Summary of Days 7 and 8 (February 2 and 22) of 2nd Halandri Case Trial

Due to a lack of time, our summary of the February 2 session was very brief, so we will now better explain what took place.

During the session held on Friday, February 2, prosecutor I. Liakopoulos rejected all the objections presented by the defense.

He basically defended the “increased security measures” implemented by the police and once again made it clear that “this is a prison and prison rules are in effect.” Regarding the objection involving the issue of “political crime” (the intent of the defendants and their attorneys was to make the court recognize the charges and therefore the trial itself as political), Liakopoulos argued in accordance with the official line, saying that “we only talk about a political crime in the case of a coup d’état attempt”—in other words, a crime recognized as political can only be attributed to representatives of the state machinery. Defense attorney F. Ragousis responded by reading, among other things, excerpts from the statement made by Christos Tsakalos at the prior session. Ragousis indicated that, even according to the charges, the nature of the Fire Cells Conspiracy is political, saying: “We can’t close our eyes and say that ‘this isn’t about a political crime’ when all organizations of this type are clearly political.” H. Sipsas, the secondary attorney for three of our comrades, then spoke. He criticized the judges’ attempts to speed up the proceedings and almost fix the duration of the trial in advance, and he also quoted Tsakalos, saying: “This is a court martial.” At that point, the presiding judge began to repeatedly ask Sipsas: “Have you simply adapted Tsakalos’ opinion?” The presiding judge also asked Sipsas to apologize for what he had just said, but Sipsas refused. I. Karandrea, the attorney for Damiano Bolano, then spoke, and she also criticized the judges’ attitude.

Tsakalos then spoke, saying, among other things:

This trial is certainly a court martial, we are certainly your enemies, and our attorneys certainly have our confidence, but they also certainly have their own point of view and at least want it to be heard. However, that’s apparently not happening. An objection to the “poor composition” of the tribunal was made by M. Nikolopoulos, but neither the prosecutor nor the judges considered it important or commented on it. If you aren’t listening to us, then it makes no sense for us to be here. Plus, according to what the prosecutor said, political crimes are only coups d’état and attempts to carry them out. The system thus flatters and glorifies the military. Nevertheless, the most recent version of the antiterrorist law itself makes direct reference to crimes of a political nature. Yet the courts decide that political crimes don’t exist!

Tsakalos also reminded the court that, in the past, many people were charged for the simple act of visiting or passing by a certain house (he mentioned the case of Christos Politis, who was arrested during the December 4, 2010 antiterrorist operation). Therefore, “the identity data collected from the people attending our trial will be used by the police in the future.”

Finally, Michalis Nikolopoulos also spoke. Addressing the judges, he said:

You must be more clear and openly state that identity cards are being checked in order to obtain data on people. You must openly state that you want to depoliticize the actions of a political organization. You must admit that you are a bunch of fascists and that this is a court martial being carried out in accordance with your interests.

The trial was postponed until Monday, February 13, but the lawyers’ strike prevented it from resuming on that day and it was instead postponed again until February 22.

At the beginning of the session held on Wednesday, February 22, defense attorney Sipsas submitted a statement in which his client Tsakalos explained that he wouldn’t be attending the trial because of the lawyers’ strike. The judges didn’t even read it, while Sipsas himself said that he is also participating in the lawyers’ strike—which will last until February 29—and that came to court solely and exclusively to submit Tsakalos’ statement. The prosecutor then spoke, criticizing the lawyers’ strike by saying: “It could go on until March or Easter, and it’s possible that afterward there will be elections. Other events might also take place, while time is getting shorter and shorter.” The prosecutor was obviously referring to the limit of 18 months that, according to Greek law, a defendant can spend in preventive detention without being sentenced. Then, addressing Sipsas and Kariotis (Bolano’s secondary attorney), the prosecutor called on them to obtain a letter from the Athens Bar Association that would allow them to attend the trial. Thus, he actually asked them to become strikebreakers.

Michalis Nikolopoulos then spoke, asking the prosecutor to explain what he meant by “time is getting shorter and shorter.” Nikolopoulos also made it clear that, even if the Bar Association were to authorize the defense attorneys to attend the trial, the defendants themselves would not allow it.

The prosecutor continually interrupted our comrade and at one point said: “They are going to ask for explanations as to why this trial is being delayed.” He naturally didn’t specify exactly who is “going to ask for explanations,” yet he again made it clear that he isn’t the one making the decisions.

Presiding judge H. Vriniotis also tried to persuade the defense attorneys to get permission from the Bar Association to continue to attend the trial. Nor did he fail to point out that “prisoners are prisoners,” once again nullifying the “presumption of innocence” according to which, it is assumed, democratic courts operate.

The trial was postponed until Friday, March 2.

https://thisisourjob.noblogs.org/post/2012/02/26/summary-of-days-7-and-8-february-2-and-22-of-2nd-halandri-case-trial/