The sixth session of the trial of the Revolutionary Struggle began with the statement of the public prosecutor concerning the objection that had been placed by the advocates regarding the invalidity of the testimony of witness K. Papathanasakis, since he has preformed preliminary interrogating duties.
Specifically the public prosecutor mentioned that K. Papathanasakis did not record the discussions, he was not the one which ordered the lifting of telephone call secrecy, but the public prosecutor, neither signed the interrogative manuscripts that are in the trial brief. Just the submission of preliminary material from a third person, the surveillance of the perpetrator, taking the fingerprints do not constitute interrogative actions. “Besides if Papathanasakis does not testify, who coordinated the investigations, who will testify as a witness in this trial?”, stressed the public prosecutor.
Advocate
M. Daliani spoke of a case of a gross mistake and an unlawful choice to send an employee that not only has auxiliary duties but coordinated and directed all the actions. The particular witness stressed M. Daliani should be excluded because a) he is the head of a department and since that self appointed preliminary investigation reached the criminological service, this would obviously be undertaken by the superior in the hierarchy, b) from the result of the trial depends his service development, c) the lifting of the secrecy can be ordered by the public prosecutor, the responsible however preliminary authority is the one which makes the demand is the public prosecutor and asks of his subordinates to proceed to the lifting of secrecy and laboratory examinations, d) finally, the witness does not testify real incidents that they have fallen in his perception. He simply comments the results of the preliminary investigation. He does therefore what is prohibited by a preliminary investigation employee.
Then
A. Paparousou addressing the judges asked: “Does this brief really need a narrator or does it have all the sufficient evidence in order for you to get to the truth? ” This particular witness appeared with a transfer from another service with a purpose to dissolve R.S. It is therefore legitimate to say that he will act with prejudice in the effort to support his work.
P. Roumeliotis claimed that the public prosecutor transferred the matter from the interrogative actions to the testimonies, while the latter, mentioned also that K.Papathanasakis has not signed any reports. Here however exists a misapprehension. According to the law the reports on the interrogative actions do not constitute unique interrogative actions. Hence is not raised the possibility for K. Papathanasakis to preform an interrogative actions. Why did the legislator say that the preliminary interrogator shouldn’t participate? Is it not the position and the material rewards that lead him to prejudice?
The functional identity of a head of a department constitutes undeniably an interrogative action, added
D. Vagianou. The acceptance of the specific witness establishes the catalysis of every right and freedom, since he himself has proceeded to record activities and cross-correlation of data of personal character.
D.Katsaris spoke of the protection of the correct operation of a fair trial. He stressed that the judges should judge only based on legal evidence and not be influenced by individuals that have interests. If they believe that the witness is qualified to testify, then they should also call all those who participated in the preliminary procedure. “Which is the preliminary action if not the carrying out of preliminary investigation”, was the question placed by advocate
H. Ladis to the judges and continued “Unique preliminary actions are only the arrests of the defendants and the confiscation of their personal belongings? ”
S. Fitrakis finally, gave particular stress to the fact that no executive of DAEEB testified in the trials of 17N and RPS, only real witnesses. The court he said is realizing a “modern” trial. With this logic, stressed ironically S. Fytrakis, it is not essential for all these witnesses of the official charge to testify, all you need is 2 or 3 officers of the anti-terrorist that have done all the investigations and have all the evidence. “Why do you call the one that asked the authorization for the lifting of telephone secrecy and do you not call the one that heard the dialogues of the conversations?” he asked the judges.
After an interruption of an hour and a half the public prosecutor rejected the objection saying that the actions of K. Papathanasakis do not constitute an interrogative action, but under his duties, therefore he can be examined as a witness.
Because K. Papathanasakis was absent because of an illness, the chairman proposed the continuation of the procedure with the next witnesses, something which however did not become acceptable from the advocates.
Thus the trial was interrupted and will continue on
28.11.11 at 9:00am, where is expected to testify as the first witness K. Papathanasakis.
Assembly of solidarity
to the imprisoned and persecuted fighters
No comments:
Post a Comment