An EAW (European Arrest Warranty) was indeed asked for the crime for which was claimed he have been sentenced of 6 years punishment in 2008 with, drugs smuggling charge.

The point is not only he was not guilty in fact, but he was already acquitted from that charge, as the competent judge sentenced in date 7^th of June 2003.

Because of this long charge though, Italy was able to issue an aggregation of concurrent sentences with the aim of requesting Giuseppe’s extradition, for that is not possible to issue an EAW for a sentence which is less then 3 years long.

It would have been sufficient to specify the details of each and every one of the sentences to figure out the outrageous mistakes, as all of them should have been singularly specified as we know from the Article 2, paragraph 2° of the handover’s law, which find its origins in Article 8 paragraph 1° of the 13^th June 2002’s “decisione quadro” (squared decision?) of the European Union Council, which states that a European arrest warrant, an EAW, in any case must include each single sentence together with its inflicted measure. But as we know from real facts, not only the charge was included in the EAWs as well as others which were not meant to be there, but the extradition was even accepted, creating then a situation of nonsense and profound discomfort for Giuseppe M. whose is currently illegally imprisoned in the Casa di Reclusione of Opera (Milan), Italy.

How it has been possible then that such a grave injustice and error was committed?

Analyzing the situation, it is very much likely that this mistake would be nothing less than a mere attempt to cover more and previous errors (which we can as well call crimes) committed by Mr. Stefano Diez, Sostenuto Procuratore of Trento’s republic, but more generally by the Italian country itself.

The aggregation of concurrent sentences sent by Mr. Diez did include several cases which were not meant to be there at all, specifically speaking about the above mentioned case for which he was acquitted in 2003 with the sentence of “non existing fact”, and other three cases which facts did happen in Germany, specifically Bietingen, Singen and Rottweil.  For these three cases I would like then to recall that the same Article 2 paragraph 2 of the Law of extradition’s handover, which founds itself in the Article 8 paragraph 1 of the executive decision from the 13^th of June 2002’s European Union council, states that an EAW to be considered valid has, in any case, to be complete of a description of the crime circumstances, including the moment (time and date), the PLACE and the grade of participation of the person in concern.

Therefore these charges were not meant to be included as EAW requested by Italy, as all the facts did happened in German territory, and a country does not have the right to issue an EAW request for crimes which happened in another country’s territory. In addiction also there should be another case for which he was as well acquitted, but we still have to check the documentation to have the papers prove.

In order to verify that the extradition mandates would have legally fulfilled all the points requested in the accomplishment of the EAW itself, the first pool of judges who had to decide about the extradition approval asked some juridical questions.

At this point two ways would have been possible for Italy, and more specifically for the Sostituto Procuratore della Rep. di Trento Stefano Diez:

-         To answer all the questions with the truth, exposing then the mistakes committed with probably consequent claims.

-         To persevere in falsity, masking the crimes committed with other crimes.

The second option was exactly what we had experience of; because not only they refused to communicate 8 of the 10 answers demanded, but in these two answers Italy, more specifically the Sostituto Procuratore della Rep. di Trento Stefano Diez  representing Italy, claimed the FALSE, saying that:

-         all the facts concerning the EAWs did happened in Italy

-         he refused to specify (despite the invitations) the punishment’s length for each an every EAW as the law provides for.

All this with the sole scope of covering himself from the crime by him committed at Giuseppe’s damage (which is also my damage and his family’s damage).

On the other side, Holland is guilty to have allowed the extradition in a situation in which clearly the legal requirements to accomplish an EAW were not being met. Giuseppe has done a claim against these occurrences, and we will present it soon thru our lawyer which I have published in this blog, both in Italian and English languages.

I don’t add more, as this document will explain these facts further.

Italy recognize itself in being a bad example as usual, and here expose is the story of my partner Giuseppe as a witness of how the fascist ideology still permeats the air of italian state forces and terrible legal system. Thinking your way and fight to have basic rights can be very dangerous still in a country in which freedom of speech can be applied only to regime speech. I would like to invite you to read further to share with me what is happening, for that here is a witness that we can still being persecute for being considered of “uncomfortable way of thinking”, even if this would mean take away our freedom through dirty and illegal paths.