While the justice minister said that inquiry would probably be extended to the judiciary, a probe has already been launched by the Supreme Court.

The announcements came after Tuesday's meeting between Fišer and Justice Minister Senko Pličanič over the disappearance of Tovšak after she was released from custody last Friday on procedural grounds. Some media speculate this involved the failure of the Specialised Group of Prosecutors to demand an extension of detention in time.

Fišer was urged to launch a review of the procedures by Pličanič, he however said that he had decided for this even before the minister's call.

He expects that a report on why the former boss of bankrupt builder Vegrad - who is presumed on the run and the subject of an international arrest warrant - was allowed to walk free and demanded back into custody a day later, could be ready by 30 May.

The 62-year-old was released from custody on Friday where she was being held since 28 February ahead of a trial over suspected bribery in organising cheap migrant labour for the construction of a coal-fired generator at the TEŠ power plant in Šoštanj.

Despite pending calls to Tovšak to start serving prison sentences for two other cases and ongoing investigations in around 20 more, she was said to have been released because the prosecution had lowered the charges against her in a cheap labour scheme case.

Pličanič said that his further actions, possibly an extension of oversight onto the judiciary, would depend on the response from the prosecution.

The minister again pointed out that a faster decision on how Tovšak is to serve her 14-month sentence in a separate public tender fraud case in which the conviction became final already in March - the execution was delayed because of her request to serve with community service - could have prevented this development.

Fišer did not wish to comment on the work of the prosecution before the results of the review, saying prosecutors were independent, and rejected calls, notably by former Interior Minister Vinko Gorenak, to resign on the basis of objective responsibility.

A review of procedures was also ordered today by Supreme Court President Branko Masleša, who wants the Ljubljana Higher Court and the Maribor Higher Court to look into why it took so long to process Tovšak's community service appeal in Ljubljana and why the lowered the charge in Maribor came without a new request for detention. Masleša expects a report by next Monday.

Meanwhile, the head of the Specialised Group of Prosecutors Harij Furlan, who seems to have been the one handling Tovšak's last case, announced today he would reign in case it turns out that a mistake had been made in the procedure.

Furlan, who said he would send a report to minister Pličanič on Wednesday, claims that he filed the request for an extension of Tovšak's detention with the court before she was released.

Tovšak's lawyer claims the opposite, arguing that this is why the court had to let her walk free.

Unofficially, the issue is expected to be discussed by those involved at a meeting with PM Alenka Bratušek later this week.

The story got another ironic twist today, with unofficial reports saying that the Ljubljana District Court had rejected Tovšak's appeal to serve her sentence.

In fact, it issued a call to Tovšak to start serving her 14-month prison sentence in the Clean Shovel case in which she was found guilty of attempting to rig a public tender along with two other construction bosses.

A comment of the developments has been provided by Bojan Dobovšek of the Maribor Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, who noted that Tovšak's release from detention could have been prevented with better coordination among the prosecutors.

He noted that it is not certain that a procedural mistake had occurred, while he also explained that the deadlines for enforcing a prison sentence or deciding on a community service request were not clearly laid down.

As regards a possible penalising of the prosecutor in case a mistake is confirmed, Dobovšek said that everyone makes mistakes and that a criminal offence, such as omission or failure to act, would need to be proven.