11-year-old Marios murder: Prosecutor delivers scathing rebuke – “Children are being killed at a school celebration in peacetime”

The prosecutor requested the conviction of the man who caused the murder of 11-year-old Marios while he was in the schoolyard.

The judicial officer explicitly referred to intentional homicide with eventual intent, arguing that the defendant knew and accepted the possibility that he might kill someone while firing into the air.

“He knew very well what he was doing. He fired indiscriminately,” the prosecutor said, adding: “It does not matter whether he knew little Marios. What matters is that he knew he could kill someone and accepted that risk.”

According to the prosecution’s submission, the defendant was fully aware of the danger created by the use of a firearm in a densely populated area, especially next to a school.

Referring to the incident, he said: “It is a celebration, everyone is happy, and suddenly a child falls. Blood is running and no one can stop it.” He also stated that the gunshots were not disputed by the defendant or the witnesses, and he criticized the fact that none of them clarified where the shots came from.

The circumstances of the crime and its tragic outcome—the death of the 11-year-old from a stray bullet in 2017 while he was in the schoolyard in Menidi during a school celebration—led the prosecutor to describe it as an “unspeakable injustice committed against society as a whole.” The submission was particularly emotional when the prosecutor referred to children being “killed at a school celebration in peacetime.”

The prosecutor also noted that nearly ten years had passed before the case reached trial, and condemned the practice of celebratory gunfire. “Using weapons for entertainment shows insecurity. It is the act of someone who does not want to see others dance. To hide their own inadequacy,” he said.

Regarding the second defendant, he requested acquittal, arguing that this was an impossible attempt since he knew his shots could not cause death. He stated that under the Criminal Code in force at the time, an impossible attempt remained unpunished.

Finally, he requested that no mitigating circumstances be recognized for the first defendant, as his behavior showed no remorse.