The long ruling of the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the action of Haida and Giuliano Giuliani against the Italian government for the death of his son Charles that fateful July 20, 2001 during the Genoa G8 deserves some further consideration. We can get away with if the verdict "political" to which another court has sought to put a lid on the murder. One might conclude that there is no court in Strasbourg and the ECHR has moved in the same line of the court filed by invoking Genoese Placanica for self-defense and legitimate use of weapons only if it is assumed that the parents of Charles and their tenacious defender had put at the top of their demands recognition of the guilt of Placanica. That is not and, moreover, could not have been. The ECHR has never called upon to decide on the guilt of a subject, but if in any particular case, the trial was held with all due guarantees and whether the investigation before the process was deficient or lacking. The action just that Giuliani complained that the investigation into the murder of Charles had been used badly, hastily and with too many obscure points. Would take, however, a public hearing. On this point the complex sentence by reason Giuliani.Fin the beginning of the survey (for non-timely notice to the joint autopsy to be made and therefore impossible for them to appoint experts, nothing precludes cremation of Charles less than 72 hours after), and then in the results and far from convincing summary of technical investigations, no investigation going on in the manner in which it sought to protect public order in those days in Genoa, and then about not having investigated whether there had been a liability in sending inexperienced as mentally unstable Placanica armed with a pistol with bullets designed to kill and a continuous, all these factors suggest that a survey was conducted serious and thorough esaustiva.Ciascuno of these elements cited data that is to hit all these years have been criticized from many sides, even in the courtroom, but in the courts of Genoa have always found just listening. Apart from the contradictory orders and overall management of public order that Friday, July 20, and its species in Ptolemais, who had already found a significant recognition within, however hard, sentence First Instance against the demonstrators. Now all this is an additional sanction on an international level. It is not poco.Ma the Strasbourg ruling also raises questions not just on the dynamics of the murder itself, but remained almost on self-defense. As we have not been able to investigate the metal fragment found in the skull of Charles? Why was wounded with a stone when he was already dying? Why was the defender on which Placanica had safety nets on the windows and then a board could enter into, and so frighten the officer to cause the disproportionate reaction? Why Placanica, like other operators, was equipped with live ammunition instead of rubber bullets, riot control, as prescribed by international standards in this area and in cases like these? The Strasbourg judges have gone far beyond the simple beaches on which the judiciary was at Genoa. 'Deplorable' in some respects, the work of the prosecutor, "too many crucial questions were left unanswered," and concluded that "the authorities have not conducted an adequate investigation of the circumstances of the death of Giuliani." Not one had ever read a sentence in Italian, and censorship is not only the judiciary but also the investigators and politici.Non is no coincidence that the part of governmental policy judgments (Gasparri) were quick to say that now the game is really closed. On the contrary, today the game will reopen. Can Placanica be that feels strengthened in the outcome of self-defense. But there is far greater responsibility on those who worked for that moment you experience with those caratteristiche.La ECHR ruling, therefore, not only opens the possibility that parents act in a civil Carlo for adequate compensation, if it exists possible compensation for the brutal murder by the state of a twenty year old son. But it could also reopen the doors of the criminal investigation, may not necessarily or only against Placanica, but against those who put those dramatic days in the conditions for his hand shoot Carlo. Not to mention a possible parliamentary committee of inquiry, so often invoked (by few) and always rejected (by many), now would further its own legitimacy in the international high court ruling. from 'The manifesto'
0 comments:
Post a Comment