In just six hours, Greece’s Single-Member Criminal Appeals Court of Samos sentenced nine asylum seekers to decades-long prison terms on charges of migrant smuggling. Each trial lasted approximately half an hour, with several defendants denied the right to a fair trial. The court found the asylum seekers guilty under Law 5038/2023 (formerly Law 4251/2014), which criminalises the driving of migrant boats, regardless of whether the individual is a smuggler or was forced to take the helm. During the proceedings, the judge repeatedly emphasised Greece’s strict legal stance: “They should know this by now, and if they don't, they should learn it,” the judge stated. Despite the law containing provisions that exempt asylum seekers from prosecution, the court imposed prison sentences of up to 50 years, with a maximum of 25 years to be served—effectively a life sentence under Greek law.

ThePressProject mission to Samos, 17/02/2025

Report: Nektaria Psaraki

Quick trials, limited defence

The defendants included three Turkish nationals, one Kurd, one Tajik, and four Syrians. Most claimed they were forced to steer the boats under threat or to reduce their travel costs, with no intention of committing a crime. Each trial lasted no longer than 30 minutes. Several defendants had no legal representation and were assigned court-appointed lawyers moments before their hearings, leaving them with only a few minutes to review the case files.

One example was P., a Kurdish Zaza filmmaker, sentenced to 50 years (with 25 years to be served). The court appointed a defence lawyer on the spot to represent him. P. had fled Turkey after facing prosecution for his films, which depicted his mother’s experiences as a member of the Kurdish Zaza community. He was accused of “defamation of the country, the flag, and the Turkish authorities, damaging the integrity of the homeland, and inciting hatred and hostility.” After secretly marrying a Turkish woman, he was severely beaten by her family and faced ongoing death threats. Unable to afford the full €8,000 fee demanded by smugglers, P. was offered a lower fare in exchange for steering the boat—a decision that became his “ticket to Korydallos Prison, with no return.”

Despite the limited legal support, none of the defendants chose to plead guilty. Their lawyers had advised that doing so could result in reduced sentences, but the asylum seekers insisted on defending their innocence, hoping the court would recognise their plight.

Harsh sentencing despite mitigating factors

By 11:30 a.m., the court had sentenced four Turkish defendants to lengthy prison terms. All claimed they were asylum seekers, forced to steer the boats because they could not afford the smugglers’ fees. Some said they had been threatened, while others stated they were unaware they were committing a crime.

The judge, while announcing each sentence, addressed the interpreter:

“Tell him that sentences in Greece are very strict for this crime. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison. He can appeal the decision and seek a higher court’s ruling.” At one point, the judge added: “It seems they don’t know that in Greece the driver is punished. I don’t know if they know it, but if they don’t, they should find out at some point.”

The fifth defendant initially intended to plead not guilty and defend his innocence, but after witnessing the harsh sentences imposed on the previous defendants, he opted to plead guilty. This strategy, recommended by his lawyer, secured a lighter 10-year sentence—a significantly better outcome compared to the others who maintained their innocence.

Fear and desperation: The case of I.K.

Among the Syrian defendants was I.K., accused of steering a boat carrying five other passengers who were never found. The number “five” came from I.K.’s own statement during the preliminary investigation. He was also charged with disobedience for allegedly failing to stop when signalled by Greek authorities.

Defending himself, I.K. stated that he fled Turkey to escape deportation back to Syria and was unaware that driving the boat was a crime.

“I just wanted to be saved. I didn’t stop when the police signalled because it was morning, and I didn’t see the lights. Besides, they were all wearing balaclavas and carrying guns—I was afraid they would push me back to Turkey.”

When the prosecutor pointed out that I.K. had told authorities the guards had shot at him, he clarified: “It is true. After the others had disembarked, they pointed their weapons at me.”

Conflicting interpretations of the law

Lawyers representing the defendants argued that, as asylum seekers, their clients should have been exempt from prosecution under Article 3 of Law 5038/2023, which explicitly states that the law does not apply to applicants for international protection under the 1951 Geneva Convention. Defence lawyer Dimitris Choulis pointed out that in a similar case in October, the same court had acquitted an asylum seeker, recognising the exemption.

However, the prosecutor disagreed, attributing the exemption to “negligence on the part of the legislator.” She argued:

“Even if we accept the defence’s interpretation, the law should not apply automatically upon filing an asylum application. Otherwise, the defendant would have been acquitted immediately.”

A vicious circle: Courts and asylum services in conflict

A., another Syrian defendant, had suffered multiple injuries in a bomb attack and fled Turkey to avoid deportation back to Syria. In his defence, he explained: “I did not know I was committing a crime. I just wanted to be saved and not sent back to Syria.”

His lawyers highlighted a systemic issue: asylum services often reject applications from detained refugees, awaiting the outcome of their trials. At the same time, courts expect asylum seekers to prove their status, creating a vicious circle that leaves many trapped without legal protection.

Prejudice in the courtroom: The case of P.O.

The final defendant, P.O., had been tortured by both the Syrian government and opposition forces. After fleeing to Turkey, he sent his wife and stepdaughter to Greece but could not afford his own journey. Desperate to reunite with his family, he drove the boat himself. His wife testified in court, stating: “He worked hard to save money, but when his employers refused to pay him, he had no choice but to steer the boat.”

The prosecutor acknowledged that P.O. did not profit from the journey but argued that “transporting oneself is linked to taking responsibility for transporting others.”

During the trial, the judge questioned the validity of P.O.’s asylum claim, exclaiming: “Assad has fallen! Who is Assad? Is it possible that you are Syrian and don’t know what is happening in your own country?” The comment caused surprise in the courtroom, as it appeared the judge was unaware that P.O. had already spent months in prison, isolated from current events.

P.O. calmly corrected the judge:

“Madam President, the Assad regime fell after I was already imprisoned in Greece.”

The judge offered no further comment.

Sentencing and systemic injustice

At the end of the proceedings, the court announced its verdicts:

  • P.O. was sentenced to 25 years in prison, with the mitigating factor of having family in Greece allowing him to remain free until his appeal, provided he does not leave the country.
  • I.K. received 49 years, with 25 years to be served.
  • The other defendants were also sentenced to 25 years each, with only one receiving a reduced sentence of 10 years after pleading guilty.

Following the verdicts, lawyer Ioanna Begiazi condemned the court’s selective interpretation of the law:

“Asylum seekers should be exempt from prosecution because there are no legal channels for them to seek protection. Criminalisation is a reason for rejecting asylum applications, and the rejection of asylum applications leads to criminal convictions—it’s a vicious circle.”

Choulis added:

“When the law is strict, it is applied to the letter. But when it exempts asylum seekers, courts interpret it selectively, speaking of legislative negligence. Yet, the law explicitly exempts asylum seekers from prosecution, referring directly to the Geneva Convention.”

Conclusion: A step backward in the treatment of asylum seekers

Monday’s trials marked a regression from previous rulings in Samos, where the court had recognised the legal exemption for asylum seekers. “In the past year alone, 100 people—70 of whom are refugees—have been detained for smuggling,” Choulis noted. “Instead of addressing the root causes of migration and creating legal pathways, society demands punishment and heavy sentences.”

Begiazi concluded:

“Anti-immigration rhetoric is spreading from America to Europe, impacting both the rule of law and, above all, human lives. Refugees—the victims of war and poverty—bear the brunt of these policies.”

______________________________________________

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.