THE NITRA district prosecutor’s office disagrees with General Prosecutor Jaromír Čižnár’s criticism of two Nitra district prosecutors who handled the case of a brutal attack on the owner and patrons of the Mariatchi bar in downtown Nitra, which occurred in 2013, but was not reported by local media until January 2014.

In early February Čižnár slammed the two prosecutors in front of the parliamentary committee on security and defence for their handling of the case in October 2013 and later in January 2014, after the media reported on the attack, publishing a video from the municipal security camera which recorded the incident.

The Nitra district prosecutor’s office has not punished the two prosecutors yet.

“The question of drawing potential disciplinary responsibility against the two prosecutors is premature at this point,” the office’s spokesperson Jan Ludva told the Sme daily on February 10.

Top prosecutor criticised the prosecutor who dealt with the case shortly after it happened in October 2013 for not taking the suspects in custody. The Nitra prosecutors however say that the prosecutor at that time had not even been requested to decide on custody.

“Since the police officer did not find reasons for custody, they released the suspects, which did not require the approval of the prosecutor,” Ludva told Sme, adding that the police officer only announced to the prosecutor that the suspects had been released.

None of the suspects were accused of other criminal acts at that time, and only one of them had a record in the penal register, but this was from 14 years ago. Several of the suspects were in the past suspected of committing offenses, but in all cases the proceedings were suspended.

“I note that the concern of [the suspect] continuing criminal activities cannot be based on the subjective feeling of the police officer or prosecutor, but only from concrete facts,” Ludva told Sme.

At the time when the suspects were detained it was not possible to prove anything more than a breach of peace. Ludva admitted there were suspicions of the crime of committing bodily harm, but the evidence was not sufficient at that point, mainly because the extent of the victims’ injuries was not yet clear. To establish this, the prosecutor requested forensic reports in the case.

The Nitra district prosecution did not comment on why it took four months to start acting in the case, Sme reported.

Source: Sme

Compiled by Michaela Terenzani from press reports
The Slovak Spectator cannot vouch for the accuracy of the information
presented in its Flash News postings.