By: Peter Jančič (Spletni časopis)
Due to personal experience, I understand the protests from the judiciary this week, where they were outraged that their names and surnames were published online, allegedly inciting violence against them.
This happened after the judiciary refused to compensate Janez Janša, who had to unjustly serve time in prison due to the decisions of judges and was additionally burdened with paying €30,000 in court costs. The court did not award him what the constitution states: “Anyone who has been wrongfully convicted of a criminal offense or whose freedom has been unjustly taken away has the right to rehabilitation, compensation, and other rights as determined by law.” Janša was wrongfully convicted, and his freedom was unjustly taken away. This was unanimously determined by the Constitutional Court. He was imprisoned just before elections in which he was the favourite to take power.
When Janša eventually assumed power after winning the next elections, calls were heard in Ljubljana to kill him immediately. Leftist protesters also simultaneously called for the “death of Janšism” on thousands of posters to “liberate the nation”. On the internet, they organised a selection of the “top Janšists” among journalists and editors. I was one of the chosen “enemies”, with my name and surname publicly listed. I am not a fearful person – many have threatened me and exerted pressure on me before, but rarely so publicly. However, I have loved ones, including children, who might be affected by the dilemma of whether their father truly is the “top Janšist”, suitable only for death to secure the freedom of this people.
These calls for death and polling were not the work of obscure individuals online, just as it is now with threats against judges. Yet at the time, these activists from leftist parties similarly concealed their own names and surnames.
Prosecutors and judges did not respond.
When I asked the prosecution how they would act regarding the public calls by Ludvik Tomšič to murder Janez Janša during protests led by Nika Kovač and supporters of the fallen government of Marjan Šarec, or whether there would be any proceedings regarding the mass calls for death with hundreds of posters calling for the “death of Janšism” to liberate the nation, the current Chief Prosecutor Katarina Bergant replied that no prosecution would follow because such calls for death fall under freedom of speech. To recall, Masleša is not the first person to be photographed with a target on their forehead in recent days – this also happened back then. As for Tomšič’s calls for Janša’s murder, the prosecutor stated that they do not know who specifically made the call to murder, and Janša himself did not initiate the appropriate legal proceedings to protect himself. The major media at the time concealed Tomšič’s threats from the public, while smaller outlets reported on them.
But the smaller ones informed. The online newspaper I worked for also reported that Ludvik Tomšič had been publicly calling for Janša’s murder for some time, even on camera to Vladimir Vodušek. Tomšič later testified in court that Nika Kovač led the protest and that she also sent him a warning through the police to stop, threatening sanctions otherwise.
The prosecutor’s and Tomšič’s responses revealed that the police did not notify the prosecution of Tomšič’s actions during the protests, even though they were aware of them.
This was how Bergant responded.
“Dear Sir/Madam,
In connection with your inquiries, we inform you that at the District State Prosecutor’s Office in Ljubljana (hereinafter: the Prosecutor’s Office), in relation to events at various gatherings and accompanying reactions on social media, we received several reports or notifications and criminal complaints regarding the alleged criminal offense of Public Incitement to Hatred, Violence, or Intolerance under Article 297 of the Penal Code (KZ-1). All criminal complaints are handled comprehensively by the Prosecutor’s Office, as the prosecutors assess in each individual case whether known or unknown perpetrators have met the legal elements, not just whether they are known or unknown perpetrators of the alleged offense, which is prosecuted ex officio. Since, in some cases, the legal conditions for initiating criminal prosecution under Article 297 KZ-1 were not met, the Prosecutor’s Office rejected the allegations for reasons rooted in newer theories and judicial practices as well as established practices of the European Court of Human Rights. In cases relating to prominent signs and placards that have already been decided, the competent prosecutor dismissed the criminal complaints on the grounds that the alleged act did not constitute a criminal offense for which the perpetrator is prosecuted ex officio. The Prosecutor’s Office pays particular attention to assessing any threats or calls for the killing of any individual, especially from the perspective of the legal elements of a criminal offense under Article 135 KZ-1. This offense is prosecuted at the proposal of the injured party, which is a procedural condition for the police and Prosecutor’s Office to initiate pre-criminal proceedings. In cases where the injured party was identified due to threats and proposed prosecution, the Prosecutor’s Office, even during the on-call duty service, obtained orders aimed at protecting data and discovering the identity of the perpetrator of the criminal offense. Regarding events at gatherings, the injured party did not submit such a proposal for prosecution. Since a criminal offense is not prosecuted against an unknown person, the Prosecutor’s Office and the police cannot start prosecution against an unidentified participant or participants in a gathering. Determining the identity of an individual who, as a participant in a gathering, may have fulfilled the legal elements of any criminal offense prosecuted ex officio is also essential since Slovenian criminal law upholds the fundamental principle of subjective or guilty liability and not objective liability.
Best regards,
Dr Katarina Bergant
Senior State Prosecutor”
It later turned out that it was not entirely true that no action was taken. Proceedings against Tomšič were initiated by the security personnel who were assigned to Janša as prime minister. Tomšič was tried for publicly calling on protesters to murder Janša. However, he was eventually acquitted, citing his mental incompetence.
The reaction of the judiciary now, when it concerns them, is different. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court did not defend freedom of speech or the rights of mentally incompetent anonymous individuals online to call for the murder of politicians, editors, prosecutors, and judges, or for the arson of their properties. Nor did he point out that the identity of the specific threatener was unknown, making prosecution impossible. He did not suggest that the calls were unclear or potentially well-intentioned, following the twisted logic that it is permissible to eliminate “Janšism” or the judiciary as intolerable ideologies, and that such actions are not tied to specific individuals named or identified.
Suddenly, the issue is serious – because it concerns them directly, rather than others who were previously the victims.
To be clear: calls for violence and public threats against judges are utterly unacceptable, as were the public calls for Janša’s murder. In all cases, such actions are unacceptable. However, judges are not sacred cows, and their conduct deserves public scrutiny as to why they only notice such issues when it involves themselves. Their handling of Janša’s case, in which he was imprisoned twice and both verdicts were later overturned, also deserves examination. These cases include the JBTZ and Patria affairs. The Patria case is particularly troubling, as it did not involve a judiciary directly subordinate to the Communist Party or the YPA. Yet, the opposition leader was imprisoned just before elections, with the judges effectively blocking his party’s chances of winning. The judiciary directly intervened in the electoral process with an unfair trial. This is not and should not be “business as usual”.
We are not Belarus or Russia, and we must not become like them.
Ten years after these events, we are witnessing another violation of constitutional order. Article 30 of the Constitution clearly states: “Anyone who has been wrongfully convicted of a criminal offense or whose freedom has been unjustly taken away has the right to rehabilitation, compensation, and other rights as determined by law.”
The judiciary has provided none of these rights. On the contrary.
This clearly reinforces the impression of judicial abuse – or worse, the impression of politically motivated show trials and attempts to destroy the opposition. It gives the impression of Belarusian or even Russian-style judiciary practices. Let us not forget that one of the last visitors to Moscow before the invasion of Ukraine was Slovenia’s Chief Prosecutor Drago Šketa, allegedly because of their “excellent cooperation”. Before that, there had been numerous meetings between the supreme judiciaries of both countries, even after the annexation of Crimea. Again, allegedly due to “excellent cooperation”.
In Russia and Belarus, opposition leaders are also imprisoned. Many are forced to flee to the West to avoid dying in prison.
Considering all this, when our judiciary also decides that none of the prosecutors, judges, or the state bears any responsibility for putting a political leader in prison just before elections – and instead orders the victim to pay massive legal costs while denying any compensation – the public is understandably shocked.
The political left is thrilled, at least the less thoughtful portion of it. They fail to understand that, with such decisions, judges are also undermining their own credibility. This destroys the perception that we live in a lawful state and a fair society, and that we have judges worthy of their name.
This impression of political abuses of the judiciary is further amplified by the fact that part of the Constitutional Court previously blocked Parliament from investigating alleged irregularities in the judiciary regarding the mass of failed proceedings against former Maribor Mayor Franc Kangler. These cases involved Janez Žirovnik, a former intelligence officer of the previous regime’s secret political police and later a top intelligence official under a leftist government of Janez Drnovšek. Žirovnik is now an independent judge. The goal of targeting Kangler was to destroy the SLS party and secure power for the left, just as with Janša. Both efforts succeeded.
The Constitutional Court’s majority decision to prevent Parliament from investigating these events showed something was amiss. Otherwise, there would have been no reason to block such an investigation. Parliaments do not judge or impose sentences; they merely assess whether changes in the system might address existing flaws. If lawmakers cannot scrutinise the functioning of other institutions, including the judiciary, they cannot craft intelligent legislation.
This notion that prosecutors and judges are untouchable “sacred cows”, immune to parliamentary scrutiny, was cemented by the majority decision in the Constitutional Court – and it stands. As does the decision that no one bears responsibility for the opposition leader being imprisoned during the election campaign – a verdict unanimously overturned by Constitutional Court judges.
Janša now must also pay hefty sums simply for daring to sue.
I have no doubt that Janša’s supporters will donate enough funds to prevent judges from further financially ruining him with their actions, which they themselves know the public will not perceive as fair or independent judgment. These rulings were made in favour of leftist political parties, while simultaneously protecting the judiciary. It is not the first time this has happened.
The same occurred with Kangler.
I know how important people are because, thanks to the generous contributions of supporters, I have been able to work for two years.
Janša was also fined for criticising RTVS editor Mojca Pašek Šetinc on social media, calling her an “expired Milan’s prostitute” after his party was once again accused of fascism on state television. The verdict aged poorly, as Pašek Šetinc – publicly supported by Milan Kučan – was elected to Parliament in the last election. The accusations of fascism were indeed part of leftist campaigns of “death to Janšism”, which, now that the tables have turned, are inconvenient for judges.
Criticism and the search for better solutions are one thing; threats and calls for violence and death are quite another.
There is an important line between the two, one that many cross, even in reactions to events in the Middle East. The government parties, with their one-sided policies, have encouraged an environment where racist smearing of both Israelis and Palestinians has become normalised, along with incitement to violence based on religious beliefs. In protests around Ljubljana, chants of “From the river to the sea” were heard – words that are not far from “Juden raus”. Among the protesters were government politicians from the Levica party.
Nationalistic and religious hatred has been encouraged before by communist regimes, leaving deep-rooted effects in our society. We have also experienced politically subordinate and abused judiciaries in the past, where convictions were handed down to serve the interests of the Communist Party.
We know all too well where this leads, as seen during the collapse of Yugoslavia, when authorities – both political and judicial – acted with similar recklessness.
