The preliminary hearing on 3 November 2023 was the longest so far, lasting from 10:00 to 21:00. In the early afternoon, two of three members of the prosecution team present in the courtroom, including the lead prosecutor, got up and left the room. They did not return for the duration of the hearing.

The hearing included the examination of STC’s team leader, conducted in English with consecutive interpretation into Italian, followed by the examination of MSF’s head of mission, conducted in Italian. 

Attending in the courtroom were three prosecutors, several defense lawyers, MSF’s legal director, three interpreters appointed by the Trapani judge (two for German-Italian and one for English-Italian interpretation), STC’s external consultant interpreter, and the two defendants to be examined from STC and MSF. No lawyer was present for the State Legal Service of Palermo (Avvocatura dello Stato), representing the Ministry of the Interior in its capacity as a civil party in the proceedings. Two Iuventa defendants, Sascha Girke and Dariush Beigui were present, but only entered the courtroom for the examination of the STC defendant, as both understand English. They agreed to remain outside the courtroom for the examination of MSF’s defendant to avoid the need to provide them with interpretation into German. As in other hearings, the option for simultaneous interpretation was not provided, only consecutive. Hence, providing interpretation into German for the Iuventa defendants would have disrupted the flow of questioning for the MSF defendant and increased the overall hearing length. After confirming this arrangement, the judge discharged the two German-Italian interpreters.

The examination of STC’s team leader started with questions from his defense lawyer. From the very beginning of the examination – and throughout – it was evident that the judge-appointed interpreter was unable to perform the task required. The interpreter lacked necessary technical vocabulary and frequently failed to finish translating, sometimes leaving out entire sentences. She often failed to translate substantive content correctly. It was only due to STC’s external consultant, brought to the preliminary hearing by STC’s defense lawyer, that the examination could proceed. For the entire examination, the external consultant re-interpreted all questions and answers to ensure that STC’s defendant both understood the full content of the questions and effectively communicated his answers.

With regard to content, STC’s team leader answered questions posed by his defense counsel about his educational and professional background, and in particular his work as a humanitarian professional with STC from February 2016 to February 2018. He provided detailed information regarding the STC SAR missions and operations in which he had participated. He stated that he had received a monthly salary from STC Sweden, with whom he had a contract, and clarified that so-called “bonuses for rescues at sea” (bonus salvataggi) were never included in his salary. He said he was shocked that such allegations were made. He then reconstructed in detail the key elements of the SAR operations that the prosecution alleges constitute incidents of facilitating the unauthorized entry of foreign nationals to Italy. He stated that all rescue activities had taken place under the direction of, and in full transparency and communication with, the Italian MRCC.

After the defense lawyer finished her questions, the prosecution asked for information about a key prosecution witness, a member of the security service aboard STC’s rescue ship Vos Hestia, who had given an interview in an Italian newspaper in 2019 in which he cited the involvement of well-known Italian politicians in the complaints made by the security service personnel against the SAR NGOs, which then triggered the criminal investigations and the proceedings in Trapani. The prosecution wanted to know the names of the politicians referenced, but STC’s defendant said he did not remember them and referred to the fact that the names could be found in the published article. The prosecution also asked whether STC’s defendant knew the Iuventa defendants Sascha Girke and Dariush Beigui, whether he had seen them on the day of the alleged incidents, and questions regarding a possible exchange of texts in the so-called “NGOs WhatsApp group.”

The examination of MSF’s head of mission began after the lunch break. In response to questions posed by his defense counsel, he, too, introduced himself and his academic background and career path as a professional humanitarian, working with MSF since 2006. He said he had worked in different places around the world, initially as a pharmacist, then as a project coordinator and field coordinator, including in Malawi, Liberia, Chad, Sudan, Kenya, and across the Middle East. He said he had started working on migration in Europe in 2015, first in Greece and then in Italy. Starting in March 2016, he had been in charge of MSF Belgium’s projects in Italy, including SAR missions, which had been carried out first with the vessel Bourbon Argos and then in 2017 with the Vos Prudence.

He then reconstructed in detail aspects of the March 2017 sea rescue operation that the prosecution alleges constitute incidents of collusion with Libyan traffickers to facilitate the unauthorized entry of foreign nationals to Italy. He explained that MSF had adopted standard operating procedures (“SOPs”) to be followed during SAR operations, which aimed to ensure the quality and effectiveness of rescue operations and were to be applied by the entire crew. He stated that these procedures were always being updated based on discussions with Italian authorities, such as the Italian Coast Guard, as well as their search and rescue experiences. MSF’s head of mission strongly denied the prosecutor’s accusations that they had rescued migrants through an “agreed upon delivery” (consegna concordata) arrangement, and stated that they had never been in contact with smugglers/traffickers (scafisti), nor with others arranging departures from Libya.

Following the questions by MSF’s defense lawyer, the prosecutor asked a few general questions. He asked how large SAR zones 1 and 2 are and how they are defined or can be identified. He asked how the vessel Vos Prudence moved between and through these different zones. He also asked whether Vos Prudence was homologated (omologata), meaning officially approved and with the necessary certifications, to accommodate hundreds of people on board. Finally, he asked whether they had kept the Italian MRCC informed about the route of the Vos Prudence, and the activities and operations of the crew. MSF’s defendant answered the general questions about the SAR zones, confirmed that they had all necessary certifications for their operations, and that they had kept the IMRCC constantly informed of their whereabouts and activities.

Throughout the examinations of both defendants, the judge asked many questions. Sometimes he sought to clarify passages or facts described by the defendants, other times he asked about additional facts and elements concerning the sea rescue operations being discussed. Overall, the judge asked far more questions, and of a more specific nature, than the prosecution, including questions related to specific wiretapped audio communications and texts that occurred in the “NGOs WhatsApp group.” He also asked several questions about the situation of migrants in Libya. He asked whether, at the time of the rescue operations implicated in the indictment, the defendants knew about the awful abuses committed against migrants in Libya and if the migrants they had rescued on those missions had told them about this directly.

Before the end of the hearing, the Trapani judge also had it noted in the minutes that he had received a filing from Iuventa defense lawyer Nicola Canestrini, including attachments.

The next preliminary hearing is scheduled to take place on 24 November 2023.