The attempt by Doros Theofanous, a life-sentenced prisoner known as “Kommotis,” who was convicted in 2012 of the premeditated murder of a pregnant woman and her three-year-old daughter, came to nothing. The Criminal Court’s decision had been upheld by the Supreme Court in 2015.
“The Hairdresser” had filed a motion to reopen his case, based on a provision of the new legislation on the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Laws 1964 to 2024, which provides that an applicant may request the Supreme Court, upon presentation of new evidence or facts, “to order and/or decide that his or her case be retried either by the Court of Appeals or by the Criminal Court,” as stated in an announcement by the Legal Service.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
What the “hairdresser” claimed
The petitioner’s claim was that a retrial of his case is warranted by the fact that new evidence emerged after the conviction against him was handed down, “which create a fundamental flaw in both the conviction by the Permanent Criminal Court and the decision of the Supreme Court [ed. Court of Appeals at the time in question], and render his conviction precarious, unjust, and/or undermine its foundation,” as the statement adds.
Specifically, according to the Legal Service, “the petitioner claimed that the retraction or revision of testimony given during the trial of his case before the Criminal Court—whether by the witness himself or through third parties—constitutes ‘new evidence and facts,’ sufficient to trigger the relevant provision of the Law. In this regard, he presented sworn statements from witnesses who recanted or revised the testimony they had previously given in the Criminal Court against the life-sentenced prisoner.”
The position of the Attorney General of the Republic before the Supreme Court was that the life-sentenced applicant’s request, based on the new evidence presented, did not justify invoking that specific provision of the law.
The reasoning behind the court’s decision
As noted, after reviewing the petition and concurring with the position of the Attorney General of the Republic, the Supreme Court, unanimously decided, on October 29, 2026, to reject it, while also establishing the framework under which this specific article of the Law is interpreted regarding what may be considered a a “new piece of evidence or fact” that would justify invoking the exceptional provision for reopening a case. This is the first case to be heard under this specific legislation.
According to the Supreme Court’s decision, the concept of “new evidence or facts” includes circumstances, circumstances, or evidence that either existed at the time of the original trial but were not disclosed to the court, yet became known or came to light subsequently, or arose for the first time after the conclusion of the proceedings and are relevant to the case.
Consequently, the Supreme Court’s conclusion in the present case is that “the alleged subsequent retraction or recantation by a witness of the testimony he or she gave and which was evaluated before the trial court, cannot in any way be considered to constitute ‘new evidence or fact’ within the meaning of the Law.” It also emphasized that, “accepting the contrary would amount to transforming this exceptional procedure into a mechanism for re-evaluating the testimony and the assessment of the evidence upon which the final conviction was based, thereby undermining legal certainty and the finality of judgments.”
On behalf of the Attorney General of the Republic, the case was handled by Senior Attorneys of the Republic Mr. Ninos Kekkos and Mr. Andreas Hatzikyru.
