REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE Update

UPDATE ON REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE CASE day 6 . 21/11/11


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


UPDATE ON REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE TRIAL

DAY 5,

14/11/11

Are you going to have a trial with witnesses or with proof of evidence the scenario of the Anti-terrorist force?

This is the essential question faced by the terror-court of Koridallos, before the hearing begins with the examination of the prosecution witnesses. Legally, this question took the form of a dispute from the side of the defence with the examination as a witness of Kostandinos Papathanasiou, officer of the Police, head of the 1st Department of Internal Security of the Management and Facing of Special Crimes of Violence,(ΔΑΕΕΒ) as is the formal service name of the infamous Anti-terrorist force.

We will try to explain as simply as possible the substance of the matter put, in order for all those who are not acquainted with legal matters to realize it.

The Code of Penal Law, -not only the existing one, but the one that was in force before 1950- forbids to examine as witnesses anyone who has been involved in the interrogations for the case in matter. This is a main protection of the rights of the defendant, because these specific people have knowledge of the case and have formed, to one degree or another, the frame in which this case got to court to be tried. Hence, it is considered from the start that they are not outspoken witnesses, but have an opinion for the case and the defendants (does not matter if its for or against). Beyond the formed opinion they have, many times they also have a personal interest from the outcome of the case according to the frame which themselves, as interrogating or preliminary employees, have formed. A police officer, for example, does not want a case which he/she “set up”to be proven a fiasco and that is why as a witness they will act with prejudice for the the case he/she “set up”. As a small guarantee therefore, article 211 of the Code of Penal Law forbids witnesses who have had interrogating or preliminary duties in the case, to testify. There is, actually, a legislation that forbids even secretaries of preliminary interrogations to testify as witnesses, let alone people who had the responsibility of the “set up”of a case, such as the cop in question.

Lets see, therefore, what goes for the specific officer, as described with numerous details from the defence advocates.

M.Daliani presented the legal frame in which are based the objections of the defence. Article 211 of the C.P.L. forbids witnesses to testify who have practised interrogating duties, because suspicions of prejudice and defending of service interests arise, article 33 of the C.P.L. defines who are those who practised interrogating duties, clearly defining that interrogating duty is also every action that took place in the frame of the preliminary interrogation. Only the preliminary interrogator has knowledge of the trial brief, while those foreign to the interrogation have no right to gain knowledge (therefore, the knowledge of Papathanasakis is knowledge of the preliminary interrogator). The preliminary interrogation for the specific case began from the Department of Criminal Prosecution against Life in GADA (Athens police headquarters), after the death of Lambros Foundas, while the next day already the 1st Department of Internal Terrorism of the DAEEB took over, head of which is Papathanasakis. This is shown clearly from the stamps on the official documents. Papathanasakis collected all of the material, he gave the order to the Service of Criminal Investigations (police labs) to collect and investigate of numerous proof, he asked for the lifting of the secrecy of some phone lines, he informed the interrogator, he signs the whole of the lists with the evaluation of findings when the trial brief was transferred to the public prosecutor. He, himself gave a preliminary testimony in which he did not bring any proof of evidence, went ahead however to an evaluation of all material. He also testified to the special appeals prosecutor, where he even asked to use his notes so he does not forget anything. He seems to have such detailed knowledge, because he is the preliminary interrogator as the head of the department that preformed it. For this, he has a service interest to claim that his version is the right one. It is characteristic that he is the only one of the prosecution witnesses who refers to some of the defendants, such as for example Stathopoulos. This is why he should be excluded.

Anny Paparoussou continued, and read out Papathanasakis testimony, in which is included a large list of preliminary acts in which he participated: he asked for the secrecy lift on specific phone lines, made the evidence chart, made the chart for the documents for the trials brief, made the proof chart, the document of the DAEEB towards the special appeals interrogator etc.etc. Almost all of the trials brief is made by him. He practised preliminary and interrogating duties. He mentioned many incidents, not from his immediate knowledge, interpreting them. He is the one who gave the meaning to the whole case. For Nikitopoulos this meaning is of defining importance. He evaluated two meetings, which anyone could, and called him a member of the organization. He sent the interrogator ready made conclusions under the form of an essay.

The “antiterrorist”legislations have an immediate relation with the matter in discussion, pointed out D. Vagianou. As a result of these legislations was added to the C.P.L., article 253A, that concerns interrogative actions for “terrorism”cases. These interrogative actions were carried out by Papathanasakis as the head in charge. He was the protagonist as an interrogative organ in the interrogating procedures with a political content. He had a managerial task, he was the maestro of the orchestra. It is unacceptable for him to testify, because consciously or subconsciously will try to justify what he did.

P. Roumeliotis returned concisely to the legal matters and described the actions of Papathanasakis, which are these that the CPL defines as interrogating actions. According to the legislation, pointed out the advocate, interrogating employee is even whoever carries out an arrest or the 2nd degree interrogating employee, who simply is present and signs, without doing anything, let alone he who coordinates everything. The ratio of the law says that the specific employee open to any kind of pressures and will not be objective. Papathanasakis does not simply mention incidents, but makes conclusions that lead specific accused to condemnation. For example, he penalizes a meeting. From the outcome of this case he hopes for a better professional evolution, without forgetting that in these cases there are major ethical and professional benefits, there are bounties, which means economic gains. If Papathanasakis testifies, then there will be a tear away from the values of a ‘fair trial’, as defined by article 6 of the European Convention for Human Rights.


H. Ladis noted that all the pre-trial demands that were rejected by the court. In some of them there was a legal base, as for example the objection for the political offence, while in this case it does not exist. The forbidding of article 211 of the CPL is a foundational lawful forbidding, which has been applied throughout time. Based on this even the secretary of the interrogation is excluded from being a witness and this is an answer to the legitimate protest of every defendant that there is prejudice against them. In this case, the witness is the basic figure of the prejudice. He became a witness, because he has never been a witness in anything and simply makes a mixture, transforming into a testimony anything that has been gathered, in order to create a specific image against specific defendants. What will we say to the defendants that claim that they have across them the whole mechanism? Why did they not 4-5 cops as witnesses, if there were, that can testify what they realized first hand? Why do they bring the second hand and not those who allegedly mentioned things to Papathanasakis? If you reject this self-explanatory demand, he continued, it would as if you hope that soon this legislation section will be abolished. In the meantime, there will be a major blow to the feeling of justice that every citizen has.

Laconic K. Dailianas, agreed with his pre spoken colleagues and noted that from the content of the two testimonies of Papathanasakis it comes out that he testifies nothing as his own knowledge, but whatever he learnt from his service as a interrogative employee.

From the above, we think its clear what this is about. We note that it is about a turn in the tactic of the Anti-terrorist. In the trials of the 17N and R.P.S not even a nostril of ‘anti-terrorist’ appeared to testify. Only two officers appeared at the second trial of R.P.S, to ‘empty’ the fake witness that testified he ‘recognized’ G.Serifis in an action of R.P.S. In Perissos. They wanted to ‘empty’ him, because the scenario of the Anti-terrorist had placed G.Serifis in 17N and not R.P.S. and the fake witness spoiled their scenario. When they were asked in the trial generally about the case, they denied to answer, claiming the specific forbidding legislation (they had practised preliminary interrogation duties)! The same answer was given by judges and prosecutors to the defence advocates in both of these trials, who asked to summon officers of the Anti-terrorist to testify: we cannot summon them because they have practised preliminary duties and is forbidden by article 211 of the CPL. They raised a protective wall around the officers of the Anti-terrorist, because they considered they can fulfil these trials with other “proof” (in the 17N case with the “confessions” and those who cooperated, in the RPS case with the “Stazi archives” and three civilian fake witnesses.

In the current trial of R.S. they had no other way to “tie up” some of the defendants beyond the “material” of the Anti-terrorist. This is why they assigned to the responsible head of the department to create a scenario and present it. They consider that he can mange in the court room, contrary to those who carried out the surveillances. This is the substance. They want to do the trial using as a main witness the script writer of the Anti-terrorist, tearing up one of the fundamental provisions of the existing legislation system and inaugurating a new period, during which they will bring a Anti-terrorist officer as a specialist and the scenario which he will present will be taken as indisputable proof.

After the allocutions of the advocates, the trial was interrupted until next Monday (21st), in order for the allocution of S.Fitrakis absent because of illness. The other defence advocates had applied for a interruption from the beginning of the procedure.

translate by boubourAs/actforfreedomnw!

GREECE – UPDATE ON REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE CASE TRAIL Day 3, 1/11/11

UPDATE ON REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE CASE

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.

TRANSLATE BY BOUBOURAS/ACTFORFREEDOMNOW!


Athens-greece-UPDATE ON REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE TRIAL DAY 2, Monday, October 24th.

Heavy accusations against the capitalistic economic-social system and the urban system of power, the state and its persecutory mechanisms were made by the members of Revolutionary Struggle at the first (substantial) day of their trial, when the chairman gave them the word in order to place themselves in short concerning the charges. Their statements were anything but short. For over half an hour, Nikos Maziotis, Pola Roupa and Costas Gournas (we mention them according to how they mentioned in the court brief and in the order they spoke) addressed charges against the system and defended their political choices, transforming the room of the terror-court into a step for their opinions.

“If some are proven innocent, you can be sure that we will shout it out loud”, was the only comment made by the chairman N. Davros, after the end of the speeches of all defendants. A classic line of an experienced judge, that can see that the system which he serves (we mean also the juridical system) is under charges and his place (and his disposal, rather) does not allow him to argue. The course of the trial will show, if the chairman will try to imitate Margaritis, who in the trial of the 17N constantly made ideological and political interventions, or if it will be limited to the formal procedural limits. In this first ideological-political attack of the members of R.S., in any case, Mr Davros limited himself to this self-conscious and substantially apologetic comment.

Earlier, public prosecutor A. Liogas presented concisely the “package” of charges, avoiding any personal “coloration”. However, henceforth the penal arsenal of urban power has been supplemented and it is itself politically and ideologically charged. Thus, for the first time after the big political trials of 17N and ELA (Revolutionary Popular Struggle), in the period of which organizations of armed revolutionary violence were presented as “criminal groups” and their juridicial affairs supposedly had no political content, but were characterized by complete social and political demeaning (they presented things as if they were judging mafiosos, individuals of the “common penal justice”), in the Penal Justice the significance of “terrorism” and “terrorist organization” has passed, therefore the case immediately becomes political, since the significance of “terrorism” has by definition a political content.

As very correctly pointed out by P. Roupa, the first charge that burdens them, which is that they had created a terrorist organization and aimed at the inversion of order as we know it, constitutes the best confession that we are dealing with a political trial, that the defendants are political subjects and that they had political targets. You will not recognize this, however, continued P. Roupa, because if you recognized it, it would be as if you are admitted that there are people that support and fight for a different type of social organization. However, the whole of the capitalistic system is presented as the end of History and its theorists, such as Robert Malthus and Adam Smith, theoretic zed the impossibility for any other economic and social system to exist beyond capitalism. The whole system tries to prove that the poverty of the proletarians is their fate and not the result of a system historically transitory.

The placements of N. Maziotis, P. Roupa and K. Gournas were based on certain fundamental axons: Firstly, on a harsh condemnation of capitalism, capitalists, the state, its mechanisms, its political representatives, the capitalistic exploitation and also the global system of imperialism. Secondly, of the specialization of this condemnation in the current period of crisis, internationally and in Greece ( P.Roupa spoke of the role of the stock market that makes profit even with the mass death of people). Thirdly, the defence of the proletariat and its struggles, the prospect of social revolution and the need for armed struggle. Fourth, in defence of their organization as an organization that did not turn against the worker population and the reverse of all charges. Fifth, on an attack on urban Justice as an institution of the urban system of authority, a fact that shows that they will have a clearly competitive attitude against the court.

Two points of P. Roupa also present legal interest. First, she rejected as an abomination the charge that herself and Maziotis-Gournas are also the leaders of R.S., because they are all anarchists and despise hierarchy. When we fight to abolish hierarchy in society, she said, we would not have in our organization. As she characteristically added, Gournas was added to the leaders in a second phase, when he took the political responsibility of his participation in the organization. If there were another five that took the political responsibility, they would have presented them as leaders as well. Second, she referred to the penal charges of all actions of the organization, that are attributed en masse to all defendants, without any evidence for the participation of each one. They have admitted publicly, she said, that they were watching Maziotis since 2003, consequently me too, since he is my companion and we lived together. Bring them all here, politicians such as Markogiannakis that has spoken of the organizing of our continuous surveillance, under covers, CIA agents, to say that we tore apart their safety measures and we humiliated them, and then I will admit the actions. I do not have any doubt, she said, that you will condemn us for the actions and for the “leadership”, without having any evidence, because this is the political order that the court has to obey.

Christofos Kortesis declared that he denies all of the charges and that his prosecution is because of his political identity as anarchist and on his participation in the anarchist struggles.

Vaggelis Stathopoulos declared, that he denies all of the charges and considers his prosecution political.

Sarantos Nikitopoulos, declared that for one and a half year he was imprisoned in an underground grave (he also made a more general condemnation of the prison system), without any evidence against him. He spoke of his integration into the anti-authoritarian movement from hie teenage years and referred to the charge of “terrorist” that they accuse him of, which is because of the fact that he clarified that he will not sign statements of repentance and loyalty, that he defended his friendship with the dead Lambros Foundas and with other defendants. Terrorism is poverty, hunger and exploitation, he mentioned in the end.

Costas Katsenos declared that he denies the charge of participation in the organization that was attributed to him.

Mari Beraha declared that she denies the charge, that she is not a member of R.S. and considers her prosecution a revenge for her spouse K.Gournas.

After the end of the first placements of the defendants, the list of the prosecution witnesses was read out (“celebrities”, such as Voulgarakis and Kokkinos, were absent once again). After a break, the advocate P. Fitrakis asked for the reading of the charges (referral order). The public prosecutor, as we saw, had limited himself to a synoptic presentation of the charges and characterized the demand of the advocate to read the entire official charge, because differently there is absolute nullity of the process, a “chore”!

If the process is a chore, then give them a sentence now so we can finish, was the well targeted answer of P. Fitrakis. The chairman reacted with procedural formality, declaring that the reading of the referral order is not a chore. This is why, after the refusal of the public prosecutor, he himself began reading the bulky referral order, which afterwards was assigned to the secretary of the seat.

After the reading of the order, N. Maziotis asked to speak, in order to say that what is reported on the the official charges constitutes an honour for R.S. and its members feel proud of their participation in the organization. We, he said, we took the political responsibility of our participation in the organisation. You have the obligation to prove for each one of us separately their physical participation in each action and not to accuse us en masse for all the actions of the organisation.

Advocate Dafni Vagianou referred to the the hegemony of worldwide doctrine of collective responsibility. Thus is created a dangerous situation and collective responsibility tends to be solidified in the Penal Justice and the removal of a basic principle of Penal Justice, which is the connection of perpetrator-action. G. Rahiotis mentioned that Ch. Kortesis disputed the order in all phases of the pre-procedure and his demand was rejected. This is why he has made an application to the European Court of Human Rights, which has firstly become acceptable and will be discussed.

With a provocative oration, that not even in the slightest answered the arguments of the defendants and their advocates, the public prosecutor said that the charge is clear and certain, with the significance that it determines persons and actions attributed to them. (Which means, since it says they all did it all and is repeated separately for each one, the order is clear!). The public prosecutor added in his very short placement (with the logic of “spray, wipe, and your finished”), said that the order in its mechanism is more analytic than it should be! This is why he proposed to reject the objection of vagueness.

Anna Paparousou answered to the public prosecutor with added legal arguments , while G. Rahiotis speaking secondly brought a characteristic example: according to the brief, at the police station of Nea Ionia only one individual shot. You cannot, therefore, attribute the same thing to seven individuals.

The trial will continue Tuesday 1st of November, at 9.ooam

translate by boubourAs/actforfreedomnow!

UPDATE REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE” CASE ” INTERRUPTED TO CONTINUE ON OCTOBER 24TH

Declaration of Revolutionary Struggle from the courtyard of the special court in Koridallos prisons (October 5th, 2011)

The revolutionary voice of Pola Roupa reading the organization’s statement (make sure to activate the cc button):

It has been historically recorded (has also been worded in mass media) that the attack of the State against Revolutionary Struggle and our arrests are connected with the imposition on the Greek society of the junta of the troika and PASOK government, and have been associated with the first memorandum agreement for the country’s vassalage to transnational economic and political elites, signed by the social-fascists of the government in the manner of a military coup.

Ever since, the country has entered a dark period of unprecedented savagery, from the Capital and the political power that attempts to loot inexorably the social wealth and exploit fiercely the human labour of the non-privileged. In the midst of the greatest systemic crisis that today has blown apart capitalism and the market economy, has eroded the political and social structures of representative democracy, and has undermined irreparably its social foundations, the survival of the economic and political system presupposes the euthanasia of large parts of the population.

This is commonly experienced by most people, and as we have mentioned it in our political letter to society by which we took political responsibility for our participation in Revolutionary Struggle, it concerns an occupation that competes in violence with the occupation by the Nazis during World War II, a fact that constitutes a common consciousness in this country. More »

http://en.contrainfo.espiv.net/2010/11/29/political-letter-to-society/
http://en.contrainfo.espiv.net/2011/11/08/political-trial-of-revolutionary-struggle-subtitled-video-from-day-1/#more-5277

Outside the court room was were the biggest interest was, in the first meeting of the special terror-court that began to try the case of Revolutionary Struggle in the prisons of Korydallos.
The scene outside the female prisons of Korydallos seemed somehow surreal. Dozens of people waited for their turn in order to enter the court room, where soon would begin an important political trial, while a few dozen meters away, exactly outside the gate of the male prisons, there were exterior guards assembled with a banner and chanting. For a moment we thought that it was a solidarity demonstration!
The police measures were even tougher than the 17N trial, mainly with the dissemination of armed (masked and not) cops in the area outside the court room.
With the beginning of process from the chairman of the terror-court Nikolaos Davros, the defendants announced their advocates of defence which are: for Nikos Maziotis and Pola Roupa, its Spiros Fitrakis and Dafni Vagianou. For Kostas Gournas, Maria Beraha and Vaggelis Stathopoulos, its Marina Daliani and Dafni Vagianou. For Christoforos Kortesis its Giannis Rahiotis and Paraskeui Giannakopoulou. For Sarantos Nikitopoulos, its Spiros Fitrakis, Anny Paparrousou and Dimitris Katsaris. For Kostas Katsenos, its Panagiotis Roumeliotis, Harris Ladis and Frederikos Bergamos.
Immediately afterwards, Spiros Fitrakis declared on behalf of all defense advocates, that they participate in the abstention that was declared by the assembly of Lawyer’s Associations of the country and that they only attended in order for their colleagues who are defending Kostas Katsenos, who was persecuted and surrendered a few days before the trial started, to ask for an interruption in order for them to study the brief. He also stated, that all defendants wish that the trial is open to all forms of Media and he asked from the court to allow the television crews to enter the court room, in order for the defendants to make political statements, to present their political opinion. Pola Roupa clarified to the chairman of the court, who answering the advocate had said that cameras cannot enter the court room, that they do not care if the cameras are in the room, but for it to be possible to make statements to all media, outside the court procedure. After this dialogue with P.Roupa, the chairman declared that the defendants “will be facilitated, but to not abuse it”!
P. Roumeliotis and H. Ladis asked for a 30 day interruption (the maximum allowed by the law), so that they can study the enormous brief, that concerns 50-55 offences, since advocates for Katsenos were appointed just a few days ago and have no knowledge of the brief. The public prosecutor Antonios Liogas proposed that the interruption is fr 15 days, a period of time that he considers sufficient, since “the evidence is specific”! Obviously, he thinks that the advocates should also agree beforehand with his own opinion about the ”evidence” and not study the brief, as they should. Regarding the demand for statements by defendants to the media, he said that he does not have an objection to the defendants giving interviews, but this it is not a matter of the court. Afterwards the chairman read the names of the witnesses of the prosecution. None of the big shots was present (we retained the names of Voulgarakis [ex minister of public order] and Kokkino [finance consultant for greek industry]), while neither was there was no public defense declared either (journalists sat in those seats).
After a ten-minute break, the chairman announced that the court decided the interruption of the trial until Monday 24th of October, at 9 in the morning. As for the demand of the defendants to make statements to the media, he said that -outside the strict procedural conditions- the court expresses the opinion and the wish for the defendants to make statements in the courtyard, while being led to the vehicle that will transport them to the prisons opposite, “in the legitimate time of 2-3 minutes” (its obvious that he consolidated with the police, who have the first word).
While the imprisoned defendants left the room in handcuffs, the chant “the passion for freedom is stronger than the prison cells” was repeatedly heard. Afterwards and after they waited for the room to empty from all those who had arrived in the trial, minus journalists and lawyers, in the courtyard, behind a closed gated door, Pola Roupa read out to the journalists (and the television cameras) their statement. As soon as she finished, before getting a chance to answer any of the questions that began to formulate, the cops grabbed her and almost picked her up and led her to the prison-van. She only managed to shout, that she has made a specific written charge about the imprisonment conditions, for the women and mothers and children.

The members of Revolutionary Struggle will be released under restrictive conditions on Tuesday, October 11th

Their release was ordered on the condition that they will sign off at a local police station every five days, while they will be banned from exiting the prefecture of Athens.

boubourAs/actforfreedomnow!

International Call for Solidarity with the Revolutionary Struggle The 5th of October 11 has been set as the day that the trial of the Revolutionary Organization Revolutionary Struggle will begin.
The 5th of October has been set as the day that the trial of the Revolutionary Organization Revolutionary Struggle will begin. The trial will take place in the court room of Koridallos prisons.
Eight accused will stand trial, who according to a recent order of the Council of Appeals will be tried for participation in the organization.
Accused in the case of the Revolutionary Struggle are: N. Maziotis, P. Roupa, K. Gournas, Ch. Kortesis,V. Stathopoulos,S. Nikitopoulos, K. K., (not arrested his on run) and M. Beraha (K.Gournas wife).

http://revolutionarystrugglecase.blogspot.com/2010/10/revolutionaries-do-not-apologise-to.html

http://revolutionarystrugglecase.blogspot.com/2010/10/other-two-members-of-revolutionary_20.html

http://revolutionarystrugglecase.blogspot.com/2010/09/letter-from-greek-political-prisoner.html

http://revolutionarystrugglecase.blogspot.com/2010/09/letter-from-christoforos-kortesis.html

http://revolutionarystrugglecase.blogspot.com/2010/09/letter-from-imprisoned-comrade-vaggelis.html

http://revolutionarystrugglecase.blogspot.com/2010/09/anarchists-sarantos-nikitopoulos-who-is_28.html

http://revolutionarystrugglecase.blogspot.com/2010/11/two-anarchists-charged-with.html

The first three accused, Maziotis, Roupa and Gournas have taken responsibility for the organization and remain imprisoned, but in mid October the 18month detention period expires. The rest of the accused are free.

http://revolutionarystrugglecase.blogspot.com/2010/09/greece-letter-from-revolutionary.html

Kortesis, Stathopoulos and Nikitopoulos were released from prison on terms recently, after two decisions of the council of Judges of appeals, since the Supreme Court applied a recantation on the first and another was made that ratified the decisions of the appeals judges.

http://revolutionarystrugglecase.blogspot.com/

The charges of each individual concern the felonies of constitution and participation in a terrorist organisation, supply manufacture and possession of explosive materials, explosions and numerous attempted homicides.



SOLIDARITY TO THE 5 ACCUSED IN THE REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE CASE
FREEDOM NOW TO N.MAZIOTIS, P.ROUPA AND K.GOURNAS
HONOUR FOR EVER TO ANARCHIST FIGHTER AND MEMBER OF REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE LAMBROS FOUNTAS
SOLIDARITY TO ALL IMPRISONED FIGHTERS


BOYBOYRAS/ACTFORFREEDOMNOW!
We believe that the death of Lambros Foundas by the uniformed murderers as well as the arrests of the six fighters for their participation or for their alleged participation in the Revolutionary Struggle, integral facts of their historical-social frame. We consider them as the first and heavy losses in the new phase of growth of class war that has been signaled by the capitalistic crisis. We feel that Lambros did not simply leave one day of March, but fighting on the eve of a general strike, while the six arrested as well as all the imprisoned fighters, are missing from us in the streets in these important as well as difficult days that have come, these days where the subversive-liberating argument must and can be applied with new intensity and momentum.
The three comrades who took responsibility for the actions of Revolutionary Struggle show that fighting for what you believe in is not a task that only the “elite” can take on. Its in everyone that has suffered in the system that has been created to control us. The state knows they are the real terrorists and as long as no one is fighting back they have nothing to fear. Its time to show them enough is enough and attack it with all means available.

“And if the terrorists Papandreou and Chrysohoidis are laughing (in vain) about our arrests; if they believe they have thus guaranteed the necessary security for their social-fascist party to easily continue imposing their criminal projects on society, wagging their tails to please their American masters; if they are hoping they have eliminated a serious threat to their regime, we assure them that it will not be so easy to do away with us.
While we live and breathe, we will do everything possible to cause trouble for their antisocial, criminal projects.
And if our persecutors and this country’s political establishment believe they have all of society on their side, if they believe most people see us as a “social threat,” they are wrong.”

Excerpt from the political letter to society from the Revolutionary Struggle members.

Actforfreedomnow!

http://lambrosfountasisoneofus.blogspot.com/


http://revolutionarystrugglecase.blogspot.com/