The preliminary hearing on 6 October lasted around three hours.

In response to the approved request made by MSF defense counsel in the previous hearing (report from 29 September 2023), the judge formally appointed two experts to listen to and make transcriptions in Italian of specific wiretapped communications from MSF’s rescue ship Vos Prudence (RT 29/2017), which had been authorized by the preliminary investigation judge (GIP). Rather than appoint new experts, the judge extended the assignment of the experts who had already done the work for the other wiretapped communications, setting a 30-day deadline.

Subsequently, the judge read the articles of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) to begin the examination of two expert witnesses requested by Save the Children (STC) defense counsel at the last hearing. These experts were appointed to listen and carry out transcriptions in Italian of wiretapped communications authorized by the preliminary investigation judge (GIP) in STC’s rescue ship Vos Hestia (see report from 29 September 2023). STC defense counsel was authorized to hear and ask questions regarding: (i) the methodology used to carry out the listening and transcription of the wiretapped communications; and (ii) the reasons why the English word “drive man” had been translated as “scafista” instead of “conducente” (the literal term for “driver” in Italian). One of the expert witnesses was present in the courtroom, while the other was on video link. The examination was recorded, as expressly requested by the defense.

STC defense counsel started by asking questions on methodology to the expert witness responsible for listening to and making transcriptions of wiretapped communications in Italian, who had also been the expert responsible for preparing the final expert report (“relazione finale”). The defense asked if the team (comprising four experts in total) had used sound cleaning and sound slowing programs. The expert replied that they had not used sound slowing programs, but had used some sound cleaning, though not much because they were aware that such programs can distort the sound. Counsel then asked questions about the extent to which the expert considered the observations, additions, and changes proposed by STC’s external consultant, specifically whenever they diverged from what the experts had heard and transcribed. The expert replied that whenever STC’s external consultant had made comments or proposed changes and additions, the experts had considered them and sometimes re-listened to the communication to make a second check. If they had not ultimately implemented changes it was because they disagreed. STC defense counsel noted with disappointment that the experts had not included in the final report any explanation or analysis of when and how they had dealt with the observations, additions, or changes proposed by STC’s external consultant during the course of their work. Moreover, the defense wanted to verify whether the experts had used the forensic police’s raw notes on the wiretapped communications (“brogliaccio”) in drafting the content of the final expert report. The expert denied having done so, but admitted to having read these notes in the course of their work.

STC defense counsel then turned to the expert on video link, who had been responsible for listening to and transcribing the communications in English as well as translating them into Italian. The STC lawyer also asked this expert if and how she had taken into account the observations, additions and changes proposed by STC’s external consultant. The expert said there had been continuous exchange with STC’s expert consultant, including on any divergences of opinion. She said that whenever the consultant had expressed disagreements, the outcome was then agreed upon together (concordato insieme). She said that she did not remember excluding any observations, additions, or changes from this process of mutual discussion and agreement. The expert also stated that she had translated literally rather than idiomatically, which was her preference because she noted cultural differences and interpretations that might impact on the outcome. The lawyer then asked the expert to explain why she had translated the English word “drive man” as “scafista” instead of “conducente” (the latter being the literal Italian term for “driver” whereas the former is a colloquial term that already connotes criminal activity). The expert acknowledged that she made a mistake and explained how it had happened. She stated that the first time she had listened to the communication in English she had understood the phrase as “trade man” and had decided to translate it with the Italian “scafista.” Later, following observations by and discussion with STC’s expert consultant, who said that she had heard “drive man,” the expert had decided to listen to the communication again and admitted that indeed she could hear “drive man.” So, in the final document, she decided to change the English transcription of the wiretapped communication from “trade man” to “drive man,” but forgot to also correct the translation of the word in Italian (“conducente” instead of “scafista”).

Finally, the judge had it recorded in the minutes that the expert witness admitted that she made a mistake in the transcription of the translation in Italian of that part of the wiretapped communication. As there were no further questions, the judge then thanked the two expert witnesses and closed the examination phase.

Towards the end of the hearing, the judge referred to the calendar of upcoming preliminary hearings and activities. With reference to the examinations of some of the defendants (MSF and STC), the lawyers expressly requested the assistance of English- and French-speaking interpreters.

The Trapani judge also announced that on 3 October 2023 he had received the legal reasoning (motivazioni) behind the Court of Cassation’s ruling of 6 July 2023 (decision No. 40077/2023). He stated that the Court of Cassation provided an indication and some criteria to clarify the territorial competence of the three positions that had initially remained uncertain (see report from 14 July 2023). Such positions involved the uncertainty as to which court had territorial competence in relation to one specific preliminary charge against a defendant, and two administrative offences against the entities MSF and Vroon Offshore Services. On this point, the judge asked all defense lawyers if they had any comments. Defense counsel for Vroon Offshore Services asked the judge a time to comment on this, which was granted.

The next preliminary hearing is scheduled to take place on 13 October 2023. In that hearing, the Iuventa defendants will have the opportunity to deliver their statements (dichiarazioni spontanee).