Political statement at the terror-trial of Koriadallos prison

To begin I would like to state once more that at no moment, from my arrest up to now, have I felt a defendant. And since I do not feel like a defendant I cannot feel apologetic either. I do not recognize this system of values condensed in the legal code based upon which this court makes judgement. Since we are referring to a different – and antithetic – code of values I believe that this court and no court has the jurisdiction to judge me. I in no way recognize its jurisdiction to judge resistance and the attempt to subvert the status-quo, as well as the people who are inspired and personally committed to doing so. To judge a phenomenon as necessary as breathing. What I do recognize, as in every court, is the violently enforced ability it has to send people to prison. To be, that is, the punishing arm of the State. The judicial body, barricaded behind a compilation of laws and provisions is the intermediate link in the oppressive chain. It mediates between police investigation and correctional incarceration, securing during the whole procedure the esteem of the ‘ex cathedra’ specialist which is necessary in order for it to establish itself as one of the main coordinators of social relations. It is self-evident that since justice is a foundational pillar of the civil State it is directly connected and completely identified with the defence of its interests. Their operators also consist of a social elite (as they like to call themselves) and are connected not only on a political or social level, but often on a personal level also with individuals who perform the legislative and executive operations of the State. The oppressive role of justice has been historically demonstrated and there is no point in mentioning things that have been written and said a thousand times.

However, speaking specifically of today, this current historical moment, the Greek reality in the given crisis condition, we can observe that justice has a primary role in the general socio-political restructuring. Justice is currently the spearhead in the attempt of the regime to avert its internal creaks and stabilize itself. Thus we see democracy initially turning aggressively in on itself, sacrificing many of those who had been its main executives at a political and economic level over the past decades. The crimes of the ruling class, beautified with the term scandals, did not multiply over the last three years, nor did the ability and decisiveness of the judiciaries suddenly increase. Simply, the raff of politicians, businessmen, journalists and bouncers realized that when the boat sinks, not everyone can be rescued.

Therefore, depending on the correlation of power, some of the ex-powerful, even at the top level, such as Tsohatzopoulos (ex-minister) and Papageorgopoulos (the ex-mayor of Thessaloniki), Lavrendiadis (businessman who embezzled millions), Psomiadis etc. are demoted and offered as victims to the media and judicial arena in order to show the extension and depth of “cleansing” of the system. At the same time, through justice democracy turns against its bastard child, the fascist garbage, which temporarily believed that they were standing on their own two feet and tried to be autonomous, claiming some vital space – an expression they like – from the political/economic system that had raised and harboured them for so many years. Neither the civil parties, nor the judicial ones and their political superiors, nor the journalists suddenly “awoke” and “discovered” the fascist danger. All of them, together with the “enraged and indignant” voters of the fascists realized, a bit late to tell the truth, that the puppy grows and can also bite its owner if the leash is not tightened. For about 25 years that the media has been raging about “foreign criminals” or “national honour” because of sporting events, paving the way for State and para-State pogroms, as far as the whole authoritarian raff was concerned, there was no fascist danger. This danger became existent when the fascist propaganda began to be influenced by traditional mechanisms in the social body. Despite all this, the regime realizes that the real threat to it is not some of its flushed-out administrators, nor its fascist yard dogs. It knows that the danger of subversion comes from people who realize the dead-ends created by the State and capitalist instituting, who resist the enforced alienation, who refuse to accept complacency and resignation, who analyse, build relations, collectivize and insist on posing the issue of the anarchist revolutionary prospect. I place myself among these people.

After 3 trials in the special courtrooms of democracy I have acquired a clear image of the role of these courts. To sterilize and devitalize the political-social proposal of anarchy. To interpret motives, ideas and acts that aim at revolutionary social change through the prism of the penal code. Within this concept every similar trial is a scheme, not in the legal meaning of the term but the political one. Every attempt to disconnect individual acts from the reason for which they were carried out aims at their criminalization, that is to say their managing by penal oppression, removing them from the context within which they belong. Civil democracy, from the moment it placed, among other things, freedom of expression as its fundamental value, created the contradiction of separating thought and action. Stepping on this value leads to the irrational claim that it does not persecute ideas but acts, as if it were possible for there to be thought without action or vice versa. As if it were ever possible for someone to be possessed by an idea and not try as hard as they could to turn it into action. Having this as a base we put an end to this welter of words concerning the freedom of civil democracy once and for all. Freedom can only exist where desires, thoughts and acts are inseparable, consequently in no authoritarian system. Every such court is a moment in a war that is raging, sometimes with upsurges, other times with remissions.

It is an attempt of the regime to deal with its political opponents. Therefore, I realize that it is an organ to apply policies and only that. As much as it might scare you, you consider this a political trial as much as we do. But you lack the honesty as people and as a force, to admit it. This trial, as well as other similar ones, has as its main charge the violation of articles 187A or the “terror-law” as it is usually called.

This law is applied if the acts it foresees are “the commission of certain offences in a manner or to an extent or in circumstances which may seriously damage a country or an international organization with a view to seriously intimidating a population or compelling an illegal public authority or an international organization to perform any act or to refrain from this or seriously damage or destroy the fundamental constitutional policies, economic structures of a country or an international organization”. So the regime itself took care to give a political tone to this specific law. How else could one interpret the pressure applied by someone on a country, a public authority or an international organization, predominantly organs used to apply pressure, if not political pressure? What kind of act is the destruction of fundamental structures of a country if not a political act? It is actually the predominantly political acts, since they change the material terms of existence, as well as the relations developed between people.

As an anarchist I desire and promote the destruction not only of the fundamental but of all structures not only of one country but everywhere and their replacement with free unions of people who will jointly decide and manage their material, spiritual and ethical development. Don’t hide inside your trojan horse, laws such as 187A fortify civil democracy as the most successful political expression of capitalism and different conditions of procedural tackling are foreseen for its enemies. The special lotteries of judges, special transfers, special courtrooms inside prison, the special legislative frame and soon the special conditions of imprisonment is the continuation in the oppressive chain. Law 187 is right now the master-key of penal oppression. Its voting in untied the hands of judiciaries and prosecutors, since because it is absolutely unclear it greatly widened the concept of a member of an organization, simultaneously increasing the sentences for individual acts. So it succeeds in widening the number of people who are placed in judicial captivity and the prolonging of the time of their captivity. Of course this procedure is not independent of general social developments, but I will return to that later. Right now I would like to refer a bit more to the role and attitude of this specific court. In the beginning of the procedure some objections were placed by various defendants concerning the political nature of the trial and the attribution of the political character to the acts on trial – offences/crimes for you -.

Such objections are important to me, not for the exchange of legal arguments between the judges and the advocates, but because of the contradictions that surface. The proposal of the prosecutor, which was adopted by the court in the end, was that the acts cannot be characterized as political since they crash into an objective interpretation of the law. It points out that is, that independently of their subjective will, the perpetrators could not have objectively brought about the destruction of the structures of a country etc, etc. An interpretation that comes into direct contrast with the definition of law 187A, that the acts themselves were capable of damaging the structures of a country and based on which the same judges will convict us. Another example is the issue created with the – completely unsupported on a legal, but completely explainable on a political level – continuation of the detainment of K.Sakkas and Gerasimos Tsakalos from 30 to 36 months.

Although it was a purely legal coup, the Pontius Pilate-like attitude of the judges who avoided taking a position, showed the instrumental opinion they have when they apply their penal code. The chairwoman actually sealed this position with the cynical statement “what would you like the judges to do in such situations?” It took the 38 days of hunger strike for comrade K.Sakkas to accomplish the evident. After his conditional release, the pace of the trial automatically slowed down, proving that the previous acceleration of the procedure aimed solely at the avoiding of releases because of the 30 month detainment limit. The court has offered us many examples of its false policy of intention, but there is a danger that I might ramble on if I were to mention all of them. I think that from all the above mentioned emerges the conclusion that the court is an organ for applying policy. Democracy’s second organ for applying policy that has appeared in this trial is the anti-terrorist force. A force that is considered the elite of the police and which investigates specific acts – armed attacks, robberies etc – committed by individuals with specific political perceptions. According to the police-judiciary frame of thought these acts are included in law 187A. They are that is, offences committed with the intent to harm fundamental policy, constitutional, economic structures etc etc. (In his testimony the antiterrorist cop Christos Maleas mentioned that his force operated an “anarchist division”). Since the antiterrorist force investigates people and acts with specific political stances and targeting, it cannot but have the role of an organ for applying policy. The official title of the anti-terrorist force is – Directorate of Special Crimes of Violence DSCV – Where does that “Special” in the title go to and what does it show, if not the particularity of the “offences” under investigation in relation to the rest? Let’s take a closer look at this specific force. We will see that its officers are implicated in various violations of the penal code. Every now and then the anti-terrorist cops have been accused of protection of night clubs, blackmailing business owners with tapped phone calls, others have been accused in cases of antiquarianism and gold digging. The most grand example is cop Bourdoukoutas, a main witness in another C.C.F. case, who was arrested after a robbery at a betting shop.

Although it is not at all rare for cops from any force to be implicated in their favourite activities, it is even less rare for them to be involved at a political level with candidate or current members of parliament, members of ministries and journalists, just like Hardalias, a main prosecution witness in this as well other trials baptised C.C.F. case. Therefore there is an intense dialysis between the DSCV and other carriers of authority even at an institutionally higher level. And this is because the DSCV is necessary for the functioning of the civil State, for its protection from the domestic enemy, as well as the stabilization of authority poles in the interior of the State mechanism, against other systemic poles. The case being tried is a continuation of a series of trials which were baptised “C.C.F. case”. The police-judiciary authorities unified cases irrelevant to each other and presented the implicated anarchists as operating under a common plan. Simultaneously with the unification there was also the temporal partition of the cases.

The Greek State is not a pioneer in such oppressive plans. In 1995 Italian prosecutor Marini unified a series of cases in State and capitalist targets and attributed them to an alleged organization called O.R.A.I. Back then about 60 anarchists were accused and imprisoned because of their “implication” in a non-existent organization. The Greek authorities are not only following, but are developing the international oppression experience. Special investigators Baldas, Mokkas and Nikolopoulos and prosecutors Dimitriou, Makropoulos and Drakos proved to be smarter and more shrewd than their colleague Marini. The pioneering of the Greek authorities is in that they used an organization that already exists. The name C.C.F. has been used as an umbrella in order to fit under it the various independent cases of anarchists accused of attacks, robberies and possession of weapons and explosives. Simultaneously with the unification there was also the temporal partitioning of the cases. The aim of these police-judicial alchemies is mainly the enforcement of larger sentences on the accused and on a subcutaneous level the spreading of confusion and fear in revolutionary circles. At this point it is important to see how they set up the indictment to involve me and my comrades Mitrousias, Sakkas and Antoniou with the C.C.F. After our arrest the authorities implicated us in the integration and participation in an “unknown (!!) terrorist organization”, which had not carried out any specific attack. The authorities thought back then that with the evidence they would discover after our arrest, enough charges would surface in order to send us to prison for many years. 3 months after our arrest and while nothing new had come up, the representatives of the anti-terrorist force, quadruplet Baldas-Mokkas and Dimitriou-Makropoulos announced to us that we were accused – the second time for me and Aexandros – of integration in the C.C.F. Almost simultaneously they implicated us in the case of the parcel bombs as well.

A year later, and again without anything new having come up, they implicated us in 160 previous incendiary and explosive attacks, the responsibility for which had already been claimed by the C.C.F. All of these detainments had a clear instrumental character, our integration into the C.C.F. is to accomplish our lengthy imprisonment, and the case of the 160 attacks was to prevent the release of Kostas because the 18 month detainment period had ended. Because the permanent refrain of the judicial cyborgs when trying revolutionaries is that “we examine culpable acts and not ideas” let’s take a look at the facts, using as a lead the testimony of the then head of division of the anti-terrorist force Eleytherios Hardalias and his subordinate Panagiotis Bagatelas. Both stressed how the counter-surveillance measures we took were and the operational alertness we showed in our movements had increased. As much as that might be true, since I and Alexandros were wanted, we were in no way a structured group. The moment of our arrest alone is enough to make this claim fall. Kostas and Alexandros were arrested outside the store-room in Nea Smirni and simultaneously I was being arrested in a barbershop in Pireus. The other three comrades were detained during their every day activities, Michail and Adoniou at their homes and Christos Politis at a shop. All during our surveillance (20 days according to the D.S.C.V.) they did not discover any contact between us and members of the C.C.F. despite the fact that a few days earlier two of its members were arrested and their contacts and communications would have been increased between its members. During this period no unlawful activity was discovered. The surveillance carried out by the anti-terrorist force only refers to meetings between us -Kostas, Alexandros and me – as well as other irrelevant individuals. Concerning me, actually, the testimonies speak of a visit of mine to Agrinio, my return to Athens three days later, the purchase of a shovel and that is all. Not only is there no proof, but not even an indication, that we are implicated in any way with members or acts of the C.C.F. There is no proof, not even an indication that we were members of an “unknown terrorist organization” that has carried out “unknown acts”. This whole case was set up by the persistence of the anti-terrorist force to present us as a structured group. Whoever remembers the media climate during the days of our arrest, surely cannot forget that we were named as members of the then known organizations.

A year later the then minister of public order Pappoutsis stated that he had been deceived by the anti-terrorist force and gave the green light for our arrests, because of the upcoming landmark December 6^th anniversary. The only success the anti-terrorist had concerning the operation on 4/12/10 was that it arrested two wanted anarchists, Alexandros and me, as well as my friends and comrades Kostas and Stella who each one in their own way stood in solidarity to us during our time underground. Despite that the fact that the anti-terrorist force knew from the start that the only people related to the findings were Kostas, Alexandros and me, neither the cops nor their puppets Baltas-Mokkas and Dimitriou-Makropoulos hesitated to target other anarchists, even people whom we did not know, like in the case of Christos Politis. The apex of all this methodology was the implication of 3 members of the C.C.F. as managing executives in our case as well. As well as the fact that with no contact orders cannot be given, all of us who were arrested on 4/12/10 stated that we are anarchists. This means that hierarchy does not mediate our relations, we factually dismiss every authoritarian way of operation. We do not accept anyone as a leader, just like we do not accept anyone as a representative. This charge has appeared in all similar trials.

Those who draw up and examine these indictments – antiterrorist officers, special investigators and prosecutors, special courts – project the dominant model of organization and operation into anarchist structures, in a further attempt to remove the political identity of the accused, apart from the legally impaired measurement of sentences. Because the relations we build now also reflect the relations of tomorrow, we insist as anarchists to operate in a horizontal and anti-hierarchical way. Full stop. In order for the anti-terrorist force and their judicial subalterns to make their stories more realistic, people were arrested, abused, photographed, imprisoned and accused. This is where the unmistakeable ethical difference lies between us and you. When the State mechanisms target a revolutionary, they simultaneously target their wider friendly and personal environment. On the contrary, when an executive of the State mechanism is targeted by revolutionaries the targeting is concentrated specifically on them. In the case of the arrests on 4/12/10 the police-judicial authorities attempted for the first time to enforce various tricks in order to overcome the lack of substantial incriminating evidence. I referred earlier to the charges of participation in an “unknown terrorist organization”. This charge was used by the anti-terrorist force and the special investigators for 3 months and finally they replaced it with “participation in the C.C.F”, thinking that in this way they would accomplish the coveted lengthy sentences, since the “unknown terrorist organization” did not go down so well as an inspiration.

The same charge was repeated a month after our arrests, with the arrests of 4 wanted anarchists in Thessaloniki. That case reached the trial with this charge, showing the path oppression has decided to take in order to overcome the non-existence of proof. The deliberate vagueness of Law 187 and 187A is the guarantee that the legal status quo of exclusion will widen and become more and more permanent if there are no political barriers from the accused and the political spaces which perceive this need.

In our case, people were literally created and placed at various places and times. An unknown man “blond, unshaven, about 30 years old” according to the testimonies of Hardalias-Bagatelas, was the one who offered me counter-surveillance while I was getting off a bus at Agrinio bus station. In a weird coincidence the same person appears to meet with Christos Politis and Kostas Sakkas at different places and times. This person, unknown till then, – again, according to the testimonies of the cops – therefore, connects 3 different people (Ch.Politis, K.Sakkas and me) who have no other contact. This person was recognized after almost 2 years and following an anonymous phone call, and again according to Hardalias, as Tasos Theofilou. He was accused of robbery and homicide in Paros, was presented as a murderer and suffered all the treatment reserved for those targeted by the police-judicial complex. For the record I want to mention that I met Theofilou in prison and had never seen him before then. What is the anti-terrorist force trying to tell us here? That it follows someone for a few days, sees their meetings with others, at some point they arrest the others without someone to connect them, and then after two years when they arrest him [the first] for another case they accuse him for the original case as well. This sequence of events reveals the rationale with which the police-judicial authorities “solve” cases when evidence is absent. Let us not forget that, again according to Hardalias, Kostas met up in Nafpaktos island with an “unknown unshaven man around 30 years old” and in Agrinio with “a woman about 1.55cm tall who was carrying a rucksack”. As with Theofilou, we are speaking of descriptions that resemble thousands of people and when the (police) occasion demands it someone who fits the description can be accused again for this case.

At this point it is important to point out the lies Hardalias-Bagatelas said in their testimonies concerning my surveillance. According to their testimonies, therefore, they saw me for the first time on 30/11/10 at Agrinio bus station coming off a bus with an individual – who two years later was recognized as Theofilou – who was covering me with counter-surveillance. So let me accept the claim that there was in fact someone with me at Agrinio bus station. First question:Since the cops who were there did not see me communicate (verbally, over the phone or with signals) how do they figure that we were together? Why would a cop who sees two unknown individuals, one they have seen before meeting up with another “suspect”, one they have never seen, and instead of following the first follow the second? The answer of Bagatelas to these two questions was the “police criterion”. Second question:Hardalias mentions that while I was collecting my luggage from the bus the unknown man was standing right next to me and observed the area. Bagatelas -who was an eye-witness according to his testimony – says that the unknown man moved away about 10-15m, a not so small distance for operational surveillance in a small, rural bus station. If two cops disagree on something so simple it is simply because there was no one there with me.

Third question:How can someone offer cover to another person when they are travelling in the same means of transport? What more can they see and warn about? Absolutely nothing. Fourth question:The bus station in Agrinio is full of CCTV cameras. Although images from such cameras were brought from other places, – ie. Pireus bank, the Praktiker shop – the anti-terrorist force did not show the same zeal for images from the bus station that would also help them to identify an unknown individual. Why is that?

The above questions-reflections are rhetorical and are susceptible to only one answer. That the cops are lying when they say that there was another person with me at the bus station. They also lie when saying that Christos Politis who happened at some point to pass through 3 roads down from Praxitelous street was offering counter-surveillance to Alexandros. It is clear from the above that the anti-terrorist force creates impressions that are later validated by the investigators in order to widen the repressive circles. Another question that arises has to do with the checking of my identity card. Hardalias-Bagatelas mention that up until the moment they took me to Athens police headquarters I did not answer their questions about my name and did not give my fingerprints. Then how is it that Papathanasakis-Hardalias called me by my name from the start? How is it that 4 hours after my arrest they was a raid on my parents house? My name was already known to them, they knew who they had arrested and they had proven it in this way: On 1/12/10 while I was walking in a semi-central street of the city of Agrinio I noticed a car in the middle of the street. When I got closer the passenger came out and asked me to help push it while the driver remained in the car.

Of course I accepted and thus I left my finger prints on the car which led to my identification. This is to notify other comrades who might deal with a similar situation. The creation of false impressions in order to promote the repressive plan did not only concern the presence of people in places and times and non-existent contacts with others, but went a step beyond. Police oppression marries scientific knowledge in order to create scientific repression. The use of DNA as proof is the touchstone of scientific repression in the era we are living in. The police investigation presents it as the absolute method of identifying penal offences and usually the judicial authority is willing to accept the police proposal. Using a clearly scientific method, the police investigation dresses it with the cloak of objectivity and claims the infallibility of its findings. In a previous stage of the procedure it was analysed by a witness-specialist that DNA cannot in any scientifically accepted way be a presumption of contact of someone with objects or prove their presence at spaces.

As anyone can easily conclude, the biological material of someone can be transferred to and from anyone who has come into contact with them. Also, cops-witnesses of the DSCV who testified – among them also Bagatelas – mentioned the sketchiness with which the first investigations were carried out on our objects and houses, something that was covered with the references of the criminal laboratories concerning the “justifiably insulted”. All of this are of course known to the cops of the DSCV and the bio-crime laboratories, as well as the special investigators. The acceptance of DNA as proof simply legitimises in an “objective-indisputable” way, the creation of the tangent circles of acquaintances aiming at the establishing of the police-judicial scenarios. Specifically in our case, DNA was used in order to create a false image. The finding of an unidentified up to now, DNA type named X15, which was found -according to the police – in our space as well as at the house of an anarchist accused in the Revolutionary Struggle case, is used as a confirmation of the police theory of “fluid-pressure transmission”, the theory that proposes that those who are accused of participation in armed revolutionary organizations necessarily have personal relations as well. The existence of dozens of unknown types of DNA which have been connected with the cases baptised C.C.F. await their identification accordingly with the individuals I mentioned above unknown to the investigators. In another arrest of one of these people for another reason the charge of participation in the C.C.F. will also be added based on the DNA findings. In reality the widening of the use of this method, equally widens social control. The violent extraction of DNA from the anarchists arrested for various cases, the blackmailing extraction from dozens of villagers in Halkidiki, the snatching of personal objects in order to take biological material from the houses of anarchists in the raids of the last two months, without mentioning hundreds of other penal cases, show the intention of dominance to create bio-databases, giving priority to the anarchists as the most radical and therefore dangerous to it, social part. The revealing of the methods of the enemy is important when it becomes a vested experience of the revolutionary movement. In the cases baptised C.C.F. alone there are dozens of people who were followed, arrested, some were photographed and imprisoned only to be acquitted, in the end, of all charges. A naïve approach would present the anti-terrorist cops, special investigators and prosecutors as goofy, Clouseau-like or useless.

I believe that these alleged mistakes are part of the plan to widen repression. When there is an attempt to attribute a criminal tint to peoples’ relations who simply belong to the same political revolutionary space that is no mistake, on the contrary the oppressive plan evolves and improves. Contrary to this the internalization of fear and the introversion pave the way for such oppressive moves. On the contrary, aggressive anarchist action can only deal with the enemy in all fields, political, ideological, organizational, military. This is where my mentioning of the facts in the indictments ends and I continue my political statement. As of September ’09 when the warrant was put out for my arrest, I chose to go underground.

This is a dilemma that anyone who integrates themself on the side of revolution could come up against, and everyone answers differently, even if the same person might answer differently in different situations of their life. My decision was a combination of my anarchist political perception, since I did not intend to willingly leave myself to the judgement of the judicial lackeys, and a love for freedom. Actually, when I think about it more coldly, I conclude that this instinctive tension of mine for the sweet feel of freedom, is still more intense than my political decision to not surrender. The findings implicating me (weapons, false documents, houses) are also related to this choice of mine and my general hostile stance towards the State and capital. Clandestinity is a choice that has been taken by thousands of revolutionaries in history and as for me I continue to support it at a political, as well as emotional level, for any individual who has decided to maintain or re-gain their freedom. Moreover, when there is a political motive, it is another choice of struggle, a militant choice, and revolutionaries must defend it as such.

The choice of clandestinity has a great cost for every person, since they are violently separated from their loved ones, they cease their relations, and their contacts are very selective.

For a political subject this choice carries an extra weight, since they are removed from the wider social/political zymosis to a great degree, and the interaction with many comrades is especially limited. In this condition the conflict with the State mechanisms adopts an exclusively militant character, a field where the State has the upper hand. All this of course is balanced out with the freedom of movement you acquire when you move around invisible among the repressive mechanisms. The satisfaction of moving around without identity cards, without anything connecting you with the existing mediated social relations, is something indescribable. I can unreservedly say that the time I was underground were the freest days of my life.

Law 187 names as criminal organizations “structured groups of 3 or more individuals, with distinctive roles and constant action aiming at committing some offences, and members are those who willingly subjugate their free will for the aims of the organization”.

Very simply, therefore, criminal organizations are: -The bank groups, broker companies, investment conglomerates, industrial multinationals, and others, and their members are those who in any way contribute to the smooth operations of these institutions.

They are accused of: Committing, aiding and abetting the multiple and continuous murders of thousands, robberies, fraud, blackmail, mortgaging and destruction of the future of the next generations and desertification of entire geographical areas. -All sorts of politicians and their councillors-court flatterers, who take on the managing of the profits of the preceding criminal organization.

They are accused of: Committing, aiding and abetting the multiple and continuous murders of thousands, of robberies, frauds, blackmails, mortgaging and destruction of the future of the next generations. -The uniformed murderers of the armed forces and security forces, who secure the two previous criminal organizations with their enforcement strength on the rest of the people and are responsible in oppressing every attempt of resistance.

They are accused of: Committing, aiding and abetting the multiple and continuous murder of thousands, torture and rape in police stations, immigrant concentration camps, on land and sea borders, the streets, of robberies, blackmail, drug dealing and people-trafficking. -The judicial body that takes on the task of punishing whoever goes against the orders of the three first criminal organizations and every judge, prosecutor and the rest of the personnel that staff them. They are accused of: Thousands of kidnappings of people whom they bury in prisons, aiding and abetting the multiple and continuous murder of thousands that take place in prisons, robberies and blackmail.

The correctional body and every prison director, screw and the rest of the staff who in any way contribute to the smooth operation of the most inhumane institution of civil democracy. They are accused of: Dozens of homicides every year, tortures, blackmails and drug dealing.

The Media complex from owners of TV channels up to the last journalist who provides coverage to all the above criminal organizations, being complicit with the above crimes.

All the above criminal organizations have a hierarchical structure and continuous action. Acting in coordination and jointly operated in fact, in a way, extension and under conditions that seriously harmed the country and its population. Therefore, there is a serious reason to enforce law N.187A. These are the real terrorist organizations and these are the charges attributed to them. That is where the terror derives from and not from those who choose to attack them in any way. They are tried every day by revolutionaries in all corners of the earth. They will be completely condemned, when the prior social apathy is denatured into enraged conscience and organizational skills. Do not worry however, honourable judges and other members of the rest of the terrorist organization. You will not be tried with your own rotten legal code, but with the code dictated by the insurgent dignity towards the dominators.

For years now it’s become evident in the Greek territory as well that capital is restructuring the State towards a more concentrated form, that can guarantee the continuation of its profitability, at a domestic, as well at an international level. This is why the State is fortifying itself politically, technologically, legally, militarily and ideologically. The system is trying to overcome its contradictions and get organized on a more organizationally upgraded level.

Those of us who recognize ourselves as revolutionaries need to reveal and intensify its contradictions, organize and attack it on all levels. Where the regime speaks of crisis, we can once again place the matter of revolution. The overcoming of the crisis can be answered only in an absolute way.

The destruction of all authority, the State and capital in our lives. Anarchy. During my political statement I avoided speaking in terms of innocence or guilt. I am an anarchist and I do not care for this procedure. I believe that such trials are not of interest because of their legal consequences, but because of its wider social and political extensions. In public texts, as well as in this courtroom, I have stated that I am not a member of the C.C.F. However I am consciously guilty of being an anarchist, proud of my guilt, and I will defend it, if this guilt concerns my belonging to the anarchist movement and my aggressive stance towards dominance. This is why I believe this court has no jurisdiction to try me, or any revolutionary action. Just as oppression, resignation, authoritarian paranoia and mediation have no place in courtrooms, thus there is no place for resistance, dignity and solidarity. These are social relations, they are judged and judge every moment.

Concluding my political statement I would like to clarify that I will accept no questions from the judges. I do not wish to open a dialogue with representatives of the judicial authority, just like I avoided during this whole procedure to thoroughly answer to the comments of the chairman and prosecutor. I save my last words for my friend and comrade Kostas Sakkas, with whom we shared clandestinity, prison and a part of this trial. My friend and comrade who fought all odds against police-judicial totalitarianism and his struggle inspired a multi-form movement of solidarity. My friend and comrade who insists on demanding his freedom he gained with such difficulty. We continue… “Until the end, until victory…”