Day #33

The main prosecution witnesses were summoned for questioning.

Prosecution case relies on compromised witnesses – iuventa trial crumbles!

The main prosecution witnesses were summoned for questioning in yesterdays’s hearing, marking a significant moment after nearly two years of preliminary proceedings. This session shed light on the ulterior motives and serious credibility issues of these witnesses upon whom the prosecution has built its entire case. The defendants are therefore hopeful that Saturday’s hearing marks the beginning of the end to the trial, as they have conclusively demonstrated that the accusations made by the witnesses were fabricated and politically motivated.

The existence of “reliable and trustworthy eyewitnesses” was considered the unique and defining element of the Iuventa case and the big difference to the dozens of other cases against SAR NGOs, all of which never reached trial or were immediately dropped. The fact that these eyewitnesses were former police officers who acted out of a purported sense of duty, was supposed to add legitimacy to the case. However, yesterday’s hearing shed a very different light on the matter.

The two key witnesses were actually dismissed from the police service due to a history marred by lies, fraud, defamation, and malpractice. Their credibility was so compromised that they became untenable even within the police ranks [For more information on the prosecution’s key witnesses, see our PRESS KIT]. Despite extensive evidence of their dishonesty and past questionable behaviour, the prosecution used them as the pretext for constructing the largest and most extensive investigation against SAR NGOs. Through selective omission of facts, they were transformed from disgraced former employees into purportedly credible “ex-colleagues.”

Trapani’s prosecution was fully aware of their tainted past from the outset. Police tapped their phones in order to verify their statements. These records clearly showed in the early stages of the investigation their dishonesty and ulterior motives, with the one harboring aspirations of rejoining the police service, while the other aimed for a prestigious position within Italy’s far right and racist Lega Nord party. The fact that they contacted Matteo Salvini, exchanged information and material with him, reveals the political inclinations and motives behind their accusations and testimonies.

But not only is the credibility of the witnesses null and void; even their so called “eyewitness-reports” are vague, contradictory, and the result of either a fundamental lack of knowledge about the standards of maritime behaviour and Search and Rescue operations, or bad faith.

Nicola Canestrini, iuventa lawyer: “The cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, finally ordered by the court to verify their credibility, confirmed the absolute lack of evidence for the charges. Immediate termination of the proceedings, which began 8 years ago, is the only acceptable option in a rule of law.”

Kathrin Schmidt, iuventa defendant: “It’s ridiculous to see how the Italian juridical system has made itself a puppet show over political interests of dodgy right wing characters. The only possible fair outcome is for the judge to drop all charges in his decision at the end of this preliminary phase, which is expected early March.”

This situation may seem like material for a soap opera, but the reality is far more grave. According to the International Organization for Migration over 10,000 individuals have lost their lives in the central Mediterranean since the IUVENTA was seized in the summer of 2017. Additionally, more than 200,000 people have been forcibly returned to Libya. Each of these tragedies could have been prevented, and the IUVENTA could have played a crucial role in saving lives – if only it had not been seized.

PRESS KIT

Lack of credibility of key prosecution witnesses inthe iuventacaserevealed

• The two primary prosecution witnesses in the trial against four members of the iuventa crew, among others, testifiedon February 10th2024.
• The defence has consistently asserted that the testimonies of these witnesses are not credible, based on their affiliations with right-wing political parties and their history of professional misconduct and criminal behaviour.
• The defendants arehopeful that this hearing wouldmark the beginning of the end to the trial, conclusively showing that the accusations against them were fabricated andpolitically motivated.

Background information on the prosecution witnesses

• Floriana Ballestra and Pietro Gallo,have been summoned, at the prosecution's request, for cross-examination in the court of Trapani on February 10th.
• They are former security operators of IMI Security Service, a company contracted by the owner of the Save the Children ship Vos Hestia.
• Their testimonies were pivotal in initiating the investigation and constitute key evidence against the defendants.
• Both witnesses provided the basis for the prosecution's case, despite lacking substantial evidence, as demonstrated by Forensic Architecture's reconstruction of the accusations and Gallo's retractions from his statements in subsequent interviews (2019) (Massari_IlFatto_27/1/19 and Von Laffert_Zeit_8/5/2019), e.g.:Pietro Gallo:"I never witnessed the NGOs collaborating with the traffickers. That was always just a hunch. We put two and two together.” (Von Laffert_Zeit_8/5/2019)

Links with right-wing political parties and organizations

• On 26 September 2016, just 20 days after starting their first mission, Gallo and Ballestra contacted the secretariat ofLega leader Matteo Salvini, accusing the iuventa crew of aiding Libyan smugglers. Salvini contacted them the next day.
• IMI security operators subsequently functioned as "Salvini's spies", even being asked to obtain specific statements:
  Matteo Salvini’s request: “'it would have been useful to have the recording of someone from Save the Children admitting that they do everything for publicity...'.(Massari_IlFatto_27/1/19)
• Both expected to secure jobs in exchange for collaboration with Lega, as evidenced by intercepted calls during the investigation:
  • Ballestra: “Maybe in politics, maybe she –she tells her aunt in a phone call intercepted immediately after the meeting at the League headquarters –as a city councilor.” (Palladino_Domani_2/4/2021).She even sent a curriculum vitae to the Liguria Region (Lega).(Massari_IlFatto_27/1/19)
  • Gallo, “in his phone calls he does not hide the hope that the Trapani investigation could become his opportunity for redemption. Who knows, maybe a job in the (secret) services.” (Palladino_Domani_2/4/2021)
• Gallo tried to get in contact with Giorgia Meloni, offering her potential propaganda material for the Fratelli d'Italia party.(Palladino_Domani_2/4/2021)
• IMI Security Service was revealed to have close connections to Gian Marco Concas, listed by the far-right Identitarian Movementas head of operations for its C-Star Mediterranean mission. (Palladino_FamigliaCristiana_22/9/2017)

History of professional misconduct and criminal behavior

• Floriana Ballestra, a former traffic officer in Imperia (Liguria). She was dismissed for disciplinary reasons in 2011 from due to a long list of offenses, including misdemeanors, lies, slander, abuse of authority, and making false statements.

As emerges from the documents and as the Regional Administrative Tribunal pointed out in the judgment under appeal, Ms OMISSIS-had "a very bad disciplinary record, having received a total of 30 disciplinary sanctions for the most disparate reasons (negligence in the course of duty, misconduct towards superiors, conduct not in keeping with the dignity of the office, failure to produce medical certificates, delay in the payment of fines collected on the road, failure to comply with orders, unavailability during sick leave, etc.

• Pietro Gallo joined the State Police in Rome in 1993 and was dismissed in 1995 as he planted false evidence in the car of a love rival (Campbell_DAgostino_The Intercept_21/12/2022)

It does not take many words to highlight the seriousness of the behaviour of a police officer who, for trivial reasons of jealousy, attributes to someone such infamous behaviour as drug possession: a seriousness that cannot be undermined by the albeit positive career record and the scores obtained for admission to the service.