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.
For context, here is the most prominent independent Hungarian newspaper’s report (they lean liberal, anti Orbán government):
https://telex.hu/belfold/2026/02/04/maja-t-antifa-per-itelet-antifasizmus-szelsojobboldal-ilaria-salis
Apparently there was witness testimony that was actually crucial in establishing the verdict as being “committed in a criminal organisation”.
From what I heard, in Hungary people at large feel upset about the attacks regardless of political affiliation, and in general the most problematic part is that the alleged leader was elected MEP in Italy and had to be released.
Also, while the independence of the courts is under attack in Hungary, it’s the one brach of government that actually is largely independent still. The only suspicious activity is around corruption cases. I wouldn’t write the judge off as a hack.
The judge found Maja guilty of seriously injuring people though. Also, neither english nor german articles are explaining which “criminal organization” Maja belongs to, nor what constitutes such an organisation or being a member of it under hungarian law.
Secondly, all other extradition repuests associated to the Budapest Complex have been denied by courts in France, Germany and Italy, either initially or after an appeal. In Germany because there were german arrest warrants issued that had priority, in France and Italy because either the courts deemed the defendant’s risks if being subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment too high or because Hungary couldn’t provide sufficient guarantees the defendant’s right to a fair process would be respected.
Thirdly, the fears about last point apparently was proven right, sadly by the treatment of Maja T. by hungarian security and prison forces. A bedbug cockroach infested prison cell too small, insufficient food supplies, restrictions on visits by the german lawyer, being tied up and stripped naked for extended periods of time for inspections, lack of sunlight and psychological abuse.