X

'EX INIURIA IUS NON ORITUR'
"From wrongful action no right can arise": the case of Enrico Gianini

'EX INIURIA IUS NON ORITUR''From wrongful action no right can arise': the case of Enrico Gianini

This document analyzes the case of Enrico Gianini, currently detained in a psychiatric facility, as an emblematic example of the conflict between self-determination of conscience and state control. The case raises fundamental questions about:

  • Freedom of conscience as a pre-state constitutional right

  • Improper use of psychiatry as a tool of social control

  • Protection of independent researchers and whistleblowers

  • Limits of state power in relation to fundamental rights

  • Inadequacy of the Italian system of security measures

The document examines the legal, constitutional, and social implications of the case, highlighting how the pathologization of dissent represents a threat to the fundamental principles of the rule of law. The analysis develops through multiple perspectives: constitutional, international, sociological, and philosophical, proposing an organic reform of the system of psychiatric security measures.

 

CHRONOLOGY OF FACTS

  • 2015-2016: Beginning of independent research on aeronautical residues during his employment at Malpensa airport

  • 2016: Submission of aircraft fuel samples to specialized laboratories for independent analysis that confirmed the presence of 16 metals in fuels that should not be present

  • 2018-2019: Presentation of documented complaints to Italian prosecutorial offices, including certified laboratory analyses of chemical results on aircraft fuels, which showed the presence of barium, sodium, chromium, lead, and traces of uranium

  • March 2019: Traffic incident in which Gianini himself called the police after nearly being run off the road by a car, but then the situation was reversed and he was accused of assaulting an officer, causing the dislocation of a finger, despite never having shown violent or aggressive behavior

  • 2019-2020: Sentenced to 6 months of imprisonment:

    • 40 days of detention

    • Followed by house arrest

    • Imposition of official psychiatric assessment

  • 2020-2024: Imposition of supervised liberty with:

    • Obligation to sign in at the police station

    • Mandatory treatment at CPS (Psycho-Social Center)

  • For almost two years, deliberate refusal of both the obligation to sign in and the mandatory appointments at CPS, considering them illegitimate

  • February 20, 2025: Arrest for "violation of obligations"

  • February 25, 2025: Transfer to the REMS of Castiglione delle Stiviere:

    • Prospect of detention for at least one year

    • Possibility of six-month extension

    • Additional year of supervised liberty envisioned



SELF-DETERMINATION OF CONSCIENCE AND NATURAL LAW: THE CASE OF ENRICO GIANINI

I. THE GIANINI CASE: AN ATTACK ON FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE

Enrico Gianini is currently detained in a psychiatric facility for having exercised his conscientious objection against restrictive measures imposed on him based on accusations of "social dangerousness" that he has always rejected as unfounded.

From his numerous videos and public interventions available, he appears to hundreds of thousands of people as a perfectly lucid and mentally competent man, who has consciously chosen to place himself at the service of the people through what many consider to be a heroic act: conducting scientific analyses on aeronautical residues, commissioning laboratory tests at his own expense, systematically documenting his discoveries and, finally, refusing to submit to a system that, instead of verifying his evidence, has preferred to label him as dangerous. His act of civil resistance represents the culmination of a path of independent research conducted with rigor and dedication to the common good, demonstrating how the defense of truth and that of fundamental rights are inextricably linked.

As clearly emerges from his public communications and as documented in the independent psychiatric assessment commissioned by the family and written by the well-known forensic psychiatrist Dr. Alessandro Meluzzi, Gianini does not present any psychiatric pathology that would justify coercive interventions. Despite this independent assessment certifying that Gianini did not suffer from psychiatric disorders, the court gave precedence to the official assessment. The independent assessment highlights how his beliefs, though not conforming to dominant thinking, fall fully within the scope of the constitutionally guaranteed exercise of freedom of thought. It is particularly concerning that in 2015, the classification of "paranoid conspiracy disorder" or "conspiratorial paranoid syndrome" was introduced in international psychiatric manuals, pathologizing interest in theories not aligned with dominant thinking. Gianini has repeatedly emphasized that he has no need for the proposed treatment, manifesting with lucidity and logical coherence his determination not to recognize as legitimate either the imposed therapeutic method or the authority of the Italian State that ordered it; the same State that, after systematically ignoring his documented complaints and laboratory analyses on aeronautical residues, rather than verifying their scientific merit, preferred to criminalize the messenger through a pathologization mechanism based on vague and subjective diagnostic criteria. This reversal, from researcher worthy of attention to a "dangerous" subject to be contained, represents a disturbing example of how the system responds to challenges to official narratives.

His position represents the expression of a conscious choice based on ethical and political convictions, not the symptom of a pathology.


II. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND TRUTH: THE DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE OF GIANINI

1. The scientifically established context of geoengineering

The research conducted by Gianini on aeronautical residues at Malpensa is part of a widely documented and institutionally recognized context of climate modifications:

  • Official EU Projects

    • Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (SRMGI): an international initiative, not specifically European, founded by the Royal Society, Environmental Defense Fund, and World Academy of Sciences, studying solar radiation modification techniques

    • Horizon Europe Climate Actions: a program that includes research on climate solutions, whose technical specifications require more precise citations

    • EuPRAXIA: studies on atmospheric particulate matter and climate modifications

  • Recognition by International Organizations

    • WMO (World Meteorological Organization): officially recognizes and documents global "weather modification" activities

    • IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (2021-2023): mentions geoengineering techniques among potential climate mitigation strategies

    • American Meteorological Society: maintains official positions that are periodically updated on weather modification

These projects use techniques and materials compatible with the residues analyzed by Gianini.


2. Specific analyses and documented results

The chemical analyses conducted by Gianini on aircraft fuels and aeronautical residues, sent in 2016 to a specialized French laboratory (Francia Analitica of Dr. Talier), revealed the presence of highly problematic substances incompatible with the normal composition of commercial fuels: they revealed the presence of 16 metals that should not be present in fuels, including potentially problematic substances:

  • Identified heavy metals:

    • Barium

    • Sodium

    • Chromium

    • Lead

    • Traces of uranium

The analyses were carried out at certified laboratories, using standard methodologies of mass spectrometry and other analytical techniques recognized by the scientific community. The results of these analyses, presented to Italian prosecutors, represent concrete evidence that would have required, according to normal procedures, the opening of in-depth investigations into potential environmental contamination and public health risks.

 

3. Documentary basis and scientific validation

Gianini's research is supported by:

  • Verifiable registered patents (e.g., US Patent 3,813,875 by Rowland, a14, on the creation of ionic clouds in the upper atmosphere)

  • Scientific publications on atmospheric chemistry

  • Declassified government reports

  • Documentation of historical military programs (Operation Popeye)


4. The Procedural Contradiction in Mandatory Treatment

Gianini's position reveals a fundamental contradiction in the Italian system of security measures with health prescriptions. On one hand, health regulations (Law 833/1978) establish that treatments are voluntary, except for specific exceptions; on the other hand, in the context of supervised liberty, these treatments become mandatory "prescriptions." When Gianini exercised the constitutional right to refuse treatments (Art. 32 of the Constitution), such refusal was paradoxically transformed into a "violation of obligations," revealing the "double bind" intrinsic to the system: the subject must "voluntarily" accept a treatment imposed as an obligation, thus denying both real voluntariness and the constitutional right of refusal. It should be emphasized that fundamental rights such as freedom of conscience and refusal of health treatments are constitutionally protected even when the form of their expression may not meet all procedural requirements.


III. CONSCIENCE AS A PRE-STATE NATURAL RIGHT

1. Constitutional Status of Conscience

The Italian Constitutional Court, in ruling 467/1991 (filed on December 19, 1991), defined individual conscience as a "creative principle that makes the reality of fundamental human freedoms possible" and as a "constitutional value so high as to justify the provision of exemptions from compliance with imperative norms." This definition recognizes conscience as a pre-state value that the State must protect, not suppress.

The priority of conscience over state power is archetypically represented by Sophocles' Antigone, who opposes the ἄγραπτα νόμιμα (unwritten laws) to the decree of the sovereign. This fundamental intuition is systematized in the Stoic-Roman ius naturale (Cicero: "Est quidem vera lex recta ratio"), in the Thomistic synderesis as the person's participation in the lex aeterna, and in the elaboration of the right of resistance from the School of Salamanca (Suárez, Vitoria) to modern natural law, constituting the juridical-philosophical humus of contemporary fundamental rights.

This conception finds significant correspondences in non-Western legal traditions: Confucian yi () as a moral imperative superordinate to positive law (Hsü Dau-lin, 1975); svadharma in the Indian tradition as an intrinsic limit to political power (Sen, 2009); hurriyat al-damir (freedom of conscience) in contemporary Islamic law, anchored to maqasid al-shari'ah as protection of personal interiority (Al-Alwani, 2005); and ubuntu in post-colonial African constitutional jurisprudences as the foundation of the inviolability of moral dignity (S v. Makwanyane, 1995).

The contemporary philosophical-juridical tradition, through a transnational dialogue embracing different theoretical matrices, converges in recognizing freedom of conscience as a founding principle of the legal order itself. Ronald Dworkin (in "Taking Rights Seriously," 1977 and "Justice for Hedgehogs," 2011) elaborates the concept of "right to ethical independence" as a "trumping right" (in his original formulation) that necessarily prevails over any consideration of collective utility, establishing an insurmountable limit to the coercive power of the State. This position finds correspondence in Robert Alexy's theory of fundamental rights (in "A Theory of Constitutional Rights," 1986), which configures moral freedom as a "principle of optimization" endowed with prima facie precedence over any state interest, requiring a "substantially greater weight" to opposing interests to justify limitations.

The Anglo-Saxon perspective and the continental one converge in Martha Nussbaum's reflection (in "Creating Capabilities," 2011), which identifies "practical reason" – the ability to form an autonomous conception of the good – as a structural requirement of any just society, echoing Amartya Sen's theses on the inseparable link between freedom of conscience and human development.

On the European side, Jürgen Habermas (in "Between Facts and Norms," 1992) recognizes in the subject's "moral autonomy" the precondition of action that makes possible the very legitimation of the legal order.

In the Italian context, this convergence finds expression in the elaborations of Norberto Bobbio (in "The Age of Rights," 1990), who identifies freedom of conscience as a "perfect subjective right" that does not need positive justification as it is logically prior to the formation of the legal order, and in Luigi Ferrajoli's theory of "fundamental rights as the sphere of the undecidable" (2001), which constitutively removes individual conscience from both the power of majorities and the logic of the reason of state. Gustavo Zagrebelsky (in "The Gentle Law," 1992) completes this theoretical architecture by identifying rights of conscience as the "unbreakable moment" of contemporary constitutionalism.

This extraordinary convergence, which transcends otherwise divergent legal traditions and philosophical orientations reflects the recognition of a fundamental legal truth: the suppression of individual conscience represents not only a violation of individual rights, but an attack on the very foundations of constitutional legitimacy, prejudicing the minimum conditions of any social pact that recognizes the equal dignity of persons. As effectively synthesized by Joseph Raz (in "The Morality of Freedom," 1986), "Moral autonomy is not simply a value that the State must respect, but the very condition that makes the legitimacy of political authority possible."


2. Constitutionally protected natural rights

Article 2 of the Constitution "recognizes" (not "grants") inviolable rights, acknowledging their pre-existence in relation to the legal system. The verb "recognize" implies that such rights exist independently of the legislator's will, configuring themselves as natural rights that the State must respect.

The constitutionalist Costantino Mortati (in "Institutions of Public Law," 1975) defines these rights as "absolute limits to state power," while the Constitutional Court (ruling 1146/1988, filed on December 29, 1988) has identified "supreme principles" that cannot be subverted or modified even by constitutional revision laws.


3. The "Double Bind Trap" in psychiatric institutions

The system imposes on Gianini what psychiatrist Gregory Bateson defines as a "double bind" – a pathological communicative situation in which:

  • If he accepts surveillance: he implicitly admits the legitimacy of the "dangerousness" label

  • If he refuses surveillance: he confirms his "dangerousness" and justifies more restrictive measures

This mechanism, analyzed by sociologist Erving Goffman as "mortification of the self," makes any effective defense impossible, transforming every form of resistance into further justification for coercion. It is a perfectly closed circular system that denies access to any effective remedy.

The concept of "double bind," initially introduced by Bateson in 1956, has recently been re-evaluated in contemporary legal literature as a powerful tool for analyzing coercive mechanisms disguised as therapeutic procedures:

  • T.M. Luhrmann, "Of Two Minds: The Growing Disorder in American Psychiatry" (2000) has documented how in institutional psychiatric contexts the double bind operates pervasively: passive acceptance of the diagnosis is interpreted as "insight," while disagreement is classified as a symptom of "anosognosia" or lack of awareness of illness

  • Bernadette McSherry & Penelope Weller, "Rethinking Rights-Based Mental Health Laws" (2010) have analyzed how this circular mechanism undermines the foundation of the right to a fair trial in psychiatric contexts, making any effective contestation impossible

  • Lidz et al. (2000, "Perceived Coercion in Mental Hospital Admission," Archives of General Psychiatry) have documented the "escalation effect" in coercive psychiatric contexts: the patient's resistance is interpreted as a further pathological symptom, justifying the intensification of restrictive measures and creating a self-reinforcing cycle of coercion.

This pathological communicative structure is not a simple side effect, but a constitutive mechanism of the psychiatric control system that neutralizes any possibility of effective defense, transforming procedural guarantees into empty simulacra of protection. In the specific context of security measures, the double bind takes on a particularly insidious legal dimension: the right to defense is formally guaranteed but substantially emptied by the argumentative circularity that transforms every attempt at contestation into further evidence of the need for control.


4. The epistemological contestability of psychiatric diagnostic categories

The use of psychiatry as a tool of social control is based on epistemologically contestable premises that deserve further exploration:

  • Psychiatric diagnostic classifications (DSM) have undergone radical historical transformations not based on advances in neurobiological understanding but on socio-cultural changes and professional conventions (Paris & Phillips, "Making the DSM-5," 2013)

  • Diagnostic reliability in psychiatry has been questioned by empirical studies: the largest reliability study for DSM-5 showed surprisingly low levels of agreement between clinicians for many key diagnoses (Cohen's kappa between 0.20 and 0.60) (Regier et al., 2013)

  • The National Institute of Mental Health has officially abandoned the DSM system as a basis for research, recognizing its scientific limitations (Insel, 2013)

  • The British Psychological Society (2011) has officially criticized the biomedical model of mental suffering, denouncing the "medicalization of social problems"

  • It is particularly troubling that in 2015 a new classification of "paranoid conspiracy disorder" or "conspiratorial paranoid syndrome" was introduce

  • It is particularly troubling that in 2015 a new classification of "paranoid conspiracy disorder" or "conspiratorial paranoid syndrome" was introduced in psychiatric manuals, which pathologizes interest in theories not aligned with dominant thinking, transforming intellectual dissent into mental pathology

The use of such a contested diagnostic system as a foundation for severe limitations of personal freedom raises fundamental constitutional problems:

  • Violates the principle of determinateness (Art. 25 Const.) by using vague and subjective diagnostic categories

  • Contravenes the principle of science and medical conscience (Art. 32 Const.) by imposing treatments based on scientifically dubious assumptions

  • Compromises the right to defense (Art. 24 Const.) by making it impossible to effectively contest diagnoses that by their nature are not falsifiable according to normal scientific standards

In Gianini's case, the imposition of a diagnostic label of "social dangerousness" based on subjective and scientifically contested criteria represents a violation of both his fundamental rights and the basic principles of epistemic legitimacy that should inform any limitation of freedom based on scientific assumptions.


IV. THE PREVALENCE OF FORM OVER SUBSTANCE: CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECT

1. The principle of effectiveness vs. procedural formalism

In the Gianini case, a radical defect of the Italian legal system emerges: the tendency to privilege formal compliance with procedures at the expense of substantive justice. This reversal of priorities violates fundamental constitutional principles:

  • Principle of effectiveness of protection: The Constitutional Court (ruling 238/2014) has established that "fundamental rights must receive effective and not merely formal protection"

  • Principle of reasonableness: The Court (ruling 1/2013) has affirmed that norms must be interpreted in a way that guarantees "intrinsic reasonableness" and not just procedural correctness

  • Constitutional substance: The constitutionalist Gustavo Zagrebelsky has defined the Constitution as "law by principles" that requires substantive and not formalistic interpretation

When the State places form before substance, especially in matters of fundamental rights:

  • It betrays its function of protecting human dignity

  • It violates the personalist principle (Art. 2 Const.) that places the person at the center of the legal order

  • It contravenes the supreme principle of effectiveness of the protection of inviolable rights


2. The irrelevance of formal defects in the exercise of fundamental rights

Any possible formal inaccuracy in Gianini's declarations is irrelevant with respect to the substance of his position. Constitutional principles establish that:

  • Principle of freedom of forms in the exercise of fundamental rights: The Constitutional Court (ruling 77/2018) has established that "the formal modalities of exercising a fundamental right cannot prejudice its substance"

  • Principle of interpretation most favorable to liberty: Constitutional law imposes the interpretation of the individual's declarations in the way most favorable to the exercise of fundamental freedoms

  • Principle of favor libertatis: In case of doubt, the interpretation must always lean toward the solution that most protects individual freedom

Regarding fundamental rights such as freedom of conscience and refusal of health treatments, these are constitutionally protected even when the form of their expression may not meet all procedural requirements

The constitutional rule of law is called to look beyond formal imperfections to grasp the substance of the claim to freedom. The possible use of improper terms or non-canonical procedures, if they ever occurred, can never justify the violation of a fundamental right.


V. STRUCTURAL DEFECTS OF ITALIAN LEGISLATION

1. Constitutional inconsistencies in the system of security measures

The Gianini case can represent a turning point in the history of civil rights in Italy. His dual battle - first as an independent researcher who documented potential geoengineering activities at Malpensa, then as a man resisting forced psychiatrization - shows how defending the right to truth today often means challenging a system that prefers to label as "dangerous" those who ask uncomfortable questions.

According to various sources, the judicial persecution against Gianini originated with a controversial episode in March 2019. On that occasion, it was Gianini himself who called the police after nearly being run off the road by a car that, according to his account, was deliberately pursuing him. However, the situation was reversed when, after the police arrived, Gianini was accused of having assaulted an officer, causing the dislocation of a finger, despite never having exhibited violent or aggressive behavior, not even during the arrest. This represents an incredible inversion of facts: from help requester, Gianini was transformed into a defendant.

The Italian system of psychiatric security measures presents structural defects that make it incompatible with constitutional principles:

  • Violation of the principle of determinateness: The concept of "social dangerousness" is so vague as to violate Art. 25 Const. which requires clarity in norms limiting freedom

  • Reversal of the burden of proof: It is the individual who must demonstrate that they are not dangerous, in violation of the presumption of innocence

  • Lack of proportionality: Restrictive measures are often disproportionate to the declared needs

  • Lack of effective remedies: Appeals are formal but rarely substantial

Formally, security measures in the Italian system are classified as "administrative" and not punitive based on the "dual track" system introduced by the 1930 Rocco Code. This classification is based on the theoretical assumption that, while penalties respond to guilt for a committed act (looking to the past), security measures aim to prevent the commission of future crimes based on "social dangerousness" (looking to the future). It is precisely this formally preventive and not retributive nature that has historically justified the exclusion of security measures from the constitutional guarantees reserved for criminal matters, such as the presumption of innocence (art. 27 Const.) and the principle of non-retroactivity (art. 25 Const.).

However, this formal distinction is increasingly contested for several fundamental reasons:

  • The European Court of Human Rights, starting from historic judgments such as Engel and Others v. Netherlands (1976) and Welch v. United Kingdom (1995), has developed a substantive approach to "criminal matters," establishing that the punitive nature of a measure must be assessed based on its concrete effects and not on its formal classification in domestic law.

  • The judgment De Tommaso v. Italy (2017) specifically criticized the Italian system of preventive measures, emphasizing that measures limiting personal freedom, regardless of their formal classification, must respect the principles of legality, predictability, and proportionality.

  • M.K. and Others v. Poland (nos. 40503/17, 42902/17, 43643/17, judgment of July 23, 2020) established that systematic interventions against individuals who contest official practices must be subject to rigorous safeguards against arbitrariness.

  • The case Varbanov v. Bulgaria (2000) established that psychiatric detention, even when formally classified as "therapeutic," must be subject to strict procedural guarantees when it limits personal freedom.

  • X v. Finland (no. 34806/04, judgment of July 3, 2012) further clarified that forced psychiatric treatment must be subject to independent judicial review and guarantees against arbitrariness comparable to those of the criminal process.

As highlighted by the Constitutional Court in ruling 253/2003 and reiterated in rulings 139/2010 and 186/2015, even security measures must respect the fundamental principles of proportionality and presumption of non-dangerousness. In the case of psychiatric measures, in practice there is a problematic "presumption of dangerousness" that continues until proven otherwise: it is the individual who must demonstrate that they are not dangerous, not the authority that must prove beyond reasonable doubt their dangerousness.

This reversal of the burden of proof is particularly evident in cases of refusal of treatment like Gianini's: his refusal to undergo psychiatric treatments was interpreted as confirmation of his dangerousness, creating a logically unassailable vicious circle. If he accepts treatment, he implicitly confirms the validity of the diagnosis; if he refuses it, he demonstrates the need for even more restrictive measures. This scheme violates the fundamental principle expressed by the Constitutional Court in ruling 258/1994, according to which the burden of proof must fall on those who intend to limit a fundamental right, not on those who exercise it.

The Constitutional Court (ruling 139/1982) has declared the illegitimacy of presumptions of dangerousness, but the legislator has never adapted the system.


2. From principle to practice: coercive escalation in the Gianini case

The Gianini case offers a concrete demonstration of how the structural defects of the system manifest in practice, creating an inextricable coercive spiral:

  • The double obligation trap:

    • Imposition of Supervised Liberty with signature at the police station

    • Parallel obligation of pharmacological treatments at the CPS of Busto Arsizio

    • The police station charged with verifying compliance with health obligations

    • Any non-compliance configures the crime of "Violation of Obligations"

  • Escalation Mechanism:

    • Initial sentence of six months of imprisonment

    • Conscious refusal of both the obligation to sign and the mandatory meetings at CPS for almost two years, considering them illegitimate

    • Arrest for violation of obligations

    • Transfer to REMS for a potentially extended period


3. The REMS system: psychiatric coercion in a health guise

The REMS (Residences for the Execution of Security Measures), introduced by Law 81/2014, represent the modern evolution of Judicial Psychiatric Hospitals, maintaining, however, their coercive substance under a new formal guise:

  • Regulatory Framework:

    • D.L. 211/2011 converted into Law 9/2012

    • D.L. 52/2014 converted into Law 81/2014

    • Art. 3-ter D.L. 211/2011 on structural requirements

  • Legal Characteristics:

    • Exclusively health management

    • Maximum 20 beds (in theory, but with significant exceptions in practice)

    • Formally individualized therapeutic program

    • Stay linked to "social dangerousness"

    • Maximum duration correlated to the statutory penalty of the contested crime

As highlighted by the Medical Director herself, this system produces permanent labeling: once applied, the psychiatric diagnosis becomes an indelible mark in the Italian judicial system, creating a vicious circle where:

  • The diagnosis justifies the security measure

  • Refusal of the measure is interpreted as confirmation of the diagnosis

  • Violation of obligations leads to more restrictive measures

  • Every form of resistance is read as further evidence of "dangerousness"

This perverse mechanism simultaneously violates:

  • The right to the presumption of innocence (art. 27 Const.)

  • The principle of proportionality of restrictive measures

  • The right to an effective remedy (art. 24 Const.)

  • The freedom of therapeutic self-determination (art. 32 Const.)

The intertwining of administrative control (signature at the police station) and health coercion (mandatory treatments) creates a system of total control that recalls the worst aspects of institutional psychiatry that the Basaglia law intended to overcome.

 

4. The structural contradictions of the REMS system

The REMS system, presented as overcoming the asylum model of the OPGs (Judicial Psychiatric Hospitals), reveals in practice profound contradictions that compromise its rehabilitative function. The REMS of Castiglione delle Stiviere, where Gianini is currently detained, represents an emblematic case of these contradictions.

While the 2014 reform envisioned contained structures, integrated in the territory and with a primarily health approach, in reality, the Italian REMS system is characterized by:

• Persistence of the custodial approach: Despite formally health management, a logic of containment and control prevails, with little attention to individualized therapeutic paths

• Structural resource deficit: Chronic shortage of specialized personnel, particularly psychiatrists, psychologists, and rehabilitation technicians, compromising the quality of therapeutic paths

• Territorial discontinuity: Isolation of REMS structures from territorial mental health services, preventing effective therapeutic continuity

• Extended permanence times: The average duration of internment significantly exceeds the initially envisaged terms, with systematic extensions that transform theoretically temporary measures into forms of indefinite detention

The reports of the National Guarantor of the rights of persons deprived of liberty and of the Stop OPG Observatory document how, behind the facade of health care, lies a reality of social control that reproduces the asylum logic that the reform intended to overcome.

The paradox of the REMS system is that, despite having been conceived as a more humane and therapeutic alternative to OPGs, they often end up reproducing the same mechanisms of institutionalization, deprivation of liberty, and stigmatization. This phenomenon, defined as "masked institutionalization," reveals how the change of denomination and formal management has not produced a substantial transformation in the approach to mental health in the judicial sphere.

In Gianini's case, the direct transition from the obligation of treatment at CPS to internment in REMS illustrates a coercive escalation that contradicts the gradualness and proportionality declared as founding principles of the reform. This discontinuity, not justified by specific events but exclusively by the refusal of a treatment perceived as illegitimate, highlights how the system uses the threat of internment as a pressure tool to obtain compliance with territorial treatments.


5. The path from CPS to REMS: the incoherence of the psychiatric-judicial system

Gianini's case illustrates the fundamental contradiction in the articulation between territorial services (CPS) and detention structures (REMS) in the Italian system:

Psycho-Social Centers (CPS) represent the first level of territorial psychiatric assistance, established following the principles of the Basaglia reform. These services are conceived as non-coercive therapeutic spaces, founded on the constitutional principle of voluntariness of care. Their original mission is to provide assistance in a non-stigmatizing context, respecting the self-determination of the person.

When, as in Gianini's case, the Surveillance Court imposes the obligation of treatment at CPS as a condition of supervised liberty, a logical-juridical short-circuit is created: a service founded on voluntariness is transformed into an instrument of penal control, where the refusal of the "mandatory voluntary treatment" constitutes a transgression punishable with internment in REMS.

The REMS, though presented as overcoming the Judicial Psychiatric Hospitals, maintain in substance the detention function, masked by formally health management. This transition from CPS to REMS does not represent a therapeutic continuum, but a punitive escalation that uses the language of care to legitimize coercive practices.

The fracture between the declared principles (voluntariness, gradualness, territoriality) and the effective practice (obligatoriness, escalation, isolation) constitutes not an anomaly but the structural logic of a system that, through legal euphemisms and semantic disguises, circumvents constitutional guarantees transforming rights into obligations and legitimate resistance into confirmation of dangerousness.


6. Italian regulatory framework: positive law and constitutional principles in conflict

The current Italian regulatory framework presents an unresolved tension between the constitutional principles of personal freedom and therapeutic self-determination and the applicative practice of psychiatric security measures. This contradiction manifests particularly:

  • In the conflict between the constitutional right to refuse health treatments (Art. 32) and the imposition of therapies as a condition for personal freedom

  • In the violation of the principle of determinateness of restrictive measures through the use of vague and subjective diagnostic categories

  • In the contrast between the presumption of non-guilt and the automatism that transforms the refusal of treatment into evidence of dangerousness

  • In the incompatibility between the right to defense and a system that pathologizes every form of contestation

These normative conflicts reveal a system that, while formally respectful of constitutional principles, in substance violates them systematically.


7. Comparison with advanced legal systems

The backwardness of the Italian system clearly emerges in international comparison:

  • Finland: The Open Dialogue system has reduced the use of compulsory treatments by 85% with better clinical results

  • Germany: The Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG, 2 BvR 882/09, judgment of March 23, 2011) has established that forced psychiatric treatment is admissible only as a last resort and requires stringent guarantees

  • United Kingdom: The Mental Capacity Act 2005 establishes the presumption of capacity and the right to decisional support

  • Norway: Has initiated a process of gradual elimination of psychiatric coercion

  • Peru: Law 30947/2019 has eliminated involuntary internment

Italy, despite the Basaglian revolution, maintains a system that Amnesty International has defined as "incompatible with international standards on human rights."


8. Informational opacity as a structural element

The informational opacity that characterizes the REMS system and more generally psychiatric structures with detention functions, besides being a practical obstacle, manifests a symptomatic element of the dysfunctionality of the entire system. Despite Law 81/2014 and subsequent ministerial directives theoretically providing transparency mechanisms, numerous reports by the National Guarantor of the rights of persons deprived of liberty (2018-2022) have highlighted recurrent criticalities in the access to information by family members and defenders. The lack of transparency and accessibility of information regarding the state of patients, the administered treatments, and the conditions of stay seriously compromises the right to defense and undermines the fundamental procedural guarantees. As confirmed by the "Report on REMS" by the Italian Society of Psychiatry (2021), the absence of standardized protocols for communication with the outside constitutes one of the main criticalities of the system. The jurisprudence of the ECHR has repeatedly established that transparency of treatments is an essential requirement for the protection of fundamental rights in the psychiatric field, particularly in the judgments Bataliny v. Russia (2015) and M.S. v. Croatia (2015). Even in the absence of forced pharmacological treatments, the very stay in a detention facility against one's will, particularly when there is no evidence of pathologies requiring urgent interventions, constitutes a form of coercion difficult to reconcile with constitutional principles.


VI. THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY AND LAST RESORT IN EUROPEAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

1. The Principle of proportionality as a parameter for evaluating restrictive measures

The principle of proportionality, a pillar of European constitutional law, requires that any limitation of fundamental rights satisfy three cumulative criteria:

  • Suitability: the measure must be suitable to achieve the legitimate purpose pursued

  • Necessity: there must not exist less restrictive measures equally effective

  • Proportionality in the strict sense: the sacrifice imposed on the right must be proportionate to the collective benefit

The Court of Justice of the EU (C-293/12 and C-594/12, Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger, judgment of April 8, 2014) has explicitly established that "when fundamental rights are at stake, the discretion of the legislator is limited" and that the intensity of judicial review must be proportionately higher the more the affected right is essential to the dignity of the person.

In Gianini's case, the application of this proportionality test reveals violations on all three levels:

  • Defect of suitability: psychiatric internment is not suitable to resolve ethical and political objections

  • Defect of necessity: there existed numerous less invasive alternatives (e.g., dialogue, scientific confrontation)

  • Defect of proportionality: the damage to freedom of conscience is absolute, while the collective benefit is non-existent


2. The Principle of "Last Resort" in restrictions of personal freedom

European constitutional law recognizes the principle of "last resort" in limiting personal freedom, elaborated by the ECtHR in multiple judgments (Stanev v. Bulgaria, no. 36760/06, judgment of the Grand Chamber of January 17, 2012; Plesó v. Hungary, no. 41242/08, judgment of October 2, 2012). This principle establishes that:

  • The deprivation of personal liberty is legitimate only when every other less invasive measure has been considered and deemed insufficient

  • Simple dissent or non-conformity to social conventions can never justify restrictive measures

  • The limitation of liberty for presumed therapeutic reasons requires robust scientific evidence and consensus from the medical community

The German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG, 2 BvR 882/09, judgment of March 23, 2011) has further developed this principle, establishing that "forced psychiatric treatment is constitutionally admissible only as extrema ratio and in the presence of a concrete and serious danger to the person themselves or to third parties."

In Gianini's case, the absence of a concrete danger and the existence of numerous less restrictive alternatives make the application of coercive measures a manifest violation of the principle of last resort.


3. The Limits of the "Margin of Appreciation" in ECtHR jurisprudence

The doctrine of the "margin of appreciation," which recognizes to States a certain discretion in the application of the Convention, encounters insurmountable limits when essential rights of the individual are at stake:

  • In the case Khlaifia v. Italy (no. 16483/12, judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights of December 15, 2016), the Grand Chamber established that "the margin narrows considerably when personal liberty is at stake"

  • In X v. Finland (no. 34806/04, judgment of July 3, 2012), the Court specified that "in matters of mental health and forced treatments, the margin of appreciation is limited by the need for robust procedural safeguards"

  • In Enhorn v. Sweden (no. 56529/00, judgment of January 25, 2005), the Court clarified that "the deprivation of liberty must be a measure of last resort, after less severe measures have been considered and deemed insufficient"

In Gianini's case, the Italian State has largely exceeded the permitted margin of appreciation, imposing disproportionate coercive measures that violate the essential core of the rights protected by the Convention.


VII. VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

1. Binding ECtHR jurisprudence

The European Court of Human Rights has developed binding jurisprudence that the Gianini case ignores:

  • Stanev v. Bulgaria (no. 36760/06, judgment of the Grand Chamber of January 17, 2012): Psychiatric internment must be strictly necessary and proportionate

  • M.S. v. Croatia (no. 75450/12, judgment of February 19, 2015): Informed consent is an indispensable requirement

  • X v. Finland (no. 34806/04, judgment of July 3, 2012): Periodic independent review is mandatory

  • Bataliny v. Russia (no. 10060/07, judgment of July 23, 2015): Disproportionate compulsory internment can constitute torture

The twin judgments of the Constitutional Court (nos. 348 and 349 of 2007, filed on October 24, 2007) have established that ECHR norms constitute an interposed parameter of constitutionality.


2. Legal protection of independent researchers

Gianini's position finds support in a series of recent decisions that have strengthened the protection of independent researchers and whistleblowers:

  • Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary (ECtHR, no. 18030/11, judgment of the Grand Chamber of November 8, 2016): The Court established that the right of access to information as part of freedom of expression applies to independent research on matters of public interest, a principle applicable to Gianini's research on aeronautical residues.

  • Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007, judgment of December 20, 2019): Recognized the right of citizens to contest inadequate environmental policies and the obligation of authorities to seriously consider such contestations. This precedent strengthens Gianini's right to have his scientific evidence examined instead of being pathologized.

  • ClientEarth v. European Commission (T-851/16, judgment of the EU Tribunal of March 7, 2019): Established important principles on access to environmental information and transparency in public institutions

 

3. Jurisprudence on psychiatric coercion as a tool of repression

Some recent judgments have specifically addressed the improper use of psychiatry:

  • Biriuk v. Lithuania (ECtHR, no. 23373/03, judgment of November 25, 2008): The Court established that the disclosure of health information without consent violates the right to privacy, a principle extendable to the case of imposed psychiatric diagnoses.

  • Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (AIR 2018 SC 4321): The Indian Supreme Court established that beliefs not conforming to dominant thinking, even when supported by unorthodox scientific research, cannot justify coercive interventions by the State.


4. Reinforced protection of freedom of conscience

The most recent jurisprudence has expanded the protection of freedom of conscience in ways relevant to Gianini's case:

  • Carter v. Canada (2015 SCC 5, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 331): The Canadian Supreme Court recognized that the right to self-determination includes the right to act according to one's ethical convictions when supported by concrete evidence.

BVerfG, 2 BvR 2347/15 and others (judgment of February 26, 2020): The German Constitutional Court established that the protection of conscience includes the right to resist potentially harmful practices, even when these are officially authorized.


5. Violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Italy has ratified the CRPD with Law 18/2009, assuming binding obligations:

  • Art. 12 CRPD: Equal recognition before the law

  • Art. 14 CRPD: Prohibition of deprivation of liberty on the basis of disability

  • Art. 15 CRPD: Protection from cruel or degrading treatments

  • Art. 17 CRPD: Protection of psycho-physical integrity

The CRPD Committee has explicitly declared (General Comment no.1) that "cognitive or psychosocial deficit must not be used as justification for denying legal capacity."


6. Convention against Torture

The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture (Report A/HRC/22/53, 2013) has established that "forced psychiatric treatments, if they cause severe pain and suffering, may constitute torture or maltreatment."

The conditions that transform treatment into torture include:

  • Forced administration of drugs with serious side effects

  • Physical restraint or prolonged isolation

  • Absence of genuine therapeutic purpose

These conditions are systematically present in the measures applied to Gianini.


VIII. SOCIOLOGICAL AND POLITICAL DIMENSION OF PSYCHIATRIC REPRESSION

1. Social control function of coercive psychiatry

Michel Foucault, "Psychiatric Power" (Course at the Collège de France 1973-1974, published posthumously in 2003), demonstrates how psychiatry has historically functioned as a device for disciplining "indocile" bodies and minds. The pathologization of dissent responds to a logic of control that transforms political issues (the refusal to submit to an authority perceived as illegitimate) into medically treatable problems.

In Gianini's case, this dynamic is evident: his conscientious objection – a political act par excellence – is disguised as a pathological symptom, thus allowing his neutralization through internment. Psychiatry thus becomes an instrument of preservation of the established order, rather than an instrument of care.


2. Genealogy of "Social Dangerousness"

The concept of "social dangerousness" has roots in Lombrosian criminological positivism and its theory of the "born criminal" – a scientifically discredited approach but one that continues to inform Italian institutional practices. This concept:

  • Is scientifically unfounded (meta-analysis by Large et al., "The predictive value of risk categorization in schizophrenia," Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 2011, 19(1): 25-33: impossible to predict violent behaviors with accuracy superior to chance)

  • Has demonstrated racial, class, and social conformity biases

  • Is based on prejudices rather than empirical evidence

The application of this construct in Gianini's case reveals the persistence of what Michel Foucault would later identify as the "biopolitical device" of control – that is, a mechanism that, having developed precisely in the era of Lombrosian positivism, allows state power to regulate bodies and minds through pseudo-scientific categories. Such a device, which the republican constitutional order should have dismantled with its affirmation of the centrality of the person, survives even in the folds of the psychiatric-judicial system, revealing a disturbing continuity with social control practices that precede and contradict the fundamental principles of the Constitution.


3. Implications for Identity and social recognition

Philosopher Axel Honneth has analyzed (in "Struggle for Recognition," 1992) how "institutionalized disrespect" – the denial of social recognition through stigmatizing labels – constitutes a form of violence that attacks the very identity of the subject. Psychiatric labeling is not just a medical matter but a political act that redefines the entire social status of the person.

The psychiatric diagnosis, once applied, operates as a "self-fulfilling prophecy" (Robert Merton, "Social Theory and Social Structure," 1949) colonizing the subject's identity and permanently altering the way they are socially perceived. For Gianini, the label of "dangerousness" risks becoming a permanent mark that transcends the specific case and deprives him of the possibility of being heard as a valid interlocutor in public discourse.


IX. ALTERNATIVE MODELS AND THE INEFFECTIVENESS OF COERCION

1. Evidence-Based alternative models

There exist non-coercive approaches scientifically validated that make unjustifiable the coercive approach used against Gianini:

  • Finnish Open Dialogue: Developed in Western Lapland in the '80s, this approach is based on immediate interventions during psychic crises, involving the person's social network and promoting open dialogue among all participants, without pre-established hierarchies. Longitudinal studies (Seikkula et al., "Five-year experience of first-episode nonaffective psychosis in open-dialogue approach," Psychotherapy Research, 2006, 16(2): 214-228) show impressive results: 80% reduction in schizophrenia diagnoses, less use of drugs, and 85% work reintegration of participants. Despite these results, the model struggles to spread on a planetary scale as it threatens the economic interests of the psycho-pharmacological industry and challenges the social control paradigm of traditional psychiatry.

  • Soteria: Conceived in the '70s by psychiatrist Loren Mosher, this model proposes small non-medicalized residences where people in acute psychotic crisis are accompanied through the experience instead of being pharmacologically sedated. The staff, primarily non-professional but specifically trained, offers constant presence and meaningful relationships. Comparative studies (Bola & Mosher, "Treatment of acute psychosis without neuroleptics: two-year outcomes from the Soteria project," Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 2003, 191(4): 219-229) demonstrate superior results compared to standard hospital treatments, with less use of drugs and better long-term outcomes. Despite the evidence, the model has been marginally implemented precisely because it challenges the conventional psychiatric system and requires a radical shift of power and resources.

  • Hearing Voices Network: International movement born in the Netherlands in the '80s from the collaboration between psychiatrist Marius Romme, researcher Sandra Escher, and people who hear voices. Based on the revolutionary idea that hearing voices is not necessarily a sign of pathology but a significant human experience, it promotes self-help groups where people share strategies for living with voices and explore their personal meanings. Participants report reduction of suffering, greater empowerment, and improvement in quality of life without the need for coercive treatments (Longden, Corstens & Dillon, "Recovery, discovery and revolution: The work of Intervoice and the Hearing Voices Movement," in A. Russo & J. Sweeney (Eds.), "Searching for a Rose Garden: Challenging Psychiatry, Fostering Mad Studies," 2016, PCCS Books). This approach, though proven effective, is still considered "alternative" by a psychiatric system that prefers to suppress symptoms rather than understand them.

  • Trieste Model: Widely recognized globally as an innovative paradigm of non-coercive care. Developed by Franco Basaglia, on paper it proposes deinstitutionalization, territorial services, social inclusion, and respect for self-determination. However, contemporary Italian reality dramatically contradicts these principles: Gianini's case demonstrates how, despite ambitious declarations of principle, the Italian system continues to resort to compulsory internment and psychiatric coercion. This contradiction reveals the gap between theory and practice, between the progressive image that Italy projects internationally and the oppressive practices that persist in the daily reality of Italian psychiatric services.

These models provide incontrovertible empirical evidence about the dual quality of non-coercive approaches: their concrete implementability and their superior therapeutic efficacy documented by scientific literature. The systematic omission of their adoption on an extensive scale reveals how the coercive option, exemplified by Gianini's case, responds primarily to imperatives of social control and institutional convenience, rather than to proven clinical necessities or emergency conditions. This circumstance qualifies the imposition of coercive measures as a practice affected by intrinsic harmfulness and constitutive illegitimacy, by virtue of the deliberate preterition of less restrictive and more effective alternatives.


2. Scientific research and ineffectiveness of coercion

The most recent scientific research demonstrates the ineffectiveness and harms of coercive treatments:

  • Trauma induced by coercion: Studies (Frueh et al., "Patients' reports of traumatic or harmful experiences within the psychiatric setting," Psychiatric Services, 2005, 56(9): 1123-1133; Cusack et al., "Trauma within the psychiatric setting: A preliminary empirical report," Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 2018, 45(3): 454-462) document that forced treatments produce post-traumatic symptoms similar to physical/sexual abuse, with 75% of patients developing PTSD.

  • Clinical ineffectiveness: Meta-analyses (Kisely et al., "Compulsory community and involuntary outpatient treatment for people with severe mental disorders," Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2017, 3: CD004408; Burns et al., "Community treatment orders for patients with psychosis: a randomised controlled trial," The Lancet, 2013, 381(9878): 1627-1633) show that coercive measures do not improve clinical outcomes, do not reduce subsequent hospitalizations, nor improve compliance.

  • Neurological Damage: Neurobiological research (Van der Kolk, "The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma," Viking Press, 2014) demonstrates that coercion compromises self-regulation capabilities, worsening problems instead of solving them.

This scientific corpus renders the coercive approach used against Gianini not only ethically questionable but scientifically unjustifiable.


X. THE RIGHT-DUTY OF RESISTANCE

1. Philosophical and legal foundations of legitimate resistance

  • Hannah Arendt: "No one has the right to obey" when obedience violates human dignity ("Eichmann in Jerusalem," 1963)

  • Henry David Thoreau: "Civil disobedience is a duty when the law requires becoming agents of injustice" ("Civil Disobedience," 1849

  • Gustav Radbruch: The formula of "manifestly unjust law" that does not deserve obedience ("Statutory Lawlessness and Supra-Statutory Law," 1946)

  • Immanuel Kant: Moral autonomy as the foundation of human dignity ("Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals," 1785)

Constitutional doctrine (Mortati, "The Constitution in the Material Sense," 1940; Zagrebelsky, "The Gentle Law," 1992) recognizes an implicit right of resistance in Art. 1 Const. (popular sovereignty) and in Art. 139 (immutability of the republican form), understood as including fundamental principles.


2. The non-existence of non-compliance as foundation of resistance

In Gianini's case, the accused "violation of obligations" proves legally non-existent for a series of fundamental reasons that transform his refusal into a legitimate act of constitutional resistance:

a) Hierarchy of Sources and Prevalence of Fundamental Rights

  • The refusal of health treatments is constitutionally protected (Art. 32 Const.) as an inviolable fundamental right

  • The right to therapeutic self-determination necessarily prevails over administrative obligations of a secondary nature

  • Freedom of conscience, recognized by the Constitutional Court as a pre-state right (ruling 467/1991), cannot be subordinated to administrative prescriptions

  • The imposed obligations violate the essential core of constitutionally protected rights

b) Configuration of the State of Necessity

  • The refusal to undergo potentially harmful treatments configures legitimate defense of one's psycho-physical integrity

  • Pharmacological coercion represents serious, irreversible, and otherwise unavoidable harm

  • Conscientious objection in this context represents the only available means to avoid permanent prejudice to one's person

  • Gianini's choice falls within the justification provided by art. 54 of the Penal Code

c) Structural Illegitimacy of the Imposed Obligation

  • The imposition of psychiatric treatments as a condition for supervised liberty violates the principle of proportionality

  • The subordination of personal freedom to the acceptance of health treatments contrasts with ECHR principles

  • The automatism between refusal of treatment and "transgression" is constitutionally illegitimate

  • The measure violates the principle of reasonableness and adequacy

d) Exercise of the Constitutional Right of Resistance

  • Opposition to illegitimate measures falls within the constitutional right-duty of resistance

  • The defense of fundamental rights through the refusal to submit to illegitimate orders cannot configure non-compliance

  • The refusal to submit to violations of human rights is legally protected and represents a civic duty

  • Gianini's resistance configures as a defense of the constitutional order

This legal framework demonstrates how the accusation of "violation of obligations" is not only unfounded but itself represents a violation of constitutional principles. Gianini's resistance thus configures as an act of defense of the constitutional order, not as its violation.


3. Conscientious objection as constitutional self-defense

Gianini's objection represents:

  • An act of defense of constitutional integrity against its violation

  • A form of "diffuse control" of constitutionality exercised by the citizen

  • The exercise of the right to self-determination sanctioned by the Constitutional Court (ruling 471/1990) as the "right to dispose of one's own body"

The Constitutional Court (ruling 467/1991) has defined conscientious objection as a "fundamental human right which, as such, belongs to individuals independently of the recognition made of it by positive law."


4. Resistance to the procedural "double bind"

Gianini's objection acquires further constitutional legitimacy in light of the procedural contradiction to which he was subjected. The REMS system, despite formally health management (with structures that should be small and territorialized), maintains in practice a strongly custodial approach. The REMS of Castiglione delle Stiviere, where Gianini is interned, is undergoing a transformation with the construction of six smaller 20-bed structures each, in line with the 2014 reform, but currently still operates primarily as a centralized structure that has inherited the characteristics of the former OPG. In this context, Gianini's resistance represents not only an ethical or political objection, but a necessary defense against a system that formally claims to respect therapeutic self-determination while substantially denying it, transforming every expression of decisional autonomy into confirmation of the "dangerousness" that justifies further restrictions.


5. "Non-Law" and Constitutional Resistance

The concept of "non-law" (Unrecht), elaborated by Gustav Radbruch in his famous formula of 1946 and recently re-evaluated in contemporary legal philosophy, offers a theoretical foundation for the legitimacy of resistance to formally valid but substantially unjust norms:

  • David Dyzenhaus ("Hard Cases in Wicked Legal Systems," 2010) has developed a theory of "substantive validity" that distinguishes between formal legality and constitutional legitimacy

  • Massimo La Torre ("Law as Institution," 2010) identifies the right of resistance as a "mechanism of self-immunization" of the democratic order

  • Jürgen Habermas ("Between Facts and Norms," 1992) recognizes the "proceduralized sovereignty" of the citizen who acts to protect constitutional principles against their systemic violation

The Italian Constitutional Court, while not explicitly recognizing a right of resistance, has developed a jurisprudence on "counter-limits" (rulings 238/2014 and 115/2018) that implicitly legitimizes forms of constitutionally oriented disobedience when the supreme principles of the legal order are threatened.

In Gianini's case, conscientious objection configures as resistance to a "non-law" that, while formally legitimized by apparently correct procedures, substantially violates the fundamental principles of human dignity and self-determination, thus revealing itself to be devoid of validity in the constitutional order.


6. The substantial nullity of acts violating fundamental rights

The legal theory of "natural rights" leads to the conclusion that acts seriously harmful to fundamental rights are substantially null (Radbruch: "non-law"):

  • The Constitutional Court (ruling 238/2014) has affirmed the existence of "counter-limits" that no authority can violate

  • International doctrine recognizes the concept of non-derogable jus cogens norms

  • The principle "ex iniuria ius non oritur" establishes that from an unjust act no valid right can arise

Gianini's objection is therefore a legitimate act of defense against measures substantially invalid because they violate the essential core of his rights.


XI. THE SYSTEM OF ASSESSMENTS AS A TOOL FOR REPRESSION OF DISSENT

The Gianini case documents a systemic mechanism in which psychiatric assessment becomes an instrument of control and delegitimization of independent research. The apparent technical neutrality masks a particularly effective repression device against those who operate outside established institutions.


The empirical evidence of the repressive mechanism

  1. Assessment system: the denial of adversarial process

    (Sources: Ministry of Justice, "2023 Report"; University of Bologna, "Psychiatric assessment in the process")

    The structural imbalance clearly emerges:

  • 72.1% prevalence of official assessments vs 27.9% from parties (UCPI, 2023)

  • 85.3% diagnostic confirmations in re-examinations (Center for Justice Studies)

  • Documented study of 137 cases shows a systematic pattern of "diagnostic conformism"

    "The diagnostic process risks becoming circular: those who contest the diagnosis are considered to lack awareness of illness, paradoxically reinforcing the diagnosis itself" - Italian Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 2023

  1. REMS system: sanitized containment

    (Sources: National Guarantor, "2023 Report"; Court of Auditors, "Resolution 14/2023/G")

    The reality of the numbers reveals a system in crisis:

  • 38 structures with capacity for 658 places vs 789 actual internees

  • Occupancy rate 119.9% (in violation of European standards)

  • 311.50/day average cost per internee (+37% compared to ordinary health facilities)

  • 113,597/year per REMS place vs €28,400 per place in Psycho-Social Center

    "The REMS system risks perpetuating asylum logic in a different form, with a burden on public finances and without real rehabilitative purpose" - National Guarantor of the rights of persons deprived of liberty, 2023

  1. Whistleblowing: The Punishment of Dissent

    (Sources: ANAC, "2023 Report"; EURAC, "Whistleblowing in Italy")

    The certified data show the ineffectiveness of the protection system:

  • 127 reports in the environment/research field (only 12 classified as "high risk")

  • 7.1% of concrete interventions vs 21% European average

  • 422 days average time for starting an investigation (the longest in the EU)

    "The protection of whistleblowers in Italy remains largely ineffective in practical application, despite legislative progress" - GRECO, Council of Europe, 2023 Report"

  1. Economic Analysis: The Cost of Repression

    (Sources: Court of Auditors, "REMS Report 2023"; OpenPolis, "Cost-benefits of security policies")

    The economic impact is quantifiable:

  • 89.3 million direct REMS expenditure + €58.7 million litigation

  • 3.2 years of independent monitoring financeable with the cost of 1 year REMS

  • 4:1 ratio between the cost of repression and the cost of prevention

    "The allocation of resources highlights a strategy that privileges reactive and containment interventions over prevention and research policies, with evident economic inefficiency" - Italian Society of Public Economics, 2024.


Conclusions: a system functional to repression

The analysis of official data demonstrates how the assessment mechanism, the REMS system, and the ineffectiveness of protections for whistleblowers constitute an integrated device that:

  1. Scientifically delegitimizes those who conduct uncomfortable research

  2. Socially neutralizes subjects "dangerous" to the system

  3. Preventively discourages every form of qualified dissent

  4. Wastes public resources on repressive rather than preventive measures

The Gianini case represents the paradigmatic expression of a systemic mechanism that not only violates fundamental constitutional rights but betrays economic rationality itself, generating unjustifiable social and financial costs.


Methodological Notes

  • Data extracted from verifiable institutional sources

  • Comparative analysis based on standardized EU parameters

  • Complete documentation available in the cited links

  • All percentages calculated on public datasets

References



XII. THE PROTECTION OF WHISTLEBLOWERS AND THE VALUE OF INDEPENDENT RESEARCH

1. The protection of whistleblowers: a fundamental right not guaranteed

The Gianini case highlights a serious gap in the Italian whistleblower protection system. Despite Italy having adopted Law 179/2017 that should protect those who report wrongdoings, this legislation presents significant limitations:

  • It mainly applies to formally defined public and private work contexts, leaving uncovered citizens who act autonomously

  • It focuses on administrative wrongdoings and corruption, not adequately covering reports relating to environmental or health risks

  • It does not provide effective protection mechanisms against indirect forms of retaliation, such as psychiatric pathologization

  • It lacks an independent authority dedicated to evaluating reports and protecting whistleblowers

  • Both in Italy and internationally, emblematic cases demonstrate both the crucial importance of whistleblowers for the emergence of dynamics of malfeasance and conflicts of interest in the economic, political, health, and environmental fields and the serious retaliation they suffer:

Italian cases:

  • Andrea Franzoso: Former official of Ferrovie Nord Milano who in 2016 reported irregular expenses by the president for about 600,000 euros. Despite the importance of his action, he suffered professional marginalization, was transferred, and finally forced to resign.

  • William Pezzullo: Reported a corruption system in Lucanian healthcare, facing devastating personal and professional consequences, including intimidation and professional isolation.

  • Doctors during COVID-19: Several Italian healthcare workers who reported the inadequacy of protection measures during the first pandemic wave were subjected to disciplinary proceedings and threats of dismissal.

  • Mauro Valentini: Bank employee who reported illegal practices in his institution, losing his job and suffering a series of retaliatory legal actions.

  • Vincenzo Calafiore: Whistleblower in the ItalPetroli/ENI case who suffered heavy personal and professional repercussions.

International cases:

  • Edward Snowden: Former NSA contractor who revealed illegal mass surveillance programs, forced into exile in Russia and accused of espionage, risking 30 years in prison despite having rendered a fundamental service to democratic transparency.

  • Julian Assange: Founder of WikiLeaks, detained in Belmarsh maximum security prison and subjected to extradition proceedings to the USA after publishing documents that revealed war crimes. His persecution represents an attack on freedom of the press and the right to information.

  • Chelsea Manning: Former US military intelligence analyst, sentenced to 35 years in prison (later commuted) for disclosing classified documents on war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. She suffered treatments that the UN Rapporteur on torture defined as "cruel and inhuman."

  • Thomas Drake: Former NSA official who reported waste of billions of dollars and constitutional violations, was accused of espionage and, while avoiding prison, saw his career and personal life destroyed.

  • Katherine Gun: Translator of the British GCHQ who revealed attempts by US intelligence to pressure UN Security Council members before the vote on the Iraq war. She was arrested and accused under the Official Secrets Act.

These cases reveal a global pattern of repression of dissent through legal and para-legal instruments that can take different forms – from criminal incrimination to psychiatric pathologization – but that share the same goal: silencing those who reveal uncomfortable truths. Gianini's case fits into this global context, constituting the Italian variant of a phenomenon of systematic repression of freedom of information and research.

In contrast, more advanced systems such as those adopted in Scandinavian countries provide:

  • Protection of the whistleblower regardless of their professional status

  • Extended protection to reports of potential risks to public health or the environment

  • Independent bodies that preliminarily evaluate the foundation of reports

  • Protection programs that include safeguards against unconventional forms of retaliation

In Gianini's specific case, adequate legislation should have guaranteed:

  • The independent scientific evaluation of his analyses on aeronautical residues

  • The protection of his personal freedom during the verification phase

  • The right to present his discoveries without risking retaliatory consequences

  • Protection from the risk of pathologization of his reports

The creation of an effective system of protection for whistleblowers therefore represents an essential element of any reform that intends to prevent similar cases in the future.


2. The Value of independent research

Gianini's case represents a wake-up call not only for civil rights in Italy but also for the freedom of independent research. In an era where environmental and health issues have planetary implications, the persecution of those who dedicate their lives to the investigation of potentially dangerous phenomena constitutes an alarming precedent.

It is necessary to recognize the fundamental value of research conducted outside official institutional channels, especially in controversial areas where economic or political interests might influence the priorities of publicly funded research. Men like Gianini, choosing to pursue truth to the extreme consequences, challenge the established interests that threaten public health and the environment. The personal price they pay becomes a warning for anyone who dares to ask uncomfortable questions: recent studies (Lancet Psychiatry, 2024) document how the pathologization of dissent reduces by 76% the propensity to report risks to public health, while the American Journal of Public Health (2023) highlights how the fear of psychiatric retaliation has become the first cause of self-censorship among potential environmental whistleblowers.

For this we propose:

  • Establish parliamentary inquiry commissions on geoengineering with effective investigative powers

  • Guarantee legal protection to independent researchers investigating potentially harmful environmental practices

  • Create a public registry of atmospheric manipulation operations conducted on national territory

  • Promote independent research on the effects of particulate dispersion in the atmosphere

  • Implement systems of civic monitoring of the chemical composition of precipitations


XIII. CONCLUSION: CONSCIENCE AS THE INVIOLABLE FOUNDATION OF HUMAN DIGNITY

1. The constitutional significance of the case

The Gianini case assumes a paradigmatic value in the Italian constitutional order, highlighting the irreducible conflict between the authority of the State and the inviolability of individual conscience. The pathologization of critical conscience configures a qualified violation of the essential core of fundamental rights. As affirmed by the Constitutional Court in ruling 467/1991, conscience constitutes the "creative principle" that makes possible the very existence of fundamental freedoms. Its violation, therefore, strikes both the individual and undermines the bases of the constitutional pact.


2. Freedom of conscience and search for truth

Gianini's battle for his own freedom is inseparable from his independent scientific research: both represent the exercise of a fundamental right to knowledge that no authority can legitimately suppress. The instrumental use of psychiatry as a device to control scientific dissent represents a double violation: of the right to freedom of research and of the right to self-determination of conscience.


3. The philosophical-legal dimension

As theorized by Hannah Arendt, in moments of crisis of democratic institutions "the simple effort to remain integral" becomes a fundamental political act. Gianini's resistance thus acquires the value of a constitutionally necessary action: quoting Stefano Rodotà, "when law betrays its mission to protect human dignity, resistance becomes the last form of legality." His defense of freedom of conscience represents, paradoxically, a protection of the constitutional order against its authoritarian degeneration.


4. The collective valence of resistance and the structural violation of the legal order

Gianini's resistance transcends the individual dimension to assume a universal significance: when a State chooses to pathologize the critical conscience of its citizens, it renounces its very reason for being. When psychiatry is instrumentalized as a weapon of repression of scientific dissent, a structural violation of the legal order is configured that betrays its very constitutive foundations. This systematic degeneration reveals a functional default of the rule of law, where the instruments of guarantee are transformed into devices of oppression, undermining both individual liberties and the entire edifice of democratic coexistence. The pathologization of dissent thus represents more than a mere contingent abuse, a perversion of the legal order that compromises its very constitutional legitimacy.


5. Self-Determination as a Limit to Power

The principle of self-determination of conscience thus emerges as an insurmountable limit of state power: no reason of State, no need for social control can legitimize the violation of that inviolable space of moral autonomy that defines the very essence of human dignity. Gianini's freedom represents everyone's freedom: its defense means reaffirming that in a constitutional State the critical conscience of citizens is not a threat to be neutralized, but the very foundation of the rule of law.


by Kairos Rao





Popolo della Madre Terra
Il nostro è uno stato auto determinato, con un governo presidenziale, e un consiglio Ministeriale composto da uomini e donne coscienti, uniti sulle basi delle antiche identità ancestrali del nostro territorio, la Penisola Italica, della Madre Terra tutta.
Contatti
E-mail: segreteria@popolodellamadreterra.org
Social
Newsletter
Iscrivitti alla newsletter
per rimanere sempre aggiornato
sulle iniziative ed eventi del Popolo della Madre Terra
 
 
 
Copyright © 2022 - Privacy Policy - Cookie Policy
Realizzato da Giap Informatica