CHENTO I AM NOT A SPY, I AM NOT A TRAITOR OF MY OWN PEOPLE

CHENTO: I AM NOT A SPY, I AM NOT A TRAITOR OF MY OWN PEOPLE

The appeal that Metodia Andonov-Chento made remained just that

Why was his file closed so quickly, closed yet his dilemma remained open until today?

Chento died on July 24, 1957 and was buried in his family plot in the Prilep cemetery

In the name of the people

The Skopje District People’s Court, consisting of President Panta Marina, Members Lazar Moisov and Kole Chashule, and Deputy Prosecutor General Blagoia Popovski, read the verdict:

Metodia Andonov-Chento was sentenced to 11 years of imprisonment in hard labour, five years without civil and political rights and confiscation of all objects found on him.

Boris Zagoranliev was sentenced to five years of imprisonment, Mitre Mitreski was sentenced to one year of imprisonment and Nedelko Makreski was sentenced three years of imprisonment.

EXPLANATION

After examining all the evidence presented during the trial, the Court found elements of criminal activities committed by the accused Metodia Andonov-Chento, namely:

Endangering the independence and inviolability of FPRY territory, as defined in Article 3 item 2; organizing an armed unit and transferring its members outside of FPRY territory with aims at endangering the existence of FPRY, as defined by Article 3 item 7; and encouraging foreign states to interfere in FPRY internal affairs, as defined by Article 3 item 9 of the Law on Crimes against the People and against the State.

The Court’s assurance that the accused Metodia was responsible for the crimes committed, as referred to in Article 3 item 2 of the aforementioned law, is based on the statements made by defendants Boris, Mitre and Nedelko, witness Traiko Beshoski and by the partial confessions made by the accused Metodia himself.

Both in front of the investigative authorities and during a search, Boris Zagoranliev stated in a clear and categorical manner that after Easter in 1946, defendant Metodia met with him and revealed his

plan, which called for fleeing to Greece and attending the Paris Peace Conference with aims at uniting Macedonia as a protectorate of one of the Great Powers. Failing that, his aim was then to return to Greece and work with the Greek authorities to break the People’s Republic of Macedonia away from the FPRY, and to merge it with Aegean Macedonia in a federation with the Monarcho-Fascist regime in Greece.

During the hearing, accused Metodia admitted that he had a special debt to Macedonia and that was to unify it by uniting the Yugoslav part together with the Bulgarian part or by uniting the Yugoslav part together with the Greek part. He wanted an independent Macedonia, from which the court gathered that in order to achieve that, the accused Metodia had a prerequisite and that was to separate the People’s Republic of Macedonia from FPR Yugoslavia, which meant violating its territory. The Court concluded that, included in accused Metodia’s activities were all the necessary elements for the existence of the crimes referred to in Article 3 item 2 of the Criminal Code against the People and against the State.

The Court was satisfied that the accused Metodia was also responsible for the crimes committed, as referred to by Article 2 item 7 of the Law. The Court based its findings on the indictment given by accused Nedelko who, at the hearing, declared that on July 13, 1946, the accused Metodia, at his home in Prilep, was preparing an escape over the Greek border. According to Nedelko, Metodia told him: “Because the old regimes have fallen I will go to Greece where I will organize an armed unit which will fight for a free Macedonia.”

The Court was satisfied with Nedelko Makreski’s story, which coincides with statements made by Mitre Mitreski, namely that Boshko Zagoranliev is one of the main defendants to whom Metodia first introduced his plan and offered him 100,000 dinars to transfer ten armed persons over to Greece. The Court has concluded that one of Metodia Andonov-Chento’s goals was to escape to Greece and organize armed units which would then fight against the FPRY.

The Court’s assurances that Metodia Andonov-Chento was responsible for the offense, covered by Article 3 item 9, were based

on Chento’s own confession which was obtained from the testimony of witness Traiko and from statements made by Boris Zagoranliev. Chento’s confession coincided with testimony provided by witness Traiko Beshoski. The Court has full confidence in Traiko’s testimony who told the Court that the accused Metodia had told him that “if the People’s Republic of Macedonia was not part of the FPRY community, then England and America would allow the People’s Republic of Macedonia to join with other parts of Macedonia, namely Aegean and Pirin Macedonia”, which in fact means that foreign forces would interfere in FPRY internal affairs.

Similarly, Boshko Zagoranliev categorically stated at the hearing that the accused Chento had told him his plan to flee to Greece so that he could attend the Peace Conference in Paris, where he planned to make a request to the Great Powers to unite the three parts of Macedonia and, as a whole, put them under the auspices of one of the Great Powers, and that the Great Power would then place him as an official of the government given that he had already been a former representative of the People’s Republic of Macedonia. From that the Court has concluded that preparations were made for foreign forces to interfere in the FPRY’s internal affairs. By acting on this, Chento has fulfilled all the elements necessary for a criminal offense defined by Article 3 item 9, and by Article 12 of the same Law.

In his defense, the accused Metodia has stated that he wanted to flee to Greece because, after his resignation and return to Prilep, he had been subjected to political and economic persecution by the people’s government and that this persecution was his main motive for wanting to leave. The fulfillment of his debt to unite Macedonia in the manner described above was only a secondary motive. The Court has found no evidence to support his defense and therefore is rejecting it. But rather from his own statements and from statements made by witnesses Kiro Platnik, Risto Baialski and Petre Talev, which the Court has no reason not to trust, the correct verdict has been reached.

Witness Kiro told the court that the accused Metodia had personally told him that, in the short time he worked in his store, Metodia had made a lot more money than ever before. Witness Baialski again

said that he criticized Metodia’s activities in the People’s Assembly because, as a People’s Representative, he could have jeopardized the basic benefits gained from the National Liberation War, specifically during the discussion of Article 1 of the FPRY Constitution.

Witness Talev testified that, as president of the GNO in Prilep, Chento issued an order to prohibit certain notorious drunkards from attending all the venues in the city, and not just his own tavern. On the other hand, Metodia had mentioned to the Court that during the time after submitting his resignation he was never summoned or punished by the authorities, nor was he banned from working in his store. On the basis of this, the Court rejected Chento’s defense, calling it an attempt to divert attention from the real motive. According to the Court’s assessment defendant Metodia’s desire was not to escape to America in order to settle there and work, but to carry out his treacherous and defamatory work, as it was stated earlier. The Court could not accept the explanation given by the defendant’s lawyer that Metodia had not committed any of the aforementioned acts and that they were only looking at attempts that never took place. The Court, however, disagreed with the lawyer for the following reasons: in its jurisdiction the Court had adopted an undisputed legal principle where an attempt to commit a criminal act was the same as committing that act because it carried consequences even if those consequences did not materialize. Therefore, the Court concluded that because the accused Metodia was prepared to execute the aforementioned act, flee to Greece, according to the law it was the same as actually committing that act. Regarding defendant Boris’s criminal responsibility, the Court was satisfied with the full and clear confession that he gave about himself at the hearing and about the statements he made about the accused Metodia and Mitre.

In determining Metodia’s sentence, the Court also took into consideration aggravating circumstances: i.e. he manifested insincerity in an attempt to cover up facts which were clearly determined at the hearing. He was absent of remorse and in view of the character of the crime, in the Court’s opinion, the 11-year hard labour jail sentence was deemed appropriate...

Minutes taken by A. Ianashkov

Signed by Panta Marina President of the Judicial Council

After the verdict was read, Metodia Andonov-Chento was taken away to serve his sentence and placed in total isolation. On May 9, 1947, on Victory Day, the National Assembly issued a decree pardoning all persons convicted of similar acts for which Chento was convicted. His family demanded that the decree be applied to Chento as well, but that did not happen. The Skopje District Court Council, chaired by Panta Marina, rejected the request, stating that Chento was convicted of espionage, an act that was otherwise not covered by the decree.

After that Metodia Andonov-Chento himself wrote an appeal addressed to the Skopje District Court and to the Supreme Court of Macedonia... Here is what he wrote:

To the District Court in Skopje and to the Supreme Court of the People’s Republic of Macedonia

This is an appeal from Metodia Andonov-Chento a prisoner in the Idrizovo Penitentiary

On November 21, 1947, the Skopje District Court adopted a decision to reject the application (submitted by Vasilka Andonova, Chento’s wife) requesting my pardon on the basis of the May 9, 1947 Decree put forth by the FPRY National Assembly Presidium. The reason for the rejection was because my offense was viewed as espionage.

To prove that this decision was unfair please have a look at the verdict (11 years in prison) which was based on quite untrue testimonies and accusations, all of them used as material against me. But, on the other hand, any solid evidence brought up in support of my case was deemed incomplete and dismissed. Further, I can’t think of any reason why my wife would not have appealed my verdict within the specified time limit. I believe the time limit complaint was issued because of fears that the truth may come to light and that is that I never committed a criminal offense deemed espionage. That is why I am providing you the following: