Updating the Dataset on Presidential Pardon (working paper No Mercy)

I updated the data on presidential pardons and amnesty decisions in Slovakia to cover the full period from 1993 to 2025. This dataset compiles statistics on pardon applications, granted pardons, amnesty pardons, and amnesties issued by presidents and acting heads of state. It includes a codebook and an individual tab presenting the data for each president. The data is compiled based on reporting by the Office of the President, accessible at: <https://www.prezident.sk/page/milosti-a-amnestie/>.

In Slovakia, the head of state holds the power of mercy (albeit the government can grant amnesty for administrative offences under section 90 of Act No 372/1990 Coll. on Administrative Offences), which can take the form of an individual pardon or general amnesty. Both serve as an exceptional tool to mitigate the harshness of the law. 

Pardons are based on a request for pardon. Amnesties, by contrast, involve a broader political act of collective clemency, typically concerning a defined category of offences. Since 2017, the Parliament has had the power to annul presidential grants of amnesty or individual pardons if they are deemed to violate the principles of a democratic and rule-of-law-based state. In such a case, the Constitutional Court reviews the annulment within 60 days, and if it does not strike it down (or decide), the amnesty or pardon is abolished. This mechanism was adopted based on prior experience with the abuse of mercy powers for self-pardon.

The dataset is accessible at: <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_D9n80uR0juyJi-zeK_35rmxnufkX_5tmZm6u_K-z9s/edit?usp=sharing>

___

The data show two distinct periods with an increased number of pardon applications: the years immediately following Slovak independence, from 1993 to 2000, and the term of President Zuzana Čaputová. “Why these two periods?” is an interesting question, which I try to answer in an article I am writing. 

The numbers in the early 1990s can likely be explained by the zeitgeist of the time. The expectations of potential early leniency/mercy from the president in the early years of the republic were likely due to the fact that Slovakia was still rebuilding after the collapse of communism in 1989, which was a historical period marred by legal and moral injustice. During this period, a presidential pardon or amnesty may still have carried symbolic meaning, which was later lost after arbitrary use and abuse of power. 

By contrast, the recent rise in applications during Čaputová’s presidency seems to be more closely tied to the individual in the office than the institutional role and expectations. As a highly trusted and publicly empathetic figure (and the first woman in the office), Čaputová may have inspired greater public engagement with the clemency process, despite the fact that her exercise of it remained relatively measured and in line with her peers. 

Even more interesting, however, is the steady decline in pardons granted and the complete disappearance of amnesties, regardless of demand. This long-term shift reflects broader institutional and socio-political changes in how Slovakia views and practises mercy, shaped by its history with Meciar’s Amnesties.

If you are interested in this subject, I welcome your thoughts at simondrugda@gmail.com. You can also look out for my forthcoming article (if I finish it), “No Mercy,” which will critically examine the disuse of presidential mercy in Slovakia and what it reveals about changes in the constitutional culture in the country.