Crete Trial Monitoring - 17 December 2025

On 17 December 2025, Border Violence Monitoring Network (BVMN) trial observers monitored proceedings before the One-Member Appeals Court of Crete in Chania. From early in the morning, the presence of supporters, solidarity groups, trial monitors, and initiatives calling for support for the defendants, both inside and outside the courtroom, was notable. As consistently observed across Greece, such solidarity presence appears to exert pressure on judicial authorities to adhere, at least formally, to procedural obligations.

Trial observers were present to assess compliance with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and relevant provisions of Greek criminal procedure. All defendants were charged under Article 25 of Law 5038/2023, relating to the unauthorised transport of third-country nationals, with aggravating circumstances such as acting for profit and endangerment of life. Sanctions under this provision include:

• Imprisonment of up to 10 years and fines of €30,000–€60,000 per person transported;
• A minimum of 10 years and €60,000–€100,000 per person if committed for profit;
• A minimum of 15 years and €200,000 per person if life is endangered.

In addition, all defendants faced charges under Article 83 of Law 3386/2005 for unauthorised entry, which carries a minimum three-month custodial sentence and a fine of at least €1,500.

A total of 21 cases involving 31 defendants were listed for hearing. Of these, 11 cases involving 14 defendants (10 Sudanese and 4 Egyptian nationals) proceeded to trial, while 10 cases involving 17 defendants were postponed to 29 December 2025, following lengthy periods of pre-trial detention.

1. Legal Representation (Article 6(3)(b)–(c) ECHR)

All of the cases were supported by state-appointed lawyers who appeared unprepared, with minimal engagement with the case files and limited communication with their clients. BVMN trial observers noticed instances of state-appointed lawyers trying to steer defendants towards plea deals, without adequate effort to inform about the rights, legal implications and possible effect in asylum claims that a plea agreement can have, and despite the clear unwillingness of the defendant to plead guilty. 

Once again, we confirm a recurring pattern: court-appointed lawyers, except one who was appointed two weeks before, were assigned shortly before the hearing or on the same day, either use plea deals as the default course of action, without considering jointly with the defendants the possibility of a proper hearing, or when proceeding to a full hearing, communication between them and defendants is insufficient, with little to no opportunity for the accused to discuss legal strategies or to review the case file in any substantive way. This seems to be a rather structural approach, possibly shaped by constraints in time, resources, and procedural support, however it raises serious concerns regarding Article 6(3)(b) ECHR, which guarantees the right to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of a defence. The limited preparation, time and lack of communication significantly undermines the ability of legal representation to provide effective legal assistance. 

2. Interpretation (Article 6(3)(e) ECHR)

The Court had complied with its obligation stemming from Article 6(3)(e) ECHR and Article 233 of the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure, which require interpreters to be appointed from an official court-approved catalogue. However, trial observers identified serious deficiencies in the provision and quality of interpretation throughout the proceedings, significantly impairing defendants’ ability to understand the charges, follow the proceedings, and effectively participate. Such shortcomings directly violate Article 6(3)(e) ECHR, which not only guarantees the right of an accused to have the free assistance of an interpreter where they cannot understand or speak the language used in court but actively obliges Courts to provide adequate interpretation, as a hearing cannot be considered fair where defendants are unable to meaningfully engage with the process. The cumulative effect of poor interpretation, particularly in proceedings conducted at an accelerated pace, creates a structural barrier to justice.

3. Timeliness of the proceedings

Trials were conducted at an alarming pace, lasting only a few minutes (most trials reportedly lasted around 10 minutes). Such extreme brevity is incompatible with the guarantees of Article 6(1) ECHR, which requires a fair hearing and a genuine examination of the case on its merits. Trial observers noted that judges largely disregarded defendants’ testimonies, focusing instead on limited and repetitive questions which seem templated and are repetitively used in similar case types, before proceeding rapidly to sentencing. Such questioning goes beyond clarifying facts; it compromises the court’s obligation to remain neutral and focused solely on legal issues. The excessive emphasis on speed over substance deprived defendants of a meaningful opportunity to present their defence, undermined the adversarial nature of the proceedings, and suggests that decisions were effectively pre-determined rather than the result of an individualized judicial assessment.

4. Sentencing

The prosecutorial stance was notably punitive throughout the proceedings, with the prosecutor consistently proposing kathirxi (incarceration) sentences. While the presiding judge in several cases converted these proposals into filakisi (imprisonment), sentencing outcomes remained uniformly harsh.

The cases concerned boat crossings involving a large number of people, a factor repeatedly emphasised by the prosecution and the Court in assessing culpability and sentencing. No acquittals were recorded by trial observers. Among the 14 defendants whose cases were heard, 9 individuals received sentences of 10 years’ imprisonment, while the four Egyptian defendants, from the same case, were sentenced to 25 years’ incarceration (kathirxi). These four defendants reportedly sought to enter plea deals; however, the prosecutor refused to accept them. Despite the fact that the uniform conviction of all defendants clearly signals a lack of an individualised assessment and a leaning of the Court towards pre-assessment of guilt the harsher conviction regarding the 4 Egyptian nationals is further problematic. Sentencing practices differentiating the harshness depending on nationality or possible asylum claim criteria, risk creating unequal treatment before the law and undermine legal certainty. The divergence between courts in these outcomes raises concerns about the uniform application of law and respect for international obligations. Such variability undermines legal certainty and equal treatment.

5. Age assessment

A particularly grave concern regarding assessment of evidence arose in relation to seven defendants transferred from Avlona Youth Prison, some of whom claimed to be minors. Defendants reported significant difficulties in obtaining official birth certificates from Sudan. Three individuals presented photographs of birth certificates issued by the South Sudan Ministry of Health, yet these were not accepted by the Court.

Age claims were systematically rejected based on the results of wrist bone examinations, which indicated adulthood. Trial observers stress that such examinations cannot be widely recognised as the sole evidence to determine the adulthood of defendants, given also the summarily rejection of birth certificates which indicate contrary. The possibility of unreliability of the wrist examination test has to be taken into consideration by the Court when invoked. As a result, individuals who may be minors were tried as adults, in clear tension with fair trial guarantees and child protection standards. The fact that no defendant was recognised as a minor during the proceedings, confirms said concerns.

This practice raises serious fair trial concerns, primarily under Article 6(1) ECHR, which requires courts to conduct a careful, impartial, and reasoned assessment of all relevant evidence. The systematic rejection of age claims based solely on wrist bone examinations, without engaging with other evidence indicating minority or acknowledging the margins of error of such tests, demonstrates a failure to assess evidence holistically and in good faith. By treating wrist examinations as determinative and disregarding contrary indications, the Court effectively deprived defendants of a genuine opportunity to challenge the evidence against them, undermining the principle of equality of arms.

Moreover, where there is reasonable doubt as to a defendant’s age, international and European standards require that such doubt be resolved in favour of the individual being treated as a minor. The failure to do so not only exposes potentially minor defendants to adult criminal proceedings and sanctions, but also compromises the fairness of the proceedings as a whole, as procedural safeguards applicable to children were not applied. The fact that no defendant was recognised as a minor despite multiple age claims and documentary submissions reinforces concerns that age determination was approached in a formulaic and outcome-oriented manner, incompatible with the guarantees of a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR.

6. General Observations

The proceedings of 17 December once again exposed deep and structural flaws in the administration of justice in Chania. The combination of rushed hearings, poor interpretation, inadequate legal representation, reliance on unreliable age assessment methods, and harsh, near-automatic sentencing practices raises serious concerns regarding compliance with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the rights to a fair and public hearing, equality of arms, effective defence, and reasoned judicial decision-making.

Across both hearing dates, trial observers noted a prevailing judicial attitude in which driving a boat was treated as synonymous with guilt, regardless of context, coercion, or intent. This presumption shaped the courtroom atmosphere and appeared to predetermine the outcome of cases. Observers also recorded repeated instances of judicial conduct that undermined the defendants’ ability to present their defence: prosecutorial insisting on harsh convictions, disregard for evidence, template questioning of defendants. These practices collectively raise serious concerns regarding the requirement of an impartial tribunal under Article 6(1) ECHR, and impede the proper examination of defendants and witnesses as protected under Article 6(3)(c)-(d). What emerges is not a series of isolated irregularities, but a pattern of courtroom behaviour that structurally erodes the guarantees of a fair trial.

We call on judicial authorities to:

• Guarantee timely and substantive legal representation;
• Appoint certified and impartial interpreters;
• Respect the presumption of innocence;
• Ensure public and accessible hearings;
• Conduct thorough, individualised assessments in each case.

The presence of independent trial observers, media, and solidarity people is crucial to uphold procedural fairness and accountability in the context of increasingly systemic prosecutions targeting people on the move.