Archive note: This text comes from the old archive of Nomika Epilekta and is preserved with care for historical and informational reading.

The Supreme Court rejected the request of a drug-dependent person that his illness be recognized, namely his absolute dependence on narcotics, so that he would not be subjected to a many-year sentence of imprisonment that resulted in his physical and psychological destruction. Specifically, by decision no. 1092/2011, the Supreme Court accepted that the six -6- year custodial sentence and the monetary penalty of 10,000 euros imposed on a young patient - drug-dependent person were lawfully reasoned. By the above decision, the appeal on points of law of the convicted person was dismissed, and it was accepted that conviction decision no. 3122/2009 of the Five-Member Court of Appeal of Athens (felonies), presided over by a woman, was sufficiently reasoned and lawful. According to the decision of the Supreme Court, also presided over by a woman, the defendant’s claim that, at the time when he committed the acts for which he was found guilty, he was drug-dependent, that is, a person who had acquired the habit of using narcotic substances and could not rid himself of it by his own powers, must be rejected as unfounded (that is, unproven). More specifically, according to the above Supreme Court decision, in the psychiatric expert report prepared by the psychiatrist Antonios Papadourakis, following an order by the investigating judge who was investigating the case, it is stated by way of conclusion: “I consider that the person examined, although he meets at least 3 of the criteria required by the ministerial decision and may be considered to belong to the category of chronic users of substances (mainly cocaine), cannot be considered dependent within the meaning of Article 15 of Law 2121/1993 (a law completely unrelated to narcotics and concerning ... intellectual property!) and that he does not need special therapeutic treatment and management because he is unable to rid himself of the habit of using narcotic substances by his own powers. I reached this conclusion by taking into account the findings of the inspection and the ENT examination (indicative of use), but also the fact that the reported use did not affect his functionality and did not push him to make attempts at detoxification.” On the basis of the above conclusion of the physician - psychiatrist, although the defendant uses cocaine, he cannot be considered a person dependent on narcotics. The court finds the expert’s conclusion persuasive, given that it contains full and clear reasoning (that is, the defendant belongs to the category of users of narcotic substances, but is not dependent. Consequently, he must be confined, as he in fact was confined, in prison, where prohibited narcotic substances circulate without obstruction, so that he may take narcotics easily and acquire full dependence, which he does not have according to the physician’s report; the mother of the young defendant did not have time to communicate with that physician in order to explain her son’s condition, while also providing the required persuasive evidence and the usual elements of persuasion [and nomika epilekta: “The state is ordered to compensate a family”]) The reasoning of the decision continues that this conclusion (that the drug addict is not a drug addict) is not overturned by what is stated in the medical expert report prepared at the initiative of the defendant by the specialist forensic physician Demosthenes Boukis (former head of the Athens Forensic Service). The court reaches this judgment by taking into account that the conclusion of the expert report ordered by the investigating judge has clearer and fuller reasoning than the conclusion stated in the expert report of the forensic physician Demosthenes Boukis, which does not justify how a drug-dependent person had such functionality as to organize the transport of narcotic substances from abroad and even involve third persons. In other words, the judicial decision held that the forensic physician who found, through his expert report, that the defendant was ill ought to have explained the defendant’s functionality in that respect and not to have confined himself to his forensic findings, which he responsibly recorded in his report. Perhaps it would not have been pointless to mention that ill drug-dependent persons who are dependent on cocaine externalize maximum functionality and energy incomparably more intense than healthy persons. But that is not what matters. What matters is what the above decision then accepted. Specifically, according to the decision, failure to comply with the provisions relating to the conduct of the expert examination, and in particular with regard to the time of its conduct (that is, the flagrant violation of the law), does not entail any nullity of the expert report, since no such consequence is provided by law. Consequently, the expert may disregard the law without consequences, prepare his expert reports whenever he finds the opportunity, without being subject to restrictions or rules, and whatever conclusion he reaches (provided that he regards the sick person as healthy, as in the present case) is considered persuasive and, indeed, more persuasive than any contrary expert report by an experienced colleague, the specialist forensic physician. The decision concludes that the relevant claim of the defendant must be rejected as unfounded. After this, the notification to the court of the fact that the young defendant had diminished responsibility was also rejected, because he suffers from a mental illness (hallucinations - depression) certified by dozens of official public documents (medical certificates, psychiatric attestations, hospital diagnoses, clinical examinations, laboratory investigations, medical proof of taking active psychotropic drugs and other official and irrefutable scientific evidence).

According to the judicial finding, the court does not consider that, at the time when the unlawful acts were committed, he was in the disturbance of consciousness that he invokes, because at that time the defendant had his functionality as a person, organized a shipment of narcotics from abroad, went for two months to Peru in the summer of 2006 together with his girlfriend and worked, facts that would not have occurred if he had been in a morbid disturbance of consciousness. This decision too explains the reason why the number of persons serving life sentences in Greek prisons on charges of drug trafficking, particularly dangerous conduct and the like exceeds 1,200, whereas in many EU countries it does not exceed 100. In Greek prisons, more than 6,500 people are detained on charges of trafficking in narcotics, when the corresponding number in neighboring Italy, with a population of 57 million, amounts to only 120 persons. Let those who understand, understand...