WRITTEN QUESTION E-1355/03 by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission. Vincenzo Mitidieri, held in preventive custody for 12 months on charges of heading a mafia-type organisation and acquitted for lack of evidence, but still being held.
Date: 2003-04-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Italy, Mafia, competence of the Member States, imprisonment, public order, right to justice

C 58 E/60

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

(2004/C 58 E/078)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1355/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(10 April 2003)

Subject: Vincenzo Mitidieri, held in preventive custody for 12 months on charges of heading a mafia-type

organisation and acquitted for lack of evidence, but still being held

After 12 months of preventive custody under special arrangements (41a) in the prison at Terni, on charges
of belonging to a mafia-type criminal organisation, Vincenzo Mitidieri was acquitted by the Court of
Matera for ‘lack of evidence’. Although he appealed to the Minister of
Justice to have the special
arrangements revoked, he has still not received an answer and is still being held under those arrangements.

The provisions of Italian Law No 279 of 23 December 2002 state:

(a)

(b)

(…)’. By 31 December 2002 the approximately 700 prisoners held under

in Article 2.2e, ‘The Court, within 10 days of receiving the complaint (…) shall decide in camera (…)
whether the preconditions for adopting the provision exist and whether the contents thereof are
consistent
special
arrangements (cid:1) including Mr Mitidieri (cid:1) received the implementing decree, a number of them
appealed within the specified deadline of 10 days, but there is no indication of any decree being
discussed by the supervisory courts within the deadline of 10 days, whereas it has been reported that
hearings are due to be held after 90/180 days;

in Article 2c.2, paragraph 2a, that the implementing decrees ‘shall be adopted by virtue of a decree
justified by the Minister of Justice’. As to how the justification is to be endorsed, the former Under-
secretary for Justice, Giuseppe Ayala said, at the 21st sitting of the ‘parliamentary committee of
inquiry on the phenomenon of mafia or similar criminal organisations’ held on 9 July 2002, ‘(…) I
must have signed hundreds of provisions, but justifications for extending deadlines belong to the
category of provisions which are signed blindfold (it is an automatic action which we can all carry out
and it can be done better blindfold). I say this without in any way meaning to criticise the bodies
which were sometimes called upon to provide evidence, but because sometimes it is almost a’probatio
diabolica‘’ (negative proof impossible to provide);

(c)

in Article 1, c.1, paragraph (a), that as regards the prisoners ‘(…) jobs outside, authorisations and
alternatives to detention (…) may be granted only in cases where detainees and prisoners collaborate
with the judiciary’ a practice which is defined as torture in UN and Council of Europe conventions.

In view of Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty, can the Commission say whether it has any instruments at its
disposal and, if so, which, to monitor compliance with those articles, or what internal procedures are
envisaged if it receives complaints regarding infringements of those articles?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2003)

The detention of Mr Vincenzo Mitidieri by the Italian authorities must be considered as a question
regarding the maintenance of
internal security. Pursuant to
law and order and the safeguarding of
Article 33 of the Treaty on European Union, it is the Member States, which are responsible for what action
should be taken to maintain law and order and to safeguard their internal security.

As regards possible action by the Commission, the Commission regrets to inform the Honourable Member
that it is not its role to intervene in such matters, which fall entirely within Member States’ competencies.

However,
it should be stressed that, following exhaustion of all domestic remedies, as Mr Mitidieri
considers that his fundamental rights were violated, there exists the possibility of applying to the European
Court of Human Rights for redress.