The complete removal of the secrecy classification covering the pre-trial investigation materials.

The 24 April 2024 Telephone Interrogation

Demand: Immediate disclosure of the audio recording and original interrogation protocol.

The interrogation record contains critical deficiencies that call its procedural validity into question:

• Missing authorisation: The document is marked “Read, presented for review and approved,” yet it bears no signature from me. I dispute having approved its contents.
• Linguistic rights: The pre-filled section concerning rights and obligations was not translated to me. The protocol contains no confirmation that an interpreter translated this essential procedural information.
• Questioning conditions: The interrogation was conducted by telephone while I was travelling on a moving commuter train. The noisy environment raises serious concerns about whether I had a genuine opportunity to understand the proceedings, exercise my procedural rights, or obtain legal assistance.
• Need for independent assessment: The recording and protocol are required for an independent expert to assess the alleged procedural defect and potential violation of the privilege against self-incrimination, in light of Article 6 ECHR and Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Structural Physical Impossibility

Demand: Removal of the secrecy classification from the police photographs, particularly Photo No. 4, documenting the structural obstacles at the scene. The defence must have unrestricted access to this material to conduct an independent technical assessment.

Thesis: The alleged dropping of an object weighing approximately 10 kg is structurally impossible under the conditions documented at the scene. The account of the second complainant concerning the position of the door, together with the fixed obstacles, excludes the action described in the charge.

Structural obstruction above the doorway. The photographic evidence shows large cat-climbing structures projecting directly above the doorway. This obstruction blocks the vertical line of descent. A 10 kg stool could not pass through the described trajectory without striking the structure.

Geometric constraint created by the door. The complainant states that the door was only partially open. In that position, the door leaf creates an additional obstruction, further narrowing the available space. The combined geometry of the climbing structure, door, and frame leaves insufficient clearance for the movement alleged in the charge.

Absence of physical damage. Police Photo No. 4 shows the climbing structures upright and apparently undamaged. The absence of visible impact damage is inconsistent with the alleged trajectory of a heavy object and requires a technical explanation.

Causal Link Analysis: Injury Location and Physical Mechanism

Thesis: The location and characteristics of the injury described as being on the lower leg are incompatible with the alleged mechanism of a ladder or stool strike.

Location versus trajectory. A 10 kg stool falling from above would be expected to produce a substantial impact injury, potentially including severe bruising or fracture. The two small superficial scratches visible in the photograph identified as Annex 1 are inconsistent with the alleged impact energy.

Mechanical incompatibility. The geometric obstruction prevents an unobstructed fall along the alleged trajectory toward the lower leg. The location of the scratches appears more consistent with lateral friction than with a vertical impact from a heavy object.

Unreliability of the visual evidence. The photograph is unclear and does not independently establish when the injury occurred or whom it depicts. Its evidentiary limitations prevent it from conclusively demonstrating the alleged cause or mechanism.

Expert Assessment of the Changed Account

The Court is requested to take into account a material change in the complainant’s account:

These descriptions are psychologically and legally incompatible. The change in the account raises the question of whether the facts were deliberately reshaped.

Demand: Access to the original recordings for an expert in forensic psychology or cognitive analysis to assess the reliability and consistency of the testimony.

Excessive Delay and the Right to a Hearing Within a Reasonable Time

Demand: The Court is requested to provide an official explanation for the 22-month delay in the proceedings.

The delay raises concerns under Article 6 ECHR and the standards developed by the European Court of Human Rights. It threatens legal protection, weakens the defence’s ability to analyse evidence, and forces the defendant to live under the continuing shadow of a wrongful conviction, functioning in practice as an additional punishment outside the formal sentence.

The Court is also requested to confirm the final hearing date.

Awaiting Response

The formal demand submitted to the Helsinki Court of Appeal on 23 April 2026 remains unanswered. The absence of a response leaves the requested disclosure and procedural questions unresolved and reinforces concerns about institutional maladministration.

A demand for transparency is not a demand for preferential treatment. It is a demand for the materials necessary to examine the evidence, test the prosecution’s account, and make the right to a fair trial effective.