Death of a Romani man in Brno, Czech Republic: A story of antigypsyism, conflict, and interethnic tension
In June of last year, the city of Brno in the Czech Republic became the scene of an incident that sparked discussion about court decisions, interethnic tensions and self-defense. From the beginning, the main person involved in the conflict that started on a tram and escalated on a street near the Brno Reservoir, Roman Rohozin, who is Ukrainian, was accused of killing a Romani man, Nicolas Z. The tragedy drew the attention of the broader public, possibly because it represents not just an example of how conflicts can escalate into tragic dimensions, but also an example of how difficult it is to judge whether self-defense is justified legally. To be more precise, this case is not limited just to questions of self-defense and its legal interpretation, but also has a deep impact on interethnic and social tensions in this society.
Her review of the circumstances of the incident and of the evidence led Judge Řepková to conclude that Rohozin had acted within the lawful bounds of self-defense. At the very least, her conclusion is meant to contribute to persuading the public of the depth and impartiality of the judicial process and of her deeper understanding of the conflict and its dynamics. That the prosecutor changed the charges from murder to negligent homicide, referencing the disproportionate context of the self-defense, partially concurs with the judge’s conclusion.
In the case of Rohozin, as in the 2021 case of the police intervention in Teplice, both of which ended with the death of a Romani man, serious questions are being raised about antigypsyism and discrimination of a systemic nature in the Czech Republic. These cases may seem different at first glance, but what they have in common is the issue of how and whether biases, whether ethnic or social, can shape the public authorities’ responses to crime.
The discussions that flared up as a result of these events have, on the one hand, intensified questions of distrust, of growing prejudices, and of the possible influence of public opinion on the decision-making of the state. They also accentuate the need to reassess the influence of media portrayals on public opinion and the actions of the state. From a legal perspective, such situations spark questions regarding compliance with the international conventions the Czech Republic has ratified and implemented in its domestic legal code, such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). Article 2 of ICERD obliges states to end all such discrimination, guarantee effective protection against it, and redress it when it does occur.
In the context of these cases, it is necessary to assess whether the authorities have been acting in accordance with those principles and whether there do exist mechanisms facilitating effective redress should those principles be violated. In that context, it is apparent that cases such as these require not just careful legal analysis, but also a broader discussion, political and social, about human rights protections in the Czech Republic, especially for ethnic minorities and the state of upholding their rights..
This commentary is authored by Jan Husák of the RomanoNet organization.
These cases ending in the deaths of Romani men are, at a minimum, occasions to reflect on the deeply-entrenched prejudices and stereotypes which persist in this society. The reaction of Czech Justice Minister Pavel Blažek, who said the Brno court’s decision was clearly and comprehensibly reasoned and that the case did not involve a national or racial subtext, does not help such reflection in any positive sense.
At a time when there is speculation about the prosecutor possibly appealing, this is an especially sensitive moment. The Justice Minister’s remarks not only underestimate the complexity of the situation, but could also potentially influence the course of the trial. Blažek’s case indicates a much more serious problem, whereby the Justice Minister makes superficial judgments and does not contribute to upholding the principle of impartiality. Who else but the Justice Minister should be aware of that fact?
At the very least, Blažek’s remarks make apparent the conflict between an impartial, objective trial and the fact that what he said could have an important impact not just on the trial itself, but also especially on suppressing the public’s trust in the verdict, as Edita Stejskalová has warned in her commentary. This is especially obvious in the context of the fact that important public figures such as the Justice Minister can contribute to a narrative that might suppress trust in the equality and fairness of the judicial system. This fact is also especially important in light of the requirement that the independence, impartiality and objectivity of the judiciary be protected under Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 36 paragraph 1 of the Czech Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.
This situation emphasizes even more the conclusions of the European Roma Rights Centre’s research report entitled “Justice Denied: Roma in the Criminal Justice System of the Czech Republic“. That study points to similar problems in more than one European country and warns that criminal justice systems have a problem with discrimination on an ethnic and/or racial basis.
The report presents evidence of deeply-entrenched problems of a structural nature here. Not only the protest by 100 Romani people outside the Brno courthouse, but also the opinions of the wider public following this case and those like it reveal deep fears about the independence of the Czech courts and other state bodies, and deep fears about justice. That feeling of mistrust has its roots in the persisting prejudices which might influence, albeit unintentionally, not just court decisions, but also the approach taken toward Romani people in all crucial areas. The public discussions and protests, therefore, shed light on wider problems in the system of our “fair society”.
Given our previous experiences with the Czech judicial system, the concerns that the prosecutor will not appeal the case against Rohozin seem to be justified. Such doubts stem from our experience of history, where prosecutors have shown limited willingness to appeal in cases where Romani people played the main roles as victims.
I think it is apparent that any unwillingness to appeal the verdict against Rohozin would just intensify the already-existing fears about deficiencies in the system and would intensify the lack of trust in the criminal justice system. In this case, an appeal becomes an important test of the ability of the Czech legal system to strengthen the trust of the public in its legal institutions.
If the Czech justice system is to be perceived as fair and impartial, it must be open to constantly improving its procedures on the basis of criticism and reflection, especially in relation to questions of ethnic and racial justice. It has to open a new chapter for the legal system, written with a genuine emphasis on equality, justice, and respect for the human rights of all.
