At the preliminary hearing held at the Genoa Court on Dec. 7, both defendants were remanded for trial in relation to the crimes charged against them, excluding the aggravating circumstance charged under Art. 270 bis 1 c. p.
The trial will therefore begin with the filter hearing on March 7, and under the ordinary procedure remands both on charges of possession and carrying explosive material, attempted manufacture of explosive/explosive devices. Technically resuming the legal motivation, with regard to the disqualification of the purpose of terrorism, reference is made to the most recent case law on the matter, particularly Supreme Court ruling no. 36816/2020, according to which “it is not sufficient to carry out any violent political action, as it is necessary that the conduct is potentially capable of creating panic, terror and widespread sense of insecurity in the community and is aimed at organs of institutional leadership or constitutional importance, as a function of the attempt to overthrow the constitutional order or overthrow the democratic system.”
In the present case, the judiciary ruled, in line with the preliminary investigation judge’s previous assessment, that there could be no connection between the seized material and the violent actions induced by the prosecution, so the defendants are remanded for trial on the charges outlined above, subject to appeal by the prosecutor.
In addition to this small technical account of the hearing, below are some reflections on repression as a general and continuous activity of the state against the exploited.
Behind every legal choice, college or individual judge, there is a political choice that characterizes sentencing. Repressive activity is not always related in a directly proportional and linear way to the intensity of conflict that social and militant classes pose. The activity of preventing the conflict hypothesis and that of annihilating the internal enemy is continuous on the part of the state, and is aimed at maintaining order and class privilege. There are no happy islands or terms of action and thought within which the repressive response can be avoided, although the absence of radicality in the struggle, by taking away strength from the revolutionary possibility, determines in the social sphere and in the power relations only points in favor of the other side.
These days, with reference to comrade Alfredo Cospito’s struggle, it is pointed out that it is always ready for the annihilation of revolutionaries, through the instrument of torture, which practiced directly, more or less systematically in different historical periods, tends to control and repress every revolutionary expression and struggle, placing the monopoly of violence that characterizes its power at the center, and lashing out against anyone who dares to question this.
The vindictive tendency of the state is aimed at the annihilation of revolutionary identities and serves as a warning to the social partners struggling against the vicious conditions that capitalist exploitation imposes. Continue reading “Italy: Brief account of the preliminary hearing in the Genoa trial against Gianluca and Evelin”
