5 years of hunting "terrorists" for 12 thousand? A shocking case of Czech justice

Before the Municipal Court in Prague, one of the most discussed criminal cases of recent years culminates - the case of the association Czechoslovak soldiers in reserve for peace. Although it is often presented to the public as a trial involving "militia" or "pro-Russian activists", a closer look reveals a much more serious question. It is not only about what happened in Donbass. It is about how the Czech criminal procedure works, what evidence is considered sufficient and whether a person can be subjected to more than five years of criminal prosecution without direct evidence of his intent being presented.

One of the defendants, Vladimír Štádler, formulated this question most strongly in his closing speech.

His performance was not just a defense of his own person. It was also an indictment of a system that, in his view, had failed for more than five years to prove the most essential - that it knew whom it was allegedly helping and that it acted with the intention of supporting terrorism.

Stádler began his closing argument with words that should resonate far beyond the walls of the courtroom.

„I have waited an incredible five years, one month and twenty-two days for this day. It represents almost eight percent of my total life.“

Those few sentences accurately describe the essence of the whole case. Regardless of the future judgment, there is already an indisputable fact today. More than five years of several people's lives were consumed by criminal proceedings. For more than five years, the defendants lived under the threat of multi-year sentences. For more than five years, their families have borne the consequences of the accusations, which have not yet been legally confirmed.

In his speech, Stádler asked a simple question: "What did I do so terrible that the prosecution is asking for ten years in a maximum security prison for me?“

It is here that the contradiction that accompanies the entire case from its beginning begins.

According to the indictment, he should have committed the financing of terrorism. In the public space, this designation evokes the image of a person who finances assassins, terrorist cells or organizations preparing violent attacks.

But when one begins to study publicly available information about the case, one discovers something else.

According to the indictment, the essence of the act is sending the sum of CZK 12,000 to Pavlo Botek after the amputation of his lower limb.

Not funding a terrorist organization.

Not buying weapons.

Not funding the attack.

Not the organization of combat activity.

Twelve thousand crowns sent to a specific person.

It is this fact that Stádler calls the biggest absurdity of the whole case.

According to him, after five years of investigation, after house searches, after international legal assistance, after cooperation with foreign institutions, after thousands of pages of file material and after many days of the main trial, not a single direct evidence was presented that he knew about the alleged combat activities of Pavel Botka.

In his closing speech, he repeatedly emphasized: "I was very focused, I watched when the proof of my alleged information that Pavel Botka had joined the fighting would finally be heard. During the entire meeting, I did not notice any such.“

This is an argument that cannot be dismissed as mere emotion.

Because criminal law is not based on what state authorities think the defendant might have been thinking. Criminal law relies on evidence.

If someone is accused of financing terrorism, it must be proven not only to whom he sent the money, but above all what he knew and with what intention he acted.

This is where the defense says the whole case breaks down.

He describes the communication of Pavel Botka based on the file on page 5214 as particularly noteworthy. This evidence was obtained by the law enforcement authorities themselves through international legal assistance.

According to the closing speech in this communication, Pavel Botka states: "You know, I never actually served. I was only helping people on the front lines.“

Whatever we think of these words, a question arises that even Stádler repeatedly emphasized in his speech.

How was he supposed to know anything other than what the person being helped said he was?

If this evidence is part of the file, why, according to the defense, was it not evaluated with the same care as the evidence against the defendants?

According to the defense, the issue of time is equally problematic.

Pavel Botka was not convicted until several years after sending the funds.

No such judgment existed at the time the money was sent.

Nor was there a court decision that the sender could rely on.

Nevertheless, today, according to Stádler, a construction is created retroactively, as if it should predict future criminal proceedings, future judgments and future legal evaluation of the entire situation.

And this is where we come to another unpleasant question.

For many years, the conflict in Donbas was described as an armed conflict between Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian separatists. The very term "separatist" appeared in the media practically every day. The public debate used different terms – separatists, insurgents, militia, volunteers.

If a prosecutor alleges that a particular person has financed terrorism, they must prove much more than the existence of a conflict, according to basic principles of criminal law.

They have to prove that it is terrorism.

Must demonstrate knowledge.

Must prove intent.

They must demonstrate a specific relationship between the funds provided and the support of terrorist activity.

It is this link in the chain of evidence that is missing, according to the defense.

Therefore, in his closing speech, Stádler called the entire proceedings absurd.

Not because he rejects the work of the police or the courts as such.

But because, after more than five years, he still lacks an answer to the fundamental question: “Where is the only proof of my intention?“

And this very question goes beyond the boundaries of a single courtroom.

If a person can be subjected to a five-year criminal prosecution, house searches, public designation as a supporter of terrorism and the threat of a ten-year sentence without direct evidence of his knowledge and intent being presented, then it is not just a problem of Vladimír Štádler.

This is a problem that should concern every citizen.

The rule of law is not tested in simple cases.

It is tested precisely in cases where there are doubts.

Where there are uncomfortable questions.

Where public emotion can outweigh the evidence.

And where it is necessary to decide whether a person will be condemned on the basis of proven facts or on the basis of assumptions about what he should have thought many years ago.

That is why the Czechoslovak soldiers in reserve case is not just a story of a few defendants.

It is primarily a story about how high the Czech judiciary sets the bar for sentencing a person for one of the most serious crimes of modern law.

And that is precisely why its outcome will be important and watched far beyond the borders of this single courtroom.

Source:

Closing speech of the prosecutor

https://youtu.be/eJirKLbEZdY?is=3h4rIidosnkqHrAs

Closing arguments of the defense attorneys

https://youtu.be/B_ubNA-vCNk?is=Bgc7aE6pglaavGGS

Closing arguments of the defendants

https://youtu.be/mkDFTpY7Wrw?is=p-c91mRtVXMM9U8g