Last week, the Cyprus Court of Appeals unanimously rejected Khaled Mortaga’s appeal against the decision to remand him in custody until the start of his trial before the Criminal Court, in a case in which he faces serious charges, along with four other individuals, related to terrorism and criminal organization.
The appellant had challenged the decision of the Larnaca District Court, dated August 6, 2026, which ordered his detention until October 14, 2026, the date on which the five individuals were committed for trial before the Felony Court.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
According to the decision, the charges include, among others, conspiracy to commit a felony with the intent to provide support to a terrorist organization, participation in a criminal organization, unauthorized possession of precursors for explosive materials, and a terrorism offense.
The appellant raised a total of five grounds for appeal. Among other things, he argued that the trial court treated pretrial detention as the rule rather than the exception and failed to conduct a sufficiently individualized assessment of the risk of flight.
Reference was also made to the proposal to impose conditions, including a bond of one million euros, secured by family real estate. The appellant’s counsel argued that these conditions would ensure his presence at the trial.
The Court of Appeals, however, ruled that the trial court had applied the correct legal principles and that the lack of an explicit reference to the details of the proposed bail did not render the decision unjustified.
It also rejected the claim that the evidence was insufficient to justify detention.
The decision notes that, at the stage of reviewing detention, it is not necessary to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Especially in conspiracy cases, the Court notes, the likelihood of a conviction may be based on evidence tending to demonstrate coordinated action.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court had examined in detail the evidence pertaining to the appellant and had concluded, at that specific stage of the proceedings, that the required criterion had been met.
The appellant had further argued that the total duration of his detention had not been properly weighed, taking into account both the previous period of detention and the complexity of the case, with the Court of Appeals noting that the trial court had taken into account the time already elapsed in detention.
With regard to the future total duration of detention, it ruled that, at this stage, there was no question of continued long-term detention.
At the same time, the Court of Appeals emphasized that the total duration of detention cannot be assessed in general and abstract terms, but must be considered in light of the factors affecting the course of the trial.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeals found all five grounds for appeal to be unfounded and dismissed the appeal in its entirety.
As a result, the first-instance decision to remand the appellant in custody until the date set for the case to be referred to the Criminal Court was upheld.
READ ALSO: Dr. Agathangelou on Mazonakis’s doctor: It represents the “culmination of the discrediting of the doctor in the broadest sense” | AlphaNews
Source: CNA
