The high-profile “Santi” case has gripped Cyprus for nearly a month, leaving the public divided and raising serious concerns about how journalists handle sensitive allegations involving abuse and criminal implications.
What began as an alleged case of paedophilia has evolved into a public spectacle, with every detail of the alleged victim’s private life and past being scrutinised in the open. The situation has sparked a broader debate on whether those who publicised the claims acted responsibly or contributed to the potential secondary victimisation of the complainant.
The Journalistic Balance
Industry experts suggest that while exposing scandals is a moral obligation for the press, it must be balanced against the presumption of innocence. Journalists are expected to verify, cross-reference, and challenge information before publication, particularly when their reporting appears to adopt the content of the allegations.
Elli Kotzamani, chairwoman of the Cyprus Media Ethics Committee, told Phileleftheros that media outlets have a strict duty to ensure accuracy. She noted that journalists remain bound by the Code of Conduct even when posting on social media. “From the moment a person is recognised as a journalist, they cannot escape the Code in their social media posts,” she said.
George Frangos, chairman of the Union of Cyprus Journalists, described the reporter as a mediator between the public and those in power. However, he stressed that information must be double-checked and those implicated must be given a right of reply. Frangos also criticised the state’s failure to ratify the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) by the September 2025 deadline, leaving reporters and their sources without adequate institutional protection.
Legal and Psychological Risks
Lawyer Simos Angelides told Phileleftheros that the balance between press freedom and the presumption of innocence relies on proportionality. He emphasised that journalists must use careful phrasing—referring to individuals as “alleged” or “suspects”—to avoid prejudging guilt before a court ruling. He warned that simple reproduction of a third-party claim does not absolve a journalist of legal liability for defamation.
From a psychological perspective, Dr George Mikellidis warned that turning such cases into a spectacle can deter other victims from coming forward. He noted that public exposure and dramatisation can act as a “second form of abuse,” reinforcing feelings of shame and fear. According to Mikellidis, when the media equatesthe victim with the accused without clear distinction, it diminishes trust in both justice and the press.