Seszták case: the NVVH also responded to the expert opinion requested due to the tracking dog

The NVVH responded to claims regarding the tracking dog's signals in the Seszták case, asserting that these signals can be considered as evidence. Seszták's defense argued that the dog's alerts should not be treated as proof, but the NVVH emphasized that the dog's behavior is relevant in legal proceedings. The court extended Seszták's detention, citing risks of evidence tampering. The case involves allegations of significant bribery during Seszták's ministerial term, with the tracking dog's signals being a key factor in questioning his credibility. The defense maintains that the expert's opinion contradicts the NVVH's assertions about the dog's signals.