09/04/2026 5:36 μμ.
Abelokipi Case – First Hearing – April 1, 2026 (detailed report)
Defense Counsel
Marianna Manoura: Thanasis Kabagiannis, Kostas Papadakis
Dimitra Zarafeta: Anny Paparousou, Giannis Rahiotis
Dimitris: Charalabakis
Nikos Romanos: Marina Daliani, Kalogirou, Lila Ragousi
Argyris: Alexandros Kanellopoulos
Court Composition
Presiding Judge: Spyridon Georgoulias
Prosecutor: Alexandra Pischina
Ampelokipoi Case – 1st Hearing – 04/01/2026
(detailed report)
The trial in the Abelokipi case was listed as Case No. 1 on
a docket containing a total of nine cases.
The trial began with the presiding judge, Spyridon Georgouleas, announcing that the current panel could not hear all the cases, as Case 1 would require several sessions. He also announced that the remaining cases would be handled by the alternate panel.
At the same time, a motion was filed to recuse Prosecutor Alexandra Pischina due to her prior professional association with one of the defense attorneys representing the defendants in the Abelokipi case.
Before adjourning to consider the recusal request, Kostas Papadakis, defense attorney for co-defendant Marianna Manoura, asked the bench for the document explaining the rationale behind the court’s decision to have the main panel handle Case 1 and the alternate panel handle the remaining cases, rather than the reverse.
*
After the recess, the presiding judge proceeded by handing defense counsel Papadakis the document he had requested, which stated that, pursuant to an order by the president of the Court of Appeals, the docket had been divided so that all cases could be heard.
After reading the document, the defense attorney filed an objection, emphasizing that the panel should have been determined by a supplementary draw, exactly as originally stipulated. The defense attorney for Case 4 concurred with this reasoning.
The prosecutor’s response to the objection was that it was unfounded, vague, and contradictory. She stated that this panel had been lawfully selected and that there was no reason for a new draw, proposing that the objection be dismissed.
In his rebuttal, Papadakis was adamant that dividing the pool eliminates the lottery. The presiding judge of the appellate court, who rendered the decision, did not specify the criteria on which it was based. Given this, both panels—the main and the alternate—are invalid.
The objection was rejected.
*
The following court dates were then set:
April 2, Courtroom D5, ground floor
April 3, Courtroom D4, ground floor
April 7–8, Courtroom D5, ground floor
April 15–17, Courtroom D5, ground floor
Regarding serious scheduling conflicts for defense attorneys (e.g., Anny Paparousou on 04/02, who has a trial for the Mangos case in the Karditsa courts), the presiding judge stated that he would not postpone any hearings. As arguments, he cited, on the one hand, the pressure from the 18-month statute of limitations, and on the other, the best interests of “the defendants who want to get the trial over with,” to call all defense witnesses and have sufficient time for their closing arguments.
*
The presiding judge then issued some instructions for the “smooth conduct” of the trial, requesting that no one stand in the courtroom—only those seated—and that no slogans be shouted.
Defense attorney Papadakis objection—that people could sit on the side ledges of the courtroom and in the back—was initially rejected. The presiding judge said he would be flexible on this point as the trial progressed, and that the second issue concerned him more.
*
Defense attorney A. K. Kanellopoulos took the floor, raising an objection because the defendant’s summons lacked the prosecutor’s seal and signature. Papadakis also supported the objection. The objection was rejected.
*
Next, the prosecution’s witnesses—14 in number—and the defense witnesses—32 in total—were called to the stand.
At this point, some of the residents of the apartment building on Arkadias Street, through their attorney, declared their support for the prosecution, specifically regarding the charge of property damage only against our comrade Marianna.
*
The trial continued with a new objection raised by Papadakis regarding the lack of jurisdiction of this particular court to try acts that are essentially characterized as “political crimes.”
The law stipulates that “political crimes” are tried by a mixed jury court. In recent years, however, the opposite has prevailed in case law, and cases under Article 187A—which defines “political crimes”—are tried only by regular judges, thereby limiting the decisive participation of jurors, and by extension, the principle of “popular sovereignty.”
Before concluding his objection, the defense attorney stated that it does not hold that the acts were committed with the intent to cause serious danger to the country, to an international organization, or to instill fear in the population.
In addition to this, Marianna’s other defense attorney, Thanasis Kabagiannis, argued that a narrow, literal interpretation of the term “political crime” has prevailed. This stems from a lack of trust in lay judges (jurors), which is usually supported by arguments such as the notion that jurors are more easily intimidated, or that they lack sufficient legal training. The defense attorney also mentioned the notion that professional judges contribute legal knowledge and jurors contribute social experience.
He mentioned these points to add that he does not agree with them, as professional judges also possess social experience and are also prone to fear.
He further added that at a time when great efforts are being made to restore public confidence in the justice system, the only way to achieve this is through the participation of lay judges in the process.
She concluded by saying that in recent years we have seen a multitude of miscarriages of justice in cases involving Article 187 or 187A.
*
The presentation of the objection was followed by a brief statement from comrade Marianna on the same issue.
Our comrade presented the arguments from her own perspective, which is to file an objection regarding the court’s lack of jurisdiction. She said that this is a case of a purely political nature, where special courts are established, with special appellate judges and special laws. In essence, the political trajectory is acknowledged, without acknowledging the political context.
“I am an anarchist, and Kyriakos Ximitiris, who was in the apartment, was an anarchist. As an armed activist, Kyriakos Ximitiris made specific decisions that led him to the apartment, and I, as his comrade, made other decisions to help him. These decisions were both political and conscious.”
“If assisting my comrade—even though we were neither a group nor an organization—constitutes a political crime, then the competent court is the Mixed Jury Court.”
In this way, an attempt is made to depoliticize revolutionary action, as the internal enemy is not recognized. The status of the political prisoner is not recognized. This is what we call a state of exception, where a special framework is invoked for the criminal prosecution of the internal enemy, without naming it as such.
“Throughout the trial, I will strive to demonstrate that we are two opposing sides in a war, and in this war, I am in the position of a political prisoner.”
*
And Yannis Rahiotis, defense attorney for our comrade Dimitra Zarafeta, agreed with the reasoning behind the objection, stating that it is important not to forget injustices, because they have simply been repeating themselves for two decades now. With the introduction of Article 187A, any pretext for not prosecuting “political crimes” has been eliminated.
Specifically, he explained that Article 187A abolishes the link between the act and the perpetrator, and instead defines the perpetrator’s relationship to populations and organizations. In this way, the exact nature of a political crime was articulated for the first time.
Anny Paparousou, also a defense attorney for Dimitra, continued along the same lines. She noted that the case law is disappointing when it identifies “political crime” only in the case of high treason. She even cited the argument of Georgios-Alexandros Magakis that when the law does not precisely define the act, it is unconstitutional.
She concluded by saying that in recent years, the use of Article 187A has been moderated, and we now have more solid criteria.
The court adjourned to allow the prosecutor to review the matter and present her arguments on it.
*
The prosecutor stated that she considers the legal approach of not recognizing the political dimension of terrorist crimes to be correct.
For the prosecutor, the sole criterion for defining a “political crime” is whether the acts directly undermine the state. In contrast, the scope of Article 187A is much broader. Specifically, in the indictment for this case, the acts described do not aim to overthrow the political system.
*
During his rebuttal, Papadakis insisted that it is unconstitutional for this court to hear the case, and that doing so narrows the scope of what constitutes a “political crime.” The fact that no definition of a political crime is provided tends to erode the jurisdiction of mixed jury courts, a logic that has expanded and generally prevailed in felonies (and beyond Article 187A). To reinforce his argument, he noted that, legally speaking, a terrorist organization is essentially a criminal organization with political motives that produce political results.
Regarding the prosecutor’s proposal, he commented that her argument is based on case law predating Article 187A. The serious danger to the country is not an objective criterion for determining a “political crime.”
At this point, there was another interruption. When the bench resumed, it rejected the objection.
*
Papadakis then returned with a new objection regarding the vagueness and invalidity of the indictment, which was based on three main points:
a) The indictment must clearly state the alleged offense and the law under which it is charged, rather than merely repeating the law and the phrases it contains. This is a bad practice found in many indictments, which in effect leaves the defendant and their counsel to guess what the alleged offense is.
b) The time of the organization’s formation is not specified. Precisely because formation constitutes a momentary offense, it must be stated in the indictment. Otherwise, it contributes to the notion of continuous action.
At the same time, there are no structures, no infrastructure, nor other characteristics such as hierarchy, but only a division of certain roles.
c) The elements constituting the specific circumstance defined by Article 187A are absent. Specifically, regarding the objective dimension, there is neither the manner nor the extent, nor the conditions under which a serious danger to the country is caused.
And regarding the subjective elements, again, it is not specified:
1) the intimidation of the population
2) which population this is, or which part of it is being intimidated
3) the act targeting a public authority
4) the public authority itself
5) the act targeting an international organization
6) the international organization
7) the damage that would be caused and its severity
8) the intent to destroy infrastructure
9) the type of infrastructure (political, economic, constitutional)
10) the manner in which this infrastructure would be damaged
11) the country or international organization to which this infrastructure belongs
In summary, there is no specific definition of the offense under Article 187A.
At the same time, there is a contradiction in the wording. The organization cannot manufacture an explosive device to supply the organization. The organization is not a third entity in relation to its members.
*
Kabayiannis added to the above argument by noting that the confusion of the investigative office that compiled the list of witnesses and referral documents is evident. In reality, the issue is identifying the terrorist organization, since after countless expert reports—specifically seven large case files—we have very few results. And an unknown organization.
*
In response to this objection, the prosecutor described the argument as convoluted and contradictory. She said it should have been submitted earlier, as the indictment of the defendants is final. She further added that some of the arguments concern the very viability of the charge. She concluded by saying that it is an oversimplification to demand a name for an organization. Although the public has become accustomed to identifying an organization with a name, this does not necessarily have to be the case. She recommended that the objection be rejected.
*
Papadakis clarified that the name is linked to duration. The rest are not matters of proof; they are vague statements that are not specified.
After a recess, the court dismissed the objection.
*
Papadakis filed yet another objection regarding Marianna’s statement on November 9, 2024, while she was still hospitalized at Evangelismos. Based on this statement, the pretrial detention warrant and the referral orders were issued.
The defense attorney described Marianna’s health condition, noting that she was a multiple trauma patient with a cerebral hemorrhage following numerous surgical procedures.
The hearing was based on a medical certificate from an oral and maxillofacial surgeon. The certificate was based on the Glasgow Coma Scale, which indicates a patient’s level of unconsciousness. The conclusion of the report was that Marianna had the ability to speak, while in essence confirming that the woman was not in a coma, and nothing beyond that.
Marianna did not invoke her right to remain silent, but rather her inability to testify, given her health condition and the fact that she was unable to process the charges against her.
Papadakis even pointed out that insisting on a statement under these circumstances amounts to torture. He then proposed that one of the defense witnesses—a doctor who regularly treats Marianna—be called to testify regarding this objection.
The court accepted this and summoned him to testify.
*
The doctor is an internist and works in the ICU at Evangelismos Hospital. He confirmed everything Papadakis had stated earlier. He also pointed out that the ICU is a unit for patients with critical needs, where less than 1% of the population ends up requiring care. He added that it was a poor time for Marianna’s defense, and a better time could certainly be found later. He also clarified that the Glasgow Coma Scale, on which the oral surgeon’s certification was based, may confirm that a person is not in a coma, but does not guarantee that they possess the mental and psychological capacity to proceed with a plea.
After questions from the prosecutor and Papadakis, the doctor stated that he had a complete picture of Marianna’s medical file and history, and based on these, it was determined that while she may have been able to speak during the critical period, this did not mean she was capable of holding a conversation.
In response to subsequent questions, the doctor stated that the problems the woman was facing at the time were not limited to maxillofacial surgery, as there are official hospital records from various other medical specialties. He characterized as an error the fact that the defense was based on a single medical certificate, which was, in fact, requested by a person who responded to matters beyond his area of expertise.
The doctor’s final point was that no one in that condition would have been able, within five days, to process and understand hundreds of pages of case files in order to prepare a defense.
*
The prosecutor took the floor again, noting that the objection raises a procedural issue, but reminding the court that the referral of the defendant is final.
In response, Papadakis reiterated that both the arrest and the indictment were based on this defense.
The prosecutor insisted that a sufficient amount of time had passed since the supplementary statement in September 2025, and that at that time the defendant had not retracted anything regarding her initial statement. She concluded by stating that none of her rights had been denied.
Papadakis emphasized that Marianna had not been properly referred to the court, even citing the case of Savvas Xiros, who, although arrested in late June, made his statement in early August 2002.
After a recess, this objection was also rejected.
*
This was followed by statements from the two comrades
Marianna Manoura
To the residents of the apartment building, I would like to state that the explosion was not the result of an organized plot. It resulted in the death of my partner, Kyriakos Ximitiris, and my serious injury. We never wanted to cause hardship to ordinary people, nor to inflict harm on people while social conditions are already dire. When our political space wants to strike, it takes its own measures, and the logic of collateral damage does not align with its values. We use our means against the system, and only against it.
I thank the two people who helped me immediately after the explosion.
The explosion was exploited by the state from the very first moment.
I will not pretend it was a conspiracy; I take political responsibility for my actions, but I will not waste a single minute of my freedom on things I did not do.
My comrade, Kyriakos Ximitiris, lost his life for a better world.
His death was exploited and vilified through the accusation of the explosion, which is the counterterrorism unit’s insinuation that Kyriakos knew what would follow.
Kyriakos, as a political subject, loved life—not only his own, but that of others as well. As a human being, it is out of the question that he would have wanted to burden ordinary people with damage to their homes.
I am not accountable to any court; I am accountable only to my comrades.
It is in your hands how this trial will proceed—whether you will follow the orders of the counterterrorism unit, or whether you will judge based on the actual facts.
I can take political responsibility for my own actions.
I dedicate every moment of this trial to the memory of Kyriakos.
Kyriakos was a wonderful person and a sensitive revolutionary.
October 31st is a rift for me, both because of the moral burden of the damage to the apartment building and because of the loss. I will preserve it, to preserve the memory of Kyriakos, his choices, and my place within them.
Dimitra Zarafeta
I deny all charges.
I wish to speak in memory of my comrade, Kyriakos Ximitiris.
Political action, comradely and political relationships are being criminalized.
The deprivation of my freedom is the responsibility of the court, which allows such cases to be brought.
I apologize to the family who owns the apartment, as, without my knowledge, I put them in an unpleasant position both because of the damage and because of their contact with the repressive apparatus.
*
Following the statements by the two co-defendants, the examination of the prosecution witnesses began.
The first to be called was a property owner who owns an apartment on the 4th floor of the apartment building and a store on the ground floor.
Through his questions, the presiding judge sought to highlight the extent of the physical damage to the building. The witness mentioned several times the broken windows, the chaos he encountered upon arriving at the scene, and so on. The apartment he owns had broken windows and damage that has not yet been repaired, even though, according to him, TERNA has undertaken the reconstruction.
Regarding the extent of the damage, he said he had no estimate, citing the technical reports from the municipality and the Technical Chamber of Greece (TEE), which he had not, however, seen. He noted that the building is unfit for habitation, and that the owners who lived there are currently staying in a hotel.
He did not recognize any of the accused individuals and said that nothing unusual had come to his attention.
In her sole question, the prosecutor emphasized the “income” lost by those who had rented out their homes.
The civil plaintiff’s attorney then asked about the location of the apartment in relation to the apartment where the explosion occurred, noting that it was “above and diagonally across.” He also asked whether the apartment was habitable and whether TERNA had proceeded with repairs, receiving a negative answer to both questions.
Subsequently, during Papadakis’s examination of the witness, it was established that the witness’s apartment is located in the left wing of the building.
The witness did not recall exactly when he went to the apartment building, and after his first visit, he had stated in his testimony that there was damage only to the balcony partition. In court, however, he reported additional damage to the windows as well as cracks in the walls, which he had never mentioned before.
The store had no damage.
When asked about the status of the repairs and whether a meeting of the apartment building residents had been held to address this, the witness stated that he had no knowledge of it and still did not know why TERNA had taken over the project. Specifically regarding the meeting, he said that it was mentioned that the bomb “exploded in the terrorists hands,” without being able to specify which of the participants used that term (terrorists) at the meeting.
The witness’s examination concluded with questions from Kabayiannis, who noted that a document in the defense’s possession indicates that only the right wing of the apartment building has been rendered unusable, and not the entire building as the witness claims. It also emerged that the building’s electrical system has not been destroyed, but has been disconnected by the Hellenic Electricity Distribution Network Operator (DEDDIE).
*
The last witness of the day was Samouilis, who owns apartment C5, located directly next to the third-floor apartment where the explosion occurred.
The witness testified that he rarely visited the apartment building. He rented the apartment to female students. He does not recognize any of the accused individuals, nor had he ever heard any complaints about noise in the apartment.
He stated that “his apartment was completely destroyed; two walls were knocked down, and beds, cabinets, the kitchen, etc., were smashed.”
The witness stated that restoration of the apartment building has begun, albeit slowly, and also mentioned the Technical Chamber of Greece (TEE) study, which, according to him, deems the building unfit for habitation.
He described some of the work currently being done on the building, work that is in its early stages. He also mentioned that there is a building permit for the repair of the apartment building, which was likely issued in February 2026.
The prosecutor asked him where he had obtained information about the work, and he replied, though not with absolute certainty, that it came from a TERNA foreman, while he had also received estimates from private engineers.
Subsequently, the civil plaintiff’s attorney showed the witness several photographs of the apartment, taken one day after the explosion, asking him to describe what he saw. This action was taken by the civil plaintiffs to draw particular attention to the extent of the damage.
Subsequently, and shortly before the proceedings concluded, the witness was questioned by Papadakis. An attempt was made to clarify which technical reports were available and what conclusions they drew. The witness repeatedly referred to the TEE report, which is not available to anyone nor is it part of the case file. The defense attorney referred to the report from the municipality’s urban planning department, which is the only one available, and which indicates that only the right wing of the apartment building is unfit for use. Nevertheless, according to the witness, “some people want to move in, and the police and the state are prohibiting them from doing so.”
The witness concluded his testimony by offering a personal estimate of the extent of the damage to the apartment, where, following verbal consultations with private engineers, he arrived at the figure of €200,000!!
Summary of the Day
From the defense’s perspective, on the first day of the trial, some of the fundamental and substantive issues raised by the indictment were addressed: Both regarding the nature of Article 187A and how it is being stretched to serve repressive aims, as well as concerning the irregularities committed to expedite the pretrial detention and indictment of our comrades.
The court appears to be rushing to conclude the trial, dismissing objections with minimal and flimsy reasoning.
FREEDOM FOR OUR COMRADES
ACCUSED IN THE ABELOKIPI CASE
Next hearing: Thursday, April 2, 9:00 a.m., Courtroom D5 on the ground floor of the Loukareos Building
media:
abelocaseday1.pdf