[ad_1]
Ioanna Kurtovic and Dimitris Sarafianos, lawyers for the convicted murderer, Dimitris Koufontina, a member of 17N, said in a statement that no court undertakes to judge the validity or otherwise of the reasons given by their client for decisions about his transfer.
At the same time, they add that, consequently, “there is therefore a decisive conflict of competences, commonly negative, which constitutes a clear violation of articles 20 of the Constitution and 6 of the ECHR, as well as a violation of the principle of the rule of law. the law.
The text of the lawyers of Koufontina
“By act of the President of the Council of State, the request of Dimitris Koufontinas for a temporary order suspending the execution of the acts and omissions related to the transfer of the plaintiff was rejected due to lack of competence in appeal and CoC jurisprudence, according to the which the execution of sentences is inextricably linked to the administration of criminal justice.
We remind you that yesterday the Lamia Misdemeanor Council, as the Sentencing Execution Court, was deemed incompetent to rule on the legality of the same acts and omissions, claiming that the control of these executable administrative acts belongs to the jurisdiction of the administrative courts. . Also with this decision, as well as with an explicit Fiscal order, a request for temporary judicial protection (suspension of the validity of the acts until the merits of the case is resolved) was rejected because the CoC Suspension Committee was competent.
From these two directly opposite decisions the following arise:
1. No branch of justice, no court is deemed competent to rule on the legality of the decision of the General Secretariat for Criminal Policy on the transfer of a detainee. Thus, regardless of whether the reasons invoked by the plaintiff for the illegality of the acts related to his transfer are valid, as we affirmed having studied the corresponding file, no court undertakes to judge the validity or not of these reasons. Therefore, there is a decisive conflict of jurisdiction, commonly a denial, which constitutes a clear violation of Articles 20 S. and 6 of the ECHR, as well as a violation of the principle of the rule of law. Especially when no court undertakes to grant temporary judicial protection to the applicant.
2. In addition, although Mr. Koufontinas has presented two requests to the Central Committee on Transfers (the first on 12-28-20 and the second on 2-28-21), it has not been summoned by its President (the Secretary General for Politics Anti-Crime) in order to issue a positive or negative decision on them. We remind you that in accordance with the previous decision of the Lamia Misconduct Council, it was judged that for said court to heed the decisions of KEM, explicit (and not implicit) negative decisions of KEM must be issued. And of course there is a major problem as to whether the KEM can judge the legality of its president’s actions!
RELEVANT ITEMS
CoE rejects Koufontina’s request: her transfer to Domokos is not frozen
Statement by Themis Sofou on the Koufontina case: “I disinterestedly fulfilled my duty towards the values that I defend”
3. In other words, the government, although it has asked the detainee to appear before the courts, has created with its actions a procedural impasse that does not belong to any coordinated State, while also refusing to apply article 9§3 of the Penitentiary Code to solve the problem by himself with the issuance of a decision of the Minister or the Secretary General of Anti-Crime Policy for the transfer by emergency. In this way, the prisoner and each detainee are given the message that the acts of transfer are unbridled, so that those who emit them can be unscrupulous (or, as they say, they and their groomsmen decide sovereignly) and therefore the only way to protest The hunger strike and the danger to the health and life of the prisoner continues. Is this a respect for human dignity or an exaggeration?
4. In addition, the same government created from the beginning the problem a) by issuing an unconstitutional provision of the law that deprives prisoners of the right to work in rural prisons for the sole fact of the crime for which they were convicted, in violation of the principle of equality among inmates for reasons unrelated to their disciplinary conduct or the operation of rural prisons; b) applied this provision to an inmate convicted of a crime other than that provided for in the provision; c) subsequently not even apply that provision; given that he did not return him to the prison from which he came, d) it was based on reasons that had no legal or factual basis, but which were constantly changing, e) he refused for two months to notify the detainee of the pertinent decisions (citing completely unfounded , in the opinion of the Ombudsman, the protection of personal data), while to date it does not grant the set of relevant decisions with their reasons.
5. As attorneys who have handled the case, we have taken all possible legal actions based on the principles and values of humanity, the rule of law and the rule of law. After all, we appealed to the Court of Appeals following the issuance of the Lamia Misdemeanor Council’s decision, requesting the temporary resolution of the impasse in view of the apparent negativity. The State cannot lead all prisoners and all citizens to these impasses. Therefore, we call on the government to immediately resolve the impasse it has created by restoring things to their previous state or even applying the law it approved, until the procedural impasse is resolved.
[ad_2]
