By Dimitrios Hadjihambis
As a former President of the Supreme Court, I would not have attempted to write on this matter had certain comments not directly cast doubt, not only on the correct understanding of the facts, but also on the integrity of a former Supreme Court Judge, an integrity which I have had the opportunity to observe and appreciate over many years.
Firstly, these comments appear not to grasp the role of the criminal investigator, all the more so given that they come from quarters where this role ought to be fully understood. The criminal investigator, in accordance with the terms of his mandate, has a duty to examine the facts with the sole aim of establishing any criminal responsibility that may emerge from them, and his findings are confined strictly to the evidence placed before him. It is not within his authority to issue a final ruling on any criminal responsibility, a matter which only a court may decide, nor is it his role to investigate, beyond the terms of his mandate and the evidence before him, any wider political or moral responsibilities that may arise. That would be the task of an investigative committee, and a criminal investigator is not an investigative committee. Political and moral responsibilities do not fall within his remit.
Secondly, it is mistaken to give the impression that the criminal investigator's findings clear anyone of potential criminal responsibility. His findings do not recommend prosecution solely for offences under the Criminal Code. They also recommend prosecution for offences under the Council of Europe's Criminal Law Convention on Corruption, which has a broader scope than the Criminal Code and extends into matters touching on political and moral responsibility. If our Criminal Code is outdated and requires reform to encompass offences with such wider political dimensions, that has long been a responsibility and a task for Parliament, rather than something to be noted only after the fact, once its gaps have already been exposed.
Finally, it is at the very least regrettable, and a sign of the decline of political standards and the devaluation of institutions, that the established integrity of a former Supreme Court Judge acting as criminal investigator should be called into question through insinuations of compromises and exchanges, rather than his appointment being appreciated for what it is: that of an independent lawyer of the highest calibre, who devoted his own time and effort to serve the needs of the state. If we have reached the point of doubting everything, this reflects a sickness within the state itself, one which must not be transferred onto those, however few, who have demonstrably served it with selflessness and honesty.
