Now there is a countdown to the completion of the work of the parliamentary commission of inquiry on the surveillance case, which has dominated the political scene in recent weeks and affected the image of the government, but did not lead to a turning point in relations between the parties: D. comes out with a clear lead over SYRIZA in the last stretch way to the elections, while attendance remains low on the voters’ agenda.

At the same time, the “final documents” in the committee of inquiry, which are expected within a week with the testimony of Nikos Androulakis, pave the way for the implementation of the legislative initiative taken by Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis with the aim of increasing the transparency of the EMP in a way that ensures it role in national security, but leaving no room for “mistakes” as happened with the PASOK president.

According to the information, although no final decisions have yet been made, the government, which also says it is open to additional proposals from opposition parties, is oriented to submit to public debate with a view to voting them in a short time by Parliament, three plus one meter:

• Increasing the “filters” through which the EYP’s decision to observe a political figure will pass. Already with the legislative act that was passed after the disclosure of surveillance of Androulakis, the signatures of two prosecutors are required to start a connection with a politician, and not one, as was the case until recently. As an added layer of security, it is proposed that the signature of the relevant minister who will lead the EYP is now required. The participation of a judicial council composed of high-ranking judges was considered as an alternative, but it is considered that at the level of justice, the presence of two high-ranking prosecutors is already sufficient. Significant strengthening of the audit role of the Communications Privacy Authority (ADAE). Under the current system, ADAE only receives the phone numbers of people under surveillance. According to the information, with the legislative initiative that the government will take, it will be provided that the Office will also be informed of the name of the person being monitored.

• In addition, the possibility of an accurate description of the reason for surveillance rather than a vague reference to “national security considerations” is being considered.

The issue of restoring the right of a controlled person to information and banning eavesdropping programs is being considered.

• Reinstatement of the provision providing that the observed person may be informed of the time and reasons for which he was placed under observation.

• The fourth intervention will not deal with legitimate government investments, but with Predator-type malware that can be used by private individuals. According to the information, the government has decided to impose a complete ban on the purchase and sale of this type of software between individuals, and strict transparency rules will be established regarding its purchase by the state.

The manifestation of the government’s legislative initiative in connection with the above is, as mentioned above, a matter of a short time. The ruling majority decided that the Inquiry would be completed within another week, as only statements from the representative of Intellexa, as well as from the president of PASOK, are awaited. Despite rumors circulating that Mr Androulakis will refuse to testify before the committee in protest of the limited oversight in which the opposition claims parliament operates, the PASOK chairman will appear in the usual manner – “in accordance with his institutional role”, as characteristically reported by his associates.

It should be noted, however, that while Mr. Androulakis will insist on a full explanation of his own observation, “for democratic reasons and not a personal matter”, Harilaou Trikoupis understands that PASOK does not benefit from the fact that the center attention falls on him only in this particular case, overshadowing his other critical speeches, focused on the daily life of a citizen. At the same time, SYRIZA also does not receive significant profits, while now it is called upon to provide explanations for the monitoring of Picciorla, as a result of which ND maintains a significant advantage in voting intentions.

In any case, the results of the latest public opinion polls show that surveillance, despite the sharp political conflict it has caused, will not determine the choice of voters in the upcoming elections. In particular, according to the SKAI “Pulse” poll, which was conducted in two “waves” – before and after the presence of political leaders in Thessaloniki – before that, TIF citizens considered the following issues to be very, very important: an increase in prices for speed of 84%, energy with 82%, Greek-Turkish with 67% and wiretapping with 50%. After the presence of the prime minister, the order did not change and the percentages were 83%, 79%, 65% and 51% respectively. The appearance of Mr. Tsipras at the TIF also did not change the order of issues important to citizens, while the percentages were 83%, 82%, 65% and 47% respectively.

What did the witnesses tell the commission of inquiry?

An early completion of the Examination is largely expected. From the statements of the current and former commanders of the EMP, as well as the head of ADAE, Christos Rammos, no significant information has emerged regarding the surveillance of Andrulakis, but mainly “holes” in the system that the government will try to fix. apply with their legislative initiative. What, according to the information, did the “key” persons say when they met face to face with the parliamentary commission?

Themistocles Demiris
(current EYP commander)

He allegedly told the Examiner that there were no electronic records of surveillance of Androulakis. Also from the printed file he examined, he concluded that the formally followed procedure was legal. However, he reportedly added that he was unable to assess whether the decision to tie was justified, since the EEM prosecutor, who is under the control of the prosecutor of the Supreme Court, is the only one responsible.

Panagiotis Kontoleon
(AIP commander during Androulakis surveillance period)

He was the most “forgiving” of the witnesses questioned by the House committee, citing the obligation of confidentiality associated with his status. He is said to have testified only that he did not inform the Prime Minister, nor Mr. Dimitriadis and G. Gerapetritis, of the surveillance of the PASOK President. In fact, according to the information, he added that he did not know how they knew about the surveillance, and expressed concern about what was happening.

Theodoros Dravillas
(commander of the EIP under the Samara government)

He reportedly testified that he did not know what means the EYP whistleblowers use to collect information. In that sense, he allegedly left open the possibility that they were also using illegal software such as Predator. Finally, according to the information, he noted that the prosecutor of the EMP fully owns the data of the controlled person, since he always has a number and a name in front of him.

Yannis Rubatis
(EYP commander under SYRIZA)

He referred to the Zakynthos case involving Stergios Pitsiorlas, and regarding how the EYP works, he reportedly noted that he informed then-Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras of all important matters orally or in notes when necessary. He is alleged to have suggested that Androulakis’ case files may have been destroyed, but records of hearings against him must exist, while he noted that there was no secrecy regarding the parliamentary committee.

Christ Rammos
(Head of ADAE)

It is alleged that he testified that he did not see the signatures of the six leaders of the EMP, through which surveillance of Andrulakis was launched, and that there is neither a protocol for the destruction of the relevant files, nor evidence of the extension of monitoring and, ultimately, its termination. He also reportedly raised concerns about EYP’s attitude and whether the auditee allowed himself to be audited by the auditor, creating an image of an eventual castrated audit.