Slovakia's police have declined to initiate criminal proceedings against three activists who aimed to test the implications of a December amendment to the Penal Code. This amendment established criminal liability for questioning the Beneš decrees, which are legal acts related to post-World War II territorial arrangements. The activists, comprising lawyer János Fiala-Butora, Hungarian Alliance politician Örs Orosz, and activist Attila Stubendek, launched a petition against collective guilt and reported themselves as a form of civil disobedience.

The contentious law, which imposes a penalty of up to six months in prison for denying or questioning the legal framework laid down by Czechoslovak or Slovak National Council acts after World War II, has raised concerns over its constitutionality. The Constitutional Court of Slovakia is currently reviewing the law’s compliance with the nation’s Constitution, a critical inquiry given its implications for free speech and historical discourse. This situation has sparked a national discussion on the balance between collective memory and individual rights.

The police's rejection of the activists' report was based on three main reasons, although the specifics were not disclosed in the content provided. This decision underscores the legal ambiguities surrounding the enforcement of the new law and highlights ongoing tensions within Slovakia regarding historical narratives and the interpretation of collective justice in contemporary society. As such, the public and legal communities are closely monitoring the developments surrounding this issue, anticipating further guidance from the Constitutional Court in the near future.