Just a few hours after a judicial council turned down an appeal for a fresh furlough by convicted November 17 hitman Dimitris Koufodinas, Supreme Court prosecutor Xeni Dimitriou said she would review the decision, fueling fears that it may be revoked.
The council earlier on Thursday rejected the appeal by the 61-year-old terrorist, who is in hospital following a week-long hunger strike, deeming that he should not be eligible as he has never expressed regret for his activities as the assassin for the N17 terrorist organization.
However, Dimitriou has reportedly requested the council’s decision and Koufodinas’ medical records. Although there are no reports of the 61-year-old’s health being at risk, he has threatened to continue his hunger strike “to the end” if his furlough is not granted. He has also complained about “inhumane treatment and torture” at the Volos General Hospital to which he was transferred earlier this week from an agricultural jail. The convict, who has been granted six furloughs over the past year-and-a-half, was moved to the laxer Volos facility last summer from Attica’s high-security Korydallos Prison.
In its decision to reject his latest request for leave, the judicial council argued that “he is not prepared to change his stance but insists on his view of an armed overthrow of the ‘state monopoly of violence,’ thus making it clear that, if the opportunity arises, it is not out of the question that he will commit new crimes.” It also expressed concern about a recent statement by a leading member of the anarchist group Rouvikonas according to which “everything will turn red” if Koufodinas is rebuffed. The union of judges and prosecutors accused the group of using “fascist-type” methods.
On Thursday night, anarchists smashed shopfronts in central Athens, shouting slogans in support of the N17 hitman.
Sources said Dimitriou’s intervention will likely clear the way for the council’s decision to be reversed, but will probably focus on the health risks of the 61-year-old continuing his hunger strike rather than challenging the legal basis of the ruling.