Day #14
Judge upholds Italy’s jurisdiction and refers territorial competence question to the Court of Cassation
On 15 March 2023, the judge ruled on the defense counsels’ motions to dismiss the case on the basis of lack of jurisdiction in Italy and the territorial competence of the Court of Trapani.
First the judge decided on the motion to dismiss raised by Iuventa defense lawyer Francesca Cancellaro contesting Italy’s jurisdiction over conducts entirely committed in international waters. The arguments raised by Cancellaro on 25 February, and the Prosecution’s rebuttals made on 1 March, can be read in prior reports. Without significant elaboration in relation to more recent case law raised by the defense lawyers, the judge upheld the Court of Cassation’s 2018 ruling (Cass. pen., sez. I, 23.4.2018, n. 56138,M.T.J. e altro.) confirming Italy’s jurisdiction on incidents that took place in international waters.
The judge then read out an assessment, later provided to the parties, regarding the “territorial competence” (competenza territoriale) of the Court of Trapani. Some of the defense lawyers had previously argued that, on the basis of the alleged crimes, other courts in Italy would be more appropriate forums for the case. For example, the applicability of Article 1240(2) of the Navigation Code was suggested, which states that – under certain circumstances – “jurisdiction belongs to the court of the place of registration of the ship on which the accused was embarked at the time of the commission of the crime” (unofficial translation from Italian by ECCHR). In the 1 March hearing, while acknowledging the complexity of identifying the place of commission of the alleged crimes because of the number of events and subjects involved, the Prosecution had stressed its effort to avoid excessive fragmentation of the proceedings and guarantee the Constitutional principle of trial within reasonable time.
Ultimately, the judge did not decide on the question regarding territorial competence in this preliminary hearing. Rather, the judge laid out a long and technical analysis of the legal theories through which the case could be split. If this happens, different constellations of the defendants would have their cases transferred to other courts across Italy. Although it falls within the presiding judge’s competence to decide on this question, the judge referred a final determination to Italy’s Supreme Court of Cassation, the country’s highest criminal court.
The decision by the Court of Cassation as to whether territorial competence is well established in Trapani or if other courts may be more appropriate may take one or more months. In the meantime, the presiding judge decided to continue with the scheduled hearings to address other procedural questions.
Lasty, the judge agreed with arguments raised by the other defense lawyers that the alleged offenses raised by the Prosecution against the NGOs in the case are too vague. The Prosecution stated that there is likely not enough information in the existing case file to amend the charges without further investigation. It is not clear how long such further investigation might take, but the judge indicated a preference for this issue to be meaningfully addressed in the next hearing as it could impact the expediency of the trial for all defendants.
The next preliminary hearing is scheduled to take place at the Court of Trapani on 24 March 2023. The judge is anticipating a response from the Prosecution with regards to further investigation and amended offenses against the NGOs.
Who is in charge of the iuventa case? Court of Cassation to clarify questions of territorial competence.
Since the defence kept revealing further fundamental deficiencies in the overall construction of the indictment, today the question whether the indictment’s premise can stand at all was once again in the foreground. At today’s hearing, the court in Trapani took a position on some of these points.
While the court confirmed Italy’s jurisdiction over sea rescue operations conducted in international waters, it is currently still not completely clear whether the prosecution in Trapani even has the competence over the whole case. However, the court abstained from ruling and instead decided to refer the matter to Italy’s highest court, the Court of Cassation, for clarification.
This is not just about procedural issues. The moment some integral parts of the indictment are confronted with the actual facts of reality, the construction of an alleged “great crime” collapses. The prosecution, despite the years of enormous effort this investigation has taken, has so far failed to substantiate its case and prevent its erosion.
Although this fundamental question remains open until the decision of the highest court, the trial in Trapani will continue on March 24. Too many other procedural questions still await clarification.
Sascha Girke, iuventa-defendant: “It seems that no one wants to take responsibility. In our trial, it is suddenly not even clear who has to prosecute our alleged crime. And at the same time, policymakers are trying to shirk their responsibility by shifting it onto those they hypocritically claim to protect: the people on the move. And while the responsibility roulette continues to be played here, people continue to die incessantly.”