Legal proceedings concerning a 49-year-old German national, accused of illegally selling property in northern Cyprus, have reached a significant turning point. A court in the Republic of Cyprus has permitted an edited version of the accused woman's initial police statement to be admitted as evidence. This decision was strongly opposed by the defence team. Furthermore, the prosecution successfully obtained court approval to present additional testimonies, a move that also encountered considerable resistance.
The central allegations involve the German woman purportedly selling properties owned by Greek Cypriot individuals in the Turkish-occupied northern part of the island. The admissibility of her statement, taken after her arrest in 2024, has been a major point of contention throughout the trial. A previous preliminary hearing had ruled that the statement could be used, but only after specific sections were removed. It was this court-approved alteration that the prosecution sought to introduce.
The defence lawyer, Sotiris Argyrou, vehemently objected to the modified statement, describing it as substantially different from the original document. He argued that his client had not been given an opportunity to review the revised text or to dispute its accuracy, stating she "never had the opportunity to question the content." Despite these impassioned arguments, Judge Nikolas Georgiades dismissed the defence's objections as baseless. The judge confirmed that the document had been thoroughly compared and complied with previous court instructions. Consequently, the prosecution’s submission of a photocopy of this amended statement was officially sanctioned.
Adding further complexity, the prosecution then requested permission to call additional witnesses to bolster their case. This request immediately provoked a fresh wave of objections from the defence. Mr. Argyrou expressed concerns regarding the timing of these proposed testimonies, citing a lack of prior notification. He questioned whether their introduction would unfairly disadvantage his client's defence. The prosecution argued that the expected testimony would not fundamentally change their case's core arguments. They also asserted it would not compromise the accused's legal rights or the overall fairness of the proceedings.
The court's decision to allow the amended statement and hear further witnesses represents a substantial step forward in the prosecution's strategy. It demonstrates the prosecution successfully overcoming a crucial procedural hurdle regarding their intended evidence. However, the defence's continuous objections highlight the ongoing legal disputes and their determined efforts to challenge the prosecution's methods and presented evidence. These judicial rulings carry significant implications for the trial's future direction. The court has indicated its intention to proceed with examining evidence, despite the defence’s persistent reservations. The final verdict will depend on the subsequent presentation and evaluation of all evidence.