Slovak legal expert Daniel Lipšic says lawmakers should return to harsher criminal penalties and longer limitation periods after the elections, warning that politicians and offenders cannot permanently sideline honest police and prosecutors. He points to two legislative drafts, one halted by the Constitutional Court and another debated in parliament. Lipšic argues both aimed to ensure that those involved in serious crime were punished less, effectively turning them into “witnesses” rather than “perpetrators”. Lipšic also discusses process changes, saying the current direction would shorten the time from investigation to court by removing too much formalisation. He adds that extending the limitation periods and adjusting procedure could change how cases move through the system. On parliamentary timing, he describes a parliamentary standing order that forbids submitting a bill on the same matter within a set period, while stressing that what counts as the “same matter” is ultimately an internal parliamentary question. He says the Constitutional Court could rule on violations but would likely be cautious because the rules are meant for parliament. Lipšic says a new bill on so-called cooperators could still appear if it is not fully identical, but warns it could take a long time. He estimates that a standard legislative process with debate and readings could push action to spring 2027. He explains that changes to criminal procedure apply to ongoing cases, even if later repealed, unlike changes to the criminal code where a more lenient rule can benefit offenders under retroactivity in their favor. He also responds to how the Constitutional Court handled the earlier cooperators amendment, urging people to read the full decision rather than only the headline. He says the court annulled the part connected to criminal procedure on cooperators, including a ban on parliament dictating how judges should assess the credibility of testimony, while criticising separate struck-down changes related to freedom of expression. Lipšic argues that judges must evaluate whether to believe a cooperators witness and give reasons, considering supporting evidence and any relevant contradictions. He says the practical impact would be to complicate large organised crime cases, where direct evidence may be scarce and multiple collaborators’ statements can fit together like a puzzle.