A lie in the file? When the High Prosecutor's Office denies its own documents

The rule of law can survive mistakes. However, it cannot survive a long-term loss of confidence in the veracity of its own official documents. And that's where we find ourselves today. Not on the border between truth and error, but on the border between trust and distrust in the very functioning of the Czech justice system and the public prosecutor's office.

For decades we have heard that the public prosecutor's office is the guarantor of legality. An institution that is supposed to supervise compliance with the law, protect citizens from arbitrariness and intervene in case of misconduct by state authorities. But what happens when the very body that is supposed to protect legality starts making statements in its documents that, according to critics, contradict the content of its own file?

The case conducted at the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office in Prague under file no. stamp 1 VZN 1651/2024 is alarming from this point of view. Not because it was one person's dispute with the Authority. There are thousands of such disputes. It's alarming because it reveals something much more serious: a discrepancy between what's in the file and what prosecutors say isn't in the file.

Memorandum signed by the state representative Mgr. Jakubem Grmelou claims that the objection of bias was not raised in the submission of February 19, 2026. At the same time, however, there is a submission entitled "Statement on the invitation to supplement the submission + objection of bias + objection of violation of Article 36, paragraph 1 of the Charter + addition of factual statements". If this criticism's claim is correct, then this is not a legal opinion. It is not an interpretation. This is not a complex legal issue. This is the rudimentary ability to read the title of a document.

And this is where the problem begins.

If a similar error occurs with a municipal office clerk, it can be explained by overload, inattention, or human error. However, if it appears at the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office, i.e. one of the highest branches of the public prosecution system, it turns into a question of systemic credibility.

The public rightly expects that the body that evaluates the legality of the procedures of others will itself be able to accurately reproduce the content of the documents in front of it.

Even more serious is the fact that this is not an isolated problem. The Czech judiciary and the public prosecutor's office are increasingly suffering from a disease that could be called institutional formalism. Official documents tend to be long, full of paragraph citations, procedural constructions, and references to competencies. But the more formal text they contain, the less they sometimes answer the essence of the question posed.

The citizen asks: Who decided to transfer the information? Based on what title? What was the scope of the documents handed over? Were all the documents handed over, or just some? Was the purpose limitation respected? Is there a handover protocol?

And instead of an answer, he gets a several-page explanation of why there is no need to ask these questions.

That is not justice. This is the administrative defense of the system against inspection.

However, the content of individual decisions is not the most worrying. The most worrying thing is the growing impression that some institutions no longer consider it necessary to convincingly prove their conclusions. Just write them down. As if the official stamp should create the truth in itself.

But in a state of law, no stamp makes the truth.

The truth must be documented.

It must be verifiable.

It must be reviewable.

And above all, it must not contradict its own writing.

This is precisely why it is extremely dangerous when a tone begins to emerge in decision-making that treats the citizen not as a partner, but as a nuisance. When personal comments, evaluations of the applicant's education, knowledge or motives appear instead of settling the arguments. When function authority is used instead of proof.

Such an attitude is not a sign of a confident institution.

It is a sign of an institution that is no longer willing to subject its own conclusions to critical scrutiny.

History shows that no legal system has been destroyed by citizens asking too many questions. Legal systems break down when institutions stop answering questions and start expecting unquestioning obedience.

The rule of law does not mean that the prosecutor is always right.

Nor does it matter that the judge is infallible.

It stands to reason that their conclusions can be verified, criticized and reviewed.

Once a situation arises where a public authority asserts something other than what appears from the documents on file, it is no longer a one-case issue. It is an issue of trust in the state.

And it is here that an unpleasant question must be asked:

If a citizen cannot be sure that the High Prosecutor's Office has correctly read the document it cites, how sure is it that it has correctly assessed its content?

If the discrepancy between the file and the official claim is not seen as a problem, but as something common, then what is the actual level of scrutiny within the prosecution system?

And if even the highest echelons of the system can make mistakes without being willing to admit and correct their mistakes, who is actually checking the controllers?

These are not the questions of one dissatisfied party to the proceedings.

These are questions that all of society should be asking.

Because the state does not start losing confidence the moment it makes a mistake.

The state begins to lose confidence the moment it is no longer able to admit that it has made a mistake.

Source:

1. The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic. 1995.The finding of the Constitutional Court no. stamp III. ÚS 84/94 of 20 June 1995.NALUS - a database of decisions of the Constitutional Court. Available from:NALUS – III. ÚS 84/94

2. The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic. 1997.The finding of the Constitutional Court no. stamp III. ÚS 94/97 – on the court's obligation to properly justify its decision. Mezisoudy.cz. Available from:III. US 94/97

3. The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic. 2016.The finding of the Constitutional Court no. stamp I. ÚS 1042/15 - on the right to an effective investigation and requirements for the procedure of authorities in criminal proceedings.Available from:I. US 1042/15

4. The Supreme Administrative Court. 2004.Proceedings before the court: non-reviewability of the court decision.Collection of decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court. Available from:NSS collection - non-reviewability of court decision

5.The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic. 2024.The finding of the Constitutional Court no. stamp II. ÚS 899/23 - insufficient justification of the decision and the obligation to settle the participant's objectionsmanagement.Mezisoudy.cz. Available from:II. US 899/23