After what emerged from the examination of the Indian documentation filed, the Court of Hamburg, whose content was and was well explained by Ing. Luigi Di Stefano has always been a firm believer in the innocence of Massimiliano Latorre and Salvatore Girone, the failure to appoint a parliamentary inquiry commission is no longer an omission. Rather, it highlights the denial of the rule of law and the affirmation of an irreconcilable regime with modern concepts of democracy.
For some time the Honorable Edmondo Cirielli has asked for the establishment of a parliamentary commission of inquiry into the kidnapping and illegal detention of Massimiliano Latorre and Salvatore Girone, but Parliament has not yet decided! There is an evident desire to postpone and take time as happened for the international arbitration, which began more than two years late.
An unjustifiable stalemate that favors the most varied hypotheses. Not least those with many proposals on the existence of political, personal and lobby interests to be protected. Not to engage, in fact, to deepen in order to search for the truth cannot but have a purpose, to avoid that uncomfortable truths or acts that unequivocally demonstrate that in the management of the story there have been evident violations of the Constitution emerge.
There are many obscure points that should be addressed. Unclear aspects concerning the work of the institutional bodies involved. Three governments (Monti, Letta, Renzi), four foreign affairs ministers (Monti, Bonino, Mogherini, Gentiloni), three defense ministers (Di Paola, Mauro, Pinotti), all a little ?? ' inattentive considering what emerges from the Indian documents filed with the Court of Hamburg. An institutional management of the affair that leaves more and more perplexing with at least ten points on which absolute silence looms and which, instead, deserve the utmost attention of Parliament and perhaps also of the Public Prosecutor's Office so that clarity is made on the mysteries of the most squalid event in history Italian.
Let's try to propose these doubts:
1. Starting from the statements made in Parliament on October 17 2012 by the then Minister of Defense Di Paola on the direct involvement of the military chain of command in granting theOK in order for the Lexie to return to the port of Kochi, it is necessary to ascertain at what level the Naval Squad Command (CINCINAV) was involved and who participated in the decision-making process and whether the Owner informed and with what result also the Center Operational Interforces (COI).
2. To ascertain whether those who managed the affair on the chain of command of the two Navy Fusiliers on an anti-piracy mission, then obtained benefits and / or advantages - albeit deserved and consistent with career progression - in particular as regards their subsequent positions in Defense, State Administration or private structures.
3. In light of what reported by the Indian autopsy on the caliber of the bullets that killed the two poor fishermen, 3 November 2012 has already been highlighted in various analyzes but never deepened, discussed or evaluated at institutional level (http://fernandotermentini.blogspot.it/2012/11/linciucio-indiano.html), what insights have been developed by the Defense, in particular by the Navy. There is talk of a technical-ballistic report produced by Admiral Piroli, moreover secreted but published by one of the major national newspapers. The document concludes that the two rifles that fired the 15 February 2012 were not those assigned to Latorre and Girone but to two other non-commissioned officers of the Lexie's Military Protection Unit (NPM). No mention, however, of the difference in caliber between the bullets supplied to the MM and those extracted from the bodies of the dead during the autoptic examination. Conclusions that leave us perplexed also because it is not clear how the firing tests were carried out as they are evidence that should have been carried out (May 2012?) When all the Italian weapons and ammunition of the NPM were still seized from India .
4. Who and why decided to ?? donate ?? for the damage suffered 150.000 euros to the families of the deceased and another 75.000 euros to the owner of the fishing boat Saint Antony, without first asking India for reliable documentary evidence on the responsibilities of the events. An act that configures to the state of what emerged from the Indian documents filed with the Court of Hamburg a substantial tax damage and an indirect damage on the legal position of the two soldiers depicting ?? an ?? 'indirect admission of responsibility ??.
5. Why the prosecutor of Rome allowed two suspects for voluntary homicide as it turns out to be Massimiliano Latorre and Salvatore Girone in March 2013 expatriate even if only to obey a provision given them along the functional hierarchical line. This despite the fact that Italian citizens had formalized the eventuality with a specific exhibited deposited the 13 March of that year.
6. The one or those who decided the 22 March 2013 to return the two soldiers in Indian hands, did so in full compliance with the Italian Constitution and the Italian Penal Code or rather preferred choices still to be clarified disregarding how much our legal system and relative judgments of the Supreme Court establish specifically?
7. What were the ?? rules of engagement ?? agreed between Italy and India for a shared solution to the case, as the then Deputy Foreign Minister Lapo Pistelli (today at ENI in a prestigious position) declared when he told us - "Now we have put the question back on a track of certainty: choice of a special, shared jurisdiction; rules to be used in trial, shared (with India, ed.) ????. In the aftermath of the judgment, there will be a treaty between the parties that still allows any convicted to serve their sentence in Italy, in the country of origin ??. We are constant and attentive with the Indian authorities and I say that the two boys will return home ". A clear transfer of national sovereignty that should be studied in depth to understand to what extent it is consistent with the constitutional obligations that regulate specific institutional tasks.
8. Who has benefited from a simplistic management of the story as they lead us to affirm the documents arrived from Hamburg, preferring to exploit the culpability of the two Maròs for political and even personal purposes? Because the Monti government gave them back to India giving up arbitration already decided (http://www.esteri.it/mae/it/sala_stampa/archivionotizie/comunicati/2013/...)?
9. Why does the Rome Public Prosecutor's Office not inform 377 about Italian citizens who filed the 20 June 2014 with a statement on the facts, as requested in conclusion of the same and as required by the Criminal Procedure Code?
10. For what reason the State Attorney who contributes to the defense of the two soldiers, despite having been informed by the Defense (April 2014) of the existence of a technical analysis by Eng. Luigi Di Stefano, from whom unequivocal certainties already emerged about the inconsistency of the calibers of the bullets extracted from the corpses and those supplied to our FFAA, did not immediately contest these inconsistencies to India, demanding clarification?
These are the salient points of the whole affair which, if carefully examined, could reveal a thousand other nuances to be explored. All this requires the institution of a Parliamentary Commission which ascertains whether there have been errors and whether there are random responsibilities or attributable to gross negligence rather than to intent.
Not having done so up to now represents an unjustifiable delay, however, in contradiction with the consolidated habit in our Parliament, ready to appoint Commissions even for irrelevant facts or to assess otherwise consolidated problems, such as, for example, problems relating to '??Impoverished uranium.
Waiting to formalize the appointment of a Commission after the news of these days would represent a demonstration of unacceptable political arrogance.
