As recalled the Italian Federation of Hunting, the proceeding originating from the investigation into the death of a hunter from a heart attack was concluded during a search. The association presented itself as a civil party. Raffaele Stano, at the time superintendent of the then State Forestry Corps, Pasquale Salvemini, Angelo Nitti, Moisè Mario Salvatore Checchia, Domenico Barcone and Giulio Sasso - WWF volunteer hunting guards - were accused of the crimes of private violence, slander, forgery, ideological falsehood, personal injury, death as a result of another crime and illegal possession of weapons.
Given the length of the proceedings for some of the crimes ascribed, the limitation period has taken over. Raffaele Stano, however, was sentenced to three years and three months of imprisonment and a five-year ban from public office for one of the crimes of ideological falsehood committed by a public official in public documents, and not yet prescribed. The defendants Pasquale Salvemini and Moisè Mario Salvatore Checchia were also found guilty of the crime of ideological falsity committed by a public official in public documents and sentenced to two years and six months each. It was on the occasion of one of these blitzes that in November 2005 Sergio Botticelli from Riccione lost his life, literally scared to death while, hunting with three friends, he was forced to undress until he died of cardiac arrest caused by the state of tension, terror and agitation provoked by the violent action of the accused.
The investigation began in 2005 following the complaint presented by the relatives of the deceased Botticelli and his hunting friends as well as by the National Hunting Federation. But unfortunately the very long duration of the trial at first instance led the judge to have to declare the prescription crimes of private violence and death or injury as a result of such violence, and disputed with respect to this specific fact. Therefore, only partial satisfaction for having seen a very serious behavior sanctioned, made even more hateful for having been put into practice by a representative of the State and by a group of people who had decided to put one's ideology before the role of guarantor of the law, and therefore above the parties, which they should have covered.