Rome – Attack on Sigfrido Ranucci: alleged threats to the perpetrators and an assault on Valter Lavitola in prison, later denied by the Department of Criminal Procedure (DAP), further enriches the judicial chapter in the case. Meanwhile, the investigating judge (GIP) rejects the lawyers' request for the alleged instigator's release due to the expiration of the deadline for setting a review hearing.
The threats and beatings were recounted by Pellegrino D'Avino, one of the perpetrators of the attack that took place in Pomezia on October 16 of last year, during his interrogation last week.
During last week's interrogation, D'Avino reported being approached by several inmates who allegedly told him, "We heard from the news that you intend to speak out; you'd be better off not making any spontaneous statements." The threats were allegedly made two nights before D'Avino and Antonio Passariello were questioned. That same day, Valter Lavitola was allegedly beaten in the prison courtyard during exercise time. This report was later denied by both DAP sources and Lavitola's lawyers.
The Department of Penitentiary Administration denies the beating of the instigator of the attack on Sigfrido Ranucci in prison.
"We interviewed Lavitola, who reported that he was fine and showed no signs of being beaten," lawyers Sergio and Arturo Cola said in reference to the incident. "We are requesting the Public Prosecutor's Office to verify the existence and content of the note from the prison police at Rebibbia prison regarding the alleged assault." D'Avino allegedly claimed, based on a de relato, that he learned of the incident from other inmates and that Lavitola was subsequently taken to the infirmary.
Sources at the Department of Penitentiary Administration maintain that internal records show no evidence of violence against the inmate. "We are not aware of this," they explain.
The preliminary hearing judge rejects the request from Valter Lavitola's lawyers as the deadline for the review begins.
Meanwhile, according to Lavitola's lawyers, the suspect should be released from prison due to the expiration of the time limit, but the investigating judge rejected the request.
"The deadline for setting the hearing at the Review Court has been exceeded, and according to the defense, Valter Lavitola should be released from prison due to the expiration of the deadline." This is according to lawyer Sergio Cola, who will take the case to the judges and, if rejected, will appeal to the Supreme Court of Cassation.
The former publisher's lawyer believes that more than fifteen days have passed since the request for review, a deadline that would render the precautionary measure ineffective due to the expiration of the time limit. Cola also cited the 2023 Nordio Decree, according to which crimes aggravated by mafia methods or facilitation fall under organized crime and are not eligible for the suspension of time limits during the summer months.
The investigating judge: There is a summer suspension, the preliminary hearing has been scheduled within the deadline.
"In the absence of an express legislative provision and in the absence of a provision similar to that issued in the area of wiretapping in organized crime offences, it cannot be concluded that the effects of that provision should also include the suspension of preliminary investigation deadlines during summer holidays."
This was written by Rome Court's preliminary investigations judge, Livio Sabatini, in the ruling rejecting the request from Valter Lavitola's defense team, who were seeking a "declaration of the ineffectiveness of the precautionary measure due to the late filing of the review request." Specifically, the request for review—the document explains—was filed on August 15th, the court received the documents on the 21st, and the hearing was scheduled for September 6th.
The motion by lawyers Sergio and Arturo Cola, the investigating judge explains, "objects to the ineffectiveness of the precautionary measure, calling for the preliminary investigations judge's immediate, compliant declaration. It essentially raises the issue of the late scheduling of the review hearing, given the ineffectiveness of the summertime suspension of preliminary investigation deadlines for criminal proceedings pursuant to Legislative Decree 105/2023, as the legislator extended the exemption from the summertime suspension of deadlines to crimes committed with mafia-related aggravating circumstances."
However, the magistrate further emphasizes, "the equivalence of the aforementioned legislative intervention to the suspension of preliminary investigation deadlines during summer months cannot be accepted because the rationale behind Legislative Decree 105/2023 was to resolve a systemic alignment in the investigative phase for particularly serious crimes, while Article 2 of Law 742/1969 concerns the exemption from the summer suspension of deadlines in a strictly foreseen case."
The issue of the possible expiration of the custody terms will almost certainly be raised again by Lavitola's defense team before the review judges at the hearing scheduled for Monday, September 7th. On that date, Valter Lavitola announced his intention to make a voluntary statement.
Frequently asked questions about the Valter Lavitola case
Here are some frequently asked questions regarding the Valter Lavitola case and the recent decisions of the preliminary investigations judge.
Why was Lavitola's request for release rejected?
The investigating judge rejected the request due to the expiry of the terms, deeming that the summer suspension of the terms did not apply to his case.
What happened during D'Avino's interrogation?
D'Avino reported alleged threats received from other inmates and a beating suffered by Lavitola, reports later denied by the Department of Penitentiary Administration.
What is the Department of Penitentiary Administration's position regarding Lavitola's beating?
The Department of Penitentiary Administration (DAP) denied the alleged incident of violence, stating that Lavitola showed no signs of being beaten.
What does the 2023 Nordio decree provide regarding custody terms?
The decree establishes that crimes aggravated by mafia methods do not benefit from the suspension of terms during the summer months.
