Legal Contrada: “You could not deny unjust detention”

“I am satisfied, regardless of the quantification of the compensation for unjust detention, because in the end both the Cassation and the Court of Appeal agreed with us. Now we are waiting for the match to end definitively, to be able to say that justice has been done”. This was told to Adnkronos by the lawyer Stefano Giordano, lawyer of the former number two of Sisde, Bruno Contrada, who thus comments on the decision of the First Section of the Court of Appeal of Palermo which, reversing the decision previously taken by the Second Section and pronouncing following annulment with referral by the Court of Cassation, accepted the request for reparation for unjust detention formulated by Bruno Contrada, however limiting the amount of the compensation to 285,342 euros. “I dedicate this victory to my father, who has followed me over the years”, says the lawyer, son of Alfonso Giordano, the President of the Palermo maxi-trial. “We are, on the one hand, very happy and satisfied with the fact that it has been recognized even ‘symbolically’, a right that had been recognized in Strasbourg. There was a lack of reparation for unjust detention which could not be denied, and which is now arrived”, says the lawyer Giordano.

“Clearly he does not find us satisfied with the reconstruction of the facts and with the judicial errors that the Court of Appeal has committed – continues the lawyer Giordano – the Court has decided to repair the unjust detention relating to the execution of the sentence but not referring to the precautionary custody, because they say that aiding and abetting could be profiled, disregarding the observation that the crime would have been prescribed, because it was a simple aiding and abetting”. “The Court said that it was time-barred in ten years and it is an important error – Giordano says – because it blows up a part of the reparation for unjust detention which was fundamental. I say this not so much for a venal fact but because the legal error is a major mistake”. “Then we will decide whether to appeal to the Cassation – explains the lawyer – our interest is that Contrada has this economic relief as soon as possible”.

“Here there is a problem of non-enforceability until the Cassation – Giordano continues – considering Contrada’s age and his health conditions we will have to decide together whether to appeal this aspect of the sentence. The decision not to consider the crime of aiding and abetting prescribed which in the abstract may have induced the magistrates who issued the ordinance does not take into account that in the ordinance”. “Eventually we will appeal only on this item”. “However, the importance of winning the trial remains, because in any case the request was accepted, even if it was not satisfactory from a compensation point of view. The aim is the recognition of a right sanctioned by the European court of human rights”.

“We are talking about a provisional ordinance because it can be challenged in the Supreme Court – adds Giordano – let’s see what the Attorney General will do but clearly there is one point: for the second time an Appeal Court recognizes the existence of a right for Bruno Contrada, I hope we can put a full stop. Definitive”.