In a modern democracy the State is understood as the enlarged society of citizens who live and work in a well-defined territorial location in which it exercises its sovereignty protecting the rights of each according to the rule of "good family man".
The article 2 of our Constitution defines in particular those that we could call the obligations of the State towards the citizens. "The Republic guarantees the inviolable rights of man both as an individual and in social formation where his personality develops and requires the fulfillment of the mandatory duties of political, economic and social solidarity".
With regards to Massimiliano Latorre and Salvatore Girone, who at the time of the events was responsible for the management of the State probably forgot the contents of the second article of the Constitution. It has not, in fact, guaranteed the two fusiliers of Marina the inviolable right of every citizen to be judged by its natural judge even though there are all the conditions for doing so. Nor has it assured two soldiers the right of functional immunity recognized by the treaty law and applied by almost all the states of the world. Finally he did not even support them as belonging to a vital social formation for any State, that of military status, denying them political and social solidarity. Instead, he delegated an undue right to a third State, to judge two representatives of the State even in the absence of certain and unambiguous probative references, as possible proof or evidence against them, accepting in fact that India outraged the most elementary human right, that of arbitrary denial of personal freedom. A series of "omissions" that led the two marched to be hostage to India by 26 months, forced to suffer a series of ups and downs of situations certainly not simple on a psychological level, also involving family members.
"A series of shortcomings" that the State through the highest institutional representatives has committed to the detriment of two Italian citizens, completely disregarding the aforementioned article 2 of the Constitution and other specific constitutional provisions relating to the Criminal Code.
The 15 April pv will be spent 780 days since Rome has surrendered its national sovereignty by delegating India to do it on its own, an Italy that, however, in March 2013, through a targeted and careful diplomatic actions, had created the premises to apply the provisions of International Law and the Sea Conventions.
In those days it was decided at the highest levels of the executive to keep the two Italian marines not making them return to India as a "retaliation" against Delhi that ignored the Italian formalized requests with three "verbal notes" with which they asked all India to open a negotiating table and immediately start an international arbitration.
On the contrary, suddenly and with the alibi of having to "keep the word", the decision was annulled and the soldiers returned to Delhi also suffering a real blackmail that threatened to remove the diplomatic immunity to our ambassador Mancini. A sudden decision whose consequences are plain for all, clearly not determined by the obligation to maintain a given commitment but to defend economic interests not better clarified, even if clearly belonging to lobbies of financial and political power.
A decision that first of all represented a blatant omission of the provisions of Article 2 of the Constitution, at the time that the "inviolable rights of man" were not guaranteed, used instead as exchange goods.
The March 22 Massimiliano Latorre and Salvatore Girone were returned to India who wanted to investigate and judge them for a possible crime for which the Indian judicial system provided for the death penalty.
The two Navy Riflemen were then returned giving way to "a" trial extradition ", in contradiction with the specific provisions of the Italian Constitution and the article 698 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which prohibits the act when the person concerned is destined to undergo a criminal procedure that does not guarantee the fundamental rights of the defense through an accusatory action based on certain evidence.
The institutional decision at the time was justified by the fact that India would not apply the death penalty according to a written declaration by the Indian business executive in Italy. An incautious choice as in clear contradiction with the ruling of the Constitutional Court (223 27 of June 1996) in which the Supreme Court considered the mere formal guarantee of non-application of the death penalty is insufficient to grant the 'extradition. Supreme Court that more specifically has been expressed through Section VI (Judgment No. 45253 of 22 Nov. 2005, Cc. Dept. 13 Dec. 2005, Rv, 232633).
An autonomous determination of the executive, made operational in the absence also of assessments and legal decisions of an Italian court and absolutely contrary to what was sentenced by the Sec. VI the 10 October 2008 n. 40283, dep. 28 October 2008 affirming among other things that "for the purpose of the sentence favorable to extradition, it is required documented subsistence and evaluation of serious clues ...", indications that India has not yet formalized.
These are the prevailing events that have led to talk of "lack of state". Facts and decisions managed by the then Prime Minister Monti, perhaps distracted from what we might call legal constraints because committed to "doing the account" and supported in its decision-making by Ministers from the resounding curriculum, but perhaps for this reason, not always able to understand the suffering of others.
Personality of all respect for politics and the business world. Some of them are perhaps in the process of gaining important positions in the business world, others committed to structuring and representing new political realities.
Who represents the State at the highest levels of orders can not however afford to "not know" the constraints imposed by our Constitution or interpret them in a "plastic way" according to the circumstances. In the specific case, however, this happened by interpreting the article 2 of the Constitution that binds the State to certain obligations to its citizens and the first sentences of the Supreme Court on extradition.
A story that deserves to be analyzed in detail to prevent it from becoming part of the "database" of the countless Italian mysteries and that, instead, should induce politics to reappropriate its role and give back to the citizens the certainty of being protected rather than used as barter goods.
Fernando Termentini
