The strong reaction of the Union of Judges and Prosecutors was caused by the criticism leveled by some television shows at the judicial authorities for the handling of a rape case with the accused, the 37-year-old self-confessed perpetrator of the murder of the 11-year-old Vasiliki in Ilia.

In the announcement, among other things, there is talk of a “witch hunt” and “journalistic brutality sacrificed legal science on the altar of television viewing”.

The Union of Judges asks the State and the ERS to take drastic and effective measures immediately.

The announcement of the Union of Judges in detail

“On the occasion of a recent case of an investigated criminal action against a minor, which justifiably occupied the country’s media, we observe with regret the repetition of a sick phenomenon that tends to be perceived as normality in today’s television and journalistic landscape. Well-known presenters of broadcasts of journalistic but also diverse material, once again engage in a witch hunt, targeting a previous composition of the Mixed Jury Court, which, in view of another case with the same defendant, ruled unanimously and with an agreed prosecutorial proposal to grant a suspensory effect to the appeal brought by the person convicted there accused.

We know that much more time and space is needed to explain to TV pundits what a jury means, what an appeal means, what a suspensive effect means and how these make up the Rule of Law. We have certainly begun to get used to the well-known pattern of the alleged identification of justice with strictures, usually on the occasion of an incident of serious crime, which is often concluded with a piecemeal legislative intervention, not related to the needs of criminal repression, but to the management of reactions which gives birth. But judgments such as those on temporary detention, the suspensive effect of the appeal or the conditional release of a prisoner, are judgments based on the prediction of a future behavior of the offender, on the basis of data known to the Court at the time of the judgment. Not in hindsight.

Journalistic brutality sacrificed legal science on the altar of television viewing and left untouched Article 344 of the Civil Code, which enables the court to suspend criminal prosecution for the crime of rape after considering the victim’s statement that the publicity will result in serious mental her injury, nor did it take into account whether the convicted had complied with the restrictive conditions imposed on him during the period from the main interrogation to the discussion of the case in the audience nor whether the court’s predictive judgment was based on the absence of a conviction for similar acts.

On the contrary, it doesn’t take that much to understand that the completely legitimate criticism of judicial decisions by citizens is different and the professional attack on the free and independent substantive judgment of judicial officials is different. In order for a State to function smoothly, a minimum of respect is required for each institution in the other institutions and the systematic attempt to replace the Justice by uninvited tele-judges and tele-prosecutors, degrades both the quality of information and the value of the Justice delivery system.

Finally, it should be understood that the disciplinary investigation and control carried out by the competent bodies of the Supreme Court do not amount to a conviction of the judicial officer nor do they even constitute a censure for his judicial judgment.

We ask the State and the National Radio and Television Council to immediately take drastic and effective measures to stop a phenomenon that has turned television into an arena and Justice into a spectacle.”