Proceedings in the case instituted by Daphne Caruana Galizia’s widower and children for the removal of deputy police commissioner Silvio Valletta from the investigation into her assassination will start on Tuesday before Judge Silvio Meli.

The plaintiffs are arguing that Mr Valletta’s involvement in the probe could breach their fundamental rights, as his marriage to Gozo Minister Justyne Caruana makes him a politically exposed person.

The argument is also based on the fact that both Mr Valletta and his wife were the subject of harsh criticism in Ms Caruana Galizia’s blog.

In their application, four of her family members noted that following the Panama Papers revelations, Ms Caruana Galizia criticised the shortcomings of the government’s anti-money-laundering agency’s (the FIAU) board, of which Mr Valletta is a member.

Following her murder on October 16, the deputy commissioner was at the forefront of police investigations and even addressed a crime press conference.

READ: Caruana Galizias go to court to have Valletta removed from investigation

For this reason the plaintiffs are requesting that the court declare Mr Valletta’s role in the investigation impinges upon the objectivity and impartiality which such circumstances dictate. 

Lawyers Jason Azzopardi and Therese Comodini Cachia signed the application.

Meanwhile, serious concerns have also been expressed by a UK law firm, which warned that Malta was in “flagrant violation” of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The plaintiffs are requesting that the court declare Mr Valletta’s role in the investigation impinges upon the objectivity and impartiality such circumstances dictate

Doughty Street Chambers, which issued the legal advice published last Friday, focused on Article 2 of the Convention, which safeguards the right to life.

It noted that the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly held that the State must not only refrain from the intentional and unlawful taking of life but must also take “appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction”.

OPINION: Naked and afraid? 

This translates into putting in place appropriate systems for the protection of life, employing competent staff and taking preventive measures to protect an identified individual whose life is at risk.

“It is beyond doubt that there has been an arguable breach of the operational obligation to protect Ms Caruana Galizia… there is also an understandable concern on the part of the family that agents of the State may have had direct involvement in her assassination. It is clear that State authorities may bear responsibility for the death or that they are, or may be, in some way implicated,” the advice said.

It noted that in order for Article 2 to be safeguarded, a number of conditions have to be satisfied. These range from ensuring that the probe is independent, securing evidence and keeping the next of kin involved to the extent necessary to safeguard their legitimate interests.

Matthew, Paul and Andrew Caruana Galizia (second row) along with their father Peter and Daphne’s sister Corinne have raised several concerns about the investigation.Matthew, Paul and Andrew Caruana Galizia (second row) along with their father Peter and Daphne’s sister Corinne have raised several concerns about the investigation.

Independence

The advice notes that persons responsible for carrying out the investigation must be independent from those implicated in the events under scrutiny.

It is pointed out that in many Council of Europe Member States, suspicion of potential police involvement or a failure to act appropriately by the police is investigated by an independent, external body, such as the UK’s Independent Police Complaints Commission.

However, there is no such body in Malta. In the Caruana Galizia case, this has resulted in the Maltese police investigating themselves, the UK law firm remarks.

It notes that even though the FBI, Europol and the National Investigations Bureau of Finland were involved, their role was technical rather than strategic, and hence the investigation was still conducted by the Maltese.

OPINION: It's only the beginning

“The investigation into her death must consider whether appropriate steps were taken to protect Ms Caruana Galizia by the Deputy Commissioner and others, and consider whether there was any police collusion in her death or police negligence regarding assessing, managing and responding to the risk to her life,” the advice reads. “It is clear that Mr Valletta’s continued involvement is a flagrant violation of Article 2.”

The firm notes that the involvement of external, impartial investigators is “essential and extremely urgent”.

Concern was also raised on the Prime Minister’s decision to call last Monday’s news conference. Doughty said he had acted like a “spokesperson” on the investigation into the assassination of one of his most relentless critics.

Involvement of the next of kin

The advice remarks that the bereaved family has been learning of key developments in the investigation in grossly inappropriate ways, without any advance notice, including via the Twitter accounts of politicians and from newspaper headlines.

“They have repeatedly raised concerns about this, both in private correspondence and publicly, but have yet to receive any substantive response,” the advice read.

This handling of facts is compounding their grief, distress and anguish, the British law firm warned.

For this reason, it called for an immediate and clear apology and a commitment to radically alter how the police interact with, involve and update the family.

Securing evidence

Deep concern was also expressed about the information provided by the family and the criticisms made of the Maltese system by the delegation of MEPs who visited recently.

“It is clear that there is a real question arising regarding whether the current investigation is capable of meeting this evidence-gathering requirement, and that time is being lost at a period which should be critical to the investigation,” the advice says.

In addition, Doughty Street Chambers indicated that other breaches under Articles 2,3,8 and 10 appeared highly likely.

Government ‘surprised’ at legal opinion

The government yesterday said it was very surprised that a firm of British solicitors, basing themselves solely on the information afforded to them by their clients, provided for publication what is being called ‘Urgent Advice’ on the merits of a Maltese court case which is to be heard for the first time this week.

It was referring to legal advice given to murdered journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia’s family from the UK firm Doughty Street Chambers which said that the investigation into her assassination violated procedural requirements of article two of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

This attempt to write a completely one-sided judgment before the case is even heard is highly unethical and manifests a lack of respect

The legal opinion also called for the removal of Deputy Police Commissioner Silvio Valletta from his role and an apology to the family for not appropriately updating and involving them in the murder investigation.

A statement issued by the government said this attempt to write a completely one-sided judgment in the court case before it is even heard was highly unethical and manifested a lack of respect for the Maltese Courts.

“The undertone of the so-called ‘Urgent Advice’ is that the State was itself involved in the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, and on this basis it is argued that practically no Maltese authority should be involved in the investigation,” it said.

“Such a serious allegation is not based on any proof but only on the open contempt which the clients hold towards the Maltese State. They are very irresponsible allegations intended to undermine the credibility and authority of all Maltese institutions nationally and internationally, and cannot be made or taken lightly.” The government said the call for an international investigation despite the involvement of the FBI, Europol and the Dutch forensic and Finnish investigative authorities, “can now really be understood as a call for the elimination of all Maltese institutions from the investigation in favour of foreigners”.

It said not only was such a step inconceivable in a sovereign and democratic country but it was also in itself a huge insult to the Maltese Courts, including the institution conducting the Magisterial Inquiry into the murder, which was said to enjoy the confidence of all stakeholders.

“It is clear that the so-called ‘Urgent Advice’ is nothing but more of the same one-sided, uninformed and speculative attacks on a democratically elected government and on the Maltese State for reasons known to whoever commissioned it,” the government concluded.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.