[ad_1]
First entry: Wednesday, October 21, 2020, 2:39 p.m.
District attorney Vasiliki Vlachou put her finger on the guy with the nail exposing all those, intrajudicial or extrajudicial factors that tried and are trying even in the last minute to lead the court for the Noor1 case in a decision that exposes the Justice in de .
The prosecutor rightly pointed out that if there is the possibility of attributing other mitigations to the main protagonist of the case, Efthimios Giannousakis, with the excuse that he collaborated with the The authorities, then, must be taken into account by the court all the material of the secret testimonies made by the first instance sentenced to life imprisonment to the Coast Guard investigator Panagiotis Christoforidis. According to the prosecutor, but also in the basic sense of the procedure, there can be no selective reading of declarations when in reality they all form part of a specific section.
Thus, as the prosecutor Vasiliki Vlachou pointed out, it is not possible to take into account only the complaint by Efthymios Giannousakis about the role of the Turkish collaborators in the Noor1 case. For example, the first time deposit in which Giannousakis reveals the key role in the heroin transport case should also be taken into account. The motive of Emilios Kotsonis, agent of Olympiacos, collaborator of the shipowner Vangelis Marinakis and key economic agent in the port of Dubai.
Efthymios Giannousakis testified before the Coast Guard investigator. But how will this testimony be accepted if there is a decision to acquit Emilios Kotsonis for, as the president characteristically said, “minimal doubts”? It would be as if the judges reversed their own decision.
A second characteristic contradiction arises from the fact that Efthymios Giannousakis invokes his cooperation with the Authorities in at least one of his secret statements to the Coast Guard investigator, Panagiotis Christoforidis. But it’s the same Ev. Giannousakis, who has officially accused the Coast Guard investigator of exerting pressure and blackmailing him to protest things he didn’t believe in. Both cannot be valid. Either Giannousakis actually cooperated with the Authorities and disclosed things and facts to the Coast Guard investigator, or the Coast Guard investigator was not a trustworthy person, so Giannousakis’ statements are not valid. Ev can’t. Giannousakis wants all the cake and the dog full, but the court shouldn’t applaud this fundamental contradiction in this case either.
The president of the court in the discussion on mitigating factors did not accept the prosecutor’s request to take into account all of Ev’s secret statements. Giannousaki to researcher Pan. Christoforidis. The prosecutor hinted that in such a case there is a matter of appeal. What would happen in such a case? Once again, the Greek Justice would be exposed because with decisions and actions of its own executives, the prestige of the Institution’s decisions was compromised, risking the issue of malpractice.
The court decided to accept the prosecutor’s proposal to provide mitigation to Efthimios Giannousakis for good behavior after the commission of the crime for which he is accused. This means that the life sentences were “broken” and that Efthymios Giannousakis will be sentenced again to between 5 and 15 years in prison. He has already spent six years in prison, so his release will not be long in coming.
However, the court did not accept Ev’s lawyer’s proposal. Giannousaki for the attribution of attenuation according to article 27 of the Penal Code, which refers to the cooperation of the accused-accused with the Authorities. In short, despite the schemes, the judges were forced to ignore this defense request. Again, at least in the last minute, at least the pretexts were upheld.
Recall the dialogues between the prosecutor and the president of the court in the last discussion at Noor1’s trial:
FISCAL: For article 27 we cannot remain alone with all the evidence.
PRESIDENT: The prosecutor’s proposal must be made as an independent claim because it does not come ex officio. They bring in some secret warehouses and therefore suggest an independent claim that we think there should be a proposal.
If you think you shouldn’t, it’s your business.
FISCAL: If the procedure of article 27 is followed, it means that we have not been informed …
PRESIDENT: You have been informed of the information provided by the accused himself.
FISCAL: They haven’t brought me.
The defendant cannot selectively tell us “you will read these.”
Be aware of all deposits.
PRESIDENT: You brought it from the Prosecutor’s Office …
