Petőcz Kálmán (szerk.): National Populism and Slovak - Hungarian Relations in Slovakia 2006-2009 (Somorja, 2009)

Annex

The Case of Hedviga Malinová

for the police’s conduct and concluded that everything was all right according to the prosecution.19 He brushed aside the lingering doubts regarding Malinová’s interrogation on September 9, 2006, by saying that the case of alleged attack on Malinová had been lawfully closed and there was no evidence that the police had violated Malinová’s rights during investigation.

Motíons foR crímíinaI pRosEcuTioN of Fico, I<aIíňáI< AMcd PacI<a

One year after the incident, despite repeated requests by Hedviga Malinová’s legal counsel Roman Kvasnica, the case investigator continued to refuse to hand over the blouse the victim had worn at the time of the attack, the envelope in which the victim had received her identity papers or the transcript of her interrogation from September 9, 2006. The police and the prosecution presented a great variety of excuses: they labelled the blouse and the envelope as important evidence; they said that the videotapes of the interrogation had been made solely for service purposes; finally, they refused to hand over the transcript because Kvasnica allegedly had not produced an authorization from his client. After Kvasnica disproved the arguments, the prosecutor did not go to much detail and simply refused to hand over the transcript due to “particularly grave reasons”.

On August 10, 2007, the Office of Regional Attorney in Nitra postponed its decision on Malinová’s complaint in which she demanded it to examine lawfulness of conduct and decisions of law enforcement organs regarding the attack on her person. Until the present day, the Office of District Attorney has not decided on this complaint as well as another complaint in which Kvasnica argued that the prosecution had deceived the public regarding the authorization from his client.

On August 21, 2007, former director of the Bureau for Combating Corruption Jozef Šátek filed a motion for criminal prosecution of the prime minister, interior minister and police president on grounds of malpractice.20 He also filed a motion for criminal prosecution of the case investigator with the Office of Military Prosecution on grounds of unlawful procurement of evidence in order to corroborate the theory that the victim had made up the incident. In his motion, Šátek criticized police negligence when sealing off the crime scene, unlawful interrogation of Malinová and pointed out that law enforcement organs repeatedly referred to Malinová’s handwriting and saliva samples although Malinová was never asked to produce them, which indicates that the samples must have been obtained unlawfully. Šátek charged that medical reports by doctors who examined the victim after the attack differed from that by the forensic surgeon and that the case investi-309