The investigation into the case of telephone monitoring, which has cast a heavy shadow on the political scene for the last two years, may have been completed with the filing of the case file by the Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court regarding the EYP (as no common center was found between of that particular service and the companies involved with the Predator malware), however many questions remain unanswered.
In fact, the answers do not only concern the victims of wiretapping who had stated from the beginning that they were “present” at all stages of the criminal proceedings, expecting the justice system not to leave any side of the complex case unlit, but also the citizens themselves, who during this time they follow the development of an investigation related to the security of their personal communications, as well as the communications of opposition figures, the leadership of the army, senior prosecutors and journalists, and finally see it end up in the file.
According to legal sources who have knowledge of all the thousands of pages of the case file and the multi-page opinion, which saw the light of day despite being archived, the following questions arise:
Full clarification of why all these high-ranking officials were put under surveillance
1. If the monitoring of some top government officials is legal and justified, based on the existing legislation, do not questions arise about the ability of these people to hold their positions?
Would not the preservation of the prestige of leading institutions of the state, such as the Armed Forces, the Judiciary, the parties, require the full clarification of the reason for which all these high-ranking officials had been placed under surveillance?
The doctrine “no one is exempt from surveillance” can find a constitutional basis only when there is a justifying reason and indeed of such importance that it makes such a burdensome measure necessary. In the case of the specific surveillance, when the targets include the leader of a political party, the head of GEETHA, top ministers and judicial officials, if nothing else the Greek people are entitled to know why it was deemed necessary to declassify their communications and whether that reason ultimately confirmed or not by the findings. This would be the only event capable of… pulling the “curtain” of doubt that will cast its shadow heavily on democracy.
There are “threads” that connect the specific businessmen with the persons under surveillance
2. The businessmen for whom “sufficient evidence” was considered to arise, as indicated by the evaluation of the evidence and in the conclusion of the deputy prosecutor of the Supreme Court Achilles Lifefor what reason were they monitoring the specific persons and on behalf of whom or which persons?
Are there “threads” that connect the specific businessmen with the persons under surveillance to justify such an action, or is there some unknown moral author who from the background gave orders and moved these “threads”? And finally, the same businessmen, against whom the misdemeanor prosecution was initiated, alone activated the system with which the mobiles of the monitored were infected, or were there others from their companies who had knowledge and participatory action in the execution of the criminal act?
The expert opinion that stopped at the EYP and left the mobile phone providers aside
3. Why did the expert opinion, which was carried out at the end of the investigation, stop at EYP and not proceed with the search for the data from the mobile phone providers? Was it not considered necessary for its completeness to verify, through the providers, the data provided by the specific controlled service at the time?
This specific action, i.e. the search for information from the providers, is estimated by lawyers to be an integral part of the investigation in order to be able to complete the preliminary investigation with objectivity and completeness. They even point out that the expert opinion could have been done earlier in order to give the possibility to the victims of surveillance to appoint their own technical advisor.
“creative generalization”
4. Why do the experts state in their report that “it becomes apparent that there is no correlation between the declassification provisions and the alleged contaminations”, when they were never asked to give an opinion on this?
The expert’s conclusion, according to sources from the courts, about no correlation has absolutely nothing to do with reality, as it is based on a “creative generalization” of the absolute number of 15,304 declassification orders between the years 2020-2023. No reduction in the totality of the provisions was requested for the very simple reason that there is no corresponding evidence that these remaining citizens were sent a suspected trap message.
The victims of surveillance who were never called to testify
5. Why weren’t the victims of the surveillance who had not voluntarily appealed to the Court asked to testify?
What all the persons who were “dual targets” (Predator and EYP) have in common is that they held extremely important positions, managed matters of the highest importance and became privy to absolutely confidential and classified documents and information. Shouldn’t they be called to testify about attempted or completed Predator spyware entrapments against them when there is a huge risk that information critical to the agencies they served may have been leaked?
In addition, they could be asked why, while they have received a relevant letter since July 2023, they have not appealed to Justice asking for the punishment of the culprits, as they should from their position.
The witnesses who did not testify
6. Why weren’t other important witnesses called to testify, who were associates of the criminally controlled businessmen and had been indicated in time with memoranda they had submitted to the Court under surveillance, contributing this, as well as other evidence, to the full and substantial investigation of the case?
However, for their part, the victims of the eavesdropping are studying all possibilities with their legal teams, with their eyes even on the European Court of Human Rights, so that the investigation into this case concerning the rule of law is not closed. and to institutionally clarify the unclear, at their discretion, points of it.
#Wiretapping #finding #microscope
