The Sotirya murder

1. Key facts of the case

In August 2019, a six-year-old girl was found dead in the Sliven-based village of Sotirya. The police traced a suspect who had escaped the crime scene and was hiding. Hours later the police declared wanted a 21-year-old man from the same village. After a chase, the suspect was shot in the leg and arrested. Later, he was accused in raping and killing the girl. At his capturing, he confessed committing the crime. The court left him in custody throughout the trial. In January 2020, the arrested person was sentenced to life without parole and to financial compensation to victim’s family. The brutality of the crime provoked serious media attention from the case’s very beginning. Victim’s close ones organized protest rallies which urged for legislative changes that did not allow a person who had made confession to have a punishment reduced.

2. Applicable law

The defendant was accused in committing three offences:

1) intentionally causing the death of an underage person by extreme cruelty (Art. 116 (1) of the Penal Code) punishable by 15 to 20 years of imprisonment, to life or life sentence without parole.

2) attempted raping of a girl aged under 14 years old, (Art. 149 (3) of the Penal Code), punishable by between 10 and 20 years of imprisonment.

3) using force against a person under the age of 14 for satisfaction of sexual desire without intercourse, punishable by between 3 and 10 years of imprisonment (Art. 149 (3) of the Penal Code).

This case provoked protest rallies which requested existing legislation to be amended so that the defendant should not have the right to be sentenced under the abridged procedure and respectively get a reduced sentence for premeditated murder.

The justice authorities in the region of Sliven investigat#_ftn1ed the crime under the general proceedings and the sentence was announced after the mentioned legislation changes were voted. It was later appealed at the Burgas Appellate Court and the Supreme Court of Cassation where it is pending as of February 2021.

3. Criminal proceedings

By the end of the day on which the police were informed of the crime, they declared a 21-year old person from the same village wanted without officially linking this to the rape and murder case. They searched the region chasing the suspect. He was arrested 17 hours later and taken to hospital with a wound in his leg. He was there placed under strict security. There, at the presence of an ex-officio lawyer he was formally charged with murder, fornication and attempted rape. The detention hearing, at which the court had to decide if to leave the accused in custody when the set by law term of the arrest expired, was also heard in the hospital. The court decided to leave the person permanently in custody.

The Prosecutor’s office brought the case to court in November 2019.

On 30 January 2020 the Sliven District Court sentenced the accused man to life sentence without parole. In July 2020, the second instance Burgas Appellate Court confirmed the sentence.

As of 2021, the case is pending at the highest instance of the Supreme Court of Cassation where it awaits hearing on 15 February 2021.

4. Disclosure of information

The police were the first institution to officially disclose information about the case. As under the Bulgarian legislation within the pre-trial phase, investigative authorities should disclose information after the approval of the supervising prosecutor on the particular case, Prosecutor’s office was the other institution that officially made public announcements.

Initially, the police declared a 21-year man from the same village wanted. Despite he was not directly linked to the murder and rape case but rather announced wanted for a “serious offence”, unofficial sources as witnesses and neighbours had already spread the information that this was the murder suspect. The official announcement included person’s three names, age and two photos.

During the search, the Ministry of the Interior’s Secretary General was on site giving interviews to the media about the ongoing chase where he shared details about the time when the crime was reported and the actions that police had undertaken to identify the suspected person. He also shared some characteristics of the searched person: “a 21-year-old man, previously convicted, with criminal registrations, antisocial, unemployed, in serious financial condition and afraid of dogs”. Additionally, he informed that the suspect who had been spotted in the area, was not armed and that there was no information about him being aggressive.

At the afternoon, when the suspected person was captured, the Secretary General and the Sliven District Prosecutor held a press conference to announce the arrest. There, they informed that the suspect had been shot at and the doctors had to clarify if he was wounded by the shots or earlier during the chase. They also disclosed that the arrested person had two previous convictions – for fornication and for petty thefts.

Before the suspect was officially charged, the district prosecutor disclosed the following data: “The suspect is 21-year-old Martin Trifonov. He is unemployed, antisocial, has no friendships, his family is in a very difficult financial situation, he has no education “, explained the Secretary General of the Ministry of Interior. “He was convicted and was imprisoned for fornication against his relative,” he added. („Заподозреният е 21-годишният Мартин Трифонов. Той е безработен, асоциален тип, няма приятелства, семейството му е в много тежко финансово положение, той е без образование”, обясни главният секретар на МВР. “Осъждан е и е лежал в затвора за прояви на блудство към негова близка”, допълни още той.)

In a TV interview, the Ministry of the Interior’s Secretary General said: “We confirm that he is the perpetrator of the brutal murder. He resisted the arrest. He was taken to the Sliven hospital.” (“Потвърждаваме, че той е извършителят на жестокото убийство. При задържането е оказал съпротива. Откаран е в сливенската болница”, каза още той.)

After the arrest and the formal accusation of the suspect, the Prosecutor’s office was the main institution that disclosed information on the case. It published a news item at the central Prosecutor’s Office website informing that the local prosecutor would ask the court to leave the accused person in detention. Another announcement informed about the court decision for the accused person to be left in custody. It also listed the formal constitution of the crimes for which the man was accused. He was there mentioned with his first name and the initial of his family name.

On 19 August in a TV interview, the Prosecutor General’s spokesperson announced that the accused person had a previous conviction for fornication and attempt for a rape for which he had been sentenced conditionally to eight months of imprisonment with term of two years. The spokesperson shared her personal opinion that such punishment was not severe enough for that grave crime. She also shared a part of the accused person’s testimony confessing about the way he had committed the crime, the weapon he had used and the fact that he had done it after the use of alcohol.

The Sliven District Prosecutor also spoke to the media. He shared that DNA samples had proven that the suspect had committed the crime: “Officially, the perpetrator’s DNA profile was found on the victim. This is beyond doubt. He made self-confessions. Everything has been proven,” Stefanov said. (“Официално има намерен ДНК профил на извършителя вурху жертвата. Това е категорично. Той направи самопрознания. Всичко е доказано”, каза Стефанов.)

When the court held a hearing in the hospital to decide to leave the accused man in detention, his official defender also spoke to the media disclosing that he was aware of what he has done.

The next press statement of the Prosecutor’s Office came up on 25 November 2019 when the case was brought to court. The announcement informed only about the bringing to court and about the three crimes which the accused person would be sought liable for. A similar news items was published to inform about the first-instance sentence. All of the Prosecutor’s office announcement did not include any visual materials besides a photo of the regional courthouse.

The spokesperson of District Court in which jurisdiction was the case, also spoke to the media. He was, however, interviewed personally by one media that asked about if the case was brought to court and when would be the hearing scheduled for. He also explained the formal grounds for the conviction and the fact that the full procedure would be observed because of the legislative changes provoked by the same case.

The Burgas Appellate Court at which the case was appealed, published a press-statement at its website and at its Facebook page providing information about the appeal claim and the opinion of each of the sides. Another press-statement informed about the court’s decision to confirm the first-instance sentence providing details on the court’s motives.

5. Media coverage

The media published extensive information and many details around the offence from its very beginning. The murder and the chase of the suspect were a breaking story in all media. They were accompanied by the commentaries of prominent lawyers, psychologists, and officials.

Since the very beginning, a number of media sent their own reporters on site. Together with the detailed information about the crime, they aired footage of the crime scene and interviews of a number of eye-witnesses. The chase and capture of the suspect, including by volunteers, as well as the announcement about the crime and the public calls for citizens to avoid acting alone if they notice the fugitive, combined with the fact that most people from the small village either knew or have met the suspect within the same day, helped the media to get much information more or less related to the case and to the personality of the suspect.

Initially, the circulated information on the personality of the suspect was related to what the local people needed to know about him if they came upon him while he was running away. Such information was about his fear of dogs. Many other features were, however, also disclosed as him being unemployed, with family undergoing financial difficulties, his being antisocial, etc.

Many people testified to had seen him at the day of the offence. Most of them were interviewed. In addition to what they knew about the offence and the search, they shared everything they knew about the suspect – about his habits, his character and alleged previous offences: “I have had an impression of him for quite a long time. He lives mainly on petty theft. He steals from the homes of the elderly. He often lives in houses that have no owners or are abandoned” („Имам впечатление от него от доста дълго време. Той се изхранва предимно с дребни кражби. Краде от домовете на възрастни хора. Често обитава къщи, в които няма собственици или са изоставени”) a witness said in an interview.

A TV channel aired footage of the suspect who had been interviewed a year ago on another occasion. This footage was circulated as his wanted photo.

At the time of the arrest, the case had already attracted immense media attention. After the accused person was arrested, the media aired feature stories that often proposed elements of judgement and evaluation.

Under media information he had often committed rapes and robberies but the village mayor interviewed claimed no one ever filed official complains to the police. Additionally, many media noted that under unofficial sources, the accused had been sexually harassed in the Burgas prison while serving his previous sentence.

Some media went further by labeling the suspect “monster” and “freak”. Headlines like: “The freak from Sotirya, who raped and killed little Christine, whines in a complaint to the court” (Изродът от Сотиря, изнасилил и убил малката Кристин, хленчи в жалба до съда) and “A year ago, the torturer of the girl from Sotirya was lamenting that … VIDEO” (Преди година душманинът на момиченцето от Сотиря ревнал, че… ВИДЕО).

Blitz.bg was one of the tabloid online media that used strongest qualification on the account of the accused. In its article “The problems of the cruel murderer from Sotirya are becoming more and more serious” he is referred to as “the cruel murderer”, “the perverted Roma”, “monster” when informing about the difficulty to find a lawyer. The same article made other intimations, for example, when speaking about the accused’s health status and his being in hospital, they put the expression “when he recovers” in quotes suggesting that he was not truly ill or injured.

During the appeal phase, some media emphasized on the fact that the convicted person expected “mercy” from the higher court instances. They pointed out the grounds for the appeal, namely the inhumane nature of the gravest punishment within the Bulgarian legislation – the life sentence without parole. The illustrative visual material presented the defendant in a wheelchair or walking on crutches, looking down and humble. Other media’s headlines were judging, suggesting that the convicted person’s appeal procedure is an arrogant act: “The sadist from Sotirya is appealing a sentence that was inhumane” (Садистът от Сотиря жали присъда, била нехуманна).

Generally, the media did not mention the offender’s ethnicity or belonging to any other vulnerable group and such belonging was generally not in the focus of the public discussion. Some media who published judging comments about the accused, mentioned his ethnic belonging to the Roma community. Blitz.bg called him “the perverted Roma” (извратения ром) and “the 22-year-old gypsy” (22-годишния циганин) but this fact remained out of focus. At political level, the member of the nationalist VMRO party and a Minister of the Defense Krasimir Karakachanov linked the crime to the problems of the Roma in Bulgaria, calling them a non-socialised community, insisting for a policy concept of his to be considered by the Government.

6. Impact on the suspect or accused person and on the general public

The specifics of the case and its investigation predetermined the involvement of many people who were not directly linked to the criminal proceedings – the high number of witnesses, the chase volunteers, the victim’s family at the initial stage, followed by criminal experts – lawyers, psychologists and psychiatrists and politicians. The initial information about the offence was accompanied by the comments of many people from the community expressing fear and abhorrence by the cruelty of the crime. Everybody interviewed shared personal experience from their acquaintance with the victim and with the suspect sharing facts of different relevance. The village mayor, for example, said: „He was strange and did not communicate with people. A man who has been neglected and sloppy has no one to be his friend and to communicate with him. He loses the socium and maybe that has made him so far away from humanity.“ (“Беше със странен характер и не общуваше с хората. Един човек като се е изоставил и е мърляв, няма кой да му е приятел и да комуникира с него. Губи средата и може би това го е направило толкова далечен на човещината.“).

Upon suspect’s arrest, Nova TV channel aired an interview with suspect’s mother who allegedly helped him escape from the police. She told the reporter about her son’s childhood – the family had been in the middle of a divorce when the suspect had to live with his father and sometimes was beaten by him. The mother also showed the suspect’s old photos and childhood drawings – of female figures.

The director of the State Psychiatric Hospital Doctor Tsveteslava Galabova commented: “I’d rather have my taxes spent on keeping him in prison than getting him out of prison in 20 years. Then, he’ll be the same, only more sophisticated.” (“Предпочитам с моите данъци да го отглеждаме до живот в затвора, отколкото да излезе след 20 години. Тогава ще е същият, само че по-усъвършенстван”). In the same TV appearance she also commented the personality of the accused person “In this case we have a primate – an extraordinary primitive creature who lives on sexual urges and instincts.” Her opinion was republished in a number of other media.

At first, victim’s mother and grandmother publicly blamed the emergency doctors who first came on the crime scene for not doing enough to save the child victim – this was the most reflected by media aspect together with elaborating on the two women’s grief.

At the end of August, when the arrested person was already accused in the crime and after it became clear that under the Bulgarian legislation, if he had made a confession he might have his sentence reduced from life without parole (the gravest) to 30 years of imprisonment, the victim’s family and their community organized a petition and a protest rally urging for legislative changes that should not allow people charged with intentional murder to get use of such advantage. The petition gained immense popularity and was practically supported at all legislative and government levels by ministers and MPs. The amendments were later voted and the accused was sentenced to the maximum term.

There were discussions at political level which resulted in more radical public speaking. Besides linking the crime to the problems of the Roma in Bulgaria, the nationalist VMRO party raised the issues of changes to the Penal Code to introduce chemical castration to people sentenced for pedophilia. A number of criminal and legal experts shared publicly their doubts about the efficiency of this approach.

A contrasting analysis presented the crime in Sotirya as an event that had erased interethnic differences uniting the Roma and Bulgarian communities in their sorrow for the death of the young child and in their shock from the cruelty of the perpetrator.

When published online, news about the case provoked immense readers’ reactions. The predominating comments in online and social media urged for revenge and death sentence for a crime of such scales. The suspected/and later accused man was given different qualifications as “freak” (изрод) and “monster” (урод).

Sources

Lex News (2019). Окончателно: Без съкратено съдебно следствие за умишлено убийство, 9 October 2019.

Мinistry of the Interior (2019) Полицията издирва 21 – годишен за тежко криминално престъпление, Press Release, 16 August 2019.

Мinistry of the Interior (2019) Полицаи, жандармеристи, гранични служители с кучета, планински спасители и служители на Държавното горско стопанство претърсват огромен периметър в околностите на с.Сотиря, Press release, 16 August 2019.

Мinistry of the Interior (2019) В ранния следобед 21-годишният мъж е установен и задържан, Press release, 16 August 2019.

Nova TV (2019) ЕКСКЛУЗИВНО: Хванаха предполагаемия убиец на детето в Сотиря. 16 August 2019

Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Bulgaria (2019) Окръжна прокуратура – Сливен внесе в съда искане за налагане на мярка за неотклонение „задържане под стража“ спрямо Мартин Т., обвинен в блудство, изнасилване и убийство на малолетно момиче, 19 August 2019.

Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Bulgaria (2019) По искане на Окръжна прокуратура – Сливен, съдът задържа под стража Мартин Т., обвинен в блудство, изнасилване и убийство на малолетно момиче, чиято смърт е причинена с особена жестокост и по особено мъчителен за жертвата начин, 19 August 2019.

Nova TV (2019). Ден на траур в Сливен след убийството на 7-годишно момиче, 19 August 2019. And Barzakov, Yordan (2019) Убиецът от Сотиря нападнал Кристин с камък, чака го 30 г. затвор? Dnes.bg, 19 August 2019

Nova TV (2019) ДНК проба потвърди: Мартин Трифонов е изнасилил и убил детето в Сотиря. 18 Август 2019.

Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Bulgaria (2019) Окръжна прокуратура – Сливен предаде на съд Мартин Т., обвинен в опит за съвкупление, съвкупление и убийство на малолетно момиче, извършено по особено мъчителен за детето начин и с особена жестокост, 25 November 2019.

Apellate Court – Burgas (2020) Апелативен съд – Бургас обяви за решаване дело за опит за изнасилване, блудствени действия и убийство на 6 г. дете от с. Сотиря, община Сливен, 14 July 2020