The facts are known more or less: on 17-1-11 began the trial of some of the accused of participation in the Revolutionary Organization. Conspiracy Cells of Fire. From its beginning it became obvious that democracy had decided to impose its terms, using the attendance of comrades as an occasion to strike in two fields: first to split the bond of the accused with those who come in solidarity in an effort to demean and depoliticize the trial and second to enrich the files of DAEEB (Authority of Confrontation of Special Crimes of Violence), with names and photographs for future use.
The direct reaction of the accused was to withdraw -spontaneous as well as decisive- it showed that we did not intend to tolerate the democratic totalitarianism.
Even if this move of ours, as well as those that followed, initially caused embarrassment and it blocked the development of the procedure, it also brought our collaboration as defendants to its limits, because of our major inhomogeneousness as a total, since we are individuals with different positions, opinions as well as personalities.
This of course in no case cancels the importance of the battle that was given, since it was the first time that it was attempted to answer, in a juridical room, straight up and substantially, the blackmails of democracy. As undeniable and historically fortified is the presence and the political defence in a court, it is also undeniable that it is not the only political proposal, since each action -given the history of political trials- has its own separate gravity. Revolutionary speech does not run out in the juridical rooms but mainly in the conversations of those who speak it.
Despite the errors and the weaknesses this fight constituted a precious experience in the direction of resistance to the destructive conditions that are imposed in political trials. An experience that needs to be capitalized, in view of the upcoming crowd of cases that will be tried in the following period aiming at the inversion of the climate in the special courts.
Bearing in mind the above, I consider that its understood why I insist on my initial decision to leave the trial, even though the “evidence” of my involvement has collapsed already since the first sessions. I consider that the axis of solidarity of the “inside” with the “outside” is the spear point of our counter-attack. This decision of course concerns this trial and not necessarily the next ones as well -without however excluding it- since every future decision will be taken with the then given facts.
P.S. Warm greetings to all who against the stubborness of our times, choose to express their solidarity by all means, giving meaning to the word.
1st wing of Koridallos prisons