Free Trieste

UPDATE: in July 2017 the Court declared that Free Trieste’s demonstration was not subversive, read more HERE

FREE TRIESTE SUMMONS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FREZZA AS DEFENSE WITNESS.

During the hearing of 16 November 2015, judge Marco Casavecchia expressed himself about the preliminary exception of the lack of jurisdiction raised by the five defendants of the Free Trieste Movement. They are under trial for a demonstration in defense of the Northern Free Port of Trieste held on 10 February 2014.

This is the second hearing. During the first one, held one week ago, the other 12 defendants associated themselves to Free Trieste’s exception on jurisdiction. Indeed, this is a particular hearing, which involves the different souls of the struggle for Trieste’s right. In fact, those 12 people belong to a group established after they left Free Trieste. Their goal is running in the 2016 Italian administrative elections.

This trial is against 19 people, but 2 are being tried separately. Rather illogically: aren’t we all accused of the same things? Are there going to be two different outcomes? If so, is this an attempt to influence the main trial? Maybe exploiting the weak defense of the two “isolated” defendants?

Only the prosecution knows. And the Public Prosecutor is Federico Frezza, the great accuser of the supporters of Trieste’s rights. The way he investigates them has shocked many. He did go as far as placing in the case file evidence collected illegally, all to discredit the defendants .

It caused especial “disgust” finding a list of 300 Triestines who, declaring themselves citizens of the Free Territory of Trieste, questioned Italy’s revenue-raising authority power of the State of Italy lodging exceptions on jurisdiction. As does Frezza’s unauthorized access to the certified email of the Civil Section of the Court of Trieste. He looked for useful data about my civil lawsuits, in which I questioned jurisdiction to oppose Equitalia’s enforced recoveries on behalf of the State of Italy.

According to Free Trieste’s lawyer, this is actions worth a “Police State”. And it seems quite right, considering how proceedings against the citizens who claim their rights are opened. Forgetting that those rights are established under the 1947 Treaty of Peace, in force also within the Italian legal order.

On 16 November [2015], the judge expressed himself about preliminary exceptions. He rejecting Free Trieste’s exceptions on jurisdiction and unconstitutionality, and also those of the other 12 defendants. Ours were the most substantial exceptions, the others revolved on matters of prosecution, but didn’t question the authority of the Court.

It is unsurprising that the this puts and end to the pretenses of those alleged “supporters of independence”. They want to run for Italian elections, after all. They are already quarreling about who should be the candidate and sit on the remunerative chairs of Italian politicians.

After the rejection of the exception of jurisdiction, only 5 of the defendants rejected the judge right away, during the hearing. They all belong to Free Trieste. The others melted, like snow in the sun.

In this trial only one party is indeed defending the Free Territory of Trieste: it is the Free Trieste Movement. This hearing made it crystal clear. We had all of our witnesses accepted. Including the “accuser” Federico Frezza – the great absent who was still missing in they trial against independence.

Mr. Frezza is to respond about his authoritative orders to the State Police. Finding crimes, even if non-existing, to be charged on those who organized or took part to Free Trieste’s demonstrations.

A true Police State.

Translated from blog “Ambiente e Legalità” – “Environment and Legality” by Roberto Giurastante

***

Follows an abstract of Free Trieste’s act rejecting the judge.

Reason: because of the lack of the Italian judge, in this trial, of the required neutrality and status of third-party that are necessary as part of a fair trial under article 111, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Constitution of the Republic of Italy, of article 47 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.