More than two years after the Pylos shipwreck—the deadliest in modern Greek history, with possibly more than 600 men, women, and children lost—clear answers about its causes remain elusive.
In June, Solomon met with attorney Thrasivoulos Kontaxis at his office in Athens. Kontaxis is defending the 13 uniformed officers (the captain and crew) of patrol vessel PPLS-920, the only Coast Guard ship present when the tragedy unfolded.
As part of Solomon’s investigation, he set out the defense’s position on what happened on June 14, 2023.
Below is the full transcript of the interview, lightly edited for clarity. The accompanying report—where the defense’s claims are weighed against the findings of the Greek Ombudsman, whose months-long investigation identified serious failures by senior Coast Guard officials, and to which Solomon gained access—can be found [here].
All of Solomon’s coverage of the Pylos shipwreck, the deadliest in Greece’s modern history, is available [in Greek] and [in English].
Q: Do you represent the captain and all members of the 920’s crew?
A: Yes.
Q: Including the members of the Special Missions Unit (KEA)?
A: Yes—everyone who was on the 920.
Q: And, practically speaking, you were informed about the case…
A: Much later, months later, because the officers believed that, precisely because they hadn’t done anything, there would be no issue of their implication, disciplinary or otherwise. When, at some point, the Greek Ombudsman began seeking answers, they contacted me. We received a formal notice from the Ombudsman stating: you are being summoned, you are accused of intentional homicide. A parenthesis here: my view of the Ombudsman is known—they are professional rights-advocates, in the sense that they hold a perception of things that is divorced from the actual facts. The fact that I defend [then-captain of PPLS-920, Miltiadis] Zouridakis does not mean I can say thingsomot that don’t correspond to reality. So when I asked them: why would I, at the very moment I’m rescuing 104 people, help others drown?—there was no answer. Therefore, the main question is: why intentional homicide? It could be negligence–that I was not capable, that I didn’t take appropriate measures, that I made a mistake. Let’s examine that, investigate it.
Q: Does the report actually say “intentional”?
A: Indeed. And not only that–it was forwarded to the Naval Court, and it says “intentional.” That’s where we fundamentally diverged.
Q: What was the Ombudsman asking?
A: They were operating under the notion that he committed intentional homicide, that they went there to kill them. And when I saw in the report that they claim the same things—excuse me, but I thought, . I even told Mr. Zouridakis to file a complaint against the Ombudsman … but he told me that these people obviously don’t understand, they don’t comprehend, they have nothing against me personally.
Q: Today, are the captain and crew still on active duty —are they serving on the same vessel?
A: They are all serving as normal. But no, not on the same vessel. The captain was promoted a few days after [the shipwreck]; it was his turn.
Q: So is he back at sea, or in an office?
A: Both.
Q: Are any of your clients under disciplinary review, sidelined—“benched” as they say?
A: No. All are active and serving normally. In any case, the Ombudsman could only [intervene] on the disciplinary dimension. The problem was that, while the Naval Court had already taken up the case, the Ombudsman also intervened. That was the Ombudsman’s second foul, if you will, because when there is a judicial process under way, he cannot intervene himself. Yet he did, and he had an opinion as well.
Q: How did communication between the Ombudsman and your clients take place?
A: Through me. At some point we received a summons saying: you are called to give a statement. [My clients] submitted a full memorandum on what transpired–and there was some tension [around this]–and then the memorandum was forwarded to the disciplinary leadership of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and to the Naval Court.
Q: Why was there tension?
A: Because when you realize someone is emotionally charged—while holding an institutional role that demands impartiality and a search for the truth (and none of us knows the truth; we’re all trying, after the fact, to find out what happened)—you understand he’s “carrying out an agenda.” I told them exactly that: what you’re doing is inconceivable. Ask me what happened, write your report, characterize it legally—as intentional or negligent—and send it along. But to tell me in advance [that it was intentional]…
Q: Yes, but now we have charges brought by judicial authorities…
A: Yes, by an investigating magistrate and a prosecutor.
Q: So one can’t ascribe the same motives.
A: Not motives, but dysfunctions. In the Greek justice system, the problem is not corruption, as people out there say; its inadequacy. And the fact that it operates under pressure from the media. A kind of unwitting entrapment. They’re pressured. The very pressure you and I exert from our couches, shouting “the prosecutor must intervene,” pressures judges first and foremost. “Let this cup pass from me”—they don’t want the pressure; the case will move along; others will handle it and justice will be served.
Q: So were you surprised by the filing of charges?
A: Knowing how [Greek] justice operates, no. Based on the evidence record, yes.
Q: In your view, what are the actual facts?
A: The facts are very simple: a vessel, the 920, left from Chania. Now, you’ll ask me why [a vessel was dispatched] from Chania and not from Pylos—that’s not within Zouridakis’s [remit]; he received an order. There is a valid question as to why they didn’t dispatch a different vessel. When Zouridakis raised this with his superiors , their answer was: “you are a very fast vessel.” But that speed creates other issues. There is all this talk about towing going around, but [the 920] does not have the capacity to tow that particular vessel [the trawler]—or even one of comparable size to its own. It can tow, if I recall correctly, just its own RIB (inflatable boat). And that has already been proven.
Q: Still, captain Zouridakis did wonder, “why are they sending us”…
A: Yes, he did, in the sense of whether there might be another vessel closer. And their answer—which he considered a reasonable one —was that [the 920] was chosen for its speed.
Q: So they received the order to depart…
A: To depart from Chania; and as they approached [the fishing boat], they were in constant communication with the JRCC [the Joint Rescue Coordination Center in Piraeus]. When they got there, what struck them was that the trawler was overcrowded and rolling, even though the sea was calm. Two other vessels, merchant ships, had already been there earlier and given statements. They tried to offer assistance; it was refused; supplies were thrown back into the sea. What happened, and this is obviously where the confusion with the “towing” arises, is that, in order to avoid the two vessels [PPLS-920 and the fishing boat] colliding, they brought the fishing boat closer and, to maintain a distance, they threw and tied a rope so communication could be established. Communication was impossible; some were shouting; there were scuffles; some wanted nothing to do with it; they kept repeating, like a refrain: “Italy.”
Q: What happened next?
A: [The 920’s captain ] requested instructions from the Center, disconnected the rope, and the orders he received were: “wait, move away, wait.” That’s where any involvement of Zouridakis ends.
Q: Is this based on his testimony alone, or is there corroborating material?
A: There is no recorded evidence because the [PPLS-920’s] camera was not functioning. You may ask: isn’t it suspicious that it was not working? No. Because 1.5 to 2 years ago we submitted official documents from Zouridakis proving he had been requesting:, “guys, I absolutely need you to fix the camera.” Again—“the camera, guys.” Repeatedly, through the proper channels, officially. He has filed all these documents. He recorded what he could on his phone. He was sending images to the JRCC from his mobile.
Q: Isn’t it odd, though, that the camera had been broken for two years on a new vessel purchased in 2021? Especially the cameras, given that Frontex, following all the allegations against Greece over pushbacks, had requested that Greek Coast Guard operations be filmed. And now, a brand-new, state-of-the-art vessel worth millions of euros…
A: It had problems from the moment it was purchased… And not only with the camera—there were other technical issues too. Zouridakis had previously served on a Lambro that was totally difunctional. He told me that when he was posted to this one [the 920], he felt as if he’d boarded an airplane…
Q: Why, then, send a Coast Guard vessel from so far away that has no recording capability?
A: That’s not something Zouridakis can answer. It’s a matter for the coordination center and the leadership.
Q: On what orders was the 920 dispatched to the scene?
A: To see what’s going on. The 920 assumed that the fishing boat would have departed [by the time they arrived],continuing toward Italy. Otherwise, you assist, you assess, you act. The 920 remained at a distance; what Zouridakis and others report is that there were tensions aboard the boat, leading to constant movement of the people onboard. And at some point, because of the rolling, it capsized. As for “towing,” we have proven technically that by design [the 920] does not have that capability. When we showed the Ombudsman the manufacturer’s brochure, that’s what caused the irritation I mentioned earlier. Neither the Ombudsman nor the Naval Court prosecutor ask us for the manual, which clearly shows it cannot tow. And even if it could—tow [the fishing boat] where? Zouridakis put it like this: “Where would I take it?” We’re 70 km away [from the closest shore].
Q: Are you referring to the alleged second towing attempt, which survivors say caused the shipwreck?
A: I also have statements from others saying there was no towing at all. Obviously those who speak of towing are confusing it with the initial [attempt at mooring].
Q: Since the cameras weren’t working, how did the captain have a view of what was happening outside the vessel?
A: He had turned on the searchlight, which remained constantly trained on the fishing boat, and he was recording with his phone.
Q: Of course, the cameras weren’t the only thing not working—for example, the Voyage Data Recorder (VDR)…
A: There were other issues too. For instance, the mooring hooks weren’t in the correct position.
Q: But other things are missing as well—communications with the operations center that should have been recorded…
A: Those matters concern the coordination center.
Q: How was Mr. Zouridakis communicating with the center?
A: On his mobile phone.
Q: Why not with the official communications system, given there’s an obligation to keep records?
A: He used that too, but it didn’t always have a signal. Sometimes one [system] worked, sometimes the other. But the recording equipment is located at the coordination center; that’s not his responsibility.
Q: Yes, but we would have answers if the communications had been properly recorded…
A: I completely agree.
Q: Why was he also using Viber on his personal phone to communicate?
A: Because sometimes one system wouldn’t work and sometimes the other. There was no other reason…
Q: Isn’t all this a bit odd…
A: I’d agree with you. But suspicions or conjectures are not evidence.
Q: Do those phone messages exist?
A: Yes. The phones [of the crew] were seized immediately.
Q: Let’s take a step back. The picture that has emerged is that of an unseaworthy trawler, lacking a proper captain and crew, overloaded, lurching…
A: We found the same type of vessel in Egypt; we photographed it, identical, 250 tons. So that should settle the debate about towing.
Q: Even though there was already imagery from [the Maritime Rescue Coordination Center ] in Rome from 11 a.m., 15 hours later we end up with hundreds of people dead. Both European and Greek authorities knew the situation, and 15 hours later hundreds were at the bottom of the sea. Could they have been saved? Operationally, what went wrong?
A: I can’t answer that, and I never discussed it with Zouridakis. With Zouridakis I discussed only what he did in the field and any potential responsibilities of his. He told me that the fact the trawler even made it as far as it did, was a miracle.
Q: But if he saw the condition [the trawler] was in…
A: He saw that it was rolling …
Q: Did he send any signal to the Center in Piraeus saying: we don’t like what we’re seeing with this vessel–send everything you have so we can save them?
A: Yes, that’s recorded. He described exactly the situation . He did not specify the number of people because it wasn’t clear, and he asked for instructions—what should I do? And they told him: remain two miles [off]. And while he remained with the searchlight trained on [the fishing boat], suddenly there was chaos.
Q: What were the orders?
A: To remain and monitor [the fishing boat’s] course.
Q: But for a long time it had no course.
A: Zouridakis said the following: [the trawler] made attempts to set off; at certain moments its engine stopped; and whenever it started, it headed toward Italy.
Q: According to official records, regarding the time the boat sank, based on survivors’ testimonies, the Coast Guard vessel moved away and continued illuminating the spot after the capsize.
A: That’s not true; no one says that; I don’t know of such a claim.
Q: I mean survivor testimonies.
A: No one says that. Show me the testimony; immediately after the capsize, the rescue operation began.
Q: Why is there roughly a half-hour gap in the recordings and in the deck logbook [between the sinking and the start of the rescue]?
A: Those who were rescued—we have so many statements from survivors—aside from two who say there were no lifejackets (and indeed there weren’t enough for everyone on the Coast Guard vessel), say that the rescue operation began immediately—the very next second. And in fact, if you look at the coordination center’s recording, there is panic because it capsized.
Q: What did Zouridakis tell the coordination center, and what did they tell him when the [fishing boat] capsized?
A: He informed them it had capsized, and they told him to proceed to rescue.
Q: With a vessel that wasn’t a rescue ship, it didn’t even have proper lifesaving gear.
A: No, it wasn’t. It wasn’t a large open sea patrol vessel with rescue equipment. One Special Forces officer who was observing said: “Guys, they’ve sunk—guys, they’ve sunk.” Why would [the rescue operation] start half an hour later? That makes no sense. Based on [the crew’s] testimonies, they immediately gave survivors their own clothes—they stripped to their underwear and gave them [their clothes]to 12 people; they lowered the RIB. The real problem was different, it was practical: even though the boat doesn’t have a propeller but a waterjet, they feared cutting someone’s hands; they couldn’t see in the dark with the RIB; they were afraid of going over people [adrift in the water]. That was everyone’s anxiety.
Q: Did Mr. Zouridakis raise any objection at any stage—for example, “send more vessels; we’re not a rescue ship,” etc.?
A: No. And he couldn’t. This was not a“rescue” mission, as you put it, but a monitoring one. TheAfter the two merchant ships that had been there earlier, reported to the the operations room that there was no willingness to accept help, they told [Zouridakis]: stay there.
Q: Still this was a boat without a flag, captain, or crew—overloaded. Regardless of orders, doesn’t he, as captain, have to assess with his own eyes the situation he sees at sea?
A: All such boats are the same, with the same problem, every day. It’s a given. There is no migrant vessel that is seaworthy.
Q: Doesn’t that mean that in all such cases the order should be to rescue?
A: There must be a rescue. But it couldn’t be done by force. Legally, you cannot carry out a forced [rescue].
Q: You’re saying that before the shipwreck there was no possibility of attempting a rescue?
A: Legally, if people refuse, under these conditions, at that location, etc., you cannot forcibly transfer them aboard.
Q: But even so, you can still have all available assets nearby, ready to rescue if needed.
A: That was not Zouridakis’s responsibility.
Q: I’d like to return to the gaps and the many strange coincidences, if I may. Cameras not working; recorders not working; migrants’ phones disappearing and reappearing months later, no forensic report yet from the police on their contents; while by law the Center must record communications with the 920 and the Adriana, we have interruptions and gaps at the most critical times—that is, from the moment of contact until the time of sinking…
A: I have no information regarding the [migrants’] phones—it doesn’t concern us—neither whether they were found nor where. The crew’s phones went to forensics. The photos, everything, are at the Forensic Science Division of the Police As for survivors’ data—their phones were not confiscated by Zouridakis; I don’t know what happened. But what’s being implied is that something happened afterward to cover things up. If the state were so organized, I assure you we would not be sitting here today. It is impossible for the state to coordinate [such a cover up] …
Q: From Zouridakis’s side, when did he inform internally that the cameras weren’t working, do something about it…
A: A year and a half before the incident – he filed at least three reports.
Q: So, when the vessel was dispatched, the leadership knew there would be no way to record…
A: That is a logical conclusion… Everyone was informed [by those reports].
Q: But given the allegations—towing, pushbacks, and more—doesn’t it raise questions as to why a vessel with non-functioning recording equipment was sent?
A: Perhaps, but to avoid recording what exactly? Let me play devil’s advocate…
Q: Possible unlawful practices…
A: Which ones? They were in international waters. There was no pushback. If there had been towing and anything happened during towing, the first question is: towing toward where?
Q: Perhaps to restart the engine so they could continue toward Italy…
A: But first of all, the [PPLS 920] didn’t have ropes, that’s certified.
Q: What about the blue rope…
A: We’ve proven this: those are mooring lines, used in port, not towing lines. To tow it in order to restart the engine—no one has testified to that. To tow it to Italy or to Greece—the distance is far too great. So what would be concealed? There’s nothing to conceal. The point you made—why didn’t a larger OPV vessel or other boats go—that I can understand…
Q: Senior Coast Guard officials, including the current chief, were not indicted. Is that unfair, in your view—legally and ethically—toward your clients? After all, if everything was done on orders …
A: My answer is this: if we set aside the involvement of the [PPLS-920], which may comply with certain operational criteria—and the Coast Guard can come out and say, “gentlemen, we had no other assets available”—the orders given to Zouridakis were “wait, do not move away, and monitor.” So I don’t have an unlawful order carried out, or something else I was supposed to do. As for broader questions about what responsibilities the operations center has, I have no opinion.
Q: So your defense line will be that your clients were simply following orders?
A: I’m saying it: in reality, Zouridakis did not act. He did not do, or omit to do, anything. They told him: “go, approach, check.” He replied: “I’m checking; they don’t want [assistance]; I’m throwing the rope to stay in coordination with them; I’m removing the rope.” They told him: “since they don’t want [help], stay and wait.”
Q: On a human level: what happened happened. After the fact, did they say anything to you—what a tragedy this was; could something else have been done; what orders I was given…
A: It’s shocking, as they told me, that they could hear the voices of the people who were falling [into the sea]. One crew member told me that because the searchlight was sweeping left and right, they located some people hours later, as they had drifted off in another direction. He had turned on his phone’s torch so he could see. And he told me: “that image will stay with me forever.”
Q: There was a sense, according to our sources at first, that nothing would happen—because if even one coast guard officer were indicted, the entire corps would get the message and down to the last officer fear there is a risk of being prosecuted.
A: And yet, here we are—Zouridakis is indicted. The fair thing would have been to bring a charge of negligent homicide, and to examine the leadership’s responsibilities— those who were giving the orders. Essentially, the one and only order: stay there.
Q: Is there, however, an implicit philosophy and informal instruction to prioritize preventing migrants from entering the country?
A: I don’t know. Zouridakis never told me anything of the sort either. He never told me he had an informal instruction to find a way to drive them away, to make them go to Italy.
Q: Mr. Zouridakis was sent on a mission without being able to prove what he did based on the cameras and his communications with the Center. Is there no frustration toward his superiors and the coordination center for not having that capability?
A: No, because that was the norm before as well. And in other rescues. With that very vessel, in previous months, he rescued other migrants south and north of Crete, and even received a commendation. This is [the vessel] we have; this is what we do.
Q: What was the answer as to why the systems weren’t repaired?
A: There was no answer. The requests were forwarded to the manufacturer—and, from what he told me, [the manufacturer] wasn’t very serious. But this didn’t trouble him. A few days earlier, he had rescued other migrants. He has submitted all of this.
Q: So no one bears explicit responsibility for the deaths of hundreds?
A: I’ll answer bluntly: no. If a large open sea patrol vessel had been there, it could have rescued more people—on the assumption, of course, that it would have anticipated the capsize. But [the trawler] had reached that position all the way from Libya. So someone would have had to foresee that this would happen, and then send the larger vessel to rescue more. As for causing the shipwreck—no.
Q: What about the rescue? Why wasn’t there an alert to all nearby vessels for assistance—and only to the Mayan Queen?
A: I don’t know. If that’s what happened, it could be an issue.
Q: Has there been any contact from the Ministry of Maritime Affairs with your client?
A: None. I’m the only one speaking with them.
Q: And the crew members?
A: They’re anxious about their jobs. “I have a child; I’ve taken out a loan—what happens now?” Their questions are very practical.
Q: Do they themselves say that something could have been done differently?
A: No. They’re frustrated.
Q: About the orders?
A: They did not receive any order to do something they shouldn’t have done.
Q: Allow me to return to what creates the impression of a cover-up: the non-functioning Voyage Data Recorder; the cameras that didn’t work; the migrants’ phones that have not been examined; inadequate rescue equipment; the, inexplicable to many, choice of the 920; the lack of recorded communications with the Center during the critical period from 11:30 p.m. until the sinking shortly after 2 a.m.; and despite the obligation to record; the absence of recordings of communications with the fishing boat. Add it all up and there seem to be two possibilities: either complete breakdown in a service so well-equipped and prominent, or intent and cover-up. What do you say?
A: Because I was also involved in the Mati case, let me remind you that nothing worked properly there either: the police weren’t communicating with the fire service; the phones didn’t work; there were no recordings. So this doesn’t surprise me. I can agree that all this raises suspicion and reflexes. But cover up what? We must identify what the purpose would have been, in order to see whether all this actually served it.
Q: You’re saying that no such purpose emerges from the information, testimonies, and recorded—albeit partially—communications with the Center?
A: Like you, what I have are after-the-fact witness statements about what happened. The same person who initially said, “I saw absolutely nothing,” later in Malakasa, without an interpreter, claimed “they towed us,” describing stories with incredible detail. Most said the engine would start, then stop; then tried to start again; the boat was rolling; I heard a noise and it tipped over. The rolling was due to people moving from one side to the other. But I’m trying to understand—what would anyone want to cover up?
Q: Wouldn’t it be positive for the case to go to trial so that the truth, as you say, can come to light?
A: Would you want to stand accused in court of rape without having done it—when it was consensual?
Q: On the other hand, can you imagine the case being shelved—what message would that send about justice for so many dead?
A: But if there is no evidence?
Q: If I were accused of rape, I would be furious if I knew I could prove my innocence but I can’t because the cameras and systems weren’t working…
A: He can prove his innocence. The allegation circulating through testimonies in the media and from some organizations—an allegation no one makes in a formal statement—is about towing. I do not have a single survivor’s statement mentioning towing at the Naval Court or to the Ombudsman. They refer only to the initial mooring. Why didn’t they say it there?
Q: Out of all the witnesses, you say no one speaks of towing?
A: Correct. Everyone refers to whether the engine was working; to the people who drowned; that they weren’t allowed to move; that those who asked for help were discouraged and moved to the other side of the boat. As for towing, they refer only to the mooring rope I mentioned—at the beginning—to stabilize the two boats and assess the situation. The Coast Guard commissioned experts to reach a conclusion, and a law firm to assess whether they could intervene on the boat. There was no such possibility, this is stated in law. The lingering question is “towing.” But no one speaks of towing. Zouridakis says to me: “Would they give me an order to tow without a rope? Second: what would I tow, since I don’t have the capability? I would have said no. Third: where would I take it?”
Q: Yes, but reports of a vessel in distress exist from the first communication with Rome at 11 a.m.—including the presence of dead [passengers]. How can a vessel that has declared distress, been located by Frontex, and has been lurching for hours end up at 2 a.m. with only a patrol boat alongside—one carrying Special Forces for a different mission and with very limited rescue capabilities?
A: I have no problem agreeing with you on that. But Zouridakis was ordered and left from Chania. It wasn’t his call.
Q: The “just following orders” argument has been heard from Abu Ghraib to concentration camps: I’m a soldier and I just execute orders…
A: But there was no unlawful order which he executed. The analogy you’re making doesn’t hold. In those other cases, the order was “kill,” and the defense “I killed because I was ordered to.” Here, there is no order requiring [Zouridakis] to assess its legality.
Q: The order to remain on site and observe—to what end?
A: There was no explanation. It’s obvious—you know this from your [military] service —no one explains why you have to do anything.
Q: What did Zouridakis himself believe he was sent there to do?
A: The same as always: to see whether the vessel entered Greek territorial waters, or continued toward Italy. Stay there and monitor. He had no unlawful order. No order to do anything. He had no rope, no capability—and [if even if he had such a towing capability] where would he take it?
Q: If it had been a luxury yacht or a cruise ship, do you believe the treatment would have been the same? Would tourists’ lives have been lost?
A: Absolutely. The situation is dire. Everyone is furious. Zouridakis told me it would have happened—if not there, a little before or after. When I asked him he told me: “I pulled back 100 meters so that [the 920] did not create extra waves.”
Q: How about justice for the victims?
A: Shouldn’t there also be justice for the Mati [fires]? For the Tempi [train crash]?
Q: Are only the ruthless smugglers to blame, as the Ministry [of Maritime Affairs] explicitly said?
A: Are they not to blame? If the fishing boat had been one mile—five miles—further out, outside the rescue zone, outside Greek jurisdiction, who would be responsible? Since it was inside, I cannot intervene; I cannot seize the vessel; we’re talking only about rescue.
Q: Yet many—including Coast Guard personnel—said that in such a situation you don’t ask; rescue takes precedence.
A: That’s not correct. Otherwise, we would stand accused every time for not carrying out a forced rescue.
Q: Why “forced”? Who was communicating with the fishing boat?
A: We don’t know. Boarding is prohibited. If they refuse, you do not intervene. Except in cases of piracy, requested assistance, or drug trafficking. In this specific case we had only one option: rescue, not search [the boat]. The legal framework is clear.
Q: With whom was Zouridakis communicating on the fishing boat?
A: With someone who spoke little English. From what we understood, it probably wasn’t the captain but a smuggler—who likely drowned. They were saying, “Don’t come near me.”
Q: If they had requested it themselves? How would they have been transferred on Zouridakis’s vessel?
A: They couldn’t have; other vessels would have been needed. Legally, if you ask me, not from a humanitarian standpoint, the answer is very straightforward: I would have to foresee that it would sink and foresee that a rescue would be needed. Since it had reached that point, however, I can reasonably believe it would continue. Which doesn’t concern Zouridakis. Greece has three Offshore Patrol Vessels; if I wanted to cover myself and there was intent, I would say they were in the Aegean.
Q: And how is the refusal of assistance established?
A: From the fact that whoever was in charge of the boat was communicating on VHF. Are we supposed to interview everyone onboard? Hold a referendum at that moment? These are unreasonable notions. One person was in control of the vessel and operated the VHF. And he said: I don’t want [help].
Q: Does [Zouridakis] intend to appear in public?
A: He’s in Chania now. He’s not some thug, nor a hot-headed officer in the way you might imagine. He was a merchant navy captain, joined the Coast Guard, served in Crete, and carried out many rescue operations. He has three children. He’s furious, distressed—“what I do isn’t appreciated; I didn’t do anything wrong.” Now all sorts of conspiracy theories are circulating —the same with Mati, in the past, or with Tempi today. The same is happening here as well. But what’s supposed to have happened here? That we’re trying to cover for Zouridakis who supposedly towed them? If it had been negligence, Zouridakis would say: “the handling of the vessel wasn’t good; there were waves; they wouldn’t cooperate; and they sank.” That would be a very simple legal answer. It would have been treated far more leniently—and, I’d tell you, he would have been acquitted from the outset. But now, they are going for intentional homicide. A camera would have helped [his case]. What is there to cover up? That the job wasn’t done well? What job? That we didn’t send the larger [Coast Guard vessel]? That wasn’t Zouridakis’s responsibility. That he allegedly towed the trawler? That would amount to negligence at worst. His home address has also leaked, and people began gathering outside, harassing him. Now he lists [the naval base in] Souda as his address for security reasons.
Q: What are the next steps?
A: The Ombudsman’s report has been forwarded to the Coast Guard; they haven’t called us; the case could still be shelved. A Naval Court prosecutor has brought this criminal charge, so at some point we’ll appear before the investigative magistrate. There, we’ll set out the same points. The magistrate will collect all the material and send it back to the prosecutor—either the one who filed the charges or another—to decide what recommendation to make to the council, which consists of three judges meeting behind closed doors. They will decide who is indicted, whether the case will go to court, and on what charges. The objective evidence of what took place in the field will show that absolutely nothing improper occurred. There is no case. Whether it was a correct decision to send the 920 or another vessel should have been dispatched — that is another matter, which concerns neither me nor Zouridakis. This process will take some time.