G8, European Court declares police appeals to the Diaz school ‘inadmissible’

Exactly 20 years after the Genoa G8 in July 2001, the European Court of Human Rights declared the appeals filed by some policemen convicted of raiding the Diaz school ‘inadmissible’. The ECHR, in fact, has established that the appeal of Massimo Nucera, chosen Agent of the Special Unit of the Seventh Mobile Department of Rome (who claimed to have received a stab during the raid on the Diaz school) is not admissible, and Maurizio Panzieri, all epoch of the facts Chief Inspector aggregated to the same Special Unit (which signed the report on what the judges believed was a fake stabbing). Both were sentenced to three years and five months (three of which were sentenced). Similarly, the European Court has declared ‘inadmissible’ the appeal of Angelo Cenni and two other colleagues, foremen of the VII Nucleo 1 ° Mobile Department of Rome. The ECHR, as stated in the provision relating to Nucera and Panzieri, “which met on 24 June 2021 as single judge pursuant to articles 24.2 and 27 of the Convention, examined the aforementioned appeal as it was presented. The Court considers that, to the extent that the appellant denounces the assessment of the evidence and the interpretation of the law by the domestic courts and disputes the outcome of the procedure, the appeal faces a ‘fourth instance’. The appellant was able to present his reasons in court which has been answered with decisions which do not appear to be arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable, and there is no evidence to suggest that the proceedings were unfair. It follows that these allegations are manifestly unfounded within the meaning of Article 35.3 a) of the Convention. The Court declares the application inadmissible “. Same fate for the appeal, declared ‘inadmissible’ by the European Court, presented by Angelo Cenni and his colleagues. The ECHR, the decision reads, “met on 24 June 2021 as a single judge pursuant to articles 24.2 and 27 of the Convention, examined the aforementioned appeal as it was presented. The appeal is based on Article 6.1 of the Convention. In the light of all the evidence at its disposal, the Court considers that the facts presented reveal no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that these allegations are manifestly unfounded within the meaning of Article 35.3 a) of the Convention. The Court declares the appeal inadmissible “. In the appeal presented by Nucera to Panzieri through the lawyer Silvio Romanelli, among the many aspects it is emphasized that” the examination conducted by the Court of Cassation was not effective and fair, since it has not really taken into consideration, refuting them, the reasons for the complaint presented by the applicants (…). In particular, the violation of the regulated provisions the aforementioned must be identified, both in relation to the sentence of the Court of Appeal which overturned the judgment of acquittal of the Court, and in relation to the sentence of the Court of Cassation which rejected the appeal of today’s exponents, in the following profiles and below summarize: in having affirmed the Court of Appeal to have reported in full the service report of agent Nucera, when instead it was reported only in part, excluding that part in which it is written that there were two engravings on the protective vest (irrefutable proof of the fact that there are not two versions of the fact but only one) and that he realized that he was only stabbed at a later time “. Furthermore, “in having the Court of Cassation completely omitted to evaluate this aspect, even going so far as to affirm that in the service report it is written that there was a cut on the jacket and an incision on the underlying bodice, a documentally recognizable statement as false” , and “in having referred the Court of Appeal to an act (…) not acquired and not obtainable at trial as the reason for the supposed (actually non-existent) change of version of Agent Nucera”. Among the grievances, also that of having “modified the Court of Appeal, up to completely distorting them, the statements made in questioning by Agent Nucera regarding the dynamics of the fact (despite the presence of the video that facilitates and allows a perfect understanding) , to then come to the conclusion that this dynamic – as falsely reconstructed by the Court and attributed to the accused himself – would not appear credible “, and” in not having minimally taken into account the findings of the expert’s report and examination – from which it emerges that not only is there compatibility between the description of the dynamics of the aggression carried out by Nucera and the signs found on the jacket and on the bodice (a circumstance of which it is acknowledged), but that the evidence can be deduced from these signs with a high probability close to certainty positive that this aggression actually occurred in the exact terms described by Agent Nucera – replacing his own judgment uncle to that of the expert without even giving the reasons and without refuting at any point the findings of the expert’s report and statements made by the expert during the examination “. Finally,” in the apodictically affirming the Court of Appeal that the simulation of the the assault could well have occurred by placing the jacket and bodice on a table, without needing them to be worn, when the report categorically excludes this occurrence, acknowledging that the same is not questioned even by the consultants of the prosecutor and the plaintiffs; statement made by the Court of Appeal without requiring a new appraisal and without even contesting the results of the one in the file, simply by substituting one’s own unjustified and arbitrary judgment for the opposite one, expressed in terms of certainty by the Expert “. Coming to the appeal presented by Cenni e by the two colleagues through the lawyer Eugenio Pini, rests on what are considered obvious gaps. “The whole process – reads the appeal – is based on insufficient and incomplete evidence, and yet, this did not lead to a sentence acquittal but to an assessment of criminal responsibility regardless of the procedural findings. The witness sources collected by the judge of cognition had already been used to decree the dismissal of the proceedings against the alleged aggressors. Despite the choice of the public prosecutor to request the dismissal of the charges against the possible material perpetrators of the violence, evidently determined by the difficulties encountered in identifying them, the defendants were declared responsible for the crimes ascribed to them, by the Court of Genoa “and” were sentenced to three years of imprisonment (fully condoned) and the accessory penalty of disqualification from public office for the duration of the sentence “.” It is noted right now – it is highlighted – how this process, which lasted almost eight years, was characterized by an unprecedented media interest and social pressure, which also went beyond national borders. The judge of first instance is well aware of this aspect, who feels the need to write, in the sentence, that ‘it does not first appear superfluous, given the media relevance of this proceeding and the general expectations regarding its conclusions, remember that the task of this Board is exclusively that of evaluating, according to the rules established by current legislation, the evidence acquired in court, and on the basis of these elements therefore ascertain any personal responsibility of the individual accused in relation to the crimes specifically ascribed to them. Therefore, any different overall assessment, of a political, social or even simple nature, regarding the facts in question ‘… “” Despite the approximation and the apodictic reasoning that characterized the first instance judgment – the appeal continues -, the sentence of the Court of Genoa was confirmed by the Court of Appeal of Genoa (…) with an increased sentence. Against this decision, an appeal was filed with the Supreme Court, which ended with the sentence (…) not to proceed for the prescription of crimes, with a condemnation of damages for the civil parties constituted “. In the appeal, therefore, it is highlighted that the trial “was conducted in an unfair manner, in a manner that would infringe the rights of defense and in violation of the principle of impartiality of the Judge and the presumption of innocence and ended with an unjust and unjustified sentence”. It follows, for the applicants , “the denunciation of the violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights for the following reasons: violation of the principle of personal criminal responsibility. It does not seem possible to revoke in doubt the fact that the trial against Cenni “and his colleagues,” was accompanied right from the start by ‘media needs’, in need of calming, after the press from all over the world had unjustly indicated the Italian police forces, responsible for the events that occurred at the outcome of the G8 in Genoa “.” The writer – notes the lawyer in the appeal – is not unaware that the injuries suffered by the victims could raise the suspicion of an unprecedented and premeditated cruelty, however, it is only acceptable to the serious investigative deficiency (which did not allow either to identify the perpetrators of the facts, or to verify whether all the injuries were really the result of an intentional excess of the use of weapons, as believed by the prosecution) can act as a companion piece to the ‘search for a culprit at all costs’, as instead happened in the judicial matter in question “. For the applicants,” the lack of argumentation of the convictions on fundamental points of the affair, he suggests that needs other than purely procedural ones have subjugated the Italian judges, so much so as to give them the belief that it was a precise duty to attribute criminal responsibility for what happened to someone. Although the Court of First Instance indicated in the introduction the need to ascertain only the possible responsibilities of the accused in relation to the crimes ascribed to them, without transcending an overall evaluation of a political, social or even simple nature, it cannot escape attention. of the Court seized that the deductions contained in the sentences, both first and second instance, are justified only ’emotionally’, representing yielding to the human temptation to make a decision suitable to reaffirm the strength of the authority of the State, which is being questioned ” . “The clearest proof of what is being said here – continues the appeal -, is that in the sentences the defendants lose their individuality, their precise role and task, even the precise position on the theater of events to become a single organism, the VII nucleus, responsible for all the violence committed within the Diaz school. What is certain is that the judges have proposed equally probable antagonistic hypotheses in the sentence and it is certain that the presence of reasonable rival hypotheses has brought the accusatory hypothesis below the limit of ‘reasonable doubt’. In short, since the judge has accredited several alternative explanations of the same historical fact, then each of it cannot be said to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and, therefore, the sentence was issued in the absence of the probative standards required by each procedural system “. the applicants, therefore, there is an “absolute lack of evidence”, since “the entire process is based on a lack of evidence and gaps, and yet, this did not lead to an acquittal but to an assessment criminal liability regardless of the procedural findings. The witness sources gathered by the judge of cognition had already been used to decree the dismissal of the proceedings against the alleged aggressors. “Conclusions that the ECHR rejected, 20 years after the events of the G8 in Genoa, declaring them ‘inadmissible’.