The Limassol Permanent Criminal Court on Friday unanimously found all four defendants guilty of the premeditated murder of Thanasis Kalogeropoulos, who was killed in a seaside car park in the city almost three years ago.
The court ruled that their guilt had been proven beyond reasonable doubt and that the killing was premeditated, noting that it had been planned in advance.
The four, aged 43, 46, 24 and 23, were also convicted on the other charges they faced jointly, which included conspiracy to murder, possession, transport and use of Category A and B firearms, possession, transport and use of explosives, and arson of a vehicle. The exception was an additional charge of being an accessory after the fact to murder, which the 24-year-old faced alone.
The judgment runs to more than 600 pages and is divided into sections, the presiding judge said. It was not read out in full; the court presented its key points.
Kalogeropoulos, 55, was killed on October 30, 2023, in a car park next to a beachfront restaurant on Amathus Avenue in Limassol. Two of the defendants were accused of getting out of a vehicle and firing repeatedly at him while he was inside his car. The other two were accused of acting as accomplices.
Security at the court was tight, with everyone entering the courtroom being searched. Relatives of the victim were in court to hear the verdict.
The four have been held on remand at the Central Prisons since the start of the case. The verdict was originally due on September 9, but the court could not finish writing it in time because of the volume of evidence.
More than 75 prosecution witnesses testified during the trial, most of them police officers, investigators and experts involved in gathering and assessing the evidence. Relatives of the victim, eyewitnesses and others also gave evidence.
More than 560 exhibits were submitted, including CCTV footage from the area where the killing took place, and videos and conversations retrieved from the defendants’ telecommunications data.
After the prosecution closed its case, the court ruled there was a prima facie case and called on the defendants to present a defence. They chose to exercise their right to silence, while the defence called expert witnesses who testified under oath.
