Author: Attorney F. Zambonin –
www.iltuolegale.it
We asked Attorney Zambonin for clarification on the
ongoing legal proceedings for the death of the two divers on July 25
2010 in Miramare. The lawyer's opinion follows.
It's over, at least for the two defendants who chose
the abbreviated procedure, the criminal proceedings for manslaughter of the two
Istrian divers who lost their lives in a diving accident on 07/25/10
in the waters in front of the Miraramare castle.
The defendants, the manufacturer of semi-closed circuit rebreathers
used by the victims and one of the instructors linked to the organization
of the event, they chose the abbreviated trial, which provides that the
decision is taken on the basis of the facts, without usually the possibility of
carry out any evidentiary investigation, in exchange for a reduction of one third
of the penalty provided for the crime.
For the two defendants, the trial ended with a sentence of one year in prison.
prison – suspended sentence – and compensation of the sum of
Euro 800.000,00 to the relatives of the victims, following the recognition of the
their guilt in the causes that determined the diving accident that
led to the death of the two divers.
In fact, from the technical assessment carried out by the Navy which was
entrusted with the task of examining the rebreathers used by divers during
the dive that was fatal to them and to analyse the dynamics of the accident
Overall, it would appear that the fatal accident was caused in
starts from the inefficiency due to poor maintenance of the machinery used and in
part due to insufficient preparation of the students, left alone during
the test dive, which they would not have been able to notice
of the rebreather anomaly nor of any remedy.
In the absence of motivation, it can be assumed that if, on the one hand, the
recognition that the death of the two divers was determined
from the inefficiency of the breathing machines given to them, both the
reason for the condemnation of their builder, on the other hand, the violation
of the guarantee obligation to which the organizers of the
demonstration is the cause of the conviction of the instructor, who should have
to take care of verifying the skills of the divers participating in the initiative
and provide any necessary assistance, accompanying the two divers during
the test dive.
He (and all the instructors/organizers of the event) were in fact invested by
an obligation of protection which consists of a special bond of protection between a
guarantor and a protected legal asset.
In fact, during the training period the instructor does not limit himself to
teach the behaviors to be followed, but is required to guarantee "good health"
of the student, adopting all necessary measures to provide for
incorrect behaviors carried out by the student himself which could cause him
harm.
The position of guarantee therefore represents an abstract presupposition of the crime
omission, and this presupposition exists every time a relationship is established
between a student-client and an instructor, guide and/or a diving center for the
specific position that diving operators occupy.
The other two defendants, diving instructors involved in the organization
of the event, they chose the ordinary trial, which is why the
the trial has yet to be held.
Reproduction is strictly prohibited, even
partial, of the text and images in this article without the author's consent.
