Nicosia, Cyprus. Court proceedings into the suicide of 14-year-old Stylianos Constantinou continued on Friday with the cross-examination of criminal investigator Andreas Andreou, who said a child’s suicide attempt in itself indicates immediate danger and should not be assessed using standard criteria.
Stylianos died by suicide in September 2019. The court has previously heard evidence that he had been living in a household where multiple incidents of domestic violence had been reported and that he had attempted to take his own life in May 2019.
Investigator questioned on risk assessment
During cross-examination, Andreou said that when a child attempts to end his life, this alone is an indication of immediate danger. He said such cases should not be handled with standard criteria.
In an earlier hearing, Andreou cited Stylianos’ own account, in which he said his father would beat him with a belt and “beat him like a dog” at the family farm.
Dispute over evidence and official handling
Lawyer Andreas Christou suggested that bruising under the teenager’s chin caused by a gun barrel could not be substantiated scientifically. Andreou replied that there had never been such scientific evidence.
The cross-examination also focused on evidence and official documents, with the defence seeking to show that there had not been adequate information or any suggestion to superiors that protective measures should be taken by state officials.
Andreou said a superior’s lack of awareness was not an excuse, adding that it was their job to ensure they were properly briefed.
School report and protection measures
A school report from September 2019 was presented to the court. It described Stylianos as a child in good spirits who had friends, spent time on his father’s farm and showed no significant issues other than learning difficulties.
The court heard that no proposal had been made for protection measures or for Stylianos to be removed from his home. Andreou again said the accused senior welfare officer should have ensured she knew the situation because it was her duty to do so.
Responsibility of welfare authorities
Andreou also testified that, despite the teenager’s reluctance to seek psychological support and the family’s lack of cooperation, authorities could have sought a court order requiring the parents to secure psychiatric or psychological assistance for him.
The court also heard that if a welfare officer was responsible for examining a case and making proposals to superiors, then responsibility lay with that officer.