We visited Youssef M. in jail at the end of May 2026. The Regional Court ruled to continue to keep them there. On what grounds is Youssef a suspect in the Pardubice arms factory arson? What does their defence lawyer, Pavel Čižinský, say about it? And are the terrorism charges truly warranted?
Youssef Moursi, our friend and Druhá směna contributor, has been held in pre-trial detention in the town of Hradec Králové for more than two months on allegations of starting a fire at an arms factory in the town of Pardubice. All of their requests for visitors were denied, meaning they were only able to speak with their lawyer, Pavel Čižinský. For a month and a half, even the letters written to them by friends were not delivered; they only gained access to them after submitting a written complaint.
The Druhá směna editorial team was granted permission to visit at the end of May. We were the first people allowed in since Youssef’s detention in March. We are surprised – in a good way. We pick out books we want to bring them, run to the pharmacy for some vitamins, and draw up a list of questions to ask them, all the while hoping that the planned visit will not be randomly cancelled at the last minute. A week later, wearing our visitors’ badges, we are led into a room where Youssef is waiting for us. Their curls look surprisingly just as perfect as they did two months ago. We hug. A plainclothes police officer, who together with a colleague will be listening to our conversation, firmly lays down the rules that we are to follow during the visit. We are not to discuss anything that could be related to the ongoing legal proceedings. We are also forbidden from talking about the media coverage of the case and the public response to it. Youssef politely asks the officer to provide a written statement confirming that such a prohibition has been imposed, as they intend to file a complaint against it. The officer retorts that they should be grateful the prosecutor allowed the visit to take place at all, adding that there’s no guarantee that would be the case in the future – and pointedly emphasizes that he is the one who makes the rules. Youssef asks him not to threaten them: according to their lawyer, they have the right to information concerning public opinion about both the case and their own person.
We later ask Youssef’s lawyer, Pavel Čižinský, about this rule. According to him, the purpose of pre-trial detention is certainly not to cut detainees off from information but only to ensure that they do not flee, tamper with witnesses, or continue engaging in criminal activity.
“Preventing a defendant from doing anything beyond those objectives is an arbitrary exercise of power by the authorities,” Čižinský says. He considers the instructions regarding the number of books Youssef is allowed to take with him equally arbitrary. We have brought plenty of them, but the police officer initially only allows ten. A few minutes later, for reasons unknown, he changes his mind, and in the end Youssef is permitted to take only five books into the cell.
Life in the Panopticon
Surrounded by the books that Youssef is not allowed to keep, we begin our allotted ninety-minute visit, which feels like five minutes. After spending their first few days in solitary confinement, where Youssef felt depressed, it got better, they say. They are still locked in a cell for twenty-three hours a day, except for one hour spent in a small exercise yard that, according to Youssef, resembles a Foucauldian panopticon . Youssef had to read the prison regulations very carefully and insist on their rights in order to achieve a full hour of yard time. They’ve also purchased a small radio. The evening programming on Czech Radio Vltava and the occasional electronic music sets broadcast by Orlicko Radio keeps them going, they say. They write. They exercise. At one point, the conversation turns to a person who’d been detained in connection with the Pardubice case just a few days before our visit. The employee who’s been pretty much breathing down our necks throughout our entire visit immediately interjects that this is our first warning. We spend the rest of the visit talking about current domestic and international events, music, the festivals Youssef won’t be able to perform at this summer, and even the fabulous outfit they’ll wear for their first DJ set after being released. We discuss our favorite uni teachers and mutual friends. What’s the story? Who’s dating whom? We gossip because there is very little else we are allowed to do. Before long, another staff member arrives to inform us that the visit is over. We say our goodbyes.
(Un)Lawful pro-Palestinian activism
By a decision of the District Court in Pardubice dated 24 March 2026, Youssef was charged with a terrorist attack and participation in a terrorist group , and was subsequently put in custody. According to the court, they allegedly participated, as a member of the Earthquake Faction, in planning and carrying out the arson attack on the LPP Holding arms factory, in filming the attack, and subsequently publishing a statement online in which the group claimed responsibility. As early as March, through their attorney Pavel Čižinský, Youssef filed a complaint against the District Court’s decision. In it, they point to the absence of both direct and indirect evidence, as well as the lack of a more detailed description of the act they allegedly committed. They challenge the “terrorist attack” legal classification and argue that the court’s decision fails to present allegations that would justify classifying the Earthquake Faction as a terrorist organization under the Criminal Code. In the complaint, Youssef describes as utterly scandalous the fact that their involvement in activities concerning the human rights of the Palestinian population is cited as one of the grounds for the charges.
The court thus necessarily included its own political analysis in the decision, demonstrating its position on current events in the region, and criticising the Earthquake Faction for failing to mention the Hamas attack on Israel carried out three years earlier. At the same time, it made no effort to engage with the broader historical context of Israeli–Palestinian “relations,” nor with the question of how many civilians in Palestine, Lebanon, and Iran have been bombed by Israel since 7 October 2023.
At the end of April, the Regional Court in Hradec Králové rejected Youssef’s appeal. In doing so, it upheld the District Court’s earlier ruling and, with it, Youssef’s continued detention pending trial. Our editorial team has obtained a copy of the court’s decision. What remains unclear from the document is the basis on which the court considers Youssef to be a member of the Earthquake Faction. Much of the evidence cited in support of this conclusion relates instead to activities carried out as part of pro-Palestinian organizing – most notably, a planned (and legal) media campaign targeting the activities of the Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit in the Czech Republic. The decision describes at length Youssef’s participation in Signal groups coordinating the media campaign, their involvement in drafting texts containing information about the Israeli arms company, inquiries about building a website, and records showing the translation of materials related to Elbit. The court also notes that Youssef followed a Telegram channel used to inform the public about the activities of the Earthquake Faction – despite the fact that Youssef only began following the channel after the fire in Pardubice.
Another argument cited by the court for keeping Youssef in on remand is the fact that their phone contained photographs related to the fire that they had downloaded from online news articles on 20 March – that is, after the alleged arson. The court also points to the fact that, in the aftermath of the fire, Youssef observed certain security practices commonly associated with activism in the Czech Republic and elsewhere, and broadly agreed upon within activist circles. For example, they advised other activists about their rights in the event that they were contacted by the Czech Police, and informed them of the importance of legal representation and digital security. In addition, the police found on Youssef’s phone some unspecified maps or plans of the Czech Republic and Europe, as well as an article – or a conversation (the court’s decision initially refers to a “conversation”, later to an “article” [ed. note]) about direct action that stated activists should keep their involvement hidden from people in their immediate surroundings. According to the court, all of this supports the conclusion that the criminal prosecution is well-founded. Why? Because, the court argues, these facts show that Youssef did not deny their “connection to pro-Palestinian issues,” nor that they’ve been “an organizer of numerous actions relating to those issues,” and that “his connection with the other accused persons are thus obvious.” (the grammatical error mirrors the original Czech document’s mistake [ed. note])
Why do you need an alibi if you’re innocent?
On the day the fire happened – i.e., Friday, 20 March 2026 – Youssef was, according to witness testimony, not in Pardubice. They were reportedly at a venue in Prague, meaning that they have an alibi for that evening, at the very least for any direct participation in the act – a fact that was communicated to the District Court and the attending prosecutor, and reiterated in the appeal submitted to the Regional Court. However, the Regional Court’s ruling describes Youssef’s alibi as not credible, based on a WhatsApp conversation dated 21 March (i.e., again, only after and not before the fire took place). According to the court’s ruling, participants in the WhatsApp conversation are said to have been discussing how to proceed in the event of a police interview and what to say. Notably, the conversation does not address whether Youssef was in the venue in question; instead, it discusses how to justify to the police why they were there.
The court argues that such a conversation “indicates that an agreement to provide an alibi was already being created in advance, which, however, cannot stand.” It then concludes: “He would certainly not have arranged an alibi in advance if he had not done anything.” This raises several questions. A criminal act targeting Israel was carried out in a country that is uncritically aligned with Israel – so aren’t concerns about police repression quite understandable among activists advocating for the human rights of those being murdered by Israel? If one of them, or their friends, advise others on how to respond in the event of police pressure, does this contribute to a well-founded suspicion that the activist actually committed the act in question? And if, at a time when the fire was already being reported in the media, friends were discussing how to explain to the police what Youssef was doing in the venue, does that cast doubt on whether Youssef was actually present there? The Regional Court in Hradec Králové says that it does.
According to Youssef’s defence lawyer, Pavel Čižinský, the court at this stage is working with only a single piece of circumstantial evidence. The perpetrators were said to have arrived at the scene in vehicles rented from a car rental company. During a search of the apartment where Youssef lived with others (a search carried out by the police without the presence of Youssef’s defence lawyer and therefore, in his view, unlawfully), a phone with a SIM card was seized on which Youssef’s DNA was found. It was allegedly from this SIM card that a call was made to the rental company. However, when initiating the criminal proceedings, the police did not claim that it was Youssef who called the rental company, nor does the Regional Court’s ruling state this. Čižinský adds: “Your DNA can essentially be found on just about anything in your home. What the police are saying is only that there is a suspicious item found in a shared apartment where Youssef also happened to live.” As a result, Youssef is currently being held in pre-trial detention and charged directly with setting fire to the hall and with participation in a terrorist group solely on the basis of this piece of circumstantial evidence and the fact that they are a pro-Palestinian activist.
It may be that the criminal case file holds additional information, and further evidence may still emerge. However, according to several of our sources, the police are not allowing defence lawyers to inspect the case file, which Pavel Čižinský also confirmed in conversation with us. The court, by contrast, states that defence counsel have been granted access to the file. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, one of the cornerstones of the right to a defence is precisely the defence lawyer’s ability to study the file and make extracts, notes, or copies. There is therefore not only a discrepancy between the law and police practice, but also a contradiction between what the court says about the conduct of the police and what the police are in fact doing.
What is terrorism?
Just as it is unclear how the court reached the conclusion that Youssef was a member of the Earthquake Faction, it is also unclear why the court considers this group to be a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code. The court relies solely on a statement published by the group online after the fire, as well as on CCTV footage which, according to the court’s decision, captures at least nine individuals acting in mutual cooperation and in a coordinated manner. The court further states that preparations for the alleged attack are evidenced by purported communications secured from various social media platforms. However, the decision does not provide any further detail about such preparations anywhere in the ruling.
We also asked Pavel Čižinský about the reasons why the court classified the Earthquake Faction as a terrorist organisation. According to him, there is currently not enough information to justify such a designation: “Moreover, the court even claims that it fulfils the criteria for being classified as an organised criminal group. But if the legal requirements for such a group are permanence and long-term continuity (applicable to terrorist groups), and a focus on systematic criminal activity (which is how the law defines an organised criminal group), then by definition these elements cannot be demonstrated on the basis of a single isolated act. The mere fact that a group writes about something does not mean it wants or is able to carry it out.”
Following the arrest of the first suspects in the Czech Republic, an extraordinarily hostile media campaign was launched, including racist attacks against Youssef. By contrast, in the United Kingdom, leading public figures responded to what they described as a state-led witch hunt against pro-Palestinian activists by signing an open letter of support. In it, they emphasise, among other things, that international law prohibits the export of weapons to states that commit genocide or other crimes against humanity, and that an independent UN commission of inquiry has in fact described the systematic murdering of Palestinians as genocide.
Another question is why the court considers the arson of the Pardubice arms factory to be a terrorist attack in the first place. Under the Criminal Code, the intent of a terrorist attack is to damage the constitutional order or the defence capability of the state, to destroy its political, economic or social structure, to seriously intimidate the population, or to unlawfully compel a government or an international organisation to act in a certain way. In its decision, the court claims that the Earthquake Faction sought to threaten the defence capability of Israel and to unlawfully force the Czech government not to cooperate with Israel . It also allegedly intended to intimidate people living near the burned-down facility. However, Pavel Čižinský notes: “The group’s statement does not say: ‘People, be afraid, we will kill you.’ Nor does it say: ‘Government, act as we demand or we will take action.’ What it says is: ‘We want to destroy weapons that Israel uses to commit war crimes.’ And from that, in my view, you cannot infer an intent to intimidate the population, nor to compel the government to act in a certain way, nor even to threaten Israel’s defence capability. The group says it wants to prevent genocide; not to undermine a state’s defence capability, but its ability to carry out that genocide. Moreover, the court refers to different alleged intentions of a terrorist attack in different parts of its decision. And I think that if you are prosecuting someone, you should be clear about why you are doing so. It does not suffice to say, ‘You are a terrorist, and I may later decide why you are a terrorist based on whichever intent from the statute I choose.’
At the same time, the court argues that the group’s intent was also to threaten the defence capability of Ukraine , which is facing Russian aggression. It reasons that “the equipment produced by the affected company serves in the defence of that state, while the conduct in question was also capable of causing at least justified concerns among residents in the vicinity of the manufacturing complex, given its scale, about their safety and public property, and of changing their habits and patterns of everyday behaviour.” But on what basis exactly does the court derive an intent to threaten Ukraine’s defence capability, when the Earthquake Faction did not mention Ukraine at all in its statement?
It is clear that the judicial process is ideologically shaped by the Czech Republic’s friendly stance towards Israel. The Regional Court in Hradec Králové does not even attempt to suggest otherwise. In its decision, it states that the Earthquake Faction “completely disregards the fact that the State of Israel was attacked in 2023 by members of the terrorist organisation Hamas and had to defend itself against violence that was fundamentally provoked by this group, resulting in the deaths of many Israeli residents. This was a large-scale and coordinated attack involving rocket fire from the Gaza Strip and the incursion of armed militants into Israeli territory. This also triggered the current war in the Gaza Strip.”
The court thus necessarily included its own political analysis in the decision, demonstrating its position on current events in the region, and criticising the Earthquake Faction for failing to mention the Hamas attack on Israel carried out three years earlier. At the same time, it made no effort to engage with the broader historical context of Israeli–Palestinian “relations,” nor with the question of how many civilians in Palestine, Lebanon, and Iran have been bombed by Israel since 7 October 2023.
The future of the Pro-Palestine movement
Youssef is not the only person detained in the Pardubice case. Other individuals are currently being held in custody who have done a great deal of work for the Czech pro-Palestinian movement. They have organised protests, attempted to shift public opinion, and sought to pressure political representatives who, for the past three years, have been approving and supporting the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Activists in Germany and the United Kingdom are currently facing similar fates, also in connection with direct actions targeting the Israeli company Elbit. The British activists who have been proved – unlike those currently in Czech custody – to have carried out certain actions, are being charged with terrorism, not property damage . This is based, among other things, on the claim that their actions influenced the Israeli government by restricting Israel’s access to weapons.
They, too, are being deliberately held in custody for many months, sometimes even in solitary confinement.
There are, of course, differences between the individual court cases in these countries. One of them is particularly striking. Following the arrest of the first suspects in the Czech Republic, an extraordinarily hostile media campaign was launched, including racist attacks against Youssef. By contrast, in the United Kingdom, leading public figures responded to what they described as a state-led witch hunt against pro-Palestinian activists by signing an open letter of support. In it, they emphasise, among other things, that international law prohibits the export of weapons to states that commit genocide or other crimes against humanity, and that an independent UN commission of inquiry has in fact described the systematic murdering of Palestinians as genocide.
So far, we do not know who set fire to the Pardubice site of the LPP holding company. Perhaps we will never find out. The media lynching of the accused has now subsided, but that does not mean that the events following the Pardubice fire will not have lasting consequences for society. From the history of the Czech Republic and other countries, we know that explosive and fear-inducing words such as “terrorism” or “extremism,” which were used by almost all media outlets and politicians after the first suspects were detained, are often employed as a pretext for other aims. The current Czech government still unequivocally supports Israel, which continues to kill civilians in the Gaza Strip and uses increasingly brutal methods to displace the population in the West Bank . With the acquiescence and support of the United States and Europe, it is also carrying out attacks in Iran and Lebanon, and massacring medical personnel and schools there. Our ally and “best friend” abducts citizens of foreign countries on the high seas and subjects them to brutal violence (including sexual violence). None of this has bothered the Czech mainstream media or politicians. And yet, in complete disregard of the principle of the presumption of innocence, they have managed to pre-emptively condemn those accused of starting a fire in which no one was injured, and turn them into enemies of democracy.
Youssef has been charged, on the basis of the entirely insufficient evidence described above, with a particularly serious offence carrying the possibility of lifelong imprisonment. They may spend up to four years on remand before a court decides on their guilt or innocence: a third of this time could be spent on during the preparatory proceedings, and the remaining two thirds awaiting trial. Four years! Sixteen changes of seasons. Four birthday celebrations with Youssef’s loved ones; four summerfuls of music festivals. Completing their university degree. Instead, they may be stuck in a cell without even knowing why they are being prosecuted. A few final questions remain: If any of us were charged with a criminal offence in the Czech Republic, can we be sure that our right to a fair trial would be upheld? And if so, why? Because we don’t publicly defend the human rights of Palestinians? Is this the future of the country that we want to live in?
One way of making donations to cover necessary legal representation for the defendants is via the CzechElbit11 initiative campaign This article was written by Eliška Koldová, Michaela Švandová, and Maja Vusilović. It was originally published in Druhá: směna , a Czech feminist web magazine. Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@newarab.com Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.