The acquittal of former House President Dimitris Syllouris and ex-MP and businessman Christos Giovani in the high-profile Al Jazeera case has been described as “largely expected” by lawyer Achilleas Emilianides on the talk show “Mesimeri kai Kati“.
Absence of clear evidence
According to Mr Emilianides, the trial had already revealed the lack of clear and specific testimony to substantiate the alleged offences. Following the withdrawal of charges against another involved party, it remained unclear which specific facts or evidence formed the basis of the allegations.
“Corruption requires proof of concrete elements,” he explained, noting that there were no references to specific sums of money or actions that could demonstrate undue influence or exchange of benefits. Given this context, the verdict came as no surprise.
Possibility of appeal
Mr Emilianides emphasised that the case is not necessarily closed, as the Law Office retains the right to appeal the acquittal. He also pointed out the existence of a minority decision in the court ruling, which could indicate potential continuation of the judicial process at a higher level.
Role of the Al Jazeera video
The lawyer gave special attention to the Al Jazeera video, which caused a political stir upon its release but was ultimately neither submitted nor used as evidence in court. He highlighted that the footage was a montage and stressed the legal difference between publicly released audiovisual material and evidence formally examined under oath.
For a video to have evidentiary value, he explained, the full material held by journalists would need to be submitted, allowing the court to evaluate it in its entirety rather than in isolated clips.
Legal standards in corruption cases
Mr Emilianides reiterated that proving corruption legally requires:
- Evidence of undue influence
- Connection to specific actions
- Potential receipt of benefits
He noted that a montaged video alone cannot satisfy these requirements and serves only as a trigger for police investigation, not as a basis for criminal conviction.
He concluded by pointing out that the case’s progression to trial indicated that the Law Office believed sufficient material existed to support a charge. However, the final acquittal demonstrates that the evidentiary burden was not met to the standard required in criminal law – beyond reasonable doubt.
Also read: “Golden Passports” case: Rulings, witness assessments, and evidence gaps
For more videos and updates, check out our YouTube channel
