1. About the “Agreement” 

 Avoiding public controversy, I could not answer the statement of those who claim my attitude in order to put together the pieces of their scattered obtuseness. But I am doing it, to be consistent in my commitment to the wider struggle. I do not intend to step on the backs of others to rise seemingly, either way I have things to say.
But it would be very cheap and also would not help the political situation, to limit myself to what we said and what we did not say with some. The essential ruptures liberate so now I have no hesitation to break the taboo of public criticism of fighting actions. And of course, since some spoke more than they deserve, I have to mention issues that I would otherwise consider have no place in a public text. First, therefore, I will clarify my position, but i seek also to give food for thought from the moment we stand embarrassed in front of unfamiliar situations. 
I will begin with the matter of the “agreement” that supposedly I made with my co-defendants. They wrote that they “talked seriously about the possibility of the trial to happen behind closed doors and how they would react to this possibility. From my side, I never participated in such discussions did not move on any pre-planned common action. The only thing mentioned to me, was the matter of the audience, ie not to let cops occupy seats so the largest possible number of people in solidarity can enter the room. This was the only thing we had reached an agreement on and all other requests came suddenly into the spotlight. Which means, their claim was not the product of an understanding or at least I did not know such a thing. Of course I did not express any objections to any demands and what happened the first day had my consent. Certainly for a moment I viewed the withdrawal as a gesture of protest because no one knew of the possibility of a trial in absentia. From the moment we were informed about it, everything came under discussion again and while I was possessed with skepticism, I avoided making hasty moves and statements that I could not process, within the very tight time frame. So, I did not commit to something, leaving temporarily a gap in my attitude. And because i functioned completely individually, like I intended, I did not communicate my thoughts to anyone. So, if I left room for misinterpretation, it was my fault and I accept it of course. Between that I agreed to enter demands and that I agreed to be tried in absentia, is a great distance. That I was asked and “assured that I still agree” and other such things that were written, is obscene lies.On the contrary they knew that I have not told my lawyers that i will cease them. But anyway, since the beginning of this case up to now I move completely independently, so I think I have not given any impression to my co-defendants, so they can imagine such agreements, that prerequisite proper consultation, the intention of fighting coexistence and comrade feeling. Concepts certainly that do not characterize our relations .. and made it clear to them, by telling them in the holding cells from the start: “you should know that i do not feel any unity with any of you”. 
Meanwhile, in the intervening week until the next court, it should have been to everyone visible my differentiation from this situation: my lawyers do not participate in the press conference, my parents do not sign the text of the other parents, I do not align myself with texts and statements of the others. It is therefore obvious that I am handling this case alone and I will never proceed to cooperate with some, that as more suspicious now, I think that perhaps they wanted to turn the trial into a spectacular blockbuster and would find a reason either way to do so. (To be honest I do not think they all had the same intention)

In a previous letter I have already referred briefly to the reasons I chose not to leave the trial. We have as first fact, a court in full alignment with the regime’s totalitarianism. This is anything but surprising, as it is included in the overall context of the “special treatment” of dissidents, where everything is converted to “special”. Transport conditions, conditions of detention, conditions of litigation. And we experience it as “special” arrested, imprisoned, accused. Through this, expressions such as “legitimizing the practice of the judges” is the definition of a superficial approach. Nobody goes voluntarily to a court. So when any revolutionary is in a court with “special” features he/she “legitimizes” its practices, and therefore its existence? When they transfer you with bulletproof vests and stretched out automatic machine guns, you legitimize this process, and hence the existence of the anti-terrorist police? When we were in the offices of the prosecutors, did we “legalize” them as well? When you are a prisoner, again against your will, do you “legitimize” the existence of prisons? And because we are in places that naturally have hostile characteristics (holding cells, courts, prisons), generally what we do is to “legitimize” state terrorism? Eventually, everyone can experience in our time such procedures, but the question is how we stand in them. And if anyone still believes that the presence in court means “legalization “, then they would do well not to attend any proceedings for this case, nor another, nor to the appeals courts. Because the id cards will continue to be held and generally the same conditions will not cease to exist. We will be here. No one else, except time will decide who is consistent in his choices. To not attend a trial demeaning it, is a respectable choice of denial. Not going to a trial because you wanted to do something and it did not work out and you are trapped in your own selfishness is a result of bad strategy.

3.about the hunger strike.

Soon the situation slipped from the bipolar of presence or absence from the trial. It took other dimensions, when it was decided by some to start a hunger strike, in order to return to the trial after their demand concerning the holding of the identities is met, something which was obviously impossible. If the mobilization was decided considering no one will go to the trial (as they said), then the trial would finish rapidly. The strike would not have had time to evolve, the sentences would be announced, the state would have ignored this mobilization and it would have been permanently exempted from the  Halandri case, without any discomfort. And on the other hand we dispersed in prisons all over the place with a sense of dissatisfaction on our consciences. With these facts, it is worth wondering where they base the assertion “we could have achieved a significant victory”. Not only  there was no chance of victory, but in my opinion, the matter was also placed on a wrong base. The defeat was prescribed and that is why there was an attempt to avoid the strike. In the end it started a week late, for selfish reasons, just because it was announced. 

And in the end, my presence at the trial marked the gaining of time. If the hunger strikers had taken their task seriously, they could see this as an opportunity to carry out their struggle. To exploit the duration of the trial, bringing the strike to the point where their health would put more pressure, and hopefully on the horizon would appear a promising prospect. But since they gave up, probably its not me who cannot take the weight! Personally I was not interested in any way to occupy myself with this move, since I saw from the beginning the unsuited exaggeration and non-productivity, so I cannot be attributed with any role of influence to it. The state is pressured by those who strike not those eating.

P.S.: The reason I sent the last letter was very specific. I wanted to say a few words about the trial, but mainly intended to block some journalists who over did it on my attitude, in order for obvious reasons to promote the “rupture of the accused”. A crack that existed anyway, I just thought that i should treat it as an internal matter (of those who sit in the same dock), protecting it from any kind of enemies, visible and invisible, who are flattered by such statements, and not to expose it before all for cannibalism. As it seems, however, I was the only person who respected this value rule.