Many gaps and questions arise from the announcement by Criminal Investigator Andreas Paschalidis regarding the well-known “videogate” case, legal experts told CNA.

Lawyer Simos Angelides said that only through full disclosure “will public trust be restored and the expected transparency be achieved,” while lawyer Christos Clerides said the announcement is vague and ambiguous and called for the findings to be made public, stating that  “transparency is the state’s obligation to its citizens and is constitutionally mandated.” Lawyer Andreas Christou said that following the announcement, several weak points remain and that we have not received answers regarding the major issue of corruption.  

Simos Angelides

Mr. Angelides told CNA that there are certain issues that require further investigation and clarification, or convincing answers, since, as he said, “we all saw, heard, and understood certain issues which, as it appears from the announcement —and here I emphasize that we are talking about the announcement and not the finding itself—suggests that there was nothing wrong.” 

“It is clear that there was a conflict regarding Article 12, which relates to the Council of Europe Convention on the Criminalization of Corruption concerning the trafficking in, as well as the Law on Transparency in Public Decision-Making and Related Matters, which is the law known as “lobbying,” since no criminal offense was found in connection with the incidents we witnessed.” 

And this, he added, “taking into account the criminal investigator’s own finding that, while he does say these constitute empty rhetoric and hot air intended to create a sensation around the individuals in question for the purpose of derivingpersonal financial gain—which some of them actually began to reap—that is, it is contradictory to have concluded that there was financial gain while simultaneously claiming that it was mere empty rhetoric and that it does not fall under the two laws I mentioned earlier or under the potential offense of influence peddling.”

Mr. Angelidis therefore emphasized that the entire report, along with the evidence, be made public so that everyone can understand how and why the criminal investigator has reached this conclusion that there is nothing reprehensible.

Furthermore, Mr. Angelidis noted that another point of interest is that those responsible for both the audio and video recordings were ultimately found —along with the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General—for reasons of public interest, to be granted immunity in connection with these acts “and this, it seems, without having managed to obtain further evidence regarding the person who gave them these instructions.”

“So we have a problematic situation in which the conclusion is that there was a hybrid attack, but there is no one to hold accountable for this hybrid attack,” he pointed out, adding that this is an issue that requires further clarification.

Mr. Angelidis noted that “there are also references to other individuals, public figures, and key players—both current and past—in political and business circles,” and added that “it is important to know what was said, by whom, and in what manner; whether there may have been any contribution on their part, or even influence peddling or anything else, and other criminal offenses may also come to light.”

He emphasized that no one can form an opinion as long as they do not know exactly what the evidence consists of, but, he continued, since there is nothing improper and the process has been completed, then “there is nothing to prevent the publication of this report in its entirety, along with the evidence, so that everyone can confirm that the conclusion which —I say that, at first glance, contradicts what we have seen and heard—but perhaps there are factors we haven’t taken into account that could justify this conclusion.”

“Only in this way will public trust be restored, and only in this way will there be the expected transparency; and only in this way can we consider ourselves a state governed by the rule of law,” concluded Mr. Angelides.

Christos Clerides

In statements to CNA, Christos Clerides described the announcement as general, vague, and very unclear, and called for the full publication of the findings, saying that “Transparency is the state’s obligation to its citizens; it is constitutionally mandated, and we cannot accept the familiar excuse that the findings will not be made public. That, if anything, is a blow to the constitutional order.”

In the announcement, he said, no criminal offense was found to have been committed. “And even if that is the case, regardless of the reservations I have, there are issues of moral integrity and ethics regarding those involved, one of whom was the director of the President’s office and another a former minister. In other words, there is no dispute that these things were said and that they are authentic. The claim that they were mere idle talk and vague statements is not convincing. Furthermore, he said, the criminal investigator has determined that financial gain was obtained. “Deriving financial gain from transactions with investors, with all due respect, violates the Council of Europe Convention on Corruption.”

Mr. Clerides raised a series of questions regarding the criminal investigator’s announcement. First, he said that according to the announcement, the videos that were in the public eye were the result of editing, but it does not explain exactly where and how the editing of what we saw took place. “A huge question remains, and this is a very crucial point because we all had the opportunity to see those clips, and it’s not enough to say publicly that they were edited when you have the original.” 

Second, regarding the report on a development project in Limassol Tower “by a well-known family, as mentioned, it is said that the person involved refused to comment. ‘The person involved refused to comment—I personally do not accept this; it is a criminal investigation,’ said Mr. Clerides. The question arises, he added, “whether he was summoned and did not appear, or whether he appeared and simply said, ‘I have nothing to say.’ So, perhaps the investigation here was not thorough enough?” 

Regarding the reports on pre-election contributions, Mr. Clerides said that it is reported that “at least for one of the two, there is nothing to reproach. So, could there be something for the other one?” 

Regarding the First Lady’s independent campaign fund,  Mr. Clerides said that the statement indicates that any allegations are baseless and that it was based largely on the Audit Office’s report. “We did not appoint a criminal investigator to rely solely on the Audit Service’s report. The investigator is there to examine each specific case, taking into account the list of donors, and to provide us with evidence and a rationale,” said Mr. Clerides.

Furthermore, Mr. Clerides noted that the announcement states that three of the leading Cypriot figures signed an agreement with the investors and concludes that in two of these cases, a benefit was derived. “He must tell us what these cases are and what benefit was derived, and if a benefit was derived, isn’t that a criminal offense under the Council of Europe Convention on Combating Corruption?? This leaves enormous questions unanswered.”

Regarding the extension requested in the report to identify the mastermind behind these cases—which, as Mr. Clerides noted, “involve a Russian actor—as I understood from reading the statement—and were intended to harm the interests of Cyprus, which was set to assume the EU Council Presidency early this year. However, here too we lack sufficient evidence and justification as to how and why this conclusion was reached.”

Andreas Christou

Lawyer Andreas Christou told CNA that in the statement issued by Mr. Paschalides, “some points are clear, but others are not.”

“In other words, there are still some weak points based on what has been announced, and this mainly concerns Mr. Paschalidis’s reference to ‘empty rhetoric.’ So, this issue raises some questions for me, mainly because one would expect Mr. Paschalidis, since, as he himself states, no criminal offenses have been identified, to tell us whether anything has come to light under current legislation regarding corruption.” 

This, he emphasized, is “the major issue in this case, and we have not received any answers.  The legal community, which is familiar with this legislation, is awaiting some answers from Mr. Paschalidis, and I hope those answers will be provided.”

Regarding the issue of the video editing, Mr. Christou said that we have not received any answers regarding, first and foremost, whether he listened to or watched the entire video—which is several hours long— how the issue of editing arose, and whether the statements that people have seen and heard are in fact a collage—that is, not a single, coherent statement. Because it’s one thing for a statement to be a collage, and quite another to have a statement taken out of context—and yes, I don’t know the rest—so if I listen to the rest, I’ll realize that this isn’t the meaning thatthe speaker in question intended to convey.”

So, he said, there are some questions, and he expressed the hope that they will be answered. 

When asked if he was calling for the entire report to be made public, he said that “I’m not one of those who insist that the entire report be made public, but at the very least, one would expect a press release to include the rationale, the offenses that may have been investigated—so that we know exactly what they are—and the testimony that the criminal investigator himself had before him, even if only in summary form, to conclude that no specific criminaloffense. That is the least I would expect to happen.”

READ ALSO: What Andreas Paschalides’ report didn’t say | AlphaNews

Source: CNA