Constant updates in English on Revolutionary Struggle trial Case


Posted on October 8, 2011

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.




Posted on October 27, 2011

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/Act for freedom now!



Athens: Written declaration by Kostas Gournas, member of Revolutionary Struggle – October 24th, 2011


In April 2010, in a joint letter with my comrades Pola Roupa and Nikos Maziotis, we claimed political responsibility, for our participation in Revolutionary Struggle (Epanastatikos Agonas). We declared that we’re proud of the organization and our fellow fighter Lambros Foundas, who was killed by cops in the armed scuffle of Dafni.
Today I’m standing opposite you, in this special court, facing grave charges that draw many years of imprisonment. All this time there’s been a systematic effort on State’s part at my expense, so as to bend my will for struggle: from the torturing and battering in GADA (Athens police headquarters) and my imprisonment far away from my children’s residence, to the committal for trial against my spouse Maria Beraha, who is present here as co-defendant. However, I’m standing here opposite you and I declare that I’m proud of my struggle, my comrades and the history of Revolutionary Struggle.
In no case is my presence here intended to extenuate my place, since I don’t accept any charge that’s been laid against me by the bourgeois regime. It’s not I who is the criminal or the terrorist; neither do I consider that the organization’s actions were by any means harmful to society. The organization’s actions and interventions were profoundly political and beneficial to society, because they were directed solely against the regime, its officials and lackeys. They were directed against the structures and individuals of the capitalist system, which oppresses and tyrannizes the socially weak.

Thus, it is not we who should stand trial here as dangerous to society. Dangerous to society are those who govern and plunder the people over the past years. It is they who serve the plans of the Troika (IMF/ECB/EU) and the supranational Capital faithfully, aiming at the exsanguination and impoverishment of the Greek people. It is they who impose unbearable economic measures in order to save the credit money system and its excessive profits. It is they who shield all those who have embezzled the wealth and labour of the people, and never put any of them on the stand. It is they who unleash their murderers to repress any social response.

As Revolutionary Struggle fighters, we acted and act for the overthrow of capitalism and the State, for a free world where complete equality of people will be achieved in economic, social and political terms. The organization was born within the proletarian strata of society and has always strived for its interests. Every action of the organization, every proclamation was a glimmer of light for the society, a cry of relief for the oppressed, a hope that this unjust regime can be overthrown. The oppressed, the weak, the proletarians, the unemployed, our class allies are the ones who should judge us, and not you. In the streets, the squares, the assemblies… There where you’re all convicted.
So, I would like to make clear that this special court, like any other court of the bourgeois regime, cannot rule upon armed revolutionary organizations. A very simple reason for this is because the interests you serve and the class you belong to, stand opposite us a priori. This court is classist, and it judges using the ‘law’ of the dominant against the revolutionary law, the law of a handful of fighters who strive for the social liberation. The action of Revolutionary Struggle cannot be judged by you, simply because this action is directed against you, the capitalist system and the classist justice that you serve faithfully. We are two warring forces. You’re armored behind specially modulated spaces inside the prisons, behind special legislations, and intend to deride us and depoliticize our action before you convict us. Our own presence here is intended to reverse the charges against us into accusations against you, against the system you serve, and to demonstrate that your own acts are criminal and dangerous to society. The political battle which will be given in this court, for us, constitutes the tribune so as to highlight the justness of our struggle.

In this battle, we’re not alone. We have a large part of society by our side, which has disdained the political-economic system and dynamically demands that all of its factors leave the place. This fact is a vindication of our choices. The armed struggle against the regime is today more timely and more imperative than ever. Because there’s no other way for us, the proletarians, to successfully overcome the crisis than to conduct revolution. In the class clash which shall follow in the upcoming period, both inside and outside of this courtroom, we will be winners.

Kostas Gournas

sources a, b



Posted on November 7, 2011

With 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 theECHR 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.



With the beginning of the procedure the chairman announced the rejection of both demands that had been submitted in the previous session. The transfer to a room of the court of Appeals, he said, cannot take place, because there is no available room for the period of time that the trial is expected to last. The court avoided to repeat the provocative opinion of the public prosecutor about security reasons and endangerment and it was limited to a formal reason, that of course, if there was will, it could have been surpassed. As if they could not find a room. The recording of the proceedings with a tape recorder also cannot take place, announced the chairman, because officially there is no infrastructure and personnel in order to it contribute to the secretary. This decision was also expected. Regarding the possibility of recording by the defendants and advocates for their personal use, the chairman answered that there will be tolerance.
Following that, continued the discussion on the objection of non-juristiction of the court, because of the political character of the offences, with statements of advocate of Dafni Vagianou and Pola Roupa and the reading of a statement of the absentee, because of illness, Kostas Gournas.
We should surpass the subjugation in the political speech that imposes the de-politicization of actions that are characterized as terrorism, asked D. Vagianou, making an extensive theoretical analysis, in which she combined political and historical elements and elements of the theory of Justice. Revolutionary Struggle, she said, began its action at the verge of an era, in 2003. Had preceded the attack on the twin towers in New York, the criminal war in Iraq and the beginning of Bush’s “war on terrorism”. The era, that is to say, where is presented the crisis of globalisation of a system that today is going through its deepest crisis. An era that was signalled, also, from the revolt of the youth in December 2008, which, while the christmas tree was burning, wrote “merry crisis and happy new fear”.
The advocate referred to not only the political character of the actions of R.S., but also to the political character of the reactions of its opponents, such as the bounty by the American superpower or the estimates that if the attack on Citibank succeeded greek economy would collapse.
She referred to the undertaking of political responsibility from the defendants, without any evidence against them, aiming at the continuation of their political existence inside prison. As well, the analysis of R.S. for the crisis and its class character, that constitutes a theoretical contribution to the more general discussion that is taking place, it constitutes one more proof of the political character of the organisation.
Afterwards, D. Vagianou made an extensive analysis of the historical course of the significance of a political offence in legal science, from the era that followed the French Revolution, when the attempt of occupation of power was still considered a noble objective, until today that a violent de-politicization of organisations and acts of political violence is taking place.
She also referred to the special regime which the communists faced for an entire historical period, from the end of WW2 up to 1974 and she presented the proportions of that period with the period of the “war on terrorism”.
She closed her allocution with a reference to the reasoning of submitting the objection. It was submitted, she said, in order for there to be a continuity with the other two historical political trials (17N and ELA [revolutionary popular struggle]) and because, especially in this era, to characterize political the actions of a revolutionary political organisation has a special importance.
Those who are chased by the people and are hiding will say that we are criminal elements? This nodal question was placed by P. Roupa in her own statement. Initially, she said, we did not want to submit this objection, because we do not consider that there is a court that can judge us. We should be free, in order to participate in the social struggles, in the struggles for social liberation. Who should be punished are the various Buffets and Soros, the scum of the stock market that exterminate entire populations, the various Triches, Barrosos and Lagards, the international and greek political elite, the capitalists. A popular court would decide very harsh punishment for all of them. We believed and we believe, therefore, that we should not be on trial.
The exclusion of the sworn courts from these cases, continued P. Roupa, expresses the insecurity of the state and this is why it keeps pace with the neo-liberal attack of the state and capital. Is widespread their fear to not leave these cases in the hands of people that cannot be controlled, like judges can. The objection was a good opportunity for us to express our opinions.
Afterwards, P. Roupa dealt with the analysis of the political character of the motives, comparing the motives of R.S. with the motives of its political enemies. Those who govern, she said, referring indicatively to political families such as Karamanlis and Mitsotakis and politicians such as Roussopoulos and Dukas, they have clearly selfish motives. They steal the bread of the people and they make mythical fortunes, which they live on even when they leave politics. Our own interest is identified with the interest of the class of proletarians. In the fight we lost our comrade, Lambros Foundas, we went to prison and we took the political responsibility for our participation in the organization, in order for us to also defend our dead comrade, and this shows not only that our motives were not humble, but that they were the most social motives. We identified ourselves with the struggle for the social revolution. This court, she led, should be ashamed to have been put together. She reminded that the ’70s, a Council of appeals judges denied the extradition of Rolf Pole to Germany, with the reasoning that his action was political. And back then PASOK (she read statements of Papandreou, Magaki, Haralabopoulos) said bravo to the court that stood its ground. Back then PASOK tried to enclave a part of the population, it was the era after the fall of the junta.
Afterwards, she made an extensive analysis of the historical course of the last decades, with references to the course of the crisis, the interventions of the IMF, the neo-liberal model as an attack of the system against all social conquests in order to continue the accumulation with other terms, which she combined with the political developments during the postwar period, that led to the changing of the system concerning the confrontation of armed organisations. A change that was imprinted in the successive terror-laws, that finally reached the introduction of the significance of “terrorism”. Henceforth the state, she said, has no need to wrap the legal frame for the prosecution of its enemies. The characterization “terrorist” follows every action that disputes the system even with non armed means, what follows is even the prosecution of belief. They are so insecure that they will even prosecute words and phrases. This is why you will condemn us, she continued, even without evidence. She brought, as an example, the sentencing in the case of the organization Conspiracy of Cells of Fire, without any evidence. Condemnations that were based on the logic that we do not care us what they say or if there is evidence, but its enough that we recognize them as enemies of system. If we take, one by one, all the actions of R.S. there is nothing that is not political in the choice of targets and and the analysis. All actions had a specific political aim (she brought examples). If these aren’t political choices, then what is? We do not await recognition from the court, she ended, but this is how R.S. will go down in History.
Afterwards, N. Maziotis read a statement by K.Gournas, who was absent from the court because of an illness. Our objective, wrote K.Gournas, was the dynamic intervention in greek society, in order to develop a movement that will fight for a free world, where the “below” will decide for their life. Our struggle was a political struggle, however you will not recognize it, because you do not want to recognize that your have enemies that act politically. For us, however, he led, what is important is that greek society recognizes us as an ally piece of it.
Being laconic the public prosecutor, in an allocution that did not even last five minutes, simply put the judges in front of their responsibilities as representatives of the system in this trial. To him, political crime is only the crime of utmost betrayal, hence the actions attributed to the defendants are not a political crime, but a crime of common penal justice, independently of their motives! Maybe, of course, they sought to affect the regime, however the means they used were disadvantageous. Because by executing 5-10 police officers you cannot reverse a regime. Most likely you will reinforce it. This is -according to the public prosecutor- the difference between a political crime and a terrorist crime! In the terrorist crime is required and is enough the aim of the defendants!
He did not add, however, what is “required and is enough” in a political crime. We will explain. If some people of the governmental mechanism organise a coup d’etat and do not achieve, then it will be considered that their offences are political. If some citizens -many or few it does not matter- turn armed against the ruling class and its state, disputing its monopoly in violence, then their offences are terrorist! Only the people of the system have the special treatment of a political criminal, when they turn against the existing situation. Reasonable from the side of the public prosecutor and all those who support this opinion. The occasional dictators are flesh from the flesh of the capitalistic system and seek not the inversion of capitalism, but the transformation of power, that remains always the dictatorship of the upper class. This is why they are recognized as political criminals. On the contrary, revolutionaries seek the inversion of capitalism, which is why they are characterized as “terrorists”.
The ruling opinion, ended the public prosecutor, is the one of the Supreme Court, from which the present court cannot affray! ‘A royal order and the dogs are tied up’*, in other words. The Supreme Court said it, its like god said it. And here we thought the system is “supported” on the “personal and functional independence of judges”, who judge “freely and consciously”!
To the public prosecutor then answered N. Maziotis. After he observed that he expected him to say much more, he mentioned the Varkiza agreement, which included a paragraph according to which the crimes of common penal justice are excluded from the general amnesty. With this paragraph as a base the fighters of the left were viciously persecuted for the resistance actions they had carried out during the nazi occupation, such as blowing up bridges, executing army officials etc. The citizens judge a lot different from you who are employees of the state, continued N. Maziotis. It was mentioned in survey that took place two years ago by a website, in which exceptionally large percentages considered political violence justified and considered that the actions of armed organisations is political. Today, he said, that we find ourselves under economic occupation, it is very large the percentage of those ask that we resort to weapons. In reality, he said, your court is illegal and does not have any consent from the Greek society.
S. Fytrakis observed that until the 11th (of November) we did not have government of national salvation nor of national subjugation, as others say. And the statements of repentance that the Europeans are asking for are still not signed by Nea Dimokratia. In this climate the court could also make a progress and go back to the Mixed Sworn Courts, like before. As the majority of the judges in the Pole case said no, making a progress, without collapsing the system, you can do the same.
S. Fytrakis answered vitally to the public prosecutor also for the “non disadvantageous of the means”, that he claimed. The one that thinks and acts in this frame, he said, with the minimal means that have symbolic importance, are “covered” by the last provision of the Constitution (article 120 par. 4), that says that the Greek citizens are obliged to resist with any means, without placing a matter of advantageous of the means of resistance that they will use. This is why you should take the case to the Sworn courts, so the popular judges can judge, if the actions of the defendants aimed at the defence of freedom. Afterwards he read an extract from the book of Konstantinos Tsoukalas, published in 1929, titled “the Sworn Courts”, that says the following:
“Indeed, the political criminals are neither an enemy of society, neither do their actions take place with materials motives. Flag bearers of new ideas and motivated by noble, usually, values, take on as servants the true interests of his homeland, are at this only unlucky, since they advance through paths of progress faster than the people around them, to the materialisation of their aims, the rapid fulfilment of which ambitiously they hurry for, they handle means violent and irregular and illicit in order to neutralise the reaction, since they ignore barriers in their very passionate ideology. Consequently in no way can they be compared to the criminal thief or murderer, or those who represent individual interest or mental maliciousness. The offence they commit is relative, since the aims and desires of those judged today as illegal, tomorrow will probably triumph. Failing is not losing, just like it will also be impossible to be a winner, where they would be called to the governing of their homeland and the application of their ideals. Because political struggles can go either way, since the political winds do not always blow in the direction you want.
[After referring to the exclusive jurisdiction of Sworn Courts as a means of saving the political criminals “from the hate and bitterness of the rulers”, Tsoukalas ends:]
From the verdict of the people a message is provided to the governors and a lesson concerning their state, since the applaud of the jurors towards a political criminal accused by the authorities is a most terrible disapproval and a threat of an upcoming revolution. On the contrary, regular judges strongly rely on existing laws, immutable in the way they think, but also feel that they break the oath they took, if they adopt the new ideas and trends, absolutely incompetent to judge the obvious, as is the wide horizons of a political offence“.
With new argumentation regarding the narrow objective theory and the advantageous of the means, as was invoked by the public prosecutor, came back D. Vagianou, a fact that forced the public prosecutor, who had not mentioned not even one legal argument, to speak again, even more briefly, accomplishing (indeed, its an achievement) to expose himself more. The only thing I did, he said, was to apply the most common theory and I speak for the specific difference between a political and a terrorist crime, which refers to the advantageousness of the means for the achievement of the objective!
An answer-catapulte came from Marina Daliani. No matter how many times the public prosecutor makes a statement, she said, he will not be able to avoid the logical absurd, to describe on one side the so called terrorism as a political action for the inversion of the existing order and on the other the offences that are related with this action to be characterized as non political. The opinion expressed by the public prosecutor is completely opposite to the order, that claims that the means used by R.S. were advantageous, in order to characterize their actions as “terrorism”. If the public prosecutor wanted to be consistent, he would say: the Supreme Court says this, the order says this, hence I propose to the court to be reserved until after the progress of the trial, from which will be shown the nature of the offences, and not reject the objection.
It is really astonishing (and at the same time revealing of the tearing of the notorious urban law culture): the objection for the political offence and the jurisdiction of the S.C. to judge this particular case is rejected with the argumentation concerning the advantageousness of the means that were used by R.S., and the trial afterwards will take place with argumentation that the means that were used by R.S. were advantageous for the endangerment of the existing order and this is why this offence is “terrorist”. The contradiction of the Public Prosecutor opinions with the political leadership, which said that “it is likely we cannot bear a terrorist attack”, that “the economy will collapse in a moment” etc. pointed out in her second statement also P. Roupa.
After the big break, the chairman announced the rejection of the objection, postponing -the usual tactic that it is followed in these trials- until the future for the argumentation (when they clean write the decision, that is to say).
Followed an objection by advocate Anny Paparoussou (Nikitopoulos defence) for unconstitutionality of article 187A of the Penal Code, according to article 7 par. 1 of the Constitution (“There is no crime, nor a sentence is imposed, without a law that is in effect before the performing of the act and defines the evidence”). If the “terrorism” article of the Penal Code were not so vague, contrary to those of the Constitution, P. Nikitopoulos would not be accused today as a member of an organisation, because he met twice with some of the accused as members of the organization, the advocate intensely pointed out.
The public prosecutor admitted indeed that the particular article is somehow vague, we can’t however reach the extremes and speak of unconstitutionality, he ended, proposing -what else?- the reject of objection. The S. Nikitopoulos said that he will speak empirically, because he is not a lawyer. Whenever political and social conflicts are accentuated, he said, the repressive arsenal is strengthened and the evidence of innocence is abolished. The particular article of the P.C. was never used for major fraudsters and for scandals such as Siemens, but is used systematically for the prosecution of fighters of the anti-capitalistic movement.
After a new break, the court rejected this objection also, with the logic that this particular article gives the opportunity to the judges to evaluate the charges in substance.
Followed the demands of P. Roupa and N. Maziotis for summons of witnesses, according to article 353 par. 1 of the Code of Penal Procedure (not witnesses of defence, but witnesses that are considered necessary for the procedure). They asked to call three “packages” of witnesses, arguing lengthy for the objective of each summons, based on a political mindframe that concerned also the political aiming of R.S. in its various actions and the positions they held or the opinions expressed publicly by those suggested as witnesses.
The first “package” concerned people related with the actions of R.S., for example the ministers of Finances and Work, the American ambassador, the chairman of the Stock Exchange etc. The second “package” of witnesses concerned high-ranking executives of the repression mechanisms, such as the former head of K.Y.P. (central intelligence service) Korantis and the former minister of Public Order Markogiannakis, who had said that the surveillance of N. Maziotis never ceased (there are relative videos), and the executives of the “Antiterrorist” force Horianopoulos, Papageorgiou and Balakos. The third “package” of witnesses concerned low-grade police officers, guards of ministries and others, who had testified in the preliminary investigation, but were not summoned to the trial. These witnesses should be called to testify regarding the fact that R.S. always took all precautions measures in order to do not have any victims from their actions, while in cases where citizens were put in danger this happened because the police did not take the measures, despite the warnings of the organization.
The public prosecutor asked for the reject of the demands, with the mind frame that these witnesses have nothing to say, while in order to “sweeten it up” he said the classic, that if it results from the procedure, they can call any witness that will be judged necessary and has something something to provide. It is obvious, that they will try to do anything in order to de-politicize a clearly political case. This is why they do not want to call as witnesses political figures, that will have come face to face with those who have undertaken the political responsibility for their participation in R.S. just as well they do not want the presence of low-grade police officers that under the questions of defendants and advocates will be forced to reveal the truth, that R.S. took all precautions in order not to endanger people in its action (anyway, when R.S. wanted to strike repression mechanisms, they did it and took the responsibility for it).
The court, after the intervention of S. Fytrakis, who reminded that the rejection of such demands without explanation leads to absolute nullity of procedure, postponed the decision until during the procedure of the trial.
The trial will continue Monday, November 14th, at 9am.

*greek proverb meaning that if the king says something we all abide…

    Translate by boubourAs/actforfreedomnow!



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/actforfreedomnow! 



 Translated by Act for freedom now/boubourAs
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 28.11.11at 9:00am, where is expected to testify as the first witness K. Papathanasakis.

Assembly of solidarity
to the imprisoned and persecuted fighters



The 7th day of the trial of Revolutionary Struggle began with the interventions of advocates D.Vagianou, K.Dailianas, S.Fitrakis, and A.Paparousou concerning the freezing of accounts carried out by the independent Authority of Fighting the Legalization of Income from Criminal Activities and the Financing of Terrorism and Controlling of the Wealth situation Statements, without the defendants been convicted for terrorism offences. Which means that a trial begins without the evidence of innocence suggesting that offences have been committed. Since a specific Higher Authority has decided that the accused are guilty of terrorism offences, what is the reason to continue this trial, stressed S.Fitrakis. One demand of the advocates is that the judges give a guarantee that the accused are still on trial and their frozen wealth can be returned to them.
S.Nikitopoulos intervening stated that they classify him in the list of people who are suspects of state terrorism, while corrupt politicians and businessmen are absent. He claimed that as an anarchist he does not have illusions because he knows how far state oppression can go, but article 187A dismisses the evidence of innocence and blatantly standardize offences.
The judge announced that the advocates can take the document that confirms that the trial is in progress from the secretariat.
After that, P.Roupa noted that the dismissal of the application to exclude K.Papathanasakis as a witness was expected, since it is a trial clearly political with an evident convergence between the juridical body and the oppressive mechanisms. It is document of official charges which is up in the air and since K.Papathanasakis will testify whatever they transferred to him he cannot be evaluated, thus closes the road for the judges to judge what’s right and what’s wrong. Anyway, she stressed “you are here as political figures and not as judges”. Continuing, P.Roupa accused Papathanasakis of being a murderer and torturer who has a lawsuit pending against him for the murder of a Pakistani immigrant, when he was serving in Nikea police station in 2008, while he was the one who abused and tortured K.Gournas. This is the kind of person that will support this whole corroded list of official charges.
Followed the testimony of Papathanasakis with the judge and prosecutor asking some formal questions, while he provocatively answered most with “I don’t know” or “I don’t remember”, making it impossible for him to give a detailed account about the investigation he carried out. Specifically he claimed that he was present only at two initial surveillances, while for the rest he simply gathered oral statements and not written. When the advocates attacked him saying that ‘when a witness states facts from third party information, they are obliged to name the source of their information’, he answered that he cannot remember the names of his sources because the whole anti-terrorist force was in the operation, which means 100-200 people.
More specifically, to the questions of the prosecutor and judge, Papathanasakis mentioned tha the reason for the surveillances was the clash in Dafni with L.Foundas in the house of which they found a phonecard from which two phonecalls had been made to two specific numbers which belong to N.Maziotis and V.Stathopoulos. Also he testified that in the possession of V.Stathopoulos was found a note with mobile numbers and coded names which belong to S.Nikitopoulos and Ch.Kortesis and only accepted phonecalls from cardphones (payphones). The mobile of S.Nikitopoulos had not received any calls while the other mobile was not even found in the possession of Ch.Cortesis. In the trial brief also, of the 149 calls made to the latter mobile, only 15 were recorded, those made from a cardphone. To G.Rahiotis question why this happened, Papathanasakis said that the rest of the calls were not considered important. Obviously though the recording of the other calls was not in the interest of Papathanasakis and his service, because the theory that the mobile phone had a conspiratorial function, would collapse immediately. As for the person who listen to the calls live, Papathanasakis does not remember who it was.
Another point on which the advocates focused on was the meeting in Kesariani. According to the testimony of Papathanasakis, from a phone discussion that took place on 31/3/2010, the service was very legitimately lead to the conclusion that the organization is preparing a hit and characterized the meeting in Kesariani conspiratorial, because N.Mazitotis left the car far away and wore sunglasses to the meeting point. He hid of course the fact that the meeting took place in the mornig, that the accused V.Stathopoulos, S.Nikitopoulos and Ch.Cortesis had parked the their car and motorbikes in the parking lot next to the meeting point, that they stood at the parking lot for a minute and spoke in public view and nothing conspiratorial took place at that meeting.
Quite pressing was advocate M.Daliani concerning the testimony of Papathanasakis according to which V.Stathopoulos on 5/4/2010 went towards Hymitos to a deserted area, in which gunshots were later heard. After a little while V.Stathopoulos left and after an investigation they found bullet shells, which were not identified with the guns, which means that he went there to practise shooting. The advocate presented a document of the autopsy report that mentions that this specific incident took place on 11/4/2010, while V.Stathopoulos had already been arrested since 9/4/2010. To the question of the advocate how this could have happened, Papathanasakis answered that its the first time he notices the contradiction.
Especially contradicting was also the evidence he gave concerning the surveillance of the home of V.Stathopoulos on Likourgou street, which he named a lair. According the report of his inferiors, V.Stathopoulos and Ch.Kortesis left the house on Likourgou street and with a motorbike head to the house of comrade V.Stathopoulos where the latter gets off. After a couple of hours Ch.Kortesis comes out of the house on Likourgou street, without anyone noticing him going in again, this time accompanied by N.Maziotis where they get into a renault megane. According to police information, the car had Audi licence plates and had been stolen inThessaloniki. To the question of the advocates how could Ch.Kortesis come out twice from the house, while seen going in just once, Papathanasakis answered that probably it is an omission of the police officers who preformed the surveillance, without of course naming the officers.
A particular interest was presented by a series of questions by the advocates whether if during the surveillance they collected evidence for individual actions.
To questions such as:
‘Did they realize the access of some of the accused to the houses named as “lairs” during the surveillance?’
‘During the surveillance of the phones did someone get traced live planning a punishable act?’
‘Was one of the accused traced making a call from a cardphone?’
‘Were fingerprints of the accused found in any of the houses “lairs”, guns or cars?
‘What punishable act results from the meeting in a public place of some people who have friendly relations or from the visit of a person to friends or relatives house?’
the answers of Papathanasakis were negative, stressing that the only punishable act that took place was the use of a stolen car and that their arrest took place for preventive reasons.
G.Rahiotis insisted especially on the fact that the American embassy had put a bounty of $1.000.000 on Revolutionary Struggle and addressing the witness asked if he received that money. Papathanasakis answered that he knows nothing about money and if the advocate wants he can address the American embassy to find out. Finally the advocate revealed that during the holding of Ch.Kortesis in GADA (central police headquarters of Athens), the latter weirdly denied the use of his advocate while the advocate himself insistently asked to see him for 2 days, but they wouldn’t allow him to. Papathanasakis provocatively answered once more answered that he is not aware that this happened.
The trial will continue on Monday 12/12/2011 where Papathanasakis will be examined by the rest of the advocates.
translated by boubourAs/Actforfreedomnow!


REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE CASE UPDATES,9TH SESSION,19/12/2011,Session 11, Wednesday 25/1/12

At the beginning of the session there were comments on the two-day
testimony of Papathanasakis from K.Katsenos defence. P.roumeliotis
referred in detail to all the incidents testified by Papathanasakis, from
which not even indications of K.Katsenos result. And how did
Papathanasakis try to cover the absence of the slightest indication? By
lying, that Katsenos denied to give fingerprints. When, however, the
questions followed, he was made to admit that Katsenos did give
fingerprints, but there was a problem with two of his fingers, for which
he was not responsible. The advocate revealed that the problem was a type
of dermatitis that Katsenos suffers from, for which his mother brought the
relative doctors document. Papathanasakis, noted the advocate, made a
stale claim to justify the attribution of charges to Katsenos. In some
regimes, continued P.Roumeliotis, an identity was enough to render you
guilty. In Nazi Germany, if you were Jewish. In racist South Africa, if
you were black. In McCarthy’s America, but also in post war Greece, if you
were a communist. Let’s not reach the equation of the identity of an
anti-authoritarian with indications of participation in organizations such
as Revolutionary Struggle. He ended his comments by reading excerpts from
an article from ‘Kathimerini’ newspaper titled “Overturn in the R.S.
trial” and an article of ‘Eleutherotypia’ newspaper, which also made the
approach to the testimony of Papathanasakis.Ch.Ladis continued from where his colleague stopped, commenting on the
testimony of Papathanasakis from another point of view. After this
testimony, he said, I was afraid that Katsenos might tell us to withdraw
the objection of excluding Papathanasakis, with which we defended the
prestige of Justice and not the special interest of our client, for whom
Papathanasakis was exonerative. He characterized Papathanasakis as a legal
time bomb, which blew up in the court and the shards wounded much and
He directly admitted that he was an interrogating employee and this
wounded the prestige of the court. For two days he constantly committed
the offence of perjury exposing thus the court which tolerated him. He
also exposed his service by saying that he never received any documents
from his predecessors for RS. The testimony of Papathanasakis should be
thrown in the bin or he should be persecuted for perjury, as is specified
for anyone who obviously denies testifying about their informers. Never,
however, was Papathanasakis pressured to mention the obvious. We as the
defence of Katsenos, ended Ch.Ladis, are helped by Papathanasakis, because
it acquitted our client, but for reasons of procedural correctness there
should be no mention to the name Papathanasakis. Let him be considered a
stain on the whole procedure.
F.Vergados commented that Papathanasakis testimony should not be taken
into consideration, because he claimed information without revealing the
sources, while on the other hand we heard amazing things as his personal
estimations. For example that the accused observed conspiratorial rules.
And what were they? That they acted naturally!!Vaggelis Stathopoulos read his own written evaluation, in the form of a
statement. It is not the first time that fighters are dragged to court. He
said. Authority always sought the extermination of its political enemies.
During the junta, a lie from a cop was enough to get you exiled. In
democracy one or more ‘I don’t remember’ are enough to send you to jail.
Papathanasakis, knew me well from the time he was head of Nikea police
station, just as he knew my whole family. After the death of a Pakistani
immigrant, I and a friend were threatened to stop mobilizing for the case,
because he would ‘wrap us in a piece of paper’. Intentionally he tried to
present my house as a weird house, while it was open to a lot of people.
In the same way my address book transformed into a note well hidden and my
car goes to the mountain, while I am detained. My persecution is strictly
political, because of my participation in the anarchist movement and the
social struggles. Because I deny to condemn any form of struggle and
I have friendships which I won’t denounce.

Pola Roupa also made a comment, simultaneously opening another major
matter. I did not expect anything different from Papathanasakis testimony,
she said. I did not expect him to say anything serious, but it was proven
that the problem is much deeper. While he consciously lied big, nothing
happened from the judges. He said, that allegedly his service does not
follow anarchists, while there is officially a special department just for
that job. When people know that they are being followed, it makes sense
that they will take some protection measures, and this is suspicious to
Papathansakis. Everyone in the anarchist-anti authoritarian movement is a
suspect to him. From the fingerprints found in the house of our comrades
Lambros Foundas began an industry of investigations, interrogations,
calls. Because they had nothing on the organization, (if we hadn’t taken
the political responsibility there would have been absolutely nothing),
they opened a circle of investigation, calling for interrogation about 50
comrades from the anarchist- anti authoritarian movement, but again found
nothing. They attempted the political isolation of us three, they
attempted to bend the will for solidarity.We are talking about a case which is up in the air. All they did was try
to hurt the anarchist movement. They ended up for reasons of revenge to
bring as an accused also Mari Beraha, to hurt Kostas Gournas.You do not know and you will never know if in RS there were 10, 20, 50,
how many people were. You do not know and you will never know anything
about the actions of the organization. You will only guess and estimate
how many participated in some actions, without knowing who. For RS you are
at zero. What did Papathanasakis say about me? If I hadn’t taken the
political responsibility, what would he say about me? I chose for
political reasons to take the political responsibility, because I
considered this my debt towards the organization and to our dead comrade.In addition, was proven the absolute cooperation of police and juridical
authorities. To Papathanasakis biggest lies and his continuous “I don’t
remember” you said nothing. But he, who allegedly couldn’t remember the
name of any of his inferiors’ names, remembered to say, when asked about
Dervenion street, that a comrade called Aggelatakis lives there, who has
nothing to do with the case. Why does he remember that? Because they are
following him. It makes sense that Papathanasakis would lie, but it does
not make sense that you cover him like this. This proves that you function
with a political order and there is possibility that people are convicted
whom have nothing to do with this and we will find ourselves with hundreds
of years of prison on our backs.Papathanasakis also said that we were not followed. Not only were we
followed constantly, but they almost killed us. P.Roupa read out
statements of N.Maziotis, which had been published years ago in the press,
like when they knocked him off his motorbike. I tell you again, she
continued, this was our life from since 2001 when comrade Maziotis was
released. To prove, however, the charge of leadership, they have to admit
that they were talking crap about the surveillance. There is an interview
of Markogiannakis on Real FM where he says that Maziotis never ceased to
be followed, that there is a massive file with thousands of pages and if
the case goes to the appeals interrogator, he will tell him. “Did he go to
the interrogator mrs Roupa?”, intervened the prosecutor, without wondering
why the interrogator did not call him, since Markogiannakis constantly
said these things back then. “We call him here, to come to the court”,
answered immediately P.Roupa, putting in the demand to play the
Markogiannakis radio interview in the court as well as TV interview on
‘Skai’ channel, so no one can dispute this fact. “No one disputes it”,
commented the judge, in an attempt to avoid the demand.
The video should be shown, insisted Roupa, to clarify here that either for
eight years they did nothing or we tore apart their surveillance measures.
During the ruling of PASOK and ND they followed us constantly. We took the
political responsibility and again they have nothing, they don’t even know
how many were in the organization.An extensive dialogue began between P.Roupa and the advocates D.Vagianou
and S.Fitrakis on one side, and the judge and public prosecutor on the
other.The arguments of Roupa-Vagianou-Fitrakis were clear and specific.
Markogiannakis should be examined at this point of the procedure and
later, when all irrelevant witnesses who have nothing to say will have
passed. Papathanasakis, knowing that anarchists do not apply a
hierarchical model but horizontal procedures, spoke of a “central role”.
To investigate, therefore, this “central role”, we must look at the past.
We must look at this massive file. Markogiannakis says that he does not
think that Maziotis has a central role. And not try to attribute the
leadership to us and from there on the ethical perpetration for all
actions, stressed P.Roupa.
The judge firstly was a bit uncomfortable, without being able to find a
counter-argument. He got the point to say, that he himself does not
dispute what is said by Markogiannakis, because he has heard him say these
things in private. He proposed therefore that they are taken for granted,
but to not play his interviews! The prosecutor proposed a solution:
tape-record Markogiannakis interviews, but do not project the videos, to
not turn the court room into a theatre. P.Roupa quickly replied, that
during the trial of the Conspiracy Cells of Fire, despite the opposition
of the advocates, they played videos and showed photos of the personal
moments of the accused, who had nothing to do with the case.The only reason to deny the demand, noted N.Maziotis, is so that the
seediness of the state mechanism is not revealed. The DAEEB oppressed and
the through snitching journalists who wrote different things and mentioned
also my name. I, during Voulgarakis-Markogiannakis was pointed at as a
member of R.S. We are honoured and proud of the 16 actions of the
organization, but you must prove if we were at them. Practically, if we
accept what Markogiannakis says, ended P.Roupa, the charge will be only
participation. They searched, searched, that’s why the 18 month period
expired, but found nothing.After the decision about Markogiannakis, the defence of Katsenos deposited
an important demand. They asked that the court decides the lifting of the
detainment of Katsenos and replace it with restricting terms.  The demand
has two sides. A formal side, which concerns the line of the law, and a
substantial side, which concerns the ratio of the law. The ratio of the
law says that the specific synthesis can better than anyone else to judge
the demand for the lifting of the detainment of Katsenos, because they
know the trial brief, has seen Katsenos for two and a half months now and
therefore know him personally, while now they also have the testimony of
Papathanasakis which has wiped out every idea of indication at the expense
of Katsenos. An Appeals judge council is an equal body, which however does
not have the above advantages. Besides this, the economy of the trial is
made easier, because the massive trial brief will not have to leave to go
to the council and the trial will not have to be interrupted until the
brief comes back. Because –as noted by P.Roumeliotis and Ch.Ladis- they
cannot even imagine that the whole brief will not go to the council, but
only the order and the police files.The prosecutor, flipping through the Penal Code, while the advocates
presented their arguments, immediately proposed the demand is rejected,
claiming the line of the law. The Code, he said, does not speak of cases
of interrupting the trial. For these cases the council is always in
charge, this is why the court must claim it has no jurisdiction and should
get into the heart of substance of the demand.
Secondly the advocates asked of the court to see the ratio, the justifying
base of the law. The prosecutor presented a simple repeat of the
procedural regulation, ignoring the justifying base. And finally, the
court must have the courage to admit and not say: “let this glass pass
from me”.(biblical term)This specific court, however, afraid of responsibility,
super-conservative, knowing that it gives exams to the powerful ones,
acted accordingly to the… evangelical quote. It threw the ball to the
council, declaring itself unqualified. The judge wished good luck to the
council, admitting thus indirectly, that there is absolutely nothing to
justify the imprisonment of K.Katsenos. Practically, however, he will
remain in prison for an unknown time still, while the “intentions” of the
council are uncertain.
After that we enjoyed the…. surveyor of the anti-terrorist, a.k.a.
sergeant Kostandinos Geldis. He says, he took a handwritten diagram found
at the house of Maziotis-Roupa in Kalivia with the order to find what
exactly it shows. So, the genius found that it shows a square block behind
the building of GADA (central Athens police headquarters), facing Panormou
street, and even has some marks on it which shows there was a plan to
carry out an action against pedestrians and various cops which park at a
spot and carry out searches. And how did this genius cop find this out?
Because he happens to pass by there every day and he knows the spot. After
spotting it, he took his measuring tape, measured and realized an action
was being prepared, based on two homocentric circles and a rectangle
triangle which was in the diagram! He is good in math, but doesn’t know
that a rectangle triangle does not have a… diagonal, but a hypotenuse!Of course, he did all this on his own and then went and gave a testimony
to his colleagues. He did not put together a report neither did he take
another colleague with him, just to make this a bit formal.
And why through many books, with hundreds of notes, found in the house of
Maziotis-Roupa (S.Fitrakis read out many titles of the confiscated books),
only this note was chosen, while the rest weren’t even searched? The cop
froze. And since on the same note there was a second drawing with streets
in Plaka area and many spots noted on them, why was nothing found in Plaka
that gives a suspicion of the planning off an action of the R.S.? The cop
again froze.The procedure closed with ‘Papathanasakis no2’ or the ‘Papathanasakis’ of
Chemistry, Dimitris Katharios. He is in charge of the DNA checks and he
would accept objections to what he said. Someone with a degree in
chemistry and a MBA in food biology, with minimum to none experience, was
hired as a civilian employee of the police and acts worse than a cop.
These are some parts from his testimony which will continue in the next
session.-While there is an international scientific dispute of the DNA
methodology, even by police reports, Katharios didn’t say a word about
this, but presented the method as undisputed, as the absolute method of
identification.-The police laboratory has not been certified by the completely
disgraceful ESYD (National Accreditation System), which openly shares out
certifications even to private labs. Its little shop, with which the
police does its job, without referring the lab of the Forensic Service
neither the university labs. Why is a lab which has been in a “procedure
of certification”, monopolizes all the criminal investigations, and no
other state and university labs.-Although the guy is just a simple employee (chemist) he appeared to
testify as if he was the head of the department. He ensured that the whole
procedure, from the collection of the samples up to the research, is
performed in the proper way and there is no way they can make a mistake!
But, how does he know this? When a sample is collected, he is not there.
He should have said that he is responsible for the laboratory research.
They bring him something and he examines it.-It is characteristic how he froze when, while talking all this crap about
the professionalism with which they collect all the samples from the
evidence, D.Vagianou showed him photos, in which you could see a rocket
thrown on a mattress and a series of guns thrown onto some cardboard.
“These are photographs from the newspapers”, he mumbled. These, however,
are photos which the anti-terrorist force gave to the newspapers and
depict clearly that no care is taken in order to protect the evidence. For
example if the mattress was an old mattress from the Gournas family, why
shouldn’t there be i.e. dandruff from the hair of his wife? D.Vagianou
stated, and the chemist-cop swallowed his tongue.This whole story with the DNA is because of Mari Beraha (for none of the
other accused). They allegedly found genetic material on the trigger of a
Zastava pistol, which was identified with genetic material found in the
house of Maries father, Manolis Berahas, and when compared with other
genetic material found in the same house they realised there was
hereditary compatibility. They didn’t say Mari Beraha but they… figured
it’s obvious…The trial was scheduled to continue on 13/1/12 but was postponed till
25/1/12 because of a three day strike by the Athens Lawyers Assosiation.——————————————————————

Session 11, Wednesday 25/1/12

The session began with the completion of the examination of the police
“chemist” D.Katharios, from Ch.Kortesis advocate P.Gianakopoulou.
Afterwards, there were comments on Katharios marathon testimony.
N.Maziotis said that the list of witnesses was not formed accidentally. He
brought as an example the “surveyor” of the anti-terrorist force Geldis,
who fixed a story with a hunch, to justify the arrests, in the name of an
upcoming attack on the spot which Geldis “discovered”. There were many
hunches, but EL.AS (greek police) could not make solid assumptions,
because only the organization knew what actions it will carry out. There
were for example names of politicians. Why didn’t they assume that the
organization would attack them? N.Maziotis referred to how Papathanasakis
planned out the testimonies first, then passed them on to Geldis and
Katharios. The diagram of Panormou street, he pointed out, proves
absolutely nothing, unless we take Papathanasakis assumptions as the
Going onto Katharios and his testimony, he said that the court will
consider the fact that no one gave DNA as proof of guilt, this is why
there is no measure for comparison, neither has there been a result
concerning the participation of who in which action of the organization.
Why we didn’t give DNA? Continued N.Maziotis. Because we are political
opponents and we never give anything to the enemy with our own consent.
The matter is political. I personally have never given anything,
fingerprints or photographs. Whatever they have, they have taken it
violently. Despite all this, while Katharios speaks of X unknown
individuals, you will identify the DNA, because this is the political
Afterwards, he went on to Katharios lies. From his testimony, he said, it
was proven that the procedure of collecting DNA is completely
untrustworthy. He referred to the guns which were openly lying around on
the floor or the mattress. Katharios said that the first people who go in
are trained to take precautions. And it was proven that in the house on
Eginis street, they found only 12 DNA samples and 7 of them were of their
own people, cops. They were infected either during the collection or
during transportation. A percentage of 70% was infected and Katharios
lied at first, that there is no possibility of infection. Maziotis also
reminded some of the amazing contradictions Katharios fell upon, saying
one thing in one session and another thing in the other. In our case, he
concluded, this untrustworthy procedure cannot be applied, because we
have not given DNA. But you will use it. Your decision will be clearly
Katharios got to the point of perjury, commented D.Vagianou, trying to
hide facts or present false facts as true. She referred analytically to
his evasions, refusals, and contradictions. The DNA method, she stressed,
carries great dangers and can set up nightmarish traps. She referred to
the possibility of transporting DNA, but also of producing DNA, the
dangers of infection, the possibility of secondary transportation, the
mixes, to conclude that for these dangers alone, DNA should be abandoned
as a means of proof. M.Beraha, concluded the advocate, was found accused
only with the DNA and was proven that she is accused without there even
being a comparison with a reference sample. She is accused, therefore,
with assumptions and scenarios. K.Gournas was arrested and tortured.
Afterwards, was approached with the intention to cooperate and give
evidence. All this he has stated in a publication in the press titled:
“This is how I was interrogated”.
What did Katharios tell us, commented M.Daliani: “I everything was done
correctly, then the DNA examination is trustworthy”. But, through his
testimony it was proven that nothing was done correctly, but on the
contrary there were infections, doubtful transportation conditions,
examination and storage etc. Such examinations should not be carried out
in the police laboratory, commented A.Paparousou, because this lab
supports the charge. It does not consist of independent scientists, but of
recruited technicians. In order to “document” all that she said, the
advocate presented a recording, of the ones which Katharios and the other
cops do not present to the court. It is one of those recordings where
subjectivism pervades. They only bring their own conclusions and not the
recordings, because that’s where subjectivism shows. These recruited
technicians only manage a couple of pieces of information and are ordered
to do this. Instead of throwing light onto reality, they put deeper in the
dark. They won’t even give you the facts of this method which they are
trying to to present to you as trustworthy.
We have drained the DNA matter, commented P.Roupa. What impressed me is
that Papathanasakis and Geldis and Katharios did not have the fundamental
ability to lift the weight they had taken on. She referred to the graphic
testimony of Geldis, and then got the alleged scientist Katharios, who
messed up. What they propagate as a super-weapon, DNA, is completely
flawed and is based on a science which is up in the air. A circle of
testimonies of police witnesses has closed, concluded P.Roupa, and now
begins the main trial which concerns the actions of the organization, to
which we will give special weight, revealing their political character.
The witnesses have been chosen in order to give substance to matters and
actions, which according to our persecutors feed the perception that it is
about a criminal organization. From now on we will position ourselves on
the political choices of struggle we will try to reveal the political
motives and the political objectives the organization had. The next
witnesses concern the attack on the ministry of Culture, which took place
after the murder of Grigoropoulos and the social explosion that followed.
The murder was the reason; the cause was the decadent life that a lot of
people lived. The judge tried to stop P.Roupa from referring to the
historical frame in which the specific incident took place, but she
resisted intensely and made the judge back down and let her complete what
she was saying which concerned the historical frame in which this action
of the R.S. took place, the criminal role of the police, the murders of
citizens, the role of the criminal mechanism of the MAT (greek riot cop
unit) etc.
Ch.Kortesis stated that his refusal to give DNA derives from his political
identity as an anarchist and his political values which come to a complete
opposition with any cooperation with the persecuting mechanisms. I will
not legalize or condone any attempt of creating a bank of biological data,
i.e. biological filing. Whatever penal cost my choice has, I would rather
preserve my political and personal dignity.
S.Nikitopoulos stated that in his case the refusal to give DNA is a
clearly political act and should not be considered proof of guilt. This
political act, in hostage conditions, acquires a character of an act of
resistance. It derives from our political opposition to authority and
state oppression, the controlling of our lives and any kind of filing. It
is a common secret that the Police since 1996 started collecting DNA
samples from opponents of authority. There are named statements of people
stating that cops watch their houses and go through the garbage. I will
not allow this absurdity they want to impose on our lives. He spoke of
shops from which the police goes by and collects glasses, a fact confirmed
by Ch.Kortesis, referring to such an incident that happened to him.
The discussion was closed by N.Maziotis, reminding what Papathanasakis
said for Katsenos: If he is innocent, why didn’t he give DNA?this is not
just the perception of the police, it is also your perception, he
commented. Remember when the prosecutor asked the advocate of Katsenos, if
he can give DNA now? This shows that you have turned our refusal to give
DNA into proof of guilt.
Then it was the turn of the two riot cops, who were shot at outside the
ministry of culture, Ad.Matzounis and A.Margelos (the first one got two
bullets and was injured, now is ok, but has retired). They saw nothing,
except for two people, without being able to recognize anyone. They
couldn’t even give a general description. The judge and public prosecutor
made a few formal questions, without trying to “colorize” anything.
The attack on the ministry of culture, just as the previous one in Goudi,
stated N.Maziotis, was a legitimate political answer to the murder of
Grigoropoulos from the police murderers Korkoneas and Saraliotis. He spoke
analytically about the role of the police, reminding Polydoras phrase
“praetors”. The police forces are servants of the rich, servants of the
state and capital. They are servants and bodyguards of the capitalists,
lackeys of authority, and dogs of authority. R.S. had warned a year and a
half earlier, when they sprayed Nea Ionias police station with bullets,
answering the phrase of Polydoras, that cops who are attacked have a
sensitive nervous system. R.S. warned that they will reply if there are
dead people. The Grigoropoulos murder confirmed this warning and the
answer was compulsory. Violence to the violence.
 N.Maziotis also referred to the barbaric economic and social policy, with
the neo-liberal measures against the workers, which needs the state
oppression. In social war, he said, there will be deaths and injuries and
prisoners. Matzounis paid the price of his choice to become a cop, just
as we, when you convict us, will pay the price to be members of an armed
revolutionary organization. And Lambros Foundas paid for the same price
with his life. Everyone pays the price of the field they have chosen. Our
difference is that we are volunteers in the struggle for freedom, while
you are mercenaries of the capitalist system. He read also an excerpt
from the communique with which R.S. took the responsibility for the
attack against the riot cops (he developed the estimations of the
organization concerning the character of the time and the revolutionary
possibilities, analysing the tactics of the R.S., as its described in its
communiques), he spoke about the armed propaganda and the deposit which,
in his opinion, this action left. That is that decisive revolutionaries
can clash with the armed mechanisms of the state in a direct conflict and
demean them operationally, a fact he characterized important for the
expectant popular revolt.
He referred, finally, to the murdering orgy of the police, for which no
one is persecuted. Who are you, who will speak to us about human life? You
are hypocrites. You have two measures and two levels. You only care of
those similar to you, everyone else is category b or c. Even the cops,
your servants, you have them as disposable. When the police kills, there
is no matter, these executions are fair. When R.S. shoots Matzounis it is
Maziotis intervention annoyed the prosecutor, who interrupted him to say
that Matzounis is a kid and he is not the system and Maziotis should be
ashamed of what he is saying. This is not manly, he said angrily, causing
the raging reaction of Maziotis and Roupa, who spoke again about the
crimes of the police and the covering which the juridical authority
diachronically offers to these crimes. Maziotis listed a whole catalogue
of crimes. P.Roupa also answered to the prosecutor, about manhood, and
spoke of the barbarity of the system today, which leads to destructions
and suicides. If the banks put the noose around peoples necks, the judges
are those who kick the stool, she said. Is this manly? She then referred
to the meaning of crime, speaking of the massive criminality of
capitalism, as it develops around the world.
The trial will continue on Monday, January 30, at 9am.
translated by Actforfreedomnow/boubourAs



The witness Vasiliki Leukimiati revealed, without intending to or without
her realizing, the ridiculousness of the anti-terrorist force (of the
infamous Papathanasakis and his officers), which looking for witnesses to
create an environment against the arrestees, did not hesitate to even use
imaginative ladies, which they pressured into “recognitions” from
photographs. This lady testified that the police visited her at home,
asking her if she realized anything suspicious, because at the nearby
police station of Kesariani, “a terrorist attack” took place. She
therefore thought she should tell them, that she had seen a silver
‘Hyundai’ stopped in the middle of the street, with the alarm lights on,
and the driver, a young man, using the payphone, not caring about the cars
honking their horns at him for blocking the road. And although it’s
obvious that this incident is anything but suspicious (no need to explain
why), they dragged her to the anti-terrorist offices and showed her
photos, until she “recognized” that Kortesis “could be”, 50% sure (!), the
driver of the silver ‘Hyundai’!
And they sent her to court as a witness, to say that, now that she sees
him up close, she is sure it wasn’t Kortesis. Before she said that, the
judge had made surewith his questions and short comments to completely
disregard the presence of this lady as a witness, given that the incident
she described had nothing to do with the attack on the police station. At
some point he asked Kortesis, for the formalities of the case, if he was
the driver of the ‘Hyundai’ which had blocked the road, causing laughter
in the whole room.
The witness Anastasios Makrogiannis, son of the of the owner of the house
where N.Maziotis and P.Roupa lived, testified that the house in Kalivia
was rented by P.Roupa in the name Vasiliki Paraskeuopoulou and that he had
a normal relationship with the tenants, receiving the rent through the
bank and a couple of times in person with cash. Sarcastic S.Fitrakis,
wanting obviously to ridicule the prosecutions choice of witnesses, asked
the witness if he had seen a bazookas or tank in the yard or if he heard
canon shots from test shots that Maziotis was doing, receiving a negative
answer. Then, he asked him if he has any complaints from the tenants or if
he found dmages in his house and received the same negative answer, and
commented: “the rest is differences with the state and does not concern
The judge ordered the mandatory appearance of the witnesses who were
absent (except for three who were justifiably absent), while for the next
session he called also a series of other witnesses, among which the
ex-minister G.Voulgarakis and ex head of the supreme court V.Kokkinos.
The trial was adjourned for Monday 6th of February, at 9am.
translate by Actforfreedomnow!/boubourAs




The witness Mattheou, resident of Dafni, was the owner of the car in which
Lambros Foundas, the day the cops executed him. The woman, of course,
could not testify anything. She was informed of the incident by the
television. She didn’t hear gunshots either. She couldn’t even remember if
her car, which she saw after a year and a half, had marks from two or
three bullets.
From the scene in Dafni, commented N.Maziotis, the prosecutor called only
the specific witness and not the two cops who are involved with the murder
of Lambros Foundas.. He didn’t call the murderers, obviously for
protection reasons. This attitude does not surprise us, he continued. The
role of the courts is to protect the lackeys of the system. The value of
life and justice is counted with the class position. You only protect
those like you. Lambros Foundas will remain in history as a fighter. He
lost his life fighting for the change of society, so the crisis becomes
the cause for the social revolution. It is our debt to defend Lambros
Foundas. He is not dead.
He is present and immortal.
This day is especially important to us as well the organization, continued
P.Roupa. We will speak about our comrade, because for us he is still
alive. Lambros Foundas “fell” during a specific choice of the
organization. He is a symbol of resistance and the upcoming social
The witness Vagou, owner of an apartment in Ano Patissia, mentioned
someone called Mantalozis who rented the apartment, with his id card. When
at some point some council tax bills were unpaid, she looked in the
phonebook, found a Mandalozis, he told her he is not related, she realized
something is wrong, until he told her he went to the police. She was only
able to enter the apartment 6 months after the police raiding and found it
all blackened from the attempt to find fingerprints. They told her they
found nothing. The witness insisted that she does not recognize any of the
The witness Fili rented out a one bedroom flat in Kipseli to a gentleman,
a very polite guy. When she managed to re-enter her house she found it in
a mess from the police operation. “You’re lucky we didn’t manage to take
the walls too…”, she was told by the cops.
Witness Stamos served in the riot unit at the ministry of Culture, which
was shot at by the R.S. the only thing he remembers is that it was two
people wearing helmets or hoods. He couldn’t give any specific
Concerning the attack on the ministry of Culture we must say a few things,
stated P.Roupa. This choice was very specific. The ‘khakis’ had to be hit.
They are the most violent of the security forces and are responsible for
the vicious beatings of many people. These forces train militantly, she
said, adding that she as well has suffered the violence. And of course,
their political superiors knew this. She mentioned cases of torturing,
beatings of prisoners, even underage; to conclude that this is a socially
degraded force that guards a rotten social system. And this force is hated
by many. The revolution which will take place will go over them and will
have them against it. We had said as R.S., continued P.Roupa, that the
revolt (December 2008) is not enough. The ministry of Culture was a moment
from the future. It brought what was going to happen. Through the murder
of Grigoropoulos memories of 1944 came to mind, when the urban guerrillas
then fought in the same alleys. Then there was an attempt to take over the
authority. This gap of authority must be taken over by the people. For
social equality and freedom.
Witness Paraskevopoulou testified that she was called to testify because
her i.d. card information was used to rent a “safe-house”, when she has
never lost an i.d. card. She has no relation with the accused and knows
nothing else. Same story with witness Grivokostopoulos. He had lost his
i.d. and had declared it. We note that the judge was very carefull,
correcting both witnesses when they used the term “safe-house”, telling
them: “You mean a house, it has not been proven it’s a safe-house”.
Voulgarakis did appear, in the end, to testify. He testified that the
specific day, owing to his good luck, forgot his briefcase and went back
to get it. He heard a loud and unusual sound and his bodyguards put him
back into his house. if he had not forgotten the briefcase, he said, he
would have been hit, because he was the target. He read the organizations
communique in the press. As minister of Public Order he did not interfere
in strictly service matters. According to his opinion, what is sure is
that until then R.S. wanted to publicize its opinions, while after the
attempt against him the ministry realized that they wanted blood also.
But, operationally he is in no position to know more details, because he
was minister of Culture. He asked for a briefing, which he never got from
the ministry, but got it from the communique!
To the question of S.Fitrakis what it means for him the claim of political
responsibility, Voulgarakis answered that claim of political
responsibility means claiming political responsibilities which if
identified with criminal acts should be characterized penal
responsibility. And does the same apply to the Prime-Minister of the
state? Insisted the advocate, and received a delirious answer. In the
penal justice according to your opinion is enough for you the political
responsibility for the penal conviction of a person? Shouldn’t we prove
the participation of this person in specific actions before we give him
five or six time’s life? Asked S.Fitrakis. Maybe, he continued, when it’s
about revolted citizens things are different? So, Voulgarakis “piped
down”: I came here to describe the incidents as I experienced them.
Obviously, if you ask for my opinion, I disagree with their point of view.
To the questions of why he was chosen as a target, Voulgarakis answered
with political generalizations. When cornered, he found refuge in the
nonsense: “Look, these trials are clearly penal. Not political”! when
D.Vagianou referred to the scandals in which Voulgarakis himself in
implicated, the judge tried to protect him, asking: You, mrs Vagianou,
what exact claim are you trying to promote? The advocate didn’t cave. I
have every right, she said, to feel horror about the scandals and bribing,
the phone tapings and the torturing on immigrants, in which the name of
Voulgarakis has been implicated. His attitude provokes me. I do not serve
any claim. I simply ask wand expect an answer from the witness. And she
got a nonsense-answer, like the ones Voulgarakis always said, when he was
a political tv-star: “Listen. Once two friends were walking on one side of
the road, and two others on the other side. At some point one friend said
to another: ‘Him there, he is a fascist’. And he killed him. So is the
fascist in the end? The one who got killed or the one who killed?”. The
serious answer of Voulgarakis was an anecdote commented the advocate and
continued: Do you think you do not symbolize authority? Voulgarakis didn’t
say a word.
From the next questions of the judge it was revealed that Voulgarakis also
lied about the real incidents. Because his bodyguards said that there was
no in and out, but they waited for him to come out of his house. “Their
testimony was not accurate”, he commented. And to avoid the touch spot, he
stated that he was not informed that the explosion was cancelled by the
organization to not injure anyone. Afterwards, answering questions by
M.Daliani, he had to swallow his tongue again. Where do attribute the
reasons for the attack? This is mentioned in the communique, answered
Voulgarakis. At this point the communique was true? While concerning the
cancellation of the attack not? Continued the advocate. Voulgarakis again
swallowed his tongue.
Like this, with his old known machoness wrinkled, Voulgarakis left, so the
political comments can follow.
P.Roupa: This specific politician is a criminal and a crook. A repulsive
face of authority. He walks around in disguise. Cops protect and guard
such people. He participated in scandals which were the reason for the
attack. He seized the wealth of the people. He was involved with his wife
in the scandal of Vatopedi. He has a mythical and stolen fortune. If there
was a popular court today, they would cut him to pieces. If this person
appeared in front of the greek people without police presence, they would
crush him. The greek people hate him. Him and all those like him.
The attack against him took place because of two scandals: the phone
tapings (which was a mass surveillance of the greek citizens) and the
kidnapping of the Pakistanis. The choice of Voulgarakis was taken by the
R.S. first of all because he is a criminal and secondly because he
organized the kidnapping of the Pakistanis and participated in the
scandals mentioned. With the use of the chrysobulls he and his wife sold
out public property. Property of the people. They made off shore
companies. They created a whole network. They made loads of money and
acquired numerous houses. No one asks where all these fortunes came from.
He became filthy rich on the backs of the greek people. About the specific
attack he is lying. It started as such but it was cancelled. There was
another attempt before this one which also wasn’t carried out because of a
passing motorbike. The next time which we are talking about, the cop who
checked the area came, something unusual. The attack was cancelled. The
specific person, however, will not get away, not from the “terrorist”
organizations but from the people themselves.
N.Maziotis: With this attack real justice was served. Voulgarakis is a
criminal. On 24/10, I had said that others should be in the place of the
accused. Members of the two last governments, PASOK and N.D. Voulgarakis,
if tried by the people –because your court is not popular, you suck up to
him- would be severely punished. What the people feel about this person
has been realized. The attacks on him are uncountable. On the contrary, if
we want to make the comparison, we do not hide, we are openly, clearly
stating what we are. The people spit on him and not us. We have the
popular acceptance. The motives of the actions of the professional
politicians are vile and selfish. They became politicians in order to get
rich. We serve the interest of the people. If politics is a service in the
interest of the people, we do it and not Voulgarakis and the rest of the
professional polticians. They are crooks and speculators. They exploit the
needs of the people. They hunt votes. Representative democracy is a rotten
system. It suffers a cession of popular rights and not the exercise of
policies in favour of the people. Voulgarakis is corrupted. He has
confessed the relations of politicians with the economic elite, the
relations of intertwining with businessmen and companies, with fat bribes
and money. This phenomenon is not an abnormality in democracy as they tell
us. It is the rule. Let’s look at the asset sources of Voulgarakis. These
kids are very poor! (he read the asset source declaration from KATHIMERINI
Who is then the real criminal?
During the 5 year service of the minister in question (2004-2009), 50
scandals were recorded. It is not an abnormality. It is the rule of
operation of capitalism and the system. He got involved in dirty
businesses. He is the ethical and political man? This is audacious. We
defend the actions of R.S. politically. Voulgarakis is political crook (he
read the whole list of scandals he was involved in, analysing each one).
Voulgarakis lied also about the case we examine now. He is professional
liar and thief. What were the main crimes of Voulgarakis for which we
consider him guilty and for which the attack took place against him: 1.
Crimes against the freedoms of the people. 2. Kidnappings and torturing of
Pakistanis. 3. The murder of Tsalikidis. 4. Robbery at the expense of the
people. If the attack were successful, real justice would have been
Witness Pehlivanis, a cop, was on the guard of Voulgarakis. He testified
that he saw a woman on a bike and two men, which he considered suspicious
and mentioned it, but was not in front of the incident. He did not
recognize anyone of the accused. Trained by Vougarakis, he said that he
came out and came back. When it was pointed out to him that his colleagues
testify otherwise, he answered he does not know their testimonies! To the
question if the retreat of the members of the R.S. was coincidental or
conscious, he replied that he cannot answered.
The other four witnesses (an unemployed, a hotel employee of Saint George,
a retired officer and his wife, who had made various descriptions of
people, were in no position to testify anything substancial and,
naturally, they did not recognize anyone).
Witness Polidoratos, a cop from the Immigration Authorities testified
about the incident at EUROBANK in Argiroupoli. He was on patrol, and saw
two motorbikes parking outside the bank, they went close, the lookout
called the other three and got on the motorbikes, the cops came closer,
the last one the second motorbike made a move and pulled out a gun and
they took off. He does not recognize anyone, because they were wearing
The trial will continue on Friday the 10th of February at 9am.
translate by boubourAs/Act for freedom now





The chairman opened the procedure by reading the list of witnesses called
since the previous session. A list which is part of the list of the
official charges, contains the names all mixed up, a fact that hides
intentions, in order for them to convict according to the charges brief,
especially N.Maziotis, P.Roupa and K.Gournas. It is important to mention
that, although N.Maziotis and P.Roupa had made a demand to call the
witnesses A.Kannelopoulou and P.Polihronou to testify (Voulgarakis case),
they were not called by the court, even though they had testified to the
interrogator. And this was on purpose, because these two cop witnesses
made an autopsy of the space where the attempt took place and had found
the remote-control mechanism. Thus, would collapse the myth of the
antiterrorist force and the decision it was a blind attack.
As soon as the chairman finished the reading of the witness list, advocate
D.Vagianou spoke, and said that ‘there is an alleged investigation…’.
Before she finished her sentence, the chairman interrupted her by saying
‘not allegedly, there is an investigation’! ‘Yes, as much as you can
investigate some matters which are self-determining’, continued the
advocate, mentioning that that witness L.Alexopoulos (had already been
called to testify, by the chairman), is from the case of the Nea Ionias
police station attack. ‘If this way, pointed out D.Vagianou, completely
coincidently and to facilitate the speed of the trial, we grab one witness
here, one witness there’, for the judge to interrupt her again, asking her
who does this, when it was obvious that she was talking about him. While
the advocate stresses that the witnesses-police technicians of the
Voulgarakis case should be called, the chairman pretends he doesn’t
understand and said they had pre-announced the witnesses. D.Vagianou
reminds him that the list of the witness had no order, which means they
didn’t call the witnesses in an order so that the cases could be solved
one by one, while prosecutor Markopoulos didn’t call all the witnesses who
testified to the interrogator.

The chairman continued interrupting the advocate, while she demanded to
interrupt the procedure aiming at the satisfying of the demand of
N.Maziotis and P.Roupa to put the witnesses in an order so one case can be
solved at a time, he replied that the court will examine the present
witnesses and for the absent ones it will apply the Code of Penal
Procedure, which means it will order their mandatory transfer to the
court. He did not say a word, however, about the demand of N.Maziotis and
P.Roupa to call the cop witnesses who were in the Voulgarakis case.

Then P.Roupa asked to speak. In the previous session there were matters
which have not been investigated in the Voulgarakis case, she said. How
this action was carried out. She continued saying that Voulgarakis said
various lies, that he allegedly knew how this action took place and he
barely made it. We said various things, but the way this action was
carried out has not been investigated. This action was carried out with a
remote control, a fact which would be proven if the cops who collected it
and testified it in their original testimonies, would come here. We have
made the demand to call these witnesses, she reminded. From our side,
stressed P.Roupa, we have to say that this action was carried out in such
a way, in order to secure that no one random will get hurt except for him
From there on, to me, all other things should be investigated, continued
P.Roupa, who characterized as provocative the attitude of the chairman to
make a conclusion from one and only witness testimony which leaves
implications that there was a danger for people passing by (a conclusion
which he won’t publicize for obvious reasons at this point of time) and
not accepting to examine the witnesses-bomb technicians of the special
violent crimes squad (DAEEB)
The chairman, obviously annoyed, interrupted her many times, asking
occasionally how she knows he made a conclusion and occasionally ‘why
would I not read it? (the witness testimony). He was balancing between two
positions. After many interruptions, the chairman, answering to the demand
of P.Roupa, provocatively stated, that first the prosecution witnesses
will be examined and then the other witnesses will be called. It became
obvious, thus, that in the intentions of the chairman was to not call the
witnesses who belong to the DAEEB, obviously so the court can make a
decision according to the official charges. (and not only for the
Voulgarakis case).
Equally provocative the prosecutor A.Liogas asked P.Roupa if she claims
that the action was carried out with a remote control. This question
obviously provoked P.Roupa, who spoke to remind him, that she is not
claiming, but this is how this action took place. While the prosecutor
knows that with the existing evidence of the trial brief (as it was
structured by prosecutor Markopoulos) there can for sure be a conviction
for attempted homicide, they denied until that moment to call the
witnesses of the DAEEB, projecting different incoherent arguments. His
non-confessed target is to propose the conviction of Maziotis, Roupa and
Gournas according to the official charges.
What was said up to now is expectable for me and it confirms that you are
prejudice, said N.Maziotis. they have given you the order to finish up
because you have other things to do! He concluded that the organization
did not carry out this action to hurt a random cop, but a scumbag like
P.Roupa spoke again, because to their insisting for the court to call the
witnesses she received the refusal of the chairman, who additionally told
her that in her testimony she will clarify the way in which the action
took place in the Voulgarakis case. This answer of the chairman was so
provocative it could not remain unanswered. You want to present us as a
criminal organization which carries out blind attacks, stated P.Roupa.
Cornered by the continuous firing of advocate D.Vagianou, N.Maziotis and
P.Roupa, the prosecutor made the first retreat, saying that it would be
nonsense to put a clock work mechanism and that he will never say that
Roupa is lying unless it comes out of the trial brief. You said it was
nonsense, but the chairman said it will be proven in my testimony,
commented P.Roupa, which enraged the chairman, who provocatively stated:
‘Sort it out with your lawyers and I repeat one more time you should have
more trust in your lawyers. I mean what I say‘. Answering to P.Roupa, who
insisted on the call of the witnesses of the DAEEB in order to investigate
how the attack was carried out against Voulgarakis, the chairman stated
that he has investigated the case. Until that moment the chairman did not
want to call the witnesses N.Maziotis and P.Roupa asked for. He had to
call them though, for the 24th of February, but we do not know if he will
do everything to bring them and if the DAEEB will allow them to appear.
To the statement of the chairman, who tried to create an environment of
division between the accused and the defence advocates and alleged dispute
of the latter with the former, answered S.Fitrakis and with his statement
gave the ‘final hit’ to the chairman and the prosecutor, forcing them to
back down and accept the demand of N.Maziotis and P.Roupa.
This is a part of his statement: “With Maziotis and Roupa, I know
something. And from the trials I have done with them, I know something as
well. What are they asking for? For you to bring the witnesses-police
technicians and examine them. When must this happen? Never? It’s not
necessary? Is it necessary? It is.
Because how will you allocate these incidents to the charge they belong
to? You will either say article 187A, last paragraph, nonetheless they
wanted to kill and disrupt the international relations, or you will say
there was a retreat or there is no attempt or it’s not identified. When
will these things happen? From now until the end, but group by group of
incidents, which have a significance, to judge them in their own time.
After examining Voulgarakis, we examined the other police officer, who was
there, and we are not going to examine the technicians, who give specific
explanations about what kind of mechanism it was, which is important to
identify the crime?”.
He concluded by saying that the accused know what they are talking about
and there is no problem in their cooperation.
After S.Fitrakis intervention the chairman asked the prosecutor a proposal
on the specific demand. The prosecutor, in order not to show that he has
been defeated, stated: These two police officers shall be called, but most
likely, they will called for no reason, without being necessary. And also
call Ananias who appears to be a victim. The trial interrupted and when it
resumed the chairman announced that the demand to call the other witnesses
to the next session was accepted.
After that, three witnesses were examined, ex-cops and now retired, about
the case of the Nea Ionia police station. One was the ex-chief, who was
not an eye witness, and the other two were the guard and the duty officer.
The chairman unsuccessfully tried to extract from the three witnesses a
judgement that from this attack of the Revolutionary Struggle there was
danger against the duty officer and guard. But, the guard of the station
was categorical: “If they wanted to they could have hit me, because most
of the time I was moving outside the guard box”. He also clarified that
the grenade fell in a park about 30 metres away from the police station.
The trial is adjourned till Friday 24th of February, at 9 am.
boubourAs/act for freedom now!




Act for freedom now!/boubourAs

The session began with a statement by P.Roupa concerning the failed attack of the R.S. against the Citibank headquarters in Kifissia. Citibank, shesaid, is a criminal organization of the international elite, whichexpresses the interests of the richest families in the USA.
It isresponsible for war crimes, the destruction of whole countries, and thedeath of thousands of people. She gave examples from Peru, where povertyand destruction caused a cholera epidemic, from Mozambique, where by 2020 it is expected that a quarter of the farming population will have died and others. She spoke of the strategy of the international capital after WW2 to surpass some obstacles in the movement of capitals, which had been imposed with the struggle and blood of the people, in which Citibank led. And we, concluded P.Roupa, are called to be tried as terrorists and criminals!   They are the criminals.
Evgenia Drosou, a witness for the attack on N.Ionias police station, is another example of where terror-hysteria can lead. This lady, before the attack, had seen a tall man wearing clothes resembling Navy clothes, but with no stripes, walking back and forth outside her house for quite a while. She thought this was suspicious, spoke to a friend of hers “who is with the police” and she told her to go and testify this. When she saw the photos of the arrested on the TV, many years later, she kind of…. recognized Kortesis. Even though she had described someone almost a head taller than Kortesis, about 15 years older (she mentioned a man around 40-45 years old) and without a beard. Even in the court she didn’t hesitate to turn around, point at Kortesis and say: “he kind of looks like that gentleman”. The chairman politely disdained her: “I am afraid that your testimony is not valid”. Followed two cops from the Voulgarakis case, who were called to testify thanks to the insistence of accused members of the R.S. From their testimonies it was proven first of all that Voulgarakis is a major liar and second that the decision consciously created incidents, in order to support the attempted homicide charge.
Kanellopoulos, a cop of the antiterrorist force testified that he got the order to search the whole area which had visual contact with the spotwhere the explosive mechanism was placed, because the superiors were convinced that the explosion was carried out with a remote control,considering no leftovers of a clock mechanism were found. And, in a bush, he found a remote control with an antenna from a model vehicle, which was investigated, found that it belonged to a specific company and themanagers of the company explained, as is shown in the trial brief as well,that it is a precision remote, with a security against interference on itsfrequency. As soon as the remote was found, officials of the DAEEB showedup at the spot, amongst which his own superior, the infamous FotisPapageorgiou. He clarified, also, that the specific bush offered cover anda possibility for a getaway to whoever would detonate the mechanism.G.Ananias, handler of dogs who detect explosives, was also very clear. Hewas in charge of checking the area, before Voulgarakis comes out. His wifehad left before, but he never left before the area was checked by the dog. He therefore disputed Voulgarakis fairy-tale, that he had left, came back because he forgot something and that’s how he barely made it. “My opinionis”, testified the cop, “that the mechanism was completely controlled.
Because I was moving towards the bomb, it is sure that I would have found it; the dog would have smelled it. That’s why they detonated it, before I got there. If they wanted to hit me, then they would have detonated it five seconds later when I would be right above the mechanism. I am saying that they didn’t want to kill me”. With the interventions made immediately after by P.Roupa and N.Maziotis pointed out that from the testimonies of those two witnesses, two cops, is confirmed totally what R.S. in its communique. That is that the action was cancelled and the mechanism was detonated at the right moment so to not fall into the hands of the antiterrorist and with complete control so no one gets hurt. Not even the cop with the dog, who was not a target of the organization. But, the trial order speaks of a clock mechanism! For what reason? So that there is an attempted homicide charge. P.Roupa asked that the examination continues and that the head of the Antiterrorist H.Balakos and the department head F.Papageorgiou are called to testify, who have full knowledge of the real incidents. It is proven that we were right all along to suggest witnesses, noted N.Maziotis. what was written in the communique was confirmed. That if the organization wanted to “get” the cop with the dog it would have “got” him. There was complete carefulness by the comrades, Noted P.Roupa, so that no one except Voulgarakis got hurt. Advocate D.Vagianou, after noting Voulgarakis lie, upon which the charge was structured, she dealt with an important legal issue. The validity or not of an attempt.
This in legal terms means that from the moment the committer, with his/hers deliberate intervention, disrupted the act, the attempt is non-valid, so there’s no homicide attempt. P.Roupa, in a new intervention, stated that R.S. always took into consideration the area and the intensity of the hit class struggle dictates. The people who carried out an action had full knowledge of the radius as well as the dangers for pedestrians and drivers. In this specific case, the cop with the dog would have got to the mechanism. You would either hit them or you would cancel the action. The organization did not want the mechanism to fall into the hands of the cops; it did not want to hit Ananias, that’s why the mechanism was destroyed. The prosecutor, considering that the matter is over (neither were these two witnesses necessary, he said!) proposed to not call Baltakos and Papageorgiou.
The court had a small meeting and decided to refuse the demand to call them. Is pending the general demand of calling witnesses, which we will look at in the future, said the chairman. After that, began the examination of witnesses from the attack on the stock exchange. Security guard G.Mavroidatos, a young man with a degree, who speaks many foreign languages, was working in the company Prince Security and was on the night shift at the stock exchange reception. The security guards in the control room saw a van on the cameras and told him to go and check it, he thought it was suspicious but before the guards got a chance to inform, the cops showed up and told them to evacuate the building.
They kicked out the cleaning lady, they also saw the cops leaving, but they got an order from their superior Kokkini to remain inside! And they didn’t send them to the data room, an internal refuge where all the electronic data from the stock exchange is held, but in the camera room, which was external, on the side where the explosion took place! The organization, said N.Maziotis, put 150 kilos of dynamite to hit the stock exchange, warned of a heavy explosion by giving 40minutes and asked that the neighbouring buildings are also evacuated.
These people got an order not to leave. And the charge speaks of danger to human lives. Who put human lives in danger? As an organization there is no way we would put security guards in danger. The bosses however, consider them disposable. It is a lie and hypocritical to accuse us that we put human lives in danger. Others put lives in danger. And still, the charging authorities did not call the other three security guards and their superior Kokkini to testify. N.Maziotis submitted a demand to call them to testify. When I was in prison and got the testimonies of these people I was speechless, said P.Roupa.
The R.S. knew that there would be security guards and cleaning personnel, that’s why it asked for the evacuation of the nearby buildings. And they still left those people inside! Why? For the stock exchange. It is shameful that we are tried for endangering human lives, when others are the guilty ones. Seeing the reality, the prosecutor tried to make a manoeuvre. Maybe many people have responsibilities, he said, but this trial does not care about responsibilities of third parties, but only of the accused.
And then he threw his caustic remark: if R.S., by putting 150 kilos in a residential area thought there would be no danger! “It is not a residential area”, N.Maziotis corrected him calmly, and the prosecutor did not continue, but did not take back his “reflection” either. D.Vagianou noted that legally the prosecutor goes into the theory of equivalent terms. Which means that independently of the responsibilities of third parties, the action of RS created equivalent danger. However, the attitude of the security officials and cops who did not carry out the evacuation of the buildings is vital for the penal law. The “no matter what, people were endangered”, besides the legal matter, raises a heavier political matter, commented P.Roupa.
That is to say, no matter how many measures you take, you create dangers. No, the action of the RS has shown that it does not create such dangers. Armed action exists in greece before the RS and the revolutionaries always made sure there is no danger for people. The responsibility is on the cops who had been warned and had the time to evacuate all the buildings, where there were very few people. Aristidis Darlis was the janitor of ‘Eleftheortypia’ newspaper, who happened to receive the warning call.
He confirmed that they told of a strong explosion that will happen, about a van loaded with explosives, while they even gave him the exact location of the van. Because of his clear testimony, P.Roupa commented again that the location and time was given, therefore the responsibility lies exclusively with the cops, who put simply put some ribbons to isolate the area and did not evacuate the neighbouring buildings.
“Honestly”, she asked, “why have witnesses from only actions of the organization have been called? Are you trying to imply that on other actions there was no warning call? There was always enough time given for the cops to isolate the area and evacuate the buildings”. She concluded with the submission of a demand to call as witnesses all the phone operators of ‘Eleftherotypia’ who have received warning calls in all the actions of the organization, so every shadow can leave and it can be proven that in all actions there was providence so that people were not endangered.
Then came the turn of the capitalists. Eleftherios Politaridis, manager of human resources of the stock exchange, having heard the testimony of the security guard Mavroidatos, tried to make him out to be a liar. Constantly repeating that human life above all, he claimed that the guards had an order from the company to leave, but… they didn’t leave! “They stayed inside under the state of panic and maybe there was some misunderstanding”. However, Mavroidatos –who was fired a year after the incident- had testified that the rules forbid them to leave and that after the incident the rules changed.
When confronted by D.Vagianou and M.Daliani, the manager tried to avoid it with a desperate defence, but at the end when he was asked if he investigated, after the incident, why the guards remained inside, he… remained silent! Politaridis should be ashamed, commented P.Roupa. Behind this rule, which made the security guards stay inside, is an aim: to not disrupt the function of the stock exchange.
That’s why they mortgaged the lives of three people. A significant executive of the system consented to a crime. And instead of saying “we made a mistake”, he’s trying to make a liar out of the employee. This shows the kind of these executives. In the beginning they didn’t care and then, faced with it would cost their company with this revelation, they come and lie. Followed the leading consultant of STAKOR SA Michael Kortesis. STAKOR is right across the stock exchange and as the boss said they had damages of about 3,5 million euro.
And while the guard of the building has testified that he was miraculously saved, because he saw the cops and went and asked them what’s going on and they told him to leave, Kortesis blatantly tried to make the cops look good, by saying that the guard came out and saw the cops coming towards him to inform him. He was immediately disputed by Ioannis Skrekas, employee of AKRITAS SECURITY, who was a guard that night a STAKOR.
He described what happened in detail. No one told him to go. Fifteen minutes before the explosion, he saw lights from flashlights lighting up the trees. He came out to see what’s going on, saw the cops looking for the bomb in the trees!!!, asked what’s going on and then they told him “get out of here now, there’s a bomb”! If I didn’t get, I would have been blown up, he testified. That’s when the chairman, despite being generally reserved, committed the second big ‘foul’ since the beginning of the trial. “Casualties are also the labourers, not only the capitalists.
I am mentioning this so the accused can hear me”. He said. In other words, adding to what the prosecutor said earlier, he showed that he has made his decisions in key matters of the charge. This witness still works for the same company. This is why when he was asked his opinion about if the cops acted good or bad, if they protected him, he answered “Ask the cops if they acted good or bad. I do not want to express my opinion”. N.Maziotis noted that the leading consultant lied and called the court to decide to call the head of security of the stock exchange and the other three security guards. P.Roupa commented that the chairman’s statement was discriminatory; noting that he is trying to save the charge, trying in any way to get the R.S. attempted homicides.
But the court decided again that the incident was adequately investigated concerning the real incidents and concerning the warning from then organization R.S. and there is no reason for further investigation. This means they decided to not even call Kokkini, the supervisor of then security guards, who gave them the order to remain in the building. After that, D.Vagianou, according to the wish of her clients, asked that Politairidis is prosecuted for perjury. First the prosecutor and then the chairman said that the only thing they can do is send the minutes to the penal prosecutor, because their court is not responsible. The advocate in the end submitted a lawsuit against Politairidis.



 Revolutionary Struggle TRIAL UPDATE SESSION 17, 23/3/12

Translated by Act for freedom now/boubourAs

This session began with statements by N.Maziotis and P.Roupa concerning the bombing of the stockexchange, the case examined in the previous session.

“So let’s speak about the stock exchange, this organism of common welfare”, said N.Maziotis to open, characterizing the specific action as “one of the most successful of the organization and as one of the successful actions in the history of the urban guerrilla in Greece. It was an action included in the strategy of powerful attacks against targets of capital (Citibank, Eurobank, Stock exchange).
Part of the same strategy was the preparatory action during which Lambros Foundas was killed.” N.Maziotis then read out some parts of the communiques of RS from that period, which referred to the upcoming crisis and it’s managing by resorting to the IMF, as it happened in the end. Then he referred to the role of the stock exchange, not only in Greece but internationally, as a mechanism of redistribution of income towards the large capital, as a mechanism of robbing whole populations, as a carrier of social Darwinism. He also referred to the Greek stock market scandal in 1999 and to the role of the Simitis government.
He spoke of the structured bonds, but also about the lengthily robbing of the reserves and insurance funds. As a scandal, he noted, was characterized the opacity with which the relative procedures were carried out, while a scandal is also the law which delivered the money of the insured to the vultures of the stock market. He also made an extensive reference to different forms of financial gamble, such as the gamble with the foods in the Chicago stock exchange, which caused starvation in third world countries, but also revolts for the assurance of food, which were drowned in blood.
 Attacks against stock exchanges, he concluded, are revolutionary acts. You will try us in the name of such criminals. P.Roupa focused her statement on the characterization of the stock exchange as a welfare organism. Mentioning statements of mega-capitalists of the stock market, she noted that they would never dare to characterize the stock exchange as a commonwealth institution. They speak of profit and blood. The social legalization of the stock market was taken on by the legislator, who voted for the terrorlaw, and the courts which apply it. Crime, she noted, is not only the stock exchange, it is capitalism itself, from its birth. She ended with references to today’s crisis, stressing that the system cannot find a smooth way out of it.
There will either be a revolution or a war, she said. The attack on the stock exchange was a lighthouse showing the way for the subversion of capitalism. After that, N.Maziotis re-submitted the application to call as a witness the president of the stock exchange Sp.Kapralos, for the chairman to reply with the usual avoidance “we will see”.
P.Roupa noted that the decision for the two failed attacks (on Shell and Citibank) mentions that there were not successful for reasons independent of the will of the accused, while its it obvious that the attacks were not successful. The cops did not go over the explosive mechanisms. The cops waited for the warning time to pass, they waited that much longer and then were convinced that the mechanism did not work. This is why we ask to call the cops, he concluded, to see what exactly happened and if things happened as the decision says. The chairman returned to the usual: We have decided that we will examine the demands for calling additional witnesses, when the examination of the witnesses in the trial brief has ended. No, we are making a specific demand. These postponements are a trick, answered N.Maziotis.
You will complete the list and then you will refuse all our demands. He reminded that the court agreed to call the witnesses from the Voulgarakis case and from the two cops who testified it was proven that the decision is purposely lying, speaking of clock mechanism and creating attempted homicide charges, when the mechanism was remote controlled and the action was cancelled by the organization.
In the stock exchange case, continued N.Maziotis, you refused the demand to examine additional witnesses, such as the supervisor of security who ordered the security guards to stay inside the building. Now will be examined the action against the ministry of Economy at Syntagma, which has some people with minor injuries, for which the no responsibility is on the organization, which made two warning calls and gave 35 minutes from the second cal.
We want you to decide now to call four witnesses. The two cops from the cop car, the police phone operator, and the ministries special guard. He read parts of articles of “Ta Nea” newspaper that spoke of responsibilities of the police, he characterized prosecutor Markopoulos who created the trial brief sleazy and a liar, because he didn’t call those witnesses who reveal the criminal attitude of the police. Either we will apply the model of oppression, therefore we don’t care about anything or you will apply the existing procedural rules, acting differently from the prosecutors who called witnesses only to strengthen their legal structure, noted S.Fitrakis. We cannot say we will call witnesses after months.
What is Maziotis asking you for? He is not asking for you to call revolutionaries, defence witnesses of his own. He is asking for police, he is asking you to call officers of your own state. Approve his demand, so the trial can continue calmly. D.Vagianou noted that it is criminal incompetence of the police who created the danger. We are not submitting demands just for the effect, but to define in each case the danger, as we say in legal terms, and to give light to the course to danger. We have the collective responsibility (everything is attributed to all the accused, without proof), we will go to the other extreme, to attribute them with the creation of danger with their belief as a criterion. These specific witnesses must be called and their examination should be before the examination of the other witnesses, so we can investigate the danger and the reasons that led to it. The statement of the prosecutor was really amazing.
First of all he expressed the opinion that the witnesses that were called and did not appear, as well as those who will be called from the court, should be examined at a special date, after the completion of the examination of all witnesses on the list! The court order has mistakes too, like in the case of Shell! It’s impossible that the cops went and deactivated the mechanism. They waited for the warning time to pass, they saw it didn’t explode and then they went over. Wherever there is a mistake in the court order it is contradicted in the trial brief. I will never say there was no phone call. If it is a fact there was, why do we have to call the operator of the newspaper? What will the president of the stock exchange add if we call him? At least at this point there is no reason to call any witness.
In the end I will judge if there is a need and then I will say yes to the calling of additional witnesses. If what the prosecutor said was the case, we would have had no concern. But the conscious lies of the court order were pointed out by us, commented P.Roupa. She reminded that when she herself said that the mechanism against Voulgarakis was remote controlled, the chairman told her she can tell all this during her testimony. What exactly happened was revealed by cops witnesses who we asked to be called to testify. We had realised this from before.
Sp.Fitrakis returned to his argument and concluded by saying to the judges: do what they ask you to do so we can have a smooth continuation of the procedure. After the break, S.Nikitopoulos asked to make a statement. As a political subject, he said, I consider as absolutely legitimate the demand of the accused who have taken the political responsibility for their participation in the Revolutionary Struggle.
Whoever would be in their place would do the same. But, I have also the identity of an accused and with this second identity I state that I am glad for the statement of the prosecutor that the court order has mistakes. I remind that for me the decision mentions as severe evidence of guilt the fact that in my home they found a copy the “Pontiki” newspaper! Intervening, his advocate Anni Paparousou, after noting that the prosecutor admits that there are mistakes in the court order, she reminded that the objection concerning the vagueness of the decision has already been denied. She reminded also, that at the beginning of the trial the prosecutor repeated one of the obvious mistakes of the court order. How can you continue to try with a court order that contains mistakes? Combined with the vagueness of the court order and the anti-constitutionality of article 187A of the penal code, you have a false base. These should have been diagnosed from the beginning and this trial should have never gone ahead.
Not a sound came from the prosecutor, chairman or judges. The chairman then announced that the court denies the demand to call Kapralos as a witness, that he will decide later for the calling of the bomb disposal team in order to testify on what happened with the explosive mechanisms at Shell and Citibank and that he accepts the demand to call four witnesses proposed by the members of the RS, which will be called to testify in the next session.
N.Maziotis and D.Vagianou reminded that they asked that these specific witnesses come first. Is it so important who comes first? Asked innocently the chairman. It is important, because those who took the political responsibility do not want it to be heard that the Revolutionary Struggle put human lives in danger, answered S.Fitrakis. Followed the examination of 16 witnesses of this list, which took less than an hour! These witnesses were so important that, that they tried to find a question to ask them and couldn’t. Six of them were employees in banks, post office and the ministry, who got there two hours after the incident and simply saw that some windows were smashed! One was the courier of “Pontiki” newspaper who went and picked up the communiques from the spot where the RS said they left them.
All he did was pickup an envelope while wearing gloves, put it in a drawer in the editing room and left. They called him as an important witness! One more was the janitor of the ministry of Economy, who the previous day was asked by someone if the cameras work ok. Of course, he didn’t pay any attention because every day thousands of people come by and ask him all sorts of things. One more was the parking attendant at Syntagma. He had seen a car with some guys in it, but was told by the supervisor of politicians security, who have their offices nearby, that the people in the car, who re-appeared the previous days, “are our people, security bodyguards”.
Near there, said the parking attendant, there is also a club, where major lawyers hang out. There was also a kiosk owner who heard the explosion and saw some windows breaking, but from far away, on the other block. 10 out of 15 witnesses had nothing to offer, but they as well ridiculed the charge list. Three of them got minor injuries. A worker which was going to work walking down Mitropoleos street, a foreigner dishwasher of “NEON” who was cleaning the windows when the explosion took place and a retired accountant who was also walking down Mitropoleos to go to the market. All three testified that there was no barrier on Mitropoleos. They didn’t see any cops. They didn’t notice anything different than what they saw every day, nothing that made them think twice. Simply, there were no police to protect me, testified the worker. She saw the police about half an hour later, when she came out of the hotel where she got medical treatment.
Actually, the cop who saw her with blood all over her head, simply showed her the way to walk to Fillelinon street where the ambulance was. Syntagma is a cosmopolitan place, they could have put a ribbon, said the retired accountant. There’s so many police at Syntagma, but no one went to secure the area, although as we found out later, there were two warning phone calls. After the explosion 50 police officers immediately appeared! The fourth witness was the owner of “Katseli” bakery. He was together with another four people. We were seriously damaged, while if they had informed us we would have closed the strong shutters the shop has and nothing would have happened to it, he said.
He himself had gone, two minutes before the explosion, to through away some garbage next to where the motorbike was with the explosive mechanism! He also stated that he believed that whoever put the mechanism did not want to harm anyone. Finally we had the personal Waterloo of the chairman. The receptionist of “Eleftherotypia” newspaper was called to testify, who received the warning call. Because this person has received calls for three actions, the chairman asked him about the explosion at Eurobank in Argiroupoli! Advocate D.Vagianou had to intervene to and remind that this specific witnees was called to about the explosion in the ministry of Economy.
She even gave the chairman the witness’s preliminary testimony, because the chairman had not put it his file. Ask him yourself then, said the chairman to D.Vagianou, obviously pissed off about the mistake he just made. It was revealed therefore, that this person had received two phone calls in a space of four minutes (the second one was because whoever made the first call realized that the signal wasn’t very strong), that he then informed the Police twice and that he received a confirmation call from the police. He also testified, that he remembers this specific case very well, contrary to others, because he went through a lot of trouble, because he was called many times to GADA (Athens police headquarters) to testify, in the frame of an internal investigation taking place within the police, because obviously some cops claimed that the receptionist had not informed them. The newspaper always called the police immediately even if the person who picked up the phone thought it was a farce.
Additionally, as he said, from his experience he knew that when the person who calls sais at the end “it’s not a farce”, 80% of the time is actually not a farce. It was proven therefore, how right the members of the RS were, who asked that four cops immediately involved in the incidents were called to testify. ‘Why did you call all these people?’, commented in a sarcastic tone N.Maziotis, when the witnesses of fifteen seconds who had nothing to say were marching through. In the end, he also, submitted to the secretary of the court the publications of “Ta Nea” newspaper he mentioned before, so that they become part of the trial brief. Documents “forgotten” by the prosecutor who created the court order.



Revolutionary Struggle Trial Update Session 18, Wednesday 4/4/12

Translated by Act for freedom now/boubourAs

Today’s session was the first in which Kostas Katsenos came on his own, without handcuffs and without the escort of armed cops. He was also released a few days ago, by the decision of the appropriate Juridical Council.
Of the 23 witnesses called, the names of which were read at the beginning of the procedure by the chairman, only 6 were present. One was justifiably absent (he works on a ship travelling far from Greece), while some were not found by the cops who went to perform their violent appearance. From the four cops who were called after the insistent demand of the accused, in order to clarify what happened at the ministry of Economy, only one was present who was actually the most unimportant. One has died; the officer of the phone centre of the police sent a message that she is on leave of confinement and an officer sent a paper that he suffers from… lumbago and is on a four day leave! The only witness, the special guard of the door of the ministry of Economy Pantelis Bliatsios, appeared with an especially weak memory, although –as he admitted- a problem was created an he was called to testify in the internal investigation carried out by GADA (without being involved as an accused).
From the questions they asked him he “remembered” exactly what happened. About 15-20 minutes before the explosion, a cop car went, told him to look at Nikis road in case he finds a bomb (!) and close of the two corners of Nikis road (the corners of Mitropleos and Ermou) with cones. Although, there had been two warning calls to “Eleftherotypia” newspaper and a third, confirmation call from the police to the newspaper (as testified by the operator of the newspaper), and they had been informed that the explosive mechanism was placed on the corner of Mitropoleos and Fillelinon street! Instead of emptying the area and especially Mitroploleos and Fillelinon street, they made the cop close of Nikis road, where the main entrance to the ministry is! He couldn’t even remember if he made sure the ministry was evacuated! It was revealed however, after an intervention by N,Maziotis, who quoted the trial brief, that because at the time there were refurbishment work going on inside the ministry, there were four workers inside, three Pakistani and one Albanian, for whom no one cared about! As testified by the guard, one cop car came by then another one, told him to set some cones and then left to go on the side of Syntagma square, where he does not know what they did. ‘What authority did you have, to look for the bomb or evacuate the area?’, asked P.Roupa.
‘Evacuate the area’ replied the guard, only as it was proven, he did not evacuate anything. ‘And what if the bomb was camouflaged, hidden, and you couldn’t find it, would you have left the people inside?’ came back P.Roupa. The guard remained speechless. From the testimony of the dead driver of the cop car, which was read out, came out the same description. At 5.38 they were notified from the headquarters, went to the ministry, put cones on the two corners of Nikis road and then went to Syntagma square to “close it off”, while at 6.05 there was a powerful explosion, after which they found with small injuries an Albanian man and a Greek woman, who they suggested to go to the hospital with an ambulance. So, they had about 30 minutes at their disposal and did absolutely nothing! They closed off Nikis road and went to Syntagma square and waited in the cop car! I think the witness was honest, commented P.Roupa on the cops testimony. He testified what had been written also on the communique of the organization about how the police acted.
They made repeated blunders, continuous mistakes. Although the message was clear about where the mechanism was placed and they had confirmed with a phone call to “Eleftherotypia”, they went elsewhere, to the back side, looked for the mechanism, did not find it and thought that it does not exist! Shouldn’t the responsibility of the police be shown in the trial brief? asked advocate D.Vagianou. Why is there no investigation towards that direction as well? In the trial brief there is a predetermined position as to who are responsible, orientated solely to the side of the accused.
Later, the prosecutor indirectly answered replied to the advocate, stating that there might be responsibilities on others too, such as the police, but this does not concern the court because there are no accused cops! From the four more witnesses for the same case, two of them were 30 second witnesses. An owner of a tourist office, who went long after the explosion and they told him to testify in order to get a compensation for the broken windows (which he didn’t get) and the janitor of an office building on Othonos street, where windows were some windows were also broken, which he only saw later. Why did they call them? Since these people had nothing to testify? Obviously hoping that they could create impressions with the… talk of windows.
The other two witnesses were substantial and were catapults for the criminal responsibilities of the police. A worker at a new stand on the corner of Mitropoleos and Fillelinon (across the post offices where the mechanism was placed) testified that he was there since 5.30 in the morning, that no one told him anything, neither did he see anything unusual, such as heavy police movement. He didn’t see any cops around, except for a couple of cops cars, which is a usual image of that area.
’For us it was a usual, quiet day’, he said. A worker at café restaurant “Neon”, also right across the spot of the explosion, testified also that she was there from 5.30 in the morning, no one told her anything, she didn’t notice any movement, didn’t realize anything, until the explosion took happened and she saw the window smashing! Two other, completely irrelevant witnesses testified. A retired cop for the Voulgarakis case, who was called because at some point had testified that he saw a couple with jeans and sweatshirts sitting in front of a water tap on Lykavittos! ‘Look at the accused, although you forget easy’, said the prosecutor who is trying to gather the pieces of the wreck of a court order composed by his colleague Makropoulos. The man turned around, looked at the accused, did not recognize anyone, and left. The last witness was a manager of the Citibank branch in Psihiko area, just went at night to let the fire brigade in and didn’t even know what kind of damages were caused to the bank! And she was the only one called for this case… All this lasted barely an hour. After that, in order to schedule the next two sessions, spoke the prosecutor to propose about the calling of witnesses demanded by the members of the RS.
The prosecutor, seeing that the charge list is full of holes, seeing that the total of the witnesses that have been called has nothing to testify, seeing the persistence of the accused to call people of the institutions (politicians who have made relevant statements, cops who have given preliminary and interrogative testimonies, business executives), people of the state and not of the revolutionary movement, tried to fix his originally rejective position for all those proposed as witnesses, by proposing to call a few.
Although the three accused had proposed to call Markogiannakis, Korantis, Papageorgiou, Balakos and Horianopoulos, in order to testify if Maziotis and Roupa were systematically under surveillance (this has been stated by the first two in public statements of theirs), the prosecutor proposed to call only Balakos and Horianopoulos, because they know, while the political superiors are simply informed by the executives of the services. This proposal was even presented in a way, as a favour towards the accused, because, in his opinion, there is no reason to call anyone! Concerning the explosion at the Stock exchange, the prosecutor proposed to call only the supervisor of the security company and the security guard from the nearby building of ‘Alliance’ and to deny all other proposals. He added, even, a proposal of his own, to call a cleaning lady from a nearby building, who “mentions something about an injury”! For the explosion at the ministry of Employment he proposed to call the cops of a police car and one more witness (‘say it was the person who took an order from a cop to move the bomb’, said N.Maziotis, making the prosecutor admit that that’s actually who it is).
For the Voulgarakis case he considered that the subject is over and that’s why there is no reason to order the violent presentation of a cop who disdained to appear although he was called. For the attack on the american embassy he proposed that four witnesses are called (no one has been called!). Who mentioned that they saw something suspicious! But not the ambassador and the head of security for the embassy, to tell what kind of danger resulted from the rocket. He also proposed to call one of the cops in the cop car for the explosion at the Citibank in Psihiko and the head of the police bomb squad for the bombs which didn’t go off at Shell and the headquarters of Citibank (the court order falsely claims that the mechanisms did not go off because the police neutralized them).
Concerning the calling of P.Panagiotopoulos and G.Alogoskoufis, who have made statements about the character of the actions of the RS, as well as the American ambassador, the prosecutor proposed to deny these demands of the accused, because ‘their presence would only cause tension’! ‘Is this what you are really afraid of?’ commented N.Maziotis, while P.Roupa replied ‘What tension? No tension’. Based on the frame of thought of the prosecutor, none of the 87 witnesses called by Makropoulos had anything to contribute, commented angrily N.Maziots. 37 have testified and no one contributed anything. Not even one recognition of someone accused. Why did he call them then? They should all come here and testify, since you called them. Maybe one will contradict the other.
The life of eight people is at stake here, there are charges that carry the life sentence, why not dedicate time? Why shouldn’t the head of security of the american embassy come, when you speak of endangering human lives? If it is so, why did you call the 87? If you tried us in one minute, it would have been 25 years combined and that’s it. Is this a court or a procedure? P.Roupa argued in support of the calling of the political figures, briefly reminding their statements. We are not calling them in order to create a show and cause tension, she added. Was there any tension when Voulgarakis came? Let them come here, so there can be a dialogue, so we can see if it’s about actions of common crime or political actions.
There is no way the then Foreign minister Bakogianni would break the protocol and run to the american embassy for actions of common crime. There is no way Condoleezza Rice would wake up Bush saying to him “we are being attacked in Greece”. Did the american president deal with common crimes? D.Vagianou summarized the three legal criteria which are fulfilled by the proposals for the calling of specific witnesses. First, it is the political character of the actions attributed to the accused, which is also important for the legal definition of the subjective element of the actions. Second, the ascribed behaviour. Maziotis and Roupa have accepted their participation in the organization, defend their ideas, but legally this does not translate into ascribed behaviour of actions. If this is not investigated, we will go to logics of collective responsibility, which we do not yet have in the Justice.
Third, is the endangerment of people. It is not right to establish an abstract danger and end it. It is not possible to admit that it’s the fault of the police who did not do what they were supposed to, but it is definitely yours for placing a bomb. How will the court judge the matters on trial, if there is no proof? commented M.Daliani. We cannot, for example, call witnesses for the american embassy with only criterion if they saw suspects. Should there not be witnesses to say if there was any danger for people? D.Vagianou added that the calling of officers of the anti-terrorist will crash onto service barriers, as happened with Papathanasakis who refused to name which of his staff transferred the information he called upon, while Markogiannakis must be called because he made some statements beyond the service barriers.
Ch.Ladis argued in favour of the demand, although –as he said – K.Katsenos who he defends has not demanded any witnesses. Article 187A (the founding stone of the ‘anti-terrorist’ legislation) confronts the court with a question: is it to be proven or is it considered self-evident since the accused are of those people characterized as “terrorists”? Shouldn’t we investigate if foundational structures of the state were disrupted, if the population was terrorized etc? In my opinion, concluded the advocate, we must investigate if there was even a common danger to things, just like in the case of the american embassy.
P.Roupa noted that in her opinion it is a fact that the “anti-terrorist” law confuses the social interest with the interest of the dominators. Markogiannakis should definitely be called to testify, because with the cops we will go into a procedure of calling upon classified information, as happened with Papathanasakis, she concluded.
After a half hour break, the court announced that it will call as witnesses those who the prosecutor proposed, adding Markogiannakis. The chairman added also the standard, that he will call other witnesses, if there is a need. When asked by N.Maziotis what is going to happen with the two cops for the ministry of Economy, who were called and did not appear claiming health reasons, the chairman answered that right now there is no reason to call them again! 


R.S. Trial Update, Session 19, Thursday, 19/4/12

 Act for freedom now!/boubourAs

With the beginning of the session N.Maziotis paid respect to fighter Dimitris Christoulas (the man who committed suicide outside parliament because of his debts). His action, he said, is related to this case, because he left a clear political message, a call for armed struggle, which was especially addressed to the youth who have no future. He read the entire letter left by Dimitris Christoulas and noted that the call to arms is necessary and urgent in order to overthrow the regime.
Concerning the action on the ministry of Economy, N.Maziotis noted that it was an answer to the neoliberal policy of the then Karamanlis government. What is the ministry of Economy? The main ministry which applies the policies of the individual government. The aim of this ministry is the support of the rich and the robbing of the poor. Therefore, it applies class policy (at this point he read parts from the communique published by the Revolutionary Struggle). What is this development policy, which they always speak of? It is dictated by the EU and the ECB. N.Maziotis spoke of the lending model of a country for the support of the capital, the application of industrialization, the shrinking of the workforce.
This “development policy”, he said, is responsible for the massive debt and the enslavement of the people by the IMF. Insurance is downgraded, everything is privatized, even Health, the insurance funds are robbed by law. Then, N.Maziotis referred to the upsurge of neoliberalism, with Mitsotakis government, which was developed and imposed substantially by the Simitis government. He spoke of the common aim of Pasok and Nea Dimokratia, the support of the capital, and differences in the imposition rhythms, he mentioned Maastricht and the integration of Greece into the EMU, which was considered an accomplishment.
Then he went on to the Alogoskoufis period, during which the action of the RS took place. He spoke of the “inventory”, the austerity policies, the hit on wages and pensions, the privatizations which took the form of selling off everything. The organization with its action attacked this exact policy, concluded N.Maziotis, reading relevant excerpts from the communique. In my first statement, he continued, when this court started, I had said that others should be in the position of accused, in a populist court. One of them was also Alogoskoufis.
They are the same which Christoulas mentions in his message. As RS we said that prosperity in the EU is a myth and that when the crisis comes it will have excruciating consequences. Because crises are a main component of capitalism. Especially today, he concluded, the subversion of the regime with arms is more urgent than ever. The suicide of Christoulas was a political act and not an act of a desperate or a helpless man, noted P.Roupa. It was a protest of the junta of the troika and the EU. It had a critical attitude against the forms of struggle.
D.Christoulas died to send a message concerning the way in which we have to fight. Our older struggles failed, our duty is to respect this message. For the action on the ministry of Economy, P.Roupa stood at its characterization by the charge list as a commonwealth foundation, when it is, as she said, the headquarters of the international elite, which prepare the basic economic plans as they are dictated from the EU and the ECB. She referred to the content of the communique of the RS and spoke analytically of the substance of the crisis and its administrating policies which the governments apply in favour of the large capital.
The attack on the ministry of Economy, concluded P.Roupa, wanted to show the way in which we must fight in the class war with the bourgeoisie. Is there a citizen who will say that the attack on the ministry of Economy was aimed at them? No one. We have the popular support. Alogoskoufis probably doesn’t. Bring him so we can see what he will say, said N.Maziotis.
Sp.Fitrakis then submitted a decision of the Athens Administrative Court, which awarded compensation of 25.000 euro to an injured woman from the attack on the ministry of Economy and recognizes the responsibilities of the police concerning the closing off up of the area. With this decision is recognized the active reasoning, commented D.Vagianou. The danger zone was exposed and this happened after the police purposely made a decision. The way it was handled, commented P.Roupa, reveals things concerning the actions of the police. They show amazing reliability in the beatings of citizens-protestors, but when it comes to protecting them, as in this case, their attitude is inappropriate. I wonder, she continued, did the witnesses who did not come to testify in the court for the ministry go to testify to the Administrative Court or not?
Only the special guard came to this court and spoke only about Nikis road. She concluded asking for the court to insist that the cop witnesses come to testify about the incidents in Syntagma square. Then were examined witnesses for various actions of the RS, all of them cops. Some of them did not avoid be ridiculed, since they tried to puff up the case and as soon as they got pressured by the advocates would be put back into their positions. Andreou, a witness for the shooting against the riot cop van in the University area, heard two shots and ran to the spot, where he found marks from 3-4 bullets on the vehicle and 1 on the tire, initially claiming that they probably did not get the riot cops because of inexperience, to admit later, that if they wanted they could have got them, since they were shooting with Kalashnikovs from a distance of 10-15 metres.
The driver of the riot cop van which was bombed on Petrou Ralli street, in October 2004, answering the question of Sp.Fitrakis if he thinks it’s logical to be charged with 20 attempted homicides, when no one was injured, said: “if we were on the right, maybe we would have had such an incident”. Yes, but you weren’t, replied the advocate. The same cop was also driving the riot cop van that was shot at in the University area and became… poetic: “When you shoot, you want to harm. Otherwise, they were simply inexperienced”. On the contrary, cop Gerogiakonos, spoke of a medium strength bomb, which did not cause injuries. Riot cop Aggelopoulos, however, although he admitted that he was in the left lane for security reasons, spoke of a strong explosion, which if not aimed at deaths, definitely aimed at injuries.
The prosecutor was careful, since he realized that RS does not play with the truth, asked the cop if the bomb, in his opinion, had been placed to kill, to get the answer that… “it could have”. Were the vehicles or the cops harmed? Asked Sp.Fitrakis. No, answered the riot cop. Then, maybe it wasn’t such a terrible explosion? How do you judge the action from the result? Continued the advocate, for the riot cop to answer: “I don’t know. It is not my sector”! Just before he knew very well.. The cop who was following the riot cop van also spoke of a not very strong explosion. This action had as a target to send a message that the police is in danger, commented P.Roupa. It wasn’t mad with a remote control. The cable proves a wired connection and therefore should be very close to the spot. It was an intimidation attack and is obvious from the kind of damages and from the circumstances. It was not an operational weakness, it was a political choice.
Cop Strathiotis, testifying about the bomb on Kallithea police station in May 2004 referred to the information which took place and to the evacuation of the area as well as the three explosions which followed, but insisted: Yes there was no injury, but whoever puts bombs wants to kill! A cop logic, which later was made to become clearer concerning the warning and the timely evacuation of the station. He even knew about the warning call to the newspaper, but he initially avoided mentioning it! Cop Zaharos, guard at the Labour ministry, described the incidents as such: ‘The building was empty. I was outside almost all the time. Just before two I noticed a person with a heavy walk. He had gone over a bag. He did not continue walking. I asked him if it was his. He said no. he opened it and it was a bomb. I told him to leave it and go. He left it near the garbage bin. There were many bags there, probably there was a strike. I did not see the inside of the bag. I informed the police.
We had material damages, but no injuries.’ Then answering questions of D.Vagianou, he admitted that he told the person who found the bomb to leave it next to the garbage, because… “Everything happened so fast”! N.Maziotis came back to the demand summon the person who found the bag to testify because in his preliminary testimony he sais: “He told me: ‘Don’t worry, put it there’.” If there are damages outside of the ministry it is the responsibility of this specific person, concluded N.Maziotis. P.Roupa, destroying all talks of the non-existence of a warning call, noted that there was a warning call before the signal given to the cops.
The call was made at 02.36 and the signal was given at 02.40. They were warned, she stressed, but none of them are called to confirm it. It seems as if the bomb was found accidentally, something that is not true. The bomb was at the entrance of the ministry. Only the ministry would be damaged. From this it is shown what responsibilities the guard had. Also, near the ministry there was a security guard (near the sidewalk where the garbage was). D.Vagianou noted that the trial brief is lacking in the part of the warning call and P.Roupa asked to call the phone operator, from the preliminary testimony of which it comes out that there was a warning call to “Eleftherotypia” newspaper, as noted by M.Daliani. The prosecutor admitted that it’s true that there was a phone call and proposed, if there was no objection, to read the testimony of the phone operator.
The trial was interrupted until Monday, April 30th

—————————————————————————————— Revolutionary Struggle trial update, Session 20, Monday 30/4/12

Translate by boubourAs/Act for freedom now

With the beginning of the procedure, the chairman read out the list of the prosecution witnesses who had not appeared in previous sessions and were re-summoned, as well as the list of the new witnesses (all were proposed by the three members of the RS, except for one who was summoned by the prosecutor), who the court decided to summon after loads of trouble. From the first category, 4 out of the 19 witnesses were present, while from the second category, 9 out of 15 were present. Which means, that out of 30 summoned witnesses only 13 appeared, while 2 more it was claimed now have an unknown address.
Dimitrios Tsimogiannis appeared accompanied by his daughter, who –as she said- helps him, because he has health problems. As it was proven, however, the lady in question didn’t need to help him at all, while the witness unsuccessfully pretended to not hear! Unsuccessfully, because he could hear phrases spoken at a low volume and pretended he couldn’t hear other phrases which were spoken more loudly.
 This specific witness presented himself as an injured from the cancelled attempt against Voulgarakis. What was proven however? That when the explosion took place he was in his car quite further away, that after the explosion he himself parked his car at the end of the road, accompanied the cops to GADA (athens police headquarters), where he gave a statement with amazing details (he mentioned how many people he met in his neighbourhood that day), then he went back home and in the afternoon he went to a hospital, where they examined him and did not hospitalize him. Then he visited other hospitals, at which he claimed dizziness, tinnitus etc. They found nothing anywhere, no hospital would admit him. All he got was a six day leave, after which he returned to work. Even the forensic examiner wrote that ‘he mentions dizziness, tinnitus and temporary amnesia’. He mentioned them; they did not result from an examination.
When he saw that the state hospitals would not brand him injured, so he can a pension as a ‘victim of terrorism’, he turned to psychiatrics and finally got diagnosis from doctors (not state hospitals) that he suffers from distress because of post-traumatic stress, while in the end a military commission found him 67% disabled, as a result of an injury from a terrorist attack! “I hope the troika does not take the pension back”, commented sarcastically advocate S.Fitrakis.
Even more provocative was his compensation for the car. While he himself in his first testimony had claimed that the doors were a bit scratched (the car was 5 years old, almost new), today he testified that the car was considered completely destroyed and he was compensated for its value. And what was proven? That he was not compensated by the insurance company, but the municipality, from the special funds for ‘victims of terrorism’! If there was an injury from an action of the RS, I would apologize, commented P.Roupa. Reading, however, his statement right after the incident, with so many details (she read out excerpts from his statement in GADA), I doubt if he was even in the area. Wherever there were injuries, besides the fact it wasn’t the organizations fault for their injuries, they went straight to the hospital. They didn’t go to GADA, return home and then remembered to also visit a hospital. If we suppose that the witness had a psychological shock, he wouldn’t be able to give a testimony with so many details. To speak of amnesia and having testified everything!
The only thing not mentioned in his testimony, commented M.Daliani, is that something happened to him. Cop Ananias, who was also there, and Voulgarakis, testified that nothing happened to anyone. The witnesses tried afterwards to fix a medical file so he can get a pension.
Someone could say that the witness has a dramatic talent, commented N.Maziotis. He could hear very well, but pretended he couldn’t hear. What kind of injured person moves their car goes to GADA and gives a statement and then goes to the hospital? The actual injured went straight to the hospital. Matzounis who was shot went to the hospital. The people who were injured at the ministry of Economy went straight to the hospital and no one said anything against the organization, everyone blamed the police who did not close off the area. The truth was told by cop Ananias, who was closer to the explosion than anyone.
Grigorios Balakos, commander of the antiterrorist force from 2006 to 2008, refused to reveal who they were watching back then and how they were watching them. Indirectly however, he confirmed that Maziotis was under surveillance (whoever had a record, he said, was watched) and he insisted that there was no evidence for anyone, so that they can make arrests. Despite the answers of the advocates, he refused to give any more information. The only thing he repeated was that there was no evidence for anyone to be arrested.
We weren’t expecting that Balakos would say the whole truth, commented N.Maziotis. We were sure that he would claim that it is classified information. This is why we insisted to definitely summon Markogiannakis, who had spoken in the Media. He deposited in the court the taped interview Markogiannakis gave to Lyritzi and Economou, in which he said that Maziotis was systematically watched and described as well a staged arrest of his in Thebes, which took place in order for them to get his mobile phone and check it. He also reminded an interview of the former commander of KYP (intelligence agency) Korandis, who had said that Maziotis was watched by two forces (antiterrorist force and KYP) and that after that attack on the American embassy Polydoras gave an order that he is to be watched only by the antiterrorist.
The commander of TEEM (bomb disposal team) D.Papadakis, who was also summoned because of the pressure of the accused, confirmed that they intervene only if there is no explosion. Which means they wait for the warning time to pass, If there is no explosion they wait for more time they estimate safe (at least an hour) and then they intervene and neutralize the mechanism with a controlled explosion. He referred also to the actions which were not completed, at Shell and the headquarters of Citibank, clarifying that the time given as a warning was plenty and that they intervened when the mechanisms did not explode, after waiting for the additional time
. In all actions aiming at material damages there were warning phone calls, clarified N.Maziotis. At the Citibank headquarters there was a phone call to ‘Nea’ newspaper, which the security guard received. The organization gave one hour and warned to evacuate the nearby buildings. The newspaper kept this secret. Because there was propaganda for a blind attack and the ‘Nea’ denied there was a phone call, the organization made a second announcement, in which it mentioned even the pay phone from where the phone call was made (corner of Makedonias and Thermopilon street) and the exact time the phone call was made. There is no way there wouldn’t be a phone call.
Infamous Dionysia Kokkini was head of security of the Stock exchange and was also summoned by the proposal of the accused. We say infamous, because the two security guards testified that she was the one they communicated with and who told them to get the cleaning lady out and told them to stay inside the building. So, this lady said that she wasn’t the manager at the time, she became later! Despite this, she confirmed that the security guards called her. How did they know her number? Why did they call her and not another supervisor? The questions remained unanswered since the witness came prepared (her supervisor had preceded her). She even tried to make the security guards look crazy, by saying that she told them to leave! And why didn’t they leave? Did they stay inside to risk their lives? This question also remained unanswered.
Examining her, P.Roupa heavily criticized her amoralism and this lady did not dare to complain. And N.Maziotis, after reminding that Kokkini also came because ‘we summoned her’, she reminded what the security guards testified and what was testified by the supervisors which put these people in danger, because they consider them expendable. In this court, concluded N.Maziotis, the only ones responsible, the only ones who tell the truth, are us, the members of R.S. Only because of our responsibility these people were not endangered. Others put their lives in danger and not the R.S. Those who are more interested in the function of the stock exchange, the function of capitalism, and not in human lives.
The third security guard, Ch. Ligos, appeared visibly shaken and frightened. He tried to cover the responsibilities of their superiors, saying that they did not tell them to stay, but to take the keys and some books and go. Simply, he said, when they tried to leave the explosion took place. He even said that he was at the exit when the explosion happened. From his preliminary testimony, however, as well as his colleagues, it results that the explosion happened when they were still in the control room, where they were told to stay. It was clear this man was told not to repeat what his two colleagues said.
His contradictions were raised by a comment by N.Maziotis, while P.Roupa noted that, even if we accept that he is telling the truth, that they had to do a few things and go, what is proven is that the time it took for them to do the few things was not enough. They told them to do things that took longer than 40 minutes, completely disregarding their lives.
El. Zitiridou was called to testify that she lost her motorbike which was used in an action of the RS, without her knowing anything. F.Efstathiou was the principal of an elementary school near Voulgarakis house. She herself was not present when the explosion took places, the kids had not started going to school yet and that only a few windows were smashed.
D.Dimitrakopoulou lives across Neas Ionias police station and heard the shots and the explosion of the grenade. K.Kalogrias was a postman in the area of the American embassy and had testified about a suspicious couple. And what did he say today? That the ‘suspicious’ couple was probably models from the agency which is in the area, that they were taking photos with the embassy in the background, or Lykavittos, just as many tourists do, while he was worried they might ambush him because he was carrying money in his service bag. Advocate D.Vagianou, reminded that the initial testimonies which many witnesses give in such cases change the facts, because a climate of demonization is created. When this climate grows thin, it is natural that logic returns.
An.Karakouni, resident of the area, initially testified that she saw a person on a motorbike looking around. Maybe it was accidental, she testified now. Do you not have anything to ask the witness? N.Maziotis asked the prosecutor with obvious irony. And he, laughing embarrassingly, asked the witness if she recognizes any of the accused, for which he got a negative answer accompanied by a comment that anyway she could not remember a person she saw only once.
An.Abarian and Th.Kaparelos were the crew of the cop car which first got to the ministry of Labor, after they were warned of a bomb. They confirmed that they found the bomb next to a garbage bin, over 15 metres away from the ministry, that more cop cars arrived, they closed off the area and when the explosion took place no one was in danger. The testimony of the homeless person who found the bomb was shocking (his preliminary testimony was read since he was not found). While he was looking for some clothes and some corner to sleep on, he found the bomb in new ruck sack, called the guard of the ministry and he told him ‘don’t be afraid, put it there next to the bin and I will call it in’!
Is the police responsible to tell a citizen to take the sack and put next to the bin? wondered rhetorically N.Maziotis. For the person who carried the bomb for so many metres, but also for the damages, the cop is to blame, because the bomb was placed in the gap in order to cause damage only to the ministry, he intensely noted. He reminded, as well, that these witnesses were summoned by the accused and not the court. Cop A.Partsakoulakis was summoned just so at least one person from the attack on Citibank in Kifissia was summoned. He testified the usual: that they were warned for an explosion, they went, closed off the area and there were only material damages.
Finally, M.Gogou, a cleaning lady in the Sarakakis building, who was slightly scratched from the explosion in the stock exchange (he testimony was read, since she was not found in order to be summoned), confirmed that the police did not evacuate the buildings, as the RS had pointed out its phone call. The prosecutor asked for this witness to come as diversion, commented N.Maziotis. To prove that ‘you put the bomb; it’s all your fault’. However the witness’s testimony confirms that the police did not do what they were supposed to, commented D.Vagianou. The witness was only on the mezzanine, on the side of Athinas avenue, where the cops were. If the area was closed off sufficiently, the witness should have left. But she didn’t even realize that something was going to happen!
At the end of the procedure, the prosecutor proposed that the court does not insist on the summoning of prosecution witnesses who did not appear, because they do not have anything to say. For the new witnesses, the summoning of which was decided by the court, he proposed to find Horianopoulos (ex-head of the anti-terrorist force), since he is a retired public servant and therefore with knowledge of management, and Markogiannakis, for which he expressed the complaint that he did not even send a note to inform the court of his absence.
The court decided to summon Markogiannakis, Horianopoulos and Karagoulias and to re announce the rest of the witnesses and to interrupt the court until Friday May 18th , at 9am.


Note: the translations of sessions 21 to 32 of the trial of the
Revolutionary Struggle are being worked on and will be published in the
next few months. For now we willcontinue translating and publishing the
sessions taking place now.


ActforFreedomnow/boubourAs collective



Translated by Act for freedom now/boubourAs

Christos Tsigaridas politely refused the chair offered to him. I want to look at you standing up, he said to the judges. His shaken health betrayed him after an hour of testifying, when he asked and got a short break. He began by characterizing the action of the RS politically and socially legitimate and immediately started to describe the tragedy of today’s situation with the nightmarish dimensions of unemployment, especially of the youth, the abolishment of the “welfare state”, the privatization of Health and the return of university education to the years of his studies, when only those who had money studied, the continuous increase of taxes and the chopping of wages and pensions, with the explosion of suicides by desperate workers. The moment they squeeze the proletariat and the workers, he stressed, the rich get wealthy and like vultures take their profits abroad. The crisis will not pass, as they say -he continued- if they do not drink the last shed drop of blood of the proletariat. He referred to the fake news of the media and the creation of fear syndromes, the spectacle with the so called arrest of tax-evaders, while he characterized as co-responsible the juridical authorities. He spoke of the repeated scandals (vatopedi, siemens, structured bonds, phone taps, kidnapping of Pakistani people) and their covering up, to come to the conclusion that the people will go to the streets again, under the pressure of this reality, and this is why the regime takes its measures now, strengthening the oppressive mechanism, today with water canons and plastic bullets, tomorrow with special forces and real bullets. Because at some point the people will burn the “the whorehouse parliament”, as shouted by half a million people in Syntagma square and they will hang some scumbags too. What did R.S. do? He made the question and answered immediately: it proved once again, that the road towards freedom is paved with struggles and sacrifices. When the brutality roams from one end of the world to the other, resistance to this brutality is what’s necessary. Immediately after, Tsiagridas referred to the actions of R.S., in order to prove that they were politically and socially legitimized. He spoke of the rocket launched at the American embassy, with references to the crimes of the Americans, major crime of which for greece was the 7year dictatorship and the tragedy in Cyprus, the document of which was sealed by the “national leader” K.Karamanlis. About the explosions at the ministries of Economics and Employment which are accountable for the poverty of the greek people and for the destruction of all that was gained by the working class. “You think the unemployed said ‘why do they put bombs?’ or were they satisfied that the castle of the enemy has been symbolically hit?” He said addressing the judges. He spoke about the attacks on the Stock exchange, which snatched the peoples money in 1999 and the banks which suck the blood of the poor. He dedicated a separate chapter of his statement to the attacks against riot cops, police stations and guards of government buildings, noting that it is the police and especially its special forces which raised the level of conflict, viciously attacking demonstrators, sadistically cracking sculls, torturing prisoners, attacking protesters to kill them, even with motorbikes. He read out and then submitted to the court a whole list with the cold blooded murders of citizens by cops. All the perpetrators of these murders were acquitted at first or second degree or got it easy and didn’t even go to prison. This is what Korkoneas considered and didn’t hesitate to pull the trigger and murder Alexandros Grigoropoulos. He was unlucky though, because the insurrection followed and he had to go to prison. His accomplice is already free and soon so will Korkoneas. What did they expect? That there wouldn’t be an answer, after the intensification by the police? There was an answer and I consider all actions socially and politically legitimate. Then, Tsigaridas referred to the forged retort, that there is no violent political action in democratic conditions, using plenty of graphic examples to describe the quality of this democracy. One of the examples he used was Voulgarakis, who has been targeted by R.S. The action was not successful, said Tsigaridas, but if it was successful, I would say “it was good what they did to him”. He then went on to talk about violence and its historical role, the monopoly of violence which the capitalist state wants to preserve, the classness of Justice, which can ensure not a fair trial, but a lawful trial at the best. And if you say to me “then what did you come to testify?”, he concluded, I will tell you that I came, just like the other witnesses, considering that I can contribute to some judge that they should not condemn without evidence, because then their decision will be clearly political. The R.S., he continued, contributed to the path towards the classless society, by putting in its bit, as all revolutionary organizations. Because the revolution will not be made by the organizations, it will be made by the organized armed population. He referred to the meaning of political responsibility, which in penal terms means absolutely nothing and he mentioned his treatment in the three trials of ELA (revolutionary popular struggle), where after the first condemning decision, without there being any evidence, but with the application of the nazi ideal of collective responsibility, it concluded to two consecutive acquittals, by judges who didn’t throw away their conscience and their value system in the garbage, even if they had conservative perceptions. Answering a question by the prosecutor about the relativity between the R.S. and the R.P.S. (ELA), because both use in their title the words “revolutionary struggle”, Tsigaridas answered that there shouldn’t be any special importance given to these two words, which have been used by many organizations, but to the different ideological references between the RPS and which was an organization of a communist reference and specifically of autonomy and the RS which is an organization of anarchist reference. To the question about the structure of RS he answered “i have no idea”. Ch.Tsigaridas had the opportunity to add new arguments to his placement, when answering the questions of the defence advocates S.Fitrakis, M. Daliani and D.Vagianou. He especially referred to the meaning of a political crime and noted that the judges will be judged by if their decision will be political, i.e. sentences without evidence. As for myself, he answered: “I have regretted nothing. Only my limited powers which did not allow me to do more”.
Brigitte Asdonk stated from the beginning that she came to testify in solidarity to the fighters accused for their anti-capitalist and anti-faschist action. She described the situation in postwar Germany which she experienced (she was born in 1947), with the nazis dominating everywhere, with the dictatorship of the german capital. My parents, farmers conservative and catholic, taught me to not mess with what’s going on, she said. But, me and many others, we did not want to remain neutral in the country which was controlled by the generation of Auschwitz. She referred to the massive anti-imperialist movement which was developed in Germany, because of the criminal war of the USA against the people of Vietnam, which was held with the support of the german government, and the regime of special need which was formed in Germany, especially against the new Left which was being born in the country, after the forbidding of the function of the Communist party of Germany. RAF (Red Army Faction) was born in these conditions. B.Asdonk referred to the values and actions of the RAF, the arrest of its founding members, the trial in Stamheim and their execution in the end, in the white cells, before the trial was completed, under the orders of the German Industrialist Association and the ex-nazis who were dominating the german state. Hearing the question to a previous witness, if they regretted, I remember the words of Gudrun Ensslin:”If something saddens us, is the inconsistency between our hand and our mind. We would like to have been more effective militarily”. RAF, she continued, brought up the obligation of resistance. When you have across you the imperialist policy, conscience means resistance and struggle. When the german state forbade the prisoners of RAF all communication and information, I felt that no one will come out alive. But the struggle continued. The existence of armed groups is basic for the prospect of the revolutionary struggle. B.Asdonk referred to the contradiction experienced by the armed organizations and every revolutionary member of them separately, where they are made to use violence, when the revolutionary violence aims at a society without violence. She referred not only to the past of german fascism, but also the strategic role preformed today by german imperialism in the impoverishing of greek society. She referred to the intensification of relations of exploit and the deadly danger dealt with by those who dream a free society. “I do not think that the accused in this trial did anything other than what D.Koufodinas mentioned, They did what their historical duty and History will justify them”, she concluded.
Vassilis Valsamis referred to the history of armed struggle and the criminalization of the fighters by the state. The worst crime is being committed, when resistance action is baptised a crime. R.S. is socially recognized. You are just judging history. R.S. is a part of our soul,part of our body, it is an inseparable part of the anarchist movement. In no anarchist collective can there be phenomenons which it loaths, such as leadership. R.S. is a worthy continuer of the liberating urban guerilla. It incarnated the legend of the wrecker. Its action was poetry against tyranny. The conviction of the organization will be equal to a call out horn for the oppressed proletarians.
Then spoke Jean Weir, who made an extensive presentation of the anarchist credo, as she realizes it and serves it, with many literature references, but also personal references to Nikos Maziotis, the hunger strike as a military denier of which brought her to greece for the first time, many years ago. She referred to the actions and persecutions of the anarchist movement globally and in greece, she described armed struggle as not the end aim but as a tool which brings to the front line the necessity of revolutionary subversion and concluded that the comrades who took the political responsibility are active in the multiform anarchist movement and proudly defend their organization, against the orchestrated war by the Media.
At the next session on Septmeber 13th will testify Jose Rodriguez, sasua Berdrand, Michalis Traikapis, Giorgos Voutsis, Giorgos Aggelatakis and Stella Antoniou.


REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE TRIAL Session 33, Thursday, 13/9/12

Translated by Act for freedom now/boubourAs

Bertrand Sassoye, from Belgium, member of the Communist Combatant Cells (CCC), who “did” 15 years in the Belgian prisons clarified straight away that he came to the court without hiding his identity. “You are my enemies”, he stated, “and I do not recognise any right to you to judge those who represent the honour and the fighting traditions of the greek people”. Then he referred to the era of imperialism and political reaction, during which the national state obeys the international imperialistic upper class, while the justice state and state law ridicule the values of the Roman law which was formed by the revolutionary upper class in the 18th century. He spoke about the criminalization of social life, the reverse of the criterion of innocence, the attempt of de-politicization of the revolutionary political action. He brought as an example their own trial in Belgium, in which the court decided there is no political offence, because the state was not defeated. With this logic, he continued, political trials exist only cases of conflict within the urban camp. The same, is happening in this trial too. They accuse the members if the R.S. that put the safety of the country at risk, at the same time however they claim that there is no political but only criminal offence. He characterized what is happening as a coarse ridicule and spoke of a farce-trial, which reveals that the old rule of law has transformed into a permanent state of emergency. The ministers vote whatever the international imperialist upper class orders. Then, B. Sassoye referred to the importance of armed propaganda, which stems from the mismatch between the over-ripe objective conditions and the inadequite subjective conditions, from the contradiction between the absence of revolutionary activity of the masses and the need of revolutionary conflict, factors that must always be weighed by the revolutionaries. Define armed propaganda as the tactic which serves the aim of the oppressed realizing their power. He mentioned the example of the Tupamaros in Uruguay and that of the RAF later in Germany and the Red Brigades in Italy, while he defined his own organization as a second generation organization, which carried out 20 actions of armed propaganda in Belgium against capitalist and imperialist targets. The identification of the targets of the C.C.C. with the targets chosen by the R.S. do not surprise me, he said. These are the essential axis of rotation of the struggle for the development of the revolutionary dynamic in a period of crisis: the major capital, imperialism, the international capitalist and imperialist structures. I do not hide my identity, repeated B.Sassoye. I am a revolutionary marxist-leninist, which means I have significant differences with the comrades of the R.S. I thank them for exceeding these differences and invited me here to express my solidarity, but also to defend the honour of the communists. The spectacle of oppressive forces of the KKE (greek communist party) protecting the american embassy is not something new. These are degenerate forces, which have abandoned the revolutionary prospect, who constantly speak of provocateurs and agents, who have abandoned revolutionary marxism and keep only some words, who speak of avant-gardism because they themselves have chosen the role of the rearguard, who turn against the unity of the oppressed. B.Sassoye concluded: “I greet the anarchist fighters of the RS for their courage, their revolutionism and for their target meeting. Honour to dead fighter Lambros Foundas. Proletarians of all countries unite!”.
Michalis Traikapis mentioned his personal relations with the “3” and their common path in the anarchist movement. Especially with K.Gournas, who he met in 2003, when Traikapis had been imprisoned for the clashes in Thessaloniki, during the EU summit. When in 2010 he was imprisoned again, for a set up case of an alleged participation of his in a robbery, he had the opportunity to get closer to Maziotis and Gournas, develop political relations in prison and give common struggles. Then M.Traikapis referred to the bigger part of the thematics included in the action of R.S. and chose to refer at length to the thematic of capitalist crisis and the importance of the action of the R.S. for society in general and the anarchist movement especially. Answering a question about the motives of the members of the R.S., he spoke of selfless motives, beyond any personal interests. Besides, whoever makes this decision knows that they will have to deal with hunts, persecutions, imprisonments, even death. Vanity and the hunt for money belong to the people of the opposite camp.
Giorgos Voutsis clarified from the beginning that he is in the court as an anarchist, in solidarity and politically complicit with the R.S. N.Maziotis and P.Roupa, he said, I met now, in common actions of solidarity, but I have had a close relation since 2002 with K.Gournas. Common struggles during the time when the war in Iraq was being prepared, during the summits of the criminal political leaders of the EU, when we intervened in the Pipe factories of Corinth, where the criminal capitalists sent six workers to death, to not spend 1000 euro! He then referred to the law of silence which is covering this trial. Journalists were asking if Koufodinas will testify. He testified, and they were not here. He mentioned the fascist turn of society and the gagging of political prisoners. He then mentioned the systemic violence as targeted violence of the mechanisms of capitalist brutality. He spoke about the racist crimes, the 34 murdered strikers in South Africa, because they went on strike breaking their bonds with the sold out state syndicate, noting that all of what we saw are images from the future of the european metropolises. He spoke of the violence of the social rights (health, insurance, employment), about the blue cells in the psychiatric wings of the prisons which “vegetate” those incarcerated in them, the isolation of the political prisoners around the world, the criminal action of the MAT (greek riot cops) against the protesters, with the awarding of those who found target on the heads of the protesters. R.S., he said, put into practice the dynamic counter-attack striking the heart of the beast, at the side of those who fight for freedom. He defined as the inheritance of R.S. the value of collectivity, against the dominant dogmas of individualism and selfishness, the fact that with its actions it showed that the system is not invincible, resulting in many groups taking courage and take action and the psychological rising it offered to the oppressed, maintaining the revolutionary vision alive. RS was an organization-mean for the revolutionary subversion and not an organization-end, he pointed out. It projected, even, a revolutionary program on how it imagines tomorrows society. As for the political responsibility claim, he said that with it the members of the RS defended their political work, they did not leave it orphan, while they honoured their dead comrade Lambros Foundas, protecting him from the dirt of the Media. They revealed him as an urban guerilla who fell in the battle for freedom. Concluding, G.Voutsis mentioned the importance of the revolutionary struggle. Alas, he said, if organizations such as EAM (Greek peoples Liberation Front, an organization which operated during the occupation of the axis) or the Black Panthers remained at soup kitchens and protecting the people from hunger. Social solidarity is useless, if it is not combined with dynamic struggles. Jose Rodriguez from Valencia made an extensive reference to the history of armed struggle in Spain, before, during and after Franco’s dictatorship. He mentioned numerous examples of fighters who fell in the struggle or were murdered from the official and unofficial oppressive forces. A common characteristic for these fighter was also that the state tried to stigmatize them as terrorists and robbers. 188 murders were committed by the spanish state from 1975 to 1983. Very few were punished and all were soon set free. The anarchist libertarian comrades of Spain, he said, know N.Maziotis from 1990. We consider the motives of the RS valid. We consider him an heir of our struggles and the idea of “fight with all means”. I met comrades Nikos, Pola and Kostas and of course they are nothing like the icon of criminals the Media present. Our solidarity to the persecuted of this trial is a part of our struggle against the state ans capital. The enemy is the same everywhere, so is the resistance of the people. Long live the revolutionary struggle. No pasaran!
Stella Antoniou mainly mentioned her acquaintance with P.Roupa in the female prisons, what Pola and her child went through, but also their common struggles for prisoners rights and for general political matters. P.Roupa was the one who called for the first open prisoners assembly. All of her fellow prisoners appreciated her, because she was selfless, because she treated them equally, because she promoted collectivity. Maziotis, Roupa, Gournas, while in prison intervened publicly with their texts, which were later published in a book. These fighters are characterized as criminals by the indictments! Maria Economou mentioned her own experiences from her common actions with the “3” inside the anarchist movement. Such fighters, she said, reach the choice of armed struggle through their own experiences, through the battles they have given, with a lot of study and thought. All forms of struggle move towards the same direction, the direction of social liberation. When the three comrades were released, she said, the same afternoon they were at an event at the Polytechnic for solidarity to political prisoners. And in the movement they always first in the practical jobs. The comrades of the RS, she concluded, are not alone. The mutual relation of solidarity and struggle will not be cut even if they are locked up in prison again. It will get stronger, until we reach the classless society. Finally, she mentioned her acquaintance with Lambros Foundas, a polite, decent, and selfless person, who could have made a career, but chose the struggle for the revolution. Lambros Foundas will always live in the hearts of those who have chosen to fight for freedom, she concluded. Giorgos Aggelatakis stated that he came as a witness with the deep belief that armed organizations were and will be a part of the movement. He characterized as political the actions of the RS and the trial as political as well. He made a relatively extensive reference to the history of political violence, which characterizes all revolutions, but also the historical action of the workers movement around the world. He referred to the movement of the Tupamaros, the struggles for Vietnam, the Palestinian revolution, the Black Panthers, movements which prepared 1968, after which armed groups jumped out in almost all european countries. He referred, also, to the history of armed struggle in Greece, during the dictatorship but also after the fall of the junta.


Then, G.Aggelatakisspoke of the matter of if armed struggle leads to the strengthening of state oppression. The state is on its own violent, he pointed out, it does not need the armed resistance. When class struggle is intensified, it strengthens the oppression. Unless we follow the dogma of non-resistance. He reminded that equivalent opinions were heard during the nazi occupation, against the actions of ELAS (greek popular liberation army, military branch of EAM), but also during the junta, against the resistance, such as the Polytechnic. He also reminded the reversed example. In Chile, leftist groups asked for weapons from the Allende government, but they refused to give them any. The tragic result with so many thousand dead people is known. Tragic for Allende also. The next chapter he spoke about was that of the actions of the RS. He demonstrated the social just of its actions, referring to some of the attacks of the organization, as well as the timeliness the various attacks had, a fact that proves that the organization gave special importance to this, i.e. that their actions were in function with the political conditions. This is why there was a veil of silence on the trial, he noted. Because no one could convince society that it is threatened by the RS. Society is threatened by the troika and the governments. People are terrorized when opening an electricity account, not from an action of the RS. This is why they constantly make emergency legislations, this is why they are running to Israel for new means of oppression. The RS, he concluded, is a part of us. It comes from the bowels of the anarchist movement. This is why its fighters will never be alone. Finally, G.Aggelatakis mentioned his long (20 years) personal friendship with Maziotis and Roupa. I know, he said, that if Pola and Nikos were here now they would not have let me say these things. These are people devoted wholeheartedly to the movement. Who put the collective first and then whatever individual. Who do what they say. I was not surprised, therefore, that they took the political responsibility for their organization. There was no way they would do anything else. Pola, could have, by claiming solidarity to her companion and her pregnancy, to not take the political responsibility. There was no way she would do that, because it would go over her value code. I gave them hospitality when they came out of prison and realized their no-limit militancy to the anarchist movement. Their daily stress was how the struggle will continue. These “executive members” were first in the various practical jobs. I feel really lucky, because they are not only my comrades and friends, they are my brother and sister. And I consider it my honour that the three comrades chose me to defend them.
The trial will continue on Wednesday, September 26, with the testimonies of Christophoros Kortesis defence witnesses.



Posted on 22/11/2012

Act for freedom now/boubourAs
After two postponements (Tuesday 9th and Wednesday 17th), one because of an illness of the court secretary and one because of a lawyer strike, and with a two hour delay, because of the participation of the secretary in the strike of juridical employees, came the time for the terror-court to hear the defence witnesses of the six accused comrades, who from the first moment -without hiding their political opinions and positions, as well as their comrade and friendly relations with the three members of the R.S. and unforgettable Lambros Foundas- have refused their participation in the organization, beginning with the defence witnesses of Christophoros Kortesis.
Biologist Artemis Rubu, a professor in natural sciences, with doctorate studies in Zurich and years of research work in greek and foreign universities, gave an amazingly clear presentation about the identifications based on genetic material.
Her very simple and clear presentation was accompanied by big boards which explained what “researching the DNA and searching for identifications” means. The fact that she knows this specific scientific matter in depth, because of special studies and research work (“more than 10.000 samples have passed before my eyes” she characteristically mentioned), helped in the simplified presentation, to a point where there cannot be the slightest dispute to what she said.
A.Rubu stated that she was summoned by Kortesis defence team to study the reports in the indictment, together with the professor of Biochemistry of Patras University Mrs.Georgiou, specialized in statistic analysis, with whom she co-signed a relative report which has been added to the indictment. Her basic points were these: Although the CID (Criminology Investigation Directorate) defines what is a “sample”, in this case there was a total lack of these values of analysis. Samples were attributed to individuals which were not even from people! These consist a genetic type and not samples.
Thus, Kortesis is attributed with two “touch samples” which were taken with a scan of a bandanna and some wires found in his house. These samples are very small, while also it is not defined what cells they come from. These samples were taken from an environment with a high level of infection danger, as shown from the reports of the CID itself.
Although in the second “sample” does not define even the sex and there are 50% chances it belongs to woman, the CID identified these two samples and attributed them to a male individual, which they named X5! How was there an identification, when one sample is relatively complete, while the second is missing four “topoisomerases”, amongst which the “topoisomerases” of the sex, while the DEE demands that there is an identification of 15 “topoisomerases”
A.Rubu, without using demeaning comments, spoke in formal scientific language of a “methodological leap”. Then, the CID identifies “individual” X5 with 38 laboratory samples, which were taken from objects in houses of the RS and from Kortesis motorbike.
How do they make the identification? With the first or second sample of X5, since these two are not identified? Normally, all further research should have stopped, noted the witness.
The three member scientific team, wanting to go further, committed the “mistake”, as A.Rubu characterized it, to check all comparisons, which was anti-scientifically carried out by the CID, using as a base the “sample” which was relatively complete. And what did it find? That based on statistical facts, which she presented, the specific DNA could belong to millions of people! The three researchers used a ready base of the FBI, which includes samples of 700 americans, and found that 31 of them are included in this “sample”! Why? Because it is a mixture as says Butler, an FBI criminologist, mixtures with more than DNAs are useless for research. In this case, they were all mixtures and from “touch samples”! In half of these mixtures the relatively complete sample is not included.
As A.Rubu stated, however, she was shocked when she read the DEE report and saw that identifications were mentioned! She spoke of manipulation and false statement.
The three scientists asked, through the advocates, for the crude facts of the “laboratory” of the police, but they did not give them. From their experience however, they concluded that what is presented as relatively complete sample does not belong to an existing person, but is a product of a chemical reaction. Because, when there are small quantities of DNA, it increases the sensitivity of the method with which they research, they go out of the limits of tolerance and the result is that non existing facts appear.
 The reports of the CID, however, do not even mention the cell type, neither the quantity of DNA, nor the PCR protocol used (which means how much was the the sensitivity of the method increased), nor the “threshold” of the method (from which the possibilities of mistake are calculated).
Why is the scientific team convinced that the specific “sample”, which was attributed to Kortesis, is a product of a laboratory reaction and not a sample from a person? Besides everything else also because the specific “sample” was found only once! It is not possible that it belongs to him if they found it only once on the motorbike and house of Kortesis. That is absurd.
The scientist completed her presentation with a general review of the reports of the CID. Of the 500 samples allegedly examined by the “laboratories” of the CID and are presented in the 8 reports of the indictment only 13 gave complete genetic types! A percentage of 2,6%! Therefore, there is a great failure of the procedure of collecting the samples and the method of research. Of the 13 complete genetic types, 7 of them belong to “justifiable touched”, which means cops who were involved in the procedure!
This is why it is more possible that the genetic profiles are a product of the method, which was pushed to function beyond its limits, and not genetic profiles which correspond to individuals. The method is very difficult, concluded A.Rubu. It is not automated, you do not put the samples into a robot and you collect the results. At every step lurks a mistake. This is why in these cases the procedure has to be repeated in another lab, in order to compare the results and exclude the danger of infections (many samples are examined in the same lab) and the danger of fictitious genetic profiles because of the failure of the method. The prosecutor, embarrassed, first attempted to make a compromise with the scientist, by asking her if the reports of the CID are of zero value.
A.Rubu was categorical: they are of zero value. Even more embarrassed, the prosecutor transformed into a cop for a little, by asking her where she works and who she does the DNA research for. A.Rubu answered calmly, that now she is a researcher in the state university of Humboldt in Berlin and that all during her scientific course she has worked exclusively in universities as a researcher. Never in the private sector, never for specific clients. The prosecutor continued the same desperate attempt: “I can accept possibilities of mistake, but I do not understand zero value”. “I did not speak of a possibility, but of certainty of mistake”, was her answer. That is when the prosecutor gave up and found refuge in an incomprehensible question.
He asked if by mistake there could be found human DNA of a person who was never at the area of sampling. The answer of Rubu who analyzed extensively, was that yes, that can happen too. Other questions were not made from the judges.
I. Rahiotis commented that after A.Rubu’s testimony there is not even an indication of Kortesis DNA, but if the court has doubts, then the defence brings back the demand for a new examination by a university laboratory. The rest of the witnesses were what we call “political witnesses”. People who met Ch.Kortesis in various activities of his life, mainly in the struggles of the anarchist movement. In the latter category are Anastasia Ananiadou, Giannis Aggelopoulos, Giorgos Kostopoulos.
They spoke of their common struggles, their friendship, the fighting substance of Kortesis, of persecutions they have suffered, the targeting of the anarchist movement, of the fact that anyone of them could be in the position of Kortesis, because they could have been eating at a sandwich shop together with their comrades Nikos Maziotis and Pola Roupa, as happened to Kortesis when he was arrested (“he had the bad luck of being with Nikos and Pola” was the expression they used).
Spiros Kogiannis testified his own experience as a “usual suspect” of a past era, while the journalist of ‘Eleftherotypia’ newspaper Dimitris Nanouris spoke of his accidental meeting with Kortesis (they travelled together to Milan, to watch their a game of their favourite team AEK) and extensively referred to the journalistic game of targeting and of those arrested, comparing this game to other similar ones in the past.
Friend and classmate of Kortesis, Panagiotis Papadimitriou referred to their long friendship, the ideas which Kortesis never hid, the targeting of the anarchists. Finally, mathematician Thodoros Koutsoubos mentioned the advance incrimination of those who are accused in this room, the creation of special courts for these political cases, the incrimination of Kortesis because of his friendly and comradely relation with Maziotis, the application of collective responsibility which reminds us of other times.
At some point, because of a question of the prosecutor who wanted to learn from the witness what exactly these preventive arrests are, Vaggelis Stathopoulos sated that he has also suffered preventive arrests for years now. That on the 12th of February and the recent strike he was also arrested, while numerous times he has seen the undercover cops outside his house or his shop, without hiding their presence.
I am a usual suspect and this is why I am here, he concluded.
Kostas Gournas, who represents the Revolutionary struggle in this trial, after the absence of Maziotis and Roupa, replying to an opinion expressed by a defence witness, that Kortesis could not be a member of the RS, because he was at the front line of anarchist action and this would create security problems for the organization, and that if he took the big decision to “bear arms”, he would have to withdraw from the procedures of the movement, as done by Maziotis and Roupa, who retained only their friendly relations.
I am sorry, Gournas said, that I am made to make this intervention, but I would like to ask the comrades who testify here as defence witnesses of the other comrades to not bring in formations of the organization RS, which they are in no position to know.
The trial will continue on Wednesday October 31st, again with defence witnesses of Ch.Kortesis.



Revolutionary Struggle case trial Session 35, Wednesday 31/10/12 Αthens – Greece


Translated by boubourAs/Act for freedom now with the Revolutionary Struggle members and the co-accused in the same case

The second day with testimonies of defence witnesses for Ch.Kortesis began with historian and journalist Efstratios Bournazos, who stated he met Kortesis after his release and he gave him the impression of a structured person who defends his views with frankness.
His testimony, however, was with his scientific identity, that of a historian who is doing his doctorate dissertation on the “cold war” and emphasizing the use of the Media during it. As he mentioned, he can distinguish analogies between the era he studies and the modern era, which he summarized into four elements: the construction of the internal enemy, which is always observed in times of tension, the criminalization of friendly relations, the convictions not individually but based on the inclusion in general movement, i.e. based on belief, and the identification of the suspect with the guilty. The witness also referred to older cases of persecution which took place in the logic of criminalizing the belief and the crucial role the Media play in these cases.
Spiros Dapergolas first referred to his rather recent acquaintance with Kortesis, in the frames of action of the anarchist movement against heroin dealing in Exarhia, during 2009-2010. He spoke of a structured anarchist, clear in his opinions, capable to manage difficult situations with calmness and sobriety. The witness mainly stood at the opinions of the anarchist movement on armed struggle and the urban guerilla, pointing out that this form of political action is acceptable by the anarchists and that R.S. acted in the frames of anarchist perceptions and practices, this is why it has the solidarity of the movement. The same solidarity goes for those who are accused for the same reason and denied their participation in the RS. What I can tell you about Kortesis and the other comrades, concluded the witness, is that the state sets up cases and this has been proven many times in courts, not with the marginal form of doubts, but with the collapsing of cases which were set up. The same is taking place in this case.
Giorgos Kortesis, father of Christophoros, referred to his sons life, who followed his occupation (electrician), completing additional studies in electronics. Noteworthy is the description of the search which took place in his house. The prosecutor took a book, sat in the living room and started reading, while four cops of the Anti-terrorist force searched. Of them, only one (which they called lieutenant) was wearing gloves. The others just took various things, showed them to him and then put them all on a table, made a list of them, put them in boxes and left! He also revealed that, he himself, after his sons “detainment” immediately went to GADA (athens police headquarters), accompanied by a lawyer, but access was denied. Only at evelpidon courts, after 48 hours, did his lawyer manage to see Kortesis. Pantelis Nikolaidis, public worker, testified that he knows Kortesis since 1999, the period of protests against the war in Yugoslavia. He mentioned the democratic freedoms of the citizen, which are being affected, especially after the attack on the twin towers in New York, when there was a large incision, with the voting of the “anti-terrorist” laws, the formation of special courts etc. All this regime received a further push during the period of the Memorandum, during which those who fight are not potential suspects, but potential guilty.
Fani Dedousi is a very good friend of Ch.Kortesis for over 10 years and his flatmate in the house they rented together in Nea Filadelfia. While she was the tenant of the house which was presented as the safe-house with the guns, the police never bothered her, did not include her in the suspects, did not even call her for interrogation! On her own, with the help of a lawyer, she looked for her stuff which they had taken from the house. She was also insistent concerning the night which, according to the anti-terrorist force, Kortesis appears to participate in a “suspicious” gathering at the house of Stathopoulos, going in once and coming out twice (the famous gaffe of the anti-terrorist supervisor K.Papathanasakis) and leaving the second time with a car which was later found burnt out. As the witness testified, she herself picked up Kortesis from Stathopoulos’s house (it was very near theirs) with her car, went to Exarhia to two to shops (“Mikro cafe” and “Hassan cafe”) and around 3.30-4.00am returned home and went to bed. They woke up late in the afternoon of the next day and she then took Kortesis with her car to Stathopoulos’s house, in order for him to take his motorbike which he left there.
Ioannis Petrou, an old friend of the Kortesis family, spoke of the life of Christophoros and their everyday interactions (he is the owner of a cafe in Markopoulo, where Kortesis was born and raised), while Ioannis Douvikas, childhood friend of Christophoros, spoke about their friendship, their common activities, the social life of Kortesis in Markopoulo, his integration into the anarchist movement which was known to all of the small community of the area. He himself had “numerous times” visited Kortesis’s house in Filadelfia, which was presented as a safe house, and when he heard the Media, he was convinced even more about his friends innocence. I was convinced, he said, because I saw that they were presenting a different Christophoros from the one I knew so well.
University worker Panagiotis Politis stated that he does not belong to the anarchist movement and that he was approached by Kortesis defence team to testify as a witness. He only accepted when from the evidence of the indictment he was convinced that Kortesis was not guilty, otherwise he wouldn’t have accepted. He mentioned the set ups from the side of the police, reminding the case of the student with the green shoes, the case of the 49 students who were arrested in March 2007, the case of the four anarchists arrested and accused of a bank robbery in Evia, for them to be acquitted when it was proven that the car they allegedly carried out the robbery with was bought time after the robbery. The opinion that the police is always right is being de-constructed bit by bit, noted the witness.
The prosecutor asked the witness which evidence in the indictment made him come to the conclusion that Kortesis is innocent and he mentioned his presence at a friends house, that he was eating together with N.Maziotis and his fingerprint on a mobile object, which to his evaluation does not consist evidence of guilt.
Then the prosecutor asked him if he knew that they found a voice transformer at Kortesis house? The witness answered no and the prosecutor triumphantly announced that the witness did not study the indictment however came here to pretend to be a judge. The witness admitted being surprised by this and referred the prosecutor to Kortesis himself. And while the prosecutor leaned back on his seat satisfied, the revealing came from the defence, with the deposition of photos from the indictment: the infamous voice transformer was nothing but a kids toy, one of those which speak with the voices of various cartoon characters, which was actually in a box with a photo of Mickey Mouse! Apologizing, the prosecutor said that in the indictment he read that in Kortesis’s house they found a “voice transformer with a manual” and that all these months he has been trying to understand what this means exactly. And while hilarity prevailed in the court room, the prosecutor looks more carefully at the photo and continued to insist, thinking he hit a goldmine: Here it says “telephone voice changer”, he said in fluent English. Yes, but what is important is the possibility of use, replies the defence. Its one thing to have something for Halloween, and another thing to present it generally as a voice transformer, which could be used for other things also. Is there maybe a charge that someone from the RS called with Mickey Mouses voice? That’s when the prosecutor gave up.
The journalist of “Vima Science” magazine, Apostolos Galvadis testified that he was approached by the defence of Kortesis because in many publications he presented the scientific doubts that exist internationally about the method of identification with DNA. He referred to this scientific conflict, which has been branded internationally as DNA WARS and especially insisted on the statistic character of the method, which leaves possibilities “that maybe its not like that”.
Roza Kovani testified that she covered this case for “Epohi” and that she is convinced that Kortesis “should not be here”, while she also referred to the role played by the various “parrots” of the Media.
Iraklis Pozapalidis referred to his acquaintance and his common struggles with Ch.Kortesis, he spoke about the witch hunt and the fabricating of evidence by the police. The court’s decision, he stressed, will affect society in its totality and may stop the criminalization of friendly relations.
Giorgos Kalaitzidis referred to the targeting of the anarchist movement by the authority, because of its conflictual practise. The dogma which prevails in this conflict, he said, is that the state will snatch who they can snatch. Kortesis is at the front-line of conflict and this is why he is being targeted. But not in the RS. Whoever is at the front-line of conflict can be guilty of many things, but for the RS.
*The trial has been adjourned till Tuesday December 11th, 9am because of the absence of a large part of the defence advocates, who had other commitments in other court rooms. No sessions have taken place since October 31st because the days which were set for sessions coincided with the advocates mobilizations.


Revolutionary Struggle trial Tuesday 11/12/12 Session 36 Athens

Translated by Actforfreedomnow/boubourAs
What bothered the prosecutor today? That the defence witnesses did not make up a fairy tale, but remained on the political approach and through this they defended Stathopoulos innocence. Th.D. testified that that he knows Stathopoulos since the mid 90s and extensively mentioned social and political struggles of a whole era which they participated in. Vaggelis, he said, was known since he was young for his political directness and his courage. He has suffered many pesecutions in the past and was always under surveillance.
The fighters of the R.S., noted the witness, put on the scale not only the deprivation of their freedom, but also their own lives,as proven with Lambros Foundas. This is why I find it find weird that they would come to court and denounce all responsibility, instead of taking them proudly for the action of their organization. With that thought, he mentioned that when Stathopoulos was arrested in 1995 in the Polytechnic, although young, maybe even under age, took the responsibility of his participation, without there being anything against him, while many were those who brought up ridiculous excuses in order to say that they were inside the Polytechnic against their will. I believe Vaggelis would do the same now, he noted. When an anarchist gives meaning to his action with his life, he would not hesitate in front of a court.


D.V., also a friend and comrade of Stathopoulos, mentioned him being targeted since he was young. In 2000 there was an arrest warrant for him for participating in riots which took place at a Rage Against the Machine concert and he fought for years to prove his innocence. In 2001 he had a serious work accident with a motorbike (he worked as a courier) and he remained in the intensive care unit for two months. He continued to be political active, as much as his health situation allowed him too, while he was constantly watched and harassed by the cops. As for how is now an accused in this case, the witness mentioned the role of the dark service called Anti-Terrorist force, the members of which create scenarios, not caring if they are true or not. The word of the anti-terrorist is enough in order for people to go to court and prison, because they are against this regime, he stressed. Some comrades, concluded the witness, took the political responsibility, without having really that much against them. Vaggelis didn’t. If you ask me if I knew if Vaggelis was in the organization, I would answer no. But, between a dark service which creates scenarios with no evidence and the word of and old comrade and friend, I have every reason to believe Vaggelis.
Th.F. gave an important testimony, since she has been friends with Stathopoulos since 1994, when they were still children. They were close friends, the parents of Vaggelis treated her and the other kids like their own, they shared common worries, common thoughts on social reality, common ideological and political researches. In 1997, continued the witness, in the house of Vaggelis I also met Nikos Maziotis, a very well read person, very conscious, a good friend and comrade. When Maziotis was arrested, her and Stathopoulos had their first experience with the lair and methods of the anti-terrorist force. They raided Stathopoulos parents house at 5am and arrested all the young people who were there. They searched for hours, but found nothing. They transferred them to GADA and they isolated her an started to blackmail her, even hitting her. She was 18, the youngest, and they told her to speak, to give names in order to save herself, because they have evidence on them. She mentioned the prosecution against Stathopoulos in 2000 for participation in riots at a concert which wasnt even at. It took him 7 years to be proven innocent. This is why, as the witness said, she is not surprised by the new arrest of Vaggelis. She has seen with her own eyes the vengefulness of the state against fighters. I am waiting to see him free, she concluded, because he is a person who in every aspect of his life took the his responsibilities. In 1995 he took the responsibility for participating in the occupation of the Polytechnic. In 2000 he denied his participation in the riots which took place during a RATM concert and it took him 7 years to to prove that he was innocent. A person who has taken such a responsibility (i.e. participating in the R.S.) would have claimed it.
Chiropractor Maria Politou testified evidence about the health situation of V.Stathopoulos, who was been treated for more than 10 years in the clinic first run by her parents and now herself. Even today Stathopoulos is dealing with serious health problems, since he has only one kidney, result of the serious accident he had, which almost cost him his life. She knows his life has changed forever, since he is obliged to follow a strict diet and exercise.
I.A. Testified that he also has a long comradely friendship with Vaggelis, who he characterized straight and honest, a proletariat with class conscience, a child of a family of workers who also became a worker. In November 1995, said the witness, we defended our choice. We did not silence ourselves when Christoforos marinos was murdered. We fought with the residents of Strymonikos against the gold metallurgy, together with the teachers against the ASEP, together with the students in 2006-07, although we were not students. In 2001, when Stathopoulos saw his name on the list of the accused for the riots at the RATM concert, he appeared to the prosecutor on his own and was released under conditions. Then it became clear that he has been targeted, that his profile had been created by the infamous Antiterrorist force.
N.K. mentioned meeting Stathopoulos when they were both working together at the building site of the Athens Metro by the initiative and persistence of Vaggelis, he said, we created the Fund of Solidarity to the Workers of the Metro for the workers who were getting injured all the time in this heavy and dangerous job. When old co-workers learnt about Vaggelis arrest, they were upset, continued the witness. When I told them that the people of the Media take their orders and that the straw fence in the yard of Vaggelis was only a straw fence, they calmed down and brought money to support him in prison as well. But when I proposed to them to testify as witnesses, they got scared. “No, one of them told me, cause I have a straw fence in my yard”. I understood them, because there is a terror climate in society. I have the conviction, concluded the witness, that Vaggelis is here and not someone else, like me, because the oppressive mechanism has the principle to hunt those who lead. I believe that an independent court should not criminalize the personal and comradely relations, as does the police, and this is the reason I am here.
At the beginning of the session the last three defence witnesses testified for Ch.Kortesis. Efstathios Xanthis testified that he knows Kortesis and his family from Markopoulo, that he has used him many times as an electrician and that numerous times he sought him even at night, in order to deal with trouble at his wives pharmacy which was open all night, and always found him.
Sotiris Dimakis testified on the 13 year comradely relation with Kortesis in the anarchist movement and extensively referred to the struggles they participated in all these years, whether it was struggles in the central social and political level, or special actions of the anarchist movement. He characterized Kortesis honest and always solidarian, an example of a comrade and friend, while, in his opinion these specific persecutions took place first of all to hit the R.S. and secondly in order to hit the wider anarchist movement. I consider that Christophoros has nothing to do with the accusations, he concluded. “If he was a member of the R.S., would you know?” asked the prosecutor. “I imagine not”, replied the witness.
E.M said that if Kortesis was a “good kid” he would not have been here. He knows him for 7-8 years and testified experiences from common struggles in various social fronts. As soon as he came out of prison, said the witness, I saw him next to me again. I was really pleased that he did not distance himself from the comrades who took the political responsibility – because we have seen a lot, especially with the case of the 17N. Because I too, he concluded, was happy the stock exchange was hit, as was the whole of greece.
The trial continues on Thursday December 13th.



This entry was posted in General and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *