Of the 190 Italian prisons, there are currently 64,773 inmates. This represents overcrowding of 139.5 per cent compared to available capacity, with peaks of 149 per cent in several prisons. The prison population is predominantly male, accounting for up to 95 per cent of the total, with 20,307 foreign nationals (31.5 per cent): those who, according to the Meloni government, should be serving their sentences in their own countries, yet whom we continue to detain here. Fifteen per cent of prisoners suffer from treatable psychiatric disorders (around 6,000 people). Furthermore, widespread depression and the use of psychotropic drugs have been reported. In 2025, there were 80 suicides in Italian prisons, whilst 89 deaths were attributed to other causes. So far this year, as of 30 June, there have been 36 suicides and 89 deaths from other causes.

To find worse figures, one has to go back to the three-year period 2010–2013, which ended with Italy being found guilty by the European Court of Human Rights of violating Article 3 of the Convention – the provision prohibiting torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. At the time, around 4,000 appeals were lodged by prisoners, whilst in 2025 alone, the number of complaints upheld by the Italian Supervisory Courts – that is, those which a judge examined and deemed to be well-founded – stood at 6,539 (12 per cent more than in 2024). Since then, the State has had to compensate 35,710 people (with one day’s reduction in their sentence for every 10 days spent in prison, or 8 euros per day in cases where the sentence had already been served) for having detained them in degrading conditions. Faced with these figures, which bear witness to our country’s constant and ongoing violation of the rules of international law and the Constitution, governments tend to justify themselves by citing the need for security. The famous ‘lock them up and throw away the key’. This is followed by an ever-increasing number of criminal offences, aggravating circumstances and harsher sentences. But does all this really serve to increase security? The figures suggest not.

Of the 63,499 people in prison as at 31 December 2025, only 25,921 – 40.8 per cent – were serving their first prison sentence, whilst 45.9 per cent had previously been imprisoned between one and four times, 10.6 per cent between five and nine times, and 2.7 per cent more than ten times. Almost six out of ten people in prison, therefore, had been there before. The CNEL adds a statistic that should guide any policy in this area: 68.4 per cent of those who did not undertake any work whilst in prison reoffend, compared with 2 per cent of those who were placed on a work programme. A prison system that fails to comply with the law and to establish pathways to reintegration does not promote public safety, and it does so at a cost of around 3.5 billion a year.

Although building new prisons is not the solution (whereas deflationary policies are), since the current government launched its new prison plan, the number of available places has fallen by 537 rather than increasing. Prime Minister Meloni and Justice Minister Nordio have repeatedly announced an increase of ten thousand places. However, after four years in government, the regulatory capacity stands at just 46 more places than in 2022. Meanwhile, the number of prisoners has risen by 10,000: from 56,225 in October 2022 to the current figure of 65,009.

Partly in response to this situation, two months ago the Meloni government enacted a new ‘deflationary’ law establishing a fundamental legal principle: drug addicts are sick and must be treated. They should therefore be in rehabilitation centres rather than in prison. This is a major achievement for a right-wing government that is often heavy-handed and illiberal. However, despite this entirely justified principle, the stated intention is far from being put into practice. Since the announcement (once again) of 10,000 places being made available, the outlook has shifted to a “clearly multi-year prospect”: with the 19 million allocated, perhaps by 2027 a maximum of 600 drug-addicted prisoners might find a place in a rehabilitation centre.

In the wake of this disaster, some Forza Italia MPs have secured the approval of a fact-finding inquiry into the state of prisons. This marks an important realisation on the part of the majority. However, it has infuriated the very most hardline faction within the government. Giusi Bartolozzi, former chief of staff to Carlo Nordio and now legal adviser to the Minister for European Affairs, Tommaso Foti, has responded. Sharing the post in which Forza Italia MP Calderone celebrated the green light for the inquiry, Bartolozzi wrote: “Perhaps Mr Calderone has switched to the opposition and I haven’t realised it…”. A quip which, in essence, challenges the decision by a majority party to call for a fact-finding inquiry into a sector governed by that very same majority. With disastrous results from both a humanitarian and a security perspective which, at least for today, cannot be hidden behind bars.

“I am a magistrate and I always wait before speaking,” former Senate President Pietro Grasso, an associate judge in the Cosa Nostra Maxi-trial and Chief Public Prosecutor in Palermo, tells Il Foglio. Grasso, who would prefer not to speak but then lets it slip. “There will always be,” he says, “those who use those names as a shield.” The names of the fallen. “I wait. But, to tell the truth, it’s nothing new.”

The former Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies, Luciano Violante – a former magistrate, chair of the parliamentary Anti-Mafia Commission and a member of the commission of inquiry into the Moro case – does not wish to “play the moralising moralist”. If anything, he would like to “fully understand what happened” and “wait and see”. Yet, on this issue, even he does not beat about the bush: “Moro, Mattarella, Falcone and Borsellino would not have gone to dinner with Lavitola”. Full stop.

So, whilst on the left former magistrates and senior state officials watch the idol’s twilight, Valter Lavitola’s detention in prison has been confirmed. The risk is that of evidence tampering and the danger of him absconding. And his statements – even after five hours of questioning – are said to have been ‘vague’. Investigators from the Rome Public Prosecutor’s Office may now summon Sigfrido Ranucci as a person with knowledge of the facts. The facts? An attack in Pomezia last October, “for his own good, to enable him to obtain a higher level of security detail, in light of the threats he had received”.

But what, then, is ‘protection’ for an investigative journalist? An indicator of credibility or a mark of distinction? Protection or a stigma in the long line stretching from Roberto Saviano to Sigfrido Ranucci today, and perhaps stumbling upon the self-inflicted attack by a young journalist from Vicenza?

Giuseppe Ayala responds to Il Foglio: “It has often been exactly as you say: an indicator of credibility.” Ayala, a public prosecutor in the Maxi-trial and Under-Secretary of State for Justice in the Prodi government, was Giovanni Falcone’s desk neighbour. And when asked about the appropriateness of such comparisons, he sighs. He would prefer not to discuss it. But perhaps more out of modesty than caution. “For those who know these stories well,” he says, finally, “it is a comparison that simply defies comment. Ranucci defies comment.” Why does he say that? “Because it is impossible to find the words. The sheer magnitude of those stories, when set against this affair, leaves me speechless.”

And even Sigfrido himself is left speechless on this journey to the end – or perhaps not – of Report. His lawyer, Roberto De Vita, explained yesterday that “he could never have imagined that a friend would go this far”. That the love was explosive, that is, almost as much as the comparison of the investigative journalist to Falcone and Borsellino. He could never have imagined, however, that someone had already made that brazen comparison. Or as Pietro Grasso puts it: “Nothing new”.

Whilst admitting to being the instigator of the criminal act, the suspect, according to the investigating judge, “he has sought to significantly downplay the role he played in organising the criminal act, denying any knowledge of the specific methods actually employed, denying that he carried out the site inspection on 15 September 2025, and offering a different motive, evidently aimed at demonstrating that he had acted solely in the interests of the victim and not for personal gain”. Furthermore: "The statements made regarding the role played in organising the act of intimidation appear to be contradicted by the evidence on file, which, at this stage, leads us to rule out the possibility that Clesio Tavares (a Cameroonian national believed to be the intermediary between the businessman and the perpetrators, ed.) could have taken independent action regarding the specific methods of carrying out the criminal act or, at the very least, that the suspect did not give his prior consent to such actions”, writes the judge.

Furthermore, with regard to the statements concerning the motive, the order concurs with “the inconsistency, highlighted by the public prosecutor, in the account provided by the suspect, who allegedly urged” a journalist from Report “to seek out those responsible for the criminal act precisely within that very milieu from which he had, according to his own account, attempted to safeguard Ranucci’s safety by carrying out the act of intimidation – it must, however, be emphasised that these are, at present, vague statements, entirely generic and devoid of any concrete indication capable of being verified”. Finally, as regards the risk of absconding, “there is no doubt that Lavitola has a network of contacts in Italy and abroad that would allow him, with the greatest of ease, to leave Italian territory and cover his tracks”.

His lawyer, Sergio Cola, told reporters: “He has confirmed the prosecution’s case by admitting that he was the instigator of the attack and says he did so to protect Ranucci’s safety, as he had been the target of several dangerous attempts to attack him and had his security detail increased,” said the lawyer. 

The attack took place on 16 October last year outside the home of Sigfrido Ranucci, journalist and presenter of Report, in Pomezia. Just today, on his social media, Ranucci posted the following: “Having spent years tracing the thread that links Aldo Moro to Piersanti Mattarella, and Piersanti Mattarella to Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino, I have learnt that Italian history never kills its finest men out of weakness: it kills them because of an excess of clarity.” The Facebook post is titled "La voce spaventa" and continues: "They all die in exactly the same way, not so much because of the bullet or the TNT, but because they saw, a moment before the others, the whole picture of which they were a part, and because they attempted, with the naivety of those who still believe in the truth as a common good, to speak out about it," concludes Ranucci.

The post has drawn criticism from members of Fratelli d’Italia on the Rai Supervisory Commission, who claim it is “despicable for a journalist to compare himself to those who fought the Mafia”. The statement asks the journalist to explain “why, as shown in the investigation files, on the day of the search at Lavitola’s home, he spent two hours on the phone with the alleged instigator of the attack in an attempt to arrange an alibi for Lavitola himself”.

A brief overview of the situation. “We were between the first and second waves,” explains Rigoli. “At the time, the only diagnostic method was the molecular swab test: very reliable, but costly. It required trained staff and specialised equipment. Veneto was one of the regions carrying out the most tests relative to its population.” The Zaia model, in fact. “Then two things happened. Firstly: we could no longer keep up with processing the swabs. In the laboratory, staff were working for up to 12–14 hours on the go; the pressure was unbearable. Secondly: as the pandemic spread to the rest of the world, there was the issue of supply. Kits for carrying out molecular tests began to run short, with priority given to the manufacturers’ home countries. Italy was in danger of running out.” This is where Rigoli’s insight came in. “I’d heard about rapid tests from China and set to work on this. Not to reduce the use of PCR tests – mind you – but to provide you with extra support. The alternative would have been to wait up to ten days for results: useless for the purposes of containing the spread.” As the saying goes, better something than nothing. “The antigen test is less sensitive but provides a good overview. We procured them regularly through tenders, always CE-IVD marked – in compliance with European regulations. That’s when the accusations came. Political pressure, but also economic pressure: some private organisations profited handsomely from the sky-high prices of molecular tests.”

It wasn’t just the Rigoli case; there has been a wider climate of witch-hunting that continues to this day. Take the Covid commission, for example. There are a thousand ways to challenge Giuseppe Conte on valid grounds: Putinism, populism, indifference. Attacking him over his handling of the pandemic is perhaps the most petty. “The discussion following such a tragedy should be conducted with a view to avoiding the mistakes we have all inevitably made, because we are human,” the doctor emphasises. “If the inquiry turns into a political war to the bitter end, then that is not right. I harbour no anger over this whole affair. Sadness, if anything. My hope is to see everyone working together again, preparing to tackle the viruses of the future.” Has Crisanti ever apologised to you? “Both before and after the verdict, I had the support of almost the entire scientific community. Crisanti, no – I haven’t heard from him since. Then again, he’s pursued a political career.” It’s like with magistrates who become MPs: it does raise some doubts. “It’s not him who should apologise to me, but Ranucci. He made misleading and defamatory claims: linking the use of rapid tests to the deaths in Veneto is a low blow that only Report could have come up with. Even Crisanti has revised his position on the matter, rewriting his paper in Nature.”

The acquittal is a relief, but the burden of the public shaming remains. “I spent years of my life facing a trial that should never even have begun: my father, a doctor himself, died before the verdict was handed down. That is what pains me the most. I wouldn’t wish the suffering my family endured on anyone. Not even on Ranucci, who today finds himself at the centre of a murky affair.” Things change quickly. “Until the other day, he was untouchable: when I filed a complaint against him for aggravated defamation, I felt like David against Goliath. A doctor from Treviso versus a television powerhouse, at whose very mention magistrates stand to attention. We’ll see, there too, whether the truth comes to light.”

Ranucci’s lawyer immediately stated that “the arrest of Valter Lavitola confirms the seriousness and complexity of the attack, and it will be essential to understand its motive and the context in which it was planned”. And indeed, it will be essential – and perhaps even intriguing – to understand. Given that in his order the investigating judge writes that the attack “was commissioned by Valter Lavitola solely to boost the journalist’s popularity”, a way for Lavitola to “accelerate” his own “political” projects. And at the end of this sad or hilarious story, “perhaps someone will find the courage to explain how it was possible”. Including, for example, the little question that, more than a month after the start of the investigation, nobody has ever asked Ranucci: is he really so naive – a Voltairean Candide – that he frequented Pesce’s Cefalù Bistrò without knowing what he was getting himself into? We, who are advocates of due process but also of fair and certain justice, have been wondering for a month why, with such serious suspicions (and the risk of tampering with evidence, surely?), Lavitola was not taken into custody sooner: on many occasions, people have been arrested at dawn for far less. But the investigating judge says that all the mobile phone cell data had to be cross-referenced – a massive task. However, whilst we are defenders of due process, we are also very curious to read what the self-appointed defenders of due process for Lavitola will have to say – people who were usually never quite so keen on due process when it came to those exposed by the ‘Report’ investigations. Perhaps they’ll be outraged, but they need to give it a bit of thought before speaking out, given that the investigating judge – who is not the Court of Cassation – chose to place greater weight on the evidence gathered than on Ranucci’s professions of innocence and innocence.

According to investigators, Lavitola is alleged to have commissioned the attack from the four individuals already arrested as the perpetrators. The prosecution’s case includes charges of possession, carrying in a public place and use of an explosive device, threats and criminal damage, committed in a mafia-style manner and aggravated by the fact that there were more than five accomplices. Lavitola had denied the charges, maintaining that he was not the instigator. 

In connection with the precautionary measure against Valter Lavitola, the investigating magistrate in Rome has also issued an arrest warrant for the Cameroonian national Gomes Clesio Tavares, who is accused by Rome’s public prosecutors of having taken part in the plot to attack the journalist Sigfrido Ranucci.

The man is currently on the run and is believed to be in Africa. According to the prosecution, Gomes is alleged to have acted as the intermediary between Lavitola and the four people who are believed to have carried out the bomb attack on 16 October last year in Pomezia.

"The arrest of Valter Lavitola confirms the seriousness and complexity of the attack suffered by Sigfrido Ranucci; it will be essential to understand the motive and the context in which it developed," commented Sigfrido Ranucci’s lawyer, Roberto De Vita. “Whilst it is clear to the judicial authorities that Ranucci is the victim, for some journalists and politicians the attack itself has been turned into a pretext for settling scores with Report and its journalists, as part of a frenzied strategy aimed at discrediting investigative journalism,” said the lawyer. 

As Luciano Capone wrote in "Il Foglio", Lavitola’s case has so far been the only instance in Italian history of a suspect under investigation for mass murder aggravated by mafia methods remaining at liberty – not because he is a fugitive, but because he is free to speak his mind. Whilst the alleged group responsible for planting the bomb on the presenter of “Report” has been in custody since 30 June, their alleged instigator has, until now, been free to communicate with the victim and the rest of the world, sending messages via the press.

Meanwhile, the fact-finding inquiry into prisons requested by Forza Italia began yesterday. This was accompanied by a heated exchange between Forza Italia’s Tommaso Calderone and Giusi Bartolozzi, former chief of staff to Nordio and now a member of Minister Foti’s staff. The former emphasised on social media the need to take action “with a prompt inquiry that was unanimously approved” by the Commission’s Bureau. The latter responded bluntly: “Perhaps the honourable Member has joined the opposition and I haven’t realised it…”, she wrote on Facebook, referring to the strategic plan currently being implemented by the Ministry of Justice. 

In short, it all ended up being a ‘farce’, as Senate President Ignazio La Russa put it, who in turn had to suspend proceedings in the Senate due to protests by M5S senators (who chanted ‘Release the chats, release the chats’). Amid this chaos, the purpose of the assessment that the Chamber of Deputies was called upon to carry out regarding the Delmastro case was lost; this purpose was, however, clearly highlighted in the opinion drafted by Forza Italia’s Pietro Pittalis in the Authorisations Committee.

The Rome Public Prosecutor’s Office has seized Caroccia’s smartphone; he is under investigation for money laundering and the fictitious registration of assets, with the aggravating circumstance of mafia involvement, and subsequently, correctly, requested authorisation from the Chamber of Deputies to access the chat messages on the phone between the suspect and Delmastro, who for about a year was Caroccia’s business partner in the company that controlled the now-famous restaurant “Bisteccheria d’Italia”. Less correctly, however, as pointed out by Pittalis, the Rome Public Prosecutor’s Office sent the Chamber of Deputies a request to access the chat records that was entirely generic, that is, “lacking the requirements of necessity, specificity, selectivity and proportionality” required by the Constitution.

Just to give an idea, the public prosecutor’s office has not even specified the time frame of the conversations it intends to obtain (even though it is known that Delmastro was a partner of Caroccia from December 2024 to November 2025), nor has it clarified the reasons why the seizure is necessary (and why, for example, the seizure of corporate, accounting and financial documentation is not sufficient).

The truth, as highlighted in the Chamber by Forza Italia MP Davide Bellomo, is that the seizure of conversations by the public prosecutor’s office would be deemed unlawful even if it did not involve a Member of Parliament, such as Delmastro, but an ordinary citizen. “Our code does not permit indiscriminate and exploratory seizures,” stated Bellomo. ‘The judicial authorities cannot request the seizure of the entire contents of a digital archive on the assumption that something useful to the investigation might emerge from it. Such an approach would reverse the logic of criminal proceedings: evidence must be sought because it has already been identified or is at least identifiable, not because it might otherwise be found as a result of indiscriminate seizure. This is the view of the Supreme Court of Cassation.’

“Even before asking ourselves whether the protection provided for in Article 68 of the Constitution applies, we must ask ourselves one question: does the public prosecutor’s request meet the conditions laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure for the seizure of any citizen’s correspondence? The answer is clearly no,” explained Bellomo, emphasising the lack of the conditions of proportionality, necessity and indispensability in the request made by the public prosecutor’s office headed by Francesco Lo Voi.

In other words, it fell to Forza Italia to explain the substantive reasons why the Rome Public Prosecutor’s Office’s request should be sent back to the sender. Meanwhile, FdI preferred to respond to the opposition’s political manoeuvring by, in turn, exploiting other issues – from the Cospito case to the face masks purchased during the pandemic – with all due respect to the principles of due process. FdI group leader Galeazzo Bignami even accused the left of having elected Oscar Luigi Scalfaro as Head of State in 1992, claiming he “released 300 mafia members”. These remarks provoked outrage from the opposition, which called on the Bureau to suspend the FdI MP. A far from edifying spectacle.

The reform of financial liability (the so-called ‘Foti reform’) came into force last January, but left it to the government to define the reorganisation and restructuring of the functions of the Court of Auditors. The measure approved by the government is therefore very substantial: it comprises no fewer than 71 articles, divided into four sections: organisation, career progression, disciplinary proceedings and transitional provisions. Following approval by the Council of Ministers, the text will be forwarded to Parliament for consideration by the parliamentary committees, and also to the State-Regions Conference, with the aim of concluding the process within the timeframe set out in the enabling legislation (21 January 2027).

The reorganisation of the Court of Auditors, like the reform of financial accountability, aims to ensure that the system of financial justice no longer acts as a disincentive, but rather as an incentive for public administrators to take action. The measure approved today seeks to achieve this objective, first and foremost by standardising the exercise of prosecutorial functions as much as possible across the country, thereby giving public administrators the assurance that their actions will be assessed consistently. This is reflected in the strengthening of the role of the Attorney General of the Court of Auditors, who “coordinates the activities of the regional prosecutors through his or her policy directives”; after consulting the latter, he or she “identifies the priority criteria, to be adopted and applied uniformly, for the handling of preliminary investigations”, and, in the exercise of his or her coordinating functions, may also “access the files of preliminary investigations conducted by the regional public prosecutors’ offices, subject to prior notification to the regional public prosecutor and the magistrate in charge of the preliminary investigation file”, including through access to the computerised system (a practice which, albeit in a limited form, already exists).

Another new development concerns the rotation of magistrates between roles: “Magistrates,” the legislative decree states, “shall, throughout their careers, perform all supervisory, advisory, consultative and judicial functions, in accordance with a system of rotational assignments.” At the same time, a ban is introduced on magistrates of the Court of Auditors moving from prosecutorial roles to adjudicative roles: in other words, the measure provides for the separation of careers – a proposal rejected by Italians for the ordinary judiciary in the March referendum.

As mentioned, the new staffing structure for the Court of Auditors has now been finalised, with a reduction in the number of senior and sub-senior positions: under the new structure, the number of section presidents or higher-ranking posts falls from 104 to 81, representing a 22 per cent reduction compared with the current situation, which is entirely anomalous when compared with other judicial bodies. This is one of the most significant changes introduced by the decree and helps to explain the concern expressed by the Association of Magistrates of the Court of Auditors (effectively the ANM for audit magistrates), which – backed by the PD – has once again spoken of a reform that “risks undermining the independence and autonomy of the audit judiciary”.

Last February, in fact, the Presiding Council of the Court of Auditors approved the promotion of ten magistrates to the post of section president (despite the fact that a call for applications had been issued to fill nine posts). Since then, the government has put these ten promotions on hold, considering the decision of the Presiding Council of the Court of Auditors to be inappropriate: the Foti reform had, in fact, already come into force and authorised the executive to adopt implementing decrees for the reorganisation of the accounting judiciary, guided by the principle of limiting the number of senior and middle-ranking officials.

In short, it is as though, ahead of the announced crackdown, the leadership of the Court of Auditors had rushed to push through a final wave of promotions. An attempt blocked by Palazzo Chigi. Behind the reform of the Court of Auditors lies an underground power struggle, albeit one of great significance.

The date chosen, 17 June each year, is the day on which, in 1983, Tortora – a journalist and popular television presenter – was arrested on a very serious charge, from which he was subsequently fully acquitted following a gruelling legal ordeal. And whilst acknowledging the soundness of the principles behind the bill, “the abstention vote,” Scarpa added, “is also intended to send a signal of openness. If, during the subsequent examination in the Senate, a genuine debate is finally allowed and our Group is able to help improve the text, that willingness could also result in a vote in favour.”

These justifications had little effect on Gaia Tortora, daughter of Enzo and deputy editor-in-chief of Tg La7, who commented in a post on X: “The PD, M5S and AVS abstained. What a lovely little clique.” And again: “You’re a disgrace. You’re beyond comment.” She then concluded: “To those who abstained with ridiculous, bogus excuses, I say that I feel deep pity for you.”

The M5S also explained its decision to abstain. “Establishing a National Day dedicated to Enzo Tortora and the victims of miscarriages of justice is important, but remembrance alone is not enough: we need truth, accountability and justice,” said M5S MP Valentina D’Orso, speaking during the general debate. “This is why we have proposed clearly defining what constitutes a miscarriage of justice and extending protection to include victims of crime who have not received justice. We have also called for awareness-raising activities to be entrusted to those with specific expertise: the judiciary, the legal profession and universities. Because discussing due process, the presumption of innocence and criminal liability requires appropriate tools and cannot become a mere symbolic exercise,” she concluded. Her colleague Stefania Ascari added: “A national day can be a starting point, not the end point. Remembrance must translate into concrete measures to prevent errors and protect those who fall victim to them.” 

It is to be expected that the majority will vote against the possibility of viewing the chats, reiterating that the issue on which the Chamber is called upon to rule concerns the legitimacy of the request made by the Rome Public Prosecutor’s Office to access Delmastro’s chats, and not the content of the conversations covered by the request.

Prosecutors in Rome have requested access to Delmastro’s chat history stored on Caroccia’s smartphone (who is under investigation for money laundering and the fictitious registration of assets) in order to ascertain how the company ‘Le 5 forchette’ – which controlled the now-famous restaurant ‘Bisteccheria d’Italia’ – was run. The problem is that the Rome public prosecutors have made a general request to access Delmastro’s chat records without specifying the time period of the conversations they intend to examine and without providing keywords or technical criteria suitable for selecting only the relevant conversations. This lack of specificity prompted the majority of members of the Authorisations Committee to vote against the request by the Roman public prosecutors to obtain the chat records, describing it as “lacking the requirements of necessity, specificity, selectivity and proportionality” mandated by the Constitution.

Last Thursday, however, just one hour before the Chamber was due to deliver its final verdict on the matter (with the majority intending to confirm the ‘no’ vote against the public prosecutors), Prosecutor Lo Voi sent a letter to President Fontana reminding the Chamber of the importance of giving the go-ahead for the acquisition of the chat records, attaching them on a CD produced by Caroccia’s defence team. A singular and unprecedented move, through which the Rome Public Prosecutor’s Office sought to exert a form of pressure on the Chamber.

The manoeuvre has succeeded: the vote in the Chamber has been called off, the case has been referred back to the committee, and Fontana has forwarded the material received from Lo Voi to the Authorisations Committee. A decision that several MPs from the ruling party, speaking off the record, describe as “incomprehensible” in the face of an action by the public prosecutor’s office that is entirely “unorthodox and inadmissible”.

However, the protection of parliamentary privileges does not seem to be of much concern to the opposition, who yesterday protested in the Chamber of Deputies over the inability to view Delmastro’s chat messages. “What is written in those chat messages?” asked Riccardo Ricciardi, leader of the M5S deputies, during his speech. The Five Star Movement members then unfurled banners reading “Hand over the keys, open the safe!”, displaying a safe, opening its door and pulling out a CD.

PD secretary Elly Schlein also stated this evening: “If Delmastro has nothing to hide, why deny access to the chats?”. But the answer is provided by Article 68 of the Constitution.

With the benefit of hindsight, and within the scope of the duty of care, it is almost always possible to identify a course of action that could have been taken more appropriately: and an offence with unclear boundaries can then be tailored to the specific circumstances of the event. This is the risk that emerged, for example, in the Viareggio case, when – in order to reach the top of the parent company – the charge was changed from omission to decision-making, and in Genoa, in the trial concerning the Morandi Bridge, where the conviction of many responsible parties was counterbalanced by the acquittal of almost as many: as if the selection of those who should be held accountable – which ought to precede the trial – had, to some extent, been incorporated into the proceedings. Every incident seems to require a designated culprit, and the only uncertainty lies in who will bear the blame. These two processes are intertwined and feed off one another: the demand for punishment generates vaguely defined laws and high-profile charges, and the high-profile nature of these charges in turn fuels the demand. The bill, however, is not settled in the shop window: the search for a scapegoat produces more defensive caution than prevention, and to adverse events – which almost always arise from a combination of multiple causes – is added the risk of liability based on position rather than fault, on the seniority of the role rather than on what could actually be seen from that position. ‘Fast fashion’ communication may win immediate approval, but it is unlikely to replace criminal policy: it can change its outfit for every occasion; criminal law cannot. For there is little left of a law designed solely to be paraded: a discarded garment and the principles of due process left by the wayside.

The aim of the essay is to set out and analyse the reasons that continue to cast doubt on the matter; in my view, this aim has been fully achieved. The author presents a perceptive and detailed analysis of the case, supported by significant extra-judicial evidence gathered as part of her independent journalistic investigation; at the same time, she raises thought-provoking questions both about various aspects of the factual reconstruction that remain unclear and about the reasoning behind the conviction. It is likely that Nicolosi is correct in pointing out that the judges adopted a prejudicially selective method of assessment by ruling out the evidential relevance of the discrepancies and contradictions detectable in the numerous statements made by Asia herself, as well as the circumstances reported and the experiences of certain individuals who came into contact with her in various capacities. However, in addition to these various elements (including alleged previous sexual assaults which were in fact never proven), the young woman’s credibility could have been undermined by the highly complex, ambiguous and elusive nature of her personality: made even more problematic and unusual – as also noted by psychologists acting as expert witnesses or judicial advisers – by a set of traits and behaviours that were entirely out of the ordinary (ranging from compulsive hypersexuality and habitual promiscuity to constant erotic exhibitionism on social media and marked seductiveness, from drug addiction and conflict with her family to a simultaneous need for reconciliation, approval and affection, etc.), which, of course, are not to be judged from a moral standpoint, but are of potential psychological relevance for an assessment of credibility.

Why, despite all this, did the court not take seriously the possibility that the sexual relations with the seven boys might have taken place within a different context from that typically associated with rape? This question raises a fundamental issue of a more general nature: that of the prejudices and cultural factors which influence – whether or not the judges are aware of them – the judicial reconstruction of facts open to multiple interpretations. This is a crucial point on which the essay explicitly focuses, offering an explanation regarding the Foro Italico case that seems quite plausible. Namely, the members of the trial panel were probably influenced by this prejudice: that a young woman barely of legal age cannot freely consent to having sex with multiple partners in a degraded setting such as an abandoned building site. However, this preconceived notion – one might still suspect – may, conversely, have prevented the judges from adequately understanding the psychological experiences of the young defendants: who may have acted without any real intent to rape, but by interpreting, in good faith, the girl’s previous sexual provocations and her seemingly inviting behaviour as a voluntary willingness to engage with them (after all, their educational background, young age and social background were not circumstances likely to prompt them to exercise particular caution in ascertaining the extent to which that willingness was genuine).

In truth, this legal case too seems to confirm a need that should perhaps not be overlooked: I am not the only one who believes that the professional training provided by the School of Magistrates should include psychology courses, taught by experts, aimed at fostering in magistrates the ability to become aware – so that they themselves are able to subject them to critical scrutiny – of the prejudices (social and personal) and psychological mechanisms likely to influence the decision-making process. Is it too much to expect judges to possess this capacity for self-reflection?

There are other reasons to appreciate the essay. Whilst by no means lacking in feminist sensitivity, the author tends to problematise, without ideological dogmatism or intellectual hypocrisy, the concept of a woman’s free consent: recognising the objective difficulty of grasping, particularly in court, the complex and ambiguous interpersonal dynamics that often render the boundaries between spontaneous consent, induced consent and genuine dissent fluid and uncertain. Another reason for appreciation, by no means a minor one: Nicolosi, as a journalist, has the honesty to criticise – and indeed to engage in self-criticism – the prevailing tendency of today’s media to simply parrot judicial accounts and, more generally, to go too far in pandering to dominant social conventions and beliefs. Without delving, with an independent investigative spirit, beneath the surface of reassuring stereotypes and official truths. This is something I feel this book has, on the contrary, succeeded in doing.

President Meloni, in justifying the draft bill on the criminal liability of minors, states that “those who rob, those who assault, those who wreak havoc must always pay, even if they are fifteen or sixteen years old”. The reform, she claims, serves to set straight that category of minors – evidently considered to be very large – “who think they can do as they please because they know nothing will happen to them”. Instilling the idea of impunity in public opinion serves to galvanise expectations of a security-focused response. We have already heard in the past, in the same vein of punitive rhetoric, Dr Davigo musing about ‘scarecrow codes’ and a country in which those acquitted are ‘guilty parties who have got away with it’. No mention is made of how many underage rapists, robbers or vandals have avoided trial because they were declared not criminally responsible due to immaturity under Article 98 of the Criminal Code. But it is just as well that the general public remains unaware of the statistics and data, and believes that the enemy against which we must defend ourselves today is the insidious army of minors.

This propaganda is working and spreading rapidly on social media. That prudent provision which entrusted judges with the task of assessing the maturity of minors – drafted in 1930 by the staunchly fascist Minister of Justice Rocco – has been swept aside by yet another flagship piece of legislation, which pays no heed to Article 31 of the Constitution, which ‘protects young people by promoting the institutions necessary for that purpose’. The very same provision that protected maternity rights – also enshrined in that deeply fascist code – has been swept aside by yet another ‘security’ package, with the result that the Rebibbia nursery, which had finally been emptied, now houses a baby girl just a few months old. The geography of security has drawn a map across our territories and our cities: the ‘red zones’ of the city centre, the abandoned suburban outskirts of the raves, the underground stations of the Roma, the streets of the Maranza. The constant updating of the ‘enemies of security’, anchored to daily news stories, is an extraordinary factory of consensus that never shuts down. It is a mechanism that is always effective and supposedly cost-free, given that human costs and the principles enshrined in our Constitution, Charters and Conventions do not contribute to GDP. Not only are the costs of imprisonment, overcrowding and suicides not calculated, but neither are the costs borne by society when a minor, an occasional drug dealer, is thrust into a stigmatising and purely punitive prison system, from which they are likely to emerge as an even more dangerous professional drug dealer.

But having a populace in a state of perpetual turmoil, susceptible to punitive populism and the rhetoric of retributive justice, is so advantageous that no one any longer calls for the return of that deliberative, reflective and constructive demos, wary of the immediate and capable of critical thinking. Unfortunately, however, it is often overlooked that, on closer inspection – as Giordano Bruno Guerri recently wrote – this daily feeding of the public’s most visceral impulses is neither a driving force nor conducive to democracy, but ‘becomes a ball and chain for the people’, nailing them to a perpetual emotional present devoid of any future.

“I have forwarded to Public Prosecutor Francesco Lo Voi, via certified email, the correspondence relating to the chats at the centre of the recent controversy, as I have nothing to hide,” stated former Under-Secretary of State for Justice Andrea Delmastro in a note. “I hope that the unacceptable exploitation of the situation by a certain political faction – which has tried to stir up trouble and has only stirred up mud, even though I am not even under investigation – will now cease,” he added.

Delmastro’s decision, however, will not affect the authorisation procedure currently underway in Parliament, as parliamentary immunity does not apply to individual MPs. At most, the former undersecretary’s decision could prompt the majority to give the green light to the use of the chat logs.

Meanwhile, President Dori has ruled that the ten members of the Montecitorio Authorisations Committee will be able to consult, from Friday morning, the documentation sent to the Chamber by Prosecutor Lo Voi, including the chat logs produced by Caroccia’s defence counsel, contained on a CD which, it must be assumed, has never been opened by Lo Voi himself as he was not authorised to do so. Dori took this decision despite opposition from the majority, explaining that he had “a duty, as President, to safeguard the right of all members of the committee to examine the documentation in order to gain a complete picture”.

To tell the truth, Lo Voi’s letter arrived at the Chamber of Deputies after the deadline – in fact, an hour before the Chamber’s scheduled vote, although, curiously, it had been reported the previous evening by some press agencies. It was the Speaker of the Chamber, Lorenzo Fontana, who reported that he had received the letter from the Rome Public Prosecutor an hour before the meeting of the group leaders. Lo Voi’s move threw the parliamentary schedule into disarray: the vote in the Chamber was cancelled; the meeting of group leaders decided to refer the matter concerning authorisation for the use of the chat logs back to the committee; finally, Chairman Dori took the decision to allow committee members to view the CD containing the chat logs between Delmastro (who is not under investigation) and Caroccia.

The decision has angered the majority, which has formally asked President Fontana to convene the Rules Committee. Dori “should at least have waited for the plenary session, given that proceedings were already under way in the committee and had been referred back to the Chamber”, stated Pietro Pittalis (FI). “This rush only serves to turn it into a political issue,” he added, “undermining the role of the committee, which should be a body of guarantee but has instead been transformed into a political tribunal for the minority’s use. He cannot expect to reduce the committee to a branch of the AVS or the ‘broad coalition’.” Pittalis went on to clarify that “we are asking Fontana to consult Dori and, in his capacity as Speaker of the Chamber, to consider whether to postpone” the viewing of the chat logs “pending a ruling by the Chamber”.

FdI has also joined the call, emphasising that Dori’s decision “sets a precedent”.

On closer inspection, it is not only the decision of the chair of the Authorisations Committee that sets a precedent, but also the conduct of the Rome Public Prosecutor’s Office. Indeed, never before has a public prosecutor’s office sent a letter directly to the Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies just minutes before a vote in the Chamber, particularly given that the committee had already conducted its preliminary investigation and, by a majority, expressed an opinion against the request put forward by the public prosecutor’s office itself.

In short, the impression is that Prosecutor Lo Voi, anticipating that the Chamber would also refuse to allow the use of Delmastro’s chat logs, intervened in an attempt to influence the Chamber’s decision. The Public Prosecutor’s Office will certainly deny this impression, arguing that it is important for Parliament to reach its decision whilst having all the relevant material at its disposal. The point, however, is that the committee’s refusal to authorise the use of the chats between Delmastro and Caroccia was not based on the content of the conversations (which is entirely irrelevant in this case), but rather on the flaws in the request itself submitted by the Rome Public Prosecutor’s Office. Indeed, the request was deemed to fall short of the requirements of necessity, specificity, selectivity and proportionality laid down by Article 68 of the Constitution, the implementing legislation and constitutional case law. The public prosecutor’s office would do well to reflect on its own mistakes.

In his letter, Lo Voi wrote that he considered it “absolutely necessary to verify, by comparing the contents of the seized mobile phone, that the messages stored on it correspond exactly to those produced by the defence and that the documentation produced by the defence is complete”. The point on which the prosecutor insists is, in fact, the “verification of the correspondence between the seized material and that produced by the defence”.

“The majority,” explained Dori at the end of the Executive Committee meeting, “does not wish to grant access to the documentation and chat logs sent by the Rome Public Prosecutor’s Office. I, however, have a duty, as chair, to safeguard the right of all Executive Committee members to view the documentation in order to gain a complete picture. There is no reason for the Executive Committee to deny itself such access, even within the usual limits on disclosure. Therefore,” said Dori, “I will give the offices the go-ahead – given that there are various precedents – to view the documentation from tomorrow morning onwards, so that access can be organised in accordance with non-disclosure criteria. The Executive Committee has never restricted its own access. There are precedents in this regard and I do not intend to compromise the rights of the commissioners or violate parliamentary prerogatives.” Dori explained that, along with the letter to President Fontana, the Chief Public Prosecutor of Rome had attached a CD which has not yet been opened but which – as the Council President himself explains – is expected to contain “the chat logs submitted by Caroccia’s lawyer”. Lo Voi, Dori continued, “effectively needs to verify whether what has been submitted by Caroccia’s defence team matches the seized device. Whether there is a perfect match or whether something is missing.”

On Monday or Tuesday, the Executive Committee will meet to decide by a vote whether, in light of Lo Voi’s letter, a further investigation is required – and therefore further consideration by the Executive Committee – or whether the Chamber may vote on the proposal to reject the request for authorisation to examine the conversations between Delmastro and Carroccia.

Meanwhile, Fratelli d’Italia is considering appealing against President Dori’s decision. This was explained by Dario Iaia, Fdi group leader on the Chamber of Deputies’ Executive Committee, when speaking to journalists. “We are considering it; we’ll see. We were opposed” to Dori’s decision “because it sets a precedent”.