This is a statement made by Daphne Caruana Galizia's family with reference to the opinion piece by Mark Anthony Falzon 'Reporters without arguments'.
At the time of Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder, she had not been offered police protection for over four years, save for the three days immediately following the 2017 election (4-6 June). The previous offer of police protection — an officer stationed outside the entrance to her home — was immediately made following the election of the Labour Party to government in 2013. The offer, from then Commissioner Rizzo, was accepted.
If the government knew or ought to have known about a serious risk to Daphne’s life, it was legally obliged to do everything possible to prevent her assassination. In matters of state liability, not being able to trust the police is not a mitigating factor for the government, but an exacerbating one.
Daphne was not happy to risk her life. This is an absurd normalisation of the state’s dereliction of duty to protect life. It is the responsibility of the Maltese state - and not of the murder victim or her family - to ensure its own compliance with human rights law. Justice and the prevention of crime through deterrence are duties of the state, not of the victims of crime.
The case for a public inquiry into the circumstances of Daphne's murder derives from Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is explained in detail by the human rights and civil liberties experts at Doughty Street Chambers and Bhatt Murphy solicitors in their legal opinions published here, here, and here.
CommentsComments powered by Disqus
Do not have an account?Sign Up