The criminal case against German real estate agent Eva Isabella Kiunzel, who is facing charges relating to the usurpation of Greek Cypriot properties in the north, continued before the Nicosia Criminal Court on Monday with a new objection and a request to add more witnesses to tae the stand.
During the hearing, defence counsel Sotiris Argyrou raised an objection regarding the amended version of the investigative statement which the prosecution sought to submit as evidence at the main trial.
On 18 December 2025, following a ruling during the second “trial within a trial”, the Court accepted the prosecution’s request that the accused’s investigative statement be admitted as evidence, after the removal of specific questions and answers as well as documents.
At that time, the Criminal Court rejected the defence argument that the statement was the product of unlawful searches, while it also ruled admissible a related statement made by the accused herself.
Background to the defence challenge
The defence had based its position on the fact that the investigative statement followed a search carried out after the accused’s arrest in July 2024 - a search which had been deemed unlawful by a previous ruling of the Criminal Court during the first “trial within a trial”.
At the current stage of the proceedings, prosecution witness number one, Police Staff Sergeant Dimitra Stavrou of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Headquarters, was called to submit a photocopy of the amended statement, from which the contested questions, answers and documents had been deleted, in accordance with the Court’s instructions.
Court hears arguments on voluntariness
Argyrou challenged the voluntariness of the revised text, arguing that it was essentially “an entirely different document” from the statement originally given by the accused to the police.
He said the defence’s concern was whether the remaining text could genuinely be considered a voluntary statement or confession by the accused, noting that she had never been given the opportunity to challenge the content of the amended version.
The Court, however, stated that it had already compared the amended statement with the original and that its instructions had been fully complied with.
Ruling on the objection
For her part, the prosecution’s representative Anna Matthaiou stressed that the revised text had been prepared strictly on the basis of a court order, which the Court could not revisit.
The issue was also raised directly by the Court during exchanges with the defence.
The President of the Criminal Court, Nikolas Georgiades, said the Court could not alter a decision that had already been made.
“We have considered the matter. In essence, what is being requested is that we decide again on an issue that has already been determined - namely whether the text could be revised in the manner ordered by the Court,” he said.
He added that once the Court had ruled that the submission of the amended text was feasible and that its instructions had been followed, there was no requirement for approval by either party.
The Criminal Court unanimously rejected the defence objection as “unfounded” and instructed that the amended text be formally submitted as evidence.
Prosecution seeks to add witnesses
At the same time, the prosecution submitted a request to add further witnesses, increasing the total number to twenty.
Argyrou raised a new objection, requesting clarification as to when the relevant witness statements had been taken, arguing that the timing was critical to the proceedings and stating that he had not been made aware of the specific testimony.
In response, Matthaiou said that despite the number of witnesses, the scope of their testimony was not such as to materially alter the nature of the case.
She argued that their addition would not affect the rights of the accused or the fair and proper conduct of the proceedings, warning that rejection of the request could deprive the prosecution of essential evidence necessary for the proper administration of justice.
Next hearing
Defence counsel requested time to address the application for the addition of witnesses.
The next hearing was scheduled for 7 January 2026 at 09:00. Until then, the accused will remain in custody under the same conditions, with the defence reserving the right to address the issue at a later stage.