Omonia police station: two police officers were found guilty of raping a 19-year-old

Mixed Assize Court of Athens admitted two policemen guilty in the case of rape of a 19-year-old girl inside Omonia police station. The decision was made by a majority vote.

As reported ΣΚΑΪ, CNN Greece And Naftemporikithe court found the two accused guilty of rape committed jointly and without the consent of the victim.

Initially, the case was tried on charges of gang rape. The court changed the qualification to rape committed jointly without consent. At the same time, one of the two convicts was unanimously found guilty of violating the legislation on personal data: according to the case materials, he recorded what was happening on video.

The third policeman, who was accused of aiding and abetting the rape, was acquitted by a majority vote. The decision on punishment for the two convicts is to be announced later.

The court did not accept the “consent” version

During the trial, two of the convicts denied the charges. They argued that the sexual contact was consensual. This line of defense was built around the version of the consent of the 19-year-old girl.

The court, however, did not accept this version. Moreover, the decision turned out to be the opposite of the proposal of the prosecutor, who had previously asked to acquit the accused due to doubts. According to LiFO And ERTthe prosecutor offered acquittals for all three officers on the underlying charges.

And this is where things become especially revealing. The court is not required to agree with the prosecutor, and in this case it did not. In a country where the phrase “word against word” too often becomes a convenient dustbin for hard cases, this decision matters.

What the victim said

According to the case file, the 19-year-old girl stated that she ended up at the police station after asking for help on an issue related to her work. According to her, already inside the station she was sexually assaulted by two police officers.

The scene itself makes things especially difficult. This is not about a chance meeting in a bar, not about an argument in a private apartment, and not about a situation without an institutional context. The girl found herself inside a police station – a place where a person should come for protection, and not be put in a position of vulnerability in front of those who wear a uniform.

That is why this story caused such a resonance. When a crime, according to a court decision, is committed not just by citizens, but by police officers inside the station, the damage goes beyond the scope of a single criminal history. It attacks confidence in the very idea of ​​government protection.

Video recording and personal data

A separate element of the case is video recording. One of the two convicted, as follows from the court decision, was unanimously found guilty of violating the legislation on the processing of personal data, since, according to the case, he recorded what was happening on video.

Greek media reported that the camera was installed in the bag of one of the police officers. This detail makes the case even more humiliating for the victim and even more difficult to assess the behavior of the convicts. Because here we are talking not only about violence, but also about an attempt to fix it as an object of control, demonstration or subsequent use.

Yes, formally this is a separate article of accusation regarding personal data. But essentially it is part of the same picture: abuse of power, the body of another person and the work environment. The legal language is neat, as always. Reality, alas, does not have to be neat.

Why is the case important to the police?

This court decision does not mean that all police are guilty. Such generalizing hysteria helps no one except fans of loud signs. But it means something else: when police officers are accused of a serious crime inside the station, the system must respond not with corporate protection, but with complete transparency.

A police station is a place where a citizen should be safe even when he is weak, scared, confused or dependent on the actions of the officers. If violence occurs inside such a place, it is not just a criminal offense. This is the destruction of the basic contract between citizen and state.

That is why the punishment that will be imposed by the court will be an important signal. Not just for the two convicts. For the entire system, which must understand: uniform is not armor from responsibility. Although some, judging by such cases, still confuse an official certificate with a license for impunity.

The third policeman is acquitted

The third defendant, who was charged with aiding and abetting rape, was acquitted by a majority vote. This means that the court did not consider his criminal liability for the charges to be proven.

For correctness, it is important to separate these decisions. Two were found guilty. One is acquitted. One of the two convicted was additionally found guilty in the personal data case. Punishments are still pending.

This legal situation must be conveyed accurately, without unnecessary dramatization and without spreading responsibility across all participants in the process at once. Judicial decisions are based on details, no matter how boring this may sound to those who prefer justice in a screaming format.

Main conclusion

A mixed jury in Athens found two police officers guilty of raping a 19-year-old girl inside the Omonia AT. The court changed the original classification from gang rape to rape committed jointly without consent.

One of the two convicted was also found guilty of violating the personal data law due to the video recording of what happened. The third policeman, accused of being an accomplice, was acquitted by a majority vote.

A decision on punishment is now awaited. But the very fact of the guilty decision is important: the court did not accept the version of “voluntary contact” and did not follow the prosecutor’s proposal for acquittal. For a case that happened inside a police station, this is not just forensic news. This is a test of whether the state is capable of protecting a citizen even when the accused wears its uniform.

Source link