Petőcz Kálmán (szerk.): National Populism and Slovak - Hungarian Relations in Slovakia 2006-2009 (Somorja, 2009)
Annex
Annex - Marie Vrabcová Apartment of MaIínovas ÍríencI juMblEd up On September 15, 2006, a Piešťany lawyer Roman Kvasnica took over as Hedviga Malinová’s legal representative. Three days later, he filed a complaint with the Office of District Attorney in Nitra on behalf of his client, protesting against the police decision to abandon investigation of the case.7 On 120 pages, Kvasnica presented 30 arguments supporting his conviction that the police had contravened the law by abandoning the investigation. On October 18, 2006, the Office of District Attorney rejected the complaint, reasoning that its review of the case file did not reveal any new facts indicating that case investigators had violated the law, deliberately or purposefully portrayed the victim as a faker or acted in a biased fashion or in compliance with orders from above. On the same day, Attorney General Dobroslav Trnka declared that Malinová had deceived law enforcement organs and now had to take responsibility for it.8 On October 24, 2006, the Office of District Attorney in Nitra received a motion to prosecute Malinová on grounds of instigating ethnic intolerance, giving false evidence and attempting to deceive state organs; the motion was filed by Peter Korček with a domicile in Bratislava.9 On November 10, 2006, the Office of District Attorney delegated Korček’s motion to the District Headquarters of the Slovak Police Force that immediately launched criminal investigation of the matter. On the night from November 20 to 21, 2006, unknown perpetrators jumbled up the apartment of Peter Žák in Horné Mýto, which he shared with Malinová. They broke the door open, pulled drawers out, opened Žák’s car that was parked in the yard and left the keys in front of the entrance door. On the same day, Malinová en route to school noticed that a woman sitting next to her on the bus was flipping through photographs from their jumbled up apartment. The girl immediately called her friend, only to find out that her cellular phone did not work until late afternoon although the battery was not empty. Malinová’s legal counsel reacted by filing a motion for criminal prosecution at the police in Dunajská Streda that launched criminal investigation of the matter on December 18, 2006. The public did not leam about this peculiar incident until several months later; according to Roman Kvasnica, the incident was supposed to frighten and compromise his client even further. On December 15, 2006, Kvasnica filed a complaint to the Constitutional Court that contained over a hundred pages.10 In the complaint, Kvasnica argued that his client’s human rights had been violated because of inhuman treatment on the part of the police, because she had been prevented from 304
