Free Trieste Movement





During the hearing of 16 November 2015, judge Marco Casavecchia expressed himself about the preliminary exception of the lack of jurisdiction raised by lawyer Edoardo Longo on behalf of the five defendants of the Free Trieste Movement, trailed for taking part to the demonstration held on 10 February 2014 in defense of the Northern Free Port of Trieste.

This is the second hearing. During the first one, which took place the week before, the other 12 defendants had associated themselves to the exception of the lack of jurisdiction presented by Free Trieste (LINK). Because this is a particular hearing which involves the different souls of the struggle for the independence of Trieste. In fact, those 12 people are past of the group created after the division of the Free Trieste Movement and they are willing to run for Italian administrative elections of next year.

The accused parties of this abnormal trial are 19, but two of them had their position carved out, with a separate trial. Truly illogical, how is it possible judging separately people who are charged with committing the same alleged offences together? Are there going to be two different outcomes? Of are they trying to influence the main trial, maybe exploiting the defensive weakness of the two defendants who were “isolated”?

Strategies of the prosecution, lead by Public Prosecutor Federico Frezza, the great persecutor of the supporters of the independence of Trieste. A way to conduce the investigation, his one, that has shocked everybody. He did put in the case file acts that were produced unlawfully, in order to discredit the defendants (LINK). It caused especial “disgust” finding a list of 300 Triestines who, declaring to be citizens of the Free Territory of Trieste, questioned the revenue-raising power of the State of Italy by raising the exception of the lack of jurisdiction. As well as the data collected by Frezza by unauthorized access to the certified email of the Civil Section of the Court of Trieste in search of useful data concerning the civil lawsuits where I am involved and raised the exception of the lack of Italian jurisdiction opposing to the collection of taxes of Equitalia on behalf of the State of Italy.

During the discussion before Court, lawyer Edoardo Longo defined this way of proceeding worth of a “Police State”. And this how, to clarify also what kind of trials are opened against the citizens who claim their rights established under the Treaty of Peace of 1947, in force, when it comes to Trieste and its territory and bonding to the bordering Italian republic itself.

On 16 November, the judge has withdrawn the reservation on the preliminary exceptions, rejecting ours on jurisdiction and of unconstitutionality, and all others presented by the other lawyers involved. Ours were the most substantial exceptions, those of the others revolved on the interpretations of the faculty to prosecute, but recognized in full the powers of the judicial body.

So, it is not a surprise that the curtain concerning the real defensive ambitions of the “supporters of independence” that run for Italian elections, who are quarrelling with each-other about the names of their candidates to sit on the remunerative Italian chairs of politicians, was soon brought down. After the rejection of the exception of jurisdiction, only five of the defendants proceeded to reject the judge during the hearing. They all belong to the Free Trieste Movement, the others melted, like snow in the sun.

In this trial there is one only effective defense of the Free Territory of Trieste, and it is that of the Free Trieste Movement. This was made clear in this very hearing. In which our defense succeeded in having all of its witnesses accepted. Including the “accuser” Federico Frezza – the great absent who was still missing in they trial against independence. Frezza shall respond of this requests to the State Police to find crimes, even if non-existing, to be charged on those who organized or took part to the demonstrations of the Free Trieste Movement.

A true Police State.

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

Follows an abstract of the act with which the judge was rejected.

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.


2 thoughts on “FIVE OUT OF NINETEEN