documents and there exists a possibility that if they were released on bail they would intimidate witnesses to change their testimonies. Their appeal against arrest was rejected by the District Court on 5 May. After interviewing some 200 witnesses, the analysis of company documents, experts' findings and data from the company's computers (some of which was recovered by computer specialists) the prosecutors allege that the accused were responsible for failing to remove heavy snow and ice from the building's roof, and also that in the past, the roof had gotten damaged and yet they carried out only emergency repairs and did not report the damage to a building inspector as required by Polish law. Earlier the managers claimed both that the snow was removed from the roof and that it was impossible for them to clear the roof because a Tax Office seized their accounts due to tax arrears. A spokesperson for the Tax Office refuted this claim saying that only some of the company's cash was seized and amounts remaining should have been more than sufficient to pay for snow and ice removal. On 31 March 2006, the commission investigating causes of the disaster released a preliminary report into their findings. They found numerous design and construction flaws that contributed to the speed of the collapse. The snow from the roof was not being removed which resulted in construction overload by more than 100%. Moreover, in 2002 the construction buckled under the heavy snow; contrary to the regulations the hall was repaired without getting a building inspector's clearance and without doing necessary tests and calculations to determine if the construction was stable and had sufficient strength. On Monday, 26 June 2006, three architects who designed the hall were arrested. Two were charged with "wilfully causing a building catastrophe" and by this causing the death of 65 people, the third one was charged with "involuntarily causing a building catastrophe." The prosecutor alleges that Jacek J. and Szczepan K. made several errors and introduced several amendments to the project that were not agreed upon. Both were aware of the fact that in January 2000 the roof buckled under the weight of the snow, yet they did not take any steps to remedy the situation and perhaps prevent the tragedy. The third architect, Andrzej W., is charged with approving the project despite its errors and deficiencies. The charges are the result of