Of course, one may reasonably ask: “What does judicial foul play in the struggle against terrorism have to do with the ultra-right?” The answer is that such practices form a dangerous authoritarian habitus. This does not necessarily serve any pure “ultra-right” objective, yet the damage is done. It is a commonplace to say that during the last few years we have witnessed the emergence of “preventive criminal law” of massive detentions, preventive arrests of suspects, humiliating exposure of arrested persons – all purportedly aimed at protecting the major good of public order. The notion of public order has taken on almost metaphysical dimensions, so that its protection eventually passes through channels of “instituted illegality”, such as extensive police violence inside police departments or in public at demonstrations and rallies, or the systematic, everyday violations of fundamental rights stemming from conditions inside the detention centres for foreigners and the prisons. Criminal prosecution is being extended beyond criminal milieus to a point where the attributes of suspect, accused and guilty merge, as is becoming clear in the increasingly common practice of publicly disclosing the identity and photographs of accused persons with the concurrence of prosecutors.68 There is a systematic move away from traditional ways of identifying suspects or accused persons – testimonies by victims, identiication of photos, or by the suspects/accused persons themselves inside the police departments. Greece has begun to use the triumphal “perp walk” (that is, a humiliating exposure) of suspects before the general public. These measures reintroduce a dimension of public humiliation long before actual culpability is ascertained, recalling medieval practices of punishment and justice. This borderline practice has particularly tested the strength of the democratic constitution in two cases during the last two years, pushing against the limits of legality into a grey zone of suspended rights. While the latter case was the aforementioned disclosure of photos of physically abused suspects, the earlier one involved the public disclosure of the identities, photos, and private medical records of drug-addicted, HIV-positive women rounded up in a police sweep. It is of special interest to study the whole judicial process in that case, which involved humiliating exposure and criminalization not just of the actions but of the very existence of these women. The participation of public prosecutors in the issuing of the order to disclose identities, photos and, in an unprecedented move, conidential medical iles, as well as the criminal prosecution, on felony charges no less, against these women for “grievous and intended bodily injury,” represents a turning point in the history of the Greek judiciary. Moreover, the concurrence of examining magistrates and prosecutors in this case with the detention of the HIV-positive women marked the consolidation and conirmation by the judiciary of a brutal racist practice that divides people into “clean” and “unclean”, infectious and healthy, by criminalizing the former and violently removing them from the social whole. 68. 58 | According to the provisions of Law 2472/1997, “On the protection of the individual from processing of personal data”. ROSA LUXEMBURG STIFTUNG