THE Association of Prosecutors of Greecewith her announcement, responded to today’s statements by the lawyer Alexis Kouia, against the prosecutor of the seat of the Mixed Jury Court of Athens, Evangelia Spyridonidou, where the case of Roula Pispirigou is being tried, noting that an attempt is being made to degrade and discredit the prosecutorial institution.

It is recalled that Mrs. Spyridonidou pleaded guilty Roulas Pispirigou for the murder and attempted murder of her daughter Georgina, and stated among other things that “Georgina had the misfortune of having a mother who is the accused”.

Subsequently, Mr. Kougias, defender of Roulas Pispirigou, after the prosecutor’s proposal, in his statement, among others, stated:

“I want to categorically state that it was not Georgina unfortunate that she had the lady accused mother and if she could speak from where she is about what exactly happened and she lost her life, she would have praised the lady accused for what she did to keep her alive but unfortunately the lady accused it is unfortunate that Ms. District Attorney and Ms. President of the Court were drawn into this trial, who for 13 months did nothing but try with questions at the level of lunchtime shows to create evidence, not to give Ms. the accused a fair trial, but to be condemned unjustly.”

In turn, the Union of Prosecutors of Greece responded to the disparaging, as it characterizes, statements of Mr. Kougia, with a statement which states:

“On the occasion of public, disparaging statements of a defense attorney, against a prosecutor, regarding the content of her statutory proposal on the defendant’s guilt, in a case that is being tried and pending the issuance of a court decision, we point out the following:

It has become a common phenomenon, on the part of the advocate, to express negative criticism against the actors of the trial, but also in terms of the offer, the necessity and the quality of the participation of public prosecutors in the criminal justice system, when he considers that their legal procedural actions do not “serve” their positions of his principals.

We emphasize that the repeated derogatory characterizations and the purposes they imply, do not and will not bring about the intended and desired “side effects”, that is, the shaking of citizens’ trust in the public prosecutor’s office and the provoking of any doubt in the judge’s conscience.

The formulation of the opinion on the non-adoption of the prosecutor’s proposals by the competent judicial councils and courts is within the limits of the concept of virtual reality, since the prosecutor’s proposals are not the product of uncontrolled collection and exploitation of incriminating evidence and arbitrary judgment, but the subject of a deep and thorough processing of these and knowledge and for this reason, they are adopted, as a rule, by the competent judicial body, to which they are addressed.

And the attempt made with these statements, once again, to degrade and discredit the prosecutor’s institution, is a form of confrontational defense, which reappears in the cases of legal, but unpopular prosecutorial actions, escapes the limits of practicing the defense work and seeks to thwart of the purpose of the criminal trial, which is the issuance of correct and fair decisions”.