ABSTRACT: The author returns to the subject, already treated, of his judgement on Judge Borsellino and his promotion. When he wrote the January 10 article he did not know Judge Borsellino well; now he knows him a bit better. He has nothing against him, but he once again cites the record of the motivations which made the High Council of Magistrates chose him in preference to another candidate, Dr. Alcamo (never "charged with conducting trials against the Mafia"). Sciascia is reproved for not knowing that the HCM does not take seniority into account when making promotions, but the writer doubts the truth of this. Rather it is the journalist Giampaolo Pansa who believes this statement and taking the line of the Anti-Mafia Co-ordinating Group now attacks Sciascia in an article in the »La Repubblica of January 15. Sciascia therefore recalls certain of the journalist's positions regarding the Tortora (1) trial to maintain that "Pansa is absolutely refractory to the idea of law".

(L'ESPRESSO, January 25, 1987)

There are people who possibly know how to write and print what they write in newspapers, but who have absolutely know idea how to read. It is very clear in my article published in »Corriere della Sera of January 10 that I was not alarmed at the fact that Judge Borsellino was promoted, but rather the way in which it was done. And yet here are many people - some of whom even share in substance the opinions I expressed in that article - who reprove me for having attacked Borsellino. But when I wrote the article I knew nothing about him, of his abilities, his methods and merits. And not only do I not allow myself ever to make judgements on people I do not know, but I am very cautious in judging even those I do know. By now I know a bit more about Judge Borsellino. But the subject in question is not and never was his person, but what one reads about his nomination in the extract of the minutes of the High Council of Magistrates "concerning the appointment to the post of Marsala Public Prosecutor, where at a

certain point one comes upon this pearl: that Dr. Alcamo, who aspired to the post, could not be taken into consideration because he "lacked" having ever been charged with conducting trials against the Mafia - a lack "which was absolutely no fault of his, not being able to expect that he should request appointment to procedures of this type". And thus it is postulated that Mafia trials are those that are given to a judge and that one can actually reach the point of "requesting" them. An ugly and alarming word (2) for anyone who has a rather high, a rather noble idea of the administration of justice.

I am reproved also for being ignorant of the fact that the High Council of Magistrates does not take seniority into account when making promotions - something which was never true before the appointment of Judge Borsellino, and testimony to that fact is that the Council tries to justify itself for not having taken seniority into account in the case of Dr. Alcamo. From then on it seems that the criterion of competence, of professionality, of specificity or specialisation in Mafia trials was adopted. But what is the measure of such competence? The number of arrest warrants issued, or the outcome of the trial hearings? I believe that it is the right of the citizens to know it. Curiosity of this kind is perhaps not shared by many who today are discussing my article, and in particular Giampaolo Pansa doesn't have it who, on the contrary, seems to be entirely ignorant that there is such a thing as law. With dignity he takes the line of Palermo Anti-Mafia Co-ordinating Group (which furthermore is in strategic

retreat from the positions it originally took) and takes pot shots at me. He claims he can no longer recognise me, and in Pirandellian fashion muses on the one I was and the two I have become, and the two who have set themselves against the one. And this is to be found in »La Repubblica of January 15. In crepuscular tones he recalls his interview with me many years ago. And I too could say that I no longer recognise the humble reporter who then tried to understand this man whom he now believes to understand entirely, to be able to judge anyone.

I don't know if he is convinced of being a divinity; perhaps he is more modest and merely believes he is writing a kind of »Divine Comedy . But I recall a memorable "excursion" of his in the company of one of the investigators in the Naples trial - that of Tortora, to be exact. Because the point is this: Pansa is totally refractory to the idea of law. Perhaps not even then when he was interviewing me did he understand that I was defending law and human dignity against the Mafia, just as today I am defending them against the distortions of the anti-Mafia. So please, let me get off, let me get off...

-----------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSLATOR'S NOTES

1) Tortora, Enzo - (Genoa 1928 - Milan 1988) Journalist and famous television MC, arrested for drug pushing. Elected to the European Parliament in 1984 on the Radical ticket, he underwent a famous trial in which he was convicted, only to be absolved on appeal. This occasion became the symbol of the Radicals' most important campaign for the reform of justice.

2) "An ugly and alarming word" - the English word "requesting" is not ugly. The ugliness refers to the original rare Italian word which is untranslatable having no precise equivalent in English. I have had to make do with the word "requesting", which however can be understood even in English to be alarming as an expression of a judicial practise which, if actually employed, would give clear reason for alarm in English-speaking countries as well.