Lead investigator of 2023 deadly Greek train crash resigns
The supervisor of Greece's national investigation into a 2023 train crash resigned on Wednesday, a move expected to further complicate efforts to shed light on the country's worst rail disaster that killed 57 people.
According to opinion polls, most Greeks view the crash as emblematic of the neglect of the country's railways in recent decades and also of a persistent failure by the state to address safety concerns. The crash has prompted angry protests, fueled further by a lack of trust in institutions.
Christos Papadimitriou, the head of the railway division at Greece's Air and Rail Accident Investigation Authority (HARSIA), stepped down days after a top court prosecutor ordered a probe into HARSIA's findings.
In February, HARSIA said the safety gaps, which failed to prevent the head-on collision of a freight train and a passenger train on February 28, 2023, had not yet been fixed.
It also found that a fireball that followed the collision could not have been caused by train equipment, generating doubts about the freight train's cargo as well as political wrangling.
HARSIA decided this week to remove the section which refers to the causes of the fireball, after at least one of the foreign universities cited in its report said it had neither reviewed nor authorized the content.
Greece's Supreme Court prosecutor ordered a probe into the developments to determine if there was an attempt to influence a judicial investigation which has been underway since 2023.
HARSIA, an independent authority, was only set up in late 2023. It launched its probe in March 2024, more than a year after the crash, which meant it had to rely on others for much of its information.
'I tried to serve the public interest... in a difficult situation,' said Papadimitriou in his resignation letter, standing by HARSIA's main findings.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
01-06-2025
- Arab News
Bangladesh top court restores largest Islamist party
DHAKA: Bangladesh on Sunday restored the registration of the largest Islamist party, allowing it to take part in elections, more than a decade after it was removed under the now-overthrown government. The Supreme Court overturned a cancelation of Jamaat-e-Islami's registration, allowing it to be formally listed as a political party with the Election Commission. 'The Election Commission is directed to deal with the registration of that party in accordance with law,' commission lawyer Towhidul Islam said. Jamaat-e-Islami party lawyer, Shishir Monir, said the Supreme Court's decision would allow a 'democratic, inclusive and multi-party system' in the Muslim-majority country of 170 million people. 'We hope that Bangladeshis, regardless of their ethnicity or religious identity, will vote for Jamaat, and that the parliament will be vibrant with constructive debates,' Monir told journalists. After Sheikh Hasina was ousted as prime minister in August, the party appealed for a review of the 2013 high court order banning it. Sunday's decision comes after the Supreme Court on May 27 overturned a conviction against a key leader of Jamaat-e-Islami, A.T.M. Azharul Islam. Islam had been sentenced to death in 2014 for rape, murder and genocide during Bangladesh's 1971 war of independence from Pakistan. Jamaat-e-Islami supported Islamabad during the war, a role that still sparks anger among many Bangladeshis today. They were rivals of Hasina's father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman of the Awami League, who would become Bangladesh's founding figure. Hasina banned Jamaat-e-Islami during her tenure and cracked down on its leaders. In May, Bangladesh's interim government banned the Awami League, pending the outcome of a trial over its crackdown on mass protests that prompted her ouster last year.
Al Arabiya
31-05-2025
- Al Arabiya
Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some difficulties
The US Supreme Court swept away this week another obstacle to one of President Donald Trump's most aggressively pursued policies - mass deportation - again showing its willingness to back his hardline approach to immigration. The justices, though, have signaled some reservations with how he is carrying it out. Since Trump returned to the White House in January, the court already has been called upon to intervene on an emergency basis in seven legal fights over his crackdown on immigration. It most recently let Trump's administration end temporary legal status provided to hundreds of thousands of migrants for humanitarian reasons by his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden while legal challenges in two cases play out in lower courts. The Supreme Court on Friday lifted a judge's order that had halted the revocation of immigration 'parole' for more than 500,000 Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants. On May 19, it lifted another judge's order preventing the termination of 'temporary protected status' for more than 300,000 Venezuelan migrants. In some other cases, however, the justices have ruled that the administration must treat migrants fairly, as required under the US Constitution's guarantee of due process. 'This president has been more aggressive than any in modern US history to quickly remove non-citizens from the country,' said Kevin Johnson, an immigration and public interest law expert at the University of California, Davis. No president in modern history 'has been as willing to deport non-citizens without due process,' Johnson added. That dynamic has forced the Supreme Court to police the contours of the administration's actions, if less so the legality of Trump's underlying policies. The court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump during his first term as president. 'President Trump is acting within his lawful authority to deport illegal aliens and protect the American people. While the Supreme Court has rightfully acknowledged the president's authority in some cases, in others they have invented new due process rights for illegal aliens that will make America less safe. We are confident in the legality of our actions and will continue fighting to keep President Trump's promises,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Reuters. The justices twice - on April 7 and on May 16 - have placed limits on the administration's attempt to implement Trump's invocation of a 1798 law called the Alien Enemies Act, which historically has been employed only in wartime, to swiftly deport Venezuelan migrants who it has accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Lawyers and family members of some of the migrants have disputed the gang membership allegation. On May 16, the justices also said a bid by the administration to deport migrants from a detention center in Texas failed basic constitutional requirements. Giving migrants 'notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,' the court stated. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. The court has not outright barred the administration from pursuing these deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, as the justices have yet to decide the legality of using the law for this purpose. The US government last invoked the Alien Enemies Act during World War Two to intern and deport people of Japanese, German and Italian descent. 'The Supreme Court has in several cases reaffirmed some basic principles of constitutional law (including that) the due process clause applies to all people on US soil,' said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. Even for alleged gang members, Mukherjee said, the court 'has been extremely clear that they are entitled to notice before they can be summarily deported from the United States.' A wrongly deported man In a separate case, the court on April 10 ordered the administration to facilitate the release from custody in El Salvador of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant who was living in Maryland. The administration has acknowledged that Abrego Garcia was wrongly deported to El Salvador. The administration has yet to return Abrego Garcia to the United States, which according to some critics amounts to defiance of the Supreme Court. The administration deported on March 15 more than 200 people to El Salvador, where they were detained in the country's massive anti-terrorism prison under a deal in which the United States is paying President Nayib Bukele's government $6 million. Ilya Somin, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University, said the Supreme Court overall has tried to curb the administration's 'more extreme and most blatantly illegal policies' without abandoning its traditional deference to presidential authority on immigration issues. 'I think they have made a solid effort to strike a balance,' said Somin, referring to the Alien Enemies Act and Abrego Garcia cases. 'But I still think there is excessive deference, and a tolerance for things that would not be permitted outside the immigration field.' That deference was on display over the past two weeks with the court's decisions letting Trump terminate the grants of temporary protected status and humanitarian parole previously given to migrants. Such consequential orders were issued without the court offering any reasoning, Mukherjee noted. 'Collectively, those two decisions strip immigration status and legal protections in the United States from more than 800,000 people. And the decisions are devastating for the lives of those who are affected,' Mukherjee said. 'Those individuals could be subject to deportations, family separation, losing their jobs, and if they're deported, possibly even losing their lives.' Travel ban ruling Trump also pursued restrictive immigration policies in his first term as president, from 2017-2021. The Supreme Court gave Trump a major victory in 2018, upholding his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries. In 2020, the court blocked Trump's bid to end a program that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of migrants - often called 'Dreamers' - who entered the United States illegally as children. Other major immigration-related cases are currently pending before the justices, including Trump's effort to broadly enforce his January executive order to restrict birthright citizenship - a directive at odds with the longstanding interpretation of the Constitution as conferring citizenship on virtually every baby born on US soil. The court heard arguments in that case on May 15 and has not yet rendered a decision. Another case concerns the administration's efforts to increase the practice of deporting migrants to countries other than their own, including to places such as war-torn South Sudan. Boston-based US District Judge Brian Murphy required that migrants destined for so-called 'third countries' be notified and given a meaningful chance to seek legal relief by showing the harms they may face by being send there. Murphy on May 21 ruled that the administration had violated his court order by attempting to deport migrants to South Sudan. They are now being held at a military base in Djibouti. The administration on May 27 asked the justices to lift Murphy's order because it said the third-country process is needed to remove migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. Johnson predicted that the Supreme Court will side with the migrants in this dispute. 'I think that the court will enforce the due process rights of a non-citizen before removal to a third country,' Johnson said.
Arab News
30-05-2025
- Arab News
US top court lets Trump revoke legal status for 500,000 migrants
WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major victory Friday in his immigration crackdown, giving his administration the green light to revoke the legal status of half a million migrants from four Caribbean and Latin American countries. The decision puts 532,000 people who came from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to the United States under a two-year humanitarian 'parole' program launched by former president Joe Biden at risk of deportation. And it marked the second time the highest US court has sided with Trump in his aggressive push to deliver on his election pledge to deport millions of non-citizens, through a series of policy announcements that have prompted a flurry of lawsuits. But the opinion sparked a scathing dissent from two justices in the liberal minority who said the six conservatives on the bench had 'plainly botched' their ruling and undervalued the 'devastating consequences' to those potentially affected. The revoked program had allowed entry into the United States for two years for up to 30,000 migrants a month from the four countries, all of which have dismal human rights records. But as Trump takes a hard line on immigration, his administration moved to overturn those protections, winning a ruling from the Supreme Court earlier this month that allowed officials to begin deporting some 350,000 Venezuelans. The latest case resulted from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem canceling an 18-month extension of the temporary protected status of the migrants, citing in particular the 'authoritarian' nature of Nicolas Maduro's government in Venezuela. The department gave them 30 days to leave the country unless they had legal protection under another program. 'The court has plainly botched this assessment today,' Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor wrote in their dissent. The justices said the migrants face being wrenched from family and returning to potential danger in their native countries — or opting to stay and risking imminent removal. 'At a minimum, granting the stay would facilitate needless human suffering before the courts have reached a final judgment regarding the legal arguments at issue, while denying the government's application would not have anything close to that kind of practical impact,' Jackson said. None of the other justices gave reasons for their decision, and the court was not required to make the vote public. The district court that barred the administration from revoking the migrants' status had argued that it was unlawfully applying a fast-track deportation procedure aimed at illegal immigrants to non-citizens protected by government programs. At the Supreme Court, Justice Department lawyers said the 'district court has nullified one of the administration's most consequential immigration policy decisions' by issuing the stay. The high court's decision means the Trump administration can go ahead with its policy change, even as the litigation on the merits plays out in lower courts. Trump campaigned for the White House on a pledge to deport millions of undocumented migrants, evoking an 'invasion' of the United States by hordes of foreign criminals. Among other measures, he invoked an obscure wartime law to fly more than 200 alleged Venezuelan gang members to a prison in El Salvador. But his program of mass deportations has been thwarted or restricted by numerous court rulings, including from the Supreme Court and notably on the grounds that those targeted should be able to assert their due process rights. And the administration has been berated over its efforts to restrict immigration from poor countries with human rights concerns like Afghanistan and Haiti, while accepting white South African refugees amid baseless claims that they face 'genocide.' The Trump administration systematically accuses judges who oppose his immigration decisions of plundering his presidential national security powers.
