LABITA v. ITALY JUDGMENT 13 D. Preventive measures imposed on the applicant 63. On an application dated 9 September 1992 by the Trapani public prosecutor's office the Trapani District Court made an order on 10 May 1993 imposing preventive measures on the applicant, who was put under special police supervision and required to live at Alcamo for three years. The District Court found in particular that the applicant had been shown to be dangerous by concrete evidence: he was being investigated in connection with a very serious offence, was in detention pending trial and, along with other suspected mafiosi, held shares in a company that ran a discotheque where members of the Mafia met. The applicant was required, inter alia: (i) not to leave his home without informing the authorities responsible for supervising him; (ii) to live an honest life and not to arouse suspicion; (iii) not to associate with persons who had a criminal record or who were subject to preventive or security measures; (iv) not to return home later than 8 p.m. or to leave home before 6 a.m., unless due cause could be shown and in all cases only after informing the authority responsible for supervising him; (v) not to keep or carry weapons; (vi) not to go to bars or attend public meetings; (vii) to have on him at all times the card setting out his precise obligations under the preventive measures and a copy of the court order; (viii) to report to the relevant police station on Sundays between 9 a.m. and 12 noon. 64. However, the District Court found that it was not possible to conclude from the evidence on the file that the company referred to had been used to launder money coming from illegal Mafia activities. It consequently made an order for severance of the proceedings relating to the attachment both of the applicant's holding in the company concerned and some of his immovable property. 65. The applicant appealed, but his appeal was dismissed on 7 December 1993. The court of appeal noted, firstly, that a presumption arose under Law no. 575 of 15 May 1965 that a member of the Mafia was dangerous and that for the purposes of the imposition of preventive measures, such membership could be established on the basis of inferences, full proof being required only to secure a conviction. In the case before it, there was circumstantial evidence against the applicant, such as the decisions to detain him pending trial and to commit him for trial. Furthermore, B.F. had clearly stated that the applicant was both a member and the treasurer of a mafia-type organisation. There were other factors, too, such as the applicant's business relations with other mafiosi. The applicant's contact