Most western papers reported the acquittal of Sándor
Képíró (age 97) on July 18. Képíró was
accused of taking part in a raid in Novi Sad during World War
II where several thousand Hungarian Jews and Serbian nationals
were murdered. Efraim Zuroff, the head of the Simon Wiesenthal
Center, had for years been insisting on bringing Képíró to
justice, but it took a long time before the Hungarian prosecutor's
office began proceedings. The reason for the delay was the
thorny question that The New York Times mentioned: was Képíró's
earlier trial valid or not? Because if it was valid, no new
court procedure could be initiated. After all, no one can be
tried for the same crime twice.
So, what happened in Novi Sad (Újvidék)? It
was in April 1941 that Hungary attacked Yugoslavia and with
Germany's blessing occupied certain territories that had
belonged to Hungary prior to 1918. Near Novi Sad a Serbian
partisan group, numbering about 40, became active against
the occupiers shortly after the arrival of the Hungarians.
By early January 1942, the Hungarian soldiers and members
of the gendarmerie eliminated the partisans along with some
Serbian civilians. According to some estimates about 1,000
people fell victim to the Hungarian action at that time.
Once they finished with the countryside around Novi Sad,
the Hungarian troops moved into city to continue their fight
against the by then non-existent partisans. At first they
were only looking for weapons and "suspicious people" who
were, according to the Hungarian authorities, Serbian nationals
and Hungarian Jews. But the search escalated into a murderous
spree, which continued for days. The military, joined by
members of the gendarmerie, began targeting ordinary civilians,
including women, children, and the elderly. According to
the official statistics, altogether there were 3,340 victims,
including 2,550 Serbs, 743 Jews, 2,102 men, 793 women, 299
older men and women, and 147 children.
When this massacre became known in Budapest, some members
of parliament insisted on an investigation. Reluctantly the
government agreed, and court proceedings began which dragged
on for at least a year. The men who actually ordered the
massacre were permitted to remain free while conducting their
defense because in those days no one would have believed
that a distinguished member of the Hungarian office corps
would escape. How wrong they were! Three of those charged
with the most serious crimes escaped to Germany only to return
to Hungary after the German occupation of the country as
members of the SS. But there was another group of smaller
fish, including Sándor Képíró,
who were convicted for their part in the Novi Sad massacre.
Képíró received a ten-year prison term
without the possibility of appeal. A few days later, however,
the verdict was annulled and he was reinstated as a member
of the gendarmerie. That happened on February 18, 1944, i.e.,
before the German occupation of the country. The circumstances
of the annulment are not clear.
After the war Képíró left the country
and eventually settled in Argentina, returning to Hungary
only in 1996. In his absence--in 1948--First Lieutenant János
Nagy was arrested in Szeged and brought to the People's Court,
which in those days was in charge of handling war criminals.
In his confession Nagy named Képíró who,
according to him, was responsible for the deaths of thirty
people. But, Nagy continued, Képíró was
not a complete villain because he actually saved the lives
of a Jewish couple, the owners of a hotel where he was staying.
In the current case the prosecutors relied heavily on János
Nagy's testimony and, especially in light of the information
about Képíró's good deed, deemed it
reliable. Although the prosecution maintained that the proceedings
of the People's Courts left a lot to be desired, they argued
that it didn't seem that Nagy made his confession under duress.
As we will see later, the judge wasn't impressed. Nagy's
testimony from 1948 was not allowed to be admitted as evidence.
The case is complex and very hard to follow from the description
of the court proceedings by the court reporters and by MTI.
Here I would simply say that Képíró denied
any knowledge of the massacres. That is so unlikely that
even the judge had to admit that this claim was unbelievable.
Novi Sad wasn't exactly a metropolis in those days and the
killing of thousands of people had to be known, especially
by someone who was part of the military unit responsible
for the massacre. The only thing Képíró purported
to remember was saving the lives of his Jewish landlord and
landlady.
I will say something about the charge and the verdict tomorrow.
Today I would like to point out three things: (1) the courts'
divergent views on Képíró's conviction
of 1944, (2) the incompetence of the prosecution, and (3)
the questionable choice of historians as experts.
In 2009 the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság
(Buda Central District Court; BKKB) ruled that no proceedings
can be started in Képíró's case because
he had been convicted on the same charge before. But the
Fovárosi Bíróság (Court of the
Capital; FB) overruled the lower court's decision because "the
1944 verdict was annulled and therefore the decision cannot
be considered a verdict." The same FB ruled two years
earlier, in 2007, that the ten-year prison sentence Képíró received
in 1944 could not be imposed for the same reason. I don't
know whether the BKKB was trying to parse words (When is
a conviction not a verdict?) or whether the court in 2009
was simply ignorant of the higher court's decision in 2007.
Even though Hungary doesn't rely on case law to the extent
that courts in Great Britain and the United States do, perhaps
it's time for a Hungarian LexisNexis.
Let's move on to the prosecution. I managed to find out
from the different media reports that the prosecutors claimed
to be ready with the indictment in October 2010. But they
weren't properly prepared. For instance, they didn't learn
about János Nagy's 1948 testimony until December.
And subsequently documents surfaced detailing Nagy's two
verdicts (lower court and appeal court), in which Nagy was
found guilty not only of murdering thirty civilians but a
Serbian Orthodox priest as well. The indictment seems to
have been put together in dribs and drabs.
Finally, I was surprised to read the names of the two experts
because the historians are both well-known right-wingers.
Thus, both of them, Tibor Zinner and Sándor Szakály,
testified in a way favorable to the accused. Zinner doubted
the genuineness of some of the supporting documents because
one of them refers to the "occupation of Délvidék" (the
southern parts of Hungary). No Hungarian would talk about "occupation" instead
of "re-annexation," claimed Zinner. Szakály
went so far as to claim that the Novi Sad raid wasn't ordered
to kill Serbs and Jews but to eliminate the partisans and
maintain order in the city. He specifically mentioned that,
according to one court document, in the district where Képíró was
in charge the soldiers didn't carry weapons at all. As for
the 1944 verdict, Szakály doubted its authenticy.
There are typos in it, and maybe it wasn't written in Hungary.
Perhaps it was a Serbian document translated into Hungarian.
Zinner's and Szakály's expertise boggles the mind.
It wasn't only I who found these expert opinions startling.
Péter Feldmájer, president of Magyarországi
Zsidó Hitközségek Szövetsége
(MAZSIHISZ), an umbrella organization of the different Jewish
communities, wrote a letter to the editor of HVG in which
he pointed out that he has in his possession a copy of the
1944 verdict which references the "return of Délvidék" and
not the "occupation." He added that the court should
have chosen "real experts"--for instance, Eniko
Sajti and György Markó who in 1985 published
a lengthy article on the subject. The two historians found
the original copy of the verdict in the Archives of Military
History and published it in Hadtörténelmi Közlemények
(Proceedings of Military History).
Zinner was indignant and claimed that the indictment he
got from the prosecution didn't include the 218-page 1944
verdict. By now one can only gasp at the sloppy work of the
prosecution. And, as we will see tomorrow, the judges were
not much better.
esbalogh.typepad.com
|