Supreme Court on Giopoulos: "Never expressed remorse" – why he returned to prison
The Supreme Court overturned the early release of the leader of 17 November, ruling that the legal conditions were not met and that the 82-year-old had not demonstrated genuine remorse.
Supreme Court: "good external behaviour" is not sufficient for the convicted leader of 17N
The Supreme Court published the reasoning behind the reversal of Alexandros Giopoulos's early release, according to Efimerida ton Syntakton. The highest court ruled that the legal conditions for the conditional discharge of the 82-year-old, convicted as the leader of the terrorist organisation 17 November, were not met, and accepted the petition for reversal filed by the Deputy Prosecutor.
The legal issue: how many years are required
A central legal question in the ruling concerns the interpretation of provisions of the current Penal Code regarding convicts serving multiple life sentences. The Supreme Court notes that with the new Penal Code, the matter in question was "regulated for the first time, explicitly, to address the legislative gap". Consequently, actual service of 25 years is required, even for crimes committed before 1 July 2019 — not the 23 years that the Appellate Court of Piraeus had accepted.
The judges rejected the invocation of more lenient case law from previous years, emphasising that the principle of the more lenient law "presupposes comparison between multiple provisions of laws" and not between a legislative provision and judicial interpretation that addressed a prior gap.
Insufficient reasoning by the Appellate Court
The Supreme Court issued harsh criticism of the ruling of the Appellate Court of Piraeus, ruling that it "lacked the required specific and detailed reasoning" for establishing the substantive conditions for conditional discharge. In particular, it was not explained how specific letters or public statements by the detainee were connected to a change in his attitude towards the rule of law.
Behaviour in prison: necessary but not sufficient
The reasoning acknowledges that Giopoulos complied with the terms of his release periods, completed university studies, and had no recent disciplinary violations. However, these elements "constitute the notion of externally good behaviour and not of good conduct", according to the court. "Good conduct" must reflect substantive and internal acceptance of the rules of the rule of law.
Regarding the studies, the court acknowledged that they demonstrate "his commitment to the goal of remaining functional during his many years of imprisonment", but emphasised that this is not sufficient to prove rehabilitation or moral improvement.
"Never accepted his actions"
According to the Supreme Court, the case materials do not demonstrate "his genuine remorse for the crimes he committed and his separation from his criminal past". The very ruling that was overturned acknowledged that the convict "never accepted his actions, nor expressed remorse". This element was assessed as an indication that the required moral transformation has not been completed.
Next steps
With the acceptance of the petition for reversal, the ruling of the Appellate Court of Piraeus was overturned and the case was referred back to the same judicial panel with a different composition. Giopoulos, who is serving 17 life sentences and a fixed term of 25 years' imprisonment, returned to prison.
Source: Efimerida ton Syntakton