четвъртък, 29 март 2012 г.

Ianko Iankov-Velyovski. Biography

Nikolay Mihaylov, Ianko Iankov. BioBibliography, Sofia, 2006

Ianko Nikolov Iankov-Velyovski was born on August 13, 1944 in Bulgaria, Montana District (at the time – Ferdinand, afterwards - Mihaylovgrad), in the village of Klisuritsa. His parents were ordinary villagers, who earned their living with agricultural labor; currently deceased.

According to the local historical data and folk legends, the village was found in 1688, when, after the Chiprovtsi National Freedom Movement Revolt was brought under the control of the Turkish authorities, one of its military leaders, Velyo Stoyov, together with his family left the burned village of Klisura (close to Chiprovtsi) and moved about 30 kilometers to the north, where in close proximity to another small mountain passage (in Bulgarian “klisura”) became the founder of the Velyovski (Velyovtsi) family, which continued his intensive revolutionary activities and the founder of the village of Klisuritsa (i.e. the Small Klisura)1. Ianko Iankov is an heir of this Velyovski family.2

He graduated his primary education in 1958 in his home village, and high school – in 1962 in the town of Montana (at the
1 Nameranski, N., The names of the villages in Berkovitsa, Mihaylovgrad and Lom Region, Sofia, 1991, p. 37, 131; Iankov, I., Identity document. Political documentation. - Sofia, Vol. 4, 2003, p. 109-110.

2Ianko Nikolov VELYOVSKI is the actual name of the person, who obtained citizenship as Ianko Nikolov IANKOV. Trying to detach children from parents, from families and kin and to attach them to the socialist “idea”, to force them forget their actual roots, in the 60’s, the Bulgarian Communist Party legally imposed elimination of the family name and replaced it with the name of the grandparent on the father’s side.

time – Mihaylovgrad). From the autumn of 1962 until the autumn of 1964, he served in the army as a radio operator with the rank „private”; afterwards his rank never changed.

In 1967, Ianko Iankov was accepted as a student in the University of Sofia, first in the Faculty of Slavic Studies, major Bulgarian Philology, and later, in December 1973 he graduated higher education in the Faculty of Law and was awarded a diploma in major Law (Lawyer, Master’s Degree in Law – LL.M.).

Since his student years, under the influence of the western democracy, of the anti-communist events in Czechoslovakia in 1968, and his general mental mood, he has formulated and undertaken partial practical testing of the thesis for eventual possibility of legal opposition to the totalitarian communist system by using supreme legal and ideological knowledge.

The first scientific works and publications of Ianko Iankov were made when he was a student in the third year, and in April 1974, he won a competition and began his scientific career as a researcher (Research Fellow) in the Institute of State and Legal Sciences with the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and as a lecturer (Assistant Professor) in the Faculty of Law of the University of Sofia.

Although pretty cautiously, since the very 1975 he has started intensive practical implementation of his thesis for use of his supreme legal qualification for performing activity for protection of the violated individual rights of relatives and trusted friends (as a form of legal and political opposition to the communist system). The disclosed records of State Security show that at that time Ianko Iankov has already become a routine supervision subject for the secret services. In 1978, he broadened his scope of activities by including also protection of

the violated rights of many other people, as a result of which the secret services’ supervision grew to special supervision.

In 1979-1980, Ianko Iankov started the formation of an unofficial and in its essence illegal organization (with no written statues and program but with orally agreed statutory and program principles), that aims at collecting and precisely analyzing different practical legal cases related to violation of human rights, which could later on be used as a form of active and mass official faultlessly legitimate and right-defending but political in its essence opposition to the communist system in socialist Bulgaria.

As a repressive answer of his completely legally irreproachable legal defense activity and under cruel violation of the Labor Code and the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Statutes, on March 18, 1982 he was illegally fired from his prestigious scientific and teaching work in the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and in the University of Sofia. The disclosed records of State Security now show that his dismissal from work was assured by prior planned special operative action, undertaken by the Bulgarian branch of the KGB.


During the same year, Ianko Iankov started active contacts with representatives of a number of western embassies in Sofia (most of all the embassy of Great Britain, USA, France and Germany), to which he submitted a great number of official documents evidencing violation of the human rights in Bulgaria; consequently these submitted documents became subject of investigation of the Conference of Madrid and Stockholm regarding the human rights issues.

In May 1983, leaving the embassy of France, where he submitted more than 1500 pages of documentation, Ianko Iankov was arrested, but in two months he was released – both due to legal impossibility of proving any of the accusations

against him (for terrorism against the embassy and for propaganda in the embassy against the state and political regime in Bulgaria) and due to (or more appropriately most of all) the effective diplomatic and propaganda intersession of several western countries rendered against the Bulgarian authorities.

During the summer of 1983, Ianko Iankov created in the town of Montana a special illegal group, which distributed a great amount of political leaflets against the authority from the autumn of 1983 until the autumn of 1984 under the immediate leadership of his brother Kamen Iankov. The disclosed records of State Security now show that the secret services have made over 150 (one hundred and fifty) prevention arrests and they have been engaged very intensively in tracing down the doers for a period of whole six years, without any result whatsoever.

It was not until the beginning of 1990, when as a member of the National Political Round Table and as a Congressman in the Great National Assembly Ianko Iankov gave publicity to the truth about the leaflets and soon afterwards by chemical-medical means his brother was killed by State Security, and since then the already democratic Bulgarian prosecution (headed by magistrates loyal to the communist “idea”) has been neglecting in total silence each of his many requests for investigation of the cause of his brother’s death.

In the beginning of March 1984, the home of Yanko Yankov in the village of Klisuritsa was visited by the political secretary of the US embassy Josef Keel (which, as far as I know, is the only visit of a western diplomat into private Bulgarian home for the 50 years of communist regime). Only a week later, with resolution dated March 15, 1984 of the Regional Court in the town of Mihaylovgrad (under APDH No.5 dated March 13, 1984), under serious violation of the official legal regulations, Ianko Iankov was arrested, deported and exiled to heavy forced physical labor in semi-secured

concentration camp (called „Himik workers’ hostel”) in the region of the chemical plants in the town of Devnya, Varna District. He was taken there by an armed police escort and he not only did categorically refuse to work even for one minute but also, taking advantage of the comparatively free movement regime on the huge territory of the several plants, the available comparatively easy to access telephones and the argument that he will talk to his family in Sofia, he made a series of phone conversations with diplomats from the embassies of USA, France, and Germany.

On May 22, 1984, Ianko Iankov was arrested and the following three charges were brought against him: ►creation and leading of a subversive organization; ►conducting subversive propaganda against Bulgaria, the Soviet Union, and the socialist member states of the military bloc the “Warsaw Pact”; and ►instigating foreign countries to hostile actions against Bulgaria. Since his arrest, he raised the well-grounded thesis that he was innocent, whereas he even demonstratively stressed on the fact that he was „innocent due to lack of evidence” (not lack of deed).


On December 24, 1984, Ianko Iankov was sentenced to 12 years of prison under extremely strict regime, and in 1985, his sentence was “corrected” to 6 years and 6 months under the same regime. The disclosed records of the Bulgarian branch of KGB now show that the arrest, trial, and his special treatment in the prison were secured by conducting several strictly confidential operative actions, which code names were „The lousy guy”, „The wild guy”, „The vicious guy”, „The bullhead guy”, „Terrorist”, „Disobedient” and „Dragon”.

Only two weeks after the arrest of Ianko Iankov the US Department of State published a special report (read on June 06, 1984 on Free Europe Radio), wherein his name was

mentioned as an example of a Bulgarian citizen, deprived of his human rights, and soon later the rights-defending organization Amnesty International announced him for a person under its protection.

During the stay of Ianko Iankov in prison, the international rights-defending organizations Amnesty International and Helsinky Watch announced his for a political prisoner No. 1 of Bulgaria. The American Bar Association, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights and a number of other national and international rights-defending organizations undertook protests against the Bulgarian government regarding the illegal trial of Ianko Iankov. The Free Europe, the Voice of America and the BBC radios broadcasted many programs, dedicated to his activity and his inhuman treatment in prison. In March 1989, during the official work of the Congress, the President of the Socialist International Willi Brandt himself officially announced a number of facts both for his political and rights-defending activity and for the specific repression system that he was subject to in the Bulgarian prisons.

Moreover, a number of documents show that during implementation of a strictly confidential action of State Security Ianko Iankov was subjected to a special physical treatment system and chemical-pharmaceutical influence, for harming his extremely healthy organism and most of all breaking his will. This action, however, despite the partial success in the first purpose (multiple bone breaking and a tumor formation in his adrenal gland), concluded with absolutely full failure of the authorities regarding the second purpose: ►on the second and third year of his stay in the prison, it is properly stated in official documents that he is systematically violating the internal rules, systematically provoking the supervising security members and constitutes danger both for the prisoners and the warders; ►in the letter of characteristics, officially issued upon leaving of the prison, it is recorded that he is strong-

willed, persistent in chasing his goals and all his actions are always purposeful.
Ianko Iankov stays in prison until his full serving of his term of imprisonment; due to the fact that under the adopted rules and practices two working days (as an shoemaker) equal three days, de facto he stays in prison 5 years, 7 months and 3 days of calendar time, and is released on October 31, 1989 (exactly ten days before the official date of the change of the political regime); along with the two months from his previous arrest and the two months and ten days of stay in the concentration camp his actual time of imprisonment was 5 (five) years, 11 (eleven) months and 13 (thirteen) days.


In December 1989, Ianko Iankov was pardoned with a law but he refused to accept the amnesty based on the thesis that „the legally sentenced may be pardoned but the illegally sentenced may not”, and submitted an official petition for a new court trial.

On March 30, 1990, the General Assembly of the Penal Bars of the Supreme Court issued a resolution, under which Ianko Iankov was declared fully innocently sentenced under full lack of the evidence required by the law, and his sentence was revoked. One of the very emblematic facts regarding his illegal sentencing was that fact that in the last and highest court bar, which declared his innocently sentenced, most of the judges who earlier, during the discussion of his case in the different previous instances, participated both in his declaring innocent and in his sentencing; these judges were never asked “In which case did they act according to their supreme conscience and in which they acted as cringing for a bowl of lentils mean and unscrupulous agents of the secret services?”.

Despite his many official written requests, up to now there is no one of the culprits punished for his illegal arrest,

sentencing and imprisonment; the only military prosecutor (colonel Nikolay Kolev), who dared undertake an investigation case against only a small part of the culprits, was soon after killed and the investigation case was suspended; the prosecutor, who suspended the case (colonel Nikolay Ganchev), was almost immediately promted to “general” and a little later he became owner of a luxurious hotel in a prestigious mountain resort..

Moreover, until now Ianko Iankov has not received even a cent as a compensation for the suffered material and moral damages and benefits missed. Furthermore:

а) on one hand all, who during the time of the classical communist regime participated in some way in the illegal repression of Ianko Iankov, almost right after were generously rewarded; their most generous reward however was exactly after the so-called „political changes”, when they reached not only the highest points in their professional hierarchy, but also stunning profiteering; according to his yet preliminary and not full calculations only regarding his illegal arrest, sentence, and imprisonment, more than 200 (two hundred) agents, trusted people and officers of State Security were engaged; some of the “most eminent” of them are now: eminent businessmen, democratic generals, members of the Supreme Court Council, supreme judges, constitution judges, judges in the international courts in Strasbourg and Hague, ministers and deputy ministers (including of justice and interior), chief prosecutor, eminent members of parliament, chairman of Parliament, famous diplomats.

b) on the other hand: exactly after the political changes Ianko Iankov: ►although already officially free, he acquired such actual status that gave him reasons to frequently declare that his pursuit today was much more sinister and perverted than before; and that his current status was much more ominous that the prison one: ► in particular, he stressed

on the fact that during the communist regime, his grandmother dies only three days after arrest, and his grandfather was buried five days after his first visit to his grandson in prison, and the death of both his grandparents was directly related to the repressions against him; in the context of a seemingly natural but in fact well planned by the criminal circles calendar regime, only for a few year, his brother, his father, and his mother died, whose death he well-groundedly defined as murder, committed by personally and institutionally the same forces, which earlier subject to repression mainly him and to a lesser degree – his relatives, exactly after the political “changes”; ►althoughs she has two prestigious higher education degrees (master in stomatology and master in pedagogy with specialty “Social work with children”), his wife Elka P. Iankova became unemployed almost immediately after in 1993 she married him, and all employers she addressed for work unambiguously showed her that the prestigious diplomas do not count due to her spouse choice; ► the professional realization of Ianko Iankov was firmly limited to an insignificant researcher in an academic institute and a host-lecturer in an university in the country, and he was demonstratively superseded in the scientific hierarchy by people, who have nothing in common with science; ► each his attempt to achieve any economic stability of his family was always followed by precise subjection to even more intensive mafia oppression and actual theft.


At the end of 1989 and the beginning of 1990, Ianko Iankov participated in the creation of the opposition in Bulgaria and in the activity of the so-called at the time National Political “Round Table”. His intensive try to create a right-radical opposition fraction and to oppose the agreement between the communist party and the false opposition created from its secret services leads to his exclusion in March 1990 from participation in the totally collaborationist “Round Table”; thus


Ianko Iankov became the only, both in Bulgaria and in Eastern Europe, participant in the phenomenon “political round table”, who was excluded due to the radicalism of his claims for decommunization of society and the state apparatus.

Under Resolution dated May 15, 1991, of the Presidium of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, the dismissal of Ianko Iankov from his scientific work in the Institute of Law Sciences was announced illegal and politically repressive and his rights were recovered.

Nevertheless, for more than one year, the management of the Institute of State and Law Sciences with the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, which consisted from secret agents and evident officers of State Security refused to give effect to this Resolution; as a result, after the political scandal and most of all after the diplomatic intervention, the Resolution was effectuated. Up until now, however, not only that none of the culprits for the illegal dismissal of Ianko Iankov was punished but also he has not received even a cent of compensation.


In 1990 and 1991, Ianko Iankov was a member of parliament in the Seventh Great National Assembly; from a constitutional point of view, this extremely rarely convoked Parliament had legal status of a Senate (Upper Parliament Chamber). There Ianko Iankov gave proof to and sustained the thesis for legal illegitimacy (due to the brutal violation of many constitutionally important legal regulations) of the Seventh Membership of Parliament, whereas he orally qualified this parliament membership as “Red mess” and defined as illegitimate all adopted acts, including the so-called “Constitution of June 12, 1991”, which he refused signing. The circumstance that although at that time the so-called “Constitution” was not signed by another 38 members of parliament also deserves special attention, today Ianko Iankov


is the only member of this parliament that did not engage in any way whatsoever with the “constitution” deed in question; all other members consequently as members of parliament in the following common Parliaments attested the sacred nature of this actually not signed by them “deed”; as a matter of fact, the political and judicial foresight of Ianko Iankov is unambiguously shown in the fact that exactly this „constitution deed” today is not only used as a flag and vindication of the cruel mafia plunder but it also represents an extremely serious “legal” hindrance for the European integration of Bulgaria.

On April 13, 1991, The Bulgarian National Television (29 San Stefano Str., Sofia 1504) broadcasted a special one-hour documentary (“This Is the Man”; director Rosen Elezov), dedicated to the activity of Ianko Iankov as a man and a politician.
On March 01, 1995, the Specialized Scientific Law Sciences Council with the Higher Attestation Commission (HAC) with the Council of Ministers elected Ianko Iankov for a Senior Research Associate Second Degree (Reader, Associate professor) in “Theory of the state and legislation. Political and legal sciences”.

Ianko Iankov is the founder and Chairman of: ⇒the Liberal Congress Party; ⇒the Union of Jurists Democrats in Bulgaria; ⇒The Base Institute for Research and Protection of the Human Rights; ⇒as well as several more other public organization.
From 1991 until 1995, Ianko Iankov issued the free newspaper “Liberal Congress” – printed body of the political party that he chaired.

Apart from his scientific research work in the Institute of Legal Sciences with the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Ianko Iankov was also engaged in university lecturing in the Faculty of Law of the University of Plovdiv, where he gave


lectures on a number of scientific disciplines: ⇒Philosophy of Law; ⇒Psychology of Law; ⇒Psychology of Politics; ⇒Political and Legal Doctrines; ⇒Theory of Social Government (Political Management); ⇒Forecasting and Political Forecasting; ⇒Theory and Practice of Terrorism; ⇒Thanathology (philosophical, psychological and legal aspects of death).

On December 15, 1999, the French satellite television ARTE (2a rue de la Fonderie, F-67080 Strasbourg Cedex, journalist Lawent Cibien, 29 av. T. Gauche, 78016 Paris) broadcasted a special documentary, dedicated to the political and legal-defensive activity of Ianko Iankov.

For five days, at each round hour from November 26 to November 30, 2005, the Turkish News Satellite Television TGRT Haber (29 Ekim Cad. N 23, Yenibosna 34530 Istanbul, News Manager Dogan Senturk) broadcasted an exclusive interview with Ianko Iankov, dedicated on the topic about the role of the former soviet secret services (KGB) and their nowadays mafia transformation (the Red Mafia) in the current internal political and economical processes in Bulgaria.

Only several days later, performing a secret order, assigned by the management of the Bulgarian branch of the Red Mafia and the special services of the Ministry of Interior, on December 05, 2005 the Director of the Institute for legal sciences with BAS issued an order for the dismissal of Ianko Iankov, to be effected on the same day, about which he was notified only three days later, on December 08, 2005 (moreover with a slow mail latter).

It is curious that while the classical communist repressive services took care to make his first dismissal in 1982 look at least formally legitimate, the next dismissal was performed as a well thought and institutionally and personally secured brutal demonstration of anti-right force: ►the order


was issued unilaterally by the Director and in full violation of the obligatory procedure legal rules, which categorically set forth that such resolutions may be passed only by the Scientific Council; ►furthermore the order was issued without any motives whatsoever, which is in full contradiction to the express requirement of the law for motivation of such acts.

With reference to this dismissal, I want to pay special attention to the following facts from the scenario of the modern theater of the absurd: а) The Director of the Institute for Legal Sciences with BAS, Tsvetana Kamenova is not only a daughter of a high-ranking officer and investigator in one of the most sinister departments of the communist State Security but also she herself is a high-ranking secret agent of the same special and politically repressive service (this service, by the way, is officially announced from the Bulgarian Parliament for criminal); b) Ts. Kamenova herself expressly, publicly, ostentatiously, and many times have stated that this dismissal was preliminary agreed with the diplomatic representatives of several western country residing in Bulgaria, whereas it will be acknowledged legitimate by all European political and court institutions; c) only several months before issuance of the order for this undoubtedly political and repressive dismissal, under proposal of the Bulgarian government Ts. Kamenova was elected by the General Meeting of the United Nations for a Judge in the International Court in Hague and was included in a court membership, which will discuss the cases for the crimes of the communist regime in Yugoslavia; d) nevertheless, let me once again specifically formulate probably the very naïve questions: „-Why is Ianko Iankov still subject of repression today?”; „-Why are his present hangmen personally and institutionally exactly the same as before?”; ”-Why today, using the encouragement of the West, the hangmen of Ianko Iankov avail of much more unlimited repressive rights and opportunities than before, when they only had the

encouragement of Moscow?”; „-Why today, his hangmen are continuing to „administer justice” not only in Bulgaria but also in the European and world court institutions?”.

As a matter of fact, the content of the below-mentioned seven volumes „Identity document. Political Documentation” more than clearly show that Ianko Iankov has always determined the essence of the political changes in Bulgaria after 1989 as secured by the Great Powers criminal neocommunist mafia regime, and has extremely intensively addressed with official written statement the Bulgarian state institutions and most of the western diplomatic delegations in Sofia, as well as some of the European institutions, whereas he has presented official petitions for pursuit of penal responsibility of all criminals in all levels of the previous and current Bulgarian quasi-political and quasi-governmental system. In these seven large volumes Ianko Iankov precisely and even pedantically describes the facts and the legal interpretation of the great number of criminal encroachments on him personally, on members of his family and on his friends, as well as on other people; and the documented behavior of both the Bulgarian state authorities and the Western embassies unambiguously show that the criminals were guaranteed full legal irresponsibility.

The documents in question also show: ►that in response to his fully legally-justified demands for justice, he has always and systematically received all kinds of new completely illegal but precisely secured by the state institutions repressive-inquisitional strikes; and ►that in contrast to the time of socialism, today the West has legitimated as its democratic partners exactly these institutions and individuals that have been conducting and are still currently conducting all modern forms of inquisition treatment towards Yanko Yankov and the majority of the Bulgarian citizens.


Here I should stress on a very significant peculiarity of the behavior, statement, actions and attitude of Ianko Iankov to responsibility. To be a jurist means most of all to apply the maxim that man as such possesses free will and therefore he/she is personally responsible for his actions or failures to act. (A jurist, who accepts that responsibility may be not only personal but also collective is not a jurist but an inquisitor).

Ianko Iankov has always and on any occasion stresses on the fact that he was not looking for responsibility from the former members of the communist party (although the socialist propaganda purposefully, methodically and maliciously blamed him and did not stop to blame him of this “sin”) but only from those of them, who have committed particular crimes according to their own laws. The opposite would mean diluting the meaning of responsibility, which the former communists (present „socialists”, „member of the center-wing” and „member of the right-wing”) very successfully managed to impose in the Bulgarian public space, using their total power over all kinds of media, their full domination in the economic, cultural, and political life in the country, the deliberate marginalization of the Bulgarian population and turning it into ragamuffins.

The records of the manipulators of the Bulgarian, European, and world public opinion is very simple: about 2 000 000 (living and deceased) former members of the communist party plus about 1 500 000 (living and deceased) agents of the Bulgarian security services means that each second Bulgarian is “guilty”! Thus, every Bulgarian family appears to have averagely two “guilty” members... If everybody is guilty, then nobody is responsible–the concept “collective responsibility” is not present in legislation.

Furthermore, the psychological factor is also to be included – the spontaneous subconscious opposition of the “guilty”. Hidden behind this simple but faultlessly operative mechanism, the manipulators (the actual people guilty for the


crimes) accumulate billions on account of the “guilty” and their families. Good-willed but unthoughtfully allowing to be used in favor of the above mechanisms, politicians, journalists, scientists, people of the cultural life and art multiply the thesis of collective guilt and assist the hangmen in accomplishing their misanthropic plan. Thereafter, the mechanisms of prescription will be effectuated, and the criminals will remain unpunished.
Ianko Iankov has been fighting all his life against this – unfortunately almost alone. Alone as the until recently slandered and now glorified by all the “left”, the “right”, and the “center”, Bulgarian politician – Stefan Stambolov. Like his great predecessor, Ianko Iankov was subject of constant attacks for slandering his personality and acts. With his precise scientific accuracy he distinguished, analyzed, and classified the perversions of the ordered slanders against him. Regarding this, I will quote an interview taken fifteen years ago, because what Ianko Iankov said then is still in full force today:

„I know that journalists frequently define me as a “very colorful personality”. I do not mind being called so, although I very well know that different people, led by different political motives and biases, saying that mean different things. During the last ten years, my strengths and weaknesses were totally un changed, but until recently, for them I was called a “criminal” and an “enemy of the state”. Today the qualification run from “colorful”, “exotic”, “strange”, “peculiar character” even to “affection”. In my opinion, these are qualifications of those people who do not obey the terror of widespread opinion, which (widespread opinion – ed.) in the totalitarian and post-totalitarian societies is wrong and misanthropic. On my part, I have always had scientifically grounded arguments for each of my disobedience. My professional specialization is political science; my evaluations with this respect have always been correct. As a matter of fact, the long-standing political one-colored situation in our country created the phenomenon


„political daltonism, which is expressed mainly in the fact that people like me were (and still are!) assessed as “colorful”, as standing outside the main colors, which in fact, this is simply a matter of professionalism. Years ago, when everything looked absolutely hopeless, I stood against the communist system, I passed through its meat-mincer without being interested in the system servants’ appraisals of my behavior. Later, it became obvious that it was not me the criminal but the people who once announced me such. My actions as a leader of the opposition were taken by many people as the actions of an “enemy of the opposition”, but now it is more than clear that my professional evaluations were the most correct ones.”3

* * *

A peculiar group of facts related to the biography of Ianko Iankov also deserves special attention.

His sufficiently detailed documentary books show that both he personally and his closest relatives (father, mother, brother, grandfather, grandmother, wife, kids) and friends have not only been in the past but are still also (those who live) subject to an impressive number of repressive encroachments.

Both in the past and now, Ianko Iankov extremely intensively continues to insist before the relevant institutions and public circles on a pursuit of the strictest penal responsibility for each specific individual criminal doer, whose action was somehow related to the criminal activity of State Security.

Although the activity of State Security was official announced criminal with a special act of the Parliament, until now de facto and de jure none has been sentenced, and everything possible for not sentencing anyone in the near or far future is being done (until the unsparing laws of the natural human life duration take effect).
3 Pirinsko Delo, Newspaper, dated July 25, 1991.


His documentary books expose the attempts for elimination of his arguments in this direction (the interested criminal people and circles tried to discredit and compromise him by statements in the media that for a short period he was a “State Security agent”, and meanwhile doing anything possible not to allow anyone to the records, which they declared contained evidence about their insinuations).
Regarding this, the following is rather curious: ►in order to force the relevant institutions to grant access both personally to him and to the public to the documentation, which the manipulators said represented evidence, Ianko Iankov submitted a great number of official (notarized) Powers of Attorney of eminent Bulgarian journalists and experts; ►consequently, most of them personally stated to Ianko Iankov that they were threatened and that they were categorically persuaded to give up investigating the records of State Security; ►at the end only one of the authorized people (the expert in criminology B. T. Krastev) managed to force the Minister of Interior to grant access to the requested documentation {but only after this expert managed to survive after the organized in the Sofia subway attempt on his life and after he officially charged the Minister not only for this attempts but also for trying to conceal his own (of the Minister) criminal past in service of SS, and more specifically as an informer under the case in which Ianko Iankov was sentenced}; ►only several days after granting access to the documentation in question, the greatest expert in graphology D. G. Kostov made notary certification of his categorical conclusion that this documentation was fake; ►separately in other records, evidence (several of which the so-called “Plan for conducting operative action”) was found showing that the Scientific-Technical Department of State Security was assigned the development of a series of forgeries, which must have served for compromising Ianko Iankov; ►the investigative proceeding instigated thereof in the Military Prosecution was suspended with the


ridiculous argument for “expired prescription”; ►after three intensive interrogations as a witness, the expert-graphologist D. G. Kostov, who had never been ill so far, suddenly died of heart attack; ►in his official petition for investigating of the causes of this death, Ianko Iankov unambiguously stated that the case is a case of medication terrorism, committed against D. G. Kostov as a punitive operation for his expert opinion.

Ianko Iankov is married, father of three children, and author of scientific and fiction articles, reports of scientific conferences and symposia, televisions interviews and other media events, as well as the stated herein scientific and political-documentary books.

Moreover, his books have almost the same fate as the fate of their author:

1) The rich document enclosure to the first book show: ►that it was written back in 1976; ►that within the limits of the purely scientific community, it was accepted very warmly and that during the next year, all required at the time official scientific-expert and institutional resolutions for its printing were undertaken; ►that due to the ideological and political consideration of the communist authority and its secret services, this book was actually arrested not only a long time before the arrest of its author but also for a considerable time after his release from prison; and ►that the book was issued only after the political changes with personal funds of the author.

2) The rich document enclosure to the fourth and fifth book show that both due to lack of financial funds and due to the severe obstacles, precisely created by all possible administrative, political, and mafia factors, these books are issued with great difficulties, almost in conspiratorially and a long time after their actual writing;


3) I personally, as an editor of all books of Ianko Iankov testify: ►that to the lack of financial funds, his books were issued on a very limited and even symbolic total print; ►that this lack of financial funds was precisely secured by institutionally and personally the same factors and people, who earlier created ideological and political obstacles for the publication of his books; ►that in the purely scientific community, these books were welcomed warmly and for their content no word of critics was written or said; and ►that the only several people specialists in the relevant scientific field engaged in official written, extremely positive and even strongly laudatory quotes and reviews of these books.

4) As a matter of fact, the opinion of these specialists are worth mentioning:

а) in the official review, the doctor of historical sciences Prof. Petar Petrov stressed on the fact that: ►as an author Ianko Iankov showed notable erudition and knowledge of the works of his predecessors-authors; ►he is not only extremely correct in presenting other people’s opinion but also always taking side, giving grounds to and defending his own position; ►the profound scientific character of his works did not prevent the author from narrating vividly and fascinatingly, clearly and comprehensibly; ►considering specifically „Political and legal doctrines of Ancient Greece” and „Political and legal doctrines of Ancient Rome”, he expressly stresses on the first complete works of this kind in the Bulgarian literature; ►analyzing the rest of the works regarding the political and legal doctrines in Antiquity, one can reach the conclusion that with these books Ianko Iankov becomes the only Bulgarian researcher-jurist, who in such thoroughness presented to the reader an extremely interesting filed of problems, and that the scientific contributions and the cognitive nature of these books eloquently speak about the great erudition of their author; ►both books in psychology of law are works with high scientific qualities, and the author is


a pioneer in Bulgaria in this field; ►analyzing the books of Ianko Iankov in terms of the thanatological studies, one can definitely say that here the author is also a pioneer in Bulgaria.

b) in an official review, the doctor of legal sciences Prof. Lachezar Dachev states that: ►Ianko Iankov is the first contemporary Bulgarian researcher-jurist, who studies the problems of psychology of law and his both books in this field represent considerable scientific contribution because the thesis that he enunciates is fundamentally different from the theses already substantiated by the other authors; ►the works of Ianko Iankov regarding the political and legal doctrines of Antiquity are a high scientific contribution even with their very appearing because such studies in Bulgaria have never been done; ►considerable scientific contribution is also the successful application of the historical and culturological approach to the study of the ancient Eastern societies; ►using this approach to the study of ancient Eastern societies Ianko Iankov has actually prepared and tested his model for analysis of the political ideas, which consequently he developed to a new, more thorough level and applied for his studies of the political thought of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome; ►the study of the political thought of Ancient Greece that Ianko Iankov conducted is the first in Bulgaria thorough study and even only this fact is of contribution nature; ►not only the scales of the exposition is contributive but also the fundamental significance of the problems, discussed by the author; ► the fact that while the few Bulgarian authors, who worked on the study of political thought, permanently addressed only the origin that discusses the political thought as ideology, Ianko Iankov is the only one, who demonstrated categorical disagreement with this limited approach and he studied the political thought mainly as theory, and meanwhile he beneficially broadened the very ideological approach, is also contributive; ►Ianko Iankov is searching for an explanation of the political ideas in the context of culture and defines them as a social-cultural phenomena; he assumes that the


relation “thinking-action” is with a two-way nature and based on this he defines his own specific method of study; thus, on one hand setting the relation “lifestyle (materiality) – religion (mythology) – mentality of the traditional society”, Iankov achieved a culturological explanation of the political ideas; but on the other hand he connected and explained the meaning of the political ideas with the relation “thinking – political thinking – political behavior”, whereas the two lines of analysis are related and skillfully combined; even at times, the reader loses orientation about them but the effect is very good: the reader is “absorbed” in the reproduced historical reality and clearly understands the logics of the political thinking of the world of that time, reflected in political ideas, and this is the next indisputable contribution of the study.

c) In an official review, the doctor of legal sciences Prof. Mihaylina Mihaylova stresses on the fact that: ►in his books, specific for their impressive volume and content of high scientific value, Ianko Iankov gives new trends in the legal science and shows impressive philosophical and scientific erudition; ►although the discipline to which the book “Political and legal doctrines in Ancient Greece” is referred to long ago has its scientific status and prestige (whereas all looks already said, collected, and systematized), Ianko Iankov has found a new standpoint, he has applied his own approach to the topic and achieved new scientific content; ►Ianko Iankov is modern in all his works; especially indicative example in terms of this are his studies in Psychology of Law, in which he demonstrated overcoming and outgrowing of all authors, who wrote on this topic before him; ►the capacity of Ianko Iankov as a theorist with modern and perspective thought is lavishly displayed in his works in Thantology; ►his study of the problems of euthanasia and the right of death is the first one in the Bulgarian legal science in this field, and everything written by the author on this matter is in full his contribution to the Bulgarian legal science; ►Ianko Iankov is copious in his scientific works; courageous


and original as a thinker; innovator in science and in teaching; pioneer in several trends of the legal science; remarkable erudite both in philosophy and in each separate private science concerning the law; precise in the content and significant regarding his decisions; especially in his studies of the death penalty and euthanasia he demonstrated skills in performing a proficient legal interpretation; his high erudition has predestined also his affinity to the methodology, marking a priority in all his works.

d) In the officially recorded statement before a special forum of highly qualified jurists, the doctor of legal sciences Prof. Vladimir Petrov was categorical that: ►Ianko Iankov has always combined in himself the qualities of a citizen and a professor; thus he was before the political “change” on November 10, 1989, when he has the courage to express opinion and defend standpoints, and “when personally to me he has demonstrated what it means to be courageous and brave by defending me before instances, before which no one dared express doubt or suspicion”; ►”from his very first years of assistance professor Ianko Iankov has shown that he was a person who had no other life but the life dedicated to science; this trend in his behavior he continued to demonstrate until today – he was among the politicians, for whom everything showed that they will be on top of the Bulgarian politics because he was not only a leader of a party but also one of the few people, who were actually repressed but yet gave up on politics to dedicate himself to his real love - science.”


In my opinion, Nikolay Mihaylov, nevertheless, one both small and at the same time huge and even fateful specifying specially to the opinion of Prof. Dr. Vladimir Petrov is required.


In two of his epistolary statements written on September 19, 1980 and January 08, 1981 (published in the appendix to his first book)43 Ianko Iankov stressed on the fact that:

►it was a public secret that “in Bulgaria, there are quite a lot of people, who pretend to be patriarchs in science, while actually they cannot and do not deserve to be even miserable sextons”;
►„in order to strengthen their situation, these pseudo-scientific workers form their likes”, “and judging as Procrustes, zealously create and maintain atmosphere, in which the audacious innovators are extremely unwanted and are subject to accusations of thousands “deadly sins””;
►”because the good-for-nothing are willing to do anything, they create such an atmosphere, which frequently, with no exaggeration, can be called “hell””;
►”we can’t hide the fact that the dark forces, which strive to turn the sincere love to science into prostitution with science, are too strong”;
►then, from the time of his release from prison in 1989 until now, Ianko Iankov has always said that “Bulgaria is run by exactly the same “dark forces””, and that “one of their main strategies is to turn the natural love of man to politics into prostitution with politics”.
The matter is in the fact:
►that as well as before, now, both in science and in politics in Bulgaria only the unnatural form of relations dominates in total, and that only the contextual (but not the organizational-institutional!) sphere of science is the one that responded with reciprocity to the great love of Ianko Iankov; and
►that both in the institutional sphere of science and in the institutional sphere of politics (but not in the contextual one!) Ianko Iankov was subject to constant and pronounced hostile attitude, created and maintained by the same “dark forces”, against which he has never given up fighting.
4 Iankov Ianko, Prognostics. (Theoretical-methodological problems). – Sofia, Ianus, 1993, p.249-282.

* * *


I constantly ask myself: „-Where did Ianko Iankov find strength for the extremely difficult struggle that he leads? How does he do it with such feeling of confidence and inexorability? Is there any secret force, any spring that keep him charged for his daily non-routine battles with routine, unscrupulous, economic and political powerful opponents?” I searched for the answer in his descent.

His parents are typical country workers, typical Bulgarian mother and father – those who would “scrape the dirt under their nails” to have their children get on their feet, become worthy people. The corns on their hand have long ago turned into hard sole-leather, cut by black enamel, which cannot be washed with any soap or detergent. Their faces are tanned from the constant touch with the sun on the field. If they are stooped, it is due to the constant bows before the earth-breeder (not anybody else!). That’s the way I saw and remembered Ianko’s parents, his mother Evtima and his father Nikola, ordinary people, utterly pragmatic, kind-hearted and good-natured until the moment you step on then – honorable people, worthy, hardworking, with strong sense of responsibility. These ordinary Bulgarians have formed a daily atmosphere, in which the boy from the small refugee village of Klisuritsa grew up and formed as a personality. To the journalists’ question:

“Where do you find strengths from to survive and go ahead?”, Ianko Iankov replied:

I am certain that had I not been a countryman, I wouldn’t have endured. I am a countryman and gather strength from the land. I love ploughing, hoeing, mowing. The smell of newly ploughed soil and the newly cut hay hypnotizes me. Indisputably the communists knew that the earth can “give strength” and set the pattern for opposition in people and for many years they were destructing the relation of man with the earth, but they did not manage to do that with me.


Surprised and disgraced are the people who tried to throw mud on and eliminate Ianko Iankov from politics, as well as to ignore his in science. He proved that he is a big personality not only as a politician, but also as a scientist, man, and citizen. Because he has this divine spark that is stronger than the demonic attempts of all dark forces. Because God has generously awarded him with the talent to love truth, justice, and knowledge.

( The same text in French, German, and Bulgarian is available at http://iankov.com/dl/biobibliografia.pdf )

Няма коментари:

Публикуване на коментар