We took the political responsibility for participation in the organization Revolutionary Struggle. Consciously we did not choose to position ourselves concerning the “story” that was presented to us here by the witness Papathanasakis -which of course, was transferred to him-, the facts he described and what the ΔΑΕΕΒ (special violent crime squad) judged as enough proof to proceed to arrests. We consciously chose to not go into the process of speaking of phone conversations, mobile phones, the appointments presented by the ΔΑΕΕΒ, to distance ourselves from the investigation carried out by the advocates -and only by them since until this moment at least the judges have not preformed any significant examination of this specific witness-, on whether they were serious, real, worthy, capable enough to go ahead to arrests and imprisonments.
We consciously chose to not go into the process to insult the anyway generalized, unsound and unclear “condemnation” of the specific witness. Besides, as he himself has repeatedly said, every one of these facts he presents on it own means nothing.
And of course, he does not have anything to tell us concerning the matter which is the substantial proof of “guilt” of each one of the accused and the main thing, he has confessed that there is no evidence neither for the actions neither for the charge of “managing” neither for the organization itself or its function.
We believe that this testimony did not change anything of what existed until today. All charges continue to be up in the air and none of them has been connected with real incidents which they prove as they should.
But the fact that we took the political responsibility for participation in Revolutionary Struggle does not mean that any placement of Papathanasakis concerning one of the three of us should be taken as a fact. The same goes for the advocates. Which means that it cannot be that while there is a clear attempt of disputing his testimony concerning one of the accused, and at the same time taking for granted his testimony concerning one of us who have taken the political responsibility. We do not accept the legalization in any way of any information of the anti-terrorist force i.e. the presence of one of us at a rendezvous, irrelevantly if we have mentioned that. Our silence does not mean and must not be interpreted as an acceptance of whatever incidents and narrations.
The fact that we have taken the political responsibility does not mean that we accept the work of the anti-terrorist force, the evidence and incidents they present and the charges they accuse us of.
Claim of political responsibility d
oes not mean in any way acceptance of the charges or incidents, evidence and information of the persecutory mechanisms. Despite the fact that we considered this obvious to everyone, we are obliged from the development of the procedure to intervene to make these points and ask that our position is respected.
Pola Roupa, Kostas Gournas, Nikos Maziotis