Home » When democracy guarantees the rights of those who trample them

When democracy guarantees the rights of those who trample them

by admin

In the decision by which the third section of the Court of Assizes of Rome canceled, declaring the conditions null and void, a process in which a family, a country, its government and its Parliament, its investigating magistracy, and a first judicial body, they had finally put out the fraudulent use of the law of the Egyptian state, they are the tragedy and the short circuit of an idea of ​​law and its application. It is the victory – hopefully not final – of the arrogance of the man who leads that country, President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. It is the political catastrophe of those who, in these five years, preceded Draghi at Palazzo Chigi, and had bet on the outcome of a moral suasion which, on the contrary, due to the weakness and erratic with which it was conducted, convinced the interlocutor that Italy could be outlawed. And humiliated.

(ansa)

Regeni, Conte’s report: “So Al Sisi betrayed his promises”

by Giuliano Foschini


The Court’s decision is the seal of a shipwreck. With the alienating approach of those who consider the law not an instrument that intervenes and affects the living body of a country and in the qualification of the “fact” that it is called to judge, it has used the founding principles of our rule of law, of the Charter fundamental of European rights, proposing a slavish interpretation of habeas corpus – and therefore of the sacrosanct right of an accused to be aware of the trial and the charges against him – which has as its paradoxical effect that of removing four agents from our sovereign jurisdiction secrets accused of violating fundamental human rights and belonging to a State that those fundamental rights not only do not recognize (Al Sisi recently claimed it in Visegrad) but systematically violate (like the story of Patrick Zaki, after the murder of Giulio Regeni, teaches).

In fact, he decided to decontextualize the reasons why those four defendants could not be notified, in the ways and forms provided for by the rule of law, of the summons which invited them to appoint a trusted lawyer and to defend themselves before the judge of the preliminary hearing, considering them as four Italian or European citizens for some reason untraceable. Of which it was impossible to trace the domicile. He felt that the obstruction of an undemocratic military-led state to protect members of its apparatuses was a legitimate reason to maim our country of its jurisdiction. Of his punitive power towards those who kidnapped, tortured and killed Giulio Regeni.

Naturally, to do so, to censor the presumption of knowledge of the existence of a trial against the 007 Egyptians, the Court had to create a presumption of opposite and opposite sign. He had to downgrade – while acknowledging it – the fact that the Egyptian judiciary had refused to notify the four of the proceedings. He had to consider irrelevant, at least from the point of view of the putative and reasonable knowledge on the part of the defendants, that their election of domicile had been at the center of an unfortunate and fruitless negotiation between Al Sisi and the former premier Conte. He took no account of the fact that the Regeni case, for five years, has been a world-wide affair that has also managed to pierce the censorship of the Egyptian media.

The Regeni case, the choice of Palazzo Chigi: “Italy is the civil party in the trial”

by Giuliano Foschini


It was evident that the question referred to the Court was a delicate one. Just as it is equally clear that, from a purely formal point of view, his decision is in full compliance with the letter of our code of criminal procedure. And, however, before the third section of the Court of Assize, a judge of the preliminary hearing in those same rules had found the interpretative gap capable of not making them unreasonable, incomprehensible. He had had the courage, in the face of the Egyptian outrage of the rule of law, not to hand over Italian justice and the country’s image to his nemesis. It was the same courage that was asked of this Court. Escaping the trap of summum ius summa iniuria. Taking the risk of an interpretation “in fact” – and not in the abstract – of the principles that govern the “trial in absence”. Challenging the jurisprudence of our country and also that of the European Court of Human Rights to take responsibility for affirming the principle of impunity for citizens of countries that do not recognize themselves in the rule of law. Unfortunately, it didn’t. Let’s hope for another judge in Rome.

.

See also  [Notice]For customers from the European Economic Area (EEA) and the United Kingdom - Yahoo! JAPAN

You may also like

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More

Privacy & Cookies Policy