Terrorism, condemnation even if one of the cell founders governs Syria

The condemnation of those who participated in the "Al Nusra" sodality, the Syrian emanation of Al Qaeda, cannot be revised, even though one of the founders of the fighting terrorist organisation, is currently the President of Syria Ahmad Al Shara. Nor does it count that 'Al Nusra' is today the main component of "Hayat Tahir al Sham (HTS)" and the new government in Damascus, after the deposition of Assad. The Court of Cassation has thus branded as inadmissible the appeal by Mustafa Chadad, born in 1973, who asked to review the decision by which the Cagliari Court of Assizes - Sassari detached section - sentenced him to five years and six months of imprisonment, for the crime of association for the purposes of terrorism and subversion and for violations of banking and credit regulations..

Chadad had been arrested in Olbia in 2018, together with a Moroccan citizen and another Syrian, as part of an anti-terrorism investigation by the Police, Guardia di Finanza and Digos that had involved Lombardy, Veneto, Emilia Romagna and Sardinia. The men arrested in Gallura had been charged with crimes of association for the purposes of terrorism, financing terrorism and abusive financial intermediation. The new fact supporting the request for a review of the conviction lay in the changing political conditions in Syria. Ahmad Al Shara, one of the founders of 'Al Nusra' assumed the role of president pro tempore. For this reason, the organisation, of which Chadad was a member, could no longer be considered terrorist, but had to be classified among the associations that made legitimate opposition to the deposed tyrannical government of Assad. For the defence, the international recognition of the new government, including by Italy, was to have the effect of putting a stop to a crime that was to be considered abolished. This was also because the conviction took into account the inclusion of 'Al Nusra' on the black list of terrorist organisations.

But the argument put forward in the appeal does not pass. The Supreme Court recalls, in fact, that the conviction is not based solely on the inclusion of 'Al Nusra' on the black list, and that the nature of the political crime of terrorism is irrelevant, because what matters 'is the terrorist purpose rather than the ideological orientation'.

For the judges, there is no new fact in comparison to what the court of merit found. The organisation, made up of small groups given different names, depending on the area in which they operated in Syria, in which Salafist Jihadists militated, 'animated by the will to create a nation governed by Sharia law, in which all followers of religions other than Sunni were to be exterminated and women were to be subjugated'. Unsuccessfully, the defence tried to convince the Supreme Court that Chadad's actions were aimed at democratising Syria with the advent of a new regime. The aim was therefore exclusively political and not terrorist. The new evidence would also lie in the psychological element: the convict's conviction that he was pursuing the legitimate aim of overthrowing a tyrannical government in order to have a legitimate one installed, which, moreover, has been recognised by several European governments, including Italy.

For the Supreme Court, however, the evidence invoked as a basis for review does not serve the purpose.