Cyprus-Forum.com

[Mr. T]

STOP WHINING, IT WAS A TECHNICAL DECISION, BASED ON LACK OF EVIDENCE... We all assume they did it but i thank god courts here are totally independent on their decisions. As for the attorney general trying to influence courts decision, that was completely unconstitutional and wrong...

Lack of evidence!!!!!!! There could hardly have been more compelling evidence that there was.


THE REASONING of the criminal court in the recent acquittal of ten police officers charged with beating two students was “stupid and absurd”, said former European judge Loucis Loucaides yesterday.

The former judge of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) yesterday listed a host of weaknesses in the court’s judgement, suggesting judges in Cyprus were not clued up either on the law of evidence or on European case law.

On the credibility of the video evidence, Loucaides suggested the court’s thinking was backwards

“The complainant identified the accused on the video. This should have been taken into account and strengthened the credibility of the video. But the judges did it in reverse, saying the video is not reliable and so the complainants’ identification is also not reliable,” he said.

Regarding the court’s argument that the complainants’ identification of the accused lacked the necessary spontaneity and objectivity, he said: “Can you even speak about objectivity of a complainant, of course they’re subjective and that’s alright.

“How do you expect spontaneity? After so many months, should they shout ‘Ah, here they are’. It’s absurd, it’s stupid.”

Asked to comment on the court’s decision, he said: “There is something wrong with the way judges approached the evidence. They may be not sufficiently trained. And they do not take criticism either.

“This judgement will reaffirm the belief of many that the police can not be punished. There are several cases proving this,” he said.

For further constructive comments from Loucaides see
http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news 22/3/2009

[Nikitas]

Something is wrong here.

How can the publication of the film be deemed to have prejudiced the court when there is no jury trial. Is the judge insinuating that he was swayed against the defendants by seeing the film of the beating?

Again, in a judge only system, why was the evidence of the witnesses rejected? The judge is supposed to be experienced enough to be able to discern the facts from a variety of witnesses.

So what was the judgemenet saying in regard to the actual events we saw on the video? That they did not take place? That they did happen but they can be deemed justifiable force in the circumstances?

Anybody know how these acts were justified?

[YFred]

Something is wrong here.

How can the publication of the film be deemed to have prejudiced the court when there is no jury trial. Is the judge insinuating that he was swayed against the defendants by seeing the film of the beating?

Again, in a judge only system, why was the evidence of the witnesses rejected? The judge is supposed to be experienced enough to be able to discern the facts from a variety of witnesses.

So what was the judgemenet saying in regard to the actual events we saw on the video? That they did not take place? That they did happen but they can be deemed justifiable force in the circumstances?

Anybody know how these acts were justified?

It's not just something that is wrong here. The whole system needs to be looked at.