Elizabeth Georgiou
Proceedings continued Tuesday before the Criminal Court in the retrial of George Christodoulou, known as "Zavrantonas," with arguments centering on the defense's request for documents related to the presidential pardon granted to the protected witness known as "Maronas."
The defense told the court that only one of the requested documents had been provided and sought an explanation for why the remaining records had not been disclosed. Prosecutor Vasilis Bissas said the defense had requested the application for the presidential pardon, the Attorney General's recommendations and approvals, and the pardon document itself.
According to Bissas, the Legal Service maintains that these documents do not form part of the evidentiary material in the case and are also considered privileged, making them exempt from disclosure.
He confirmed, however, that the arrest warrant and a related document had been handed over to the defense.
Jurisdiction question addressed
During the hearing, defense lawyer Christos Poutziouris questioned whether the current panel of the Criminal Court has the authority to hear the case following the Court of Appeal's decision ordering a retrial.
Poutziouris argued that the appellate ruling effectively set aside the earlier proceedings and suggested that a new process, or even a determination by the Supreme Court, might be necessary to establish which court should hear the case.
The prosecution disagreed, arguing that the Court of Appeal had clearly directed that the case be retried before a newly constituted panel.
Following a brief recess, the Criminal Court ruled that the issue was straightforward and found that the current panel has full authority to continue hearing the case without any additional procedure or involvement from the Supreme Court.
Dispute over protected witness
Most of the discussion focused on the defense's request for documents connected to Maronas's presidential pardon.
The prosecution argued that Maronas had been admitted to the witness protection program in the public interest and as part of efforts to prosecute serious criminal offenses.
Poutziouris responded that the issue of benefits provided to the witness had already been examined during the original trial and remains central to evaluating the credibility of his testimony.
He referred to portions of the original judgment in which it was argued that the protected witness would receive no benefit beyond participation in the witness protection program.
The defense further argued that material already disclosed shows the witness was released from prison under conditions in 2023. According to the defense, this supports the claim that benefits may have been offered in exchange for testimony against the accused.
The defense maintained that the requested documents are essential to preparing its case because they relate directly to its argument that the witness was compromised by incentives or other advantages he may have received.
The court questioned whether the documents are truly necessary for the defense while also pointing out that they are not traditional evidentiary materials such as witness statements or records gathered during the investigation.
The defense asked for the proceedings to continue as quickly as possible, noting that the defendant remains in custody. It did not object to the continuation of his detention until the next hearing.
The Criminal Court reserved its decision on the disclosure request until June 16 at 9:00 a.m.
