When the opposition leader is blamed, the evidence should look more bulletproof. The police findings that led to the indictment of Robert Fico and Robert Kaliňák offer a monstrous picture. From the statements of the so-called penitents, the investigators compiled an octopus scheme of high-ranking state officials who abused their functions during the ruling of the Direction to gather information discrediting the political opposition. There were many indications that such things were happening here. Therefore, it is good that the police have investigated these suspects and want the suspects from these activities to face justice. The fact that investigators see the current opposition leader as the main organizer of this unfair activity adds a new dimension to the whole case. If the evidence gathered by the police does not pass the test of justice, there will be only a lot of aftertaste left. Part of the public will continue to be convinced of Robert Fico’s guilt, only to confirm that nothing will happen to the powerful, no matter what happens. The second part will have in hand the blatant argument that the current set is doing exactly the same thing that Fica accuses of, that is, of criminalizing the opposition. And, of course, questions will begin to arise as to whether the motive for this police operation was not the instinct of self-preservation for senior police officers, who are fueled by fear of possible political change. It would be an unfortunate ending and would de facto mean the political victory of Smer. This does not mean that high-ranking politicians should not be investigated and prosecuted. Of course, they have, if there are reasons to do so. However, we cannot hide our eyes from the fact that this will always be a very sensitive matter that the police should be well prepared for. That is, when the level of evidence-based certainty far outweighs the doubts. In the case of Robert Fico’s accusation, this ratio of probative certainty and doubt does not appear to be so clear. The construction of the police, in which Fico acts as the head of an organized group, is mainly based on the allegations of cooperating defendants. However, they only go to Fico as a mover indirectly. Some lower member of the octopus reportedly said that Fico wanted something. Or they deduced the order from the President of the Direction from the fact that the information provided by them appeared on the press pages of this party. Closest to Fico is the statement of the former head of the financial administration, František Imrecze, who claims that he handed over the analysis intended for the discrediting of Igor Matovič to the then Fico’s spokesman Erik Tomáš. He refuses. For many, including journalists, these facts may sound convincing. And rightly so, because they often have other information and the things mentioned in the indictment resolution fit into the mosaic that this could have happened in some way. And maybe it really happened. But the judiciary must assess the evidence differently. In the spirit of the principle of criminal law in dubio pro reo, ie in doubts in favor of the accused. You have to wait for it to turn out. But after reading what the police base on Robert Fico’s allegations, one cannot help but feel that the prosecutor’s office or courts can see considerable scope for doubt. Photo: TASR / Martin Baumann