Protection Trial – VGT accuses Prosecutor
first comment to the press since the scandal came to light about the denied
existence of a police infiltrator and her exonerating reports, the Minister
for Justice told the media that this was an 'unusual' procedure but she
was not prepared to stop the case
comment has done nothing to quieten the press: articles continue to appear
in the major newspapers scorning the judge, the prosecution and the Ministry
for Justice. It now remains to be seen what the Minister for Justice will
make of the report of the proceedings ordered by her from the prosecution.
VGT manager Harald Balluch, one of the defendants, has written a seventeen
page long open letter to the Ministry for Justice detailing the various
ways in which the prosecutor in the case has broken the law.
is a summary of the main points:
prosecutor allowed exonerating evidence from the infiltration to be withheld.
o The prosecutor gave false reports of the proceedings to the State Prosecution
and the Ministry for Justice resulting in a misrepresentation of the facts.
o Despite being obliged to do so, the prosecutor refused to accept exonerating
evidence presented to him by the defence, resulting in the commencement
of a trial sure to lead to the financial ruin of all the defendants.
o The prosecutor denied defence and defendants their right to see investigation
o By delaying proceedings and giving misleading information to the court
and the defendants, the prosecutor successfully managed to avoid exonerating
documents beingaddessable to the defence.
o Despite being legally bound to do so, he did not, as a state prosecutor,
inspect findings of police investigations for their relevance to the trial,
which meant that the defence had no idea of their existence. This resulted
in exonerating material being withheld.
o The prosecutor fabricated incriminating evidence.
basis of these, the VGT manager asked the minister of justice:
order the state prosecutor the allow the defence access to all results of
the police investigations.
o Not just to hear the state prosecutor but also the point of view of the
defence, before deciding whether the trial should go ahead.
o To move the case from Wr. Neustadt to Vienna to another state prosecutor,
who is less biased.
o After carefully examining the situation to withdraw the case altogether,
as other prosecution services from Vienna and Linz have already done regarding
the self-indictmens, which were word for word the same as the charges in