In a new judicial composition in the “Deborah” case, the Plovdiv District Court did not grant the request of the defense for the accused, Georgi Georgiev, to change his measure of detention from “remand in custody” and left him permanently in jail. Even before the pronouncement by Judge Spasimir Zdravchev, in his plea, Petko Kanev – one of Georgi’s two lawyers – stated that if the court did not revoke their client’s measure, the defense would request the disqualification of this judicial panel due to a violation of the principle of impartiality.
In his ruling, the judge announced that he did not find the period of one year and seven months to be an excessive length of detention for the accused in custody.
Whether this period is “reasonable” (a term introduced in the European Convention on Human Rights) should be assessed based on the specifics of the particular proceedings, the circumstances of the case, its subject matter, and complexity.
The judge did not accept the defense’s argument that Georgi Georgiev has no motives to flee if released or if a less severe measure, such as “house arrest” with remote monitoring, is imposed on him, given that he has already served the minimum sentence for making threats of murder, which ranges from 1 to 6 years of imprisonment. The lawyers pointed out that their client had the opportunity to do so in the period between the commission of the crime and his detention, but he not only did not do it but even voluntarily went to give a statement to the police.
The defense’s arguments that the measure of “remand in custody” was imposed due to the publicity of this case and would effectively serve as a preliminary serving of the sentence and an unjustified punitive repression against the accused, despite the presumption of innocence, do not find a substantiated basis, commented Spasimir Zdravchev.
He supported the thesis of the two prosecutors from the Stara Zagora District Prosecutor’s Office that the risk of the accused fleeing or committing a new crime if released from custody is high, and the necessity for keeping him in custody is justified by public interests of much broader scope and significance.
The measure of “remand in custody” was imposed under pressure from the Bulgarian prosecutor’s office in order not to lose the remaining 3% of public trust,” stated lawyer Valentin Dimitrov in his plea.
According to him, every punishment has its limits, and any attempt “to please the crowd with a show of force takes us back to the 19th century.” He cited the example of judicial practice in Norway, where amputation as punishment has been replaced with 5 years of imprisonment. Regarding the subsequent charge of making threats to kill, alongside the other two charges of causing two moderate bodily injuries and coercion, the lawyer clarified, without going into detail, that part of these threats were made during a
“love game between Deborah and Georgi with elements of sadomasochism,”
which the victim confirmed in court.
Lawyer Petko Kanev declared that if the request for a less severe measure is rejected by the court, it will be evidence of its bias and will imply that a higher sentence is presumed from the outset than the minimum that Georgi Georgiev has already served in custody.
“We cannot turn detention into a punishment,” which contradicts both the practice in Bulgarian courts and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
The prosecution maintains the thesis that a change in the measure requires a change in the circumstances of the case, which must be of exceptional weight, such as a deterioration in the health condition of the detainee, and there are no such circumstances in this case. According to Desislava Kalaydjieva and Ivelina Kyoseva, the accused is inclined towards marked negative public behavior and has a criminal past that demonstrates a disrespect for the rule of law in the country. Furthermore, the latest crime against Deborah, which the two prosecutors speak of as proven, was committed by Georgiev during a probation period for hooligan behavior.
As an argument against changing his measure, the two prosecutors pointed to the possibility that he could establish contact with the victim and attempt to influence the testimonies of witnesses with whom he has friendly relations.
Georgiev requested the court to grant his defense’s request and release him from custody so that he could see his child after nearly two years. According to him, he shared a cell in the Stara Zagora prison with two men—one serving a life sentence and the other a 20-year sentence—but he had never been in conflicts with them or with the other 150 detainees held under the same maximum-security measure.
The decision of the new judicial panel can be appealed to the District Court in Plovdiv within a week.
On February 28, a preliminary hearing will be held in the “Deborah” case, which will start from the very beginning. The previous judicial panel, which was close to concluding the trial and announcing a verdict, was disqualified following a request from Georgiev’s lawyers. The reasoning of Dimitrov and Kanev was that one of the two judicial assessors is a member of the regional leadership of the political party GERB – Women in Plovdiv, which violates the requirements of the Judiciary Act and could hinder impartiality, as she was among the organizers of the protests against violence towards Deborah in the city.
