SOS from the Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court: For ECtHR convictions

signal SOS by the Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court, following the convictions the country has received from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), with the most recent appeal of the Turkish citizen B.Y., where the ECtHR condemned our country, “for violating the procedural part of art. 3 of the ECHR, i.e. for ineffective criminal investigation of a complaint of inhuman and degrading treatment. In particular, the court found in our country, that the criminal investigation carried out, regarding the complaints of violent abduction with beating by five persons of the subject on 30-5-2013, at approximately 21:30, in the Center of Athens and forced boarding of him/her who left for unknown direction, without ever being identified, neither this nor the perpetrators, of the case placed in the file of unknown perpetrators on 2-26-2014, was not – as in every similar case the ECtHR has demanded – fast, nor thorough/thorough (with the aim i.e. verifying the critical facts and seeking to obtain and secure all the evidence, taking statements from the victims and witnesses by asking the appropriate questions and generally carrying out any appropriate investigative act to identify the perpetrators and impose sanctions if found existence of responsibility), nor independent/impartial (since the bodies conducting the investigation and those with decisive authority must not have a hierarchical or generally official dependence on the perpetrator and must not be connected to him or the victim by any kind of personal or other relationship) , nor ultimately real effective researchfor the specific reasons set out in the decision”.

EUROKINISSI

SOS from the Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court: Rapid investigation of cases

According to the decision “it is obvious that the rapid, thorough/thorough, impartial and real/effective criminal investigation of every similar case by the prosecuting officers of the country, who are possessed of strength (inspected criterion, moreover, according to art. 102§2 section a ́ n. 4938/22) and a high sense of justice, while they are shielded by the constitutional requirement of their personal and functional independence, which is confirmed daily in the field and in every case, especially in cutting-edge ones, greatly reduces the risk of decisions unfavorable to our country of the ECtHR”.

Freepik

The case of the Turkish citizen and the other convictions

As the Supreme Court states “the ECtHR ruled on the above without discrimination, although initially the preliminary investigation was carried out by police pre-investigation officers, but it was soon continued by a public prosecutor and finally by an investigator, who (the last two) as judicial officers have protected by art. 87 of the Constitution personal and operational independence (especially that the prosecutor was transferred from a public prosecutor to a judicial officer see art. 87§3, 88§§5, 6, 90§§§§1, 2, 3, 5, 91§1 of the Constitution – General Law 794/76, General Law KZ 229, General Law 1935/06, General Law NZ 814, General Law 555/05, General Law NE 993 – General Law 1160/89, StE 2351/14 – see also Opinion of the Administrative Court (Gr. KANIADAKIS]2/02, Criminal Court 2002, 1171 – Opinion of the Administrative Court (District of PAPAGEORGIOU) 13/ 2020, BC 0′ 625 – Opinion of the A.P [Γ. ΣΚΙΑΔΑΡΕΣΗΣ] 2/22, BC OB ́ 153 – K. STAMATIS, P.Ch. L 609 ff.).

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe during its 1475th session, in Sept. 2023, included the aforementioned decision in the “Sidiropoulos and Papakostas” group of cases (Appeal No. 33349/2010, ECtHR decision of 25-1-2018), in context of which the execution of the decisions is monitored, where the ECtHR found a violation of the procedural part of the articles. 2 and 3 of the ECHR, due to non-thorough criminal investigation of incidents of death or ill-treatment of alleged perpetrators by members of the security forces and the Coast Guard. Such ECtHR decisions (eleven together with “Sidiropoulos – Papakostas”) against Greece see in circular no. 3/ 22-5-2019 of the Prosecutor of the Supreme Court). Since then, the following newer ECtHR decisions against our country have emerged and have joined the same group: Konstantinopoulos et al. No. 2, no. ref. 29543/15, resolution of 22-11-2018 (see the circular of the representative A.P. Dim. Papageorgiou 6/ 17-3-2020) etc., no. ref. 38089/12, resolution of 11-4-2019 FOUNDAS no. ref. 50283/13, resolution of 3-10-2019 – Torosian no. ref. 48195/17, resolution of 7-10-2022 (see circular of Acting President A.P. Dim. Papageorgiou 1/ 3-1-2023) – and now V.Y v. Greece, op. of 26-1-23.