Resolution of Corte D’Assise D’Appello (Appeals Court) of Milan, 24 May 2017, N.3/16, Criminal case against XX1 and XX2
- 2017
- Italy
Topics
Islamic extremism Membership in a terrorist organisation Violent extremism Terrorism propaganda Public securityLegal bases
Code of Criminal Procedure, ItalyCourts
Court of Appeal (Corte D'Assise D'Appello), Milan, ItalyLaws
Right to respect for private and family lifeFacts
The proceeding originated within the institutional monitoring of the Internet, aimed at controlling virtual spaces concerning the phenomenon of proselytism and Islamic terrorist propaganda. In April 2015, the specialized nucleus of the Rome Postal Communications Police Service found on the platform of the social network ''Twitter'' the presence of the profile XX, containing numerous tweets of popularization and exaltation of the terrorists actions of the self-proclaimed Islamic State, and of instigating the carrying out of terrorist acts. Through the subsequent checks the e-mail address with which the Twitter account was activated and the IP address that had generated the data connection was identified. Despite the company Twitter had closed the above profile, the activities of the unknown user continued to be monitored by the Postal and Communications Police Service, which had managed to identify a new account (@XX) attributable to the same subject. Further investigations on this account, with particular reference to the technical aspects relating to the IP addresses to which the connections were generated, to the e-mail addresses used for the activation of the profiles and to the cellular and fixed telephone users associated therewith, enabled locate two places from which most of the connections were generated, which subsequently turned out to be the places of residence of today's defendants. All the collected data converged in the certain identification. The images of the cameras, the addresses from where the connections were made, the tracking services and the compendium of clues collected by the investigators thus jeopardized the start of technical interception activities against the Mr. XX1 and its closest subjects. Meanwhile, the posts posted on twitter by the defendant had attracted attention from numerous newspapers and national newscasts. This circumstance had led the Mr. XX1 to take a more cautious attitude and even to get rid of the car it owned, within which the investigators, on 28 April 2015, had already installed suitable equipment for intercepting the conversations. The environmental listening service of the Ford Focus car suggested that another person be monitored, which through the personal checks carried out in the Via di Manerbio, had been identified in the Pakistani citizen Mr. XX2 born in XX on XX.XX.1988, residing in Manerbio (BS) in Via Piave n.XX. in Mr. XX2 of the anonymous user of the selected account. The new acquisitions led to the implementation of the already full-scale technical activities: subsequent to the sale of the car, environmental interceptions were set up inside the house and the car, and "active" telematic intercepts were carried out on Mr. XX1 smartphone. On 24 June 2015 Mr. XX1 left for Tunisia, and even in those days wiretaps continued against it. Finally, once the latter had returned to Italy, on 22.07.2015 prison custody was executed in custody for both defendants. The analysis of all the equipment seized by the defendants was also followed, namely mobile phones, tablets, USB sticks.
Legal grounds
Article 270bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure "Associations for the purposes of terrorism, including international or subversion of the democratic order".
Findings
The defendants Mr. XX1 and Mr. XX2 have been called to respond to the crime of association for the purposes of terrorism referred to in Article 270bis of the Italian Penal Code, for having participated in the terrorist association called ''Islamic State''. The same was applied to the precautionary detention measure in prison by order dated 21 July 2015. By order dated 24 February 2016, the Court rejected the preliminary objections raised by the defendants, and in particular the exception of nullity of the head of imputation due to indeterminacy of the object, the exception of territorial incompetence and the request for restitution within the term for the proposition of the abbreviated rite. The present procedure, in fact, did not have a preliminary investigation stage since the parties gave their consent to the acquisition of the investigative documents in the file of the trial, then proceeding to the discussion. Thus, at the end of a careful examination of all the evidence collected by the public prosecutor, evaluated in the light of the critical findings raised by the defendants of the prejudices, it has come to a judgment of guilt of the accused, as the elements against them, read in light of the characteristics of the terrorist organization to which they referred, they confidently confirmed that Mr. XX1 and Mr. XX2 had participated in the association called Islamic State, thus being guilty of the crime in charge. The two defendants subsequently filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, with a hearing on 27 April 2018, rejected the appeals and confirmed the conviction of the two defendants.