Josip Mihaljević, "Comrade Tito, Help!" Letters of Prisoners and in Favor of Prisoners Addressed To Authorities of Communist Yugoslavia As A Historical Source

“Comrade Tito, help!” Le?
ers of prisoners and in favor

of prisoners addressed to authorities of communist
Yugoslavia as a historical source
Josip Mihaljević
Hrvatski institut za povĳest
Zagreb, Croatia
e-mail: josip@isp.hr
The author analyzes le?ers wri?en by prisoners, detainees, and their relatives
to authorities of the communist Yugoslavia. Today, these le?ers are being kept as
archival material, and the author has analyzed the material of several archives
in Belgrade and Zagreb. By using content and discourse analysis, it is revealed
who were the authors of these le?ers, what was being asked for in the le?ers
and in which way, and to which addresses were the authors reaching out to,
as well as what was the a?itude of authorities towards individuals addressing
them in le?ers. With this paper, the author endeavors to present values of the
aforementioned historical sources for researching social history and history of
everyday life of the communist Yugoslavia, as well as the functionality of the
historical-anthropological approach to research of history of the second half of
the 20th century. In the appendix, the author provides several le?ers, mostly in
the form of facsimiles.
Keywords: prisoners, le?ers, Yugoslavia, government, Josip Broz Tito,
communism, socialism.
Introduction: history of a “li?le man”

In historiography, the individual was sometimes just a “great man”, a person
involved in some significant historical, most o?en political events. The development
of historical, but also other humanistic and social sciences has raised awareness of the
knowledge that all human activity does not start exclusively inside of political events
and systems, but that a human life occurs on all areas of spiritual and material culture,
as well as on a wide area of various (especially everyday) social practices.1 In that sense,
the anthropological approach to historical researches has became applicable because
the essence of the historical-anthropological approach is to place a human being at
the forefront of scientific research, in his temporal, territorial, and cultural context.
1
Mirjana Gross, “Susret historĳe i antropologĳe”, Narodna umjetnost 2 (1996): 72.
295
Our Daily Crime
In the heart of a researcher’s interest is the man with his method of action, in his
social, political, and economic existence, with his ability of constructing symbols, his
interpretations, experiences, and also all of his helplessness and suffering. Historical
anthropology has, by extending the focus of interest to the history of “li?le people”
deepened the view of that which is generally human, as well as on numerous areas of
human life which were not in the center of a?ention until now.
I believe that this discipline is certainly required in research of Croatian history
because the absolute majority of every nation is composed of “li?le people”, people who
have lived their “li?le”, most o?en difficult lives excluded from historiographic works.
Historical sciences in Western Europe have experienced a differentiation towards
social history since the end of the sixties, and sociologization and anthropologization
of researches have affirmed that which is anonymous and everyday in history.2 What
is researched are subjective perspectives, interpretation and rules, a man on a specific
place in a specific time, his self-perception, motivation, and a special focus is placed
on social norms to which the man was subjected.3
Approaches of historical anthropology contributed to the extension of research
to a man vertically and horizontally, i.e. from the elite to wider classes and from the
center of social decision-making to various and rather numerous marginal groups.4
Under the influence of creation of massive societies in the twentieth century, the
history of “marginal” groups also arises, i.e. the history of those who live on the
edges of societies. In focus are everyday existential issues such as nutrition, sickness,
accommodation, i.e. conditions of life and work and the need for their fulfillment.5
One of these marginal groups are also prisoners.
Prisoners and detainees, i.e. the people which the authorities have treated
as criminals are a special social group which exists in every society, and thus in
the communist Yugoslavia. However, this research does not study prisoners as
members of a special social system - prison,6 but its main research focus is on their
communication with government structures. Certain prisoners resorted to writing
various le?ers, requests, and appeals to authorities, a?empting to directly come into
contact with them and ask some kind of help from them. Frequently occurring was
also the case of addressing of other persons in writing, who have asked, i.e. a?empted
to procure some kind of a release, pardon, or a reduction of sentence to their close
relative or a friend. Indicated communication will reveal to us who were the authors
of the le?ers, what they were a?empting to achieve with that writing, in which way
2
Michel de Certeau, Invencĳa svakodnevice. (Zagreb: Naklada MD, 2003), 49.
3
Hannes Grandits, Karl Kaser, “Historische Anthropologie im südöstlichen Europa – Aufgaben,
Methoden, Theorien, Themen”, in Historische Anthropologie im südöstlichen Europa: eine Einführung, ed.
Karl Kaser, Siegfried Gruber, Robert Pichler, (Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 2003), 18-19.
4
Gross, “Susret historĳe i antropologĳe”, 72.
5
Idem, 80.
6
For more details on the subject, see: Barbara Pabjan, “Researching prison – A sociological analysis of
social system”, Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems 2 (2005): 100-108.
296
Josip Mihaljević - “Comrade Tito, help!” Le?ers of prisoners and in favor of prisoners...
were they trying to achieve that, and what kind of a discourse have they used. Along
with revealing authors, we will reveal who were these le?ers addressed to and how
did the recipients reacted to them.
Before the actual analysis of the aforementioned historical sources, it is necessary
to stress the importance of correspondence because this is the most common literary
activity in the human civilization. Correspondence is a certain historically widespread
phenomenon which touches upon almost all spheres of human activity, and beside
the fact that is informative, it also carries a formative context within itself.7 Besides
actual information which we obtain from the le?ers by analyzing the contents and
discourse of their authors, the correspondence enable us to follow various social
interactions, processes of different social practices, as well as the role of actual writing
within a society. Correspondence as a literary practice exists in various forms and
it is used in a wide range of human interaction, both today and throughout history.
Through le?ers, experiences are told, situations are described, opinions and stances
are stated, explanations are offered, orders are given, etc. Although many studies
have been made through the analysis of le?ers, they are mostly literary, linguistic, or
biographical historical researches, while works researching the actual correspondence
as a social practice are less frequent.8 For such a work, overlapping of various
scientific disciplines is unavoidable, which poses a large challenge to the researcher
and imposes him with usage of interdisciplinary research approach.
I consider the designated topic of research, listed form of historical sources, and
research approach as functional tools for writing “unwri?en history”, history of
marginal man.9 This paper represents one of the possible methods of research some
segments of such history.
Who is writing?
Communication which I analyze herein contains at least two basic agents: the
sender and the recipient of le?ers. The senders of le?ers were prisoners and detainees,
i.e. people accused or convicted for some criminal offense. Besides them, such le?ers
were also wri?en by free people who were a?empting to intervene and help some of
these prisoners. They were primarily their closest relatives, which was the case that
was possibly even more frequent than the one in which the prisoner would write
in his favor by himself. In that writing for others, the most common was the case
when a wife is writing a le?er in favor of her husband, trying to obtain some kind
7
David Barton, Nigel Hall, “Introduction”, in Le?er Writing as a Social Practice, ed. David Barton, Nigel
Hall, (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing, 2000), 1.
8
Idem, 10.
9
I refer to historiography in general, although there are large differences in the level of research of a
“li?le man” between Croatian and, e.g. French historiography.
297
Our Daily Crime
of help of a penalty reduction,10 although reversed roles of spouses were also not a
rarity.11 Similarly, one can trace many le?ers from convicts’ parents,12 and it was not
uncommon that their children were writing,13 as well as brothers and sisters.14 Besides
closest relatives, there were also a?empts of those who were distant, if it was believed
that their intervention could help. Thus, there were even a?empts of using some
official position or influence, such as the request of a certain sergeant of Yugoslavian
people’s army (JNA) who is asking the Federal executive council (SIV) to intervene
and pardon his relative.15 That was an a?empt of someone from the system, “from the
state” to help because repeated requests of the mother of the convicted man were not
granted.
Besides relatives, requests in favor of prisoners were also sometimes wri?en by
some organizations. This is confirmed by the example of one Agricultural cooperate
which asks SIV for pardon of its member. The accused Mustafa R. has been convicted
by the decision of the Supreme court of Serbia to a four-month-long prison sentence,
and his General agricultural cooperate notes in its request that Mustafa is “in a
working relationship in the cooperate for ten years, that he has never commi?ed
any kind of a criminal offense before, and that he is really physically valuable and a
good political worker.”16 In a response that has arrived from SIV, it was stated that in
accordance to the provisions of the Law on pardon,17 an appeal for pardon can be filed
by “a spouse of the convict, first degree kin, brother, sister, adopter, adoptee, feeder,
or a guardian”, and that “no provision foresees that a request in the stated context
can be filed on behalf of the convict by someone else/some other organ or any other
organization.”18
10
See Annexes: 1, 2, 9, 11, 14, 16, 17. Given how most of the analyzed le?ers in favor of prisoners were
wri?en by women, their wives of mothers, it would be meaningful also to research the gender aspect of
the topic at hand which is not included in this article, but could certainly interest researches of gender
and female history.
11
See Annex 3.
12
See Annexes 4 and 7.
13
See Annexes 5 and 6.
14
Such is an example of a woman from Rĳeka who begs for pardon of her brother, convicted to a five-
year-long prison sentence. She finds the justification in the fact that, a?er the death of her father in 1943
in partisans, she, as the eldest child, even though she was only 13, took charge of the care of all her
sisters and brothers (5 of them), but that she was simply unable to supervise all of them, and that her
younger brother has, due to a lack of parental supervision, fallen under the influence “a street society
and has been increasingly indulging in playing cards.” Archive of Yugoslavia (herea?er referred to as:
AJ), Federal executive council (herea?er referred to as: SIV), box 500, sleeve no. 0439, Request of Borka
B. for pardon of her brother Žarko B., October 20th, 1964
15
AJ, Federal assembly (herea?er referred to as: SS), box 92, case no. 506/2, Request of Jusa Z. for pardon
of a relative, June 24th, 1961.
16
AJ, SIV, box 511, sleeve no. 0439, Request of the General agricultural cooperative from Magura (SO
Lipnjan) for pardon of a tractor driver Mustafa R., December 26th, 1964.
17
Službeni list Socĳalističke Federativne Republike Jugoslavĳe, no. 7/64.
18
AJ, SIV, box 511, sleeve no. 0439, Response from SIV to General agricultural cooperative from Magura,
February 17th, 1965.
298
The authors of le?ers were people of most diverse profiles: men, women,
children, old people, educated, illiterate, workers, farmers, officials, intellectuals, etc.
Analogous to that diversity, offenses for which the prisoners were convicted were also
diverse. That scope of offenses, i.e. offenders ranges from minor offenders to political
prisoners, from hardened criminals to completely innocent people.
In regards to minor thieves, they were o?en people who were stealing out of sheer
poverty, like one older villager from the village of Sovići near Jablanica who, along with
several other older citizens, was accused for the? of fruit, and who has, in a poetically
intoned but barely literate request in 1965 turned to Josip Broz Tito for help (herea?er
referred to as: Tito).19 There were also smugglers among this group, as shown by the
example of a man from Tĳarica accused for smuggling of foreign currency who has in
1971, in a le?er to the president of Parliament of the Socialist Republic of Croatia (SRH)
Jakov Blažević, tried to justify his actions by accentuating his poor health condition,
and asked for pardon along with words that he is innocent and that he believes in an
honest government which will positively resolve his request.20 Besides smuggling of
foreign currency, there were also convicts for smuggling of general goods.21 Along
with smugglers, those convicted for violence were also o?en appealing, as is the case
of a convict who is writing a request to the SRH Parliament because he thinks of
himself as unjustly convicted for a?ack on organs of public safety.22
Also able to be found in archives are cases of convicts convicted for some immoral
transgressions, which is confirmed by the le?er of a woman who asks the president
of Parliament Jakov Blažević for pardon of her husband convicted for a prohibited
relationship with a female minor.23 However, there were also cases in which people
from the “system” were complaining and asking for an intervention, as was the
request of the former guard of the Criminal justice correctional institution (KPD)
Požarevac who is complaining about sluggishness of proceedings of the County court
in Požarevac, which has in 1973 convicted him on a prison sentence in duration of
one and a half year.24 There were also appeals on convictions for offenses of insulting
of political officials. Such is the case of a worker of a certain Belgrade company, who
has asked the Presidency of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRJ) for
an exemption from a three-month-long prison sentence with which he was punished
for coming to the meeting of the secretariat and youth management in the company
19
AJ, SIV, box 510, sleeve no. 0419, Request of Hasan T. for help addressed to Tito, January 7th, 1965; I
bring some verses of the thereof in the following text.
20
Croatian state archive (herea?er referred to as: HDA), Parliament of the Socialist Republic of Croatia
(herea?er referred to as: SSRH), box 402, case no. 529, Vinko Š. asks for pardon, February 2nd, 1971
21
See Annex 13.
22
See Annex 18.
23
See Annex 14.
24
AJ, Cabinet of the President of the Republic (herea?er referred to as: KPR), box 255, “Informacĳa o
nekim ispitivanim predstavkama i žalbama upućenim Predsedništvu SFRJ i Predsedniku Republike za
period od 1. 9. 1973. do 28. 2. 1974.”, March 8th, 1974., p. 2.
299
Our Daily Crime
uninvited and has, while referring to Lenin and other works of the communist
literature, criticized Tito and proclaimed him “guilty and responsible for everything
that is not right in our society”, which has “negated existence of self-management and
socialism in our country in general.”25
A special category of prisoners in socialist Yugoslavia were those imprisoned as
politically unsuitable. They were actually the subject of the largest number of works in
scientific and specialized literature until now, but it is also necessary to pay a?ention
to this group of prisoners in here.26 Despite a large number of political prisoners
in Yugoslavia, there were not as many of their le?ers and requests to government
structures, at least not in preserved archival funds.27 The reason probably also
includes the fact that most of these prisoners thought that their pleas to the authorities
would be in vain since the reigning system sharply pursued its political dissents.
Political prisoners believed, o?en justifiably, that the sentence given to them was not
dependant on their actual legal responsibility, nor on their a?itude towards judicial
bodies, but that the sentence was determined by the Party which held all reins of
power in its hands. It was more frequent that le?ers and requests for such prisoners
were sent by their relatives, which is exactly the case of Franjo Tuđman, a political
prisoner imprisoned at the time of suppression of Croatian spring.28
Namely, as her husband Franjo, arrested in January of 1972, has already spent
a month in prison, his wife Ankica has decided to turn to the President of Republic
Tito with a request to release her husband from prison.29 Tito was notified of the case
by a report in which it was stated that Ankica Tuđman: “wife of Dr. F. Tuđman, who
25
AJ, KPR, box 255, “Informacĳa o pismima koja su Predsedniku Republike i Predsedništvu SFRJ uputili
pojedinci, grupe gradjana, društva i organizacĳe, 18. 2. 1974.”, p. 4.
26
Political leadership of socialist Yugoslavia has never legally admi?ed the status of political prisoners
and has presented such prisoners to domestic and international audience as destructive individuals,
anarchists, and criminals who operate subversively. On the topic of political prisoners in Yugoslavia
in more detail: Rajko Danilović, Upotreba neprĳatelja. Politička suđenja u Jugoslavĳi 1945-1991, (Belgrade:
Javno preduzeće Zavod za udžbenike, 2010); On conditions in which political prisoners were living in,
see Augustin Franić, KPD Lepoglava: mučilište i gubilište hrvatskih političkih osuđenika, drugo, dopunjeno
i prošireno izdanje, (Dubrovnik: Hrvatsko društvo političkih zatvorenika, 2010); A testimony of Ivan
Stanić is also worth reading, as he has, first as an educator and later as a commander of security of
KPD Stara Gradiška in 1970s and 1980s, stated his view of the functioning of prisons in the framework
of contemporary Croatia and Yugoslavia. In great detail, he presents treatment of political convicts,
mostly members of “Croatian spring”, especially referring to the case of Marko Veselica. Ivan Stanić,
Zatvor u zatvoru: Stara Gradiška 1971. - 1991., (Zagreb: Plava rĳeka, 2005).
27
I stress that this paper is based on research which did not encompass all available archival material
which would require a much more extensive and lengthier research. The paper is primarily based on
four archival funds (three in the Yugoslavian archives in Beograd and one in the Croatian state archive
in Zagreb), but on a sample which I deem representative.
28
Although we cannot include Franjo Tuđman in the introductory operationalized category of “li?le
people” because this is a person that is well-known to public and historiography, in here, he is observed
as a part of the same concept like everyone else listed in this paper – as the one who writes, i.e. for
whose benefit someone else writes to authorities of socialist Yugoslavia. On the other hand, I believe
it is purposeful to also touch upon this case so I could present this important category of political
prisoners, immensely typical specifically for communist systems like the one that existed in Yugoslavia.
29
See Annex 16.
300
was recently arrested with a group of counterrevolutionaries in Zagreb, asks for an

intervention for speeding up of the process and the release of her husband. She states
the revolutionary history of her family and her husband’s family and categorically
states that with her husband, there can be no culpability that is suspected.”30 Ankica
Tuđman has received a response from the chief of Tito’s Office Marko Vrhunec,
stating that Tito was introduced with the contents of her le?er and that a copy of her
le?er was sent to the Executive commi?ee of the Central commi?ee of the League
of Communists of Croatia (IK CK SKH) for further proceedings.31 A?er receiving
that response, A. Tuđman has wri?en to Tito once again,32 but she has not received a
response to that le?er because the Service for socio-political issues of the Presidency
of SFRJ has, in its report to Tito, stated an opinion that there is no need to respond to
her “because in case of a repeated response, an unnecessary correspondence would
be opened.”33 In the end, Tuđman was convicted to two years in prison and two
additional years of prohibition of public action, but the Supreme Court has reduced
that sentence to a year, so he was released a?er nine months of prison due to a poor
health condition.34 Historian James Sadkovich believes that this was helped precisely
by the effort of his wife Ankica who has lobbied at local officials and party potentates.35
A. Tuđman, in her memories of the life with her husband, states that while looking
for her husband’s release, and later, a reduction of his sentence, she was sending
petitions to numerous addressed multiple times and was asking for audiences and
dialogues (from Jure Bilić, Jakov Blažević, Pero Car, Milka Planinc, Mika Špiljak, etc.),
and that she was continuously accentuating the staging aspect of the process, stalling
of investigation and interference of party authorities into the judicial sphere.36 In
that case, she has received possibly the biggest help from the author Miroslav Krleža
who has intervened on her warnings with Tito whom he has introduced with the
30
AJ, KPR, box 252, “Informacĳa o pismima koja su pojedinci i grupe gradjana i organizacĳe uputili
Predsedniku Republike i Predsedništvu SFRJ”, March 9th, 1972, p. 3.
31
AJ, KPR, box 252, Response of the Chief of Cabinet of the President of the Republic to Ankica Tuđman,
March 17th, 1972.
32
See Annex 17.
33
AJ, KPR, box 252, “Informacĳa o pismima koja su pojedinci i grupe gradjana i organizacĳe uputili
Predsedniku Republike i Predsedništvu SFRJ”, April 17th, 1972, p. 2.
34
During that time, he wrote his diary which was also published a few decades later. See: Franjo Tuđman,
Petrinjska 18. Zatvorski dnevnik iz 1972, (Zagreb: Naklada Pavičić, 2003); Political processes have almost
always resulted in an acqui?ing verdict, but the punishments were frequently mitigated on higher
courts. Some authors believe that the reason for that is the fact that the duration of the sentence itself
of secondary importance to the regime because the main goal was accomplishing a political and media
effect by rendering a first instance verdict, while information on a reduction of sentence were almost
not reaching the public. Tomislav Jonjić, “Rajko Danilović, Upotreba neprĳatelja. Politička suđenja
u Jugoslavĳi 1945-1991., Javno preduzeće Zavod za udžbenike, Beograd 2010, p. 446”, Časopis za
suvremenu povĳest (herea?er referred to as: ČSP) 1 (2011): 343.
35
James J. Sadkovich, Tuđman. Prva politička biografija, (Zagreb: Večernji posebni proizvodi, 2010), 192.
36
Ankica Tuđman, Moj život s Francekom, prepared by Jadranka Jureško-Kero, (Zagreb: Večernji list,
2006), 141-142, 155-158. A. Tuđman did not state that she was addressing Tito herself in the past.
301
Our Daily Crime
statements of the indictment and who has, allegedly, a?er that issued an instruction:
“Do not set up Tuđman!”
What is asked for, in what way, and why?

The answer to the question of what is the most frequent reason for writing is
simple – a request for pardon. Right to pardon and amnesty in communist Yugoslavia
was also stated as a Constitutional category, and institution which was performing
pardons was typically the one which had the role of the supreme executive organ (in
the sense of government), i.e. head of the state.37 Right to pardon, besides federation,
also had each and every one of its republics, so e.g. in People’s Republic of Croatia
(NRH), according to the Constitution of NRH from 1947, pardons were issued by
the Presidium of the NRH Parliament.38 Besides constitutionally, that right was also
regulated with a special Law on granting of amnesty and pardons which was enacted
by the NRH Parliament.39 According to that Law, the right of pardon is performed by
the Parliament Presidium, while the pardon procedure was initiated either on request
of ex officio, but only a?er a verdict became legally binding. The request could have
been filed by a convict or its guardian, spouse, or some of his or her close relatives,
while the procedure was initiated ex officio upon request of the minister of justice.40 In
the process the procedure itself was rather important, because a request for pardon
was filed to the Presidium, but through a court which has rendered the first instance
verdict. The court would provide its opinion on the received request, which was
then delivered to the minister of justice who would also provide his opinion on the
delivered request and would forward it to the parliamentary Presidium.41 In regards
to the number of requests for pardons, the thereof was relatively high because only on
the republic level, e.g. in case of NRH near the end of the 1950s, over 1,000 requests
were received on average on a yearly basis.42
37
On a federal level, in accordance to the first Constitution of the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia
(FNRJ) from 1946, (article 74, p. 7), acqui?als were performed by the Presidium of the People’s assembly
of FNRJ as a collective chief of state. According to the Constitutional law on basis of social and political
order of FNRJ and federal organs of authorities from 1953 which changed some provisions of the
Constitution from 1946, acqui?als were performed by the Federal executive council (article 79, p. 11),
according to the Constitution of SFRJ from 1963, the President of SFRJ (article 217, p. 5), and according
to the Constitution of SFRJ from 1974, the Presidency of SFRJ (article 315, p. 9).
38
Ustav Narodne Republike Hrvatske, (Zagreb: Narodne novine, 1947), articles 73-76.
39
Ivo Perić, Hrvatski državni sabor 1848.-2000. Treći svezak: 1918.-2000., (Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povĳest
/ Hrvatski državni sabor / Dom i svĳet, 2001), 214. It is important to stress the difference between a
pardon and an amnesty which are o?en equalized in error. The basic difference lies in the fact that a
pardon is given to an individual, a specific person, and typically by a decision of a head of state, while
amnesty pertains to a nameless group of people and is proclaimed as a general provision, most o?en
by law. Jonjić, “Rajko Danilović, Upotreba neprĳatelja”, 344.
40
Perić, Hrvatski državni sabor, 215.
41
Ibidem.
42
Četvrto zasjedanje Sabora NR Hrvatske 28. i 29. svibnja 1959. Stenografski zapisnici, (Zagreb, 1960), 60-205.;
Perić, Hrvatski državni sabor, 269-270.
302
Along with laws on pardon, there were also various instructions on proceedings
of courts and criminal justice correctional institutions related to the pardon procedure.
In case a conditional release from continued serving of sentence would be asked for,
it was necessary to file the request to administration of a criminal justice correctional
institution in which the prison sentence was served, and that procedure was prescribed
by laws on enforcement of criminal sanctions.43
However, a large number of pardons were not immediately requested by convicts
or their relatives at the right address. That legal procedure was o?en, sometimes
intentionally, sometimes due to ignorance, skipped and supplicants were direct asking
for help from some other structures of government. Generally speaking, citizens have
o?en practiced writing petitions, requests, and appeals to authorities, which was also
a constitutionally guaranteed right. By looking at the statistics, we can say that out of
the total number of wri?en addresses to the highest authorities, one smaller, but also
not negligible percentage pertained to requests for pardons. Thus, only in the first
half of 1973, 9,314 citizens44 in total have addressed the SFRJ Presidency and President
of SFRJ in writing, out of which 33545 addresses pertained to pardons, i.e. a bit more
than 3.5%. Along with requests for pardons, the most frequent requests in le?ers were
those for exemption from and reduction of punishments and for a conditional release,
but they have appeared in a ten times smaller ratio.46 Also, a significant portion of
le?ers that the convicts sent basically were appeals in which they stated that they
were denied some rights or that their sentences were too severe.47
Requests for pardon, conditional release, or a reduction of a sentence were most
o?en addressed personally to Tito. The most frequent case was that a person is
addressing a request for pardon (its own or for someone else) to Tito,48 and the Office
for petitions and appeals of the Federal assembly, which also dealt with petitions
addressed to the President of the Republic, forwards the request to the Commission
for petitions and appeals of the republic assembly which would respond to the
supplicant that a request for pardon is first to be filed to the first instance court which
43
Therefore in the middle of the 1960s, that procedure was prescribed by the article 69 of the Law on
enforcement of criminal sanctions. AJ, SIV, box 511, sleeve no. 0439, Response from SIV to the petition
of Desa S. pertaining to pardoning or a conditional release, February 16th, 1965.
44
Of those, SR Serbia (narrower) 3,161, SAP Vojvodina 1,283, SAP Kosovo 214, SR Croatia 1,710, SR BiH
1,305, SR Makedonĳa 741, SR Slovenia 515, SR Montenegro 153, from abroad 232. See: HDA, SSRH,
box 417, “Izveštaj o radu na predstavkama i žalbama upućenim Predsedništvu SFRJ i Predsedniku
Republike za I. polugodište 1973. god.”, p. 2.
45
From Serbia 93, Vojvodina 50, Kosovo 13, Croatia 54, Slovenia 26, BiH 59, Macedonia 22, Montenegro
6, from abroad 12 requests for pardons. See: “Izveštaj o radu na predstavkama i žalbama upućenim
Predsedništvu SFRJ i Predsedniku Republike za I. polugodište 1973. god.”, p. 3., HDA, SSRH, box 417.
46
See: HDA, SSRH, box 417, “Izveštaj o radu na predstavkama i žalbama upućenim Predsedništvu SFRJ
i Predsedniku Republike za I. polugodište 1973. god.”, p. 3.
47
AJ, KPR, box 257, god 1975., “Informacĳa o predstavkama i žalbama upućenih organima CK SKJ u
septembru i oktobru 1975. godine, 21. 11. 1975.”
48
See Annex 4.
303
Our Daily Crime
has sentenced the convict.49 That pa?ern was most frequent in this communication
with authorities: people would turn to the highest instance, but the case would be
returned for resolving to that first and legally regulated instance, where there was
usually no “hearing” for requests in favor of prisoners.
A?er requests for pardons, the most frequent requests in le?ers were those
pertaining to a reduction of sentences. Thus, one girl from Zagreb in 1951 asks Tito to
replace the death penalty to which her father has been sentenced “for distribution of
falsified vouchers” with a life sentence.50 This case demonstrates how strict sanctions
were applied in the early phase of development of the communist authorities in
Yugoslavia, so it is really not surprising that requests for reduction of sentences
were o?en sent to addresses of state institutions or highly positioned individuals in
power. However, not all le?ers and all requests were aimed at reduction of sentences
or a release from prison. Prisoners have also complained about conditions in which
they were serving their sentences, as was the case of a convict in KPD Lepoglava
who is complaining about actions of the prison management.51 Similar to that is
the case of a prisoner convicted on charges that he was spreading nationalism and
undermined state order, and whose parents were writing an appeal to the Federal
assembly because their son was in solitary confinement of a prison in Stara Gradiška
for longer than legal regulations have allowed for.52 Also, they have complained about
the treatment of their son in a medical sense, claiming that he became sick while in
solitary confinement, and that they are not providing adequate medical care for him,
despite the fact that he has asked for it numerous times. Among other things, they
write:
“The room in which he is residing is damp, with not enough air. There is no
bed, sheets, or a straw ma?ress. He sleeps on a wooden board / prična /, where
he covers himself at night with a single blanket which is brought to him in the
evening, while they instantly take it away from him during the day, i.e. in the
morning. This kind of procedure towards our son is continuous since the first
days of his serving of the sentence until today. (...) Likewise, he is not allowed to
49
See: HDA, SSRH, box 423, case no. 1234.
50
Zvonimir Despot, Pisma Titu. Što je narod pisao jugoslavenskom vođi. (Zagreb: Večernji posebni proizvodi,
2010), 57.
51
See Annex 15.
52
It was about a somewhat known prisoner Josip Antićev, born on November 25th, 1935 in Banje (Zadar
county), law student convicted on charges that he was acquainted with goals of an organization
whose task was to create a massive basis for a seizure of power and creation of “people’s free state of
Croatia”. Antićev has been convicted for, at instigation of the first accused Rudi Jerko, in a trial of the
so-called “Preška group”, on Mirogoj, May 24th, 1958, set on fire garlands at the monument for fallen
communists, people’s heroes. He was the eighth accused in that process. AJ, SS, box 93, case 867/3,
“Izvještaj Državnog sekretarĳata za unutrašnje poslove NRH Odboru za predstavke i žalbe Savezne
narodne skupštine povodom predstavke Josipa i Marĳe Antićev.” For more details on the trial of this
group, see the collection of papers and annexes on Ivo Mašina, published as a special number of the
magazine Zadarska smotra: časopis za kulturu, znanost i umjetnost, 49/4-6 (2000).
304
own a sweater, which is stored in the KPD storage. We stress that other convicts,
by the provision of internal regulations, are to be given other garments and a
vest by order for usage, i.e. use, while our son did not receive one, and it was
withheld from him during his entire stay at KPD. He is not even in physical
contact with any kind of press, the windows are not opening, they are just opened
1 hour per 24 hours. Our son is also not able to follow daily press because it is
not allowed to him, let alone legal regulations, based on which he could conduct
necessary actions for protection of his rights. With regards to everything stated
above, provisions of the article 44; a. 53 p. 4, a. 56 p. 1, a. 59, and a. 65 of the Law
on enforcement of criminal sanctions, Sl. list no. 24 from June 21st, 1961 have
been violated, and because of that, as parents of the convicted Antićev Josip, we
suggest that our son is treated in accordance to legal regulations which, in this
instance, protect his being. We believe it is essential to act in accordance to the
provisions of the Law and in that way enable our son to return to health and to
freedom, so that he lives and works in accordance to the law, by fulfilling the
duties of citizens of a socialist community.”53
Parents of Josip Antićev have received a response from the Federal assembly
that they have investigated their claims, but that in this specific case, there are no
violations of law. On the contrary, they have added that their son “has a rather bad
a?itude in prison and that because of that, with a strict application of law, appropriate
repressive measures of disciplinary nature are applied.”54 By inspection of archival
material and case documentation, it can be seen that the Federal assembly really did
conduct an “investigation” on the unacceptable treatment of the prisoner. However,
the investigation came down to the fact that they have requested an investigation
from the very party to which the appeal pertained to – administration of KPD Stara
Gradiška which, naturally, denied the accusations on their account.
Variety of a man’s fate and problems which the prisoners were facing are observable
from these, o?en emotionally charged le?ers. One of such le?ers was wri?en in 1971
to the president of the Parliament by a prisoner from Zagreb who begs competent
authorities to locate his children.55 One foreign national from USA has in 1950 asked
Tito to get someone to explain him why was his wife, a citizen of Dubrovnik who he
has married in 1945, sentenced and imprisoned in KPD Požega.56 He writes that all
of his endeavors to bring her with him to USA were futile and that he does not know
how long is the punishment to which she has been sentenced. He finishes his le?er
53
AJ, SS, box 93, case 867/1, Memo of Josip and Marĳa Antićev for illegal treatment of their son in prison,
August 20th, 1961.
54
AJ, SS, box 93, case 867/1, Response of the Commission for petitions and appeals of the Federal assembly
to the petition of Josip and Marĳa Antićev, January 12th, 1962.
55
See Annex 8.
56
Despot, Pisma Titu, 247.
305
Our Daily Crime
with an emotional sentence: “I still love her very much and long for the day when we
can be together, so you can understand my concern.”57
There were also le?ers in which help of any kind was not requested, but, on the
opposite, it was offered, like when in 1968, nine convicts of KPD Foča concerned
about a potential military a?ack on Yugoslavia by the members of the Warsaw pact
offered their help to Tito. Their brief le?er states:
“Comrade Marshall!
We are able to follow all of the events and latest development in the world and in
our country. We are also ready, just like millions of other Yugoslavs among which
there are our families and relatives to defend everything that Party has, under
Your leadership, created in our Socialist homeland, regardless of the side from
which the aggressor came from, because we are one in the fact that this thing is
highly above our temporary absence from society...”58
In their requests, the prisoners, or those who were writing in their favor, were
stating all kinds of reasons and motives because of which their requests should be
granted. The most common reasons were difficult social circumstances. Thus, e.g. a
woman from Kostajnica in 1972 asks the SRH parliament for pardon of her unlawful
husband and as the basic reason states the difficult social position in which her family
has found itself in a?er her husband, with whom she has six illegitimate children, has
been sentenced to a year and a half in prison. In her sadly intoned request, she writes
that she happens to be in a really difficult situation, with no means of livelihood and
supporting of her underage children.59 Even worse is the state in which was the wife
of a convict from Rĳeka, who has wri?en to SIV in 1964. It is really highly unlikely
that the le?er from which a difficult social situation of a certain family is clear could
have le? anyone who read it indifferent.60 Similar difficult conditions are stated in a
request for pardon of her husband by a wife who has addressed the SRH Parliament
three times. In her third request from 1974, she states:
“I support two small children (aged 4 and 2), I am without permanent

employment, without an apartment (I live with my children in a 3x4 room
which is both a living room, and kitchen, and bathroom, without water which
I bring from the nearby river), and I am obliged to pay back a student loan for
my husband and me. And so, it becomes worse every day. The children need to
be provided with something, and I can provide so li?le to them. I am truly at the
end my strengths. That is the very reason why I am addressing you.”61
57
Ibidem.
58
Idem, 115.
59
See Annex 9.
60
See Annex 2.
61
HDA, SSRH, box 421, case no. 827, Ružica H. asks for a pardon for her husband, February 21st, 1974.
To this request, she has received a response from the Parliament stating that requests for pardons are
306
That families of prisoners were also those who suffered due to incarcerations of
their relatives the most is also testified by a le?er of a retired disabled person from a
certain village in Bosnia and Herzegovina, who asks the President of SIV to ensure his
son a conditional discharge from Goli Otok. I his le?er, among other things, he states:
“I have difficulties with supporting, as a retiree, I receive now, with a raise,

around 12,000 dinars, I have no other income and I have to support an incapable
wife and four other children besides Avdo, who I have to support and educate
in today’s spirit. (…) Our entire family is poor and working and we were always
supporters of everything that was advanced and in the interest of the working
class, and my son has also been educated and raised in that sense.”62
Besides social vulnerability, one of the most frequent reasons listed in requests
for reduction of sentences were medical reasons. Thus, one supplicant writes that her
husband has spent 22 months in remand prison, in inhumane conditions, because
of which he became sick from jaundice and consequences of it on his lungs have
remained.63 Along with those listed, there were also many other reasons which
the supplicants were listing in their le?ers, which also vividly paints the variety of
everyday issues in lives of these people. I will single out an example of a mother of a
prisoner on Goli Otok, who asks the authorities to release his son two months prior to
the expiration of his sentence so that he can take a course which will be necessary for
his future employment in time.64
As one of the extenuating circumstances and as one of the reasons because of
which they should be helped was the referring of supplicants to the war path on the
side of Partisans. Thus, one convict sentenced to a two-year-long prison writes how
he does not feel guilty, and as his extenuating circumstance, he states that he is a son
of a cooperative of the People’s Liberation War (NOR).65 In a le?er of a girl who asks
for transformation of a death penalty into a life sentence to which her father was
sentenced, she states that the death of her father would also kill her mother who has
“since day one of our liberation voluntarily donated blood for our wounded fighters,
thereby acquiring the badge ‘Blood for heroic blood’.”66 That this referring to the
Partisan war path was not pointless is also testified by the fact that in Yugoslavia,
during state holidays, especially on the Republic Day (November 29th), the state
delivered to a court which rendered a first instance verdict.

62
AJ, SIV, box 511, sleeve no. 0437, Request of Ibra B. for pardon of his son, April 29th, 1965.
63
AJ, SIV, box 511, sleeve no. 0437, Request of Živana M. for abolition of the verdict to her husband,
October 19th, 1965.
64
AJ, SIV, box 511, sleeve no. 0439, Request of Marĳa G. for pardon of her son, convict on Goli Otok, April 5th,
1965. She has received a response stating to address her request to the prison administration on Goli Otok.
65
AJ, SIV, box 511, sleeve no. 0439, Request of Lazar P. for pardon, May 9th, 1965.
66
307
Our Daily Crime
has been issuing decrees on amnesty of participants of NOR. That was also what
has motivated the wife who asked SIV for pardon of her husband, stating that he
has, “in fateful days of our people”, on call of the Communist party of Yugoslavia
(KPJ), joined the Partisans, where he was wounded and “has poured the fruits of
our revolution with his blood.” Among other things, she states that she knows how
during state holidays, decrees of amnesty of “those who were building and creating
in the past, and also made a mistake”67 are issued. That is also confirmed by the case
of a woman from Makarska who in 1964 asks SIV to notify her why was her husband
not encompassed with the amnesty for the Republic Day as a participant of NOB.68
Apart from the fact that participation in NOB was considered as a fact that goes in
favor of the supplicants, membership in post-war state and other organs of government
was also considered as a mitigating circumstance. How mitigating is clearly shown
by the case of a former State Security Administration (Udba) agent who in 1966 asks
Tito for intervention in a judicial procedure led against him because he believes that
the elimination which he has commi?ed was not ordinary, but politically necessary.
“Dear comrade Tito,

I have though whether to address You personally for a long time. Some heads
think that the case because of which I am addressing You has exclusively legal
character, that it should be discussed by exclusively judiciary organs, just like
every other criminal offense. According to them, there is no room for political
factors to say anything on the subject. I disagree. On the contrary, I believe
that the case to which I will introduce you to, i.e. the treatment of that case has
primarily principled, political character. That is the very reason because of which
I have decided to write to You, confident that Your word in this case will, as
always, be righteous and deeply politically correct.”69
The supplicant continues the le?er by stating his personal information, among
which he first accentuates that he has been a KPJ member since 1942, that he is a
holder of a Partisan memorial of 1941, that he was wounded in the war twice, and
that he has been in state security services since 1944. He also reveals his path in Udba,
specifically in which way he was acting against “breakaway gangs and Albanian
spies” in Kosovo (he also writes in which eliminations did he participate) a?er the
war until 1953, and that at the time of the fourth Plenum of CK SKJ (1966), he found
himself holding the office of the chief of the second Administration of State security
in Republican secretariat of internal affairs (RSUP) of SR Serbia. He accentuates that
he was faithful to the Party for the entire time and that he has performed all of this
67
See Annex 2.
68
AJ, SIV, box 500, sleeve no. 0439, Request of Krasa P. from Makarska for pardon of her husband,
February 15th, 1964.
69
AJ, KPR, box 229, case no. 449/1, strictly confidential, Le?er of Ljubomir Š., employee of RSUP SRS to
President Tito, November 28th, 1966, p. 1.
308
tasks “commi?edly, conscientiously, and with passion”.70 In the following part of the
le?er, he describes the case because of which he is making contact. Namely, at the
time when he is writing to Tito, against him and five more members of Udba, District
public prosecution in Peća has initiated a criminal procedure for murder commi?ed
in the middle of 1953, because the accused have eliminated a man which they have
considered an enemy and supported of sabotaging formations on Kosovo without
a court ruling. The supplicant described the victim which they have eliminated,
a?empting to show that this was an individual dangerous to the security of the state.
“That case, even though it denotes a deviation from constitutionality, is a necessity

of the kind that has always occurred in the moments when achievements of
revolution are not only defended through court, but also with weapons. Comrade
Tito. Today, I and my comrades, accomplices, are supposed to be completely
disqualified from society because of this case, called to criminal responsibility,
and end up like criminals. I am not convinced that that is right and that that is
the way to proceed.” 71
This supplicant, employee of security and intelligence services states an opinion

that “possible mistakes” which employees of Udba have been commi?ing during the
war and conflict against members of the so-called Inform Bureau cannot be labeled
as mistakes which have occurred later, once “the deformations in the State security
service became prominent”. He believes that no revision of those murders from the
1950s needs to be performed, because “If it has to be, then this is not the only case of
this kind. We all know that this is not the only man deprived of life without a court
ruling in revolutionary times.”72
I do not know how this specific case has ended, and it is possible that it has
not even reached Tito because typically, he would leave some kind of sign, paraph,
signature, or instruction on what to do on the le?ers which he was receiving, and
there are no signs of any kind on this le?er. It is more likely that he was briefly notified
of the case by services in charge of those tasks in his office.
From the presented case of the accused member of Udba, it is clear that in 1966,
the State security service was targeted, which confirms that le?ers sent to the highest
authorities, to a certain degree, reflect the reactions to socio-political developments,
i.e. that they follow the socio-political history of Yugoslavia. Besides this case related
to the “Brioni plenum” and fall of Aleksandar Ranković in 1966, le?ers which were
received by Tito or some other people on the highest positions were also related to
other important events from the history of Yugoslavia, as was, e.g. the student strike
in 1968. Also, a large influence of the socio-political state on writing of requests and
70
Idem, 2-3.
71
Idem, 5-6.
72
Idem, 6.
309
Our Daily Crime
appeals itself is also noticeable a?er the suppression of Croatian spring. According to
the information of the SFRJ Presidency, as the beginning of 1973, there was an increase
in the number of petitions and appeals from the areas of civil and criminal cases of
around 34%. In their petitions, citizens have requested annulments and alterations
of legally binding court rulings through extraordinary legal remedies in much larger
numbers because the thereof were, according to their statements, rendered in an
environment and under the influence which did not enable judicial independence.73
Likewise, it is observable that the speeches, or some wri?en notices of the highest state
officials, primarily Tito, were also regularly causing increases of petitions wri?en by
citizens to authorities. Within those writings, there are also numerous requests of
convicts or requests wri?en in favor of convicts.74
The discourse of analyzed le?ers also reveals a lot to us in terms of the method of
communication of the prisoners (and those who are pleading on behalf of prisoners)
with state organs and persons in power. That wri?en communication is full of
various pa?erns which are noticeable in a large number of requests. Probably the
most common of these is the pa?ern of pandering to the authority of the power. It is
manifested in honorific titles, celebrations, praises, and in expressions of loyalty to the
state, i.e. socialist system. That pa?ern is most pronounced in cases when supplicants
address persons from the government directly, most frequently in case of an address
to Tito. It was not rare that le?ers addressed to him start in this very way:
“Dear comrade Tito! Our idol, our dear parent, and the leader of our people, I ask
(plead) You...”, and end in: “Receive many heartfelt greetings and wishes that you
live for a long, long time, leading our people”.75 Pandering to authority of the power
was o?en also manifested through poetic a?empts, as was the case of the already
mentioned old man accused for the? of fruit, who writes:
“Comrade Tito, our white lamb, give us some kind of exempt. (…) Comrade
Tito, it is the naked truth, that there was less than ten kilos of fruit. Comrade Tito,
our hope beloved, each of us got fined for 20 thousands. (…) Comrade Tito, to
you we grumble, to us, you are just like our mother.”76
Another common pa?ern in requests is the expression of self-criticism. Convicts are

o?en expressing remorse for their commi?ed felony, trying to find some explanation
or justification, a?er which they are stating that the prison sentence had a positive and
rehabilitational effect on them.77 Besides the fact that convicts are expressing remorse
73
HDA, SSRH, box 417, “Izveštaj o radu na predstavkama i žalbama upućenim Predsedništvu SFRJ i
Predsedniku Republike za I. polugodište 1973. god.”, p. 4.
74
Ibidem.
75
AJ, KPR, box 243, Le?er of Radmil G. to President Tito, without date, received on April 8th, 1969.
76
AJ, SIV, box 510, sleeve no. 0419, Request of Hasan T. for help addressed to Tito, January 7th, 1965.
77
See Annex 10.
310
for commitment of (mis)deeds themselves, similar pa?erns were also used by those
who were sending requests for their relatives.78
However, le?ers in which stances and opinions that are exactly opposite to
those who were self-critical and pandering were not rare. Some of the authors write
extremely critically towards the system in their le?ers and are leaving an impression
of civil self-aware and informed people. Such was the case of a certain cinema operator
and hauler from Brežice, sentenced in 1961 to a four-year-long strict prison, who, in
his request addressed to SIV, writes:
“The constitutional and legislative assembly is searching, deciding on, issuing,

and enacting constitutions and laws in vain, when eventually, those whose first
duty and major task is to obey them fail to do so, does no preserve them, and
does not acknowledge them … (…) On one side, we read, learn, listen to courses
and similar things that all of us are equal citizens in front of the law. Practice
demonstrates the opposite. The very laws being beli?led or underestimated
diminishes the reputation, and therefore the authority and trust are gone.”79
Similar to that is the case of two convicts from Montenegro who, in their le?er
addressed to the Commission for petitions and appeals of SIV, present how some of
the convicts were aware of their constitutional and other rights and how they were
invoking them. In their le?er, they write:
“No one has still seriously dealt with our case – not because it is believed that we
are wrong, but because certain county organs want to save their officials from
responsibility. (...) I do not ask and we do not want to be forgiven for anything. We
will answer for everything that we have done. But should not those who do not
respect a human dignity and regulations also answer for it? In the Constitution,
it is wri?en that ... ‘unconstitutional and punishable is every arbitrariness which
deprives the right of a human and a citizen’ and that the ‘right to an appeal on
decisions of all organs is guaranteed’. We believe in those words, persistently
proving that we have suffered an injustice, and believing in endeavors of our
people that mistakes are corrected.”80
A really good example of a “conscious” supplicant is also an example of a lawyer

who has worked in the company “Rade Končar” and who, as a man who knows the
78
See Annex 14.
79
AJ, SIV, box 499, sleeve no. 0434, Request of Štefan P., convict from KPD Dob addressed to SIV, February
26th, 1964, p. 2.; He has received a response from SIV that according to existent regulations of SIV, he is
not authorized to question the legality of judicial decisions. AJ, SIV, box 499, sleeve no. 0434, Response
from SIV to the request of Štefan P., March 20th, 1964.
80
AJ, SIV, box 500, sleeve no. 0442, Appeal of Radoje P. and Spasoje P. from Trepča to the Commission
for petitions and appeals of SIV, October 12th, 1963; the submi?ers have not received a response to this
le?er, but instead, the person which read the le?er has wri?en the following on the first page of the
le?er: “Case to be adacted because the complainants have used unpermi?ed means in the procedure,
and it has even been investigated by ZK CG. A new questioning is not justified.”
311
Our Daily Crime
legal system really well, writes a detailed and legally formulated request for pardon.81
Such le?ers are most o?en wri?en in a more official form, and were wri?en by more
educated citizens and convicts who knew how to use legal and formalized pa?erns
and a large level of awareness was noticeable from their le?ers. On the other hand,
more poorly educated citizens/convicts have more frequently wri?en more emotional
le?ers, and the level of education of a sender was also observable from the linguistic,
i.e. grammatical, orthographic, and stylistic level of the wri?en le?ers.
Who receives the le?ers and how does (s)he react to them?
Speaking of recipients of le?ers, I have to accentuate that my research was selective
and that it did not encompass all instances and addresses to which the aforementioned
senders were writing. It is clear that such a research, at least on a level of a single
scientific article, would be almost impossible to conduct. The le?ers were arriving to
numerous and most varied addresses which the individuals deemed as some instance
of authority, whether they were federal and republican judicial, legislative, executive
institutions or persons which have performed some kind of a state, public or Party
service. In my research, I have not dealt with appeals and requests addressed to judicial
bodies, but those addressed to legislative and executive bodies. From legislative bodies,
I have researched the material sent to Federal and one republican assembly (Croatian
Parliament), and from executive bodies, materials addressed to the Federal executive
council and Executive council of the Croatian Parliament. Material of these institutions
is relevant because various requests and appeals have been addressed to them most
o?en, but also because these institutions also had special bodies (commissions, bureaus,
commi?ees) which dealt with petitions, requests, and appeals of citizens, and among
other things, with requests of prisoners. From persons who have represented the
power, there was one which has personified that power among people the most, and
that was Josip Broz Tito. Le?ers addressed to him are addressed to him as a person, but
also as an institution because he was performing some high state functions, such as the
function of the President of the Republic (SFRJ). Until 1960s, Tito was really reading
a large number of le?ers, but with the expansion of his office and an increase of his
responsibilities, he eventually stopped arbitrating so personally like before, and his
office was performing that instead, answering the le?ers and forwarding him. From the
middle of the 1960s, Tito would receive reports (Information) from his office on received
le?ers in which he would be briefly notified of the kind of requests and petitions. Some
authors believe that an expansion of Tito’s office is a sign that Tito was starting to be
somewhat le? out of the process of informing on who is writing to him. Z. Despot
believes that this becomes especially evident since the 1970 when Stane Dolanc was
assigned to the position of the secretary of the Executive commi?ee of CK SKJ. Since
then, a practice has been introduced which consisted of the chief of Tito’s office sending
81
See Annex 12.
312
every le?er of a more sensitive content, especially those of political kind, in which Tito
is warned of various illicit actions of individual communist and organizations, to Dolac
with an inquiry of whether Tito can be introduced to the contents of the le?er. Dolanc
was determining what will Tito read and what he will not read, so Despot leaves the
question of whether the reason for that was sparing the already ageing Tito of some
concerns or to manipulate him open.82
Institutions which dealt with requests and appeals of prisoners/detainees (or those
in favor of prisoners/detainees) have mostly operated bureaucratically. In that regard,
commissions, bureaus, and other bodies of the highest state authorities, republic and
federal governments, and parliaments would react a?er receiving requests, but to a
highest degree, their reaction would come down to “perfunctory” of some procedural
steps, without an actual a?empt to help the supplicant. Mentioned commissions and
bureaus established with that very task have actually resolved very li?le through their
activity because from them, appeals were most o?en responded to in a rather brief
manner, usually with a response that the appellant does not have, or very rarely has,
legal grounds for his or her claims. The most o?en answer was that they (parliament,
government) are not competent for that and would refer supplicants to other addresses.
An answer that they do not have jurisdiction over the issue would be delivered most
o?en, as most issues pertained to judicial procedures. Thus, supplicants of e.g. SIV
would receive a response that SIV is not competent for resolution of their complaints
because according to provisions in charge, it is not competent to inspect legality of
court rulings, and the answer would also commonly include a legal lesson.83
Bureaucratism was a really large problem in functioning of socialist Yugoslavia.
Generally speaking, citizens who would found themselves in front of some problem
would o?en get “stuck” in some of the phases of the bureaucratic procedure. Even
though the state itself has somewhat fought that, that issue encumbered Yugoslavia to
the very end of its existence. This bureaucratic procedure has most severely reflected
on people and cases on the edge of society, on persons who the state tried to eject from
their environment anyway – those convicted to prison sentences. Their constitutional
and legal rights were o?en broken, and when decisions harmful to them had their
legal basis, government structures would have even less “hearing” for their problems.
In all of that, realistically most effective instance, especially in the eyes of the
supplicants, was addressing certain highly positioned individuals, i.e. personally,
and here, the biggest instance was certainly the untouchable Tito. Trust and hope
82
See: Despot, Pisma Titu, 15.
83
Therefore, e.g. one convict, convicted with a verdict from the Supreme court of SRH, asked the
Parliament for help and annulment of the verdict, to which he has received a response that there are
no legal grounds for a Parliament intervention because, based on the article 3 of the General law on
courts of general jurisdiction, courts are independent in their execution of judicial functions and try
on the basis of the Constitution and laws, and that therefore, other organs have no legal authority to
change, annul, or order judicial organs on how to render their resolutions and verdicts. HDA, SSRH,
box 404, case no. 3242, Response of the Commission for petitions and appeals of the SRH Parliament to
the request of Mĳo L., January 19th, 1972.
313
Our Daily Crime
that the “grand and righteous” President of the Republic will help them, sometimes
(until 1963) in the role of a prime minister, or in the role of a Secretary general of
KPJ, or as a Marshall, and sometimes just as “Tito”, was most o?en the last a?empt
to procure some kind of a resolution in favor of a supplicant. In some cases, that was
also actually the only effective resolution, as testified by the already mentioned case
of a girl who in 1951 asked Tito to replace the confirmed death penalty of the Supreme
Court of FNRJ to which her father has been sentenced with a sentence of a lifetime
imprisonment. He actually did that, even though, according to the Constitution of
FNRJ from 1946 in force, the authority for pardon was not his, but belonged to the
Presidium of the People’s assembly of FNRJ as the collective head of the state.84 Still,
it is hard not to agree to such “skipping” of constitutional authorities, if it is kept in
mind that the death penalty was given for “distribution of counterfeited vouchers”.85 A
similar intervention from Tito has saved in 1952 a certain Belgrade prisoner convicted
to death a?er his parents have asked Tito to save him, ending their plea with these
words: “Save, Save our son to us, and a father to the children, so that they could, too,
become the best and most loyal citizens of our country. Save him. Save him out of
humanity.”86 And he saved him.
Tito’s “avoiding” of legal authorities was not a rarity in his activity. His violations
of the principle of judicial independence is best witnessed by his widely known
statement in the closing words on the 21st session of Presidency of SKJ from December
2nd, 1971 that legal paragraphs are not to be “blindly” followed.87 That statement from
Tito was a clear message and actually a “directive” to the judiciary, primarily the
Croatian judiciary, that it has to deal with the protagonists of the Croatian spring
which he has proclaimed to be a “counterrevolution” and that during that, it does not
necessarily have to follow legal procedures. Because of this statement, a large number
of citizens became targets of repression and, through mostly staged procedures,
numerous innocents have been sentenced to long prison sentences. It is obvious that
the epilogue of such “overriding” of legal authorities was not always positive.
84
Ustav Federativne Narodne Republike Jugoslavĳe, (Belgrade: Službeni list FNRJ, 1946), article 74, p. 7.
85
86
Idem, 68.
87
“That also goes for our judiciary and prosecution. They o?en ‘blindly’ follow paragraphs. Then that
paragraph is inverted in all directions, always finding that which frees the culprit, not looking at that
which is against socialist development.” Josip Broz Tito, Govori i članci (1971-1976), (Belgrade: Politička
uprava SSNO, 1977), 5.
314
Conclusion
With this paper, I have endeavored to present communication and relation
between prisoners/detainees, people close to them, and state and Party authorities of
the communist Yugoslavia. A content analysis has demonstrated a variety of offenses
because of which people were sentenced, as well as a wide scope of authors of le?ers
and the abundance of addresses of government structures to which those le?ers were
addressed to. A discourse analysis has demonstrate, on one hand, multiple pa?erns
which the authors of le?ers were using in their supplicatory-appellate literary
practice, and on the other hand, a mostly entrenched bureaucratic method of problem
resolution and communication with government structures, among which that which
was personified in his person by Josip Broz Tito presented itself as the most efficient,
whose word was the most effective and hierarchically more powerful than the law
itself.
In a methodological sense, this research has demonstrated that in studying the
second half of the twentieth century, historical-anthropological approach is not only
possible, but also rather functional. Largely ignored history of a “li?le man” appears
as a topic with a huge potential in painting the historical everyday life and social
history of the second Yugoslavia. By being based primarily on analysis of one type of
sources, le?ers, appeals, and requests of prisoners and people close to them, a life of
these prisoners and their families in a certain rounded historical period, the period
of Yugoslavian communism, with all of its dynamical changes and social specificities
reveals itself. This type of research upgrades the traditional and most widespread
historiographical approach of research which is primarily focused on socio-political
history, but which still remains the foundation for any kind of further deepening of
the knowledge of a man’s life in past. Analyzed le?ers have proved to be a rich source
for precisely that kind of cognitive upgrade.
315
Our Daily Crime
ANNEXES
NOTE FROM THE AUTHOR
Le?ers supplied herein are found in various forms. Most of them are presented
in facsimiles (photos), and a smaller number of them have been a?ached in the form
of transcripts that have been translated into English. The reason for transcription
was that some of the le?ers were in a bad condition (of paper or the handwriting),
which could make reading more difficult to the readers. Also, a?ached facsimiles also
demonstrate a variety in forms. Some were wri?en by hand, some on a typewriter,
while some were only preserved in a transcript made by the services who have
received the le?ers.
Some facsimiles from the Archives of Yugoslavia which I am presenting here
were disclosed to me by a colleague Dr. sc. Petar Dragišić from the Institute for recent
history of Serbia in Belgrade. Apart from that, Dr. Dragišić has helped me a lot in
researching the fund of the Office of the President of the Republic in the Archives of
Yugoslavia, ceding a large amount of material that I have discussed in here, so I am
thanking him most sincerely for everything.
316
Annex 1: Request of a wife for a reduction of a sentence to her husband addresed to

SIV, 196488
By the ruling of the Supreme Court of AP Vojvodina Vrhovnog

Suda AP Vojvodina, reference no. :KŽ 932/63 from June 16th,
1963, a verdict by which my husband, Antolović Djura is
sentenced to a two years in a strict prison has finally been
rendered, whereas the time already spent in prison and remand
prison since April 5th, 1963 is also to be calculated into
this period.
Now, my husband Antolović Djura is serving a sentence in
the Criminal correctional institute in Požarevac, and has
already endured a full year in prison of the given sentence.
The felony for which my husband has been sentenced is of
a criminal character, as he has committed a theft of cash in
amount of 87,000 dinars. He committed this act because he
has been unemployed for a longer period of time, and besides
that, he was in a company of alcoholics which had a bad
influence on him. This has also been determined by the Court
and was considered as a mitigating circumstance during the
assessment of guilt.
Also taken into account are the poor financial circumstances,
especially family circumstances of my husband. Namely, I,
as his good wife, am employed as a manual worker at the
Agricultural property in Alibunar, I am in poor health and am
often sick, and because of that, by possibility to earn is
lowered, so I have a difficult time supporting myself because
I do not have other property or income, besides the one I
earn from the stated agricultural organization.
My husband, Antolović Djura, is also a manual worker by
profession, who was forced to support himself with his work
since he was just a boy. He was always an honest and upright
worker and satisfied even with the lowest income, and he would
do none of these things if only he had not lost his job.
I am deeply convinced that he will not resort to anything
dishonest and illegal in his life anymore in order to obtain
means of livelihood for himself, but on the contrary, taught
by all of this that he has experienced and endured in prison,
88
AJ, SIV, box 500, sleeve no. 0439, Request of Stojanka A. for reduction of sentence to her husband, April
7th, 1964. She received a response from SIV stating only that in accordance to the provisions of the Law
on pardon, she has to address the court which sentenced her husband with that request.
317
Our Daily Crime
he will indulge in work so that he could become an upright

and honest citizen and worker of this state.
This conviction of mine is also supported by knowledge
that his behavior in the Criminal correctional institute
in Požarevac is appropriate because he has complied with
all rules and regulations of that Institute in an extremely
disciplined manner, performing all tasks and projects in a
timely and correct manner.
By the aforementioned, as a legal wife of Antolović Djura,
I file to Your Commission a
REQUEST
By which I ask that a sentence of a strict prison is reduced
to my husband, Antolović Djura through amnesty by at least
6 months because mitigation of the sentence will further
contribute to the increase of gratitude towards judiciary and
social order of our country in my husband, Antolović Djura,
while at the same time, such a gesture will give my husband a
new impulse to include himself in our socialist social system
as an honest and valuable worker.
Stojanka Antolović
318
Annex 2: Request of a wife for a pardon of her husband addressed to SIV, 1964 89
My husband Kamenar Božo is serving a sentence, to which

he has been sentenced by a legally binding verdict of VSSRH
no. K-3/63-43 from September 11th, 1963 on 5 years of strict
prison.
He was deprived of freedom on September 7th, 1962, and
he has been in prison ever since, and as of November 8th,
1963, he is serving his sentence in the Criminal Justice
Correctional institute Lepoglava.
I am the wife of the convict, I live in Tijani near
Rijeka, I have two underage children, a 9-year-old son and a
15-year-old daughter. As I am left without means of livelihood
because I am deprived of the help of my husband, trust me,
comrades, that I am in a miserable situation. I am employed
at the company ŽTT Rijeka, and my earnings are not enough
for life and rising of our children, so our days go by in
sorrow and tears, and the children, along with myself, are
having a difficult time with going through this tragedy day-
by-day. I hope that my husband has already felt the severity
of his punishment and I believe that the said punishment has
correctively affected him and that he needs to be enabled to
return to me and the children, who need him immensely for
their formation as soon as possible. While I work, I cannot
watch over the children, and I also do not have the authority
over them that he does, which pains me even more, as these
are the very years in which they need a father more than
they need a mother. I am completely languished and I feel
that if this situation is to continue, another family will be
destroyed, and with that, a warm home of the children.
Dear comrades, I plead You to understand me as a woman and
a mother who has been punished by this tragedy more than he
has, because my sufferings can not be described in words, but
can only be felt by someone who experiences what I am or who
wants to understand. I am not just asking for him personally,
I ask for my children, for the life that is in front of them,
for all those joys and happiness that belongs to them, and
which I cannot afford for them in this tragedy because of
which they are suffering the most.
89
AJ, SIV, box 500, sleeve no. 0439, Request of Zdenka K. for pardon of her husband, September 17th, 1964.
319
Our Daily Crime
Furthermore, as the Heading certainly knows that my

husband is a participate of N.O.R. and that he has, during
the fateful days of our people, on call of the Communist
party joined the Partisans, where he was wounded, so he has
poured the fruits of our revolution with his blood. After
demobilization, he has actively involved himself in work
of socio-political organizations, giving his contribution
to the construction of our social system as a member and a
manager. I know, comrades, that the society cares of punished
people and that during state holidays, amnesty decrees for
those who were building and creating in the past, but have
also made a mistake are issued.
I hope that November 29th, 1964, the holiday of all
Yugoslavs, and especially participants of NOR, of whom my
husband is also a member, will bring me and my children at
least a bit of happiness that the happy day comes as soon as
possible and happiness starts shining in our house, too, and
thus brings back the joy and satisfaction to my children and
their mother, that they see their home-dear father as soon
as possible.
In hope that you will completely understand me, comrades,
and pardon my husband, many thanks for You.
With respect
Kamenar Zdenka
Tijani 50 – Rijeka
Rijeka, September 17th, 1964
P.S. I beg you kindly, answer me, whether the result is

favorable or unfavorable.
320
Annex 3: Request of a husband for a dialogue with the President of IVS in regards to the
conviction of his wife, 197290
90
HDA, SSRH box 410, case no. 229, Mihajlo P. requests an audience from the President of
IVS, December 21st, 1972.
321
Our Daily Crime
Annex 4: Request of a mother for a reduction of a sentence to her son, addressed to

President Tito, 197491
91
HDA, SSRH, box 423, case no. 1234, Jela B. asks President Tito for pardon of her son, February 9th, 1974.
322
Annex 5: Request of underage girls for a pardon of their father, addressed to the SRH
Parliament, 197492
92
HDA, SSRH, box 423, case no. 1158, Underage sisters Vesna and Jasna I. ask for pardon of their father,
September 11th, 1974.
323
Our Daily Crime
Annex 6: Request of three boys for a reduction of punishment to their mother addressed
to Tito, 197493
93
HDA, SSRH, box 424, case no. 1382, Dušan S., Slobodan S., and Dujo Š. ask for a reduction of the sentence
to their mother, February 26th, 1974. Their le?er was forwarded by the Office for petitions and appeals
of the Federal assembly to the Commission for petitions and appeals of the SRH Parliament which has
responded to the three boys on April 10th, 1974, stating that there are no legal possibilities for satisfying
their request because verdict to their mother has yet to become legally binding, as an appeal has been filed
against it. It has also been stated that requests for reduction of sentences are sent to the court which has
rendered the first instance verdict. HDA, SSRH, box 424, case no. 1382, Response of the Commission for
petitions and appeals of the SRH Parliament to the three underage brothers, April 10th, 1974.
324
325
Our Daily Crime
Annex 7: Request of a mother of a prisoner on Goli Otok for mitigation of a sentence

addressed to Ivan Rukavina, 196494
Honored comrade Dr. Rukavina!
Hearing about Your kind self, who helps people when

they need it, I am free to turn to you with a certain
request.
My son Bošković Davor has been sentenced to 12 years,
and he has been serving his sentence on Goli Otok for 6
years already. At his home, he left his wife, mother-in-
law, an old, 78-year-old woman, and two weak male children.
Difficulties in his family were stated in his request,
addressed to the competent organ in May of this year.
I know that the serving of a sentence has already
positively affected him, that he is aware of his guilt
and that, if his request is at least partially granted,
he will become a conscientious member of our Socialist
country.
I, as his mother, who was deeply stricken by his fate am
pleading You to take his request into consideration with
understanding when the time for that comes.
In hope that you will help me, I thank You in advance
and greet You.
Fabrio Kraljica
Vrboska Island of Hvar
September 15th, 1964
94
AJ, SIV, box 500, sleeve no. 0439, Request of Kraljica F. for pardon of her son, September 15th, 1964.
326
Annex 8: Prisoner from Zagreb asks the President of the Parliament for an information
on the address of his children, 197195
95
HDA, SSRH, box 403, case no. 1406, Branko K. asks the President of Parliament for information on the
address of his children, April 27th, 1971.
327
Our Daily Crime
328
Annex 9: Request of an unlawful wife for a pardon of her husband, 197296
96
HDA, SSRH, box 409, case no. 2880, Nada K. asks for pardon of her husband, October 10th, 1972.
329
Our Daily Crime
Annex 10: Request of a prisoner from KPD Foča for a mitigation of a sentence, 1965 97
To the Executive council of SFRJ

Commission for appeals and requests
I, Šakotić (Obrena) Petar, convict convicted by a

legally binding ruling of a District court in Ljubljana
K 68/56, for a criminal offense from the article 35 and
257 of the Criminal law to a sentence of strict prison in
duration of 17 years. I am currently serving my sentence
in K.P.D. Foča.
I turn to the Heading to consider my request for a
reduction of sentence, as I have committed this act due
to ignorance and bad company which I was in when I was
undergoing vocational training in the ironworks Jesenice,
in front of the ironworks Nikšić in 1955.
I am serving my sentence since 1955, and I still feel
young and have hope for continued life, especially if you
forgive me a part of my sentence since the sentence has
positively affected me and I have demonstrated positive
results in my reeducation in the previous period of residence
in the Criminal Justice Correctional Institution. I regret
the committed act and I strive to be a good and honest
citizen of SFRJ.
I hope that You will grant my request and I thank You
in advance.
Foča, September 20th, 1965
Molilac
Šakotić Petar,
K.P.D. Foča
97
AJ, SIV, box 511, sleeve no. 0439, Petar Š. asks for pardon, September 20th, 1965.
330
Annex 11: Request for pardon of a husband addressed to the Presidency of the SRH
Government, 197298
98
HDA, SSRH, box 410, case no. 189, Julĳana B. asks for pardon of her husband, September 28th, 1972.
331
Our Daily Crime
332
Annex 12: Convicted lawyer asks the Presidency of SFRJ for pardon, 197499
99
HDA, SSRH, box 427, case no. 1951, Vladimir S. asks the Presidency of SFRJ for pardon, April 1st, 1974.
333
Our Daily Crime
334
Annex 13: A convict convicted for sugar smuggling asks for exemption of punishment,
1971100
100
HDA, SSRH, box 404, case no. 3242, Request of Mĳo L. for exemption from punishment, received on
December 17th, 1971.
335
Our Daily Crime
Annex 14: A wife asks the President of the SRH Parliament for pardon of her husband
convicted for an illegal relationship with an underage female, 1973101
101
HDA, SSRH, box 414, case no. 1784, Rozalĳa N. asks the President of Parliament for pardon of her
husband, May 1st, 1973.
336
102
102
She received a response from the Commission for petitions and appeals stating that according to the
article 5 of the Law on pardon, she needs to file her request to the court which rendered the first
instance verdict, which then forwards it to the Commission for pardon of the Executive council of the
SRH Parliament. HDA, SSRH, box 414, case no. 1784, Response of the Commission for petitions and
appeals to Rozalĳa N., May 22nd, 1973.
337
Our Daily Crime
Annex 15: Convict from KPD Lepoglava complains on the proceedings of the prison
administration, 1974103
103
HDA, SSRH, box 418, case no. 216, Josip B. complains on the proceedings of the administration of
KPD Lepoglava, received on January 11th, 1974. The Parliament Commission for petitions and appeals
has requested an investigation from the Republic Secretariat for general administration and judiciary
which recommended that the appeal is not granted. HDA, SSRH, box 418, case no. 216, Response of the
Commission for petitions and appeals of the SRH parliament to Josip B, January 18th, 1974.
338
339
Our Daily Crime
Annex 16: Le?er of Ankica Tuđman to the President of the Republic Tito, February 11th,
1972 104
104
AJ, KPR, box 252, 1972., Le?er of Ankica T. to the President of the Republic J. B. Tito, February 11th,
1972.
340
341
Our Daily Crime
342
Annex 17: Le?er of Ankica Tuđman to the President of the Republic Tito, April 4th,
1972 105
105
AJ, KPR, box 252, god. 1972., Le?er of Ankica T. to the President of the Republic J. B. Tito, April 4th, 1972.
343
Our Daily Crime
344
Annex 18: Le?er of a convict for violent behavior addressed to the President of the SRH
Parliament, 1972106
106
HDA, SSRH, box 408, case no. 2475, Branko N. asks for a mitigation of sentence, August 16th, 1972.
On the back of this le?er, the secretary of the Commission Đorđe Marčetić has wri?en that there are
no basis for intervention because the verdict is legally binding, and the request for an extraordinary
mitigation of sentence is in proceedings.
345
Our Daily Crime
346

Josip Mihaljević, "Comrade Tito, Help!" Letters of Prisoners and in Favor of Prisoners Addressed To Authorities of Communist Yugoslavia As A Historical Source

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Josip Mihaljević, "Comrade Tito, Help!" Letters of Prisoners and in Favor of Prisoners Addressed To Authorities of Communist Yugoslavia As A Historical Source

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

“Comrade Tito, help!” Le?

ers of prisoners and in favor

Introduction: history of a “li?le man”

was recently arrested with a group of counterrevolutionaries in Zagreb, asks for an

What is asked for, in what way, and why?

“I support two small children (aged 4 and 2), I am without permanent

“I have diﬃculties with supporting, as a retiree, I receive now, with a raise,

delivered to a court which rendered a ﬁrst instance verdict.

“Dear comrade Tito,

“That case, even though it denotes a deviation from constitutionality, is a necessity

This supplicant, employee of security and intelligence services states an opinion

Another common pa?ern in requests is the expression of self-criticism. Convicts are

“The constitutional and legislative assembly is searching, deciding on, issuing,

A really good example of a “conscious” supplicant is also an example of a lawyer

NOTE FROM THE AUTHOR

Annex 1: Request of a wife for a reduction of a sentence to her husband addresed to

By the ruling of the Supreme Court of AP Vojvodina Vrhovnog

he will indulge in work so that he could become an upright

My husband Kamenar Božo is serving a sentence, to which

Furthermore, as the Heading certainly knows that my

P.S. I beg you kindly, answer me, whether the result is

Annex 4: Request of a mother for a reduction of a sentence to her son, addressed to

Annex 7: Request of a mother of a prisoner on Goli Otok for mitigation of a sentence

Honored comrade Dr. Rukavina!

Hearing about Your kind self, who helps people when

Annex 9: Request of an unlawful wife for a pardon of her husband, 197296

To the Executive council of SFRJ

I, Šakotić (Obrena) Petar, convict convicted by a

Foča, September 20th, 1965

Вам также может понравиться