Prozess gegen ELA
Prozess gegen 17.November
Fotos und Plakate
in Athen 2006
Reported by Petros Yiotis (kontra)
The trial continued with rejoinders of the advocates
of defence on the demand of allowing radio-television coverage
of the trial.
The court rejected the demand of the defence for radio-television
coverage and videotaping the trial. Immediately after the announcement
of this (expected) decision, Dimitris Koufontinas made an important
"What is going to be done about this industry set
up by the counter terrorism unit, that brings all these supposedly
new documents to court and which the procecutor then promotes
in order to create impressions? I witnessed an insignificant unsubstantial
document being used in order to create a new wave of terror hysteria.
Certain representatives of the advocates of persecution that argued
against the television coverage of the trial, supposedly because
it is of no interest for the Greek people, do not lose a chance
of appearing on TV outside
the courtroom and speaking of the existence of members of 17N
that remain unarrested and other similar stories. I know that
prosecution has the right from the procedure
to bring witnesses during the course of the trial. This document,
however, is unsubstantial - I repeat - and insignificant and the
only thing it does is to confirm the
legal doctrine, that constitutes the enormous contribution of
prosecutors to the legal science: once a defendant, always a defendant.
This has been experienced Yiannis Serifis, and will now be experienced
also by Theologos Psaradellis.
If the trial was covered and there was a camera in this
courtroom, this distortion of the truth would not be possible
and this document could not be used to create impressions. My
advocates, Yianna Kourtovic and Vasilis Karidis, asked for direct
transmission of the trial, this big political trial, this sorting
of accounts of the system with its opponents. We asked for the
direct transmission, in order for the Greek people to see for
themselves, the people that are accused as members of the Revolutionary
Organisation of 17 November, as they really are and not as trophies
of some Roman triumph. So that they can hear their voice, their reasoning, their truth, without
mediations, distortions, deformities. So that they can
hear their persecutors, see the eminent probative evidence, the
defence witnesses that have been brought in. To
see and to hear the arguments of the advocates of prosecution,
why not? And having heard and seen all this and using their
personal experience criteria, to evaluate it.
Why do they not accept this, why did they vote yet another
specially tailored law on the eve of the first trial, the law
about the prohibition of television coverage? What are they afraid
of? Are they so afraid of our reasoning, the reasoning of the
people they called ignorant, uneducated and vagrant? We asked
for the direct transmission, because from this courtroom will
pass a piece of modern Greek history
and the Greek people have the right to watch this trial. The exclusion
from transmission is
equal substantially with the exclusion of the people themselves.
It contributes to the effort to rewrite history, to twist the
past and it is well- known that a people without a past is a people without future. As today
in 1974, on 8/12/1974,
the referendum that got rid of kingdom and binned it as useless
to Greek history took place.Today, the politician that characterized
the verdict of the people as "unfair" commits another "unfair"
act, as he is familiar with the interventions of executive power
into juridical power, and he < indicates to the court what it should do. I did
not expect a different decision ".
The next objection of the defence concerned the bad composition
of the court. It is an objection that is placed in all political
trials related to "terrorism" and is about the second
clause of the counter terrorism law 3029/2003,
that pertains the prequalification of certain judges and
public prosecutors out of which the compositions of courts are
subsequently drawn by lot.
Politically this provision was established in order to
make sure the compositions of these special courts would not come
up with surprises. Legally, this ad hoc regulation deprives the
defendants from their natural judge. It is contrary to in the
Constitution and in the ESDA.