The trial of the naturalization case related to the Al Jazeera article begins today, as the Prosecuting Authority's request for an adjournment was rejected by the Court.
The representative of the Prosecuting Authority, Haris Karaolidou, asking for a few days' postponement, left open the possibility of withdrawing two charges, as two of the prosecution witnesses on which two of the five charges are based, are not in the Republic and it has not been possible, until today, to secure their sworn testimony or that they will come to testify in court.
As for one of the two witnesses, she does not live in the Republic of Cyprus. According to Ms. Karaolidou, the witness in question had declared and confirmed her willingness to testify under oath in court. "For reasons unknown to us, she did not respond to the messages and other communication efforts by the Police to locate and settle the issue of her testimony," he said, noting that following her own instructions, further actions have been taken to locate and contact her by the Police, to determine whether her testimony will be given under oath or not. "We are still awaiting the outcome of these actions," he added.
Regarding the other witness, who is connected to categories 4 and 5, the Prosecuting Authority said that the person in question until very recently resided in the Republic of Cyprus and there was communication with him for the purpose of his sworn testimony in court.
"A few days ago it was established that this person left the Republic. After several attempts to contact him by phone, I was informed that he has left the Republic and resides permanently in London", said the representative of the Prosecuting Authority, noting that he is facing medical problems that do not allow him to go to the Republic to testify. "He reported to me about threatening messages that he has received and which concern his life, but so far he has not made it clear to me whether they concern the present case or not," he added.
Furthermore, regarding this particular witness, the Prosecution Authority said that in relation to the content of his statements, “I found evidence on his part that, in this first contact, gave me the impression that the witness does not intend to appear in court and tell the truth.” “This evidence is inextricably linked to the credibility of the witness,” it said, limiting itself at this stage to not providing further details on the matter, since any statements she makes could potentially affect the course of the trial, if the witness does eventually appear.
"The intention of the Accusing Authority from the first moment was the immediate adjudication of the case, bearing in mind the objective difficulties that existed", he noted, stating that the reason for submitting the request for a postponement of at least ten days is to clarify the two most serious issues that arise , as they are of "catalytic importance for the case", as he said, since, in the event that the results of the police's efforts for the specific witnesses are negative, then there will be the development of possibly stopping the charges 4 and 5, since the present case and these charges were based on the testimony of these two witnesses.
As he stated, if the request for adjournment was not approved, the case would proceed in its entirety, without the Prosecuting Authority having the opportunity before the start of the trial to have final positions in relation to categories 4 and 5. "I believe that this will burdens so much in time as well as with legal issues the case", he noted.
On the side of the defendants, Christos Triantafyllidis, representing Dimitris Syllouris, said that his client's defense "is not threatened, nor blackmailed". He noted that his client has been asking for 4 years to go to trial, contrary to reports that the accused is planning to postpone the case. As he said, a person's status is intertwined with his reputation in society and insulting reputation contributes to social ostracism. "This is what the accused has suffered. It is not his fault that the delay is being observed," he said, objecting to the request for a further adjournment of the case, unless the Prosecuting Authority was prepared today to withdraw counts 4 and 5 "given the disappearance of the journalists" of Al Jazeera.
In addition, he appeared disturbed by reports of threatening messages, clarifying that his client has "no idea about threats" and asked the Attorney General to investigate the allegations of threats.
Giorgos Papaioannou, defending Christakis Tziovannis, said that on behalf of his client he declared "complete ignorance" of what the Accusing Authority invokes, "my client had no knowledge or understanding". Because the postponement is for a few days, he said, and in order not to give the impression that "we are trying to take advantage of problems presented to the Accusing Authority, we consent to the 10-day postponement, in order for it to make the appropriate decisions."
Andreas Pittatzis, representing Antonis Antoniou, said that while the two witnesses "had a party behind our backs and participated in demonstrations, when it came time to give testimony they said they would not come to Cyprus to testify," but only possibly via video conference. He also noted that his client is not involved in what the prosecution witness is alleging about threatening messages, while he did not object to the request for adjournment.
The President of the Criminal Court rejected the Prosecuting Authority's request for an adjournment, noting that the case has been postponed repeatedly. "We understand the practical difficulties. On the other hand, the dates are given by the court and it is the duty of the Court since there is no serious reason or exceptional circumstance to hear the cases. We consider that the request should be rejected and the case should start normally today," he said, giving time for the Prosecuting Authority to call its first witness, who, he said, could be limited to testifying in relation to the first three charges.
Besides, as he noted, the next hearing will be in a period beyond ten days and the time requested by the Accusing Authority will be given, regarding the other two categories.
Source: KYPE
Discussion about this post