(GHM/IFEX) – On 21 September 2001, the First Appeals Court of Athens postponed the hearing on Sotiris Bletsas’ case until 18 December. On 2 February, Bletsas, a member of the Society for Aromanian (Vlach) Culture, was sentenced to fifteen months in prison and fined 500,000 drs. (approx. US$1,400) for dissemination of false information (under Article […]
(GHM/IFEX) – On 21 September 2001, the First Appeals Court of Athens postponed the hearing on Sotiris Bletsas’ case until 18 December. On 2 February, Bletsas, a member of the Society for Aromanian (Vlach) Culture, was sentenced to fifteen months in prison and fined 500,000 drs. (approx. US$1,400) for dissemination of false information (under Article 191 of the penal code).
The court decided to postpone the hearing because of the absence of all three prosecution witnesses. The witnesses involved are nationalist deputy Eugene Haitidis (New Democracy), who had pressed charges against Bletsas, and two Vlach personalities. Though the trial began on 19 September with all witnesses present, it was suspended on 21 September because the witnesses did not present themselves.
The appeals trial had previously been postponed on 4 July. This was also due to the absence of the prosecution witnesses. Although Greek law states that these witnesses could be held in contempt and punished, especially when they are present at the beginning of a hearing and then fail to appear for court, the court has not invoked this law.
The case and the 4 July hearing
The charges were based on Bletsas’ distribution of a publication of the European Union’s (EU) semi-official EBLUL (in which Bletsas was the Greek “observer”) at an Aromanian festival in July 1995. The document made mention of minority languages in Greece (Aromanian, Arvanite, Macedonian, Pomak, Turkish) and those in other EU member states. His prosecution was triggered by charges pressed by conservative New Democracy Deputy Eugene Haitidis. According to Bletsas, the prosecution’s witnesses included the Aromanian mayor of Prosotsani (northern Greece). The latter considered the reference to the Vlach language as a minority language defamatory to the Vlachs. Bletsas appealed the sentence and was set free pending the appeal.
GHM considers the verdict to be obscurantist and a flagrant violation of freedom of expression. After the conviction, there was an international outcry, following a campaign launched by GHM, which led inter alia to two questions being tabled in the European Parliament. The first question was asked by two members of the European Parliament’s Green/Free Alliance group. Welsh MEP Eurig Wyn and Basque MEP Gorka Knörr Borràs, asked the Commission if it considered the sentence to be “compatible with European values of freedom of expression and opinion and of cultural and linguistic diversity.” On 4 May, Commissioner Reding answered that: “The Commission considers this topic of high importance and follows it carefully. At this stage, the Commission is not able though to answer properly. That’s why the Commission has asked the Greek government to provide a copy of the sentence as soon as it will be ready and any other information related to this matter.”
It is widely believed that the swift setting of an appeals trial date in the court’s summer session was a reaction by the Greek state to the international outcry, and GHM had hoped that the charges would be dropped by the Appeals Court. However, the court’s presiding judge said that one of the witnesses for the prosecution was not properly summoned; and he claimed that this, combined with the MP’s reasons for not being present (“social obligations”), made postponement mandatory. GHM believes that the Greek state must investigate the improper summons which contributed crucially to the postponement, as well as the necessity of the postponement itself.
Finally, a week before the trial, the Society for Aromanian (Vlach) Culture distributed a press release dated 10 March, in which it makes clear that Aromanians have “a national conscience, a specificity as a people that speaks its own language, different from that of the other Balkan peoples, [which] has survived for two millenaries.” GHM considers that Greece should respect the right of some Aromanians to feel they are a separate people and to want their language taught and preserved. Just as it respects -and in fact promotes- the right of other Aromanians to feel that they are part of the Greek nation and that their “idiom” (as they call their language) need not be taught and may die out with time. Both options emanate from the right to self-identification, which is only respected in Greece in the second case. Naturally, programmes aimed at the preservation and development of Aromanian in Greece should not be impeded, but on the contrary encouraged, at least as long as there is sufficient demand for them.
A monitoring report from the 19 and 21 September hearings follows:
Monitoring Report – 19 September 2001
On 19 September 2001, the First Appeals Court of Athens started the hearing of Sotiris Bletsas’ case around 2:30 pm but then interrupted it until 21 September with the argument that there were too many witnesses and there was not enough time available, as courts tend to avoid sitting in the evening.
Present in the court were Domenico Morelli from Italy, on behalf of the European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages (EBLUL), as well as party representatives from PASOK, Coalition and Modernizing Renewal Movement – AEKA (Coalition-splinter party). Also, observers of GHM, Minority Rights Group – Greece, Home of Macedonian Civilization, Rainbow Political Organization of the Macedonian Minority in Greece, many representatives of Vlach associations from Greece and one from the Republic of Macedonia.
When the trial began the defense requested permission for a private documentary company to film the trial. Eventually the presiding judge accepted after persistence from Mr. Bletsas himself who argued that it would be of interest to many people and that in any case minutes are never complete. A few minutes later, after the indictment was read, the presiding judge decided to hold consultations with the other judges in camera and they left the courtroom for about ten minutes. In the meantime, in the courtroom there was an argument between prosecution witness and New Democracy MP Eugenios Haitidis and the people who were filming. He argued very aggressively that he did not want to be filmed and did not want his face to appear in any documentary. He demanded to see the identity cards of the persons filming and approached them aggressively to get them; fortunately he restrained himself as soon as a policeman intervened. When the judges returned the debate was still going on verbally with more people having joined. Once seated, the presiding judge announced that because there were too many witnesses they could not deal with this case now and that it was going be tried on 21 September 2001. Following this, the debate between Haitidis’ lawyer and the filming people went on until some people joined to calm things down.
Friday 21 September 2001
On 21 September 2001, the First Appeals Court of Athens postponed the hearing of Sotiris Bletsas’ case until 18 December 2001. The Court decided the postponement of the trial because of the absence of all three prosecution witnesses, Eugene Haitidis (New Democracy), who had pressed the initial charges against Bletsas, and two Vlach personalities.
The defense argued that the trial be held, because Greece has to answer to the European Union on this issue by the 5th of October and that there has been an international outcry towards the Greek government, which must be accounted for: he provided all relevant documents. Before the defense finished presenting that material, the public prosecutor got very upset about the presence of two persons from the documentary company who started filming, with the court’s permission. He argued that they are exploiting democracy, they don’t even ask for permission and don’t provide their documents before starting to film. The public prosecutor had been seen exchanging views with Haitidis and his lawyers the first day as they had approached him to protest about the presence of a camera in the courtroom.
The judges looked as if they were unaware of the significance of this trial and as if they had never looked at the dossier while the prosecutor started shouting again saying that we are an independent justice and no government will tell us what to do. Following that argument by the prosecutor the lawyers of the prosecution witnesses continued on the same line posing as defenders of an independent justice while PASOK was criticized for aiming at the abolition of the independence of justice in Greece. The two lawyers of MP E. Haitidis, particularly one of them by the name Dimitrios Vasilakos, started insulting the people from the Bletsas side. He attacked verbally a deputy of PASOK who was there, G. Lianis, calling him a loser (“hamenos”). He also claimed that the Speaker of Parliament, Apostolos Kaklamanis, is trying to abolish the justice system and that PASOK is making concessions to the communists and the Americans. This went on for over 20 minutes in the courtroom and then outside, after the court postponed the case.
It is characteristic that the witnesses who did not show up after the trial’s interruption, thus intentionally forcing the trial’s postponement, as they had previously done on 4 July 2001, were in contempt of court according to article 231 para 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and should have been prosecuted and punished according to article 169 of the Criminal Code on disobedience. Neither the court nor -surprisingly- the defense raised this issue. Nor did the latter raise the issue of violation of article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights about fair trial, as the case is pending since 1995 and all but one of the near ten postponements in first instance and appeal have not been caused by the defendant’s side. The defense did insist though that the trial be held and previous sworn statements of the absent witnesses be read, as is very often the practice in Greek courts, but the court rejected that motion.
BACKGROUND:
For background, texts on related parliamentary questions and reactions to the conviction, as well as an English translation of the official transcripts of the first court case, see the GHM website: www.greekhelsinki.gr/bhr/english/special_issues/aromanians.html
Recommended Action
Send appeals to authorities:
– condemning the verdict in the first trial, the postponement of the appeals’ trial for a second time and the authorities’ attitude as a violation of freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial, as well as an indication of acute intolerance towards minorities
– calling for an investigation of the legal foundations for the appeals trial’s postponement, and especially the improper summons of one prosecution witness, as well as the court’s omission to hold the absent witnesses in contempt
– asking for a condemnation of the verdict, and the quashing of the charges at the next hearing, on 18 December
– asking that Greece abolish its intolerant policies towards minorities, acknowledge the presence of national and linguistic minorities, sign and ratify the European Charter on Regional or Minority Languages, ratify the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which it signed in 1997, and introduce the teaching of those minority languages (Aromanian, Macedonian and Romani) for which there is sufficient demand expressed
Appeals To
George Papandreou
Foreign Minister
Athens, Greece
Fax: +30 1 36 81 433
E-mail: gpap@mfa.gr
Dimitris Reppas
Minister of Press and Information
Athens, Greece
Fax: +30 1 36 06 969
Professor Mihalis Stathopoulos
Minister of Justice
Athens, Greece
Fax : +30 1 77 55 835
Romno Prodi
President of EU Commission
E-mail: sg-info@cec.eu.int
Please copy appeals to the source if possible.
