The unconstitutional "trial" of Mussari and the right’s token respect for due process. Petrelli (Ucpi) speaks out

“The majority was trumpeting the rule of law during the referendum campaign. But now it is saying nothing about what the commission of inquiry into David Rossi is doing, which is unconstitutional.” This is what Francesco Petrelli, president of the Union of Italian Criminal Chambers, told Il Foglio, referring to the latest developments in recent days regarding the death of the former manager of Monte dei Paschi di Siena. During a press conference, Gianluca Vinci (FdI), chair of the parliamentary committee of inquiry into the case, stated that, based on the evidence gathered, the bank’s former chief executive Giuseppe Mussari is implicated “as the instigator of an act of intimidation that was not initially intended to lead to David Rossi’s death”, along with the former Florentine historic football player Gabriele Ceccherelli, “as the person who allegedly organised and selected the individuals to be involved in the execution phase”, who were subsequently invited to appear before the committee accompanied by a lawyer. Yet, Petrelli points out, “no public prosecutor’s office has ever entered those two citizens in the register of suspects”.

In a statement from the UCPI, criminal lawyers are calling on Parliament to take action. “We need to clarify the limits and boundaries of a parliamentary committee’s remit, but also shed full light on how such a widespread and irresponsible leak of information and breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence could have taken place,” explains Petrelli. President Vinci was previously an MP for the Lega and subsequently for Fratelli d’Italia: parties which, during the campaign for the referendum on justice, emphasised both the importance of due process and the need to prevent media witch-hunts. “Clearly, it was merely a façade of due process. We have long been denouncing the fact that this principle is used symbolically as a banner, only to be exploited in practical political life as a tool for winning support. And so it operates in a double standard: protecting friends whilst serving as a weapon against enemies. Exactly the opposite of what due process should be.” It is a contradiction, says the criminal lawyer, that “exists across the political spectrum; it does not concern only the governing majority. Even within the opposition, there are factions with completely different views on what the rights and guarantees of the individual in a trial should be, and we have seen this time and again, not just during the referendum campaign.” 

In the case of the commission on Rossi, however, the issue is even more problematic. “Here the contradiction is glaring; it is a sort of institutional confusion,” Petrelli claims, “because commissions of inquiry must carry out their duties using powers that are also assigned to the judicial authorities, not for judicial purposes but for political ones. Moreover, the confidentiality of the commission’s activities has also been breached. Publicising certain content risks compromising any potential judicial investigation into the case. And let us draw a veil over the manner in which the investigation appears to have been conducted, and the questionable transparency of the sources obtained. It is not for us at this stage to assess their credibility, but it is possible to raise some legitimate doubts about them.”

The PD, which opposes (at least in part) the Nordio reform, has expressed “strong concerns regarding President Vinci’s handling of the matter: first, the leak of confidential information, the source of which we do not know and regarding which, to our knowledge, no investigation has been opened; then, the broadcast on television of names and allegations of responsibility that have yet to be verified. The search for the truth regarding David Rossi requires rigour and institutional respect; it cannot be subject to the rules of show business”, wrote the PD members of the same committee. “It’s all part of the political game,” says Petrelli, “we would like this declaration of principles to hold true at all times and in all circumstances, even when we witness other extremely serious violations of the presumption of innocence, when the rules are used in a shamelessly instrumental manner for the sake of winning support.” And this, according to the lawyer, “is a development that we can safely attribute to both political sides”. 

Does the “overreach of investigative powers” referred to by the Criminal Chambers raise issues of unconstitutionality? “Undoubtedly so. Because the Constitutional Court has already made it clear for some years now that parliamentary committees of inquiry do not have a judicial purpose; they are not tasked with passing judgement,” replies Petrelli. “They must simply carry out fact-finding, gathering information and evidence which must not then be used to issue improper judgements, but solely to guide Parliament’s political action. Here, I believe, we are faced with a genuine abuse of power.”