11/04/2026 6:06 μμ.
Ampelokipi Case – 2nd Hearing – April 2, 2026 (detailed report)
Defense Counsel
Marianna Manoura: Thanasis Kampagiannis, Kostas Papadakis
Dimitra Zarafeta: Anny Paparousou, Giannis Rahiotis
Dimitris: CharalambakisYiannis
Nikos Romanos: Marina Daliani, Kalogirou, Lila Ragousi
Argyris: Alexandros Kanellopoulos
Court Composition
Presiding Judge: Spyridon Georgoulias
Prosecutor: Alexandra Pischina
Ampelokipi Case – 2nd Hearing – 04/02/2026 (detailed report)
At exactly 9:00 a.m., the presiding chamber entered the courtroom and immediately called the remaining witnesses to testify.
The first witness resides in Argyroupoli and owns one of the apartments in the apartment building on Arkadias Street. The presiding judge asked her questions of both a general nature regarding the floor on which her apartment is located, how she learned of the incident, etc., as well as specific ones, such as whether she knows the defendants, how the restoration work by TERNA is progressing, and who is responsible for the cost. It is important to note that the witness, while initially stating that she resides in Argyroupoli, subsequently substantially altered her testimony and spoke of the institutionalization she has been experiencing for the past 1.5 years in hotels! An obvious lie that went unnoticed and was not commented on by either the presiding judge or the defense attorneys. The witness stated that she does not know any of the accused individuals, nor does she know the owner of the apartment where the explosion occurred.
*
The second witness was Maria Delfou, the wife of the owner of the apartment where the explosion occurred, and the mother of the person who had arranged to give the keys to Dimitra. She first explained that the apartment was used only by her son, once or twice a year, when he returned from abroad where he lives and works. The presiding judge’s questions concerned her son’s relationship with Dimitra, as well as their communication after the explosion (if it was unusual, etc.). The witness answered in the negative. He then asked her how she found out about the explosion, and she replied that the counterterrorism unit had called her. A short while later, the prosecutor repeated the same question, and M. Delfou, repeating the same answer, added that the counterterrorism unit was pressuring her to find out who was inside the apartment. This was followed by questions from the defense attorneys, which mainly concerned whether Dimitris and Dimitra seemed like strange people to her. All her answers were negative: they never tried to hide their identities, they arrived in their own car using GPS, and they made a call from a cell phone—all perfectly normal behavior.
*
The third witness was Papavasileiou, Dimitra’s friend from whom she had asked to borrow the apartment. The presiding judge began by asking questions about the nature of his relationship with Dimitra. The witness replied that he had known her since their college days—as well as Dimitris—and that they had maintained occasional contact with Dimitra since they were both living abroad and saw each other mainly during the holidays. The questioning continued in a rather political context, with the presiding judge asking about the witness’s political and ideological beliefs, whether he knew if Dimitra was more militant, as well as about the manner in which their conversations on Signal took place, including the time interval between messages. The presiding judge then pressed further on what they had said after the incident occurred, and particularly on Dimitra’s response to the question of whom she had given the apartment to, to which she stated that she had given it to some comrades. It is worth noting that the chairman tried to cast doubt on the word “comrade” by asking him if the term seemed strange to him and if he knew more, throwing in the dig, “let’s see what ‘comrade’ really means.”
Throughout the questioning, the witness tried to explain that Signal is a simple app, available to anyone, that his relationship with Dimitra dated back to their college days and had remained just that, and that the word “comrades” cannot be interpreted in a negative light. He simply added that he was surprised by the fact that, although he has been requested the apartment for one person, there were suddenly more people there. The witness’s examination continued with questions from the prosecutor and the defense attorneys. If there is anything worth noting, it is the prosecutor’s insistence on asking about the Signal app and whether a phone number is required for it to work. The witness replied in the affirmative, stating that he had entered his own phone number. Similarly, when Dimitris’s defense attorney asked whether they had studied together and if that meant the witness also knew how to make bombs, realizing the irony, the witness replied that no, they didn’t teach us anything like that, and this was followed by a substantive comment from the defense attorney that invalidates the charge based on their studies. Marianna’s defense attorneys asked questions regarding the layout of the apartment so that the court could get a clear picture of the spaces where the events took place. In response to a question from defense attorney Rahiotis, the witness spoke about Dimitra’s academic career, noting that she was very ambitious and dedicated; in response to a subsequent question, he also stated that she had never had any run-ins with the law or ties to criminal activity.
*
The fourth witness was Athanasopoulos, the owner of apartment D4, who has lived in the apartment building for 15 years. The apartment sustained minor damage. The repairs are proceeding slowly.
He does not know the owner of the apartment in question. When asked if he recognized any of the accused individuals, the witness said he might remember the woman named Dimitra, perhaps at the building’s entrance, but that he had not noticed any unusual activity in the apartment where the explosion occurred. He also mentioned that, due to his workplace being in the apartment building, strangers come and go. From the questions posed by the defense attorneys, as well as the civil plaintiffs, it emerged that:
-the witness’s apartment is in the right wing of the apartment building, the one that the city planning department has declared uninhabitable,
-and this witness stated that he has not seen any expert report, building permit, or restoration study by an engineer.
*
The next witness, the fifth in line, was Varvakis, who had lived in the apartment building for 11 years, on the third floor in the left wing. During the witness’s testimony, the damage caused to his apartment was documented. He stated that he does not know the owner of the apartment where the explosion occurred, nor does he recognize any of the accused individuals. He did not mention anything about unusual activity in the apartment building. He noted that TERNA is proceeding with repairs at a frustratingly slow pace, as he has seen only four workers with hammers carrying out work throughout the apartment building. In response to a question, the civil plaintiff described the only available expert report—that of the municipality’s urban planning department—as premature. She then focused on the problems with the stairwell.
From the defense attorneys’ questions, it emerged that the witness had been summoned to the ministry sometime in April 2025, where they were informed of the Technical Chamber of Greece (TEE) report, but were not shown a copy of it or any other report. Regarding the building, he also stated that access is not permitted and that the electricity and water have been cut off.
*
The next witness was Stavrakakis, the owner of apartment C6, which is located directly across from apartment C4, where the explosion occurred. The witness does not recognize any of the accused individuals in connection with the apartment building. However, he recognized Nikos Romanos from the photographs he has seen on television. He has no knowledge of any unusual or suspicious activity in apartment C4. Subsequently, the witness mentioned a presentation given to residents at the Ministry of Social Cohesion, which was also attended by a representative of TERNA. The presentation took place on 07/09/2025. There, too, they did not receive a copy of the so-called TEE report, or any report from TERNA, but were merely shown some plans for the “structural restoration” of the building. The plaintiffs once again attempted to discredit the report from the municipality’s urban planning department—the only one available to the court—by stating that the report was based solely on a “visual inspection”! At this point, it was noted that at the July meeting at the ministry, no one mentioned that the TEE report had been completed.
*
The last witness was the building manager, Anastasopoulos. He was the man who, at the time of the explosion, was in apartment C2 performing work, and one of the two who helped free Marianna, who had been pinned down. The witness was approximately 7 meters away from the site of the explosion. The witness stated that this was the first time he had seen Marianna. He stated that he does not know if the Technical Chamber of Greece (TEE) report exists, and that he has only seen the notice posted by the municipality’s urban planning department. He has not been informed of anything further, nor has he had any communication with TERNA. At this point, the counsel for the civil action commented that the state’s commitment to restoration is merely a “political promise,” and the presiding judge added that, as far as can be seen, there is nothing regarding the reports or the continuation of the work. The prosecutor then asked questions to determine how the witness was being harmed by the sealing of the apartment building, from which it emerged that he was losing the rent he had been collecting. Furthermore, she “explained” to him that TERNA’s donation is to the state, not to the residents, and therefore they have every right to request at least an update on the progress of the work. At this point, in a rather stern tone, she pointed out to the witness that, by law, the state is obligated to repair the damage, provided it is determined that it resulted from a terrorist act. In essence, she urged the witness to exercise his rights, implying that his interest (in having the damage repaired) depended on the conviction under Article 187A of at least one of the accused individuals.
Subsequently, the civil action stated that 3–4 meetings had taken place between the affected residents and state representatives, and that at the meeting with the prime minister, the 20 residents were prohibited from attending with legal counsel. Regarding the stairwell, the building manager explained that the main problem is that the handrail is missing.
Lawyer Papadakis then took the floor, beginning by conveying the gratitude of his client Marianna for the witness’s assistance immediately following the explosion. From the defense attorney’s questions, it emerged that Marianna was standing 3–4 meters from the site of the explosion, facing the hallway on that floor.
Furthermore, it turned out that the power cut was not carried out at the manager’s request. As for the water supply, which was cut off months later pursuant to an EYDAP protocol, the manager had submitted a request that it not be cut off. He also had no idea who had asked the Technical Chamber of Greece (TEE) to conduct an inspection.
Subsequently, Papadakis read an excerpt from the Government Gazette published on 12/20/2024, which refers to the assignment of the study to the Technical Chamber of Greece (TEE), with the explicit commitment to notify the owners of the findings within 10 days of the publication of the Government Gazette. The witness could not answer with certainty why the apartment building has not been restored to use, even though some work has been carried out. He stated that at the meeting at the ministry, they were told to vacate the apartments.
In response to Papadakis’s final question, the witness stated that he does not recall whether he was authorized by the apartment building’s assembly to take any action, such as submitting a request to an agency to conduct a study of the building. More generally, at various points in his testimony, this witness mentioned that he has a poor memory, that because of this he “does not trust himself,” and so on.The witness’s testimony concluded with questions from Thanasis Kampagiannis. It emerged that no one had contacted the building manager regarding the power outage following the urban planning report. He himself had asked EYDAP not to cut off the water supply.
It also emerged that this witness operates a store on the ground floor of the apartment building (K1), which is accessible, has electricity and water, and he is not prevented from going there.
Comment on the conclusion of the examination of the prosecution witnesses:
The examination of the witnesses reveals that none of the residents took any action to seal off the apartment building or cut off the electricity and water supply. The political expediencies on which attempts are being made to exploit the explosion in order to highlight the supposed “moral superiority” of both the state apparatus and the TERNA company have been clearly revealed. In reality, to date, no substantive action has been taken to restore the apartment building. The hearing also revealed that all the reports cited by the relevant ministries are not available to the residents or even to the court. For her part, the prosecutor, through her questioning, is attempting to link the interests of the affected residents to the conviction of the defendants under Article 187A.
*
This was followed by the reading of the statements that two of the prosecution witnesses—Tsoukalas and Terzi—who did not appear at the trial had given to the counterterrorism unit.
Neither statement contains anything of substance for the trial.
Tsoukalas, who was in his apartment in the building at the time of the explosion, states that he had not noticed any unusual activity in the building or any suspicious movements.
Terzi, who owns an apartment on the 5th floor of the building, makes similar statements.
*
This concluded the phase of examining the prosecution’s witnesses. This was followed by statements from the defense attorneys, along with brief comments and conclusions regarding this phase.
Kostas Papadakis reiterated once again that there is no desire for conflict with the residents of the apartment building, while acknowledging that there is no animosity or prejudice on the part of those who testified.
He noted that during the examination of the witnesses, there appears to be an exaggeration of the damage to the apartment building. At the same time, based on the information available to us, there is no justification for the building to have been out of use for 1.5 years. The defense attorney stated that some entity has “brainwashed these people into downplaying the study by the municipality’s urban planning department,” which is a highly reputable organization. He added that there is no report, whether from a public agency or a private engineer, that refutes the urban planning department’s conclusion. At the same time, electricity and water have been cut off to the apartment building, while there are constant references to the TEE report, which we do not even know if it was ever produced. Nor do we have any idea whether a building permit actually exists.
And amidst all this, a corporate giant undertook the restoration—in a timeframe that would have been “enough to build a highway from one end of the country to the other”— has not proceeded with the minimal technical improvements that the urban planning study specifies can be carried out within 20 days.
The defense attorney repeated another fact: A woman who was 3 meters from the site of the explosion, Marianna Manoura, survived it; another man, the building manager Anastasopoulos, was, according to his own account, 7 meters from the explosion and was unharmed. The apartment building, which required 20 days to repair the damage, has not been fixed and has been out of use for the past 1.5 years. There is an attempt to exploit the incident politically, to highlight and stigmatize the internal enemy, and this is served by creating a distorted picture of the damage to the apartment building and the dangers arising from it.
One final point is that, according to Anastasopoulos’s testimony, the spot where Marianna was found is 3–4 meters away from where the explosion occurred. This, combined with the floor plan provided by Papavasileiou, the son of the apartment’s owner, leads us to the conclusion that Marianna was in a different room from the one where the explosion occurred, and that she was not involved in the events that caused it.
*
Next, Thanasis Kampagiannis took the floor.
He began by saying that there is no doubt that a powerful explosion occurred. In fact, it took place in a small space, which is why the shock wave was released in this way.
Marianna said from the very beginning that she would take responsibility for her part in this. We are not hiding from that. However, it is not possible for us to be called upon to take responsibility for things that are unfounded. There is no indication that the building is slated for demolition. There is no issue of structural stability; otherwise, the entire apartment building would have been deemed uninhabitable from the start, and we would have had it in writing, if there were any document to prove it. This is also supported by the statement made by the building manager, Anastasopoulos, who operates a store in the same apartment building, which is open, just like the others there.
HEDNO cut off the electricity on its own initiative. Months later, EYDAP did the same with the water.
The damage to the stairwell is an accessibility issue.
Finally, Papavasileiou’s contribution regarding the layout of the apartment is useful. According to the picture we were given, Marianna was found near the hallway, while Kyriakos was found near the balcony. It appears that they were in different rooms, which is why she survived—a fact confirmed by forensic reports.
*
Next, the defense lawyers for Nikos Romanos took the stand, led by Lila Ragousi.
The lawyer stated that so far, nothing concerning Nikos has come up in the trial. However, we can see that there was a specific media strategy at play. During his defense, Romanos also faced this charge—the explosion. At the same time, all the media were reporting false news.
*
Next up was Kalogirou, who reiterated that nothing relevant to Nikos Romanos had come to light. That leaves the part about the technical aspects of the fingerprint, which we will examine below.
He also pointed out an aspect of the media handling of the story: at the very moment Romanos was entering the interrogation room for a supplementary statement, new reports were emerging about announcements of compensation for residents.
*
Marina Daliani then took the floor and reiterated that the events had nothing to do with Romanos.
She stated that, having read previous reports, she believed the apartment building had already been restored and was, in fact, in better condition than before. After hearing the witnesses’ testimonies, she expressed shock at the sight of only four workers trying to carry out the restoration work.
She also addressed the media handling of the case, noting that it was no coincidence that on the day Romanos was testifying, a meeting took place between representatives of the executive branch and residents of the apartment building, which worked against Nikos. The defense attorney even framed this as an issue of “democratic separation of powers.”
In support of this, Daliani referred to the statement by the witness Stavrakakis, who, when asked if he recognized any of the accused, said no, but that he recognized Romanos from television. The defense attorney argued that this atmosphere was exploited and served the case’s media management.
*
This was followed by a statement from Kanellopoulos, A.K.’s defense attorney.
The attorney stated that, given the circumstances, his client should not have been brought to the courtroom. He also noted that it was no coincidence that, just as A.K. was heading to give supplementary testimony during the preliminary hearing, announcements were published regarding €6,000 in compensation for the affected residents. This coincidence served to create a negative impression, even though over the past 12 months the prosecutor had recommended the release of both Nikos Romanos (with an ankle monitor) and A.K. (with two court appearances per month).
The defense attorney reiterated that it is an insult that the case has reached this point, and that the defense has not been able to ask even a single question.
He concluded his statement by saying that the case has been manipulated for political gain at the expense of both the defendants and the affected residents of the apartment building.
*
After the defense attorneys had spoken, comrade Marianna asked to speak and made a brief statement.
She said she did not wish to refer again to the prosecution’s witnesses, noting that she had already addressed the moral burden she and her partner Kyriakos Xymitiris bear at the start of the trial (April 1). Because Kyriakos, too, was fighting for exactly the opposite. That was the reason he was in the apartment—so that we would not have to endure the injustice we are experiencing, which has also been reflected in the atmosphere of the courtroom so far.
Regarding the rejection of the objection regarding the court’s lack of jurisdiction, and all the arguments raised around the political nature of the crime, the comrade pointed out that the political dimension is already present within the courtroom: The questions themselves attest to the political nature of the case, e.g., the prosecutor’s questions to witnesses about the defendants’ relationship to activism, militancy, and illegal practices, as well as their ideology, etc.
This is a political case, and we will see this every day. It is already evident today.
Our comrade concluded by saying that the handling of the entire situation indicates that there is a political agenda.
*
The day concluded with the submission of documents by Rahiotis, the defense attorney for Dimitra Zarafeta. These documents primarily detail her academic background, as well as other aspects of her daily life.
*
The next hearing is scheduled for April 3 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom D4. Nevertheless, the presiding judge stated that an effort will be made to keep this hearing in Courtroom D5. We will see how this plays out in the morning.
FREEDOM FOR OUR COMRADES
ACCUSED IN THE AMPELOKIPI CASE
media:
abelocaseday2.pdf