The detention of the National Security Service officer in the case of Sonya Koltuklieva was an excessive measure. This was stated by the judge and member of the Supreme Judicial Council Atanaska Disheva in an interview with bTV.
According to her, detention is of a repressive nature and should not be taken automatically when there is evidence of a crime. It is permissible when there are legal grounds, including a danger that the suspect will abscond or obstruct the investigation.
„This is a form of repressive measure. It does not need to be applied in all cases, but only when the procedural law provides for it“, said Disheva.She noted that the employee is in an employment relationship with the NSO and expressed the opinion that in the specific situation there were no grounds to require his detention. According to Disheva, the court also ruled that this measure was not necessary.
The judge emphasized that interrogations and other procedural actions are needed to clarify the case. She refused to predict whether criminal liability will result, as she only has the publicly released video recording and does not have enough information about the specific circumstances.
“It is necessary to assess what the specific situation was, whether the use of force was provoked in any way and whether the behavior was adequate to the situation and the authorities“, said Disheva.
Warning about political pressure
In the interview, she also commented on the public positions of the executive branch on actions against crime and corruption. Disheva stated that any legal fight against these phenomena should be welcomed, but warned that the executive branch should not set requirements for the judiciary.
According to Disheva, the prosecutor's office must work in accordance with the law, without submitting to political expectations or influence. She also drew attention to the fact that several widely reported arrests and investigations took place in the week before the elections.
Disheva emphasized that the actions of the police and the prosecutor's office must be assessed according to the law and the specific circumstances of each individual case, and not according to public response.