On Friday, the leader of the opposition, Janez Janša, was acquitted at the first instance court in the Trenta case. The deep state assessed that his “crucifixion” on Good Friday would do more harm than good because it would mobilise voters. University Professor Turk likened the situation to a patient being tortured by doctors for as long as ten years.
On Friday, a court in Celje acquitted Janez Janša and two other people in the Trenta case. This is a first-instance court ruling, so it is not yet final. It seems that cracks are slowly appearing in the Slovenian system of injustice. We are no longer in 2014, when the Slovenian Democratic Party (Slovenska demokratska stranka – SDS) champion Janez Janša could be jailed quite easily (in the Patria case). The scale of injustice caused by a biased judiciary/criminal justice system is full. It is a branch of government that protects some (as publicly confirmed by Ljubljana Mayor Zoran Janković a few years ago when he said that he would never be jailed because he has always been the biggest opponent of Janša in politics).
The deep state is aware that we are not in 2014 anymore
On the other hand, those who dare to stand up to the deep state are brutally sanctioned (just remember the case of former judge Zvjezdan Radonjić). But this is certainly not just a case of being fed up. The traditional media are losing influence, and social networks are gaining strength (as the elections in the USA, Romania, etc. have shown). And here, after all, we have the alternative media. This is why, in the event of a new conviction, the situation would be considerably more unpredictable …
The battle is won, but not yet the war…
Above all, the issue would further mobilise part of the electorate. It could even happen (God forbid!) that individuals decided to continue the protests (which have so far taken place in front of the Celje court) at the home addresses of individual judges. Desperation can drive people to make really unreasonable decisions (just remember that a list of judges’ home addresses made rounds on the internet some time ago) …
Despite the battle that has been won, consequences remain. For 15 years, Janša has been dragged through the courts, his time, reputation and money stolen, his mental health destroyed. And after all, the court battle will continue, the war has not yet been won… Nevertheless, as this was a historic day, we have obtained the comments of two political analysts: university professor Boštjan M. Turk and the President of the Association of Journalists and Publicists, Dr Matevž Tomšič.
A decade-long trial based on a controversial indictment and murky motives
Turk: “The acquittal in the Trenta case is not only the conclusion of a lengthy (first instance) trial, but also a mirror of the state of Slovenian justice and the wider political arena.” The fundamental question arises: Did they really not know beforehand that the accused were not guilty? Why was it necessary to conduct a decade-long trial based on a controversial indictment and murky motives?
The Trent case is symptomatic – not so much because of the absurd content of the accusations, but because of the broader context of the functioning of the rule of law and its institutions. It is a classic case where the judicial apparatus seems to have been used as a tool of political pressure – years of conducting proceedings without clear evidence, constant delays, changes in indictments and media targeting of public perception.
If we allow ourselves to make a comparison with medicine, what has been happening is similar to a situation in which doctors would torture a patient for a decade with invasive examinations, therapies and diagnostic procedures – all on the false assumption that he or she is terminally ill. And when it finally turned out that the patient was perfectly healthy, they would simply shrug their shoulders and move on as if nothing had happened. In medicine, this would be considered institutional violence against the individual.
A rigged process characteristic of authoritarian and totalitarian systems
“In justice, this is nothing more and nothing less than the greatest possible anomaly: a rigged process characteristic of authoritarian and totalitarian systems,” Turk believes. Where have you gone to, Slovenia? Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. Let us recall the Patria affair – another trial where it was clear from afar that this was not a search for justice, but a politically motivated conviction. There, too, the system broke down only at the highest level, after the lower courts had already legitimised an unjust procedure.
What is most worrying is the systemic absence of accountability
What is most worrying is the systemic absence of accountability. In medicine, such behaviour by doctors would result in disciplinary action, loss of medical licence or even criminal proceedings. In the Slovenian judiciary, however, even after decades of unjustified proceedings that have ruined political careers and personal lives, nothing happens. In the Trenta case, too, it seems that political intent was more strongly expressed than legal logic.
Turk: “No one can seriously believe that it was a coincidence that the trial dragged on at a time of key political turning points and that it only unravelled at a moment when domestic and international public opinion began to put serious pressure on the Slovenian judiciary.” The acquittal may be the result of this pressure – or the last reflection of the moral backbone of a judge who did not succumb to political pressure. In any case, it is clear that confidence in the fairness of the proceedings can no longer be restored.
The rule of law is based on the assumption that every individual is innocent until proven guilty. In politically sensitive cases, these principles should apply even more strictly. Instead, we have once again witnessed a situation where someone has apparently been marked as guilty in advance – until the system collapsed under its own weight or under the influence of external factors. This is all the more true if we analyse the trial in parallel with the political developments in the country.
The trial against Janša was part of a wider story where the judiciary is no longer separate from politics
“The media-political campaign revolving around Golob – Karigador – was a clear indication that there is a behind-the-scenes will to convict the leader of the opposition, even at the expense of legal logic.” In this sense, the trial against Janša was part of a broader story – a story where the judiciary is no longer separate from politics, but increasingly a tool of it. Golob was dragged through the media to prove that, look, we are equally tough on everyone. This recipe worked 13 years ago with the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (KPK) on the same subject – Trenta.
Instead of Janša being thrown out of the game, he came back stronger each time
Where are you now, Goran Klemenčič, after the court ruled that you were wrong? What will be the consequences for the then-leadership of the Commission? Will anyone be held accountable? The question is rhetorical. No one will be held accountable for what happened. And yet – whatever the verdict in the end, if the trial(s) continue(s) – it will not undermine the political stance of the leader of the opposition. Paradoxically, every such trial, every conviction or judicial investigation, only strengthens his political position. Instead of being knocked out of the game, he has come back stronger each time.
“This is also a consequence of the apparent instrumentalisation of the judiciary, which again and again loses credibility when it tries to make political judgements,” Turk warned. The European institutions, especially the European Commission in Slovenia, should ask themselves what is happening to the fundamental values of the rule of law in Slovenia. Is their silence really neutrality – or tacit consent to abuse? This is what the European Commission should be asking itself.
Sooner or later, the judiciary will have to make a fundamental reflection
Sooner or later, the Slovenian judiciary will have to make a fundamental reflection. And above all, if the accused are really innocent, who will be held accountable for a decade of lost years, for the costs, for the personal and political damage? In a democratic and legal state, there should also be a system of accountability for false accusations and abuses of judicial power. But this is where Slovenia is still caught in its own snare.
The trial was a form of pressure on the leader of the largest opposition party
Tomšič: “I must admit that I was surprised by the acquittal of Janez Janša and his co-defendants. Not because I believed that the charges against them were well-founded. On the contrary, they were even more ‘far-fetched’ than in the Patria case. But we know how things turned out at the first instance court in that case. So, there was a widespread belief that something similar would happen now. Fortunately, it has not. But despite this, we can hardly say that Slovenian justice is impartial. This process should never have happened in the first place. And as such, it was a form of pressure on the leader of the largest opposition party.”
Domen Mezeg
