In the court hearing taking place on october 15th state attorney Nunzia Ciaravolo and all plaintiffs held their speeches.Furthermore, a non-ritual communication was inserted into the bulky dossier of the process: an email sent by Andrey Mironov’s brother and friends, containing their claims to be invited to the process.
The speech held by the state attorney substantially confirmed the reasons stated by the court of justice in Pavia and outlined the whole investigation path:

– William’s witness statement and the sequence of events leading to the double murder;
– the equipment at disposal of the Ukrainian army; how mortars function, shooting range and targeting distance;
– place occupied by Markiv on Karachun hill and his role within the Ukrainian National Guard;
– statements released by the Ukrainian soldiers who came to testify at the 1st grade of process. Hierarchy and organization of the UNG;
– scarce collaboration of the Ukrainian authorities.The speech covered all topics relevant to the case with the support of pictures, videos and geo-location.

To give a better understanding of the contest where Mr Markiv voluntarily served as soldier, state attorney Ciaravolo showed the pictures of tortures, intimidations and violences found in Markiv’s phone and usb stick at the moment of his arrest. She also stressed how “justice shall not take anybody’s side in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and that its geo-political features shall stay outside of the court room”.
In the afternoon, lawyers Ballerini, Tambuscio, Tizzoni and Pisapia spoke, covering extra topics. Lawyer Ballerini firmly stated as the docu-film “The Wrong Place” can’t be taken in consideration as a reliable source for the process.

The court initially summoned all lawyers and the public prosecutor to inform them of the attested threats and pressures suffered by one of the translators designated in 2018 by the 1st grade public prosecution. The threatened translator will be the aggrieved party in a separate case.

The defendant asked for the complete re-translation of all 1st grade documents provided by the victim of the threats; the request was refused by the court, with the only exception of the text of one wiretapped conversation as asked by public prosecutor Ms Cieravolo.
The new translation job postpones the III and IV session, scheduled on October 15th and 23rd.

The court also puts to the record a rather “non ritual” communication: on the evening preceding the II appeal hearing, the Ukrainian minister of justice sent an email directly to the president of the appeal court, Justice Ichino.

Due to the containment measures of covid-19, the court decided to hold the trial behind closed doors -just lawyers, civil parts and accredited members of the press are to be let in.
Mr Markiv, currently convicted, and the Ukrainian State appealed the verdict issued by the Pavia court of justice in July 2019: the notice of appeal consists of a list of presumed judicial errors committed by the 1st grade court and several requests. What follows has been first summed up by the court, secondly discussed by Milan public prosecutor Annunziata Cieravolo, by all plaintiffs -lawyers Ballerini and Tambuscio representing Rocchelli-Ferrari family, lawyer Pisapia for the Italian Press Federation and lawyer Tizzoni for Cesuralab- and then explained by the defendants -lawyers Della Valle and Rapetti for Mr. Markiv, lawyer Bertolini Clerici for the Ukrainian state.

Alleged judicial errors marked by the appellants:
The crime was committed outside the Italian jurisdiction: Markiv detains both Ukrainian and Italian passports; the defense infers the Ukrainian citizenship is the one that counts in this case.
The public prosecutor and the plaintiffs replied that citizenship is no “one way use optional”, it rather implies legal rights and duties for the bearer, always.
The ukrainian state has been wrongfully condemned: the prosecution described the clear hierarchical link between Mr. Markiv -back then a soldier in the Ukrainian National Guard- and his army, thus putting in evidence the responsibility of the Ukrainian state in the double murder;
Misinterpretation of the evidences and documents: those have been once again explained by all parts.
Andrea Rocchelli was killed by splinters derived by mortar fires and not directly by a mortar shell: hence there’d be no connection between the victim and the National Guard that fired those mortars. No comment.
France did not follow up the case filed by Mr William Roguelon, who got badly injured within the same attack. False: in July 2019 the Bordeaux court of justice confirmed Roguelon status of victim and entitled him to a reimbursement for the suffered damages.

Requests brought up by the appellants:
Site visit on the crime scene. The prosecution replies that a site visit six years after the murded would make little sense. Also a thorough satellite survey was used during the 1st grade of the trial.
Ballistic analysis to demonstrate how Markiv’s kalashnikov, a common AK74, couldn’t have possibly reached Andrea Rocchelli and Andrey Mironov from the soldier’s position. Therefore, their deaths would be unrelated. Markiv was however charged for his contribution to the double murder by providing the gps coordinates of the victims to those soldiers who maneuvered the mortars. He wasn’t judged guilty of directly causing Andrea’s and Andrey’s deaths.
New audio and video evaluation of several documents to take into consideration the “cross fire” option.
Hearing of new witnesses: Petruviac (driver who rescued Roguelon approx 1 hr after the attack, about 200 m away from the scene), Fusinaz (cartography expert), Scollo (ex-soldier) and Tiepolo (police training expert).
Use of the documentary “The Wrong Place” as judicial evidence. The prosecution and all plaintiffs replied that a movie can’t legally constitute a judicial evidence because it is filmed by third parties and it’s impossible to control its metadata. A documentary doesn’t therefore ensure an impartial view on what happened.

The next session is scheduled for Thursday, October 1st.