[ALBSA-Info] Greek court's decision on an Aromunian activist

[Agron Alibali]

ATHENS COURT OF THE FIRST INSTANCEDecision No 11263/20001THE THREE-MEMBER MISDEMEANORS COURT OF ATHENSConsisted of	a) the Judge of the First Instance Court, Zoe Kostojianni -President of the Court of the First Instance			b) The Misdemeanors Judge Maria Ralli-Katrivanou 			c) The Misdemeanors Judge Stamata Petsali d) The Public Prosecutor of the Court of First Instance Nikolaos Seintis 	Held an open court session on February 2, 2001, with the collaboration ofTheanitsa Ioannou -Secretary	In order to judge the case:	Of the defendant Sotiri Bletsa, a resident of Athens (Vas. Herakleiou 22),who was present in court, and compiled the following records of the court:	During today's open court sitting the President of the Court announced thename of the defendant who, after he appeared and was asked by the Presidentabout his identity etc., replied that his name is as it is inscribed aboveand that he is appointing as his counsel the lawyer Mr. Lambro Baltsioti,who was present in court (Registration No 19690/Athens Bar Association).	The President of the Court advised the defendant to attend to theindictment against him and to the deliberations that were going to beconducted. Simultaneously she informed him that he had the right to object, to give afull account of his pleadings and to submit his objections at the end ofthe examination of every witness and during the investigation of anyprobative evidence. The public prosecutor, when he took the podium, brought the charge witha-concise accuracy and added in support of the indictment that he hadsummoned witnesses for the prosecution, whose names were listed below theindictment. The president of the court called out their names. They werefound present in court. Then the President asked the defendant to provide ageneral account of the action for which he was accused and simultaneouslyshe informed him that his defense would take place after the completion ofthe probative proceedings. 	The defendant provided the information requested of him and declared thathe had summoned as defense witnesses Mr. Gregorio Ontria and Ms AlexandraIoannidou.The President called the names of the witnesses for the prosecution and forthe defense that had been summoned and they were present.	Afterwards, when all other witnesses had left the courtroom, in accordancewith the provision of Article 350 of the Penal Code, the first witness forthe prosecution remained and responded to the relevant questions addressedto him by the President. He replied that his name is Eugenios Haitidis, [heis the son] of Demetrios and Olga, he was born in Serres and still residesthere at 25 Merarchias Street. He is 58 yeas old, a civil engineer, and aChristian Orthodox Greek citizen. He also said that he is merely acquaintedwith the defendant and that he was not related to him.Consequently he swore, in accordance with the provision of Article 218 ofthe Penal Code, on the Holy Book and under investigation he testified:	"I am an MP for the prefecture of Serres, a civil engineer. I becameacquainted with the defendant in Naousa, on July 1, 1995. Yearly thePan-Hellenic Union of Vlach Cultural Associations holds an event, the danceof the Greek Vlachs. The Union invited me [to this dance]. The "meeting ofthe Vlachs" was about the traditions of the Vlachs. They have certainmanners and customs that do not take anything away from theircharacteristic of being Greek. At some point, I heard a fuss. I saw theheads of the Union quarrelling with Mr. Bletsa. Mr. Bletsa was distributinga specific leaflet entitled "The Lesser Used Languages of the EuropeanUnion". He had a bag full of leaflets. The defendant was distributing thisleaflet. He was trying (addressing himself to the Vlachs, who participatein these types of events, to persuade them that: "You constitute a Vlachminority and that you must claim your rights and I have come to inform you"These phrases were uttered before the disturbance started. They said tohim: "What is that you are saying"? The leaflet was issued by anon-governmental organization. In an attempt to give validity andlegitimacy to this publication he said that the "Bureau of the Lesser UsedLanguages of Europe" issued it. He insistently continued saying to theVlach bystanders: "You constitute a Vlach minority and you must claim yourrights". Many languages were mentioned; Romanian with red color, Turkish,Bulgarian (i.e., that in Greece these languages are spoken). They arereferenced in this leaflet. The defendant was interested in and mentionedthe Vlachian language by word of mouth. There was also mentioned that inEurope in certain regions besides the official languages other languagesare spoken too. He had a map. There exists confusion between languages andidioms. The defendant refers to the Vlachian language. A deliberate mix upis created between Aroumanian language and Romanian. A systematic effort ismade to present this issue as if it is about Romanian-Vlachs and notGreek-Vlachs. That is why scholarships are offered. He was trying toproselytize them. The defendant has made statements in the newspaper"Elefterotypia" about the real existence of these languages and [how theminorities speaking them] must co-operate so as to be able to claim theirrights in Greece, [presumably] because in Greece they are persecuted. Itrefers to the Slavo-Macedonian language, which is how he characterizesMakedonski, Turkish, and Arvanitika (Arberichte). These languages are notspoken in Greece. Some isolated individuals speak them. There are noindividuals [groups] who consciously speak them. I have nothing personal togain or any other purpose [in saying this]. They are trying to provide apicture of Greece as a mosaic. This is my anxiety. In the leafletdistributed by the defendant is mentioned that in Greece there are 5languages spoken. Organized groups do not speak [these languages]. I am arefugee. Half of the Greeks speak English, but that does not make them aminority. Every one who speaks a foreign language does not constitute aminority. Minority, as an organized group, is something different. There isa difference between idioms and languages. Idiom is the Cretan or Cypriot[way of speaking]. But on the whole [such an idiom] it is still the Greeklanguage. It is false with the meaning assigned to it by the defendant.These are not spoken languages. They are idioms. The accusation isrestricted to the Vlachs. It is false to say that there is a Vlachianlanguage when it is an idiom. Some people in the region of Thrace speak theTurkish language. In Greece, except the Greek language English is spokenand certain dialects-variations of Greek language. It is not that they arerecognized. There are other publications as well. Inside politicalformations there are organizations in which the defendant participates.This has seriously preoccupied the parliament and the media. All officialVlach organizations condemn the defendant. The defendant's Organizationserves other purposes. Already trouble has been created and the police haveintervened. [The people he was speaking to] objected and replied: "We areGreeks, we have our ways of living". The defendant was still trying topersuade them that they were a minority. The Vlachs are, like theSarakatsanae or the Thracian etc. These groups have created a distinctiveway of life. The Vlachs were employed as guards in Engatia Avenue. Theycreated a history out of the place they lived. They never stopped beingGreeks. Their Associations prove this. The Vlachs were dispersed all overthe Balkans. In Koritsa were 2500 Vlachs. They are in Skopia and inAlbania. They are Greeks who have been dispersed in different places. TheGreeks of the Black Sea are not less Greek. There are severalnon-governmental organizations in Europe, which sometimes appear as if theyhave philanthropic aims. If they had noble aspirations they would have beeninterested in all minorities. In an interview given on February 9, 1997,[the defendant] said that it was a mistake that we did not joint forceswith the Turks, the Pomaks, and he comes from Trikala. I do not know him. Isaw him there and here in court. The festival takes place all over Greece.It includes all the recognized [Vlach] societies. I do not know if the sameperson or others repeated [this type of trouble] in the past. I know thatthere are several people who collaborate with or are directed by [someone]to try to portray Greece as a mosaic. They acknowledge that there areseveral languages. The European Union does not recognize Aroumanian. Thereis a difference between Romanian and Aroumanian. In the leaflet they speakabout Romance Language (Romanian Languages). I am not aware of anystatement Mr. Karamanlis made. I do not know if there are anyannouncements. I have not done specific studies in linguistics. I havestudied the grammar of Koutsovlachian, I do not know [the language]. The"Rainbow" spoke of the existence of the Macedonians. My grandparents spokeTurkish but they were Greeks. That did not make them a linguistic minority.I do not know a word in Turkish. They never taught me. I visited the townof Orini in Serres. There they speak a local Greek idiom. I communicatedwith them in Greek. The defendant has signed an affidavit regarding thismatter. 	Next another prosecution witness came in and when he was asked by thePresident of the Court about his identity he replied that his name isGeorgios Makris, of Constantine, he was born in Mikropoli Dramas, he is 47years old and resides in Prosotsani Drama's, a high school teacher and aChristian Orthodox. He also testified that he is merely acquainted with thedefendant and that he was not related to him or with the injured party.Following, the witness swore on the Holy Book in accordance with Article218 of the Penal Code and under examination he testified: 	"I am the Mayor of Drama. I was General Secretary of the Pan-HellenicUnion of Vlach Cultural Associations. On July 1, 1995 the event "meeting[of the Vlachs]" took place in Naousa. I was the organizer of the event andthe person responsible for making it happen. I met the defendant. In theprogram a visit to the Town Hall was scheduled. All the associations linedup. At the scheduled meeting time for the visit to the Town Hall weobserved a disturbance. A young person came and told me that somebody wasdistributing certain leaflets in English and that he saw that it [thepublication] referred to certain languages in Greece, it was written in theEnglish language. He pointed out to us who had given him this publication.He was Mr. Bletsa. He had a package. We did not see him distributing. Thedancer pointed him out to us. We reproved him saying: "What are you doinghere?" His reply was: "We have a democracy and we can do what we want." Wesaid: "We have a democratic right to distribute leaflets but [you should]not [do it] in our event". We are trying to keep what we believe toourselves. He was aware of the positions of the Pan-Hellenic Union of VlachCultural Associations. We have our own traditions. They are identical toGreek ways of living. Mr. Bletsas was President of the Aroumanian Cultural[Association]. They did not even bring us their Articles of Association.Their positions were different from ours. He did not deny the fact that hedistributed them. [The publication] mentioned that besides Greek, theMacedonian, Bulgarian, Aromanian, Arvanitika (Arberichte) and Turkishlanguages are spoken. I do not know if the Pomanian is a language or anidiom. Aromanian is an idiom. I do not know if the Turkish language isspoken. In my region it is not spoken. The spreading of fallaciousinformation in an event such as this, in the form of diffused propaganda asto the culture, was aimed at creating a disturbance, trouble. They wereready to lynch him. The question is why was he distributing them. Itamounts to that he was coming to dispute what we believe. We do not accepthis views. He generated indignation. Most people are aware that there areno minorities. These types of publications though could create theimpression to people who have not dealt with these issues that there reallyexist minority problems (confusion). I believe he was aware of this. Ithink the defendant is of the Polytechnic. All contacts I had [with him]were here in court. In the 1st court he gave the impression that he did notknow. Later he changed his mind. He is aware of the facts. The Aroumanianlanguage does not have any relation to the Romanian [language]. And in theVlachian "Vlach" means "Romie" [Greek]. They call "Vlachs" all those whohad the Latin. It is spoken and it was always spoken at home. In thefamily, among each other, they spoke this idiom. Not outside. There wasnever inclination for the creation of Vlachian schools. In accordance withthe Bucharest Treaty of 1913, it was recognized. The defendant wasdistributing the publication. He must have had 2 to 3 more individuals[helping him]. We spoke to the particular individual. We told him that thiswas not an acceptable way of acting and that he should leave. It was thefirst time I ascertained this fact. It did not change my belief. Itgenerated indignation. It disturbed public order. It did not produce thefeeling that they are not Greeks. I speak Vlachian. The Vlachs speak Greekand Vlachian. The songs are in Vlachian. It does not pose a problem. I haveheard in the past talk about other languages. Nobody creates any problem orsecond class citizens. If he wants to protect the Arvanitika (Arberichte)he should organize an event. In these meetings they speak Vlachian. I knowMr. Katsani. The Koutsovlachian language was taught at the AristotelianUniversity of Thessaloniki. There is a difference between registering itscientifically and presenting it the way they do. Mr. Katsanis knowsVlachian. They pointed the defendant out to me and I saw him holding theleaflets". 	Lastly, another prosecution witness was called and when the President ofthe Court asked him about his identity he replied that his name is IoannisZaparas of Eyaggelos, he was born in Serres, 58 years of age. He resides inSerres at 9 Papafotiou Street; he is an employee of the GreekTelecommunication Corporation (OTE) and a Christian Orthodox. He toodeclared that he is merely acquainted with the defendant and that he is notrelated to him or to the injured party. Then, the witness swore on the HolyBook in accordance with Article 218 of the Penal Code and under examinationhe testified:	"I am an employee of the Greek Telecommunications Corporation. I aminvolved in deliveries. On July 1, 1995 I took part in the meeting ofVlachs. I know the defendant by sight. I met him there. The youngsters ofmy association had gathered there waiting for the event to begin. They toldme that the leaflet refers to Romanian languages and that this is somethingthat should concerns us. It must have been written in English. I saw thepublication. The youngsters were outraged about what they read about theRomanian language. There is propaganda that, all the Vlachs in Greececonstitute a Romanian minority, while the Vlachs are Greeks. I don't thinkthat there can be found people who are more Greeks than the Vlachs.Bulgarian and Turkish are spoken in Greece. In some villages of Thracepeople speak Turkish. I do not know if they speak it as a language or anidiom. They speak Bulgarian alongside Greek. I do not know if it is alanguage or an idiom. In the mountainous areas of Thessaly, Epirus and ofPindos, they do not speak the Romanian language. A Vlachian idiom is spokenand not the Romanian as a language. From what I have heard, in some areasthey speak Arvanitika (Arberichte). I do not know if it is a language or anidiom. Ôï people who are knowledgeable about these issues it does not posea problem. [To them] they could not create the impression [that this is]about minorities. The Vlachs are aware that they are do not constitute aminority. I did not see the defendant distributing the leaflets. I saw himholding the leaflets. I do not know how many they were. [The publication]generated the indignation of the people attending the event because of whatit said about the Vlachs. They were not true. It marked the areas of Greecewhere people speak other languages besides Greek. [The publication] couldnot create doubt about their beliefs. I do not know what was the goal ofthe defendant. He generated anxiety for the young people. The young personsknow where they are. They wondered. I discussed it with them. It createdsome trouble. It could not create a problem for politics abroad. I speakVlachian. I do not know if the Municipalities of Salamina distributed it".  	Next another prosecution witness was called for and after he was asked bythe President of the Court about his identity, he replied that his name isAnastasios Kotsopoulos, born in Athens in 1965 and resides in Vrilisia at23 Botsari Road, a journalist by profession and a Christian Orthodox. Hetoo declared that he is merely acquainted with the defendant and that he isnot related to him or to the injured party. Following the witness swore onthe Holy Book in accordance with Article 218 of the Penal Code and underexamination testified:	"I am a journalist for the newspaper "Eleftherotypia" I met the defendantin 1997. We got an interview from him. I had read about the meeting. I wasnot at the event. It happened in 1995.The defendant was a representative ofthe Office for the Lesser-Used Languages. It was founded with a decision of the EuropeanParliament in 1982. It is officially funded. It is not false to say thatTurkish is spoken in the area of Evros of Western Thrace. It is a language.Also in Western Thrace Bulgarian is spoken. Pomaks told me. I have adocument from Archives of the Ministry of External Affairs. There is thecensus of 1920. The residents there used the Turkish language. In manyareas of the Macedonian region, in the prefecture of Florina,Slavo-Macedonian language is spoken. Statements made by Mr. Paggalos existfrom the time this issue was raised as a Slavo-Macedonian language. It hasbeen registered in the 1920's census. It is referred in the letters of P.Melas. The use of this term does not constitute an offense. In themountainous areas of Thessaly, Epirus and Pindos evidently Romanianlanguage is spoken. I have heard it spoken in Metsovo and I asked. I havean article and an interview of Mr. Kilipiri where he mentions that: "I usethe term Armanos and not Vlach, because this term is more accurate since wecall ourselves Armanous. As far as its relation to Romanian language goesare thought to be relatives. The Koutsovlachian is a distinct Romanianlanguage. I have heard it spoken in the prefecture of Florina, at Nymfaioin the station. There is a book with a preface by the President ofDemocracy entitled " Studies about the Vlachs"- "The Metropoles and theDiaspora of Vlachs" where it is referenced as a language. An idiom is adialect of a certain language. The degree that we speak a language does notbring into question Hellenic civilization. There are issues regardingWestern Thrace. A minority problem does not exist. There are issues thatare linked to minorities. I cannot judge the consciousness of any humanbeing. I read certain publications. I do not have a personal view. Therewas a publication regarding an incident that happened, I don't rememberexactly its subject matter. There was a series of publications about theexistence of the Office. In 1997 we made a report, a small piece waswritten. I do not remember exactly what the particular piece said. I havebeen involved with issues such as these since 1990. In 1997, with theopportunity provided by the publication of "Nea" positive we searched forthe defendant purely out of journalistic interest. The defendant told usthat he gave the paper to the Presiding Board of the Vlachs and theyobjected. The publication talks about linguistic groups. I am not aware ofthe defendant's statement. Everyone has every right as long as he does notviolate the laws. I do not remember his official capacity. I think he is anengineer. The defendant was speaking with someone in Vlachian. Here in theCourt. As a journalist, the only picture that I had was positive, the one Isaw on the Mega television, in the Tzima program".	In closing, another prosecution witness was called and when he was askedby the President of the Court about his identity, he replied that his nameis Demetrios Psaras, he was born in Athens in 1953 and resides in N.Cosmos, at 10-16 Minoa Road, a journalist by profession and a ChristianOrthodox. He too declared that he is merely acquainted with the defendantand that he is not related to him or to the injured party. Then, he sworeon the Holy Book in accordance with Article 218 of the Penal Code and underexamination he testified:	"I know the defendant. I met him in my capacity as a journalist. I am ajournalist for the newspaper "Eleftherotypia". In 1997, with theopportunity provided by the publication, I met the defendant in hiscapacity as a representative of the Greek branch of the "Bureau of theLesser Used languages in The European Union". He had a publication and thisis how this case started. What has been inscribed in it is true. Iascertain this from the reliability of its author. The Council is official,financed by the European Parliament. The publications are verified by theEuropean Parliament. There is the 1994 voted resolution concerning thelinguistic and cultural minorities. In the area of Evros the Turkishlanguage is spoken as a language and the Greek State officially teaches it.The Pomanian is a dialect. I know about the Pomaks from my visit. It istrue. The Aromanian or Armanesti, are the Vlachian. In the sense that itconstitutes a distinctive linguistic morpheme it is a language. Arvanitiki(Arberichte) is a dialect of the Albanian language. I don't know if thepeople who speak it have a Greek consciousness. The defendant gave aleaflet. I was not present. I did not find out later. Otherpress-publications followed. There cannot be a problem with an informationleaflet of the European Union. I am aware that Mr. Haitidis and perhaps ajournalist objected. Language and national consciousness are two differentthings. There are minority problems. All people who live in Greece areaware of the existence of these languages. They have been voted. There is adifference between language and idiom".At this point, after a motion by the Prosecutor and an order by Presidentof the Court the following documents were read:1)	The announcement of the Committee of the European Communities on thesubject: "The Lesser Used Languages of the European Union". 2)	The forwarding document of Mr. Demetrios Tsaktani, President of the"Union of Vlach Scientists", addressed to Mr. Eugene Haitidis, dated August4, 2000.3)	The Press Release dated August 3, 2000.4)	The letter of the "Pan-Hellenic Union of Vlach Cultural Associations"addressed to the newspaper "Eleftherotypia", dated February 15, 1997.5)	The ref. no 32/23-6-2000 letter of the "Union of Vlach Scientists"addressed to Mr. Eugene Haitidis.6)	The program of  "ÊÅÌÏ" (Center for Research of Minority Groups) entitled"Greece and the European Map for Regional or Minority Languages of theCouncil of Europe", dated June 28, 2000.7)	The letter of " PAN-HELLENIC UNION OF VLACH CULTURAL ASSOCIATIONS",addressed to the newspaper "Eleftherotypia", dated November 15, 1995.8)	Photocopy of the Grammar of common Koutsovlachian [language] by N.Katsani & K. Dina, 1990 edition, page 17.9)	The signed declaration of the defendant, dated May 17, 1999.10)	Excerpts from the book "Minorities in Greece and the Political World"release January 1992.11)	Excerpts from the book "STUDIES FOR THE VLACHS VOLUME B' - TheMetropoles and the Diaspora of Vlachs, by Asterio T. KOUKOUDI.12)	Statements of Mr. Paggalos, Minister of External Affairs, by theCommunications Department of the Ministry of External Affairs, dated,December 23, 1998.13)	The Articles of Associations of the "SOCIETY OF AROMANIAN (VLACHIAN)CULTURE" dated June 9 1988.14)	The declaration of the President of the European Office for the LesserUsed Languages, addressed to every competent Court of the Greek DemocraticState, dated February 14,2000, accurately translated by the lawyer Mr.Lambro Mich. Baltsioti.15)	The Ministry of Culture document, addressed to the "Society ofAromanian (Vlachian) Culture, dated February 3, 1995 (Ref. No.6668).16)	Photocopy of the Book "PAYLOS MELAS" by Natalia P. Mela.17)	Excerpt from the February 9, 1997 "Eleftherotypia" entitled "Dialoguein 45 languages" (The Sunday Virus).18)	Photocopy of the August 22, 1994 Newspaper "Ta Nea", pages 13, 14 & 15).19)	Photocopy of the January 23, 1997 from the Newspaper "Ta Nea.20)	Photocopy of the May 1996 Cultural Review of the "Rainbow".21)	Photocopy of the February 9, 1994 Official Gazette of the EuropeanCommunity for the Linguistic and Cultural Minorities.22)	The interview of Mr. Fotis Kilipiri, President of the Pan-HellenicUnion of Vlach Cultural Associations given to Armanika Chrinika. 23)	Data from the December 19, 1920 and January 1, 1921 census of WesternThrace. 24)	The census of the Greek population of December 19, 1920 for Thessalyand Arta (about the language of the Prefecture of Trikala). Afterwards another witness for the defense was called and when thePresident of the Court asked him about his identity, he replied that hisname is Gregorios Ontrias, of Christos and Paraskevi, born in Athens in1931, and resides in Voula, at 11 Kolokotroni Street. He is ananesthesiologist by profession (Identity Card No.L959784/82 of KalamataPolice Station) and a Christian Orthodox. He too declared that he is merelyacquainted with the defendant and that he is not related to him or to theinjured party. Following the witness swore on the Holy Book in accordancewith Article 218 of the Penal Code and under examination he testified: "The defendant and myself are compatriots from Trikala Thessalias. I waspresent. I saw that he had a single paper written in English. I do not knowthe contents of this paper. I did not read it. The point is, somethinghappened with Mr. Kilipiri. An hour later they appeared and arrested him. Iwas in the Society's area. I don't know how many members were in theSociety. We were 5-6 people from my Society in the square. The publicationwas not distributed anywhere. Mr. Bletsas gave it to Mr. Kilipiri. Thespace was open. The youngsters were dressed in costumes. The Society wassubsidized only one time. The Vlachs are Greek citizens. I speak theVlachian language".Finally, another defense witness was called and after the President of theCourt asked her about her identity, she replied that her name is AlexandraIoannidou of Demetrios, born in Athens in 1966 and resides in Varibobi(Identity card No.M289620/81), a linguist by profession, and a ChristianOrthodox. She too declared that she is merely acquainted with the defendantand that she is not related to him or to the injured party. Then, thewitness swore in the Holy Book in accordance with article 218 of the PenalCode and under examination she testified: "I know the defendant. He is well known. I met him here. I am a linguist.My view is that it [publication] cannot be characterized as false. TheTurkish that is spoken in the area of Evros is language. I know this factfrom the existing research. Whatever is used for communication is language.Slavian language exists. It would be a mistake to give a characterization.It is a political position and political responsibility. In the region ofN. Greece, it is true that many people as language speak Makedonski. I havedealt with this issue, I have written that in the areas of Western Greece,of Peloponnese and of Euboea, Arvanitika (Arberichte) is spoken. It hasAlbanian roots. Sometimes [the language people speak] is related to theconsciousness of the speakers, other times it is not. To a higherpercentage it is not. I do not know the defendant's positions. Everylanguage has variations. Language is a much larger notion than an idiom.The Romance Language is a distinct language. There is a group of languages.The Ministry of External Affairs employed me as a language expert for (2)two years. Language does not coincide with national consciousness. I havenot heard that it can create confusion".The President of the Court called the defendant to give his statement. Hedenied the charge attributed to him and maintained that:"I was not distributing any leaflets. I gave a copy to the President [ofthe Pan-Hellenic Union of Vlach Cultural Associations]. Where are the rest?Why didn't the police seize them? How many, among the Vlachs, know English?Why didn't I translate it? I only handed it to the President. He hasdefamed me. The activist of the Vlachs is persecuted. In English is itpossible to create anxiety? He found a sacrificial victim, me, whosupposedly create conspiracies networks against the Greek people. Nobody ismore Greek than I am. How is it possible that I am considered to beanti-Greek or a hater of Greece? I never distributed leaflets, not even asa university student, let alone now that I am an acclaimed scientist. I amproud that I am Vlach. We developed Greece. And now I should be falselyaccused of distributing leaflets? I was born Vlach. I am not a criminal,judge me. I am proud that I am Greek. I was at the celebration. There wasno disturbance. I was in the area of the Society. At some point, themembers of the Association of Verroia began a discussion with Mr. Kilipiri,that is, in all the days of the festival no Vlachian song was heard. Manypeople joined the discussion. I entered it too. Mr. Kilipiris left and (3)three hours later, while I was watching the show of the dancing groups, inthe area of the square, I found myself being surrounded by the police andMr. Haitidis. They told me to go to the police station for questioning.Next many people had gathered and said: "Freedom to Bletsa". There theywere pushed. A violent incident took place. Who denied my Greekness? Mr.Haitidis demanded that I declare that I am proud to be Vlach. I came andsaw signs of support. The incident was extremely exaggerated. I said thatthere must have been a misunderstanding. I did not give an interviewanywhere. I went to my office and somebody telephoned me and said that:"Mr. Haitidis stated that you and I have formed a kind of a Society ofFriends [Filiki Heteria] for the purpose of establishing an independentState". He asked me to declare that I do not know him. On the Macedonia TVstation, I saw in rerun that I had distributed leaflets and that I declaredin writing that I had repented that I had set up a kind of a Society ofFriends. I became enraged. Then many news agencies began to contact me. Iagreed to speak only to "Eleftherotypia" and I explained how things were. Ihave never been engaged in Greek propaganda. Many people know me includingthe Mayor and others. In the police station I gave a deposition. On thespot, in the police station, after the deposition I think, I signed thedeclaration. There are (2) two signed declarations. I did not rebutanything. In 1995 I signed a declaration. I did it in order to diffuse theatmosphere because the Vlachs had come and complained about Mr. Haitidis. Ionly had a single publication. Whatever I know about the Vlachs I knowabout the Arvanites [Albanians]. My grandmother did not know Greek and Ihad to repeat grade A' of public school because I didn't know Greek. Thispublication was send to me from the "Bureau of the Lesser Used Languages ofEurope" through the mail. I am not a representative. "Eleftherotypia"contacted the Office and they referred to me. There is no representative. Ido not know if there are minority problems. It has been said that there areproblems with the Turks. It has never been heard for the Vlachs to createtrouble. It was the first time that I went. This publication has been sendto all the Vlachs. I did not think it could create a problem I went to thePan-Hellenic meeting. I had it and I handed it to the President, obviouslymeaning well. A group of us went. The office sends invitations to manypeople. It notified others as well. The only time I went to Brussels was inFebruary of 1995. Afterwards I went one more time. From the first moment ofmy arrest I stated that I am proud that I am Greek". Furthermore the President of the Court asked the Public Prosecutor and thelitigants if they needed to carry out any additional examination or toclarify any piece of evidence and after she received a negative answer shedeclared the probative proceedings closed. The Public Prosecutor to whom the word was given, after he developed theindictment proposed that the defendant be found guilty in accordance withthe indictment. The defense counsel when he took the podium developed thedefense position and asked for the acquittal of his client. The Presidentof the Court asked the defendant if he had anything to add for his defenseand he replied negatively. Consequently the President of the Court declared the end of the deliberations.Then, the Court in a closed-door session in the presence of its secretary,formulated and the President made public in the open court session the ref.no 11263/2001 decision, which is as follows:THOUGHT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWFrom the primary testimonial proceedings and the documents that were readto the audience during the hearing of the case, as well as from thetestimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution and for the defense, whowere lawfully examined in open court, in combination with the testimony ofthe defendant and the overall discussion of the case, the following wereproved: In Naousa, On July 1, 1995 during a cultural event of the Vlachs, morespecifically, during the festivities of the 12th Pan-Hellenic Meeting ofVlachs, at approximately 20:30, in front of the Town Hall, the defendantdistributed a leaflet to the people attending. It was written in English,and had been transmitted by the "European Bureau of the Lesser UsedLanguages". The Office in question is an independent organization. TheBoard of Governors of the Office consists of representatives from tencommittees from the member states. Such a committee does not exist inGreece. (See the announcement of the Committee of the European Communitieson the subject: "The Lesser Used Languages of the European Union"). In themid 1990s, a representative of the aforementioned office contacted thedefendant, whom they thought could represent his linguistic community tothe Office. (See the letter-declaration of the President of the EuropeanOffice for the Lesser Used Languages, addressed to every competent Court ofthe Greek Democratic State, dated February 14,2000). And in February 1995,as the defendant himself stated in his testimony, and at another time,which he did not specify, he went to Brussels where the Office with thename "Information Center of Brussels" is located. It was further proved that the defendant in the past had been involved inthe setting up of a society called "Society of Aromanian (Vlachian)Culture" and that he was its President. At about the year 1991 he requestedto become a member of the Pan-Hellenic Union of Vlach CulturalAssociations, which is the tertiary organ which represents the all Vlachcultural associations in Greece and the organizer of the aforementionedcultural activities. (See the February 15, 1995 letter of the reportaddressed to the newspaper Eleftherotypia and the testimony of the examinedwitness Georgios Makris). His attempt was not successful. The positions ofthe defendant were different. And the representatives of the Union do notaccept his views. (See the testimony of the same aforementioned witness).In the leaflet which, as has already been mentioned, the defendantdistributed, was included the European Map of the Regional or MinorityLanguages, which was approved in 1995 by the Council of Europe and took theform of a European Agreement. (See the February 9, 1991 entry in theOfficial Gazette of the European Communities). In this publication it wasalso mentioned that in Greece Greek is the official language. There are sixlesser used or regional languages. 1) Arvanitiki (Arberichte) which isspoken in many regions all over the country. 2) Romanian(Aroumanian-Armanesti) in the mountainous regions of Thessaly, Epirus andPindos. 3) Bulgarian (Bolgarski) which is spoken in Western Thrace by thePomaks, who are a Moslem community. 4) The Slavo-Macedonian (Makedonski) inthe region of Northern Greece and 5) the Turkish (Turkse) in WesternThrace. Also included were suggestions about how a distinct language andculture should be cultivated. Simultaneously the defendant was trying toaddress himself to the Vlachs who participated in the festivities, topersuade them that they constitute a minority and that they must claimtheir rights and that he had gone there in order to inform them. (See thetestimony of Mr. Eugene Haitidis). Of course the defendant maintained inhis testimony that he did not distribute the publication and that he hadsimply handed the single copy he had to the President of the Union. Theexamined witness Gregorio Ontrias stated the same. But base on thetestimonies of the witnesses Eugene Haitidis, Georgios Makris and IoanniZapara, who were eyewitnesses' results that the defendant had more than onecopy. (The first of the witnesses mentioned a bag full of leaflets, thesecond a package and the third several leaflets.) In addition the defendanthimself in his July 1, 1995 unsworn statement mentioned many, while lateron he specified that he only had two. The defendant however, as can bededuced from his aforementioned activities, was cognizant of the fact thatin Greece there are no regional or minority languages as a characteristicof cohesion of a people or a nationality and that Vlachian in particular isnot a language but a latinistic idiom. Subsequently, being a Vlach himself,the defendant knew that the previously mentioned and the issues containedin the indictment do not correspond to reality. He was also aware that theabove mentioned hearsay was capable of inciting anxiety to the citizens andcreating the impression that in Greece minorities exist. Despite all that,he went to the cultural event and with the distribution of theaforementioned publication, without the permission of the organizers spreadthe earlier mentioned false information, which indeed incited anxiety inthe participants who knew the above mentioned positions of the defendantand had heard all he had verbally expressed during the distribution of thepublication. Consequently, there exist the objective and subjectiveevidence for the act attributed in the indictment to the defendant, whichis anticipated in the Article 191 of the Penal Code, and is aimed to theprotection, in the narrow sense, of the Public Order, that is, to theestablishment in the state of the rule of law (Supreme Court (Areios Pagos)1126/1994) Penal Chron. Volume 44 847) and for this reason he must bedeclared guilty of it. One member of the Court, Judge Stamatia Petsali, seated on the left, hasthe opinion that the defendant must be declared innocent because: From theaforementioned probative evidence results that, the inscribed in thepublication map, which the defendant distributed on July1, 1995, in thecultural event of the Vlachs in Naousa, regarding the speaking in Greece offive more languages besides Greek, which are spoken in a smaller scale andarea, in particular the Turkish language in the whole Western Thrace, theBulgarian language in Western Thrace and in the areas of Pomaks, theSlavo-Macedonian in the whole Northern Greece, the AROUMANIAN-ARMANESTI inthe mountainous regions of Thessaly, Epirus and Pindos, the Arvanitiki(Arberichte) in the areas of Western Greece, of Central Greece, Peloponneseand Euboea), is a true fact, which not only cannot be disputed, but to thecontrary, has been repeatedly attested to by different public services, andby the state itself. (See especially the documents read in the court whereare included data from the census.) The fact that these languages arespoken has not been disputed even by the complainant, who among otherthings, mentioned that these languages are spoken not by groups but byisolated individuals. In any case, even if it was about false information,this information would not be sufficient to incite citizens regardingminority problems in Greece, given that, as has been proven, it was aboutthe existence of more, lesser used languages, without any connection withnotions of minorities, and even more so, with minority problems.Consequently, the objective and subjective basis of the anticipated in theArticle 191 of the Penal Code crime of spreading false information is notsubstantiated and therefore the defendant must be proclaimed innocent.FOR THESE REASONS	JUDGES, in the presence of the defendant Sotiri Bletsa, resident ofAthens, at 22 Vas. Herakleiou Street. 	PROCLAIMS with a majority vote the defendant guilty of:In Athens, on July 1,1995 propagated, in the manner described below, falseinformation capable of inciting the populace, and particularly during thecultural event of the Vlachs in Naousa, distributed to people attending theevent a pamphlet in the English language which he knew falsely stated thatin Greece not including the Greek language, five other languages are spokento a lesser extent. Specifically a) in the area of Evros, and indeed in thewhole Western Thace the Turkish language is spoken; b) in Western Thracealso, in the Pomaks areas, the Bulgarian language; c) in the whole regionof Northern Greece the Slavo-Macedonian language which is referred to withthe familiar term of the State of Skopia (MAKEDONSKI); d) in themountainous areas of Thessaly, Epirus and Pindos the Romanian language(AROYMANIKA-ARMANESTI); and e) in the areas of Central Greece, ofPeloponnese and Euboea the Arvanitiki (Arberichte) language. This type ofinformation was capable of generating anxiety to the citizens because itcould create the impression that in Greece there are minority problems, afact that he was aware of. Following the reading of the verdict.After listening to the Public Prosecutor who recommended the imposition ofthe penalty, against the defendant who was proclaimed guilty, of (12)twelve months prison sentence and a fine of five hundred (500.000) drachmasplus court costs which amounted to 25000 drachmas.The defense counsel asked for the minimum penalty that can be appealed.THOUGHT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWThe act for which the defendant was pronounced guilty by a majority verdictis punishable according to the provisions of Article 26 par. 1a, 27 par.1,191 par. 1, of the Penal Code. The Court, taking into consideration, on the one hand, the gravity of thecrime which the defendant had committed, and on the other hand, thedefendant's personality, judges by a majority verdict that the penaltyreferred to in the pronouncement must be imposed on the defendant.The Court was led to this decision after taking into consideration, besidesthe assessment of the gravity of the crime the following evaluativecriteria: the harm incurred through the crime, the dander caused by thecrime, the nature and the type of the object of the crime, thecircumstances (time, place, and manner) under which the crime was plannedand carried out as well as the intensity of the deceit of the defendant. The Court took further into consideration the assessment of the personalityof the defendant, the causes which led him to commit the crime, theoccasion that gave rise to it, the goal which the defendant sought, hischaracter and the degree of his development, the human and socialcircumstances and his past as well as his conduct before and after the act.Finally the Court took in to consideration the defendant's financialstanding and that of his family. In accordance though with the opinion of one member of the Court,specifically the seating from the left Judge Stamata Petsali, thepronounced by the Public Prosecutor penalty of the (12) twelve-monthimprisonment should have been imposed on the defendant.FOR THESE REASONSSENTENCES the defendant in to (15) fifteen months prison term by majorityverdict and a fine of five hundred (500.000) drachmas unanimously. At this point the defense counsel took the podium and asked for thesuspension of the imposed prison term for his client, for a period of threeyears, and the appeal to have suspensive effect. The President of the Court read the defendant's criminal record datedJanuary 5, 2001, from which results that prior to today he had never beencondemned for any punishable act. The Public Prosecutor after taking the podium proposed the suspension ofthe execution of the prison sentence, which was imposed by the power of thecourt's decision against the defendant, for a period of three years and theappeal to have a suspensive effect.Afterwards the Court, following a closed-door session in the presence ofits secretary, made the decision, with the same as above number, which isas follows: THOUGHT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWIn accordance with Article 99 par. 1 of the Penal Code, the Court isobligated to examine even without request, if the necessary conditions thefor suspension of the execution the penalty are fulfilled and toparticularly justify the by any chance negative judgment.In the case at hand the defendant was condemned with the present decisionto a (15) fifteen month prison sentence, that is, to a penalty which doesnot exceed two years, while from the criminal record which was read,results that until today he has never been convicted of any punishable act.Therefore for him all the necessary conditions for suspension of theaforementioned sentence, which has been imposed on him, have been fulfilledand must be ordered as it is specified in the pronouncement. FOR THESE REASONSSUSPENDS the aforementioned (15) fifteen-month sentence for a period ofthree years.It rules that any appeal lodged by the defendant will have suspensive effect. Lastly, the President of the Court disclosed the terms of the basis ofwhich the suspension of the execution of the imposed sentence was granted. It is affirmed that after the examination of each witness and before andafter the issuing of every decision, all the participants of the trial werecalled upon to speak in order, and the defendant was always called last.It was judged, decided and published in an open court session.Athens, February 2, 2001The President							The Secretary  



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year!
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
-------------- next part --------------
HTML attachment scrubbed and removed