Documentation of Process
Miklós Hagyó endured nine months of Hungarian jail prior to the beginning of the trial. The prosecutors and the signatory authority Judge Mária Szívós determined the jail time was necessary to prevent Hagyó from fleeing Hungary as the criminal process progressed to the trial. They claimed to have a substantial amount of evidence which necessitated the jail time. After numerous requests from Hagyó’s lawyer to provide the evidence, none has ever been presented to Hagyó, to his lawyer, or to the public.
According to the Hungarian Act XIX of 1998 on Criminal Proceedings, pretrial detention may be
administered under the following conditions:
a)1 the defendant has escaped, or has attempted to escape, or absconded from the court, the
prosecutor or the investigating authority, or another procedure has been launched against the
defendant for committing a deliberate criminal offence also punishable by imprisonment,
b) owing to the risk of an escape or hiding, or for other reasons, there is reasonable cause to believe that
the presence of the defendant in procedural actions cannot be otherwise ensured,
c) there is reasonable cause to believe that if left at liberty, the defendant would frustrate, obstruct or
jeopardise the evidentiary procedure, especially by means of influencing or intimidating the witnesses,
or by the destruction, falsification or secretion of physical evidence or documents,
d) there is reasonable cause to believe that if left at liberty, the defendant would accomplish
the attempted or planned criminal offence or commit another criminal offence punishable by
Hagyó’s initial sentence was for one month on May 17, 2010. The prosecution proposed and won
multiple extensions once Hagyó neared release dates. Finally, on February 23, 2011 he was released to
house arrest. The signatory judge recognized the absence of sufficient evidence to maintain Hagyó’s jail
sentence. He suffered deteriorating health which resulted in multiple stays in the prison hospital. It is
suspected that Hagyó’s declining health supported his release from prison.
There are many documents available which recount Hagyó’s pre-arrest period to his release into house
arrest. Unfortunately we are very restricted in resources, so we can momentarily provide only three
documents. We are constantly working to locate and obtain more information on this case, however.
Accordingly, we will translate and upload materials when possible. If you or your organization would
like to see other pieces of the paper trail, simply contact us at email@example.com with your
requests. We will oblige to the best of our ability.
1 Section 129 (2) a) was established by Section 77 (1) of Act I of 2002.
I. 1. Before Miklós Hagyó Was Subjected to Pretrial Prison
I. 2. Prosecution Proposals on the Pretrial Jail Extension