Criminal lawyers: Commission oversteps its remit in David Rossi case; the Speakers of the Houses should intervene

To bring the Committees of Inquiry back within the scope of the powers conferred upon them by the Constitution, and to conduct an investigation into the leak of information. The Union of Italian Criminal Chambers, in a statement, has called on the presidents of the Chambers to intervene, following the public disclosure of the names of those allegedly responsible for the death of David Rossi, without these individuals even being listed in the register of suspects.

“On 19 October, the Chair of the parliamentary committee of inquiry into the death of the head of communications at Monte dei Paschi di Siena read out a statement for a few seconds before the committee withdrew to a closed session. Those few seconds were enough to reveal to the public – as stated in the criminal lawyers’ note – the full names of two citizens whom the Constitution requires us to presume innocent.” The UCPI denounces an ‘overreach of investigative powers’ and calls on the ‘Speakers of the Chambers to intervene to ensure that the Committee brings its activities back within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution’. ‘Immediately afterwards, the minutes were distributed to the press,’ the committee recalls. ‘Already the previous evening, those names had been revealed on television through the disclosure of confidential information, regarding the leak of which no investigation appears to have been launched.’ Criminal lawyers point out that ‘the President himself subsequently appeared on the programme that had broadcast that news, continuing to speak publicly of “investigations” and “certainties” as if a parliamentary inquiry could be transformed into a judgement of liability’.

“No Public Prosecutor’s Office has ever entered those two citizens in the register of persons under investigation. There is no record of them having been questioned or of any charges having been formally brought against them. The opportunity to be heard was only offered at a later stage, almost as if it were a concession, when the media had already passed judgement on them,” continues the UCPI executive committee - Article 82 of the Constitution grants the Houses of Parliament the power to order inquiries into matters of public interest, whilst specifying, however, that the committees shall proceed ‘with the same powers and the same limitations as the judicial authorities’. This provision cannot be reduced to a mere formal reference: those exercising investigative powers must also respect their limits and safeguards, starting with the obligations of confidentiality and the protection of the rights of those involved. The very law establishing the Commission imposes a duty of confidentiality on documents relating to proceedings during the preliminary investigation stage and requires the members and staff of the Commission to comply with this obligation’.

“The Constitutional Court has long made it clear that parliamentary committees of inquiry are not tasked with passing judgement, but with gathering information and data useful for the exercise of parliamentary functions,” continues the statement from the criminal lawyers - Their powers have different purposes and scope from those of the judiciary and cannot be exercised in such a way as to prejudice judicial proceedings. A parliamentary inquiry does not establish criminal liability, does not bring criminal proceedings and does not hand down judgements. Its outcome may, at most, involve the forwarding of the documents to the judicial authorities, not their transformation into material for a press conference that points to unproven criminal liability and lacks even the most rudimentary form of cross-examination.

‘The previous Commission of Inquiry into the same case had, in similar situations, taken a different approach, rejecting the request to hear a witness who has now become the main accuser and who, reportedly, had been convicted on several occasions of slander and making false statements to the public prosecutor – states the UCPI executive committee – The methods used to obtain and handle the statements also raise serious questions’. ‘Documents were drawn up in the form of summary information reports, pursuant to Article 351 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and judicial police notes relating to statements described as ‘spontaneous and confidential’. A prisoner was reportedly approached in prison without his defence counsel being notified – state the criminal lawyers - Furthermore, statements from individuals who had been definitively convicted of slander and deemed unreliable in previous legal proceedings were relied upon to support charges based on indirect references, some of which were of uncertain verifiability.” ‘The identities of the sources have been redacted, whilst those of the accused have been made public without any safeguards. This has resulted in a clear asymmetry, which makes it impossible even to assess the reliability of the accusers – clarifies the Union of Criminal Chambers – Furthermore, the decision to publicly disclose those names risks compromising the investigation of the facts in any scenario.”