Translator’s note: In Turin, on Monday, September 21, closing statements were given by both the prosecution and the defense in the trial of the Italian writer Erri De Luca. The author is facing charges from the Italian state as well as a private construction firm for “instigating criminal activity,” a charge made in response to opinions he expressed two years ago during an interview with the Italian site of The Huffington Post.

In this interview as well as others that followed, De Luca was asked about his support for the No TAV movement, a group in the Susa Valley that opposes the construction of a high-speed train line from Lyon in France to Turin in Italy. Like the members of this group, De Luca believes this project to be useless as well as ecologically disastrous. In the Huffington Post interview, he commented that, “the TAV should be sabotaged. This is where shears have been useful: they’re good for cutting through nets […] negotiations with the government have failed, mediation has failed: sabotage is the only alternative.”

Following his court appearance on September 21, De Luca published a short reflection about the trial on his blog. Published here is an English translation of those comments, followed by De Luca’s original statement in Italian.


I’m back in a courtroom to hear the closing speeches of my accusers—their explanations and their petition for a sentence to encumber the days to come. The public prosecutor seeks to demonstrate the danger I pose as a writer, and the criminal culpability of my words. He speaks for roughly an hour. I know that the sentence can vary between one and five years of prison. I expect him to ask for the maximum, given the criminal profile sketched during his closing. Instead I hear a petition for the minimum: one year, and taking into consideration the general mitigating circumstances, the sentence would be reduced to eight months. I don’t understand. If found guilty, at my request, my own lawyers will not ask for mitigating circumstances to be considered. Such considerations shouldn’t be applied to our words, otherwise their value would also be diminished.

And instead mitigating circumstances are offered by the prosecution, despite the fact that for the past two years I have restated my allegedly criminal words in every possible public place. Despite my repeated offense in defending these words charged with instigation (aggravating circumstances that surely must outweigh such general mitigations), here is a polite request for the minimum sentence. I never imagined the prosecution losing so much accusatory zeal in its crusade against the words of a writer.

My heart didn’t sink, and it didn’t start pounding either. For the fourth time this year I was in a courtroom where my words were under indictment; I was there to reiterate them and defend them. My words themselves are safe, both from sentencing and from detention. They’re scattered across bookshelves and have been spoken aloud in hundreds of open air venues, where readers decided to give evidence of their support—reading aloud, adding their own pulse and breath. Should they be freighted with a criminal conviction, I’ll take charge of them, since I’m their porter. My words themselves will stay, and remain, free to circulate.

I am not a spokesperson for the cause of the Susa Valley and its people. I serve as their antenna—in these two years under indictment I’ve managed to relay a message about their resistance and legitimate self-defense, to make their cause more widely known. A guilty verdict will not succeed in cancelling this effect.

On Monday, October 19, the final hearing will be held, I will read a statement of my own, and I will listen to the verdict. I make no predictions. Whatever happens, for me it will be the last word in a dispute, between the state and one of its citizens, concerning the right to employ dissent.

* * *

Torno in un’aula di giustizia per ascoltare le conclusioni dei miei accusatori, le loro ragioni e la richiesta di pena da caricare sul tempo a venire. Il Pubblico Ministero cerca di dimostrare la mia pericolosità di scrittore, la responsabilità penale delle mie parole. Parla per circa un’ora. So che la condanna può stare tra uno a un massimo di cinque anni di prigione. Mi aspetto la richiesta maggiore, dopo il profilo criminale tracciato dalla requisitoria. Invece ascolto la richiesta minima, un anno e pure con l’applicazione delle attenuanti generiche, che abbassano la pena a otto mesi. Non capisco. I miei avvocati su mia richiesta non chiederanno attenuanti in caso di condanna. Alle parole non si possono applicare, altrimenti si riducono di valore.

Le attenuanti le offre invece la pubblica accusa, malgrado io abbia ripetuto le mie frasi incriminate in ogni luogo pubblico in questi due anni. Malgrado la mia recidiva difesa delle parole accusate di istigazione, aggravante certamente prevalente sulle attenuanti generiche, ecco la gentile richiesta di minore pena.

Non immaginavo che la pubblica accusa avesse perso tanto zelo accusatorio in questa sua crociata contro le parole di uno scrittore.

Non mi si è ristretto il cuore, non sono accelerati i battiti.  Stavo per la quarta volta quest’anno nell’aula dove le mie parole sono capo d’imputazione, stavo lì a difenderle e ridirle. Loro, le mie parole, sono al riparo dalle condanne, dalle detenzioni. Stanno sparse negli scaffali, vengono pronunciate all’aria aperta da centinaia di appuntamenti  dove i lettori decidono di testimoniare il loro sostegno leggendole a voce alta, mettendoci fiato e pulsazioni. Se su di loro peserà una condanna penale, me ne faccio carico io che sono il loro portatore. Loro,le mie parole, restano e resteranno libere di circolare.

Non sono il portavoce delle ragioni della Val di Susa. Faccio invece da antenna,che ha potuto in questi due anni di incriminazione trasmettere più lontano il loro segnale di resistenza e di legittima difesa, farlo conoscere di più.

Una condanna non potrà annullare questo risultato.

Lunedi 19 ottobre si aprirà l’ultima udienza, leggerò una mia dichiarazione, ascolterò la sentenza. Non faccio pronostici. Qualunque essa sia, per quello che mi riguarda sarà  la parola fine di questa vertenza tra lo Stato e un suo cittadino sul diritto di impiego della parola contraria.