Since he had received the notice of conclusion investigations that usually precedes a request for indictment, Augusto Barbera had almost autosospeso by the constitutional Court. It was no longer participating in council rooms to focus – as he had communicated to colleagues – on the defense by the prosecution of corruption: 11,000 pages of process from study and refute. Only in recent weeks, it made the interrogation where believed to have brought the elements in his defense, he returned to work. But it remained unknown, heavy on the institutional and political level: he would do if he had assumed the guise of defendant? It would remain in office or would submit his resignation? A dilemma from the consequences that went beyond his personal destiny, if you only think about the next events of the Consulta. First of all the judgment on the electoral system called “Italicum ‘in Barbera is considered one of the staunchest defenders within the Court.
a new situation and delicate, now no longer relevant. the storage request of the Prosecutor of Rome raises the judge investigating the uncertainty and embarrassment colleagues. At least until the decision of the investigating judge, which in theory could reopen the games. But for the moment the case is closed. Or at least postponed until a later date. And Barbera stays in place. It is true that this is not an acquittal in the prosecution about, but it is also true that on that prosecutors do not have just pronounced. They blocked the investigation before tackling the question of innocence or guilt. And without adhering to the hypothesis that the same subject Barbera had suggested in its pleadings: if it was that of unlawful conduct it, the facts alleged can configure a theoretical abuse of office, but not corruption. The public, however, prosecutors have taken another path: is the idea of corruption, but the terms have expired, and the process can not move forward. Way out that he has avoided having to deal with another question, equally new and thorny: to process a component of the Court serves the authorization to proceed as envisaged an old law, or that norm has decayed with immunity reform parliamentarian who was connected?
in anticipation of the investigating judge determinations , the solution adopted may leave a shadow on the location of Barbera, whose defender, however, argues the impossibility to waive the requirement to exonerate himself in about: ‘Appropriately – said the lawyer Vittorio Manes – the code provides for this possibility only for the accused, not so for the suspect before it is exercised prosecution against him. Any controversy would be misplaced and ill-timed. “
remain the facts and tapping , destined to become public knowledge as a process for five other defendants may still be celebrated. And speaking of conversations between indicted on alleged agreement for the division of the three chairs, there would be phrases that may sound inconvenient or unpleasant. One of the accused, for example, would have demanded that Barbera “blackmailing” one of his students to make them vote for the candidate sponsored (but protested that he had not done); or another tells a third: “If it is true as it is true that I will carry a student in the first band Barbera, Barbera I hope I do not turn your back for a second helping and Belletti ‘(though it seems an omen, rather than a agreement); and again: “Barbera, as you can imagine, asks me to help Giupponi in the Rome … I have no difficulty in doing so because it is a serious person, for good, but I at the same time I asked for help, obviously , for our Belletti on the front of Macerata “(but even in this sentence there would be no” promise “corresponding). There may be others, and to the contrary, but from academic who attended the university for half a century, like some of his colleagues of the consultation, the Constitutional Court has always claimed the “right and duty” to express themselves, both in the sense favorable than not, on the preparation of candidates for the various competitions. And it is quite obvious that he did for his students, as in the case come under investigation. But only because they are considered most deserving, and without causing a criminal offense. How is it possible (or probable) that the others think the Court’s judges.
5 August 2016 (modified August 5, 2016 | 23:02)
© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
No comments:
Post a Comment