Limassol, Cyprus. Defence lawyers in the case concerning an alleged cover-up of the circumstances surrounding the death of conscript Thanasis Nicolaou said prosecutors failed to hand over witness material on Thursday. The Limassol district court ordered the material be provided in its entirety.
Defence raises objections over disclosure and prosecutor role
Defence lawyers told the court that the delay in handing over witness material will “form the basis” of their pre-trial objections. They also said they will object to the fact that Nicolaou’s family’s lawyer, Savvas Matsas, is to act as a prosecutor.
Matsas had previously served as an independent criminal investigator in the case but was removed from that role by attorney-general George Savvides, who said the decision was taken because Matsas revealed details of his findings to the media.
The defence lawyers also said their clients had been the subject of “slander … in the media”.
Prosecution cites volume of material as court orders full disclosure
Responding to the defence position, Matsas said there is a “large volume” of witness material, exceeding 5,500 pages, and that the material concerning the defendants “should be collected separately”.
Defence lawyers argued the material should be handed over in its entirety. The court agreed and decided the material should be provided in full to the defence lawyers, and also in printed form to one of the defendants, former head of the police station in the Limassol district village of Lania, Christakis Kapiliotis.
Next hearing and defendants
The next hearing is scheduled for February 19.
Kapiliotis is one of five defendants, alongside former state pathologist Panicos Stavrianos, former Limassol police chief Angelos Iatropolos, former Limassol police crime detection unit chief Nicos Sophocleous, and former head of rural police Christakis Nathanael.
Almost 40 charges have been filed against the five, most of them against Stavrianos, including conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, neglect of official duty, issuing a false certificate, perjury, destruction of evidence, and interference with judicial proceedings.
What do you think the court’s decision to order full disclosure will mean for the upcoming pre-trial objections?
