What happened to Tito, for the Italian law, is an "omicidio colposo". That is, someone killed someone else without intention of killing, but because of negligence, imprudence, inexperience. Manslaughter.
In this case, it seems that there could be the inexperience of the person who assembled the draws incorrectly, and the neglicence of the adults who were there. The so called "culpa in vigilando".
It's useful to say that for the Italian law, both civil and penal, those under 14 years of age are presumed as incapable (incompetent?), so that even their expressed agreement towards a subject, has no legal relevance.
Classic example: if a 16 years old guy makes love with a 13 years old girl, with her agreement, by law it's a rape.
Even if Tito was very experienced, by the law he needed an adult's control.
Crimes against life, in Italy, are prosecuted as a matter of fact (is this the right term?), that is, without the need of any private action. Just because they happened. It's the superior statal interest to prosecute them.
So, the penal action, once it came out that there had been some kind of external responsibility, had to be started by law. It would have been different if Tito had assembled the draws personally.
What can or cannot be present, is the "civil action" in the penal trial. The victim - or his relatives - wants an economic compensation for the damage.
So, prosecuting all the people - from the manufacturer, to the seller, to the assembler, to the instructors - is due because at various levels each one of these persons were involved, at some stage, in the event.
At the moment, this means nothing for them in terms of guilt. Formally prosecuting them is a warrancy, because so they know they are being prosecuted and they can prepare their defenses.
After the initial investigations, the prosecutor will evaluate which ones of those people, need to be formally prosecuted in Court, and which ones have clearly no responsibility.
I hope this helps.
