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

By decision no. 694/2012 of the Council of Misdemeanor Judges of Piraeus, the application with protocol no. 38399/28.06.2012 of the director of the Korydallos detention facility (Korydallos prison) was rejected; through it an application-report of the non-governmental organization "Citizens' Union for Human Rights" had been submitted for the immediate release of an elderly convict, because he has fully served the sentence of imprisonment imposed against him, having remained in prison for a total of 63 years, 4 months and 6 days, and because of his age of ninety-two (92) years.

The decision is interesting because it contains thoughts and reasoning by which it is proved that the "judicial power" did not remain unscathed by the generalized, acute crisis that afflicts Greek society, the other state powers and state structures.

At the beginning the prosecutor's proposal is set out, then, in summary, the thoughts of the judicial council by which the request of the director of Korydallos prison for the release of the 92-year-old elder was rejected, and at the end brief judgments are formulated on this judicial decision (the council decision).

According to the prosecutorial proposal, "...the aforementioned application of the Director of the Korydallos Detention Facility (Korydallos prison) is properly introduced, by which there is submitted (...) an application of the non-governmental organization (...) From the documents in the case file and the overall assessment of the prisoner's personality the following emerge: N. N., aged 92 today, has been convicted: a) by virtue of decisions nos. 47223/1975 and 723/1975 of the Five-Member Court of Appeal of Athens to 20 years' imprisonment and 5-year deprivation of his civil rights, and to life imprisonment and permanent deprivation of his civil rights for mutiny - high treason and intentional homicide respectively, acts committed in Athens, Thessaloniki and elsewhere on 21 April 1967.

Since then he has been continuously confined in the Korydallos Detention Facility. From the starting date of serving his sentence (25 April 1975) until the date of preparation of the sentence calculation table (28.6.2012), the above prisoner has served an actual sentence of 37 years, 2 months and 3 days, while his sentence served (notional) ... is 26 years; therefore, as an elderly person, he has served an actual and notional sentence of 63 years, 4 months and 6 days. Consequently he has in any event served at least 25 years for all the sentences cumulatively imposed against him.

Therefore he has the formal requirements for his conditional release. The crimes for which he was convicted were committed, as regards high treason and mutiny, with the purpose of abolishing the Constitution and the Democratic Polity in Greece by imposing the military dictatorship, and the other acts with the purpose of abolishing and preventing every action to overthrow the dictatorial regime and restore democracy.

The above prisoner was not disciplined. From this fact alone, however, no safe conclusion can be drawn as to his correction. On the contrary, to this day the above person appears unrepentant, declares clear and explicit aversion toward the democratic polity, manifests lack of respect toward the Constitution and democracy, approves the crimes committed with the purpose of the prevalence of dictatorship and the abolition of the Constitution, and has not even made an effort to remove the consequences of his acts, even by offering an apology to the victims and the families of the victims of the dictatorship (...) from the overall assessment of the personality and behavior of the prisoner while he is confined, it does not appear that his penal correction and moral improvement have occurred, since it does not even appear that he feels guilty for what he has committed. Moreover, from no point of the application does it appear that he has repented for his acts or that he now expresses his respect for the Constitution, the Laws and Democracy (...) in our judgment, the substantive requirements for the conditional release of the above prisoner are not met, because his good conduct in prison is judged to be ostensibly good and not genuinely good, and therefore his application for conditional release must be rejected...".

In the same prosecutorial proposal it was noted as a fact "...that the application for release is not filed by him personally, but by the above-mentioned non-governmental organization,...". Nevertheless, the prosecutor proposes that the application, which the 92-year-old prisoner did not submit, be rejected.

The judicial council, after taking into account the prosecutorial proposal, set out the following in its "reasoning":

"...Conditional release cannot be granted to the convict unless he has actually served two fifths of the sentence (...) and, in the case of life imprisonment, eighteen years (...) In any event (...) the convict may be released if he has served 22 years...".

The council then accepted that, according to the law, conditional release is granted in every case, unless it is held with special reasoning that the conduct of the convict during the serving of his sentence makes the continuation of his detention absolutely necessary in order to prevent him from committing new punishable acts.

A legal analysis follows and it is argued that, in the specific case, the inviolable principle of the mandatory application of the more lenient law, established by Article 2 of the Criminal Code, does not apply, on the view that the above provision is not applied to persons convicted of "high treason".

According to the provisions of this article, conditional release is granted only if the convict, during the period of execution of his sentence, showed good conduct, fulfilled as far as he could his obligations toward the victim that have been judicially certified, and if, from the investigation of his previous life and generally of his individual and social circumstances and the diagnosis of his character on the basis of these elements, he provides the expectation that he will live honestly in the future.

Specifically for the 92-year-old prisoner, the judicial council held that he must remain in prison (although he has served 63 and more years) for reasons relating to the protection of the polity, that is, for reasons of "public interest" [p. 2 of the 4th sheet of the decision].

Also, the fact that the prisoner has not been disciplined during the serving of the sentence does not demonstrate the correction of the convict and his genuine repentance for the crimes committed by him. Consequently, there is no expectation that he will live honestly in the future.

It is particularly mentioned in the reasoning of the decision that the above convict appears unrepentant and, with his memorandum dated 17.07.2012, stated that he does not accept leaving prison except on the condition of his absolute vindication and restoration by the Greek state, on the view that a judicial crime was committed against him.

These statements are in direct contradiction with what was testified by the witness - social worker of Korydallos prison, who did not appear before the Council of Misdemeanor Judges of Piraeus at the request of the convicted person, but on her own initiative, "...because it did not appear that she knew the convicted person's wish to be released from the above Detention Facility on the condition of his prior restoration and absolute vindication, with the result that what she testified is not considered true..." [p. 2 of the 5th sheet to p. 1 of the 6th sheet of the decision].

Thus the Council of Misdemeanor Judges of Piraeus rejected the application of the director of Korydallos prison, through which the application-report dated 25.06.2012 of the non-governmental organization had been submitted for the conditional (that is, release with conditions) release of the 92-year-old prisoner, who was not corrected.

On the basis of the thoughts of the decision and of the prosecutorial proposal, it follows that the prisoner must remain in prison although he was deprived of his liberty for a period exceeding 63 years, with the purpose that he be corrected and live in the future an honest and moral life, and that his possible release (at this age, which greatly exceeds human life expectancy) harms the public interest.