Greece
08.04.04
Urgent Interventions
Greece: Update on the case of trafficking and rape victim, Olga B.
Case GRC 020703.3.VAW
Trafficking/Rape/Violence against women
The International Secretariat of OMCT requests your URGENT intervention in the following situation in Greece.
Brief description of the situation
The International Secretariat of OMCT has been informed by the Greek Helsinki Monitor, a member of the OMCT network, that the prosecutor of Patras has appealed the acquittal of the policeman accused of raping Olga B.
Olga B. is a trafficking and a rape victim, whose perpetrator, who is a policeman, was acquitted for the rape by a court in Patras in May 2003. In March 2004, there was a re-trial on the rape charges and the verdict of the jury was split, resulting in another acquittal for the policeman. On April 5, OMCT received the information that the prosecutor had decided to appeal the second acquittal.
Besides this recent trial on the rape charges, Olga B. is also awaiting an appeals level trial (date set for June 21, 2004) on trafficking charges against the men who were involved in the trafficking ring that held her captive, as well as a trial claiming civil compensation (date set for November 4, 2004).
Further information reports that despite a successful request for a special residency permit, Olga B. has still not received her permit and continues to live illegally in Greece. In addition, the State has provided no legal aid to Olga or the NGOs assisting her in her litigation. As Olga cannot legally work, with no residency permit, she is forced to depend on the charity of friends to help her afford the litigation. The information received indicates that all other trafficking victims who are attempting to press charges against traffickers are in the same position as Olga, with no residency permit and no legal aid from the State.
OMCT expresses its concern that despite the new law in Greece on trafficking, trafficking victims, such as Olga B., are still not adequately protected. OMCT is also deeply concerned about the procedural irregularities of this case and the fact that the state puts the burden on the victim to go through elaborate and costly administrative and judicial procedures to obtain protection. OMCT reiterates that Greece has an obligation under international law to prevent, prosecute and punish acts of violence against women with due diligence, irrespective of whether these acts were committed by state or non-state actors.
Brief reminder of the situation
On May 23, 2003, a court acquitted a police officer who was accused of raping a 19 year old Ukrainian trafficking victim, Olga B., in 1998. According to the victim, she was never summoned to testify or to be present at the proceedings. There were reportedly two summons issued to an address in Amaliada where the victim never lived. The current residents of that address have sworn that the victim never resided at the address and that they never saw any bailiffs appear to give nor to post the summons. According to the court record, the bailiffs claim to have gone to the address in Amaliada on January 29, 2003 and posted the summons as the victim was not present there. One bailiff also claims that he was told on April 14, 2003 that the victim had moved to an “unknown address.” The victim asserts that she never lived at the address in Amaliada nor did she give that address to the police, and that in 2001, she gave her current address to the court, and further was known to the police as she had done some interpreting work for them.
In the absence of the victim at the trial, the court concluded that she had consented to sexual intercourse with the police officer. The other witnesses, one of which is called Irina, who had testified on behalf of the victim at the preliminary hearings also were not summoned and were not present at the trial. Additionally, there was a lack of due diligence in investigating the victim’s claim of rape, and the case came to trial five years after the initial claim was made.
At the trial, the police officer was given a 2 year suspended sentence for breach of duty as a police officer since he knew that trafficking victims were being held in a bar, did not report the crime, and engaged in intercourse with one of the victims. The bar owner was sentenced to 3 years in prison for trafficking and three other defendants were also sentenced to two years in prison each for procuring women or assisting in the trafficking of women. However, the sentences of these 4 co-defendants were converted into fines (1600 Euros per year) as the court concluded that “a pecuniary fine is sufficient to deter them all from repeating the crime, after evaluating their characters and surrounding circumstances.”
After much public pressure, the Minister of Justice asked the Prosecutor of the Supreme Court to take all necessary actions for the cassation of the acquittal of the police officer (overturning the case on the basis that law and/or procedure were improperly applied, not on the merits of the case). While the Prosecutor of the Supreme Court filed a motion for cassation on June 20, 2003, the motion only concerns the acquittal of the police officer on the grounds that the verdict “lacked specific and detailed explanation.”
According to the information received, Olga B. has not received any form of effective protection during these proceedings despite the risks she faces and the threats she has received. Irina, a key witness in Olga’s case also has received no form of witness protection. Furthermore, because of the lack of improper procedure, Olga B. now faces lengthy, expensive court costs, with no offer of assistance from the government.
In October, Olga B. was again not summoned to court for a hearing concerning her case. According to the information received, she discovered that the Supreme Court held a hearing on her case through a local newspaper. Nonetheless, the accused was present at the hearing. The failure to summon a party is reason enough to nullify the procedure pursuant to Article 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On November 13, 2003, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that nullified the first instance judgment as concerns the rape charges. As a result of this decision, Olga’s trials were split, with a retrial on the rape charges at the first instance court, and a trial on the trafficking charges at the appeals level. She has also filed a civil case for compensation.
Remarks and actions requested
The International Secretariat of OMCT wishes to thank all those institutions, organizations and individuals who intervened on behalf of Olga B. OMCT requests that you continue to write to the authorities of Greece urging them to:
i. guarantee the physical and psychological integrity of Olga B.;
ii. ensure that both Olga B and Irina are properly informed of future court dates and guarantee them adequate witness protection services;
iii. grant Olga B. a residence permit in Greece at least through the end of the proceedings related to her case;
iv. provide Olga B. with the financial means to access effective and adequate legal assistance;
v. guarantee adequate reparation for Olga B.;
vi. guarantee the respect of human rights and the fundamental freedoms throughout Greece in accordance with international human rights standards.
Addresses
· Costas Karamanlis, Prime Minister, Prime Minister’s Office at the Hellenic Parliament, Greek Parliament Blgd, Constitution Square, Athens / Greece, Fax: +30 210 3238129 Email: Mail@primeminister.gr
· Petros Molyviatis, Foreign Minister Athens, Fax: 30 210 36 81 433·
· Anastasios Papaligouras, Minister of Justice, Athens, Greece, fax +30 2107489231
· George Voulgarakis, Minister of Public Order, Athens, Greece, Fax: + 30 210 6917944
· George Kaminis, Ombudsman for Human Rights, Fax 30 210 7289643
· Ambassadeur, Kriekoukis, Tassos, Mission permanente de la Grèce, Place Saint-Gervais 1, 1201 Genève, Suisse, e-mail: mission.greece@ties.itu.int, Fax : +4122 732.21.50
· Mr. Fotis Nasiakos, Chief of Greek Police, Fax: +30-2106923689
Please also write to the embassies of Greece in your respective country.
Geneva, April 8, 2004
Kindly inform us of any action undertaken quoting the code of this appeal in your reply.
Trafficking/Rape/Violence against women
The International Secretariat of OMCT requests your URGENT intervention in the following situation in Greece.
Brief description of the situation
The International Secretariat of OMCT has been informed by the Greek Helsinki Monitor, a member of the OMCT network, that the prosecutor of Patras has appealed the acquittal of the policeman accused of raping Olga B.
Olga B. is a trafficking and a rape victim, whose perpetrator, who is a policeman, was acquitted for the rape by a court in Patras in May 2003. In March 2004, there was a re-trial on the rape charges and the verdict of the jury was split, resulting in another acquittal for the policeman. On April 5, OMCT received the information that the prosecutor had decided to appeal the second acquittal.
Besides this recent trial on the rape charges, Olga B. is also awaiting an appeals level trial (date set for June 21, 2004) on trafficking charges against the men who were involved in the trafficking ring that held her captive, as well as a trial claiming civil compensation (date set for November 4, 2004).
Further information reports that despite a successful request for a special residency permit, Olga B. has still not received her permit and continues to live illegally in Greece. In addition, the State has provided no legal aid to Olga or the NGOs assisting her in her litigation. As Olga cannot legally work, with no residency permit, she is forced to depend on the charity of friends to help her afford the litigation. The information received indicates that all other trafficking victims who are attempting to press charges against traffickers are in the same position as Olga, with no residency permit and no legal aid from the State.
OMCT expresses its concern that despite the new law in Greece on trafficking, trafficking victims, such as Olga B., are still not adequately protected. OMCT is also deeply concerned about the procedural irregularities of this case and the fact that the state puts the burden on the victim to go through elaborate and costly administrative and judicial procedures to obtain protection. OMCT reiterates that Greece has an obligation under international law to prevent, prosecute and punish acts of violence against women with due diligence, irrespective of whether these acts were committed by state or non-state actors.
Brief reminder of the situation
On May 23, 2003, a court acquitted a police officer who was accused of raping a 19 year old Ukrainian trafficking victim, Olga B., in 1998. According to the victim, she was never summoned to testify or to be present at the proceedings. There were reportedly two summons issued to an address in Amaliada where the victim never lived. The current residents of that address have sworn that the victim never resided at the address and that they never saw any bailiffs appear to give nor to post the summons. According to the court record, the bailiffs claim to have gone to the address in Amaliada on January 29, 2003 and posted the summons as the victim was not present there. One bailiff also claims that he was told on April 14, 2003 that the victim had moved to an “unknown address.” The victim asserts that she never lived at the address in Amaliada nor did she give that address to the police, and that in 2001, she gave her current address to the court, and further was known to the police as she had done some interpreting work for them.
In the absence of the victim at the trial, the court concluded that she had consented to sexual intercourse with the police officer. The other witnesses, one of which is called Irina, who had testified on behalf of the victim at the preliminary hearings also were not summoned and were not present at the trial. Additionally, there was a lack of due diligence in investigating the victim’s claim of rape, and the case came to trial five years after the initial claim was made.
At the trial, the police officer was given a 2 year suspended sentence for breach of duty as a police officer since he knew that trafficking victims were being held in a bar, did not report the crime, and engaged in intercourse with one of the victims. The bar owner was sentenced to 3 years in prison for trafficking and three other defendants were also sentenced to two years in prison each for procuring women or assisting in the trafficking of women. However, the sentences of these 4 co-defendants were converted into fines (1600 Euros per year) as the court concluded that “a pecuniary fine is sufficient to deter them all from repeating the crime, after evaluating their characters and surrounding circumstances.”
After much public pressure, the Minister of Justice asked the Prosecutor of the Supreme Court to take all necessary actions for the cassation of the acquittal of the police officer (overturning the case on the basis that law and/or procedure were improperly applied, not on the merits of the case). While the Prosecutor of the Supreme Court filed a motion for cassation on June 20, 2003, the motion only concerns the acquittal of the police officer on the grounds that the verdict “lacked specific and detailed explanation.”
According to the information received, Olga B. has not received any form of effective protection during these proceedings despite the risks she faces and the threats she has received. Irina, a key witness in Olga’s case also has received no form of witness protection. Furthermore, because of the lack of improper procedure, Olga B. now faces lengthy, expensive court costs, with no offer of assistance from the government.
In October, Olga B. was again not summoned to court for a hearing concerning her case. According to the information received, she discovered that the Supreme Court held a hearing on her case through a local newspaper. Nonetheless, the accused was present at the hearing. The failure to summon a party is reason enough to nullify the procedure pursuant to Article 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On November 13, 2003, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that nullified the first instance judgment as concerns the rape charges. As a result of this decision, Olga’s trials were split, with a retrial on the rape charges at the first instance court, and a trial on the trafficking charges at the appeals level. She has also filed a civil case for compensation.
Remarks and actions requested
The International Secretariat of OMCT wishes to thank all those institutions, organizations and individuals who intervened on behalf of Olga B. OMCT requests that you continue to write to the authorities of Greece urging them to:
i. guarantee the physical and psychological integrity of Olga B.;
ii. ensure that both Olga B and Irina are properly informed of future court dates and guarantee them adequate witness protection services;
iii. grant Olga B. a residence permit in Greece at least through the end of the proceedings related to her case;
iv. provide Olga B. with the financial means to access effective and adequate legal assistance;
v. guarantee adequate reparation for Olga B.;
vi. guarantee the respect of human rights and the fundamental freedoms throughout Greece in accordance with international human rights standards.
Addresses
· Costas Karamanlis, Prime Minister, Prime Minister’s Office at the Hellenic Parliament, Greek Parliament Blgd, Constitution Square, Athens / Greece, Fax: +30 210 3238129 Email: Mail@primeminister.gr
· Petros Molyviatis, Foreign Minister Athens, Fax: 30 210 36 81 433·
· Anastasios Papaligouras, Minister of Justice, Athens, Greece, fax +30 2107489231
· George Voulgarakis, Minister of Public Order, Athens, Greece, Fax: + 30 210 6917944
· George Kaminis, Ombudsman for Human Rights, Fax 30 210 7289643
· Ambassadeur, Kriekoukis, Tassos, Mission permanente de la Grèce, Place Saint-Gervais 1, 1201 Genève, Suisse, e-mail: mission.greece@ties.itu.int, Fax : +4122 732.21.50
· Mr. Fotis Nasiakos, Chief of Greek Police, Fax: +30-2106923689
Please also write to the embassies of Greece in your respective country.
Geneva, April 8, 2004
Kindly inform us of any action undertaken quoting the code of this appeal in your reply.