The defense challenged on Thursday the addition of a witness to the prosecution’s witness list—a witness who had received evidence related to the case involving the Central Prison documents— was challenged on Thursday by the defense, which argued that his testimony cannot be characterized as “routine,” as described by the prosecution. The Criminal Court is expected to announce its decision on the matter on November 3.
Meanwhile, during today’s proceedings, the prosecution secured the court’s approval to amend the sixth and ninth counts, thereby increasing the number of items the defendants are alleged to have stolen from the Central Prison from 421 to 551. The eight defendants were re-indicted and did not admit to the charges.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
According to the amended charges, from October 2022 through April 2025, the defendants, while serving as public officials, allegedly fraudulently stole state property from the Department of Corrections—specifically 551 items, including digital discs, floppy disks, and USB drives—and transported them out of the prison to the home of the third defendant.
First Attorney for the Republic Vasilis Bissas stated that the amendment aims to align the details of the indictment with the testimony of the Prosecution. He clarified that it does not concern additional witness testimony being submitted to the defense, but rather digital evidence.
Mr. Bissas noted that, given that the proceedings are still in the early stages, the amendment does not affect the defendants’ rights.
The attorney for the first defendant, Christos Triantafyllidis, did not object to the amendment but did raise the issue of abuse of process. The second defendant, Athina Dimitriou, objected, arguing that her rights were being violated and citing the constant changes in the number of documents in the case. The other defense attorneys did not raise any objections.
The Court, taking into account the early stage of the proceedings, the nature of the amendment, and the fact that the evidentiary material—which the defense may inspect at any time—remains unchanged, ruled that the amendment was justified.
Subsequently, the Attorney General submitted a notice to the Court regarding the addition of a witness to the list of prosecution witnesses.
As he stated, the witness, who is a police officer, will testify for formal purposes regarding the presentation of evidence found during the search of the third defendant’s residence, which were seized by the police and have been in their custody to this day. He added that the relevant evidence had long since been handed over to the defense and that the addition does not affect the proceedings or the rights of the defendants.
The defendants’ attorneys, with the exception of the fifth defendant’s attorney, objected to the addition of the witness.
Mr. Triantafyllidis stated that, according to case law, a witness added to the list must be involved in substantive issues of the case and, therefore, cannot be classified as a formal witness.
He cited, among other things, an email dated October 15, 2026, in which the Prosecution informed the defense that it intended to call a police officer as a witness, although his name was not known at that time. In a subsequent email, dated October 22, the police officer’s name was disclosed to the defense, while it was noted that his testimony was not yet available and would be prepared after the evidence was received and then shared with the defense. According to Mr. Triantafyllidis, the testimony was received today.
“In other words, this so-called ‘routine’ witness is so deeply involved in substantive issues that he only received the evidence today,” he said, challenging the characterization of his testimony as “routine.”
The second defendant echoed Mr. Triantafyllidis’s arguments, noting that her rights and the principle of equality of arms were being violated. She added that the police officer’s testimony cannot be considered routine, as it concerns the very items that form the core of the charges, while at the same time, she challenged the legality of the seizure and the chain of custody of the items.
The attorney for the third defendant, Chloe Konstantinou, also endorsed Mr. Triantafyllidis’s arguments, noting that the police officer had no prior involvement in the case.
The case is scheduled for November 3 at 9:30 a.m., at which time the Court is expected to announce its decision regarding the addition of the witness.
It should be noted that the defendants in the case are the former Director of the Central Prison, Anna Aristotelous, the former Deputy Director, Athina Dimitriou, five members of the correctional facility, and a former member who is now a police officer.
The defendants face nine joint charges, including conspiracy to commit a felony and theft of government property, involving 48,432 documents, 370 architectural plans of the Central Prison, and 551 items containing digital data.
The indictment also includes charges of abuse of authority in connection with the removal of documents, drawings, and digital data outside the Prison, specifically to the chief warden’s residence. Anna Aristotelous faces an additional charge, as, according to the indictment, she allegedly allowed the leak of classified documents while serving as Director.
Source: CNA
