24/04/2026
Comrade Marianna Manoura began.
At this point I must make my final statement. As for the decision and my own sentence, I cannot say that I was surprised. After 15 years in the anarchist movement, vindictiveness and severity have come to be expected in the face of fighters, both male and female, who either choose revolutionary armed counter-violence or actively stand alongside them, assisting and helping them.
The fact that the trials took place with such high density on a daily basis and in exhausting schedules, could not even provide the necessary conditions and the necessary time for a substantive examination of the testimonies of the witnesses, the statements of the accused and the final speeches of the lawyers. I honestly wonder how it is possible for a system to allow, and even offer the possibility of making decisions that decide on the lives of dozens of people – in our case, the 5 of us – within 2 hours, from 9:00 to 11:00. This system is protected by the judicial mechanism and this is the way that it accepts to operate. This system uses, and in this way reveals, the expendability of our lives. All that remains is to decide between the depreciation of our lives by the judicial mechanism that condensed the decision-making process into two hours, and the possibility of a pre-determined process. I do not know which is worse. I will say the second, because the first involves an even tiny attempt to rationalise the indictment, and to recognize the unceasing work of the defence lawyers. However, I am very much afraid that the second is probably true, and this because the turn that the said proceedings would take was evident from the beginning.
From the visible signs: The questions that were asked of the witnesses, the adoption of the term IED (improvised explosive device) without having yet taken a position on it and while the expert opinion is clear, from the questions to the accused that were asked only to weld the indictment, to the proposal of the prosecutor who not only distorted the facts, but also had the self-confidence to unofficially assign a managerial role to a person who had no knowledge or involvement with what happened on 31/10, Dimitra Zarafeta. The burden of my erroneous judgment and decision to implicate her in all of this without her knowledge, is something that I bear exclusively.
But there are also the invisible things: The presence of the anti-terrorism branch throughout the trial, the insistence on conducting the case in a specific court despite the objections of both our lawyers and the lawyers of the next cases in the series, the bringing of witnesses and supporters, and the installation of railings for the last and legally crucial week of the trial, all suggest that the end of this process was already written. By you? By the anti-terrorism department? I don’t know and it doesn’t matter much.
Without any evidence and without any testimony, the prosecution of 187A was maintained. While there was no, not just proof, but also no indication of the existence of an organisation, this charge was attributed to us. Without any logic and without any testimony, the immoral potential deceit was also maintained. While there was no logical justification, this charge was ultimately attributed to me. And not only did your high command attribute these, it added article 15 again and rejected the confluences. I was attributed supply 3 times and processing 3 times. That is, I supplied myself once, I supplied myself again and then I supplied myself again. I processed the materials once, I processed them again and then I processed them again.
And since the evidential process has not been achieved, there are again two possibilities. First, that you do not like us personally, that you are bothered by our character and ethos or simply our faces. And second and more likely, that you have implemented a political order. An order that wants to send clear messages: Exhaustive penalties to those who attempt to challenge the state monopoly on violence, exhaustive penalties to those who assist in such, exhaustive penalties to those who do not choose it but do not distance themselves from it, exhaustive penalties to those who do not choose it but do not condemn it. By sending messages of exemplary behaviour, the state through the judicial mechanism seeks prevention, intimidation and suppression. And all this in a climate of zero accountability, in a climate of omnipotence.
I have mentioned at length the relationship between law and ruling classes, law and violence, law and power. Today it becomes clear once again that the judiciary, through this decision, is fulfilling the role of guardian of the regime perfectly. And the struggle against this regime has a greater criminal value than the drug trade, embezzlement, and human trafficking. The process of criminalizing violence “wherever it comes from” is the one-sided side of the reality of ruling relations, it is the one-dimensional reading of history, and simply the reproduction of the ruling narrative.
The argument of bourgeois democracy, where everything is laid out on the table and everything is under discussion, was also heard a lot. It is not like the barbaric regime of a dictatorship, the barbaric regime of Iran or Cuba. A condition that does not justify so-called “armed propaganda”, since dialogue is possible. Since everyone participates in public affairs through elections, what is the reason for so much tension? I will not refer to the percentage that now participates in elections, where 1 in 2 goes to vote, nor to the fact that this right is given every 4 years. I will speak a little more generally about bourgeois democracy, which is anything but a model of equality and equity. In the period of the domination of capital, democracy is not a form of organisation that opposes capital as such. It is a mechanism used by the capitalist class to achieve its domination over society. What does the democratic state do? It represents the illusion of human control over society, but in reality it is a means of compromise and contradiction. Thus, the class-divided society ends up being dominated by the bourgeoisie, after its victory through violence and terror, through democracy and parliamentarism. A form of organisation that ensures the duration of domination, which obviously cannot be maintained in the long term through terror but only through compromise and consensus.
Its theory proclaimed: The individual is sovereign. But practice proved: Capital is sovereign. But bourgeois democracy preached freedom, justice, equality and peace, and for these purposes it also concentrated the state monopoly of violence in its hands. What has been the experience of the overwhelming social majority during these centuries? Which of the above were realized? But what do we live in today? What are the rulers defending? What did this court ultimately defend by “advertising” even if it was gasping for breath? The perpetuation of the system of exploitation and oppression.
My comrade Kyriakos Xymitiris also decided to fight against this condition. He adopted the tool of armed propaganda, wanting to reveal, to bring to the surface the true face of bourgeois democracy and neoliberalism. To oppose the mechanisms that produce the violence of bourgeois interests, and the structures that serve the production and reproduction of the regime of impoverishment. He decided to promote the cause of social revolution through armed action. He chose the very rupture and denial in the here and now, setting a definitive, dividing line between bourgeois and proletarian ethics. He wanted to set the example of selflessness, contribution and social solidarity. And even if his heart stopped on 31/10, his revolutionary vision continues to live. The revolutionary process that began will be continued by other hands, by new comrades who will in turn understand their role in history.
My choice of this contribution is a small part of these processes. A small piece in the great puzzle of social conflict. A small gesture that gave me the honour of standing by my comrade until the end. I regret nothing. The price, as I said, I have paid and it is not measured in years of prison. Besides, for an anarchist, like the trial, prison is another field of struggle.
In conclusion, I would like to show the importance of both the witnesses and the continuous and dynamic presence of the solidarity world. An attitude of responsibility and deep solidarity, a personal but above all political attitude. Because the presence of this world is not based exclusively on sympathy and personal relationships. The presence of this world gives a powerful message. The perception that the anarchist struggle is inextricably linked to revolutionary, armed anti-violence. The presence of the world symbolises the legitimisation of this means, and above all the convergence towards its goal: The overthrowal of the state and capital. Anarchy, as the sharpest and most radical political tendency, does not distinguish between peaceful and non-peaceful means, does not fall into the trap of separation and legality – but shows in the most emphatic way that resistance and solidarity, repression and imprisonment are collective affairs. A position that the individualism and selfishness of the system are reducing to a species on the verge of extinction. However, the attitude and presence of so many people has demonstrated in practice the implementation of the projects of the world we propose, a world of equality, freedom and solidarity.
But I would like to thank four specific people individually. Very different but also very similar. First, Kyriakos’ parents, Anna and Thodoris, who were not only here daily, faced with the accusation against their son, but who did me the honour of testifying as defence witnesses, standing unyieldingly by their son’s side even in a hostile environment. Above all, I would like to thank them for their support and for accompanying me throughout this time. (Motion from Marianna. Applause from the audience and slogans “MARIANNA STRONG UNTIL FREEDOM”) While they could have turned their backs on me, been indifferent and even blamed me, they opened their arms wide and accepted me into their family. Reducing the unbearable burden of my own survival every day with every visit, every phone call, and every conversation we have.
The third person is Dimitra Zarafeta. Not because she literally treated me in the first 6 months when my condition was critical. Not because she, despite her own difficulties, essentially took charge of my recovery in a condition where I couldn’t even take a bath. Not because she stood by me in the loss of the person closest to me in the most dignified way. Not because she shared with me the most unbearable moments in the most selfless way. Not because she didn’t shift responsibilities on to me, she didn’t distance herself either in prison or in court. But because she didn’t distance herself from Kyriakos. From his history and his revolutionary memory. Because she came here and stood unwaveringly by his side, and even if the price is heavy, she didn’t change her stance. She didn’t back down. Knowing the vindictiveness of repressive judicial mechanisms, and the possible consequences that her attitude might have, something that was verified first by the prosecutor’s proposal and secondly by the court’s decision, she did not hesitate but defended her comrade to the end. In turn, demonstrating not only the true and substantial friendly relationship she has with Kyriakos, but first and foremost their deep comradeship. A relationship that will always accompany her.
Finally, I would like to thank Kyriakos Xymitiris for the 6 most beautiful and true years of my life. Because with him I understood the value of self-criticism and empathy. The importance of respect and comradeship. Because he trusted me personally and politically. From the most innocent childhood secret, to his most serious decision. Because he supported me in the most difficult moments, and assured me the space to feel, without hesitations and second thoughts. Because together we dreamed with our eyes wide open of a better world. Because together we believed with all our hearts in a better world. Because together we fought with all our strength for a better world. And if a part of me, the biggest one I would say, died next to him on 31/10, a part of him lives with me still today. He lives for the battles to come and the struggles we will fight. For the dreams we will continue to have and the plans we will continue to make. For the smallest moment until the longest hour. And I will always be by his side. Because on 10/31 I stayed behind to talk about you and the fight you gave, and for those you did not have time to give. On 10/31 I raised my fist and with my bloody mouth I swore to fight. On 10/31 I raised my fist and in the rubble of Arcadia Street I said: MAURICIO MORALES PRESENT, ALESSANDRO MERCOGLIANO PRESENT, SARA ARDIZZONE PRESENT, KYRIAKOS XYMITIRIS PRESENT.
Applause from the audience and slogans for Kyriakos , KYRIAKOS XYMITIRIS ONE OF US, A COMRADE FOREVER ON THE STREETS OF FIRE
KYRIAKOS YOU LIVE FOREVER A FIGHTER
“You pathetic judges. Pathetic! The solidarity movement won’t forget you.”
STATE AND CAPITAL THE ONLY TERRORISTS
SOLIDARITY TO THE ARMED REBELS
“Bravo Marianna”
BE STRONG COMRADE UNTIL FREEDOM
“We are at war, you scum, and you will sit in your chair and not judge Netanyahu, you will judge fighters. That’s who you are.. All of you are a disgrace.” *
https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1641132/
Translated by Act for freedom now!