The Prosecutor's Office is letting off steam

The Prosecutor’s Office is letting off steam Instead of the court, the prosecutor is trying to convince the media of the defendants’ guilt

by Krum BLAGOV

A

t the beginning of March the Prosecutor’s Office announced that Bulgarian tobacco state-owned monopoly Bulgartabac’s chief executive Hristo Lachev has been alleged in tax fraud and crimes of office. He was not to be suspended from office for the time being though.

Announcements of this sort are perplexing. Warning a senior government official that he is under investigation is, to say the least, unwise. He could cover up any crimes committed. If, of course, he has committed any. How come, in recent years, there were so many cases of loud investigations of high-ranking individuals, which were somehow wound up on the quiet, on the preliminary stage due to the lack of an established crime. One such glaring example came with the allegations against Hristo Grigorov, chairman of the Bulgarian Red Cross (BRC), which were later dropped for lack of evidence.

Two years ago, on 3 February 2006, Mr. Grigorov was held in custody while the organisation’s premises were thoroughly searched in an ostentatious 100-men police-and-state-administration operation. At the time, then-Interior Minister Rumen Petkov explained via bTV that a series of crimes involving millions had been committed at the BRC. The allegation claimed that international aid had been received by the BRC, which, instead of being given away for charity, had been sold on the market.

BRC representatives explained that the donor’s express wish had been for the aid to go to the Chief Mufti’s Office, and it had been passed on with a protocol. In the meantime, Mr. Grigorov was released from custody and placed on parole, as there was insufficient evidence for detention in custody. This is the lightest form of detention, which logically suggests that the allegations had not been backed with solid evidence.

A few days later, prosecutor Kamen Sitnilsky announced that there is another on-going investigation concerning a medical supplies company owned by Grigorov’s family. The then head of the General Directorate for Combating Organised Crime (GDCOC), Vanyo Tanov, announced to the media that Grigorov was selling medicine for cancer patients at higher prices, i.e. the head of a charity organisation was making a profit out of suffering.

Then all of a sudden details of the allegation went deficit.

In September 2006, in response to a query by the Trud daily, the Supreme Court of Appeal explained that the period of the investigation had been extended due to new checks being carried out, and the court enquiry being referred to Switzerland where a check was under way for bank accounts belonging to Hristo Grigorov. The accusations, it seems, preceded the hunt for evidence. In the end, none was found, and the case was abandoned without ever getting to court.

What’s paradoxical is that it was the defendant who wanted

1 OBEKTIV

a lawsuit, but one is only compulsory if the investigation protracts for over two years. What is most suspicious is that the case was closed by the Prosecutor’s Office exactly a week prior to the expiry of this term.

The case concerning the chief of the Sofia Central Heating Company, Valentin Dimitrov, was the exact opposite: the investigation was initiated following information from Austria about his local bank accounts. This is how Austrian services work. In the case against Dimitrov, however, there was yet another information leak regarding the preliminary proceedings, namely that the defendant had sent a letter while in custody mentioning a then-field minister - Rumen Ovcharov.

It later transpired that the letter had been seized months ago, but had only been revealed at a time when Ovcharov was in the middle of a public scandal involving the former head of the investigation, resulting in both of them stepping down.

The three cases - of Lachev, Grigorov, and Dimitrov, leave the impression of investigations where the Prosecutor’s Office and the Interior Ministry are not trying to uncover real crimes but rather

RUN A SHOW CAMPAIGN Some observers claim that the aim is to hit certain individuals and related organisations, while others say that it is all about demonstrating a political will for dealing with crime at the higher levels of power to the EU. The outcome, however, is exactly the opposite. The public and international players are left with the impression that this is much ado about nothing, a cover-up smoke screen to fake combating crime. Besides, all those offended are in their right to claim compensation from the state for the blemish. BRC chief Hristo Grigorov demanded public apology from Minister Petkov and promised to sue Vanyo Tanov.

The law concerning the state’s liability for damage to citizens was passed during Todor Zhivkov’s rule in 1984. The particular occasion stemmed from a court error - the case of Vanyo Alexandrov who was sentenced to long years of imprisonment for the murder of his wife. He had done quite some time when the true murderer was apprehended. The law gave Alexandrov the opportunity for compensation, but the events of the past had deeply damaged his health and he is currently no longer among the living.

The logical question is why tax-payers have to pay for someone else’s mistakes. According to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) details of the preliminary proceedings may not be made public. There is a catch, however, without the permission of a public prosecutor. This is in some contradiction with two other postulates of the CCP, namely that the parties to the criminal proceedings are equal and the proceedings are competitive; because the prosecution has rights, which the defence and defendant lack.

Daniela Dokovska, attorney-at-law, for Obektiv:

The fairness of criminal proceedings is violated Daniela Dokovska is one of the country’s leading attorneys dealing with criminal lawsuits. Politicians of all colours have trusted her with their defence.

She was recently elected chair of the Supreme Bar Council.

- Ms. Dokovska, have you ever had a case where the charges against your defendant are revealed to the media prior to the completion of the preliminary investigation by the investigators or the prosecution?

- Yes, on numerous occasions.

- Does this happen by accident or on purpose?

- In some cases it is about press-releases of the prosecution or special announcements by the observing prosecutor or the investigating body. In others, prosecutors and attorneys give interviews relating to ongoing preliminary proceedings. This is obviously not accidental. These are actions aiming at a specific effect on the public and the court. Often, the public attention is focused on specific cases not because of their object, but because of the publicity they are given by the preliminary proceedings authorities.

- Later, when the case is closed due to lack of crime or the court decrees acquittal, would it be possible to consider this information leak derogatory to the defendant’s name and reputation?

- Spreading allegations against a person always results in public discredit. Dropping of the case is rarely announced publicly and if so, very laconically.

- In these cases, is the affected person entitled to sue the state and what is the procedure?

- Abandoning of the prosecution, as well as the acquittal of the defendant are sufficient grounds for the latter to claim damages pursuant to the Liability for Damages of the State and Municipalities Act. Announcement of the case in advance by the prosecu-

It is unclear whether the Interior Minister or the head of the General Directorate for Combating Organised Crime had such permission, but the prosecutors to these cases also regularly supplied information to the media. All in all, a new trend seems to be emerging in the Prosecutor’s Office when it comes to a person’s guilt, which is to convince the public first - by creating public attitudes, and only then the court. The race has moved from the halls of the Themis to the mass media.

This is a reproduction of the old model of ·We catch them, they let them loose”, which we know well from Boyko Borisov’s time as Interior Ministry General Secretary. This is how public opinion was steered into believing that the reason behind crimes is liberalism in court, which, in turn, undermines the assumption of innocence. Besides, this is a presumption difficult for the public to grasp. This is so not only in Bulgaria today, but also at all times and all nations. And it is exactly why the judiciary power is separate and independent.

If ever infringing on someone’s rights became acceptable, then anyone’s rights may be violated. Celebrities, which

tor or the investigating body is always a ground for a more substantial compensation. The compensation is to be paid by the state, i.e. the tax-payers.

- Are you aware of any such cases?

- Most cases for compensation for incorrect charges are full of newspaper clippings. In all cases, the court will take into account the publicity of the case as the ground for awarding a more substantial compensation.

- Do you see a contradiction between the Code of Criminal Procedure requirement for non-disclosure of facts from the preliminary proceedings without the permission of the prosecutor, and the equality of the parties to the proceedings before the law?

- The fairness of proceedings is violated. Often, the prosecutor or investigating body will require from the defendant or the defence a written statement for non-disclosure of the materials from the preliminary proceedings. They are under criminal liability for any breach thereof. At the same time, prosecutors give interviews to explain to the public how grave the crime of the defendant is. For instance, with one of the loudest current cases, the prosecutor is giving regular interviews explaining what is going on with the case but will not let the defendants acquaint themselves with the evidence. They virtually get to know how the case is proceeding from the newspapers. This is neither professional, nor correct. And it does not help justice either, but gets in its way.

The interview was taken by Krum Blagov

have been publicly accused, dispose of the media to defend themselves. For your average citizen, however, this is not so. Once in a situation like this, they may well relive Vanyo Alexandrov’s fate. This was once called the ·Prosecutor’s Office accusative bias”. And it seems to be undergoing a renaissance.

In totalitarian times there was a Decree 1086 of the State Council of 1976, which aimed to secure glasnost - a term coined to replace the lacking freedom of information. The decree specifically prohibited the media from divulging essential information on cases, which have not been concluded with an effective sentence. The leaks in the Prosecutor’s Office in recent years are exactly to the point: revealing selective facts detrimental to the defendants. It would help to make a legislative step toward prohibiting this again - but not for the media but for the prosecution, by means of an amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure. This would help make all parties to the proceedings equal in rights, and take the race back to court where it belongs in the first place.

OBEKTIV 2