antisemitic

On the night of 11 May 1997, T. H. and three of his friends were walking home from a pub in Gy. town. On their way, they encountered a group of nine or ten people who had just left a pub in O. Gardens and were singing nazi and anti-Semitic songs, as well as chanting anti-Semitic slogans on the street. T. H., when passing the group, said the following to them: "What is your problem with Jews? I myself am a Jew". Following his statement, an argument sparked off between the members of the groups about anti-Semitism. Several statements which were offensive or threatening against Jews were said. Finally, I. Ö. hit T. H. with a part of a dustbin he had found nearby, breaking the victim's nose. The injury healed in more than eight days. T. H. is not Jewish. He wanted to express his denial of anti-Jewish ideas by stating he was Jewish.

The County Police investigated the incident for the felony of violence against a member of a religious minority. The prosecutor pressed charges against only one member of the group out of nine or ten for the felony of violence against a member of a religious minority and for the felony of causing grave bodily injury.

Any person who, because he knows or suspects that his victim is a member of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, threatens or forces his victim to act, omit to act or tolerate any act of another person, commits a felony and is punishable with imprisonment of up to five years.

Sub. 2: The punishment is imprisonment for between two and eight years, if the offenders

The above paragraph entered into force in June 1996. The present incident was the first investigated for the suspicion of the crime under para. 174/B. Although racially motivated crimes had been committed previously, the offenders had only been found guilty of having committed disorderly conduct, or in cases in which their motives had been more thoroughly examined, for having a vile intention to cause light or grave bodily injury.

Prior to the amendment, para. 156 of the Penal Code, which has been in force for decades, had not been applied except in one case in 1991 in which the police started an investigation into the crime under para. 156, the court, however, found 46 juvenile defendants guilty of the felony of having a vile intention to cause grave bodily injury[1].

It is probable that, in lieu of the amendment, the authorities in the present incident, despite the obvious racial motives, would have proceeded for the crime of disorderly conduct or grave bodily injury.

Probably due to the lack of precedents, the local police station first started an investigation for disorderly conduct and only later continued to proceed for the suspicion of violence against a member of a religious minority, mainly because the victim, NEKI and the media insisted on following up on the case and also because the case seemed prima faciae racially motivated.

The commander of the City Police informed NEKI that "I cannot, unfortunately, provide you with the case file because it has been forwarded to the County Police Station".

The police interrogated several people as suspects but the prosecutor pressed charges only against the person who had caused grave bodily injury. Under para. 174/B sub. 2, if the crime is committed within a group, a more severe sentence may be imposed on the offenders.

Attorney Elemér Magyar who represents the victim was prevented from taking part in the interrogations and confrontations of the suspects with the victim which again, brought to our attention the inconsistency of regulations pertaining to the victim's legal status in criminal proceedings[2].

NEKI is concerned that the police did not conduct a broad enough investigation into the crime's racial motives. The group members' flats had not been searched for books, posters, stickers, uniforms or other objects typical to racist crimes and offences. These objects could have served as evidence before the court. They can still be obtained by the court but it will be more difficult to gain access to them than in a previous stage of the procedure. Evidence already at the authorities' disposal, of course, may be sufficient to establish the facts. The person indicted admitted to the crime. One of the policemen at the scene, had overheard some of the comments about which he later gave a witness testimony.

Both the prosecutor and the presiding judge seemed to display to the case a certain passivity and aversion on the first day of the trial. When reconstructing what had happened, they paid little attention to establishing the offender's motives. It was also surprising that the prosecutor asked the offender, the victim and more than 11 witnesses. a total of five questions collectively.

The witnesses without exception testified before the court that they had been singing army songs and the victim had provoked the offender before he hit him. Taking the witness testimonies, the negligent investigation and the attitudes of the prosecutor and the presiding judge into account, a positive outcome in this case seems doubtful.

[1] See in the Compilation of court decision, BH 1994.299.

[2] See, White Booklet 1996, Forced interrogation ... p 20.