A man attacked in Prague by football fans failed with constitutional complaints – ČT24 – Czech Television
“Even the existence of a number of prejudicial indicators cannot automatically lead the court to find that the accused is guilty of committing such a crime for hate motives,” the resolution said. The Court emphasized the principle in dubio pro reo, which means the need to seek doubts in favor of the accused. This is even in a situation where their guilt or hate motivation to attack may be as likely.
“Such a situation may, of course, be a devastating victim of the crime of perception, but no other approach is conceivable in a state governed by the rule of law. The rule in dubio pro reo is such an essential part of guarantees of the rights of individuals against abuse of power by the state that its (moreover, such a fundamental) break cannot be accepted even for ‘godly’ motives, “the senate wrote in the resolution with the rapporteur Josef Fiala.
The programmer, who has lived in Prague for a long time, traveled in November 2017 by tram, which was joined by a group of Olomouc fans heading to a match with the Prague Bohemians. According to the indictment, he first faced racist insults, which he ignored. But when someone in the crowd squeezed a lemon on him, he tried to protect himself. Some fans attacked him with fists and kicks. The man ended up in surgery with a bruised head and nose. He also suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder from the incident.
The indictment was directed against three men. They did not deny that the attack in the tram took place. However, they claimed that we had nothing to do with him. The District Court for Prague 10 repeatedly acquitted them of their charges, and its decision was overturned by the Municipal Court in Prague. Finally, the district court handed over the case to the misdemeanor proceedings. However, the office was not supposed to deal with the attack, but with the fact that the young men, along with other people in the tram, were chanting slogans and disturbing other passengers.
Attacked in the constitutional complaint, he critically pointed out that justice did not believe gently as victims of aggression, but rather as football hooligans. He identified them as perpetrators who were demonstrably at the scene. According to him, in times of justice, the judiciaries would not have to look for excuses to acquit defendants, but by their decision-making they should contribute to the creation of a tolerant and open society, clearly condemning hate speech.