Reported by Petros Yiotis (kontra)
The judge announced the rejection of all objections of
initially acquitted defendants regarding admissibility of the
appeal by the public prosecutors. The court decided that the prosecutors'
appeals should become formally accepted. Public prosecutor E.
Goytzamani announced that she possesses a report of the Security
Authorities that includes an expertise report on keys found in
one of the safe-houses (Patmou). On the grounds of her intention
to submit this report as evidence at the right time, she made
it available for the defendants' information.
This is a repetition of what happened in the first trial.
An ongoing investigation throughout the trial
that produces evidence to cater for the needs of the bill of indictment
and media expediency. This has already happened with the
supposed keys of Yiotopoulos, that appeared half way through the
first trial, when poverty of evidence against Yiotopoulos was
obvious, in order to support the allegations against him.
The defence reacted to this. It stressed that there should
be a limit to the involvement of the police. The report in question
is no document and following the end of the investigation such
research can only be commissioned by the court. The particular
report should be removed now. Otherwise the charges become moving
sand and that follows the development of the trial. All evidence
belongs to the jurisdiction of the court, with the Police serving
as guardians. The guardian cannot conduct interrogative actions
that are not ordered by the court. According to the article of 6 ESDA (European
Convention of Human Rights), the defendant has to know what the
indictment is exactly and what evidence supports it at the beginning
of a trial. If this is not the case, if interrogation is continued
during the process, a fair trial is not possible. If this report
is accepted the trial is returning to medieval juridical practices.
The chairman announced that the court reserves decisions
about this demand of defence.
Following this, the defence submitted demand that media
including TV is allowed the transmission of the trial. This was
objected to by the repentant Patroclos Tselendis who is collaborating
with the police as well as the public prosecutor. The defence
proved with thorough reasoning that the law that permits prohibition
of radio-television transmission, even if this is one of the defendants
wishes, is contrary to the Greek Constitution and to article 6
Convention of Human Rights). This law (law 3090/2002) was voted
in very close to the beginning of the first trial for the affair
of 17N (following the arrests and the end of interrogation). It
was an ad hoc law, that was made to regulate
two aspects of these trials: the way judges are selected (with
prequalification) and the prohibition of television transmission.
Why is this? For the reason that the former Prime Minister
Mr Mitsotakis explained cynically last week: "It is a shame
to give television tribune to the terrorists".
They were arrested, publicly ridiculed on television,
they were portrayed as the arrestees wanted, they were rendered
in absentia political detainees, a trial was set up with provocative
manipulations and when the time came that they themselves would
be heard, their voices, their arguments, their defence, their
political reasoning, a radio and television blackout is imposed
on a trial that even public access of is prevented (The specially
prepared courtroom is in Koridalos, a distant suburb instead of
the court of appeals in the centre of Athens, and the few people who do attend are recorded and searched).
This is obviously a political and not a legal matter.
A matter that only a courageous court could resolve,
by ruling that this particular law is unconstitutional (article
93) and against ESDA(European Convention of Human Rights) articles and allowing
the free radio-television transmission of the trial.