“The Criminal Chamber of Catanzaro records with dismay the ways in which the results of the investigation conducted by the Parliamentary Commission into the death of David Rossi were made known. It is clear – we read in a document released by the Governing Council – that this way raises a question of method and principle, affecting the relationship between institutions, public information and fundamental guarantees of the rule of law.
The declarations of the president of the Parliamentary Commission, as reported by the media, implicate certain people, including the Catanzaro lawyer Giuseppe Mussari, attributing to them roles of particular gravity in the reconstruction of the facts, to the point of hypothesizing, towards the latter, a responsibility as instigator of an intimidating action which would then culminate in the death of the former manager of Monte dei Paschi di Siena. These statements were followed by the announcement of the Commission’s willingness to listen to interested parties.
It is precisely this sequence that gives rise to serious concern: first the public exposure of an accusatory hypothesis, then the listening of those who are the recipients of it. An order that risks overturning the very meaning of the discussion and producing, even before any investigation, a media condemnation that is difficult to reverse.
The Criminal Chamber – it continues – does not intend to express any assessment on the merit of the investigations, on the validity of the elements acquired or on the position of the people mentioned. This is not his job. Rather, it intends to reiterate a principle that cannot accept exceptions dictated by the seriousness of the facts, public interest or media attention: the search for truth requires rigor, prudence and respect for the dignity of people.
A parliamentary commission of inquiry exercises a function of particular constitutional and institutional importance. Precisely for this reason, communicating the results of one’s activity requires greater responsibility the more the declarations made are likely to affect the reputation of individuals. The presumption of innocence, respecting the distinction between parliamentary activity and judicial verification, expresses a fundamental principle of legal civilization: no one can be handed over to a publicly represented responsibility as defined before the facts are adequately ascertained.
Subsequent listening does not erase the effects of an accusation already brought to the public eye. The media pillory takes place very quickly; the possibility of clarifying the facts and recovering a compromised reputation follows very different times. It is this asymmetry that makes the conduct of those who, due to the function held, are called upon to exercise their role with balance and awareness of the consequences of their words particularly delicate.
David Rossi’s death deserves truth, seriousness and respect. But precisely the search for the truth requires us not to confuse the investigation with its public representation, nor the legitimate need to shed light on a dramatic event with the diffusion of hypotheses of individual responsibility capable of anticipating, in public opinion, conclusions yet to be verified.
The rule of law – we read in conclusion – is measured above all when the accusations are serious and public attention is more intense. It is then that guarantees must demonstrate all their strength, not as obstacles to the search for truth, but as essential conditions for it to be pursued without sacrificing the dignity of people. The truth does not need the pillory. It needs rigorous institutions, capable of distinguishing suspicion from verification, hypothesis from responsibility and public communication from judgement. This is the method that a constitutional democracy has the duty to preserve, always and towards everyone.”