Representative of the Porto Alegre Consulate denies that the queue “goes backwards” and threatens Italianism

Italianismo publishes below, in full, a note sent to the portal by lawyer Gustavo Slongo Guaragna, regarding an article published on October 27th, titled “Representative of the Porto Alegre Consulate denies that the queue is ‘going backwards’ and threatens Italianismo”.

The lawyer is the representative of an employee of the Italian Consulate in Porto Alegre, who sent a message to the editorial team of this press outlet, which was used as the basis for the aforementioned article.

ADVERTISING

🔴 Supreme Court • May 2026

Standing in line at the consulate doesn't erase your right to citizenship.

The Italian Supreme Court has confirmed that a consular blockade is legal grounds for legal action.

• Were you unable to schedule an appointment at the consulate?
• Is the process stalled or poorly managed?
• Maternal lineage?
• Incomplete documentation?

See if there is still a solution.

The note follows:

NOTE OF CLARIFICATION on the matter entitled “Representative of the Consulate of Porto Alegre denies that the queue “goes backwards” and threatens Italianism”

On behalf of my partner, in order to avoid any further developments, I clarify the following:

– the public disclosure of conversations held or messages exchanged, when not consented by all interlocutors or opportunely authorized by court, considering the constitutional secrecy of communications, may result – due to breach of confidentiality and violation of legitimate expectations – in civil liability for possible damages;

– the constitutional right to freedom of expression is guaranteed to each and every individual, which includes freedom of opinion, the basis and foundation of the democratic rule of law;

– the opinion of the individual who may occupy a public role, position or job with purely administrative responsibilities cannot and should not, however, be confused – especially by media professionals – with the position of the Public Administration, which is officially externalized by public agents with representation functions and responsibilities, exclusively.

In this specific case, my assistant demanded from her interlocutor, incisively and expressly, not to disclose the messages exchanged. Furthermore, when specifically questioned, she expressly stated that she did not represent the Consulate General of Italy in Porto Alegre.

In view of the above, with the main objective of protecting the rights to intimacy and privacy, protected by both the Federal Constitution and the Civil Code
Brazilian, of my assistant, whose name was avoided here by the same criteria, I postulate, in a friendly way, the immediate replacement of the subject matter of these clarifications by this note, with the maintenance exclusively of the title, dedicating equal prominence and publicity (time and positioning) given to the original matter.

With cordiality,

Gustavo Slongo Guaragna
Lawyer