Minister Carlo Nordio sends inspectors to Turin after the release of the suspect for violence. The robes union rises up and contests the government’s interference.
Anm on the field in defense of the investigating judge who freed the Bangladeshi rapist: Nordio challenged for sending inspectors. The inspection at Court of Turin decided by the Minister of Justice Carlo Nordiofollowing the decision of the investigating judge to release a 42-year-old Bangladeshi citizen accused of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl by groping her breasts in the minimarket where he worked after two nights in prison, unleashes the deadly wrath of theNational Association of Magistrates.
By analyzing the videos of the cameras installed in the convenience store following the complaint from the 13-year-old’s mother, the police also discovered that less than an hour earlier the same man had groped a customer, whose identity is still unknown, following her around the store and repeatedly touching her buttocks. There Turin Prosecutor’s Office decided to challenge the provision, considering it to be inconsistent with the gravity of the fact precautionary measure adopted.
An outcry from the ANM that is difficult to understand, considering that the inspection is the minimum wage for a Minister of Justice when faced with cases of exceptional social or media alarm.
The reply of the Keeper of the Seals and the clash over the autonomy of judges
“I note that the investigating judge’s decision”, the Minister of Justice was keen to point out Carlo Nordio«falls within the scope of the autonomy and independence of the judiciary, which I cannot and must not interfere with. Nonetheless, taking into account the exceptional nature of the case and the social alarm it caused, I have arranged for inspectors to be sent to acquire any useful assessment.” The same fiery statement issued by the president of the ANM Giovanni Tangomoreover, explicitly admits that we are faced with a very particular case: «A magistrate, the deputy prosecutor of Turin», writes Tango, «in the face of a hateful sexual violence, or the groping of a 13 year old girl, asked for prison for a man accused of having committed the crime. Another magistrate, the judge for preliminary investigations, instead ordered another precautionary measure, namely the obligation to sign. A provision that can obviously be criticized, but above all it can be contested according to the provisions of the same procedural rules, by appealing to the Court of Review and possibly to the Supreme Court. It is not a final decision. It is not even a sentence, besides being neither a conviction nor an acquittal. Faced with this picture”, adds Tango, “there were several uncoordinated attacks by authoritative government representatives, which went beyond criticism. And this is what we strongly condemn, just as we believe it is completely unorthodox to send inspectors who do not have the task of evaluating the merit of individual proceedings”.
How the investigation and transversal political pressure works
Let’s clarify one point straight away: when we read “sending inspectors”, we imagine a team of people in raincoats and badges arriving at the Court and starting to check the papers. None of this: in reality the pre-disciplinary investigation consists in the acquisition of the documents relating to that given proceeding by the ministry. At that point the offices in charge analyze the papers and send a report to the minister, who can decide whether to move forward by promoting disciplinary action or “archive” everything. Nothing invasive, therefore: it is a simple request for documents. Not only that: faced with the Bangladeshi’s release from prison, not only the centre-right took action: the parliamentarians of the M5s in the Feminicide commission they asked «the Ministry of Justice to report to Parliament every useful element that led to this decision, which we respect but which arouses amazement and concern». Even the parliamentarians of the PD in the Femicide commission they announced a question to Nordio, defining the case as “very serious”. Therefore, never before have the majority and the opposition asked for Nordio’s intervention.
The positions of the criminal lawyers and the intervention of the CSM
He also criticizes theUnion of criminal chambers: «The decision of the Turin investigating judge can be criticized on its merits», underlines the UCPI council in a note, «but it cannot be distorted by the usual media simplification and exploited for political purposes. The sending of inspectors to Turin by the Minister of Justice appears completely unjustified and risks resulting in undue pressure on the autonomy of the judiciary.” «I read the statements of the president of the ANM Giuseppe Tango», he underlines instead Enrico Aimilay component of Superior Council of the Judiciary«and I believe it is necessary to clarify, above all because in this matter it is necessary to prevent the legitimate institutional debate from being transformed into a conflict between politics and the judiciary. No one disputes that the investigating judge’s provision can be challenged in the venues provided for by law. This is precisely what the Turin Prosecutor’s Office chose to do.
As for the inspectors of the Ministry of Justice, I believe that the ANM’s position deserves an equally clear clarification. No one thinks that inspectors should replace the judge, nor that they can modify or review a decision in the exercise of their judicial function. But this in no way implies that the inspection activity is “unorthodox”. The minister has the duty to exercise his prerogatives while respecting the autonomy and independence of the judiciary. And this is exactly what I have supported in the last few hours: no interference with judicial decisions, but no renunciation by the institutions to verify, in the competent bodies, whether everything has worked correctly”.
