A celebration of due process, courtesy of Il Fatto

"Lavitola live": what else? We would like to use today’s space to thank our colleagues at Il Fatto Quotidiano for the important lesson in due process they have offered in recent days regarding the Lavitola case. We do so without malice, with genuine affection and sincere enthusiasm, because the events we have witnessed in the last few hours and days may represent a generous contribution to a cause we discover we share: the heroic struggle against the culture of suspicion, against the practice of public shaming, against that section of public opinion – we’re not quite sure who backs it – which specialises in turning every suspect into a guilty party, every friend of a suspect into a scoundrel, and every wiretap into irrefutable evidence of a crime. We must offer our sincere congratulations to our friends at "Il Fatto Quotidiano" for having demonstrated, over the past few days, that another world is possible, and we are certain that all the prudence we have seen displayed in the Lavitola-Ranucci case is not linked to the special relationship that a section of public opinion and a section of the political world have built with the presenter of "Report", but is linked precisely to a genuine understanding of the rule of law, respect for it and its protection. And we are certain that, had it been not Sigfrido Ranucci but Nicola Porro, Maurizio Belpietro or Alessandro Sallusti on the phone with Dr Valter Lavitola, there would have been the same care, the same passion, the same dedication to separating, so to speak, the careers of the person under investigation and his friend – between the suspect and his ‘accomplice’, a term that the media-judicial circus has always encouraged us to use when a friend of a possible crook is involved. A brief round-up of yesterday’s headlines in "Il Fatto". ‘Ranucci unaware’, ‘No shadows over Report’, ‘No pressure on the Rai programme’, ‘Journalist an unwitting victim’. Perfect headlines, perfect articles, a perfect approach. With a single, generous common thread. A single, important cultural approach. A single, correct journalistic stance. The culture of suspicion is not fuelled. Citizens are not treated as guilty until proven innocent.

One does not call upon the ‘people’s court’ to request pre-trial detention. One does not pay undue attention to the risk of evidence tampering by a suspect, even if they are accused of being the mastermind behind an attempted massacre. The contacts of the aforementioned suspect are not treated as criminals until proven otherwise. A phone call between a person under investigation and a friend is not treated as evidence of guilt to be used against the friend. Accusations that relate solely to those under investigation must not be extended to third parties unconnected to the investigation. Because a suspicion is not a fact. Associating with an alleged criminal does not make one a criminal. A conversation about a plan does not amount to endorsement of that plan. Wiretaps must be interpreted, not worshipped. Receiving confidences from a person under investigation does not mean sharing in their criminal plans. Repeatedly discussing a political candidacy does not amount to having accepted it. Reconstructing dates and movements together does not mean fabricating an alibi: it must be proven that the reconstruction was knowingly false. A relationship of ‘deep trust’ between people remains, at all times, merely a human relationship – even in the context of an investigation – and not, as we had come to understand in other contexts, a criminal offence. And so, wiretaps must be interpreted, not exploited, and friendships, phone calls, confidences, meetings, confidential information, discussions about the political future and even a joint reconstruction of movements following the opening of the investigation must be taken for what they are. Suspicions, not convictions. Investigations, not judgements. Partial reconstructions, not definitive judgements. This is how the principle of due process works: a blend of prudence, caution, discernment, moderation, respect for privacy, and extreme care not to lump every name involved in an investigation into one big pot, and never to use the phrase ‘the name of… has cropped up’ in a headline to smear anyone who has had dealings with those under investigation or even those who have been arrested.

Thanks to the show of the year, "Lavitola in diretta" – a format that upholds due process, which a sensible Rai should have the courage to broadcast – we know that finally even those who for a long time have used court transcripts as a tool to sling mud at all the suspects’ associates have chosen to adopt a different, fair, prudent, courteous and measured approach – the product of a season of due process that we are certain will hold true not only when the individual to be shielded from possible ambiguities is a favourite of the political camp one supports. Facts are needed to pin someone down, not conjecture, insinuations or deductions. A precautionary measure is not a verdict. Associating with an alleged criminal does not make one a criminal. Pander to the ‘court of public opinion’ is a disgrace in the face of which we cannot stand idly by. We must react, make our voices heard, get our hands dirty, and do everything we can to educate the public not to succumb to that culture of suspicion, conjecture and insinuation, which a section of the media-judicial circus – including a programme whose name begins with ‘Re’ and ends with ‘port’ – has instilled in us for years.