The Cucchi case: there was a clear intention not to attribute responsibility to the Carabinieri
The Court of Cassation has set out its reasons for the judgement on the cover-up in the death of the Roman surveyor in a 90-page document
Key points
A clear intention to prevent the conclusion that the precarious state of health ofStefano Cucchi, might have beenthe result of the treatment he received at the time of his arrest and in the holding cell. The Court of Cassation sets out in 90 pages the grounds for its judgement onmisdirection in the case of the 31-year-old Roman surveyor, who was arrested on 15 October 2009 anddied seven days later at the Sandro Pertini Hospital.
On 4 March, the Supreme Court acquitted Colonel Lorenzo Sabatino , whilst rejecting the appeals of the other Carabinieri who had been convicted or for whom the statute of limitations had been invoked during the appeal proceedings: thus confirming the convictions of Francesco Di Sano and Luca De Cianni , and the statute of limitations for General Alessandro Casarsa, Francesco Cavallo and Luciano Soligo .
The charges brought in the proceedings – which stem from the investigation led by Public Prosecutor Giovanni Musarò – range, depending on the individual’s role, from forgery to aiding and abetting, to failure to report a crime andslander. According to the Supreme Court, the judgements held that the forgery was intended to cover up any possible liability on the part of the Carabinieri belonging to the “Rome Group” in the death of Stefano Cucchi.
Service notes
The Supreme Court states that a ‘linear’ analysis of the judgments on the merits reveals ‘a clear intention, meticulously documented, to prevent Cucchi’s precarious physical condition – as observed by the two guards – from, at a stage when the young man had already died – as the text states – might lead to the assumption that they had arisen from events occurring between his arrest and his subsequent placement in the security cell and that, as such, they could be attributed to the responsibility of the officers the Carabinieri on duty at units under the Rome Group, of which all the defendants were members and which was headed by Casarsa’.
And furthermore: ‘The very fact that the service notes had been drafted in a substantially identical style, such that the relevant differences could not be identified, was deemed indicative – in an assessment that was by no means illogical – of the intention to conceal the amendments made and, in particular, the passages in the first annotation deemed compromising’.
