The revelation that a presidential pardon was granted to a witness for the prosecution serving a long prison sentence who will be released after serving just six years of his 35-year sentence, with the aim of relocating him abroad.

Appearing as a guest on the program “Alpha News,” lawyer Elias Stefanou analyzed the legal framework of the witness protection program, while also highlighting the transparency gaps that leave the state vulnerable.

Mr. Stefanou emphasized that witness protection programs are internationally necessary tools for combating organized crime, as the code of silence prevails in these cases.

“There is a code of silence. No one speaks up. Therefore, the state and law enforcement authorities must find a way to obtain testimony,” he noted, explaining that the primary goal is to prosecute the masterminds.

In this particular case, the witness had been sentenced to a total of 35 years for five counts of attempted murder and one count of rape, having already received a reduced sentence from the court due to his cooperation, which led to the conviction of a life-sentenced criminal who was pulling the strings from inside prison.

The issue, however, that is causing the greatest public outrage is the extremely short time he served before being granted clemency. As the distinguished lawyer pointed out, “What’s troubling is the 6 out of 35. The fact that he served only 6 years of his total prison sentence. That requires an explanation.”

He also noted that a presidential pardon is a constitutional right, the granting of which requires the consent of both the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. This decision was made with a view to protecting the life of the witness and his family, as the dangers posed by organized crime “constantly haunt anyone who decides to testify in cases involving this type of criminal activity.”

Referring to the practical aspects of relocation, Mr. Stefanou noted that “in a small country like Cyprus, it is extremely difficult to provide protection, given that everyone knows everyone,” making relocation to another country the only viable solution. Nevertheless, he emphasized the urgent need to modernize the program and establish written, transparent criteria.

“There must be a framework so that citizens are aware of the criteria, as well as a framework for cooperation between the President and the Attorney General to ensure there are no doubts,” he concluded, leaving open the question of whether, alternatively, the family could be protected abroad while the convicted person himself would continue to serve his sentence.