The complaints that have plagued Cypriot society for the last twenty-four hours, the intervention of the lawyer of the woman presented by the revelations as the key to the case, the deposition of the evidence available to him by the journalist Makarios Drousiotis, the reactions of some of those affected by the case and the wider debate that has opened at all levels leave no room for an attempt to evade.
The critical question now is not only the substance of the complaints but the way in which they will be investigated, so that the result is reliable, documented and accepted by the society that watches in awe, accepting the tensions and pressure of the alleged revelations.
Based on existing data, the first and indisputable principle is that research must be completely independent. Confidence in key institutions such as the Police and the Legal Service has been shaken, rightly or wrongly, this is obviously not the main thing in the whole process. In such circumstances, even sound research risks being rejected by society as incomplete or directional. Therefore, the investigation cannot be limited to the usual institutional tools.
Second, the formation of a joint, independent research team, with the participation of high-profile foreign experts, is required. The Executive Power can play a key role in this. The presence of international investigators is not a challenge to the sovereignty of the state but a necessary reinforcement of the credibility of the process. This team should have a clear mandate, sufficient authority to access data and full operational autonomy.
Thirdly, the investigation must proceed at two parallel levels: criminal and institutional. On the one hand, it must be investigated whether criminal offenses are established. On the other hand, even if criminal prosecution is not possible due to objective data, the State must record the institutional weaknesses that allowed the development of such phenomena.
Fourth, it is necessary to ensure the protection of those immediately involved. It is clear, and indeed this has been reflected in the public debate, that there is a deficit of security and trust. Without substantial protection for both the reported victim and those in possession of evidence, no such serious case can proceed.
Finally, transparency must be central. Society demands that the given case go to the end. It requires a clean, impartial and complete process. Only in this way can trust in the institutions be restored.
This case is a test for the rule of law. And in such tests, the way of research is as important as its result.