Day #6
Independent observers access court for first time. Authorities again fail to provide adequate interpretation
On 3 December 2022, the judge in Trapani once again announced the postponement of proceedings rather than holding a full hearing, as authorities again failed to provide defendants with adequate interpretation and translation in accordance with basic fair trial rights. However, the hearing marked a welcome development in that independent observers were granted access to the courtroom for the first time.
Preliminary hearings in Italy are typically closed to the public to protect the presumption of innocence, as well as the privacy and safety, of the defendants. However, as pointed out by ECCHR and its partner organizations in our initial requests to conduct independent observation of the hearings in May 2022, the presumption of innocence in this case was already severely comprised. Legal documents were leaked to the Italian press during the five-year preliminary investigation, including the full names of Iuventa crew members. This resulted in a heavy media smear campaign, surveillance by Italian authorities, as well as threats by far-right movements against those named in the documents. In light of these considerations and the case’s significant implications for human rights defense at sea and civil society action more broadly, independent documentation of the judicial process serves as a crucial resource for ensuring informed public debate and fair proceedings. In response to the independent observers being permitted to enter the courtroom on Saturday, defense lawyer Francesca Cancellaro commented: “As far as we know, this is the first time that a court in Italy has allowed the presence of trial observers in a chamber hearing in order to give civil society the opportunity to be directly informed about what is happening in court. The publicity can contribute to a fair trial, which is a fundamental principle of democratic society that must be guaranteed.”
Despite this positive development, it remains concerning that another preliminary hearing appointment was squandered without any substantial progress made on the case due to the repeated failure of the authorities to provide defendants with adequate interpretation/translation. On three separate occasions now – 29 October, 12 November and 2 December 2022 – Iuventa defendant Dariush Beigui and his lawyers have made the trip to Trapani for Beigui to be voluntarily questioned by the police. In line with his rights as a defendant, Beigui may request such an interrogation, with the understanding that the information will then be added to the case file. Such questioning offers the defendant the chance to clarify essential issues and provide additional information, but also carries the potential risk that this information may be used against them in the proceedings. Beigui’s questioning has been halted prematurely on each of these three occasions due to inadequate Italian-German interpretation. Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 20, 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, requires that suspects have access to adequate interpretation/translation in order to effectively exercise their defense rights and to protect the fairness of the proceedings. “We are neither the only ones whose rights are violated, nor the ones who are worst affected,” say the accused Iuventa crew members. “Every day, all over the EU, people face court cases that are not translated and interpreted adequately, making it impossible to defend oneself.”
The judge cannot make further progress in the preliminary hearings until the issue is resolved and Beigui’s questioning is completed, a fact which impacts all accused – 17 individuals and three organizations – in the case.
The next preliminary hearing is scheduled to take place at the Court of Trapani on 19 December 2022.
International observers admitted in trial against sea rescue organisations
Trapani, 03.12 2022. At today’s hearing in the trial against the civil sea rescuers, the presence of renowned international trial observers was admitted by the court. After approval by all parties, they were allowed to attend the trial as observers for the first time.
Apart from that, another day of the trial has come to an end without any substantial progress. Since May of this year, the trial of 21 defendants, who face up to 20 years imprisonment for “aiding and abetting unauthorised immigration”, has not progressed beyond the first procedural steps.
The reason for this is that the public prosecutor’s office has so far been unable to fulfil its obligation to provide the necessary conditions for all defendants to participate in the trial. Recurrent procedural errors and the prosecution’s disregard for basic fair trial standards, such as the provision of adequate interpretation during interrogations of foreign defendants, have left the judge with no other option but to prolong the proceedings and to let appointments pass unused, in order to give the prosecution more time to rectify its errors.
These conditions are not only grounds for worries on the side of the defendants. Even the trial observers, who have so far only been able to observe the proceedings from the outside, are also concerned about the state of the proceedings. They fear that this will not only harm the defendants, but could also have wider consequences for fair justice throughout Europe.
Sascha Girke, iuventa defendant: “We strongly welcome the fact that all 21 defendants, as well as all other parties involved, including the court, have agreed to the observation by this independent third party.“
Francesca Cancellaro, lawyer of the defense:“As far as we know, this is the first time that a court in Italy has allowed the presence of trial observers in a chamber hearing in order to give civil society the opportunity to be directly informed about what is happening in court. The publicity can contribute to a fair trial, which is a fundamental principle of democratic society that must be guaranteed. Transparency is important for the administration of justice because it is the difference between the rule of law and dictatorship: I am sure today’s decision will be a stimulus for other court decisions.”