Opening the StB files: how Czechia dealt with communist-era crimes

When communism ended in Czechoslovakia in 1989, it ended without trials. The party gave up power, its leaders resigned and the secret police ceased to exist. What followed was a long argument about what a democratic state owes the people it wronged, and what it may legitimately do to those who served the old order. The answers Czechia reached are a mixture of laws, archives and a few court cases.

This is the system as it stands, in outline.

The first answer: lustration

The word lustration, from the Latin for purification, means screening people for ties to the old regime. In Czechoslovakia the so-called Great Lustration Act (Act No. 451/1991), adopted in October 1991, listed categories of people who could not hold certain senior public posts. They included former officers and registered collaborators of the State Security (StB), the communist secret police, and holders of senior Communist Party posts. Covered positions included ministers and members of parliament, senior civil servants, army officers, judges and prosecutors, heads of state media and managers of state enterprises.

The law was meant to be temporary, for five years, but it was extended and in 2000 the time limit was removed. The Constitutional Court upheld it in 1992 while setting limits, among them that a person's guilt must not be assumed from the mere appearance of a name in a file.

In practice, a person applies to the Ministry of the Interior for a lustration certificate, which states whether they fell into one of the covered categories between 25 February 1948 and 17 November 1989. For posts covered by the law, the certificate is required. Critics called the law a blunt instrument, partly because StB files were incomplete and could hold false entries. The secret police registered some people as collaborators who knew nothing of it, and documents were destroyed in 1989 and 1990.

The second answer: the law on the illegality of the regime

In 1993, after the Czech Republic became independent, Parliament passed an act declaring the communist regime illegal and illegitimate and holding its leaders responsible for its crimes. The law also said that the period in which a crime could be prosecuted would not run between 1948 and 1989 where the crime went unprosecuted for political reasons. The aim was to allow trials of acts the regime had shielded.

A specialised police unit, the Office for the Documentation and Investigation of Crimes of Communism, was created to investigate. Cases have covered killings at the border, the persecution of political prisoners, the forced closure of monasteries and abuses by the secret police. Several former officials were charged, and some convicted. Convictions remain few next to the scale of the abuses, though. Many suspects died or were found too ill to stand trial, and sentences were often light. Critics say justice came too late, if at all. Defenders reply that the legal system must respect the rule of law even when the state itself committed the crimes.

The archives

The most durable result has been the opening of the files. The Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes (ÚSTR) and the Security Services Archive (ABS), set up under a 2007 act, hold the records of the StB and other communist-era security bodies, along with other material on the regime. The archive opened in 2008. Researchers, journalists and historians use the documents, and individuals can apply to see files that concern them. Czechia opened its files relatively early and with few restrictions compared with some other countries, though data protection rules and the rights of third persons named in documents still apply.

The Institute also publishes studies, runs educational programmes and keeps exhibitions. What emerges from the archives helps explain the scale of surveillance. Many files detail the lives of dissidents (see Charter 77), and some reveal who informed on whom. Historians warn against taking police reports at face value, because the secret police had reasons to exaggerate, but the documents remain essential.

Rehabilitation and compensation

Alongside accountability for perpetrators, the state passed laws that offered victims some redress. Laws on judicial rehabilitation let courts annul unjust convictions from the communist period, and further laws provided compensation for people imprisoned for political reasons and for property taken by the state, subject to conditions and deadlines. Another act recognised those who took part in resistance to communism and gave them certain benefits. The conditions have been amended over the years. Anyone who thinks they or a relative may qualify should consult the relevant ministry or an organisation of former political prisoners. The churches' claims were settled separately, as described in church property restitution.

Debate and criticism

Every element has been disputed. Critics of lustration, including some former dissidents, found it too crude: it relied on files compiled by the secret police, could punish the innocent and let off those who had avoided registration. Others, especially on the right, said it did too little and left many officials in public life. The balance reflects a basic dilemma for post-communist societies, between accountability and reconciliation.

There is a European dimension too. Czech institutions have pushed for recognition of communist crimes at EU level. A conference hosted by the Czech Senate in 2008 produced the Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism, and a Platform of European Memory and Conscience was set up in Prague in 2011. The European Parliament also designated 23 August as a European day of remembrance for victims of Stalinism and Nazism. These initiatives are debated, since some historians fear they equate communism and Nazism in ways that blur their differences.

German practice, with its Stasi archive and public access to files, influenced Czech policy. The Czech approach has been more cautious on prosecution and more open on archives. In both countries the discussion about the past goes on in schools, the media and politics.

Why it matters now

The past still shapes Czech politics. Questions about former StB links surface in election campaigns, and a few politicians have faced accusations that they would not have met the standards the lustration law set. The records matter for ordinary families trying to learn what happened to relatives. How Czechs look back on the period today, and why a good share remember it kindly, is the subject of nostalgia for communism in Czechia. One of the central figures in this history is told in Václav Havel: from dissident playwright to president.

The wider context is in Czechoslovakia under communism, the Velvet Revolution and the Prague Spring and 1968. Courts are described in Czech courts: how the judiciary is structured and the Constitutional Court's role in the Czech Constitutional Court explained.

Frequently asked questions

What is lustration?

The screening of people for ties to the communist-era security services or senior party posts, used to bar them from certain public positions under Act No. 451/1991.

Who issues lustration certificates?

The Ministry of the Interior, for the period between 25 February 1948 and 17 November 1989.

Were many communist officials convicted?

Relatively few. Prosecutions were slow, and many suspects died or were found unfit for trial.

Can I see my own StB file?

In principle yes, through the Security Services Archive. Check its website for the current procedure.

If you are researching a family history, begin with the Security Services Archive's online guide to access.

This is a general explainer, not legal or tax advice.