Wiretapping, Director of Justice Issue: “Those irrelevant cannot be disclosed”

“Interceptions irrelevant for ascertaining the facts subject of the criminal trial should neither circulate nor be disclosed. On the basis of the legislation in force, in particular the provisions of article 268 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, interceptions irrelevant for the purposes of process should be purely and simply excerpted and then placed in the file of the powers of attorney “. He talks about it with Adnkronos Nello Rossi, magistrate and director of Questione Giustizia, a magazine promoted by the democratic judiciary who adds: “The excerpt takes place at the end of a procedure regulated by law and carried out by the investigating magistrate in contradiction between the parties. of wiretapping covered by secrecy the crime of violation of official secrecy is incurred, severely sanctioned by article 326 of the Criminal Code “. “I will limit myself to recalling the ABC in a very complex matter, the subject of numerous interventions, including recent ones by the legislator in the search for a difficult balance between the needs of the process and its publicity and those of the protection of all the parties involved in the procedure” , continues the director of the periodical of the democratic judiciary, citing, with regard to irrelevant interceptions, article 268, paragraph 6, of the ritual code: “…. the judge orders the acquisition of conversations or flows of computer communications or telematics indicated by the parties, which do not appear irrelevant, also proceeding ex officio with the removal of the registrations and minutes whose use is prohibited and those concerning particular categories of personal data, provided that their relevance is not demonstrated “. “So basically irrelevant interceptions to be published there should be no more – underlines Rossi – because they have been previously removed”. Furthermore, in 2019 an absolute prohibition of publication, even partial, of the ‘content’ of wiretapping not acquired in compliance with the procedural rules was added to the Code of Procedure (article 114 paragraph 2 bis). “And if they are disclosed? “In the case of interceptions covered by secrecy, the crime of violation of official secrecy is incurred, severely sanctioned by article 326 of the Criminal Code”, replies the Magistrate. content “it is possible to give notice, but the prohibitions of publication in full version referred to in article 114 of the criminal procedure code apply to them, which are calibrated on the different phases of the process and are exhausted as it progresses. The weakness of the system in the latter case – he explains – is that the sanction for the prohibition of publication is very modest. Article 684 of the Criminal Code provides for a minimum penalty of arrest and a fine subject to oblation, which makes the crime extinguish with the payment of a sum of money. It is not up to me to say whether these sanctions should be increased – concludes the Magistrate – but it is clear that their deterrence and dissuasive effectiveness is very low “. (By Roberta Lanzara)