It has been leaked in the last hours the news that there would also be the name of the general commander of the police, Tullio Del Sette (pictured, the last on the right), among the persons investigated in the Naples prosecutor's investigation on Consip procurement (the central purchasing of the public administration).
According to at least as reported by Without the Newspaper, the high officer would have been entered in the register of suspects for disclosure of professional secrecy: in this case, for the magistrates who conduct the investigation, he would have warned the top Consip on the relations to be held with some entrepreneurs, including the top Neapolitan manager Alfredo Romeo, investigated for corruption with the executive Consip Marco Gasparri, who, in turn, would have received sums of money to help the first (Romeo) in some important tenders, such as the one on Facility management, Fm4, banned in the 2014 but then awarded to another company.
We will not enter the story here, having neither the documentation nor, for the aspects that will be explained, interest in doing it: but we will insist once again on a fundamental principle of the law in general and of our Constitution in particular. that of the presumption of not guilty until final sentence of conviction.
Meanwhile, we gather evidence: everyone can end up under investigation, from the private citizen, to the entrepreneur, to the public official, to the politician, to the magistrate himself, to the carabiniere, as in the case in question. Demonstration that, after all, justice, when it must make its way, is (perhaps not always, but basically yes) equal for everyone.
And for all, the guarantees provided by the law, both internal and international, are valid, or should apply: (in primis), as anticipated above, that of the presumption of not guilty until sentence (of conviction) has become final.
As already underlined on this head (v.articolo) in the aftermath of the investigation that involved the then Chief of Staff of the Navy, Admiral Giuseppe De Giorgi, is in the soul of some press, as well as part of the Italian population, shouting to the guilt of a person even before we have arrived - at least - in a sentence of conviction at first instance.
Pursued by a climate of witch hunts, often seasoned by a certain "social envy", today a person is thrown on the grill, simply because it has been the recipient of a guarantee notice, or a notice of conclusion of the preliminary investigations, or - even worse - for a referral to trial, without considering the physiological and procedural value of these acts and, above all, the fact that, generally, it is in the trial, in the right contradictory between accusation and defense, that they form the evidence and arrive at a judgment on the guilt or not of a person.
It is true that the state of health of our country has exacerbated the minds - including that of the writer - and that - understandably - when it comes to public money, as a result, you raise the bar of attention and ill-tolerance for any waste, favoritism, corruption.
Just as it is true that in Italy, in order to arrive at the famous "passage in judgment" of a sentence, it is often necessary to wait for the three degrees of judgment provided for by the law, and that this often takes place over a very long period of time. but, in principle, it would always be wrong to make up for the shortcomings of a system, reducing the protection of rights.
Another thing, however, is to say that (especially for senior or political positions) it should be considered appropriate to take a step back by those who undergo a criminal trial: one could agree, provided that this does not happen, at least, before a sentence of condemnation, being absurd to expect such a thing in previous moments of the aforementioned (process), that is, when everything is still in progress.
Accusation and defense must be left free to carry out their function, without their role being charged with other meanings that can not and must not belong to them: otherwise, one would end up - as it happens - by affecting, for example, the same serenity of the prosecutors, whose acts, at times, are extremely impregnated with an extra-procedural importance (or, if desired, procedural, which many investigating magistrates do not want and do not seek - faithful to their role and their function) some of them (prosecutors) end up being accused of being "politicized" or responding to "justice and clockwork" needs.
Not so, or at least it is not so in most cases: but we must have the patience to make the parties work, as we said, in the right climate, without shouting to someone's guilt before a sentence - repeats itself - at least the first degree going in that direction.
Because the problem, if we continue to do so, would also be another: the risk of de-legitimizing the work not only of defense lawyers (just as important as the prosecution, despite the conviction of someone, fruit of the most obscure judicial obscurantism ), but also that of the judicial magistrature itself which, at the end of a just trial, held in the contradictory of the parts mentioned above, comes in a number of cases to ascertain a version of the facts different from that assumed in the articles of imputation originating, perhaps with absentee sentences also absurd. How can we forget, in this regard, the statements of the vice-president of the CSM Giovanni Legnini, in the aftermath of those - acquittals - famous and rather recent in some branches of the process linked to Capital Mafia: ie greater precision in investigations and - often forgotten activity - search for evidence even in favor of the suspect.
It is often said, when someone is accused of a crime, that the non-knowledge of the law does not justify the commission of the aforementioned (offense: ignorantia legis not excusat): well, even not knowing the meaning of the procedural documents, and of the institutes (including constitutional ones: yes, just that Magna Charta of which we have just finished speaking so much) underlying them, constitutes ignorance ... and, above all for the harmful consequences that it can unjustly bring to a person, especially in terms of social discredit, it is truly execrable. And this is when, to suffer, is a politician, either when it is a public official, or a private citizen, or a ... carabiniere.
(photo: presidency of the republic)
