Ruby Ter, Palamara: “A story born in a climate hostile to Berlusconi and the center-right”
The acquittal of Silvio Berlusconi and the other defendants in the Ruby Ter trial is the political/judicial case of the moment. Affaritaliani.it explores its various facets with Luke Palamaraa former magistrate and now engaged in politics, as well as a writer.
What do you think about the fact that such a long affair ends with an acquittal?
“Beyond what has been said, we have to wait for the reasons for the sentence. The distinction that someone wanted to make on how this ruling was arrived at does not account for the clear pronouncement of the court on the point. The sentences must be respected and the motivation will take account of the acquittal formula “.
Prosecutor Tiziana Siciliano, on the other hand, immediately commented on the acquittal and in a critical way. What do you think of her words?
“In the procedural dynamics there is that the prosecutor supported a thesis and the court was of a different opinion. Moreover, the prosecutors at the hearing were not the same ones who initiated the investigation. As I told in ‘The System’, this story was born in a particular context. Within the associated judiciary, already at the time, there was the fear that the investigation could be politicized and that, somehow, they already knew how it would end”.
So this outcome represents a defeat of the prosecution?
“In a trial there are neither winners nor losers. The theme is another, namely the risk that the criminal trial could in some way be exploited for other purposes. I mean that the aim is not so much to reconstruct whether or not a fact is criminally relevant, but to make it a tool that has repercussions on political conflict. Objectively this investigation, since its inception, was part of a strong clash between politics and the judiciary, impacting on facts and events that – rather than having criminal relevance – concerned the moral history of the individual “.
It is said that Berlusconi was acquitted on a “quibble”: does this mean that the prosecutor’s office made mistakes?
“A former retired magistrate, Giancarlo Caselli, even spoke of ‘non-serene judges’, offending them and demonstrating once again the factionalism existing in a part of the judiciary. We must have respect for those who carry out the work of the magistrate. I don’t like the alternating current guarantee. The judgments can be criticized, but by raising properly motivated and correct objections. Otherwise there is only the risk of misleading the citizen, making the idea that the judiciary is autonomous and independent only if it condemns Berlusconi or the politician of the moment”.
Prosecutor Siciliano also underlined how the accusation was “in good faith”…
“Eh, but good faith is not enough! Citizens at the moment need to understand how the mechanisms of the judiciary can really work. I cannot go into the merits of the matter, because only those who were part of the process can do it, but I can to say that he lived through that historical period as president of the ANM and that he perceived the need and requirement for a blockade around the Milanese prosecutors who were carrying out that investigation at that time.Especially if we take into account that at that stage even within the associated judiciary there were those who believed that Berlusconi and that part of the centre-right were not legitimized to implement a political reform.This did not work and ended up exploiting an inquiry which in some way wanted to perform a function of political substitution: where the political opposition did not arrive, the judiciary had to arrive: a short circuit that has altered the normal relations between politics and judiciary. In the book ‘The System’ I talk about the climate of those years, creating a shield around those who carried out that investigation, despite the fact that the debate was already present even within the associated judiciary. There was already a part of the judiciary that did not want to be brought into the field of political opposition, but wanted to play the role assigned to it by the Constitution, i.e. to be autonomous and independent. Threshold that has been exceeded with the risk of exploitation”.
Does the exploitation also concern the issue of women? To support the public prosecution, before Tiziana Sicliano, there was another prosecutor woman, namely Ilda Boccassini…
“I believe that the theme is another: we need to separate the moral sphere from the penal sphere. Otherwise there is the risk of wanting to impact on the will of the people. Instead, it is the citizens who have to decide who to let them govern and whether certain behaviors are more or less acceptable. The criminal judge, on the other hand, must enter to evaluate facts and circumstances of criminal importance. Moral judgement, on the other hand, had an impact on this investigation”.
How much did the line of the person conducting the investigation affect this?
“Well, when I speak of a ‘fort’ around the prosecutors and a particular climate I mean one precise thing: there is no doubt that in that historical period there was a tendency for a part of the judiciary to match what was the editorial line of Republic and the famous ’10 questions’ to Silvio Berlusconi. There was an overlap between the two situations… and this is worth more than any other answer”.
Subscribe to the newsletter