HEDVIGA MALINOVA CASE UPDATE: DEEP QUESTIONS REMAIN

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 03 BRATISLAVA 000524 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/04/2017 TAGS: PREL PHUM KCRM LO SUBJECT: HEDVIGA MALINOVA CASE UPDATE: DEEP QUESTIONS REMAIN REF: A. 06 BRATISLAVA 754 ¶B. 06 BRATISLAVA 764 ¶C. 07 BRATISLAVA 560 Classified By: DCM Keith A. Eddins, for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d). ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: We recently visited the law offices of Roman Kvasnica (please protect),a respected Slovak lawyer who is currently representing Hedviga Malinova, an ethnic-Hungarian Slovak who claims to have been attacked in what she initially believed to be an ethnically-motivated hate crime in August 2006 (reftels). Kvasnica described in intricate detail his and Ms. Malinova's account of the attack and the missteps in the Slovak investigation. He also asserted high-level GOS involvement in the case, offering theories as to who orchestrated the attack and why. End Summary. Background -------------- ¶2. (U) Hedviga Malinova was attacked by two Slovak men on August 25, 2006, while on her way to a Hungarian language exam at the University of Nitra. There were ten students assigned to the exam, nine of whom were female. According to Malinova's testimony, the two men pulled her into the bushes and began to beat her after they asked her where she was going and she said "to an exam." According to Malinova, during her attack, the perpetrators kept repeating, "In Slovakia, we speak Slovak," and wrote on the back of her dress, "Hungarians to the other side of the Danube! Slovakia free of vermin!" Her attackers did not wear masks or attempt to disguise themselves. Thus, after the attack, she was able to give detailed descriptions of both of the men to the police. The Investigation -------------- ¶3. (SBU) After the attack on August 25, Malinova made her way to the university in a shocked and battered state; with the assistance of concerned instructors, she then went to the hospital, where doctors examined her injuries, and then to the police to file a report. According to Kvasnica, despite the fact that Malinova was able to give precise descriptions of her attackers, the police never initiated a search for them or questioned any potential perpetrators. After a Nitra youth told the police and the press in summer 2007 that he knew who attacked Malinova, he was physically attacked by a several young men. According to Kvasnica, the alleged witness was not formally interviewed by the police, but was warned by them that if he insisted on his story, he could be prosecuted for false statements. The police did, however, question Malinova several times about her connections to high-level politicians in the Hungarian Coalition Party (SMK). (Note: SMK politicians and Hungarian PM Gyurcsany immediately condemned the incident and demanded a prompt and thorough investigation. End note.) On September 11, 2006, the police abruptly ended their investigation of the crime, stating that Malinova was lying about the events of August 25. The Prime Minister -------------- ¶4. (SBU) On September 12, 2006, Prime Minister Fico and Minister of Interior Kalinak held a highly-unusual press conference in which they claimed that Hedviga Malinova lied about the attack and that the incident never happened (reftel A). Kvasnica told PolOffs it was at this point he became interested in the case, as it was very unusual for such high-level officials to comment on a case that was not officially concluded. Although the police ended their preliminary investigation on September 11, according to Slovak law, the injured person has a period of three days to appeal such a decision, and it was during this appeal period that Fico and Kalinak spoke out. Is She Lying? -------------- ¶5. (C) After the Fico press conference, Kvasnica was approached by SMK members and Malinova's former lawyer who asked him to take the case. Kvasnica agreed to meet with her, but told them he must be satisfied that she was telling the truth before agreeing to represent her. He also told the SMK leaders that he would only agree on the condition that they distanced themselves from the case so that it was not further politicized. Kvasnica said that he spent hours asking Malinova about the attack and was convinced she was not lying. She showed him her bruises, and exhibited signs of severe emotional trauma. Malinova began psychological counseling with Dr. Jozef Hazto, President of the Slovak Psychiatric Association, who also told PolOffs that he believes Malinova's statements to be true. In November 2006, BRATISLAVA 00000524 002 OF 003 Kvasnica and Malinova traveled alone to Israel for an independent polygraph exam. The results indicated that Malinova was not lying, and Kvasnica has been representing her ever since. Perjury Case -------------- ¶6. (S) In November 2006, two men, Juraj Kubla and Peter Korcek, filed charges against Hedviga Malinova for false testimony, and the police began an investigation. In May 2007, Malinova was formally charged with perjury. Kubla committed suicide in May 2007. Kvasnica said Korcek was, at the time, working in the office of Slovak MP Peter Gabura (now independent, formerly Christian Democratic Movement). Gabura is advised by Peter Toth, a former employee of the Slovak Intelligence Service; Igor Cibula, former Director of Espionage at the Slovak Intelligence Service from 1993-1995; and Dr. Zuzana Trnkova, wife of the Prosecutor General. Kvasnica believes that Cibula, who is believed to be still active in intelligence circles, played a role in planning the attack against Malinova. ¶7. (C) Kvasnica shared an official document from the police dated May 14, 2007, in which Hedviga Malinova is formally charged with a false testimony and false oath misdemeanor. The document is vague, and lacks any specific details about how the police know that she was misrepresenting herself. Currently, Hedviga Malinova has appealed this finding and is determined to clear her name. She has also filed a case with the European Court of Human Rights against the government of Slovakia for "inhuman and humiliating treatment of the Slovak investigating authorities," which remains pending. ¶8. (C) Kvasnica said he was approached in July 2008 by Marian Kocner, a businessman who is widely reputed to have underworld ties and is also said to be a close to Prosecutor General Trnka. Kocner reportedly said that if Malinova publicly admits that she is lying, the GOS would drop the case against her. Kocner told Kvasnica that Minister Kalinak and Prime Minister Fico are caught, because they publicly announced that the attack against Malinova did not occur, and cannot extricate themselves from this case without Malinova's admission of guilt. Kvasnica refused Kocner's offer, which has since morphed into an official request by the Prosecutor General's office that Malinova submit to a lie-detector test. ¶9. (C) The case against Malinova is currently being handled by the Audits Department of the Prosecutor General's office, rather than the Criminal Department, where Kvasnica said it should be. Kvasnica claims this is because the Prosecutor General, Dobroslav Trnka, served in the Military Justice system with his appointee in the Audits department, and can personally intervene in the case at his own discretion with his loyal colleague at the helm. In a separate meeting, the Deputy of the Prosecutor General's Criminal Department, Jozef Centes, told Pol/Econ Chief that the current request of the General Prosecutor that Hedviga submit to a lie-detector test was "incomprehensible," as evidence derived from such tests are inadmissible under Slovak law. Reminded that Centes had told us last fall that the Malinova investigation would be finished no later than January 2008, he shrugged and said he would no longer make any predictions. (Note: In June, the Prosecutor General's office pledged the investigation would conclude by August.) At the close of the conversation, once we left his office, he explained that he couldn't speak openly because he thinks his office has been bugged at the instruction of his boss, Director of the Criminal Division, Tibor Sumichrast. Kvasnica's Theories as To Why this Attack Occurred -------------- -------------- ¶10. (S) Kvasnica told us he has concluded that the attack was premeditated, rather than a spontaneous hate crime. He said the audacity with which the perpetrators showed their faces demonstrated that they believed that they would not face punishment. Because he believes the attack was premeditated, Kvasnica has developed his own theories as to who orchestrated it and why. The attack occurred less than two months after PM Fico and his government took office on July 4, 2006. Kvasnica believes that Cibula, or other nefarious elements, used this case, and the fact that Fico spoke out publicly and prematurely, to manipulate him and stoke Hungarian-Slovak tensions. This could benefit Jan Slota, the extreme nationalist coalition member, who has often spoken about the case to denigrate the Hungarian minority in Slovakia, and has ties to Igor Cibula. Slota has publicly stated on several occasions that Hungarian intelligence services were behind the incident, while PM Fico, as recently as June, stated that the episode was being used to undermine his government. BRATISLAVA 00000524 003 OF 003 COMMENT -------------- ¶11. (S) As has been clear for some time, this case was botched from the beginning by the Slovak authorities. It has badly discredited a likely blameless student, and has proven to be an easily exploitable irritant in already troubled Hungarian-Slovak relations. Hedviga Malinova has shown herself to be a strong woman, committed to clearing her name, while proceeding with as normal a life as possible (she is now married with a son and doing well emotionally, according to Dr. Hazto.) Roman Kvasnica is an ethical, experienced lawyer with a long history of combating unsavory characters in Slovak politics and business. But even if the attack was not premeditated -- as Kvasnica asserts -- it has nevertheless provided grist for Slota's anti-Hungarian mill. Embassy Bratislava will continue to monitor the case closely and will be seeking an official update from police and prosecutors, as well. But regardless of who was behind the original incident, the well-documented missteps by law enforcement professionals and the purported role of senior officials have troubling implications for prosecutorial independence. End Comment. OBSITNIK