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

By the recent order no. 1891/2011 of the Athens Council of Misdemeanors, the application of a young remand prisoner, mother of a male infant only a few months old, who was born inside the prison, for the restoration of her freedom as well as the freedom of her few-month-old baby, was rejected by majority, despite the applicable fundamental principles of humanity, civilization, leniency and the constitutionally elevated and binding presumption of innocence, and despite the provisions in force on the imposition of pre-trial detention in the Code of Criminal Procedure (C.C.P.).

The majority of the judges (women) and of the prosecutor of the Athens Council of Misdemeanors held, contrary to the excellent and reasoned minority opinion, that from the body of evidence serious indications of guilt arose for the alleged acts, the second of which is punishable by life imprisonment [page 1 of the 3rd sheet of the order].

Consequently, according to the judgment of the order, it has no significance that the young mother in pre-trial detention denies her involvement in the acts charged (that is, violation of the law on narcotics), nor is her particular condition as the mother of an infant who has not completed one year of life and whom she gave birth to inside the prisons (where he remains) taken into account, nor is it taken into account that she is not considered a flight risk or likely to commit new offences, nor is any value given to the fact that she has a clean criminal record, a permanent residence and did not try in any way to prepare her escape [page 2 of the 6th sheet of the order]. Value and importance are given only to the sworn testimony of the representative of the prosecuting authority, a police officer, and to his subjective versions and views, while also setting aside the equally important fact that the young mother in pre-trial detention (when she was in the sensitive condition of being near childbirth) responded immediately to a police call, resulting in her arrest, and that her involvement in the prosecution is due to the fact that she was the partner of her co-accused, the father of her infant (whose acts, even if she knew of them, she had no obligation to report to the authorities).

It should be noted that the majority of the Council of Misdemeanors, by the above order, accepted contradictorily, in its reasoning and in order not to release the young mother and her infant, that "temporary detention may be imposed instead of restrictive conditions, if it is reasonedly held that the latter are insufficient, only if the accused is prosecuted for a felony and has no known residence in the country or has taken preparatory actions to facilitate his flight or in the past was a fugitive from punishment or from trial or was convicted of escape of a detainee or violation of residence restrictions, provided that, from the concurrence of the above elements, a purpose of flight arises or it is reasonedly held that, if released, it is highly likely, as follows from previous irrevocable convictions for similar punishable acts, that he will commit other crimes" [page 1 and pages 1 to 2 of the 5th sheet of the order]. And these conditions, on the basis of the findings of the order, were not present in the case of the imprisoned mother and, much more so, of her few-month-old child.

Such judicial decisions (and judgments) are not the exception but the rule and, for that reason, constructive criticism is needed, for the necessary harmonization of our country and of state organs, at least, with the elementary and fundamental principles of civilization and humanity, as well as with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (C.F.R.E.U.), in force since 01.12.2009, to which, perhaps wrongly, we still belong [see also Plenary Supreme Court 1/2011, in the published decisions].