Petőcz Kálmán (szerk.): National Populism and Slovak - Hungarian Relations in Slovakia 2006-2009 (Somorja, 2009)
Annex
Annex - Marie Vrabcová aware of his personal responsibility for the case’s development and his feelings regarding the matter had not changed, he believed that the dragging investigation had traumatized society for far too long and the time had come for forgiveness.49 In reaction to Korček’s letter, the Office of Attorney General wrote that the letter did not and could not affect criminal prosecution of Malinová in any way, because the office had not received only Korček’s motion but dozens of similar motions. In fall 2006, law enforcement organs announced launching criminal prosecution of Malinová based on a motion filed by a Bratislava resident. That there were in fact two citizens to file motions for Malinová’s criminal prosecution did not turn out until May 2007 when one of them committed suicide; no one has ever mentioned any other person to file a similar motion. When commenting on the change in Korček’s position, Malinová’s legal counsel Roman Kvasnica said it was hardly a coincidence that the person who had filed the motion suddenly appealed to clemency. According to him, Korček got scared because it turned out in the meantime that he was colleagues with the attorney general’s wife and perhaps he suddenly realized that the motion he signed was abused for dirty political games. InJURÍES of EARÜER ORÍqÍN On September 4, 2009, Kvasnica received a medical expert’s opinion on the condition of Hedviga Malinová after the attack elaborated by Dean of Comenius University’s Medical Faculty Peter Labaš. According to the document, the wounds and contusions on the victim’s lips and thighs originated earlier than August 25, 2006; as far as other injuries are concerned, the 30- page document did not establish any. In remains unclear who co-authored the report’s particular chapters because the document does not feature a single direct quote from a source other than Labaš. The special investigation team expected the report to answer ten questions regarding the condition of Malinová after the attack, the origin of her wounds, the time of their healing and the effects of drugs administered to her at the time. Labaš answered only about half of the questions on just a few lines. In his report, the author quoted from testimonies of doctors who had treated and/or examined Malinová, alas incorrectly; some quotes were pulled out of the context while others led him to conclusions that could not be corroborated by facts from interrogation transcripts. Labaš did not deem it necessary to request expert’s opinions from László Sárközy and Jozef Hašto, psychiatrists who treated Malinová after 330
