Palermo, August 28. (Adnkronos) – The same court, the same provision of the Police Commissioner who decides on the detention of six migrants who landed illegally in Lampedusa, but different decisions. In fact, diametrically opposite. A judge confirms the detention of a Tunisian migrant and two other judges, however, releasing 5 irregular migrants. All this two days later, during the section during the week at the Palace of Justice in Palermo. Here the judge Michele Guarnotta, from the specialized department on immigration matters, decided on August 20, to confirm the preparation issued by the Police Commissioner of Agrigento to arrest the 23-year-old Tunisian migrant Ala A. held at the detention center for international applicants. defense of Porto Empedocle (Agrigento). A few days later, two other judges, Sara Marino and Eleonora Bruno, also from the Department specializing in immigration cases, between August 24 and yesterday, released 5 migrants from prison, always Tunisians, and always arriving irregularly on the coasts of Lampedusa. Different steps, but the police commissioner’s step of arrest has the same reasons.
This is what the judge Guarnotta wrote, who confirmed the detention of the 23-year-old Tunisian: “The provision says that a Tunisian citizen has been stopped for evading or trying to pass the relevant controls at the border of Lampedusa and Avoid Linosa on 19.08.08. 2024′ and who also ‘submitted the application for international protection recognition on 08/20/2024 directly at the Porto Empedocle border’ and who ‘comes from a country identified as safe by order of the Minister Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, in agreement with the Ministers of Justice and the Interior”.
And again: “The applicant said that he landed last Monday 19 August, in the morning, in Lampedusa on a boat with four others, that he dived ‘first’ from the boat at a distance of about 100 meters from the shore, he swam to the shore and hid; that he did not know what the other people did; that he tried to leave the island without being found and, having failed, went to a hotel to ask for information on how to get away. the island without being found, but at that time the hotel staff called the police.”
For the judge Michele Guarnotta “the situation of the concrete case leads to the belief that the only step was necessary to guarantee the intended purpose of regulation, i.e. to discover the right to enter the territory of the State when the border procedure was met. of detention, since the applicant, per facta conclusiantia, ie trying to move away from Lampedusa without being found, has already indicated that he intends to make himself inaccessible and therefore to interfere with the stated purpose. For these reasons “according to the considerations developed here, the custody provision must be confirmed”.
A few days later, here are 5 other provisions, signed by two colleagues of Guarnotta, again from the Court of Palermo, which makes completely different decisions, refusing to release five North Africans held in Porto Empedocle. The measures apply to migrants who, when they landed, applied for international protection recognition. The judges refer to legislative decree number 25 of 2008 which establishes that “detention may be ordered if the applicant has not provided his passport or other valid document, or provided a financial guarantee appropriate”.
The judge, writes the investigating judge, that “the power to order detention” which “represents the use of discretionary power, which must be justified and argued, also considering the situation in which the measure affects the person’s personal freedom”. The definition, which we read in the provision “according to the principles of the European directive and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice (…) according to which it is necessary to keep “only in special circumstances”, “based on the principles of necessity and co -proportionality”, “as a last resort”, “based on a case-by-case assessment”, “unless other less coercive measures are effectively appropriate”.
That is why “the Court emphasizes that the obligation to include other measures in relation to detention is an obligation that the administrative authority must use on a case-by-case basis”. “As a result of these arguments, the provision issued by the Police Commissioner of Agrigento cannot be confirmed, without the appropriate justification of the need for arrest, its proportionality and the feasibility to engage effectively with other, independent options. mandatory measures”, wrote judge Sara Marino.
Judge Eleonora Bruno’s reasons are similar: “There seems to be a lack of motivation for the provision of detention, as there is no reference to the individual situation of the applicant for international protection; ultimately believes that the custody provision is not sufficiently motivated in that case by reference. to the need to arrange a detention as the only step necessary to ensure the regulatory purpose provided by Art regarding the applicant’s opinion at the time of the suspension, since he declared that he wanted to to make use of the financial guarantee and since the conditions established by law to be able to provide it had not even expired, due to positive factors, the detention order cannot be confirmed”.
Someone is talking about a new ‘Apostolic case’, referring to the orders written in September 2023 by the investigating judge of Catania Iolanda Apostolico, who had not confirmed the provision detention for four migrants. The judge confirmed her assessment “of the invalidity of the provisions of Cutro’s order”. Only this time his colleagues from Palermo were divided and gave different evaluations for the same preparation issued by the Police Commissioner of Agrigento. (by Elvira Terranova)
2024-08-28 08:21:35
#Sarroch #dead #mother #freezer #years #pocket #pension #54yearold #man #reported #aggravated #fraud #State
