On September 25th, 2024 Homayoun Sabetara's appeal hearing took place before the Thessaloniki Court of Appeals. Although the Court did not acquit him, Homayoun's sentence has been reduced to a minimum. Due to time served & mitigating circumstances Homayoun will be released from prison in a few weeks.
Homayoun Sabetara, a migrant fleeing Iran was arrested in August 2021, after Greek authorities stopped the car he was driving in Thessaloniki. He was subsequently charged with alleged smuggling and sentenced to 18-years in prison, his conviction being primarily based on the written testimony of a witness who never appeared in court. Homayoun has been incarcerated in Greece ever since.
After 576 days wait, Homayoun Sabetara’s appeal hearing was initially set to take place on the 23rd of April 2024, before the Thessaloniki Court of Appeals.
As the appeal hearing began, Homayoun's defence team, consisting of HRLP lawyer Dimitris Choulis and independent lawyers Harris Ladis and Sofia Saripanidou, requested that the absent witness is summoned and examined, as per Article 365 CPC. Responding to the defence's request, the judges decided that the hearing should be postponed to 24/09/24, to determine in the meantime the whereabouts of the absent key witness.
Following another postponement, Homayoun' s appeal hearing finally took place on 25/09/24. Following the 2-hour long questioning of the arresting police officer, Homayoun and his daughter, Mahtab, the defence lawyers gave a powerful plea.
Specifically, the defence objected to the Prosecutor's interpretation regarding Mr. Sabetara’s intent, arguing that intent is a critical element in criminal cases in Greece. Greek criminal law considers motive alongside objective evidence, and intent can impact the outcome, including leading to acquittal. While the defence acknowledged the objective fact that Mr. Sabetara was driving the car when arrested, it argued that intent must be evaluated and that the three years served in prison lead to the conclusion that Mr. Sabetara should at the very least be eligible for release.
The defence also contended that the element of financial gain is unsupported, arguing that even if there were an exchange involving transportation, the profit motive required by law is not fulfilled.
Verdict
The Court found Mr. Sabetara guilty of Article 30, illegal transport of foreigners into Greece. Compared to the decision of the first degree, the Court dropped the aggravating circumstance of deriving profit from the commission of the act. However, the Court did fi nd that Mr. Sabetara’s actions caused endangerment of human life (as in the first instance trial). The Court accepted the mitigating circumstance of no petty motives (Article 84(b) CC). With the pronouncement of the verdict, the judges also recognised the defence’s argument that Mr. Sabetara acted neither for profit nor for petty motives.
The sentencing was determined as follows: 2 years imprisonment for each of the 4 passengers seated in the car and 3 years imprisonment for the 3 people who were in the trunk of the car, sentencing Mr. Sabetara to a total of 17 years imprisonment.
Considering time already served, and good behavior and work record in prison, Mr. Sabetara would be eligible to apply for release on parole (Article 105B CC).
The undermining of safe trial safeguards
Homayoun Sabetara’s case raises serious questions about the adherence to international fair trial standards, as explained thoroughly in the elaborate report produced collaboratively by the Border Violence Monitoring Network (BVMN), European Lawyers for Democracy and Human Rights (ELDH), Feminist Autonomous Centre for Research (FAC), and Legal Centre Lesvos (LCL).
Read the full report:
The monitoring of Mr. Sabetara's trial constitutes part of a larger effort to examine the systemic criminalisation of migration and to critically assess how judicial systems apply facilitation charges in these contexts.
The report in question provides an in-depth analysis of the procedural violations in the appeal trial of Homayoun Sabetara, also highlighting that that criminalising Mr. Sabetara under anti-smuggling laws disregards the clear exemptions provided by Greek and international law.
These frameworks recognise that acts committed in pursuit of safety and protection are not crimes but rather an exercise of the right to seek asylum. In Mr. Sabetara’s case, the absence of legal and safe migration routes forced him to rely on smuggling networks to flee, where he was coerced into driving a vehicle.
Commenti