Report by Nektaria Psaraki*

Kalamata, 21/05/2024

The Three-member Criminal Appeal Court of Kalamata accepted the appeal regarding the Greek courts’ lack of jurisdiction to try the nine Egyptians on charges of criminal organisation and causing the shipwreck. The court also acquitted them of migrant smuggling and illegal entry due to a lack of substantive evidence. The court determined that the nine refugees had never planned, thought about, or received payment for transporting the passengers of the Adriana fishing vessel from Tobruk, Libya, to Greek territory. Additionally, they themselves ended up in Greek territory following the actions of the Coast Guard.

At the trial were present the Coast Guard and captain of the PPLS 920 vessel, Miltos Zouridakis, and Iraklis Tornatzis from the Kalamata Port Authority. In the audience were a survivor of the Pylos shipwreck, a defendant’s brother, a representative of the Egyptian Embassy, relatives of victims, journalists from domestic and international media, and members of various organisations.

However, the case was held in a small courtroom with at least one row of seats removed, forcing many attendees to stand and endure constant calls from the police to leave, despite the trial being public. The police cited the judge’s orders in their requests.

When the bench entered the courtroom, defence counsel for the nine defendants expressed the need to secure seats for journalists to exercise their right and duty to cover and report on a hearing of high public interest. After initial tension, with the prosecutor demanding that all standing people leave and the judge refraining from issuing such an order, the judicial police added ten more seats.

“If we go to trial today, it will be a trial of intent”

The trial began with the lawyers submitting an objection to the Greek courts’ jurisdiction, presenting relevant documents from four similar decisions. The courts in Rhodes, Chania, and Heraklion had all previously ruled that Greece had no authority to try crimes committed by foreigners in international waters.

The lawyers also referenced an earlier ruling that had rejected this objection, critiquing its justification as “legal acrobatics.” Essentially, the decision argued that it was a Greek case because the refugees had embarked from Tobruk, Libya, on an unseaworthy vessel, knowing there was a possibility they might end up in Greece. During the hearing, one of the defence attorneys, Spyros Pantazis, described the earlier ruling as “legal acrobatics that leads to a trial of intentions.

Defence arguments

Defence attorney Dimitris Choulis emphasised the inconsistency in the Greek judiciary’s decisions, stating, “We cannot have one court recognising the lack of authority of the Greek judiciary and another negating it. We have laws, and the courts must judge based on legality, not expediency. Whether we have jurisdiction is more important than their innocence. Greek justice cannot pick and choose its authority every time. This is one of those cases where they neither passed through the country nor intended to pass through the country; the actions of the Coast Guard brought them into the country.”

Defence attorney Spyros Pantazis highlighted the problematic nature of the earlier ruling that rejected the jurisdictional objection, noting a climate of continuous interruptions by the judge. “We came here to say what we have to say. If you don’t want to listen to us, stop the trial,” he told the judge. “This trial interprets intentions. It interprets thoughts. If we proceed today, this will constitute a trial of intent. There are very specific elements. These nine are survivors themselves. They all stated that their destination was not Greece. If we try them today, we will find ourselves at an impasse, with the Rhodes Court having no authority to try such cases while the Kalamata Court is authorised. The Crete Court is not authorised, but the Kalamata Court is authorised. Criminal law is the engine of this country. Do not reduce the country to the punisher that the historic legislator did not dare to create,” he said.

Lawyer Alexis Georgoulis presented the decisions of previous courts that declared the Greek judiciary lacking authority to try crimes committed in international waters, followed by the prosecutor’s statement.

Evidence process on the wreck location

The prosecutor did not consider the location of the wreck self-evident. She argued that questions remained unanswered regarding whether the wreck actually occurred in international waters, as this was not specified in the indictment. She posed several questions: “Where was the Adriana sailing? Did it at least penetrate our contiguous zone? What was the destination?” She suggested that these questions needed to be answered to determine if it was a Greek matter. “When these questions are answered, we will decide if it is in our jurisdiction or not. I suggest we continue,” she concluded.

Captain of PPLS 920 testimony

The tribunal agreed that the evidentiary process should proceed, focusing solely on the location of the Adriana’s sinking. The captain of PPLS 920, who is being investigated at the Piraeus Maritime Court for the towing that caused the boat to sink, was called to testify.

“I am the captain of PPLS 920,” he began, and was asked if he knew where the refugee boat had started its journey and if it intended to enter a Greek port. He was also asked about the shipwreck’s location and its distance from the Greek coastal zone.

“It’s not my responsibility to know where it sailed from. I heard later that it left Tobruk bound for Italy with no intention of entering a port in Greece. The incident happened 47 nautical miles from Pylos, and the coastal zone extends to 12 miles. The sinking of the Adriana happened there, and it did not appear that Greece was the destination. The operations room or Frontex inform us about a location. The information about the destination of a vessel is subjective because it can be stated that it is moving towards Italy and suddenly turn towards Greece. In this case, they gave me a a spot 50 nautical miles from Greece. It is in the Greek rescue zone but in international waters,” he testified, and nothing else was asked about the essence of the case, as the judges had made clear.

The Kalamata port officer, Iraklis Tornatzis, was asked the same questions and gave consistent answers. Additionally, he was questioned about the time it would take a ship to travel from 47 nautical miles to 12 nautical miles, within Greek territorial waters.

“It takes many hours. It depends on the speed of the ship. This vessel was overloaded and required several hours,” he said.

Effi Doussi emphasised, “From the indictment and its readings, it’s clear the boat was at 50 nautical miles when it sank. The bridge log indicates they were in international waters. We can provide numerous documents to support this.” Lawyer Natasha Dailiani added, “We know one location for the refugees, and in this case it is the closest.”

The examination of the nine defendants

They all testified that they departed from Libya intending to reach Italy, never considering Greece as their destination. They asserted that they were not traffickers. Instead, they had paid for their passage, seeking a better life to support their families. They expressed confusion over their imprisonment, with one defendant stating he was taken directly from the hospital to jail. All maintained their innocence, and the court did not ask substantive questions.

The decision

With the agreement of the prosecutor and the presiding judge, it was decided that the court has no jurisdiction to try them for causing the shipwreck and participating in a criminal organisation, and that they’re innocent of trafficking and illegal entry.

The prosecutor detailed the jurisdictional limits of the Greek courts, noting exceptions in cases like piracy or the slave trade. “Smuggling migrants is not equivalent to transporting slaves. Thus, the Greek courts’ jurisdiction is not established,” he explained, proposing the approval of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and the acquittal of the remaining charges. The presiding judge agreed, leading to applause, hugs, and tears from the audience, with slogans in favour of the immigrants being heard.

“Time to find the real culprits in the Coast Guard”

The lawyers left the Kalamata Courthouse in a solemn atmosphere. “The court found it had no jurisdiction and declared them innocent of trafficking,” said lawyer Dimitris Choulis. “It is time for the Greek judicial authorities to seek the real culprits in the Coast Guard,” added defence attorney Vicky Angelidou.

“These nine individuals had nothing to do with it and were wrongly imprisoned. They were scapegoats for a crime committed that day. The conclusions are yours,” said lawyer Giorgos Rallis. “The court made the right decision and had no other choice; it was the only correct decision,” said defence attorney Natasha Dailiani.

“After the Courts of Appeal of Crete and the Court of Appeal of Dodecanese, Kalamata today upheld the principle of legality, and these people are released from prison. Justice was served today,” said lawyer Spyros Pantazis.

“This case does not affect the ongoing case at the Piraeus Maritime Court regarding the involvement of the Coast Guard vessel PPLS 920. However, the question regarding the cause of the shipwreck remains open. We hope that Greek justice will uphold its standards,” said Effi Doussi, announcing that the defence attorneys will seek compensation for the unjust imprisonment of the Pylos 9.

Alexis Georgoulis explained the next steps: transferring the nine refugees back to the prisons where they are currently held, processing their parole, and then transferring them to a police station or a closed camp such as Amygdaleza, where they will be detained administratively until their asylum applications are approved.

Jason Apostolopoulos, a rescuer and defence witness, lamented the trial as a disgrace to human civilisation, highlighting that the victims of the worst shipwreck in history were on trial rather than the perpetrators. He described the acquittal as a political victory in a politically charged trial. “We will continue to seek final justice and ensure the real culprits—the Greek authorities who initially refused to rescue and then towed the boat, leading to its sinking—are punished,” he stated.

The president of the New Left, Alexis Haritsis, and MEP candidate, Stelios Kouloglou, also appeared in court. Haritsis told TPP that the upcoming European elections on June 9 must send a clear message: “Such crimes cannot be tolerated in Greece and Europe in the 21st century. The judiciary must deliver justice and hold the guilty accountable. We have consistently stated that pushbacks are a crime. There must be safe passages; Europe cannot become a fortress or a warehouse of people. We are fighting for a Europe that respects international law, human rights, and all individuals regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation.”

Stelios Kouloglou emphasised that the quest for accountability in the Pylos wreck is far from over. “The real culprits must be investigated and held accountable. While these nine have been acquitted, we must remember that there are still 2,000 people unjustly imprisoned on charges of being traffickers,” he said.

*A few thoughts

Today’s court decision is hailed as the best possible outcome for this case. I respectfully disagree. It’s not that I don’t see today’s outcome as vindication—nine innocent people are being released from prison, regaining their freedom, and even avoiding the stigma of being labelled traffickers. They can now claim compensation from the Greek government for their unjust detention.

But what if the next nine are found within the Greek territorial waters? What if Greek justice has jurisdiction, as it did for the 2,000 who remain in Greek prisons? What if the offence was objectively valid? In other words, what if they were inside the country and the sinking occurred within 12 nautical miles?

The best outcome would have been the acquittal of the nine through a thorough evidentiary process. Not a process that merely proves the wreck happened far away, but one that exposes the flimsy and unfounded nature of the charges against them. The best possible outcome would have been a trial that revealed the true causes of the sinking through the testimonies of key witnesses. They should have been acquitted of causing the shipwreck not because of jurisdictional technicalities, but because the evidentiary process demonstrated that the sinking was caused by external factors—a blue rope seen by all witnesses, felt in their bodies, which cost the lives of 600 people and still haunts the survivors’ dreams.

The best outcome would be one that leaves no room for anyone to say “let’s be thankful”. In cases involving refugees, settling for less has become the norm. It’s not because we are racist or believe that refugees and immigrants don’t deserve equal or better treatment because of their vulnerability. It’s because we know the cynicism with which Greek justice treats these people. We are moved to tears when an innocent person is not fully acquitted but has their charge reduced from trafficking to facilitation of movement, resulting in a lesser sentence and eventual release.

We know that others, lacking access to experienced defence, have rotted in prison under the same charges. Law 4251/2014 does not forgive if you touch the steering wheel—it convicts you of trafficking even if you were coerced into driving or if your trafficker abandoned you and you had to take control to save your family from drowning.

Interestingly, the Pylos 9 couldn’t be tried under th 4251/2014 law for one simple reason: not a single prosecution witness testified during the investigation that these nine people drove, were paid, or had anything to do with the trafficking of 750 people. No one testified that they had any involvement in transporting people—not in the warehouses in Libya where they were held, not during the journey. All witnesses testified that the captains are dead. Even the Coast Guard, who usually identify the drivers of refugee boats, did not recognise them as traffickers.

And finally, the best outcome, personally, would be to see eveywhere the headline “THE PYLOS ARE INNOCENT”. Remember all the new outlets that published photos labelling these individuals as “smugglers,” “slave traders,” and “the ring” on the first day of the shipwreck, even when some were still in the hospital. According to the lawyers, these images were taken by port officers using their mobile phones to construct a damning narrative. Today’s court decision is a good outcome, but it’s also a blow to the right-wing Twitter trolls and the media that propagated the traffickers’ narrative and fell silent when revelations about the authorities’ responsibilities started emerging. They only highlighted the court’s lack of jurisdiction, not the vindication, acquittal, or debunking of the narrative.

The best outcome for the court would have been to deliver justice based on the legal process with all the guarantees of a fair trial, even if the Adriana had sunk in the port of Piraeus. This would demonstrate a commitment to legality and due process, not just jurisdictional technicalities.

The fight for justice for the 650 souls, of which more than 550 remain at the bottom of the Mediterranean, does not end today. The Maritime Court of Piraeus continues its investigation following a lawsuit filed by 49 survivors against the Hellenic Coast Guard and the Greek state.

Vindication will not be achieved merely when Miltiadis Zouridakis faces prison. True vindication will come when those who are currently seen as omnipotent and powerful are exposed and held accountable. When this happens, it will shake the foundations of those who blindly follow orders, believing their positions to be untouchable. This sense of invulnerability allows for the easy justification of illegal orders and crimes against humanity under the guise of “just doing our job.”

If the masterminds behind these policies are held responsible, and those carrying out orders realise their own vulnerability, we might begin to see a change. Those who have remained silent, even the most disgruntled accomplices, might start to speak out.

The best outcome today would be to expose Greece and the EU as the architects of these criminal anti-immigration policies. This exposure would make the officers of the Greek Coast Guard realise their position is not as invulnerable as they believed. Since the Pylos shipwreck, there has already been a noticeable decrease in pushbacks. With proper investigation and accountability, the sense of invulnerability within these bodies should be eradicated.

Perhaps then, motivated not by regret but by a realisation of their expendability, those involved will start to come forward with the truth.

______________________________________________

Are you seeking news from Greece presented from a progressive, non-mainstream perspective? Subscribe monthly or annually to support TPP International in delivering independent reporting in English. Don’t let Greek progressive voices fade.

Make sure to reference “TPP International” and your order number as the reason for payment.