yet also full of the unknown. Let us enter into it boldly, cheerfully and with a sense of full responsibility towards all generations of Slovenes. That is our duty. I am convinced that together we will be able to take steps towards each other, so as to make the urgently needed consideration of our future and to continue the fundamental political, legal and economic reforms which are part of the formation of a genuine democratic spirit, political culture and nation-building.

Milan Kucan