Posted on November 7, 2011



Day 3, 1/11/1With the repetition of the procedure P. Roumeliotis (defence advocate of K.Katsenos) asked to place his position on the objection for vagueness of the order, before the court publishes its decision. With a detailed and absolutely thorough argumentation, supported by theory but also by legislations, Romeliotis proved that there is an absolute nullity of the order and the call, because the actions the defendant is accused of have not been described and consequently he cannot defend himself, a fact that -besides the articles of the Code of Penal Procedure, which are being violated- it is also a direct violation of article. 6 paragraph 1 of the ECHR (European Convention for Human Rights), according to which a defendant should be informed in detail about the actions for which they are accused. In the particular case, we have a series of actions in which everywhere we have two perpetrators and simultaneously have seven defendants (the total minus M. Beraha) that are accused for complicity! How can the defendant defend himself, when you won’t tell him precisely what he is accused of, when he isn’t placed in the real incidents? These points were also deposited in writing by the advocate.

The public prosecutor especially apologetic and in “the details” absolutely arbitrary. Yes, -he said- law 321 of the Penal Code asks for a precise description of the action, however the order is extremely analytic in its descriptions. As an example, he mentioned that many bullets were found and it goes into an in-depth analysis of each bullet, while it could have only just mentioned the number! The actions appear to have been carried out in complicity and this is enough. Of course, in a few actions indeed seven cannot be accomplices, since two shot, however this does not recommend ambiguity of the order! This concerns the base of the charge, which will be judged on the substance. It will be judged, that is to say, if indeed the defendants carried out the particular actions.

This is a clearly sophistical positioning. Because – to use his example- the problem is not the type of the bullets , but the relation that each defendant has with their possession. And the charges do not only concern the bullets, but also the actions of R.S. and there the defendants are all put in a sack, enforcing the nazi doctrine of collective responsibility, without mentioning who did what. The opinion of public prosecutor -commented P.Roumeliotis- strengthens our own opinion. When two shoot, who are the accomplices? Each individual should have a dedicated role.

We refine the mosquito (meaning the bullets) and we swallow the camel as it is*, he ended!

Afterwards, P.Roupa and N. Maziotis raised the matter of prejudice and hypocrisy of the court, beginning with the statement of the chairman in the previous session, that directly violates the infamous evidence of innocence. We add the relative dialogue:

P. Roupa: The content of the order is not only vague, but simply creates an impression. That is to say, what was said previously, that it is very analytic, simply creates an impression. I want to ask a question: concerning a specific action, the attack that took place in Goudi area against the riot cop van. It is reported over there -it does not say precisely, but if you sit and investigate it- how many gunshots were fired, they are not more than five or six and the attempted homicides are seventeen! Which means, all the cops that were inside! This is metaphysical, not only vague, but also a little metaphysical. That is to say, they tell you that a bullet can be shot and kill three people! It does not mention who participated neither how many were neither how many were needed for every action specifically.

Beyond this, I also want to point out something else. That fact that we come to a trial, this specific trial, the vagueness of the order, the problems that result in relation to that there is no possibility of attribution of specific charges for each one of us and the fact that in the previous session me and comrade Maziotis made a statement concerning that there is a premeditation and that that the decision of our condemnation has been made. That is to say, we have claimed that we will be condemned, we will also be condemned for the leadership, we will be condemned also for the actions (the statement of the public prosecutor tends to this direction, that is to say all this enough in order to condemns us) and there was a statement by the chairman, after our statements, where he said that if we prove, if our innocence is proven… (Chairman: Not if you prove it, if it is proven)… if our innocence is proven we will shout it out… (Chairman: You have nothing to prove). This was considered as a proposal which shows that the court is open to carry out a trial with evidence etc. and that it is a statement of such type. And this was also transferred to the Media. I believe that this is precisely opposite. That is to say, it shows a inclination that we here come from the start as guilty and that we are obliged to prove that we are innocent. That is to say, concerning the actions, as an example, that yes, we have decided we from before that you all carried them out in complicity…

Chairman: Who told you this?

P. Roupa: It was your statement.

Chairman: That is what you say.

P.Roupa: It was your own statement precisely, that we should prove our innocence.

Chairman: It was not said, I repeat, I did not mention such a thing.

P.Roupa: We are not obliged to prove our innocence, the court is obliged to prove who participated here and who participated there.

Chairman: Look, we can we talk until tomorrow morning and i will say mine and you will say yours. But I repeat once more…

P.Roupa: If i misheard…

Chairman: Yes, you absolutely misheard and it was not transferred to the Media like that. Only you understood it like this.

P. Roupa: But it was mentioned word to word, we can ask the journalists, it is recorded…

N.Maziotis: If it is proved that there are innocent individuals -you said- we will come out and shout it out loud. Is this is not evidence of innocence…

Chairman: If it is proved by the procedure…

N. Maziotis: You did not say procedure either. It was precisely like this: if it is proven that there are innocent individuals, we will come out and shout it loud.

Chairman: Of course.

N. Maziotis: This is interpreted as follows, there is only one interpretation: that we are guilty and if it is proved that we are innocent, you will shout it out loud.

Chairman: The interpretation that you give is mistaken…

N. Maziotis: This constitutes evidence of guilt…

Chairman: It is a mistake…

N. Maziotis: Then you did not understand what you said.

P. Roupa: there is no mistaken interpretation. We speak precisely on what was said, what was said in the previous session and is imprinted in the Media and newspapers.

Chairman: The weight of proving something is on others, by law, and not you, period.

P. Roupa: The weight of proving something is on you.

Chairman: We, of course.

P. Roupa: So what was said the previous time was a mistake.

Chairman: It was not said that way.

P. Roupa: It was said precisely like that, I did not say a word… (Chairman: It was not said that, it was not said that way…) more the ones that were said. Lets ask some of the journalists that have recorded it to contradict me.

Chairman: Well.

S. Fitrakis, who immediately took the stand, said that in the western penal system, the democratic as it wants to be called, exists the evidence of innocence, as it resulted from certain intellectuals, in practice however each penal trial begins with the evidence of guilt. And if your innocence is proved, they say to the defendant, we will declare you innocent. Substantially, the evidence of innocence has been abolished. Spontaneously the evidence of guilt is always in effect. If the evidence of innocence was in effect, then the order would have written in the end: you are accused of this, but you are considered innocent until this is proved. It does not say this, however, hence the trial begins with the evidence of guilt. This is the system and this is also what I explained to Mr Maziotis when he came into my office.

…once again the precise statement of the chairman in the previous session: “Regarding the references to us as judges, I have I say that if from the procedure some of the defendants or even all are proved innocent, this not only we will say, but we will shout it out loud to all directions”.

N. Maziotis closed this discussion with a short statement: “I said this also the previous time, that we are proud for each action our organisation did. For each bomb it put, for each shot it fired, for each destruction it made we are very proud. We simply said: who however went and who had physical participation in these is your case to prove. Or else, we do not go with the urban Penal Code that says that there should be proven evidence (you did this, you supplied, you manufactured, you shot), but you go with the doctrine of collective responsibility. Are you members? We have admitted it is our pride and honour? You will get all 16 actions of the organisation. This is a penal culture that has been imported from abroad, from the “anti-terrorist” provisions that were imported from 2001 to 2004. It is a penal culture that has been imported by the USA in the “war on terrorism”. We know that we are two rival camps, that we are enemies. We know that you will sentence us, 25 years combined sentence, we know. Simply, we make a intervention in order to show the hypocrisy of your penal system. While in words you say -and in your Penal Justice- that it should be proven that someone did this and this, you will not do this thing. For a very simple reason. If we had left evidence, the previous seven years, from 2003 until 2010, if we had left evidence, the organisation, the members, that they were there and there, they would have arrested us much earlier. There is not, however, not one probative piece of evidence, neither with the order that Mr public prosecutor says is not vague, there is not one probative piece of evidence that you did this in this action. This is what I want to say. Further more… guilty? Guilty because we are your opponents and your enemies. Guilty we are, yes, and it is our pride and honour. You prove where we were”.

After a short break, the chairman announced that the court essentially rejects the objection about a nullity. P. Roupa observed, that the decision was announced without any explanation and the chairman gave the “established” in these cases answer, that the argumentation will be announced… in the near future. When they sit down and clearly write down the decision, obviously, as it also happened in the all previous terror-trials. At the present moment, they are simply carrying through what they must carry through!

Afterwards, the defence submitted two demands. The first concerned the publicity of trial, that is to say the freedom of coverage by the radio-television media. S. Fytrakis submitted the demands, with essential argumentation, while M. Daliani (Gournas advocate), with a very essential and thorough analysis, showed that the complete publication of the trial is imposed by article 93 of the Constitution, in order to practise social control of the citizens, but also from the ECHR and the “fair trial” rules that this includes.

The public prosecutor proposed the rejection of the demand, with a argument the gravity of which we will leave to the judgement of the reader. Because -as he said- the presence of cameras would distract, because he is not an actor in order and has no familiarization with the mean, and it would prevent his correct judgement on the case!

When the chairman asked the defendants, if any of them has a problem with the radio-television transmission, he received negative answer from all, while N. Maziotis and P. Roupa made short placements. Do not hide yourselves, said N. Maziotis. The only reason to not allow the transmission of the trial is so our political opinions do not become known. If we were social criminals, you would not have a problem. Criminal is the regime that you serve. And this particular trial is crime. Our trial is related to special conditions, said P. Roupa. If our political speech served the regime, we would have publicity. However, in the current political economic situation this trial can become a stand against the regime. In reality, those who govern are hiding.

The second demand concerned the transport of the trial to the court of appeals, since only one defendant is detained (K.Katsenos) and it is likely that he will be released soon. Answering this reasonable (at least) demand of the defence advocates, the public prosecutor said that he does not consent to the transport of trial to the court of appeals, because the present room ensures safety, while the change of room is too dangerous! Which means, he considered from before that the defendants are guilty and dangerous for the safety of judges! And despite all this, they make a great deal of trouble all in favour of the… evidence of innocence.

Where lies the endangerment? asked P. Roupa. What precisely are you afraid of? She asked for the opinion of the public prosecutor to be explained further. N. Maziotis characterized the public prosecutors proposal expected. There will come a time when you will judge with hoods on, just like in Peru, he said addressing the seat, in order to conclude that the reason is that they do not want the trial to become a field of propagation of the opinions of R.S.

P. Roumeliotis spoke of lack of argumentation and of prejudice to the particular case, asking for explanations from the side of the public prosecutor. On one side you speak of endangerment, commented Annie Paparoussou, and on the other you tell us that public interest is not served with the radio-television cover of the trial. This constitutes an enormous contradiction, because the endangerment means that it is a very important trial and consequently there is public interest and should be covered by the Media. S. Fitrakis referred to the wide publicity that the trials of the junta dictators got, but also the Special Court of 1989, that tried politicians. He reminded, that the relative law that substantially prohibits the radio-television coverage of these trials was voted voted for the upcoming first trial of the 17N and since then repressive provisions have been systematically applied that limit the rights of the defendants.

The court withdrew in order to make a decision and after the break the chairman announced that he reserves himself on the demand for transferring the trial to the court of appeals. Probably they should find a more decent way of rejecting the demand, after the “clumsy” (and therefore revealing) argumentation of the public prosecutor.

Afterwards, the advocates of N. Maziotis, P. Roupa and K. Gournas submitted an objection of the jurisdiction of the court, because of the political nature of the tried offences. Common ground of the speeches of S.Fitrakis and M. Daliani was that the objection is submitted, in some way, just to be submitted, because continuously in all substantial political trials this objection is rejected and they are sure that it will be rejected once again. This is why their clients did not want to submit this objection.

M. Daliani began by characterizing R.S. an “organisation with deep political background” and in order to strengthen her opinion read analyses from third parties of the actions of the organisation, that aimed at the inversion of the existing regime. You will say, she pointed out, that the actions are not political, however once again the trial will remain a political trial. The definition of a political offence, that is recognized in article 97 of the Constitution, is one of the most undefined matters in the Greek courts. Through time this definition remains vague, because in reality the system should recognize and define its political opponent. She made a extensive historical reference on various theories that were developed (objective, subjective etc.), proving that all theories were interwoven with and served political expediency of specific time periods.

Referring to the latest terrorlaw, of 2004, that replaced the significance of “organised crime” importing the immediate significance of “terrorism”, which is described as an effort of catalysis of the existing order, M. Daliani showed the ridicule that this particular court is called to serve: you will say that this political action is not a political action! That is to say, they will recognize the political character of the actions, in order to include them in the significance of “terrorism”, and simultaneously will say that they are not political offences, so that they are not tried by mixed sworn courts, as it says in article 97 of the constitution. The dominating word, concluded the advocate, denies to recognize the identity of who it aims its weapons against.

Afterwards N. Maziotis spoke, clarifying from the beginning that he does not consider himself a political criminal or offender, neither in this significance. You will reject the objection, he said, for political reasons. Why were the “anti-terrorist” laws made? You as professional judges, you who are paid in order to put people in prison, you do not trust the citizens. It is a lie that these citizens are terrorized in these trials and they should be replaced by professional judges. No citizen was ever terrorized. The reason that these cases left the mixed sworn court is because you are employees of the state, while a citizen can judge differently. The “anti-terrorist” law wants to maximize the sentences. Now 10 years are forecasted only for participation in the organisation. And with the “management” role the sentence goes up from 10 to 20 years. The only reason that these special courts are introduced are the big sentences.

N. Maziotis referred to his own case, when he was tried in the past for attempting to place an explosive mechanism outside the ministry of Industry, as a token of support to the residents of the villages of Strimonikos that fought against the metallurgy of gold. He was tried by a mixed sworn court, the decision in the first degree was 15 years imprisonment, there was however the mitigation of “non humble motives”. This happened for the first and last time, he pointed out. The courts for the 17N and ELA (Revolutionary Popular Struggle) could not say the same, because indirectly it would be recognized that the defendants had a political motive. Despite that officially you will never recognize us as political subjects, the order reports that we wanted to reverse the system, hence you recognized the political action of R.S., he stressed.

Our aim, he continued, was to manage major wounds to the system. This is where this order is correct. They considered us a political threat and this we were. All our actions were political. Which action of R.S. do you consider a crime?

Did any of the actions happen with selfish aims? We did not harm the people, but your system, and this is a political action. I will remind you what Clausewitz said, ‘war is the continuation of politics by other means’. The official charges says that we wanted to strike the economic and political structures of the system. This is correct, said N. Maziotis and he began to mention the actions of the organisation against political and economic targets and asked: Do you believe that the people and workers from the strategy of attacks of R.S. against the centres of local and international capital? The people and the workers know very well that these centres are that terrorise them. Do you believe that the people were terrorized by the strike of R.S. against the riot cops? See what hate the people take out in the demonstrations. Neither you have any relation with justice nor the police. You are mercenaries, cogwheels of a mechanism of oppression. As for the attack on the U.S. embassy, it speaks for itself. Themselves the Americans, in their texts that were published by Wikileaks, speak of the deep anti-american roots that exist in Greece. After he listed the military attacks and the coup d’etat of the USA all over the planet, N. Maziotis concluded: No one of the population was terrorized by us. We terrorized the terrorists. Have the courage to say that you judge us because we are your enemies and do not speak of terrorizing the people.

The trial will continue Wednesday the 9th of November, with statements by P. Roupa and K.Gournas, as they themselves declared.

*greek proverb meaning that you extensively check something small when accepting something much bigger as it is.