Author Archives: Admin

THE CHARACTER OF CHARLOTTE SCHULZ IN THE KH. ABOVYAN’S “DORPATIAN DIARIES” And in the Ye. Charents’ poem “Towards Mount Masis” – 2024-1

Summary

Seyran Z. Grigoryan
PhD in Philological Sciences

The article examines the character of Charlotte Schulz in the “Dorpatian Diaries” by Khachatur Abovyan and in the poem “Towards Mount Masis” by Yeghishe Charents. Yeghishe Charents is the founder of the modern Armenian literature, and in his works, the literary heritage of Khachatur Abovyan, the founder of new Armenian literature, has played a special role.
On February 20, 1933, Yeghishe Charents wrote the poem “ Towards Mount Masis ”, which soon found a place in the “At the Crossroads of History” section of the “Book of the Way” collection. The poem is dedicated to the life and work of Khachatur Abovyan. The main focus is on the problem of Abovyan’s disappearance, but through the depiction of the last sleepless night and the dramatic thoughts of the hero, some important questions are raised. They include psychological issues in addition to political and intellectual ones. In the poem, Charents creates vivid images of Dorpat University professor Friedrich Parrott and the beloved girl of young student Khachatur Abovyan – Charlotte Schulz.

The source of the image of Charlotte Schulz was a memoir called “Dorpatian Diaries”, written by Khachatur Abovyan in simple grabar from 1830 to 1835. As a work of memoir literature, the diary depicts the acquaintance and love of the characters in the Baltic village of Ponimon (Panemune), the meetings, relationships, and feelings of an Armenian student and a young beautiful German woman. Charlotte Schulz is the adoptive sister of Khachatur Abovyan’s closest friend, Theodor Grass. Khachatur Abovyan writes the name of the heroine in the forms Lotte or young lady Schulz. Real facts and images of documentary prose in the poem “Towards Mount Masis” are used by the principle of poetic generalizations. Charents does not recreate the details of a love story, not details and circumstances, but the essence of the characters and their feelings.

At the time of writing the poem, Khachatur Abovyan’s “Dorpatian Diaries” was not published yet. It was first published in 1955 as a separate book and in the 6th volume of the complete works of Khachatur Abovyan. In this article we assume that as a source for creating the character of Charlotte Schulz, Yeghishe Charents could have used Nerses Ter-Karapetyan’s study “Khachatur Abovyan”, where there are many quotes and retellings of diaries based on the manuscript of this work. Another version is that Yeghishe Charents, like Nerses Ter-Karapetyan, was familiar with the manuscripts, which were then still kept by the writer’s descendants.

An important role in the poem is played by one reliable artifact preserved in the archive of Khachatur Abovyan. That is Charlotte Schulz’s souvenir. Its source is also the writer’s diaries, but in the poem, it has a special artistic meaning. Through it, the main poetic principle of the poem operates – the synthesis of the real and the artistic. The poem focuses on the dramatic separation of lovers. The article makes an attempt to clarify this ending with the help of real biographical facts of Khachatur Abovyan and Charlotte Schulz.

REFERENCES
1. Abeghyan A. , Abovyani sirayin aprumnerĕ Dorpatum (Mi ĕj mer “Abovyan yev Dorpat” ashkhatut’yunits’), “Hayrenik’” orat’ert’, Boston, 1975, t’iv 18940,marti 16 (In
Armenian).
2. Abovyan Kh. A. , Yerkeri liakatar zhoghovatsu ut’ hatorov, hat․ 1, Yer.,
Haykakan SSR GA hrat., 1948 (In Armenian).
3. Abovyan Kh. A., Yerkeri liakatar zhoghovatsu ut’ hatorov, hat․ 6, Yer.,
Haykakan SSR GA hrat., 1955 (In Armenian).
4. Ch’arents’ Ye., Girk’ chanaparhi, Yer., Petakan hrat., 1933 (In Armenian).
5. .Ch’arents’ Ye., Yerkeri zhoghovatsu vets’ hatorov, hat. 4, Yer., Haykakan SSR GA hrat., (In Armenian).
6. Ch’arents’ Ye., Yerkir Nairi, Yer., Petakan hrat., 1926 (In Armenian).
7. Hakobyan P., Abovyanĕ yev Bakunts’ĕ, “Banber Yerevani hamalsarani”, 1980, t’iv 2 (In Armenian).
8. Hakobyan P. H., Khachatur Abovyan., Kyank’ĕ, gorts’ě, zhamanakĕ (1809-1836), Yer., HKhH GA hrat., 1967 (In Armenian).
9. Ter-Karapetyan N., Khachatur Abovyan, Tp’khis, Tparan M. Sharadze yev ĕnk. Nik: 21, 1897 (In Armenian).

THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY ALL-SAVIOR GHAZANCHETSOTS AS THE CATHEDRAL RESIDENCE OF THE ARTSAKH DIOCESE – 2024-1

Summary

Vahram R. Balayan
Doctor of Sciences in History

Melanya G. Balayan
Candidate of Sciences in History

In the second half of the XVIII century, with the aim to meet the spiritual needs of the population of the Armenian quarter of Ghazanchetsots in Shushi, a wooden and then stone church was built on a stony bottom. From 1868 to 1888, the new majestic Holy Savior Ghazanchetsots Cathedral was built on the site of a dilapidated church at the expense of the Armenian population of Shushi and local benefactors.

It should be noted that before the construction of the mentioned new church, since the end of the 18 century, the Ghazanchetsots Church in Shushi had already played an important role in organizing the spiritual, cultural, and social life of the Armenians of Artsakh. In 1813, after Artsakh came under the rule of the Russian Empire under the famous Gulistan Treaty, radical changes took place in all spheres of public life. The Armenian Catholicos see of Aghvank did not stay away from this either. With the intervention of the Russian court, a special circular was issued by Catholicos of All Armenians Yeprem I Dzorageghtsi in 1815, whereby the Catholicosate in Aghvank was abolished, and the dioceses that had previously been part of the Catholicosate in Aghvank were united into a metropolis subordinate to the Catholicosate of All Armenians. Having awarded the title of metropolitan to Sarkis Hasan–Jalalyants, Yeprem Dzorageghtsi appointed him the primate of the diocese, followed by Baghdasar Hasan Jalalyants on November 13, 1830. Artsakh witnesses an unprecedented rise in spiritual and cultural life.

In accordance with the charter approved by the Russian Empire on March 11, 1836, known as “Polozhenie”, the Armenian Church under the rule of the Empire was divided into 6 dioceses: Novo-Nakhichevan, Astrakhan, Georgian, Shirvan, Yerevan and Karabakh. Thus, according to the mentioned charter, Shushi was recognized as the diocesan center of Karabakh, and the residence of the diocesan leader was Holy All Savior Ghazanchetsots Church.

Holy All Savior Ghazanchetsots Cathedral has played an important role in the social life of Armenians not only in Shushi but also in the Eastern provinces of Armenia, particularly, in the organization of cultural, educational, and enlightening development, in the activities of providing care to orphans, the poor, as well as in the popularization of national ideas and other similar works. To give a new impetus to all this, with the mediation and sponsorship of the diocesan leaders, Armenian benefactors from Shushi made a great contribution to the development of the above-mentioned areas. With the aim to value the role of such public figures, and even more so national ones, a kind of pantheon was founded in the courtyard of the Ghazanchetsots Church. Before the beginning of the liberation struggle in Artsakh, these tombstones were monuments of respect and incense for Armenians. From 1988 to 1991, the Azerbaijanis destroyed these monuments.

Due to its widespread patriotic activities, Holy All Savior Ghazanchetsots Church has always been the target of anti-Armenian forces. From 1905 to 1906, in 1920, the Turks tried to destroy the church. During the years of the Soviet Union, the church was turned into a warehouse and then into a barn. The dome of the church was ruined, the hewn stones were destroyed and the ornaments were scraped.

In 1992, after the liberation of Shushi, the church was renovated, once again becoming an important center for organizing the spiritual life of the Armenians of Artsakh.

In 2020, during the 44-day war, the church was bombed twice by the Turkish-Azerbaijani invaders in order to destroy the Armenian Christian Cathedral; afterward, under the pretext of renovations, the Armenian spiritual and cultural monument was deformed. Currently, Azerbaijanis, entangled in their own falsifications, present the Armenian cathedral one day as Russian, another day as Albanian.

REFERENCES

1. «Ardzagank’», N 16, T’iflis, 1883. (In Armenian).
2. «Ardzagank’», N 23, T’iflis, 1887. (In Armenian).
3. «Arshaluys», N 69, T’iflis, 1906. (In Armenian).
4. « N 119, 24 ogostosi, Bak’u, 1913. (In Armenian).
5. «Banber Hayastani arkhivneri», hm. 1 (99), Yer., 2001. (In Armenian).
6. «Gorts», hm. 1, Tiflis, 1882 (In Armenian).
7. «Gharabagh», N 8, Shushi, 1911 (In Armenian).
8. «Masis», N 3868, Kostandnupolis, 1887. (In Armenian).
9. «Meghu Hayastani», N 67, 3 septemberi, T’iflis, 1880. (In Armenian).
10. «Meghu Hayastani», hm. 53, 3 yulisi, T’iflis, 1885. (In Armenian).
11. «Mshak», N 33, T’iflis, 1887. (In Armenian).
12. «Nor Dar», N 170, T’iflis, 1889. (In Armenian).
13. «P’aylak», N 39 , 23 hulisi, Shushi, 1915. (In Armenian).
14. «P’aylak», N 64, 21 ogostosi, Shushi, 1916. (In Armenian).
15. ANA, Khachik Dadyani f. 319, c. 1, b. 415, p. 35, 36, 36a, 37, 37a. (In Armenian).
16. ANA, Khachik Dadyani f. 319, c. 1, b. 415, p. 41. (In Armenian).
17. ANA, Sb. Ējmiatcni Hayots’ lusavorchakan sinodi f. 56, c, 12, b. 538, c. 18, b. 542, 746, p. 259–260, f. 57, c. 3, b. 44, p. 7–14. (In Armenian).
18. ANA, Sb. Ējmiatcni Hayots’ lusavorchakan sinodi f. 56, c. 12, b. 511, p. 5. (In Armenian).
19. ANA, Sb. Ējmiatcni Hayots’ lusavorchakan sinodi f. 56, c. 3, p. 293. (In Armenian).
20. Artsakhi petakan patmaerkragitakan tangaran, f.2, g.5, t. 107. (In Armenian).
21. Babakhanyan Ar., Mi qani hnutyu’nner, «Ardzagank», N 9, 1 septemberi, Tiflis, 1885. (In Armenian).
22. Barkhudaryants’ M., Artsakh, Aghvanits’ yerkir yev drak’siq, Yerevan, «Gandzasar» hrat., 1999. (In Armenian).
23. Chamcheants M., Hayots’ patmut’yun, h. G, Yer., Yer. petakan hamalsarani hrat., 1984. (In Armenian).
24. Hakobyan H., Artsakh–Utiqi manrankarchutyunē 13–14–rd darerum, Yerevan, «Sovetakan grogh» hrat., 1989. (In Armenian).
25. Hakobyan H., Shushii matenakan zharangutyuny, Shushin Hajoc qaghaqakrtutyan orran, gitazhoghovi nyut’er, Yer., «Gitutyun» hrat., 2007. (In Armenian).
26. Harutyunyan H., Shushi. Qarashen ankhos vkaner, Stepanakert, «Sona» hrat., 2013. (In Armenian).
27. https://www.aravot.am/2021/09/27/1218518/ (In Armenian).
28. Kisibekyan A., Husher, h. 1, Yer., «Araspel indeks» hrat., 2011 (In Armenian)..
29. Leo, Patmut’yun Gharabaghi Hayots temakan hogevor dprots’i (1838-1913), T’iflis, Hratarakut’yun nuyn dprotsi hogabardzutyan, 1914. (In Armenian).
30. Maghalean A., Yakob Zaqareani «Patmutyun gavarin Artsakhu» ashkhatut’yunē, «Handes amsoreay», 2006, N 1–12. (In Armenian).
31. Matenadaran, dzer. hm. 3869, 2622. (In Armenian).
32. Mayr ts’uts’ak hayeren dze’ragrats Mashtotsi anvan Matenadarani, hat. A., Yer., HSSH GA hrat., 1984. (In Armenian).
33. Minasyan T., Artsakhi grchutyan kentronnerě, Yer., «Nairi» hrat., 2015. (In Armenian).
34. Mkrtchyan Sh., Artsakhian grarumner, Yer., «Noyan tapan» hrat., 2001. (In Armenian).
35. Kocharyan A., Shushii Hayots temakan hogevor dprotsi himnadrman 75–amyaki tonakatarut’yunnern
est arkhivayin vaveragreri, «Kachar», N 6, 2012, Shushi, 2014. (In Armenian).
36. Taghieadyants M., Chanaparhordutyun i Hays, Kalkata, 1847. (In Armenian).
37. Ter–Sarkisyants A., Armyane Nagornogo Karabakha, istoria, kultura, tradicii, M., NP IZD. «Russkaya panorama», 2015. (In Russian).
38. Vaveragrer Hay ekeghets’u patmut’ean, girq T, Hay araqelakan yekeghecu Artaskhi temy (1813-1933), pastatghteri yev nyuteri zhoghovats’u, Yer., Hayastani Hanrapetut’yan karavarut’yann ar’nter arkhivayn gorts’i varchut’yun, 2001. (In Armenian).
39. Vaveragrer Hay yekeghecu patmut’ean, girq ZHT, Hay araq’elakan yekeghecu Artsakhi’ temě (1649-1917), p’astatgh’teri yev nyut’eri zhoghovats’u, Yer., HH Azgayin arkhivi hrat., 2014. (In Armenian).

CURRENT TRENDS IN GENOCIDE RESEARCH – 2024-1

Summary

Suren A. Manukyan
Ph.D. in History

In its fifth decade of development, the field of Genocide studies continue the exploration of many fundamental topics that have been central since its foundation. The phenomenon of genocide, encompassing its underlying causes, the actors involved, the methods of execution, and the enduring consequences, remains a focal point of attention for specialists from a range of disciplines, including history, political science, law, sociology, psychology, and more.

Several core themes have endured throughout this field’s evolution, such as the definition of the term “genocide,” the categorization of mass murders, intergroup conflicts, the construction of overarching narratives for individual genocides, the strategies and technologies employed in mass killings, the behaviors of both perpetrators and victims, third-party complicity and indifference, the influence of international relations and geopolitics, as well as the role of war and ideologies in the initiation and progression of genocides. Moreover, the portrayal of these crimes and tragedies in art remains a significant aspect of study.

Nevertheless, new trends have emerged, significantly reshaping the field and, in some cases, bringing about revolutionary change. Notably, the scope of examined cases has expanded beyond recognized genocides to include lesser- known incidents, forgotten genocides, mass atrocities, and war crimes. Much like in other social science disciplines, individual case studies and micro-narratives have gained prominence, effectively complementing larger narratives and, at times, challenging established paradigms. The role of colonial and imperial policies has come to the forefront in explaining these crimes, altering the traditional scientific basis. Memories and testimonies of survivors have been freed from their prejudicial labels and now hold an equal place in scholarly investigations.

Comparative genocide studies also remain a promising research method, despite recognition of certain inherent challenges.
Finally, there is an ongoing effort within the field of genocide studies to transition from a purely theoretical, descriptive, and analytical discipline into a practical and applied branch of science. While the prevention of genocides has not been successful, researchers persist in their endeavors, developing various models and delving deeper into the essence of the genocide phenomenon, contributing to the broader effort to combat these heinous acts.

REFERENCES

1.Bartʻikyan M., Arnashaghakh Izmirĕ, Ohanēs (Onnik) Ghazerean, Kensagrakan notʻer (ed. Tʻehmine Martoyan), Yer., Hayotsʻ tsʻeghaspanutʻyan tʻangaran-institut himnadram, 2022(in Armenian).
2.Manukyan S., Tsʻeghaspanagitutʻjan hantsʻagortsutʻyunĕ kankhargelelu yev patzhelu masin konventsʻiayi kirarman hnaravorutʻyunnern u dzhvarutʻyunnerĕ, Haykakan kʻaghakʻagitakan handes, N 1(15), 2021 (in Armenian).
3.Manukyan S., Tsʻeghaspanagitutʻyunĕ vorpes gitachugh. Dzevavorman yev zargatsʻman patmutʻyunĕ, “Vēm”, N 3 (67), 2019 (in Armenian).
4.Manukyan S., Tsʻeghaspanagitutʻyunneri gitakan dasakargumneri hartsʻi shurj,
Tsʻeghaspanagitutʻyan handes, 2, 2021(in Armenian).
5.Matʻosyan T., Hayotsʻ tsʻeghaspanutʻyan yev hreakan Holokʻost. Hamematman pʻordz, Yer., 2005 (in Armenian).
6.Poghosyan N., Hayotsʻ tsʻeghaspanutʻyan khndirĕ Rafayel Lemkini usumnasirutʻyunnerum, Yer., Hayotsʻ tsʻeghaspanutʻyan tʻangaran-institut himnadram, 2020(in Armenian).
7.Poturean G., Taragir husher 1915-1917 (ed.Mihran A. Minasean), Yer., Hayotsʻ tsʻeghaspanutʻyan tʻangaran-institut himnadram, 2022 (in Armenian).

CONCEPT OF WAITING IN PIERRE LOTI’S AND KRIKOR ZOHRAB’S WRITINGS – 2024-1

Haykanush A. Sharuryan
PhD in Philology

Ruzan R. Ghazaryan
PhD in Philology

This study seeks to contextualize a shared thematic connection between two seemingly unrelated literary traditions, French and Armenian. These traditions are interwoven by what can be termed “perpetual themes.” The focus of this study is on two contemporary novelists, Pierre Loti (1850-1923) and Krikor Zohrab (1861-1915).

ՅՈՀԱՆՆԵՍ ԼԵՓՍԻՈՒՍԻ ՀԱՅԱՆՊԱՍՏ ՆԱԽԱՁԵՌՆՈՒԹՅԱՆ ՀԵՏՔԵՐՈՎ Գերմանիայի Կ Պոլսի դեսպանատանը հանձնված Լիպարիտ Նազարյանցի և Խաչատուր Մալումյանի գաղտնի Տեղեկագիրը – 2024-1

Աշոտ Ն․ Հայրունի, Լուսինե Ս․ Սահակյան

Առաջին համաշխարհային պատերազմի նախօրեին և ընթացքում հայ քաղաքական գործիչները մեծ ջանքեր են գործադրել Հայկական հարցի նկատմամբ Գերմանիայի որդեգրած քաղաքականության և հայ ժողովրդի նպատակների միջև ընդհանուր եզրեր գտնելու համար։ Այդ ուղղությամբ լուրջ աշխատանք է իրականացրել Գերմանա-հայկական ընկերությունը, որի նախագահ դր․ Յոհաննես Լեփսուսի ջանքերով և միջնորդությամբ ՀՅ Դաշնակցության երիտասարդ գործիչ Լիպարիտ Նազարյանցն ուղևորվում է Թուրքիա։ Այդ առաքելությունն արտաքուստ թելադրված էր գերմանական կառավարության հետ նախապես համաձայնեցված խնդիրներով, սակայն իրականում ուներ նաև այլ նպատակներ, որոնց կենսագործմանը դաշնակցական գործիչը լծվեց իր ողջ նվիրումով։ Դրանց բացահայտման համար ներկայացնում ենք ՀՅԴ նշանավոր գործիչ Խաչատուր Մալումյանի (Ակնունի) հետ միասին Լիպարիտ Նազարյանցի կազմած Տեղեկագիրն՝ ուղղված Կ. Պոլսում Գերմանիայի դեսպանությանը։ Այս արժեքավոր փաստաթղթում, ի թիվս այլ հարցերի, անդրադարձ է կատարվում նաև թուրք-հայկական և հայ-գերմանական հարաբերություններին՝ աբդուլհամիդյան շրջանից մինչև Մեծ եղեռնի նախընթաց օրերը։

THE STUDY OF EXOTICISMS TRANSFER ED FROM AND THROUGH RUSSIAN INTO ARMENIAN – 2023-4

Silva V. Papikyan

The Armenian language has been greatly influenced by Russian especially after the unification of Eastern Armenia with Russia in 1828. The connection between a nation and its history is unarguable and the history of any nation leaves its mark on the language. In this sense political, economic, cultural relations with neighboring nations are important, as a result of which languages borrow many words from each other. Among the borrowed words there are a certain number of exoticisms that indicate objects, phenomena and customs specific to a particular nation or country. Usually, they are used when it comes to culture-specific concepts characteristic of a given nation. The article considers some exoticisms transferred from and through Russian into Armenian, which are classified into the following semantic groups: accommodation-residence-area, art-literature, mode of address-address, political directions, clothes, common words.

Based on the examination, it turns out that some exoticisms passed from and through Russian into Armenian are native Russian and direct borrowings in bolshevik, decembrist, menshevik, muzhik, etc., some of them completely went out of use and joined the ranks of archaicisms – batrak, burlak, kholop, etc., many of them acquired new meanings in the course of historical development resulting in polysemy of the word. The origin of some exoticisms from Russian is unknown.

A large number of borrowings passed from different languages into
Armenian through the mediation of the Russian, such as taiga <Rus. тайга <Turk. tundra <Rus. тундра < Fin., etc.

The words borrowed from the European languages are mostly international words.

THE SECRET REPORT OF THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR IN CONSTANTINOPLE N. CHARIKOV ABOUT THE MEETING WITH SIMON ZAVARYAN AND HAKOB ZAVRYAN (DECEMBER 1911) – 2023-4

Manyak M. Yeranosyan

In the early 1910s, Russia’s repressive policy towards Armenian political parties, especially the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun), has undergone certain changes. This fact is explained by an attempt to attract Eastern and Western Armenians to the side of Russia in the context of regional changes at the beginning of the 20th century.

Taking into account the existing changes in Russian policy in the context of the creation of the Entente, it is still unclear whether there were preliminary meetings between members of the ARF Dashnaktsutyun and the Russian authorities, and if there were, then how and through whose mediation the parties determined their positions.

From the point of view of the mentioned and other issues, the document published for the first time, which is preserved in the microfilm fund of the Armenian National Archive, is noteworthy. The original of the document was kept in the Politarchive fund of the Russian Foreign Policy Archive and was sent to Yerevan during the Soviet years.

This document is a letter sent by Russian Ambassador N. Charikov to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in which he shares his impressions and observations from the meeting with prominent ARF figures S. Zavarian and H. Zavryan. From the content of the document it becomes clear that at the end of 1911, having frozen their relations with the Young Turks, representatives of Dashnaktsutyun began to consider the possibility of restoring the trust of the Russian state. Through the mediation of G. Zohrab, getting the opportunity to meet with the Russian Ambassador, they made great efforts in order to receive the favorable attitude of the Russian state.

In turn, Ambassador N. Charikov, having listened to the arguments and comments of S. Zavarian and H. Zavriyan, recommended his government to show generosity in the large trial scheduled in St. Petersburg over the ARF with the aim of using in the future the opportunities of the most influential political party among Armenians in the interests of the Russian state.

CHRISTAPOR MIKAELIAN AND THE ARF ORGANIZATION OF BAKU – 2023-4

The secret readings of the Police Department of Tsarist Russia in the 1890s

Mkrtich D. Danielyan

In the Ottoman Empire parallel to the Armenian massacres that began in the fall of 1985, the persecution of Armenian politicians by the Police Department of Tsarist Russia began in Transcaucasia. The Tsarist government thought that the idea of restoring national statehood among Armenians was very viable, so they considered the possible rebellion of Western Armenians against the Ottoman Empire as a dangerous example for Eastern Armenians. Therefore, in order to prevent the possible financial support to the Armenian national liberation movement, the Tsarist government first of all directed its attack directly to the ARF Central Committee of Baku or “Oskanapat” led by Christapor Mikaelian, in which Nerses Davtyan (Hrashali), Mikael Zalyan (Dr. Zaliev), Nerses Abelyan, Levon Tadevosyan (Papasha), Stephan Ter-Mkrtchyan (Gagik) played a major role, the latter later became the head of the military fund of ARF (Zinphon).

In such a situation, ARF and its leaders, in particular Christapor Mikaelian, were able to disguise their activities under the guise of various humanitarian and charitable initiatives. In this way they organized fund-raising and other initiatives in order to support the Western Armenians. However, these initiatives caught the attention of the Police Department, and many prominent figures, including Cr. Mikaelian, were arrested.

The presented documents include not only reports and bulletins of the
officials of the Police Department, but also the translations of the writings and letters of a number of famous figures of the Federation, which were confiscated by the Tsarist policemen during the searches, but due to the lack of knowledge of the Armenian language and the lack of necessary information about these figures, were partially distorted and were warped by the translators.

The first part of the documents that are being published includes the reports and bulletins of the officials of the Russian Police Department and the translations of the writings and letters of a number prominent ARF figures, which were seized during the searches.

The second part of the documents will include the documents related to the judicial investigation initiated by the Ministry of Justice based on the materials submitted by the Police Department.