Mirto Papadomichelaki listened to music on the rocks of Chrysis Aktis, a beach in Paros. It was July 22, 2012, she was 15 years old. The then 21-year-old Ahmet Vakas approached her to take her mobile phone. As he later confessed, he hit her with a 5 kg rock and then threw it on the rocks. When Mirto was unconscious, he raped her.

Ten years later, Ahmet Vakas is in prison, as is, in a sense, Mirto Papadomichelaki, who survived but is stuck with a 100% disability.

In 2017, her mother, Maria Kotrotsu, launched legal proceedings to seek compensation from the state for the Mirto tragedy, stating that since the Pakistani was in the country illegally, the responsibility for his attack on Mirto was legally the responsibility of the state, which did not take care of to drive him out.

The decision of the first instance was rejected as unfounded in 2018, and an appeal was subsequently lodged with the Administrative Court of Appeal, which was also rejected. The case was then referred to the Council of State, which this month awarded the State compensation to be determined by the administrative courts, where the case will then be heard.

“The entry into the country of aliens/third-country nationals and their continued stay, which may be long, is neither free nor uncontrolled, but is subject to a regulatory regime (Law 3386/2005) that imposes on them the obligation to provide them with a passport/travel document, entry visa and residence permit for a specific purpose (for work, self-employment, study or other lawful purpose) and establishes the mandatory competence of the police authorities to issue a deportation act, including in the event that an alien has violated the relevant provisions, as well as after entry by virtue of Law No. 3907/2011 on the Act on the Return of Illegal Residents,” the Council of State decided.

“As long as the police authorities violate their obligations and do not issue a deportation certificate in the performance of their duties or, after 01/26/2011, an act of return of illegal residents, certainty is created for any foreigner who entered illegally. , resides in the country illegally and wishes to behave illegally and offend any legitimate good, that he will never be punished because his identity is not known to the Greek authorities and he has not been fingerprinted,” the Supreme Court said in conclusion, that “therefore, there is a general and abstract causal relationship between this unlawful omission of public authorities and the damage (for example, injury to the body or health or death) of a third party, which is caused when a national of a third country who illegally entered and resided in Greece causes damage absolutely protected legal asset.”

A sharp reaction from many professors of public law, expressing doubts not about morality, but about the legal correctness of the decision of the Supreme Court.

While this decision acquitted Mirto Papadomichelakis and her family, it provoked a strong reaction, with many lawyers expressing their doubts not about its morality, but about its legal correctness. “This decision is wrong,” Xenophon Kontiadis, a professor of public and social security law at Panteion University, told K, because there is a causal link between the failure of the Greek state to deport foreigners illegally residing in the country and the commission of criminal acts. He emphasizes that if we accept that every criminal act committed by irregular immigrants establishes an obligation for the state to compensate the victims, we will end up with “an unexpected number of claims” and “persecution of people.”

“In my opinion,” he states, “the decision implicitly recognizes that illegal immigrants are potential criminals, and had it not been implied, it might have been perceived as such.”

“The decision is of particular interest, and we are waiting for the publication of the full text so that it can be accurately commented on,” Eugenia Prevedouru, professor of public law at the Faculty of Law at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, tells K. “While from a human point of view, you feel satisfied, from a legal point of view, this causes reservations – the interpretation of the relevant causal relationship is too broad,” he emphasizes, adding that the responsibility of the state is too easily established. According to her, in a specific decision, the State Council recognized that the failure to prevent the entry of Ahmet Vakas into the country or the lack of monitoring of him caused the devastating event. “We can get unexpected results,” he says, explaining that the broadest interpretation of causation has the potential to pave the way for citizens to receive compensation for every crime they commit.

“As a person and as a woman, when you read the decision, you can emotionally feel justified, but on the other hand, jurisprudence is based on the interpretation of the Constitution and the law and should create legal certainty,” says Ms. Preveduro. .

Similar reservations were voiced by Andreas Takis, Associate Professor of Law at AUTH and President of the Hellenic Union for Human Rights, stressing that the decision 1500/2022 of the Council of State, despite the good intentions of the court, had worried the Union. , creating two main caveats. “Firstly,” declares Mr. Takis “K”, “that the concept of causation he has adopted leads to an absurdity that the police declare illegal every time a crime is committed because they did not prevent it, and secondly that this unprecedented concept is applied for the first time in a case where the perpetrator is an undocumented immigrant.” The decision is “unintentional,” Mr. Takis says, signaling to police that if they do not track down and deport undocumented immigrants, they will be held accountable for any crime they may commit.

“Mirto, a survivor of rape and grievous bodily harm, as well as her family, the state really has an obligation to “compensate”, to implement, that is, as it is called, restorative justice – not because state institutions harmed her with their abstract laziness, but out of elementary solidarity for the terrible and unjust harm that she also suffered because of her gender,” states Mr. Takis, emphasizing that this is the duty of a democratic state, which has nothing to do with the origin, or with the victim or the perpetrator.

“My child has the right to live with dignity”

For her part, Myrtos Papadomichelakis’ mother, Maria Cotrotsu, tells K that she feels justified by the State Council’s recent decision, but emphasizes that there is still a long way to go. He does not yet know when, but the case will return to the Court of Appeal to determine the amount of compensation, and the decision of the Court of Appeal will then have to be taken by the Ministry of Finance.
To the reservations expressed about the decision of the Supreme Court, Ms. Kotrotsova replies: “I would tell them to come to my position, although I don’t want them to.” She emphasizes that she is not in favor of opening a compensatory path for people who have died, “because, unfortunately, no matter how well the marbles are polished, they do not cease to be marbles”, but for others who, like Mirto, survived. but they need a lot of support. “I did this fight for the needs of my child who is alive,” he emphasizes, saying that the compensation that the Mirto family is asking for does not even cover all of their expenses. “If a path is opened on the basis of Mirto, then I will say that something good has come out of all this bad, because every person who is in the position that Mirto is in has the right to live with dignity, because he never stops losing moment to moment, without the slightest reason, their lives,” says Ms. Kotrotsova. However, he does not believe that the decision is aimed at immigrants who are in the country without documents. “The justification is not that every illegal immigrant is a potential murderer,” he emphasizes, “but some things should be taken into account in the form in which they were defined from the very beginning, and they were not observed by the European Union, that they should be identified with their documents, which were not observed, were invisible to the state , there was no paper, no fingerprints.” Be that as it may, she says, both she and her daughter are Greek citizens – “Article 2 of the Constitution states that the duty of the state is to take care of honor, life the dignity of every human being.” That’s why she’s asking for this compensation for Mirto, both for her treatment and “for her to have a bigger pillow when her mom passes away,” says Ms. Cotrotsu. Either way, she emphasizes, both her own life and that of her eldest daughter are destroyed. It ended on July 22, 2012. “They come to sharpen the pain of an unhealed wound,” she replies to those who accused her of demanding this money for her own benefit. “At least let them leave me alone,” emphasizes the mother of Myrtos Papadomichelakis, “peace, which, of course, I don’t have.”