Nature | News

Italian court finds seismologists guilty of manslaughter

Six scientists and one official face six years in prison over L'Aquila earthquake.


Article tools

Rights & Permissions


Mauro Dolce, head of seismic risk at the Italian Civil Protection Department, is one of seven people found guilty of manslaughter in relation to the deadly 2009 earthquake in L'Aquila, Italy.

At the end of a 13-month trial, six scientists and one government official have been found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to six years in prison. The verdict was based on how they assessed and communicated risk before the earthquake that hit the city of L'Aquila on 6 April 2009, killing 309 people (see 'Scientists on trial: At Fault?').

The hearing took place in a prefabricated building in the industrial outskirts of L'Aquila that has served as the provisional seat of the court since the earthquake destroyed the city centre. As Judge Marco Billi read the verdict, the room was crowded with victims' relatives, reporters from local and international media, and many ordinary citizens. In addition to the prison term, those indicted will be permanently banned from public service and will have to pay financial compensation to the families of 29 victims named in the indictment and to the city of L'Aquila, totalling €7.8 million.

The defendants all took part in a meeting held in L’Aquila on 31 March 2009, during which they were asked to assess the risk of a major earthquake in view of many shocks that had hit the city in the previous months. The meeting was unusually quick, and was followed by a press conference, during which Italy's Civil Protection Department and local authorities reassured the population, stating that minor shocks did not raise the risk of a major quake. In a television interview recorded shortly before the meeting, Bernardo De Bernardinis, then deputy director of the Civil Protection Department, said, “the scientific community tells me there is no danger because there is an ongoing discharge of energy”. Most seismologists, including several of the indicted, consider this statement to be scientifically incorrect.

Higher death count

According to the prosecutor, such reassurances were the reason why 29 people who would otherwise have left L'Aquila in the following days changed their minds and decided to stay, and were killed when their homes collapsed. The prosecutor thus indicted all seven members of the panel for manslaughter, reasoning that their “inadequate” risk assessment had led to scientifically incorrect messages being given to the public, which contributed to a higher death count (see 'Scientists on trial over L'Aquila deaths').

Science on trial: Italian seismologists were prosecuted for giving false assurances before the deadly 2009 earthquake.

6 April 2009

A magnitude 6.3 earthquake hits the city of L'Aquila and its surroundindgs, killing 309 people. The earthquake came after four months of continuous seismic activity, and originated from the Paganica fault, which Italian seismologists had been monitoring for some years.

Italian quake analysis rumbles in

Photo: Richard Walters/GRL

May 2009

Shortly after the earthquake, some citizenzs accuse national and local authorities of having ignored the “prediction” of a big quake made at the end of March by Gianpaolo Giuliani, an amateur sismologist.

Radon 'prediction' of earthquake rattles local scientists

3 June 2010

The public prosecutor of L'Aquila indicts seven members of the Major Risks Comittee of the Italian Civil Protection Deaprtment for manslaughter, who had met in L'Aquila before the earthquake to assess the risk of a major shock. They are accused of downplaying the risk and falsely reassuring the population.

Italy puts seismology in the dock


July 2010

While thousands of seismologists around the world sign a letter in support of those indicted, there are also scientists who see some merit in the accusation.

Seismologists on trial triggers scientific debate

26 May 2011

After several delays, the Judge for Preliminary Hearings in L'Aquila accepts the prosecutor's request for a trial, which is scheduled to begin in September 2011.

Scientists face trial over earthquake deaths

Photo: Infophoto/Photoshot

20 September 2011

The trial begins with international attention. By now the scientists and the Civil Protection officials in the Commitee are blaming each other for what went wrong, and views in the scientific community have become more nuanced.

Scientists on trial: At fault?

Photo: A. Nusca/Polaris/eyevine

20 January 2012

The newspaper La Repubblica reveales a taped telephone conversation where Guido Bertolaso, then head of the Civil Protection, says to a local officer in L’Aquila that the meeting of the Major Risks Comittee was “mostly a media move”. Bertolaso, hitherto only a witness, finds himself under investigation for manslaughter.

Wiretap revelation could aid Italian seismologists’ defence

Photo: courtesy of wolfango via Flickr under Creative Commons.

15 February 2012

During one of the most crucial hearings Bertolaso defends himself and the Civil Protection, while the California-based seismologist Lalliana Mualchin, expert witness for the prosecution, openly criticizes the work of the Major Risks Committee.

New twists in Italian seismology trial

Photo: courtesy of wolfango via Flickr under Creative Commons.

25 September 2012

At the end of their final argument, the prosecutors request a four-year prison term for each of the seven accused.

Prosecution asks for four-year sentence in Italian seismology trial

6 April 2009
May 2009
3 June 2010
July 2010
26 May 2011
20 September 2011
20 January 2012
15 February 2012
25 September 2012

The seven are De Bernardinis, who in 2010 became president of the Institute for Environmental Research and Protection (ISPRA) in Rome; Enzo Boschi, former president of the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology (INGV) in Rome; Giulio Selvaggi, former director of the INGV's National Earthquake Centre in Rome; Franco Barberi, a volcanologist at the University of Rome 'Roma Tre'; Claudio Eva, a professor of Earth physics at the University of Genoa; Mauro Dolce, head of the seismic-risk office of the Civil Protection Department in Rome; and Gian Michele Calvi, director of the European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering in Pavia.

In their final arguments on Monday morning, the defendants' lawyers remarked that the prosecutors had not managed to prove a clear causal link between what happened at the meeting and the deaths. “The minutes of the meeting were not made public before the earthquake. There was no press release, no official statement. So how could those deaths be caused by what scientists said at the meeting?” asked Marcello Melandri, Boschi's advocate. They also noted that the accusation relies mostly on relatives' recollections of the victims' decisions at the time of the earthquake, which can be unreliable.

The sentence came as a surprise even to the public prosecutor, Fabio Picuti, who had requested a prison term of four years. “We'll have to read the judge's motivations to understand why,” he says, declining to comment further. In Italy, the judge has up to three months to file the full motivation behind a sentence.

Selvaggi and Dolce were in court during the final hearing, but declined to comment. De Bernardinis said that the sentence will probably “affect the way experts assume responsibilities in crisis situations”. Melandri was more explicit. “In Italy you will now see many more false alarms in such situations, because experts will choose to cry wolf when in doubt. In the end they will become less and less credible.”

According to Vincenzo Vittorini, who represents the association “309 Martiri” that gathers victims' families, “we've been saying for three years that seismic risk was underestimated in L'Aquila, and now a court has confirmed we were right. Yet this verdict makes me bitter, because it means that those deaths could be avoided. This verdict must be a departure point to change the way risk prevention is done in Italy, we do not have the same standards found in other countries”.

The matter is far from closed, however: the defendants' lawyers have all announced that they will appeal the verdict. The sentences will not come into effect until all appeals have been exhausted.

Journal name:



This story originally stated that the sentences included a one-year ban on public service. The ban is in fact permanent. The text has been amended to reflect this.

For the best commenting experience, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will see comments updating in real-time and have the ability to recommend comments to other users.


Commenting is currently unavailable.

sign up to Nature briefing

What matters in science — and why — free in your inbox every weekday.

Sign up



Nature Podcast

Our award-winning show features highlights from the week's edition of Nature, interviews with the people behind the science, and in-depth commentary and analysis from journalists around the world.