Following a second count of the evidence allegedly seized from the home of the third defendant, Panagiotis Tsolias, the Nicosia Permanent Criminal Court decided to proceed during today’s continuation of the case involving the allegedly forged Central Prison documents, since during the initial count, which was conducted by the prosecution’s witness in the presence of the defense, a discrepancy was found between the number of items in the boxes and the number listed in the relevant inventories.
During the second count, which was conducted by the Court itself, a discrepancy was again found, with the result that the cross-examination of the witness did not begin and time was requested to verify the numbers.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
The discrepancy arose when the prosecution asked the witness, Sergeant Argyris Petrakos of the Criminal Investigation Division Headquarters, to present the two cardboard boxes which, according to his statement, contained 551 digital evidence items.
These consisted of 436 DVDs, 15 USB drives, 100 floppy disks, and one hard drive, along with 11 printed lists detailing their contents, which the witness had received.
The Court requested that the boxes be counted in the presence of the witness, the prosecution, and the defendants’ attorneys, in order to verify whether the evidence contained therein corresponded to what was listed in the inventories.
During the count, however, it was found that there was a discrepancy between the number of items in the boxes and those listed in the inventories.
The representative of the prosecution, Vasilis Bisas, cited a possible error in the inventories regarding the matching of items and requested time for a new count.
This position drew a reaction from the defense attorneys, who argued that the witness had received the evidence sealed and that the discrepancy found could not be corrected retroactively, as it affected the credibility of his testimony.
Attorney Stelios Christodoulou stated that the witness had received specific documents and that he should not have been given time to correct the error.
Attorney Chloe Konstantinou expressed a similar position. The second defendant, Athina Dimitriou, who is representing herself before the Court, pointed out that the number of files did not match the number listed on the chart.
The Court rejected the prosecution’s motion for a postponement, so that a recount could be conducted and the evidence submitted at a subsequent hearing, requesting that the evidence be submitted exactly as it had been handed over to the witness. At the same time, the Court decided to conduct a second count itself.
The proceedings were then adjourned, during which the Court conducted its own count, once again finding that there was a discrepancy between the evidence and the relevant inventories.
The discrepancy in the evidence, however, was not the only issue that arose during today’s proceedings, as there had previously been heated exchanges between the defense and the prosecution regarding the submission of digital evidence and whether the witness had personal knowledge of the contents.
Specifically, witness Argyris Petrakos testified that on October 29, 2026, he received at the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) from Police Officer Panikos Konstantinou three sealed envelopes, two sealed cardboard boxes, and one sealed paper box.
As he reported, a white envelope contained a USB drive, which held 48,432 documents in electronic format and a corresponding index, 92 maps and drawings, totaling 370 pages, in electronic format along with an index, as well as 187 labels in electronic format and an index.
According to what was reported to him, the above items were found, among other places, at the residence of the third defendant.
At the same time, he stated that he received a sealed cardboard box, which was labeled as containing all the labels, as well as a spiral-bound binder with their photographs. As he testified, all of the above items were placed in his custody.
When the prosecution asked the witness to present the three envelopes and unseal them, the attorney for the first defendant, Chris Triantafyllides, objected, arguing that the necessary groundwork had not been laid for the witness to proceed with this action.
Mr. Triantafyllides stated that the witness had merely received the envelopes from Panikos Konstantinou, without personally knowing what they contained.
“He says he received them from Konstantinou. He doesn’t tell us that he himself knows what’s inside. Did Konstantinou tell him, or did he put it in there himself? If he’s going to make a statement about something he didn’t do himself, there’s an objection,” he said.
He added, in fact, that the sergeant who handed him the evidence should be called as a witness so that he himself can testify.
“He can’t just come in, open it, and tell us, ‘This is it.’ He didn’t do it himself. How do we know what’s in there? There might be another USB drive inside,” he noted at another point, pointing out that someone else was the one who sealed the envelope. The objection was also adopted by the attorneys for the other defendants.
For its part, the prosecution argued that the fact that the witness was not personally familiar with the contents of the envelopes does not prevent them from being submitted as evidence, since they were in his possession.
As she noted, these issues could be addressed during cross-examination and did not concern the admissibility of the testimony.
Mr. Bisas stated that the exhibits should be opened so that the witness could explain their contents.
When asked by the Court whether Panikos Konstantinou would appear as a witness, he replied in the affirmative.
The Court approved the submission of the USB drives as they were handed over, while also instructing the prosecution to provide copies to the defense.
Mr. Bissas explained that the USB drives collectively contain all the documents that had been found at the third defendant’s residence.
The discussion continued, with Mr. Triantafyllidis insisting that the defense had requested a copy of the USB drives’ contents, since, as he stated, they had not received those specific documents and did not know exactly what they contained. The other defense attorneys also adopted this position.
Mr. Bisas referred to the classified documents, which, as he explained, could not be handed over, insisting that the defense could inspect them at any time. He added, however, that all other documents had already been provided to the defense.
Subsequently, the prosecution posed questions to Argyris Petrakos regarding the contents of the USB drives, prompting Mr. Triantafyllidis to raise another objection, reiterating that the witness had no personal knowledge of their contents, since, as he had already testified, he had received them sealed.
The Court rejected the objection, and the witness recounted what his colleague, Panikos Konstantinou, regarding the contents of the USB drives, adding that they had also been shown to him on the computer.
When asked why the evidence had been converted to digital format, the witness replied that, according to what Panikos Konstantinou had told him, this was done because of its large volume.
In response to another question, he stated that the documents are stored in a specific location at Police Headquarters.
When asked by Mr. Bissa whether he could produce any of these documents, the witness replied: “If asked, I will ask the police officer to point it out to me so that I can present it.”
The witness was then asked to explain the tables contained on the USB drive, stating that the folders, according to what Panikos Konstantinou had told him, constituted the evidence in digital form.
It should be noted that during the proceedings, there were repeated objections and heated exchanges between the defense attorneys and the prosecution, and at one point, the court’s reaction was also intense.
The cross-examination of Argyris Petrakos did not ultimately begin, as the proceedings focused on issues that arose regarding the submission and counting of evidence.
The case was rescheduled for November 10, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., at which time the proceedings are expected to continue and the cross-examination of the sergeant is set to begin.
It should be noted that the Court is expected to conduct a third count of the evidence, the results of which will be announced at the start of the proceedings on November 10.
Source: CNA
