Vatican, Como Court: “In Perlasca first round on unauthorized video broadcasting, ‘surgical selection operated'”

Archbishop Alberto Perlasca, the key witness in the Vatican trial for the financial scandal linked to the sale of the London building which will start again at the end of September, won the first round at the Court of Como in the case against Corriere della Sera, for the unauthorized dissemination of the video of his interrogation as part of the investigations at the Vatican Court. In detail, in the order of the Court of Como, referred to by the Adnkronos, the judge, accepting the appeal of Perlasca’s lawyers, says that a “surgical selection” was made with the intention of “creating a show”. “It will be the task of the judgment of cognition to evaluate in detail, – writes judge Agostino Abate – but in terms of fumus it is relevant that the resisting party considers it to be of public interest to show only the short passages of a video of hours where the examined person shows emotional involvement or difficulty answering certain questions “. In truth, the judge says that “from watching the video and the author’s captioning comments, he was unable to understand, even broadly, the crime facts that were the subject of the trial in the foreign state, certainly due to his own inability. The writer has grasped, as the authors of the report say they wanted, only the emotional difficulty of the person examined, which was taken for granted since they were topics, never specified in detail, but which are perceived as involving his superiors “. In the order it is pointed out instead that “the relevant element is that the film under discussion is not that of the examination of the witness made by the Promoter of Justice, but the one created by the respondent party by operating a surgical selection of a few minutes from several hours of recording , deciding what was relevant and what was not and above all by making a montage, accompanied by comments, which he admitted aimed at creating a ‘scoop’. This choice does not allow us to know what was the attitude of the examiner in the remaining hours of recording and therefore to fully evaluate the sense of those few minutes of embarrassment shown, as proof of the lack of proper public information. The negative connotation of the person examined is amplified by the incorrect indication that he was under investigation, when his position had already been filed “. ordinance it is noted that “the decision to obtain a little more than ten minutes from a video of several hours, extrapolating only the steps with an emotional effect, without bothering to give any information on the facts of which that examination and the ongoing process dealt with, places the publication objectively outside the protection to be accorded to the right to information, which must find limits in respect of confidentiality and honor of the people concerned, including those later found guilty, who can only be sacrificed for the public interest of knowing really happened and relevant facts. In the video in question no information is provided, if not isolated phrases, because the declared aim is to show only the embarrassment of a person in answering delicate questions during the preliminary investigation, and this is not objectively considered to be of public interest to the point of prevailing. on respect for the rights of the person. The intention to create only a show also emerges from the definition of the room which is presented as furnished with ‘a barracks table’ and ‘a glass cabinet full of rifles’. In a film set such furnishings would be functional to reconstruct a “medieval dungeon” capable of pouring out its inauspicious area on the role of the examined person. The writer – writes the judge in the order – does not think it possible to imagine that two professionals and the executive staff of the major national newspaper could have confused so dramatically what is clearly an austere, but elegant, room used for the examination, embellished with a period table and ennobled on the walls by display furniture of ancient weapons, equally period, specially illuminated by internal exhibition lights. The conclusion is that the description of the room and the furniture is deliberately wrong because it is functional to color the short video even more, underlining the negative opinion that you want to suggest of the person being examined “. The judge then considers” not acceptable in any way “the thesis proposed by the defendant – Corsera – in the note finally deposited, where we read in reference to the filing of the position that has already taken place: ‘Not exactly a solemn commendation and, above all, the confirmation of a fundamental role of the applicant in the affair and without who, albeit without his willful concurrence, the disputed crimes could not have been committed. ‘ If the underlying principle of this affirmation were accepted – the judge writes – fundamental principles of guarantee and presumption of innocence would be canceled, painstakingly achieved over the centuries and often still questioned today. institutions, must not give commendations or issue reprimands, but only judge whether there are extremes of personal responsibility for the specific crime alleged. From the note of the respondent party, an apodictic and unfounded statement of guilt emerges, not withheld, because in his opinion the applicant, even if he did not participate in the crime, he must somehow still be found guilty. This thesis is consistent with the spirit of the news report which, in addition to having carefully selected those minutes of emotional embarrassment, integrates the film made with comments, therefore personal opinions do not covered by the duty to report, which the applicant rightly defines defamatory “. The Court of Como therefore observes that” the spread on the web by the major national newspaper of a film made in this way that contains attributions of negative qualifications, now recognized by the defendant as false, is a sure source of further damage to the image and to the appellant’s honor, in addition to that already achieved, and its gravity can only be faced by accepting the request. It should be emphasized that the decision of the respondent party to publish the video also outside its own platform is a further cause of damage, due to the certain greater diffusion of the defamatory news “. Hence the order of the Court of Como” to RCS Mediagroup SpA of remove and / or have them immediately removed from the telematic platform, as well as from any further telematic platform and / or website of its competence or related to it, the audiovisual contents relating to the interrogations of Archbishop Alberto Perlasca “. Extended provision to all the platforms on which the video of Perlasca’s deposition appeared.