Maja T., a nonbinary anti-fascist activist from Germany, has been sentenced to eight years in prison in Budapest. The trial has been controversial and has political implications.
What I could not find in articles published in English is a mention of the very thin line of evidence. From Tagesschau (German article, translated with Deepl):
Little incriminating evidence
During the trial, the prosecution presented little evidence. Neither witness statements nor DNA evidence incriminated the accused. The prosecution argued on the basis of circumstantial evidence based on footage from a security camera near one of the crime scenes.
The prosecution stated that Maja T. could be seen in these images together with other attackers. The defence countered that the person who was supposed to be T. clearly did not have a weapon with her.
How is Hungary still a EU member? Extraditions in the EU are almost automatic, this requires trust in each others justice and prison systems. If there is no trust, then there can’t be extraditions of national citizens to other states. This system is quite extraordinary and remarkable (extraditions between states in some federal states are more complicated), but only works on bases of trust and compatible systems with not too different laws and practices.
Yes, Hungary is an EU member state. However, in this case is far more complex than an automated extradition. Maja’s lawyer protested, a court authorized it, the extradition was rushed while a temporal injunction request to the federal constitutional court was pending, police acted before the courts decision, it’s a mess and the officials responsible should be out of jobs but will probably never suffer any consequences.