When Control Fails: How GIBS and Prosecutors Sweep it Under the Carpet

What is happening today in the triangle of GIBS - Public Prosecution Service - NCOZ-type specialized police units can no longer be excused as individual misconduct. It has structure. It makes sense. And it has one result: the real control of the security forces ceases to exist and is replaced by a procedural backdrop that creates the appearance of legality where its substance is lacking.

It starts with GIBS. A body that was established precisely to be able to independently investigate the criminal activities of police officers. However, in specific cases, this body does not act as a control institution, but as a filter. Notifications that contain specific factual statements and legal qualifications are not considered from the point of view of criminal law, but are administratively "flipped" to the level of mere disagreement with police action. With that single step, the essentials disappear from the matter: the duty to check, the duty to find out, the duty to act.

And then comes a moment that is absolutely crucial: the thing is passed back to the system it concerns. Typically the Police Presidium. In other words, suspicion of police misconduct is returned to the police. This procedure is not only problematic. It is destructive to the very idea of ​​independent control. The principle "no man shall be a judge in his own cause" is not violated here marginally, but denied in its very foundation.

In a normally functioning state of law, it is at this point that the public prosecutor should step in. The Criminal Code gives him clear tools: he can request a file, he can demand an explanation, he can impose specific actions. In other words – it can review whether the police authority acted lawfully. But in these cases something else happens. The public prosecutor's office does not intervene - it legitimizes.

In place of factual review comes formalism. The submission is reduced to a single legal level, other parts are ignored. The key question – whether the reported facts could fulfill the characteristics of a crime – remains unanswered. Instead, the issues are who is "competent", who is to "deal with" the matter and whether the submission has been "properly forwarded". Content disappears, form wins.

And here the whole system closes. GIBS will not check. The State Attorney's Office will not investigate. The higher authorities subsequently state that the procedure was "in accordance with the law". Not because he was objectively correct, but because every step was formally justified. This creates a perfect circle: each link in the chain covers the previous one, without anyone being responsible for the result.

The most problematic part is that this mechanism is not random. It is stable. It repeats itself. And it is extremely effective. Only one thing is enough - not to admit the matter to the level of criminal proceedings. Once this is done, the rest of the system will ensure that no one ever gets to the substantive assessment. Everything will take place "in accordance with the law", but without the law actually being applied.

A special chapter is represented by units of the NCOZ type. They are endowed with considerable powers, operate in sensitive areas and their interventions have major impacts on the lives of individuals. That is why they should be subject to the strictest control. However, if the suspicion of their wrongdoing ends up in a system that is able to absorb such stimuli without substantive review, then the audited entity becomes a de facto untouchable entity.

This is not just a problem of individual cases. This is a problem of structure. The rule of law is not about the existence of rules, but about the fact that they are applied. If the rules become mere language to justify inaction, then the law ceases to fulfill its function. Instead of protecting the individual, the system begins to protect the individual.

The most serious consequence is obvious: an environment is created in which it is impossible to effectively attack the security forces' actions. Every move has "its" rationale, every authority has "its" jurisdiction, and the outcome is predictable - no substantive assessment ever takes place. This is not just the failure of individuals. This is a mechanism failure.

And this is where public trust breaks down. Not in individual decisions, but in the very possibility of getting justice. If the system repeatedly produces situations where no one has checked anything and yet everything is "fine", then it is not an excess. It is a model.

The rule of law cannot function on the principle that control exists only declaratively. Either the public prosecutor's office will begin to actually exercise oversight in the substantive sense—that is, to review, find out, and make decisions based on content—or it will continue to function as a link in the chain that closes the door to any accountability.

And in such a system it is no longer a matter of law. It is a simulation of it.

Source:

Act No. 341/2011 Coll., on the General Inspection of Security Forces.

Act No. 141/1961 Coll., Criminal Code.Act No. 283/1993 Coll., on the State Attorney's Office.

PUBLIC LAW.Jurisdiction of the public prosecutor's office in criminal proceedings.
POLICE ACADEMY OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC (2024).Problematic assessment of illegal behavior by members of the security forces.