On Monday, the cross-examination of the first witness, police officer P.E., before the Nicosia Permanent Criminal Court.

The witness, who had photographed items and sums of money as part of the police investigation into the financial aspect of the scandal at the Holy Monastery of Saint Abbaqum, was cross-examined primarily regarding photographs taken on March 9, 2024, at the Metropolis of Tamassos, and on March 13, 2024, at the Metropolis and the Monastery.

Responding to questions from the defense attorney for the first defendant, Monk Nektarios, Kostis Efstathiou, the witness stated that on March 9 he visited the Metropolis of Tamassos and took photographs, which are included in Bundle A of the photographic evidence. As he stated, the photographs were taken primarily in an underground area of the Metropolis, where members of the Special Anti-Narcotics Unit (YDOE) and representatives of the Metropolis were present.

The witness stated that he was taking photographs based on instructions from another police officer and that numbers were placed on the objects in his presence. When asked who placed the numbers, he replied that he did not remember, adding that other individuals were recording the numbers and the items in a booklet.

When asked whether items were placed on tables or moved before being photographed, the witness replied on several occasions that he did not remember. He stated that he photographed the items as he saw them during the process.

The defense also pointed out to the witness that the photographs of two safes in the basement of the Metropolis appeared to show that the items had been moved from one location to another. The witness replied that he could not know the sequence in which the photos were taken.

Regarding photographs taken on March 13 at the Tamassos Metropolis, the witness stated that they depicted, among other things, envelopes and sums of money. He said that the envelopes were opened in his presence and that the money was photographed, adding that he did not remember who took the money out of the envelopes or who put it back in.

When asked whether the envelopes photographed on March 9 were the same as those photographed four days later, he replied that he did not know.

The witness was then cross-examined regarding the photographs taken at the Holy Monastery of Saint Avvakum. He stated that he visited the Monastery on March 13 and that the photographs taken on the Monastery grounds are included in Set B of the photographic evidence.

The witness said that the photographs were taken, among other places, at the entrance to the monastery, inside buildings, in the abbot’s quarters, in an exhibition area for the monastery’s products, and inside the church. He stated that he was taking photographs based on instructions and that, in some cases, he did not know exactly which location was being photographed.

When asked about entering the monastery, the witness stated that he entered through the gate, along with another colleague and other members, but did not recall exactly how they gained entry. When asked whether someone had opened the gate for them or whether they had permission to enter, he replied that he did not remember and that he was not personally responsible for the process.

During his cross-examination regarding the interior spaces, the witness stated that the photographs depicted different rooms in the same building, offices, furniture, drawers, cabinets, books, papers, and other objects. When asked about an open drawer, he stated that it had been opened by the investigator so that it could be photographed.

The witness was also asked about photographs of the monastery’s product exhibition area and the interior of the church. As he stated, he photographed whatever was pointed out to him, including spots on the ceiling with wires inside the sanctuary, without, as he said, moving any objects.

When asked about photographs taken in an area above the monastery, the witness stated that it was a location on a hill, clarifying that it was “above the monastery.” As he said, members of the YDOE went to that location, though he did not recall whether there were any civilians or representatives of the Metropolis present. When asked about two individuals visible in a photograph, he replied that he did not know who they were, adding that he himself had been taking photographs of the area’s perimeter.

When asked whether he had entered the monastery with the permission or consent of the defendants, the witness replied, during cross-examination by the defense attorney for the second defendant, Monk Porphyrios, Eustathios Efstathiou, that he himself was not responsible for the procedure and that, as a member of the monastic hierarchy, he was unaware of what his superiors were doing. He also stated that he did not see written consent from the defendants, nor does he know whether a search warrant was shown to his superior.

The witness further stated that he did not photograph the monks’ cells and that he did not know whether the areas that were photographed were the monks’ living quarters.

Upon completion of the cross-examination of witness P.E., Mr. Efstathiou noted that the next witness is connected to a large number of photographs and that his examination is expected to take some time.

Subsequently, the Prosecution, through Vasilis Bissas, filed an objection to the second defendant’s request for legal aid. Mr. Bissa stated that, according to a report from the Welfare Office, the second defendant works as an employee at a pastry shop with an income of approximately 1,000 euros per month and owns real estate, arguing that the conditions for the Republic to cover his legal expenses are not met.

The second defendant stated that he has had a steady salary only for the past three months, that he earns the minimum wage, and that his monthly expenses amount to approximately 700 euros. He added that the real estate referred to by the Prosecution consists of a share which, as he said, cannot be easily sold, as well as a parcel of land with no substantial value.

The Court requested that evidence regarding the valuation of the second defendant’s real estate be submitted at the next hearing and set the motion for further consideration.

The case is scheduled to resume on July 8 at 9:30 a.m., with two witnesses.

Source: CNA