Court rejects conflict-of-interest claim in central prisons documents trial

Nicosia, Cyprus. Defence lawyers in the central prisons’ documents trial raised an alleged conflict of interest involving a prosecution lawyer as the Nicosia permanent criminal court considered clarifications on classified material withheld from the defence.

The court ruled it had no jurisdiction over the matter, describing it as disciplinary, and reserved its interim decision on the admissibility of disputed material until September 22.

Conflict-of-interest claim

Christos Triantafyllides, representing former prisons director Anna Aristotelous, told the court on Wednesday that he had learned Vasilis Bissas, who recently joined prosecutor Theodora Papakyriakou on the case, had close ties with the husband of one of the defendants.

Triantafyllides argued that the relationship breached lawyers’ ethical rules and asked the court to summon Bissas to respond.

Bissas rejected the characterisation, stating that the legal service was aware of the relationship and had cleared him to handle the case.

He said he contacted the individual only to inform him that he would be involved in the trial and had not approached any defendant directly, communicating only with their lawyers.

The court found no ethical breach and ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over what it described as a disciplinary matter.

Withheld material

Papakyriakou said the withheld material had been reviewed following questions raised at an earlier hearing, including questions over the numbering of certain documents.

She also submitted a clearer copy of a document previously received by the court as a blank page, saying it was a map of the central prisons.

Triantafyllides objected, arguing that the document produced on Tuesday was not the same one the defence had originally asked the court to examine and that there was no way to verify otherwise.

The court dismissed the objection as unfounded, saying disputes concerning the content could be addressed during the main trial. It reserved its interim ruling on whether the disputed material would be admitted as evidence until September 22.