On April 3 (according to the old style), 1881, the execution of the sentence in the so-called “March 1 case” took place - the execution of the regicides of the People’s Volunteers S. Perovskaya, A. Zhelyabov, N. Kibalchich, N. Rysakov and T. Mikhailov - the last public execution in imperial Russia.
On March 1 (13), 1881, Emperor Alexander II rode along the embankment of the Catherine Canal, accompanied by a horse convoy of six Cossacks and police chief Colonel Dvorzhitsky, gendarmerie captain Koch and captain Kulebyakin, who followed behind in a sleigh. Not far from the corner of Inzhenernaya Street, an explosion suddenly rang out under the carriage. The projectile was thrown by an eighteen-year-old populist terrorist N. Rysakov. The left rear part of the royal carriage was damaged, a Cossack escort and a peddler boy passing by were killed. Rysakov was immediately seized by passers-by. According to the testimony of police chief Dvorzhitsky, Alexander II got out of the carriage, inspected the site of the explosion, approached Rysakov and asked: “Is this the one who left?” Having received an affirmative answer, the emperor refused to get into the sleigh to follow to the palace. He wished to inspect the site of the explosion and went back, moving away from Rysakov, along the pavement of the canal, surrounded by his retinue and the military. Before the king had time to take a few steps, a new deafening explosion was heard at his very feet. When the darkness cleared, among the wounded were both the king and the thrower himself. According to official figures, Alexander II died in the palace at 3:35. According to the same former police chief Dvorzhitsky, the emperor died immediately, at the site of the explosion. Ignatius Ioakimovich Grinevitsky, who threw the second shell, died in the court hospital, where all the wounded as a result of the terrorist attack were transferred. His real name was established only after the process.
The direct organizer of the assassination attempt was a member of the IK of the Narodnaya Volya organization S.L. Perovskaya was not far away and watched the course of events. The seventh attempt to assassinate the king was successful.
At the trial on the case of March 1, in the Special Presence of the Governing Senate, which took place on March 26-29, 1881, 6 Narodnaya Volya members appeared: A. I. Zhelyabov, S. L. Perovskaya, N. I. Kibalchich, G. M. Gelfman T. M. Mikhailov and N. I. Rysakov. Of course, these were far from all those who were involved in the preparation and implementation of the regicide. Senator E. Ya. Fuchs presided over the meeting, prosecutor N. V. Muravyov accused. This was the last public open political process in Russia during the tsarist period. The young Narodnaya Volya Rysakov, who was detained at the scene of the explosion, helped to find the perpetrators of the regicide - he betrayed everyone he knew.
It turned out that the main organizer of the assassination attempt on March 1, a member of the IK "Narodnaya Volya" A. I. Zhelyabov, was arrested by accident on February 27. Zhelyabov's cohabitant or common-law wife, Sofya Perovskaya, a well-born noblewoman, also a member of the IK of the Narodnaya Volya, who also took part in other attempts at regicide, undertook to complete the work conceived by Zhelyabov.
As modern historians note, there were many strange and even absurd things in the “March 1 case”. Strictly speaking, there was no one to judge for the murder of Alexander II: the direct perpetrator Grinevitsky himself died at the scene of the crime. Rysakov's bomb did not bring any harm to the tsar, and Perovskaya, Zhelyabov, Kibalchich and Mikhailov were involved in the case as the organizers of the crime only on the basis of the testimony of the minor Rysakov (at the time of his arrest he was not yet 19 years old, and according to the law he could be recognized as legally incompetent) . The investigation would have had to look for evidence of the involvement of the above persons in the murder of the emperor for a long time, if all the accused themselves did not give confessions. A. Zhelyabov, arrested before the terrorist attack, pointed to himself as the main organizer of the crime and openly flaunted it. From prison, he sent the following statement to the Prosecutor of the Trial Chamber:
Fearing the refusal of the authorities, Zhelyabov added at the end of the statement: “Only the cowardice of the government could explain one gallows, not two”.
Sofya Perovskaya behaved no less defiantly. She had a lot of opportunities to leave St. Petersburg, hide in the vast expanses of the country, hide behind a false name, but instead defiantly walked through the streets, having with her lists of all the agents of the People's Will. In her own words, the revolutionary was going to release her beloved Zhelyabov from custody, she made plans to bribe the officers of the garrison of the Petropalovskaya Fortress. Perovskaya was arrested quite by accident on the street, according to signs given to the police by Rysakov.
Interestingly, N.V. turned out to be the prosecutor at the March 1 trial. Muravyov is a friend of S. Perovskaya for children's games, who owed Sonechka his life (she, along with her brother, once saved the future prosecutor when he was drowning in a pond).
The process of the First of March took place with open doors, but only a select audience was allowed into the courtroom. The defendants were well aware of what the court would be, which included six senators, two titled representatives of the nobility, the mayor and the volost foreman. Zhelyabov, protesting against such a court, pointed out that the judge between the revolutionary party and the government should be a national court or a jury. However, the fiery revolutionary was not allowed to once again show off in front of the public.
At the trial, the regicides themselves spoke about their participation in those actions that were listed in the indictment. Sofya Perovskaya responded negatively only to the accusations of "immorality and cruelty" that were thrown to her by a former childhood friend, prosecutor Muravyov. In general, Kibalchich was more worried about the thought not of his impending death, but about the fate of his aeronautic project.
The trial in the case of the "First March" was the last public trial of the revolutionaries. If the investigation had been extended, perhaps the authorities would have had more time to come to their senses and not arrange either public trials or public executions.
On March 2, the Narodnaya Volya EC issued a proclamation explaining the reasons for the assassination of Alexander II and at the same time appealing to the reigning Alexander III that “any violator of the will of the people is a people's enemy ... and a tyrant. The death of Alexander II showed what kind of retribution such a role deserves. Also in the proclamation is the hope that the Russian people will support the struggle of the Narodnaya Volya against the regime.
However, the common people, despite the revolutionary propaganda and many years of “going” into it by the People’s Will, assessed the assassination of the monarch very negatively. There were many cases of beatings on the streets of students, people of intelligent appearance and even nobles. Among the common people, the opinion was firmly rooted that the noble landowners, in retaliation for the abolition of serfdom, could organize the murder of the liberator tsar. And even such a progressive writer as V. G. Korolenko, who believes that Zhelyabov raised his beloved woman to the block, speaking about the trial itself, remarked:
G.M. Gelfman, having resolved her pregnancy, died in prison in February 1882.
The execution took place on April 3, 1881. According to eyewitnesses, the weather on that day was beautiful: “Starting at eight o’clock in the morning, the sun brightly poured its rays on the huge Semenovsky parade ground, still covered with snow with large melting places and puddles. A myriad of spectators of both sexes and all classes filled the vast place of execution, crowding in a tight, impenetrable wall behind the tapestries of the troops ... "
The "performance" was performed in the best traditions of the European Middle Ages: shameful scaffolding chariots, criminals tied to them with "regicide" signs on their chests, drumming and piercing sounds of flutes that attracted the attention of the public. On the parade ground - a gallows, executioners, an impenetrable wall of cavalry, infantry, policemen. Contrary to the expectations of Kibalchich, who in a letter to Alexander III asked for a change in the sentence in order to "avoid possible consequences", the crowd did not express any sympathy for the regicides. On the contrary, two women who showed purely human pity for the convicts (“so young, beautiful”) were almost torn to pieces by the people - they were saved by the police. The bodies of the already hanged terrorists were thrown by the indignant mob with clods of dirt ...
Today it is impossible to deny the fact that the public execution of the "regicides" was one of the tragic mistakes of the government of Alexander III. Provoked by fear and anger, the senseless action forever drove a wedge into the relationship of the monarchy with that part of the educated Russian society that wanted the completion of liberal reforms and the country's exit from the difficult domestic political situation. Until March 1, 1881, this way out was still possible through mutual concessions and “smoothing out” of the main contradictions (the Loris-Melikov constitution, the continuation of land reforms), through a reasonable dialogue between the government and society. By executing people who themselves wanted to ascend the scaffold, as martyrs of a revolutionary idea, the monarchical government only aggravated its already unenviable position. The Russian democratic intelligentsia proclaimed Zhelyabov and Perovskaya national heroes, and their executioners - reactionaries and stranglers of freedom. Like mushrooms after the rain, a mass of “heirs” and staunch followers of the murderous terrorists from the “Narodnaya Volya” has grown. By the beginning of the 20th century in Russia, the murder of senior government officials and members of the imperial family had become almost the norm of political life. After the daring elimination of Plehve, Stolypin, Sipyagin, and Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, the deeds of the bombers were overgrown with revolutionary romance. They were largely welcomed by the "progressive" public of the bourgeois persuasion, as a way to frighten the autocracy and the opportunity to manipulate it. As a result of the February Revolution, which, as is commonly believed, was carried out by the very “progressive” forces of the anti-monarchist bourgeoisie, figures like the terrorist SR Savinkov joined the Provisional Government and undertook to decide the fate of the country. What this led to - we all know perfectly well ...
In the 1970s, the ideology of the populist movement finally took shape. Considering the peasant community as a cell of the future socialist system, the representatives of this movement differed in the ways of building it. The Russian radical intelligentsia of the 70s of the XIX century was divided according to the directions of their views into three directions: 1) anarchist, 2) propaganda, 3) conspiratorial.
M.A. was a prominent spokesman for anarchism. Bakunin, who outlined its basic principles in the work "Statehood and Anarchy". He believed that any, even the most democratic, state power is evil. He believed that the state is only a temporary historical form of association. His ideal was a society based on the principles of self-government and a free federation of rural communities and industrial associations based on collective ownership of tools. Therefore, Bakunin sharply opposed the ideas of winning political freedoms, believing that it was necessary to fight for the social equality of people. The revolutionary, in his opinion, was to play the role of a spark that would ignite the flames of a popular uprising.
The ideologist of the propaganda trend was P.L. Lavrov. He shared Bakunin's thesis that the revolution would break out precisely in the countryside. However, he denied the readiness of the peasantry for it. Therefore, he said that the task of a revolutionary is to conduct systematic propaganda work among the people. Lavrov also spoke of the fact that the intelligentsia was not ready for the revolution, which itself must undergo the necessary training before starting to propagate socialist ideas among the peasantry. The substantiation of these ideas was devoted to his famous book "Historical Letters", which became very popular among the youth of that time. In the early 70s, circles began to appear in Moscow and St. Petersburg, which were of a propaganda and educational nature. Among them were the "circle of Chaikovites", founded by a student of St. Petersburg University Nikolai Tchaikovsky, the "Great Society of Propaganda", founded by Mark Natanson and Sofya Perovskaya, the circle of technology student Alexander Dolgushin.
WALKING INTO THE PEOPLE
In 1873-1874 of the 19th century, under the influence of Lavrov's ideas, a mass "going to the people" arose. Hundreds of young men and women went to the village as teachers, doctors, laborers, and so on. Their goal was to live among the people and promote their ideals. Some went to raise the people to rebellion, others peacefully propagated socialist ideals. However, the peasant turned out to be immune to this propaganda, and the appearance of strange young people in the villages aroused the suspicion of the local authorities. Soon mass arrests of propagandists began. In 1877 and 1878 high-profile trials took place over them - the “Trial of the 50s” (1877) and the “Trial of the 193s” (1877-1878). Moreover, as a result of the trials, many of the accused were acquitted, including the future regicides Andrei Zhelyabov and Sofya Perovskaya.
CONSPIRACIOUS DIRECTION
The ideologist of the conspiratorial trend was P.N. Tkachev. He believed that the revolution in Russia could be carried out only through a conspiracy, i.e. the seizure of power by a small group of revolutionaries. Tkachev wrote that the autocracy in Russia has no social support among the masses, is a "colossus with feet of clay" and therefore can easily be overthrown by conspiracy and terror tactics. "Do not prepare a revolution, but make it" - that was his main thesis. To achieve these goals, a cohesive and well-guarded organization is needed. These ideas were subsequently embodied in the activities of the "Narodnaya Volya"
"EARTH AND WILL". "PEOPLE'S WILL".
The failures of the Populist propaganda campaign in the 1870s once again forced the revolutionaries to turn to radical means of struggle - to create a centralized organization and develop a program of action. Such an organization, called "Land and Freedom", was created in 1876. Its founders were G.V. Plekhanov, Mark and Olga Natanson, O. Aptekman. Soon Vera Figner, Sofia Perovskaya, Lev Tikhomirov, Sergey Kravchinsky (known as the writer Stepnyak-Kravchinsky) joined it. The new organization announced itself with a political demonstration on December 6, 1876 in St. Petersburg, on the square near the Kazan Cathedral, where Plekhanov delivered an impassioned speech about the need to fight despotism.
Unlike the earlier populist circles, it was a well-organized and well-hidden organization, led by the "Center", which constituted its core. All other members were divided into groups of five according to the nature of their activities, and each member of the five knew only its members. So, the most numerous were the groups of "village workers" who worked in the village. The organization also published illegal newspapers - "Land and Freedom" and "Leaf of Land and Freedom".
The Land and Freedom program provided for the transfer of all land to the peasants on the basis of communal use, freedom of speech, press, assembly, and the creation of productive agricultural and industrial communes. Propaganda among the peasantry and workers was chosen as the main tactical means of struggle. However, disagreements soon arose among the leadership of the "Land and Freedom" on tactical issues. A significant group of supporters of the recognition of terror as a means of political struggle has come forward in the leadership of the organization.
The key moment in the history of Russian terrorism was the assassination attempt on the St. Petersburg mayor F.F. Trepov, committed on January 24, 1878 by Vera Zasulich. However, the jury acquitted the revolutionary, who was immediately released from custody. The acquittal gave the revolutionaries hope that they could count on the sympathy of society.
Terrorist acts began to follow one after another. On August 4, 1878, in broad daylight on Mikhailovskaya Square in St. Petersburg, S. Kravchinsky was stabbed with a dagger by the chief of the gendarmes, Adjutant General N. Mezentsov. Finally, on April 2, 1879, the "landlord" A. Solovyov shot at the tsar on Palace Square, but none of his five shots hit the target. The terrorist was captured and soon hanged. After this assassination attempt, Russia, by order of the tsar, was divided into six governor-generals with the provision of emergency rights to the governor-general, up to the approval of death sentences.
The split within the "Land and Freedom" intensified. Many of its members strongly opposed terror, believing that it would lead to increased repression and ruin the propaganda work. As a result, a compromise solution was found: the organization does not support the terrorist, but its individual members can assist him as individuals. Differences in approaches to tactical means of struggle necessitated the convening of a congress, which took place on June 18-24, 1879 in Voronezh. The disputing parties realized the incompatibility of their views and agreed to divide the organization into the "Black Repartition" headed by G. Plekhanov, who stood on the previous positions of propaganda, and the "People's Will" headed by the executive committee, which set as its goal the seizure of power by terrorist means. This organization included most of the members of the "Land and Freedom", and among its leaders were A. Mikhailov, A. Zhelyabov, V. Figner, M. Frolenko, N. Morozov, S. Perovskaya, S.N. Khalturin.
The main case of the party leadership was the assassination of Alexander II, who was sentenced to death. A real hunt began for the king. On November 19, 1879, the tsar's train exploded near Moscow during the return of the emperor from the Crimea. On February 5, 1880, a new daring attempt took place - an explosion in the Winter Palace, carried out by S. Khalturin. He managed to get a job as a carpenter in the palace and settled in one of the basements, located under the royal dining room. Khalturin managed to carry dynamite into his room in several steps, hoping to carry out an explosion at the moment when Alexander II was in the dining room. But the king was late for dinner that day. During the explosion, several dozen guards were killed and wounded.
"DICTATURE OF THE HEART"
The explosion in the Winter Palace forced the authorities to take extraordinary measures. The government began to seek support in society in order to isolate the radicals. To fight the revolutionaries, the Supreme Administrative Commission was formed, headed by a popular and authoritative general at that time. M.T. Loris-Melikov, de facto dictatorial powers. He took harsh measures to combat the revolutionary terrorist movement, while at the same time pursuing a policy of bringing the government closer to the "well-intentioned" circles of Russian society. So, under him in 1880, the Third Branch of His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery was abolished. Police functions were now concentrated in a police department formed within the Ministry of the Interior. Loris-Melikov began to gain popularity in liberal circles, becoming the Minister of the Interior at the end of 1880. At the beginning of 1881, he prepared a project to attract representatives of the zemstvos to participate in the discussion of the reforms necessary for Russia (this project is sometimes called the "constitution" of Loris-Melikov), approved by Alexander II.
Alexander II: "I approve the main idea regarding the usefulness and timeliness of involving local figures in deliberative participation in the preparation of bills by the central institutions."
P.A. Valuev: “In the morning, the Sovereign sent for me to hand over a draft announcement drawn up in the Ministry of the Interior, with instructions to express my opinion about it and, if I have no objections, to convene the Council of Ministers on Wednesday the 4th. For a long, long time I have not seen the Sovereign in such a good spirit and even in appearance so healthy and kind. At 3 o'clock I was at gr. Loris-Melikov (to warn him that I returned the project to the Sovereign without remarks), when fatal explosions were heard.
Alexander II - Princess Yurievskaya: “The deed is done, I have just signed a manifesto (“Draft notice on the convocation of deputies from the provinces”), it will be made public on Monday morning in the newspapers. I hope he makes a good impression. In any case, Russia will see that I have given everything possible, and will know that I did it thanks to you.
Prince Yuryevskaya - to Alexander II: There are terrible rumors. We have to wait."
REGICIDE
However, the executive committee of Narodnaya Volya continued to prepare the regicide. Having carefully traced the routes of the royal departures, the Narodnaya Volya along the possible route of the autocrat, on Malaya Sadovaya Street, rented a shop for selling cheese. From the premises of the shop, a dig was made under the pavement and a mine was laid. The unexpected arrest of one of the leaders of the party A. Zhelyabov at the end of February 1881 forced the preparation of the assassination to be accelerated, the leadership of which was taken over by S. Perovskaya. Another option was being developed: hand shells were urgently made in case Alexander II followed a different route - along the embankment of the Catherine Canal. Throwers with hand bombs would be waiting for him there.
On March 1, 1881, the tsar rode along the embankment. The explosion of the first bomb thrown by N. Rysakov damaged the royal carriage, wounded several guards and passers-by, but Alexander II survived. Then another thrower, I. Grinevitsky, coming close to the tsar, threw a bomb at his feet, from the explosion of which both were mortally wounded. Alexander II died a few hours later.
A.V. Tyrkov: “Perovskaya then gave me a little detail about Grinevitsky. Before going to the canal, she, Rysakov and Grinevitsky sat in Andreev's confectionery, located on Nevsky opposite Gostiny Dvor, in the basement, and waited for the moment when it was time to leave. Only Grinevitsky could calmly eat the portion served to him. From the confectionery they went apart and met again on the canal. There, passing by Perovskaya, already in the direction of the fateful place, he smiled softly at her with a barely perceptible smile. He did not show a shadow of fear or excitement and went to his death with a completely calm soul.
N. Rysakov: “When I met Mikhail (I. Emelyanov), I learned that the Sovereign would probably be in the arena, and therefore, he would pass through the Catherine Canal. Owing to understandable agitation, we talked no more about anything. After a short while, I left. Mikhail, as I said, also had something in his hands, I don’t remember what it was wrapped in, and since the thing in his hands was quite similar in shape to my projectile, I concluded that he received the same projectile earlier or later than me - I was waiting for him in the pastry shop for about 20 minutes. ...Walking along Mikhailovskaya Street...we met a blonde (Perovskaya), who at the sight of us blew her nose into a white handkerchief, which was a sign that we should go to the Catherine's Canal. Leaving the confectionery, I walked around the streets, trying to be at the canal by 2 o'clock, as Zakhar had said earlier on my date with him and Mikhail. About two o'clock I was at the corner of Nevsky and the canal, and until that time I walked either along Nevsky, or along adjacent streets, so as not to draw the attention of the police along the canal in vain.
The assassination of the tsar did not bring the results expected by the Narodnaya Volya, the revolution did not happen. The death of the "tsar-liberator" caused grief among the people, and the Russian liberal society did not support the terrorists, whom they had recently admired. Most of the members of the executive committee of Narodnaya Volya were arrested. In the case of the “First March” people, a trial took place, according to which S. Perovskaya (the first woman in Russia executed for a political crime), A. Zhelyabov, N. Kibalchich, who made explosive devices, T. Mikhailov and N. Rysakov were executed.
Moskovskie Vedomosti, March 29: “We will not hide the fact that the trial, which is now being carried out on the perpetrators of regicide, makes a heavy, unbearable impression, because it allows the revolutionaries to present themselves as a party that has the right to exist, testify to their triumph, appear as martyr heroes. Why this parade, which only confuses the minds and public conscience? .. The court cannot compete in painting, in poetry of the kind that Zhelyabov and Kibalchich discovered. Is it possible to seriously assert that all this is devoid of a certain temptation?
Alexander III: "I would like our gentlemen lawyers to finally understand the absurdity of such courts for such a terrible and unheard of crime."
G. K. Gradovsky: “In the case of March 1, 1881, there were many reasons to replace the death penalty with another heavy, but still reparable punishment: Zhelyabov was arrested even before the regicide, Perovskaya, Kibalchich, Gelfman and Mikhailov did not kill the tsar, even Rysakov (who threw the first bomb in royal carriage) did not kill him; I. I. Grinevitsky was the direct killer, but he himself died from the second bomb that hit the tsar.
By 1883, Narodnaya Volya had been crushed, but some of its factions still continued their activities. So, on March 1, 1887, an unsuccessful attempt was made to assassinate the new emperor Alexander III, which was the last act of the struggle. The case of the "second March Day" also ended with five gallows: P. Andreyushkin, V. Generalov, V. Osipanov, A. Ulyanov (Ulyanov-Lenin's elder brother) and P. Shevyrev were executed.
However, despite the defeat of the "Narodnaya Volya", the experience of their struggle and especially regicide had a tremendous impact on the subsequent course of the revolutionary movement in Russia. The activities of the "Narodnaya Volya" convinced subsequent generations of revolutionaries that with insignificant forces it was possible to really resist the repressive apparatus of a powerful empire, and terrorism began to be regarded as a very effective means of struggle.
ALEXANDER BLOCK (POEM "RETENSION")
“... An explosion struck
From Catherine's channel,
Covering Russia with a cloud.
Everything predicted from afar
That the hour will be fatal,
What will such a card fall ...
And this century is the hour of the day -
The last one is named the first of March"
The regicides were punished with exemplary cruelty. Always. This process is no exception. He strikes with another - the amazing stamina of almost all the convicts and their passionate faith in their own rightness.
In general, "Narodnaya Volya" was a network of secret circles, grouped around a single center - the Executive Committee. The groups were interconnected by the unity of the plan of practical actions, the commonality of forces and means. "Narodnaya Volya" wanted nothing more than "an economic and political revolution, as a result of which people's rule will come" (from the testimony of Kibalchich). If for so many centuries of existence, the Narodnaya Volya people believed, the tsar and the tsarist government did not guess to give power to the people, therefore, it is possible to push them to this good idea only by force - terror. That is, it is trivial to intimidate, the tsar will be frightened, the army and the government will be frightened, the people will understand what a strong party is Narodnaya Volya, and will follow it, and it will lead Russia to a brighter future. By the way, the people of Narodnaya Volya did not know exactly what they would do if the people really supported them.
Mikhailov and Perovskaya were preparing for the assassination attempt. From the shop, which they rented, there was a dig to the road along which the tsar often traveled to the Senate.
The bombs were prepared by Kibalchich. In case the explosion preceded the carriage or, on the contrary, was late, Zhelyabov, who was waiting on the street, armed with a dagger, had to complete what he had begun. Rysakov and Grinevitsky stood outside with bombs at the ready. Perovskaya signaled the approach of the royal carriage. However, the terrorists' plans were unexpectedly violated - a few days before the assassination attempt, Zhelyabov was arrested. The number of bomb throwers has been doubled.
When the tsar left the palace at noon on March 1, everything was ready for the explosion. Throwers, armed with shells, stood in the appointed places.
However, contrary to expectations, the tsar did not go along Sadovaya, but along the embankment of the Catherine Canal. Perovskaya realized that the emperor would return to the palace in the same way. At the signal given by her, the throwers took their places at the canal grating: Rysakov became the first, Grinevitsky the second, Yemelyanov the third, Timofey Mikhailov the fourth. Perovskaya herself crossed to the opposite side of the canal and stopped opposite Inzhenernaya Street.
At 2:15 pm, the imperial carriage drove away from the Mikhailovsky Palace, and Perovskaya, waving her handkerchief, gave a sign to the throwers. The sovereign sat alone in the carriage.
A terrible explosion followed. Several people fell - the Cossack of the convoy and the artisan boy, seriously wounded. The sovereign ordered the coachman to stop the carriage and, getting out of the carriage, went to the place of the explosion, where the crowd had already grabbed Rysakov. To the questions of the officers who surrounded him, whether he was wounded, the emperor answered: “Thank God, I survived, but here ...” - while pointing to the wounded lying on the pavement. The sovereign approached Rysakov and asked him if he had fired and who he was. The terrorist answered in the affirmative, but gave himself a false name. "Good!" - said the emperor and turned back, in the direction of his carriage. Grinevitsky threw a bomb at the moment when Alexander II passed him, right at his feet. There was a second deafening explosion. The smoke cleared, and a terrible sight appeared to the amazed eyes of those present: leaning back against the grate of the canal, without an overcoat and cap, lay a bloodied monarch. His exposed legs were shattered; blood streamed heavily through them. By that time, he had already lost consciousness. By order of Grand Duke Mikhail Nikolayevich, who arrived from the Mikhailovsky Palace, the bleeding emperor was taken to the Winter Palace.
The sovereign was carried in his arms to his office and laid on the bed. When the life physician Botkin arrived in time, when asked by the heir how long the emperor would live, he answered: "From 10 to 15 minutes." At 3:35 p.m., Emperor Alexander II died without regaining consciousness.
Rysakov, who was caught at the scene of the crime, could not stand the interrogations and betrayed Perovskaya and Mikhailov, as well as a safe house. Zhelyabov joined those arrested of his own free will. From prison, he sent the following statement to the prosecutor of the Judicial Chamber: “If the new sovereign, having received the scepter from the hands of the revolution, intends to hold out against the regicides of the old system, it would be a flagrant injustice to save my life, who repeatedly attempted on the life of Alexander II and did not take a physical part in the killing him only by a stupid accident. I demand that I join the case on March 1 and, if necessary, I will make revelations incriminating me. A. Zhelyabov. March 2, 1881."
Fearing the refusal of the authorities, Zhelyabov added at the end of the statement: "Only the cowardice of the government could explain one gallows, not two."
The process of the First of March took place with open doors, but only a select audience was allowed into the courtroom.
The defendants were well aware of what the court would be, which included six senators, two titled representatives of the nobility, the mayor and the volost foreman. Zhelyabov, protesting against such a trial, pointed out that the judge between the revolutionary party and the government should be an all-people's court, or at least a jury.
The defendants made it easier for the prosecutor: at the trial, they each spoke about their participation in those actions that were listed in the indictment. They did not in the least care about mitigating their lot. Kibalchich's statement is very characteristic. He was worried not about the impending death, but about the fate of his project for aeronautical apparatus, and he told the court that he had transferred this project to the defender. It is known that this project is marked as a major event in the history of Russian aeronautics.
The bloodthirsty demands of the public prosecutor were fully satisfied by the Special Presence of the Senate. All the defendants, including the minor Rysakov, who was under 19 years old, were sentenced to death. The defense pointed to the non-admission by law of the death penalty for minors. The court did not agree with this. All the defendants were found guilty of belonging to a secret community of the Russian Social Revolutionary Party, which had the goal of overthrowing the state and social system in the Russian Empire through a violent coup and of encroaching on the sovereign and other persons. Sofia Perovskaya was the first Russian woman to be executed for a political cause.
This execution on April 3, 1881 was the last public execution in St. Petersburg. To be sent to execution, the condemned were put on two "shameful chariots." Black boards with a large inscription "regicide" were hung on the chest of the convicts. Their hands were tied behind their backs with ropes. Vera Figner wrote: "Perovskaya's hands were so tightly twisted with a rope that she said:" It hurts me, let go a little. - "After it will be even more painful," the gendarme officer grunted roughly.
Following the "shameful chariots" were two carriages with five priests in mourning vestments and with crosses in their hands. Mounted gendarmes surrounded the procession, which slowly moved through the streets of the city to the place of execution. The scaffold was a platform two arshins high with three pillars of shame and a gallows in the shape of the letter "P". It was a common gallows for five regicides. Behind the scaffold were five black wooden coffins.
An imperturbable calm was reflected on Kibalchich's face. Zhelyabov seemed nervous and often turned his head towards Perovskaya.
Soon after the criminals were tied to the pillory, a military command “on guard” was heard, after which the mayor informed the prosecutor of the Judicial Chamber, Mr. Plehve, that everything was ready for the last act of earthly justice.
The reading of the short sentence lasted several minutes. Everyone present bared their heads. The condemned almost simultaneously approached the priests and kissed the cross, after which they were led away by the executioners, each to his own rope.
Cheerfulness did not leave Zhelyabov, Perovskaya, and especially Kibalchich. Before they put on a shroud with a hood, Zhelyabov and Mikhailov, approaching Perovskaya, kissed her goodbye. Rysakov stood motionless and looked at Zhelyabov all the time while the executioner put on the hangman's shroud on his comrades.
The executioner Frolov began with Kibalchich. Putting a shroud on him and putting a noose around his neck, he pulled it tightly, tying the end of the rope to the right post of the gallows. Then he proceeded to Mikhailov, Perovskaya and Zhelyabov.
The last in line was Rysakov, his knees gave out when the executioner quickly threw a shroud and hood over him.
Death overtook Kibalchich instantly, at least his body soon hung without convulsions.
After the execution of Kibalchich, Mikhailov was the second to be executed, he fell off the rope twice. At the first fall, Mikhailov himself got up and, with the help of the executioner, stood on the bench. He broke down a second time and was finally hanged only the third time.
Perovskaya followed him. Zhelyabov was executed fourth, Rysakov was the last. He struggled with the executioner for several minutes, not allowing himself to be pushed off the bench.
The corpses of the executed hung for no more than 20 minutes. Then five black coffins were brought onto the scaffold, which the executioner's assistants placed under each corpse. A military doctor, in the presence of two members of the prosecutor's office, examined the corpses of the executed who had been removed and placed in the coffin. After examining the corpses, the coffins were immediately covered with lids, boarded up and taken under strong escort to the railway station to bury the bodies of the executed in the Transfiguration cemetery.
After the revolution of 1917, a letter written by Kibalchich on April 2, 1881, on the eve of his execution, was found in the papers of Plehve, a well-known associate of Alexander III. The author of this letter wrote to the tsar that terror would stop if the tsar would grant freedom of speech, abolish the death penalty, and grant amnesty to political convicts. Alexander III made an inscription on this letter with the following content: “There is nothing new. A fantasy of a sick imagination, and the false point of view on which these socialists, pitiful sons of the fatherland stand, is visible in everything.
On March 3, Chairman of the Cabinet of Ministers P.A. Valuev suggested that the new Tsar Alexander III appoint a regent in case he too was killed. The king was offended, but appointed a regent anyway.
At the August 17 rally, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan made a number of statements directly related to the judicial and legal sphere. We asked lawyer Hayk Alumyan, not as a defender of the second President of the Republic of Armenia, but as a human rights activist with great experience and experience, to comment on some of them.
- Mr. Alumyan, what did you pay attention to from the Prime Minister's statements at the last rally?
Of course, in response to the statement that the "March 1" case is almost completely solved. That's what the Prime Minister said. It is quite clear that this is not just news, but sensational news. I think that everyone who heard this is extremely interested in knowing the details. Get answers to the most important questions first.
Such a statement should mean that, firstly, the investigation is ready to answer the question of who specifically shot and killed 10 people, 8 civilians and two policemen? Names, patronymics, surnames of those who killed these people. And if the prime minister declares that the case has been solved, I think the answer to this question is already there. And now, presumably, it is only a matter of time before these names are published.
The second question is: who armed these people and gave the order to shoot? This question must also be answered unambiguously, clearly and definitively. Probably, the investigation already has it. And to present it to the people is again a matter of time. We will wait for concrete data on the March 1 case.
Today, the legal community is already in full swing discussing Pashinyan's statement that the government intends to apply transitional justice. What do you say about this?
There are several models of transitional justice. At the rally, they did not specify to what extent and what model is supposed to be applied. The prime minister's words require detailed commentary from the relevant officials. So that we can imagine what kind of model we are talking about and how it meets the requirements of our Constitution.
The Prime Minister commented on some issues related to freedom of speech. His opinion is perceived ambiguously. In your opinion, to what extent does the stated approach fit into the provisions of the domestic legislation, the RA Constitution?
As you may have heard, the Prime Minister hinted that freedom of speech would be granted only to those who can think. If this is not an accidental reservation, then such an approach cannot but be alarming. It turns out that someone has the right to decide in advance who is granted freedom of speech and who is not. And the criterion will be - whether a person can think. Such an approach is categorically unacceptable. I don't think it's even worth going into explanations why. It would be desirable to hope, that the prime minister all the same has made a slip of the tongue.
- If you had the opportunity to say something personally to the Prime Minister, what would you say?
I would say that when he was the leader of the opposition (in my opinion, a brilliant leader), in this capacity he was the leader of a certain, albeit quite numerous, part of society. And now, when he became the prime minister of the country, he became the leader not of any one group of people, but of the whole society, that is, of all those who live on the territory of Armenia. And for him there can be no division into friends and foes, because he is the prime minister even for those whom he condemns and even, perhaps, hates. He must be the guarantor of law and justice for these persons as well. That's what I would like to say to the Prime Minister.
The resignation of Avgan Hovsepyan, of course, made many people happy, but these days there are points of view that the issue is not resolved only by resignations. It is also necessary to call him to account, because for years he concealed crimes, changed the course of the investigation of cases, and was an obstacle to the investigation of high-profile cases, such as the March 1 case.
Human rights activist Zhanna Aleksanyan sees the need for Aghvan Hovsepyan and other officials who worked under the previous authorities to be held accountable. According to her, the departure of Aghvan Hovsepyan, the former head of the SSS, should be a signal to everyone.
For years, they hindered investigations, did not allow cases to be solved, and justice to be carried out. “There have never been disclosures or justice in high-profile cases.
For two decades, Aghvan Hovsepyan held key positions in the justice system: first, for many years he was the Prosecutor General, and then the Chairman of the Investigative Committee, which concealed many cases, because of him innocent people ended up in prisons.
Aghvan Hovsepyan prevented the disclosure of almost all crimes in the army. And for all this, he must inevitably give an answer, ”the human rights activist said in an interview with First Information.
Lawyer Yervand Varosyan, in turn, believes that the disclosure of the March 1 case should be a priority, because if the case is solved, then the person or persons who have prevented the disclosure of the case over the years will also be exposed.
“And when the March 1 case is fully disclosed, in parallel with this, attempts to hide it cannot but be disclosed, because it is no coincidence that this case has not been disclosed for so many years.
That is why I say that let the case be solved and we will see that it was Aghvan Hovsepyan or someone of higher rank who was guilty of not being able to solve it for so many years,” Varosyan said in an interview with the First Informational, adding that investigation will provide answers to all questions.
“If his guilt is established, then the Criminal Code establishes punishment in case of abuse of official position, abuse of authority and other things. After all these revelations, all questions will receive their answers,” Varosyan said.
“If within the framework of these criminal cases it is found out that these people were involved in the March 1 case, were organizers, or tried to hide these cases, then they should be summoned for interrogation and be called to account. In the new Armenia, I am convinced that Nikol Pashinyan will dispel all doubts and give answers to all questions.
And after the disclosure of the case, no one will have any doubts about who exactly was behind all this,” Arakel Semirdjyan, chairman of the 1st March NGO, said in an interview with First Information.
In general, if you look back, after March 1, 2008, many officials in the case of March 1 were "awarded" for the services rendered to the authorities, the issue of which, again, should be the subject of an investigation.
Those who were in power at that time, occupying high positions, who played a role especially during the events of March 1 - carried out the order, thereby serving the authorities, today not only are they not punished, but also retired with the rank of generals who rendered services authorities, and at the expense of us - taxpayers, receive huge pensions - in the amount of 400-450 thousand drams.
After March 1, one of those who received the rank of general is the former head of the main department for combating terrorism, maintaining public order and the constitutionality of the National Security Service of the Republic of Armenia Tigran Barseghyan. It was he who headed the department that tapped the telephone conversations of opposition figures in 2008.
He was dismissed from his post as a general in November 2011 - according to rumors, because he was aware of the expected coup attempts, but did not report this to the leadership.
After March 1, the rank of general was also given to the head of the SBN department for maintaining constitutional order, Zaven Nanyan, who was actively involved on March 1, as well as Grant Yepiskoposyan, the former notorious police chief of Yerevan Ashot Karapetyan, regarding which there is even a decision of the ECHR, which confirms the fact that that he tortured people.
The rank of general was also given to the head of the investigative group for the March 1 case, currently the deputy chairman of the Investigative Committee, Vahagn Harutyunyan, with whose light hand the case was hidden and very soon a number of important circumstances remained out of the case. After March 1, the rank of general was also received by the actual head of the police operation on March 1, 2008, Sashik Afyan.
And now, when they talk about the disclosure of the March 1 case, when the Prime Minister gives instructions, it would be reasonable to conduct an investigation and find out why all of the above persons received the rank of generals, and why, for what merits the state now pays them a pension of almost half a million drams.
For what merit? Is it really because on March 1, on the orders of the leadership, people were shot at, beaten, persecuted, tortured demonstrators, concealed cases, obstructed justice?
In Armenia, perhaps, it is difficult to find one such person who can express doubts that after March 1 all the above-mentioned people received the ranks of generals fairly, that they are worthy of this title.
It was Serzh Sargsyan, in the form of a general's rank, expressing gratitude to them for the services they rendered. Therefore, it would be very reasonable, as part of the disclosure of the March 1 case, to make a proposal - to deprive Sashik Afyan of the rest of the general ranks.
