ABSTRACT: The author, member of the Parliamentary Commission for the investigation of massacres, suggests some considerations on the Ustica affair. Among the different hypotheses on the cause of the fall of the airplane (that of a missile or a radio-target on the one hand, that of a terrorist bomb or a technical defect on the other), one thing is certain by now: the repeated omissions, lies and sabotages carried out from 1988 until today, by the responsibles of the military Air Force and even by the intelligence service. On this subject, the last alarming aspect resulting from the investigations is the cooperation between the magistracy appointed to the investigation (Dott. Santacroce) and the Air Force SIOS, aimed at shifting these "non-truths" on the affair into the judicial area.

(Il Giornale d'Italia of the 11th of November 1989)

The reader who is not constantly informed on the Ustica affair runs the risk of remaining every day more confused as regards the further scandal involving our country in which - according to the usual pattern - truth and justice have been and continue to be crushed, this time on the life of 81 people who were on the Itavia flight that 27th of June 1980 when it plunged into the sea. As a member of the parliamentary investigation commission on massacres, which at the moment is dealing with the Ustica affair, I believe it useful to advance some considerations. I would like to firstly recall, if this were necessary, that after 9 and a half years not only we do not know what happened and what it was that caused the plane to fall, but we also know that the magistracy of Rome charged with the investigation has not even been able to complete the investigative stage. Also because of this inexplicable and unexplained delay, the Parliament has decided to conduct an investigation on its own. It is only fair for the rela

tives of those 81 victims to claim justice and truth: therefore, in the course of these months, the commission questioned a series of generals of the Military Air Force.

There are still no certain elements in order to state that the plane was hit by a missile or a radio-target, even if this hypothesis is still corroborated by many elements. Personally I will not express my opinion until all elements point to this explanation. It is however sure that the theses supported and confirmed by the Military Air Force and supported in Parliament at various times (including the last blunder that the generals caused under-secretary De Carolis to commit), alternatively of a terrorist bomb or of a technical collapse are weaker as times goes by, if not almost ridiculous.

One thing is however certain, corroborated by a quantity of elements: that from 1980 up to now a long series of sabotages, lies, omissions, false versions of this or that part of the puzzle of the accident have been carried out. Unfortunately until now the main part of these responsibilities was taken by the Military Air Force, which was responsible at the time was managing the radars as well as other operations which have subsequently been carried out to shed light on the accident, at times in cooperation with the intelligence service, the SIOS (1) inside the Air Force and the SISMI (2).

Apart from the behaviour of the military staff, in this last period another very serious aspect of the affair has emerged as regards the ascertainment of the responsibilities and therefore the quest for truth. It is proven that during the first months following the accident there was a cooperation between the magistracy charged with the investigation of the affair (Dott. Santacroce) and the Air Force SIOS, aimed at shifting the "non truths" constructed inside the military milieu toward the judicial area, and therefore to direct the magistracy itself toward erroneous clues, also with the purpose of confuting and demolishing the questions which had been raised in Parliament and on the press as regards the presence of another aircraft and the missile. As a member of the Parliament I publicly expressed this opinion of mine to the magistracy charges with the investigation, well aware of the fact the the spheres of justice and of Parliament must mutually benefit from maximum autonomy. But I felt it my duty to expr

ess this conviction of mine, based on the incontestable written documentation and on the testimonials acquired in the course of the investigation, when Dott. Santacroce publicly criticized my investigative activity in Parliament (guarantied by art. 68 of the Constitution), as the magistrate perhaps perceived the difficulty of being in the position of not being able to provide the country with one clear answer, and fearing therefore that someone might attempt to penetrate the thick veil covering one of the most tragical facts that have occurred in Italy in recent times.

Translator's notes

(1) SIOS: internal intelligence service of each military force.

(2) SISMI: Service for Military Intelligence and Security.