Unprotected witnesses

The law on protected witnesses has a history similar to that of the Greek state: It’s laughable.

At the long-lasting trial of the November 17 terrorist group members that started in March 2003, the law turned into a comedy. The prosecutor read out loud the names of the protected witnesses (“A1” and “B1”), who were seated in the courtroom and shouted, “Present.” Other times it ended in tragedy. In June 2009, a police officer guarding a protected witness in the trial of members of the terror group Revolutionary People’s Struggle was murdered. In other cases of extortion or loan sharking, the “protected” witnesses were so well protected by the state that they drastically changed their original testimony in court.

But even in the long-running Novartis bribery scandal, it turned out that the witnesses were “protected” only from criminal and/or civil prosecutions. Their names had already been circulating since at least 2020. “One of those who received this protection from Mrs [the former head of the Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, Eleni] Touloupaki, as a protected witness of public interest, is Mr Filistor Destebasidis … it has been proven in the conclusion of the Preliminary Committee of the Parliament, from documents sent by the United States,” Health Minister Adonis Georgiadis wrote on his X account on 14 July 2024, before the prosecutor had revealed the real name behind the pseudonym “Maximos Sarafis.”

Of course, in this particular case, the politicians who were initially implicated in the Novartis scandal (and then cleared) had accused the protected witnesses of defamation. Eight former ministers and two former prime ministers were “hung out to dry,” so to speak, while the trial dragged on. Except that the law is not enough to explain this conundrum. The Greek Constitution also plays its role. Article 86 provides that “if in the course of another investigation, preliminary investigation, preliminary examination or administrative inquiry, evidence should arise which relates to the persons and offenses of the preceding paragraph (serving or former members of the cabinet or undersecretaries), these shall be promptly forwarded to Parliament by the person conducting the investigation, preliminary examination or inquiry.”

Is the testimony or perjury of someone that the American judiciary found credible considered “evidence”? If so, then it must be “promptly forwarded to the Parliament,” which means it becomes public. In the context of a secret investigation, the prosecutor must verify whatever “evidence” he or she has from witness statements. But what happens when the prosecutor is forced to send the file to Parliament?

I fear that once again we will witness the well-known legislative sloppiness, where one law contradicts the other.

Let’s be honest. The law on the protection of witnesses in public interest cases is suffering the fate of all other public matters – it is being violated. It is used casually and only serves to boast that our legislation is being modernized to Western standards.