Italian Criminal Procedure Research Articles

The Italian Route towards Digitalisation of Criminal Proceedings. The Latest Developments in the Field of Remote Justice

The development of the remote justice paradigm plays a key role in the digitalisation of criminal proceedings as provided for by Legislative Decree n. 150 of 2022. Taking advantage of the experience gained during the COVID-19 pandemic, when audiovisual links demonstrated their potential in terms of time savings and efficiency for the judicial system, the legislator decided to make participation by videoconference a stable and general alternative to in-presence participation for a wide range of acts and hearings (including the taking of evidence) provided that persons concerned give their consent. After reviewing the milestones in the evolution of the meaning and scope of remote justice within the realm of the Italian criminal procedure the paper attempts to answer two questions: how does the new legislation fit into the academic and jurisprudential debate developed on the subject over the years? Is the current framework able to combine efficiency and guarantees in a satisfactory way?

Neuroscientific Evidence in Italian Criminal Proceedings

The author asks whether and to what extent neuroscientific evidentiary techniques can be considered admissible in Italian criminal procedure to assess the mental state of the accused or to verify the truthfulness of a statement, analyzing the national jurisprudence on the subject. First, the author asks whether neuroscientific techniques can be used to determine whether the defendant was totally or partially insane at the time of the crime charged and to determine whether the defendant is a socially dangerous person. The answer is yes, although great caution must be exercised. The main risk is to theorize the existence of a real biological basis for antisocial behavior, which could even justify the adoption of restrictive measures praeter delictum against the biologically vulnerable person. Secondly, the author asks whether the techniques called A-IAT (Autobiographical Implicit Association Test) and TARA (Temporal Antagonistic Response Aletiometer), used in Italy in some criminal proceedings to verify the truthfulness of a statement, are compatible with the Italian law of evidence, which prohibits the use, even with the consent of the person concerned, of methods and techniques that are likely to impair his freedom of self-determination and his ability to recall and evaluate facts. The answer is certainly no if it is believed that these techniques can function as "memory detection" techniques, i.e. they are capable of detecting in the mind of the person concerned even memories that he or she has erased. More controversial is whether a-IAT and TARA are to be considered admissible if they are believed to be simple “lie-detection” techniques, aimed at revealing whether or not the declarant is truthful in reporting his or her memories.

Editoriale del Dossier “Il contrasto alla corruzione come strumento di lotta politica”

Tradicionalmente, segundo a gramática dos sistemas políticos-constitucionais modernos de civil law, os locais da política são o Parlamento e o governo; o Judiciário e o Ministério Público são regidos por outros princípios, os do mérito apurados com imparcialidade e em condições de igualdade. De um lado, o princípio eletivo, de outro, o princípio seletivo. Os juízes e os promotores se relacionam com a política apenas indiretamente, por meio da lei, a que Judiciário e MP devem obedecer. Parlamento e governo são os lugares da democracia, o outro é o local dos melhores, ou dos técnicos, ou da competência. No entanto, dogmas e conceitos que antes mantinham a distinção entre o que pertence ao judiciário e ao Ministério Público e o que, por outro lado, escapa ao seu domínio, tornam-se por sua vez elusivos e, para superar muitas dificuldades que derivam dessas ambiguidades, criou-se silenciosamente uma figura híbrida, a do “magistrado político” (o que, no sistema italiano, abrange a figura do juiz e do promotor). Passando pelo mito do “homem forte”, alimentado pelo espírito antielitista e pelo ressentimento social, até a atual ausência de gravitas na gestão das decisões coletivas, nas modalidades de formação da opinião pública e sua influência nas decisões políticas, neste editorial pretende-se refletir sobre os marcos interpretativos das transformações que estamos vivenciando - amplamente discutidas no sistema processual penal italiano - com o objetivo de estimular o debate sobre o tema da “luta contra a corrupção”, tanto em uma perspectiva geral, quanto, mais especificamente, em suas relações com o princípio de legalidade penal.

Exchanging Information on the Potential Evidence by Parties

Exchange information (evidence) by parties is more important in Criminal case. It plays an important role in the realization of the principle of equality in adversarial principle. It is an element of the principle of equality of arms, and is also regarded as an aspect of the right to ‘adequate time and facilities’ under ECHR Article 6 (3)(b).1 All Countries Criminal Procedure Codes has a special article, which regulate how to exchange information by parties. In Georgian Criminal Procedure Code (next time as - CPG) also has a special article 83, it’s name is - Exchanging information on the potential evidence by parties. Also in this topic I will make comparative analysis how to regulate and exchange evidence by parties in USA Federal Rule of Criminal procedure code and Italian criminal procedure code. Also discuss the issue of the introduction of technical means in the exchange of information on possible evidence.

The use of private expert opinion in criminal proceedings

W artykule podjęto rozważania dotyczące instytucji prywatnej opinii biegłego w procesie karnym w kontekście możliwości jej dowodowego w nim wykorzystania. Zwrócono uwagę na obiektywnie znikomą wartość analizowanego środka dowodowego, co wiąże się z jego swego rodzaju oderwaniem od źródła, od którego pochodzi, w tym z ograniczonymi możliwościami weryfikacji takiego dowodu. Jak się zdaje jest to związane m.in. z tym, iż autor prywatnej ekspertyzy co do zasady nie bierze formalnie udziału w postępowaniu. Z tych względów w artykule przedstawiono funkcjonującą na gruncie włoskiego procesu karnego instytucję konsultanta technicznego strony, wywodząc, że wprowadzenie takiego podmiotu do kategorii uczestników polskiego procesu karnego mogłoby stanowić swego rodzaju remedium na problemy i kontrowersje związane z udziałem wspierających strony ekspertów, a także przyczyniłoby się do urealnienia wpływu stron i ich reprezentantów na treść ustaleń w zakresie okoliczności, których rozstrzygnięcie wymaga posiadania wiadomości specjalnych.

Effective Assistance of Counsel: The Influence of the ECtHR Case Law on Italian Criminal Procedure

The essay highlights the influence of the ECtHR case law on Italian criminal procedure in the field of effective assistance of counsel. In particular, attention is paid towards the approach undertaken by domestic courts of directly applying the Strasbourg’s criteria concerning the “quality” of representation. The author points out possible dark areas and problematic aspects of this course, also in the light of the EU legislation.

Editorial do dossiê “Trânsito em julgado penal, princípio de legalidade, princípio de culpabilidade”

Que significado tem a expressão “mesmo fato” contida no art. 649 do código italiano de processo penal, que regulamenta o principio do ne bis in idem (proibição de segundo julgamento)? O fato objeto do segundo procedimento deve ser considerado em sua dimensão exclusivamente naturalística, independentemente de sua qualificação penal? Em que medida opera a proibição de segundo julgamento quando a lei tolera a duplicação do tratamento sancionatório, ou quando o ordenamento prevê para o mesmo fato, além de sanções penais, sanções civis ou administrativas de relevante gravidade? Em que medida se pode atribuir força executiva às sentenças irrevogáveis que tenham condenado o imputado por um fato não previsto pela lei como crime, ou que tenham infligido uma pena ilegal? Neste editorial, reflete-se sobre estas e similares temáticas – amplamente discutidas no ordenamento processual penal italiano –, com a intenção de estimular o debate sobre o tema da res iudicata, seja em uma perspectiva de caráter geral, seja, mais especificamente, em suas relações com os princípios de culpabilidade e legalidade penal.

I limiti oggettivi del ne bis in idem in Italia tra fonti nazionali ed europee

É premissa consolidada que o ne bis in idem constitua um direito fundamental, protegido por uma pluralidade de fontes nacionais (art. 649 do c.p.p. italiano) e supranacionais (art. 50 CDFUE e 4° protocolo CEDH). Entretanto, exatamente a “tutela multinível” dos direitos fundamentais que caracteriza o ordenamento italiano – paradoxalmente – corre o risco de se transformar em um obstáculo à mais ampla operabilidade dessa garantia. Ademais, nos panoramas italiano e europeu, as previsões que especificam os pressupostos para a aplicabilidade dessa garantia se caracterizam por um conteúdo heterogêneo (identidade do fato; identidade da infração), destinado a incidir negativamente sobre a definição da perspectiva objetiva da proibição de dupla persecução. Por outro lado, a interpretação das mesmas previsões por parte da jurisprudência italiana, ordinária e constitucional, e pelas Cortes supranacionais torna ainda mais incertos os confins do efeito preclusivo gerado por uma decisão irrevogável. Em particular, alude-se as hipóteses em que o ne bis in idem entre em jogo em relação ao “duplo binário sancionatório”, por força do qual o mesmo fato é sancionado, contemporaneamente, em campo penal e em campo administrativo. A reconstrução da perspectiva da garantia atribuída ao art. 649 do c.p.p. italiano deve partir da valorização do princípio de legalidade processual e implica, portanto, por um lado, a recondução da unidade do pressuposto representado pelo mesmo objeto dos diferentes procedimentos; por outro lado, evitar soluções casuísticas, contrárias ao princípio de legalidade, em relação ao pressuposto da duplicação dos diferentes procedimentos que se refiram ao mesmo fato.

Gênese da reforma constitucional do “giusto processo” na Itália

Este escrito analisa o complicado cenário que, a partir da promulgação do vigente código de processo penal italiano, em 1999 resultou na reforma constitucional do “giusto processo”. Inspirado em uma lógica acusatória, o código de 1988 tinha introduzido a “regra de ouro” do contraditório na formação da prova, estabelecendo a irrelevância probatória das declarações secretamente recolhidas pelos órgãos de investigação preliminar. Mal recebidos pela maioria da magistratura, os princípios acusatórios foram suprimidos em 1992 pela “revolução inquisitória” ocasionada por três sentenças da Corte constitucional (n. 24, 254, 255). Partindo do pressuposto de que o contraditório na formação da prova viola o accertamento da verdade, a Corte constitucional demoliu a “regra de ouro”, atribuindo valor probatório a todas (ou quase) declarações unilateralmente recolhidas na investigação preliminar pelo MP ou pela polícia. De fato, o erro da Corte constitucional não foi ter colocado como finalidade do processo penal o accertamento da verdade, o que precisa ser almejado por qualquer processo que aspire a confiança dos cidadãos. Ele foi, na verdade, ter considerado que o contraditório como um obstáculo à busca da verdade, ocasionando uma infeliz oposição entre dois valores que deveriam se relacionar intimamente. Essencial para a função cognitiva do processo é, de fato, exatamente o contraditório, ou seja, o método que, como ensina a ciência, consiste em submeter as hipóteses a serem provadas às mais severas tentativas de confrontação e falsificação; enquanto, por outro lado, parece totalmente razoável desconfiar daquilo que foi formado em segredo e, especialmente, das declarações que inevitavelmente tomam primazia na influência de quem, em posição de autoridade, as tenha unilateralmente recolhido. Uma tímida e parcial tentativa de recuperação do contraditório foi posteriormente operada pela lei 267 de 1997, que negou valor probatório às anteriores declarações sobre a responsabilidade de outros coimputados que depois em juízo tenham exercido o direito ao silêncio. A lei, todavia, até mesmo em razão das suas objetivas incongruências, acaba novamente declarada ilegítima pela Corte constitucional com a sentença 361 de 1998. Dessa vez, porém, surgem, junto com a União das Câmeras penais, também as forças políticas, feridas pela censura a uma lei que pouco antes tinha sido aprovada quase que unanimemente. Rapidamente acaba aprovada a reforma constitucional do “giusto processo” (lei constitucional n. 2 de 23 de novembro de 1999), com a qual se afirma textualmente que “o processo penal é regulado pelo princípio do contraditório na formação da prova” (tradução livre, art. 111, inciso 4° Const).

Criminal Investigation and Privacy in Italian Law

The law regulating criminal investigation both legitimates and limits the government’s use of power, and privacy is one of the most prominent issues in this process. This paper analyses criminal investigation in relation to privacy in Italian law, with particular focus on privacy-related safeguards and limitations to criminal investigation. As part of a large-scale project on privacy protection in the 21st century, together with similar country studies, it will facilitate comparative legal analysis of criminal investigation, and help to better understand privacy, as the forms and scope of privacy protection in criminal investigation law tell us something about how privacy is conceptualised. After an introduction on Italian criminal procedure, investigation powers are discussed that reflect limitations grounded in the protection of places, persons, things, and data, with particular attention for search and seizure, covert online searches, visual observation, and location tracking. The overview demonstrates that criminal investigation powers are largely under-regulated in statutory law, which has to be compensated for by case-law and triggers extensive doctrinal debates. What emerges from case-law and particularly the doctrinal debates on privacy protection is a strong emphasis on the capacity of individuals to shield parts of their private life from others’ access or cognition. The cornerstone of this protection is the home, as spatial projection of the person, but it also comprises, for instance, protection of conversation space. While some authors emphasise a shift in importance from secrecy or seclusion (through access control) to reserve (through broader mechanisms of regulating information flows), the former remain important. The paper concludes that doctrinal debates on topical investigation methods demonstrate a continuous search for a sustainable normative framework to assess the intrusiveness of criminal investigation in a world of increasing mobility and datafication. Through proposals for new normative concepts such as informatic privacy and a right not to be localised, in combination with strengthened attention for the right to anonymity, Italian doctrine seeks to help protect the underlying value that people should be able to develop and manifest their personality without undue constraints, which is ultimately what, in the Italian normative framework, privacy protection seeks to achieve.

Is "Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" a Self-Evident Concept? Considering the U.S. and the Italian Legal Cultures towards the Understanding of the Standard of Persuasion in Criminal Cases

With its fundamental decision In re Winship (1970) the United States Supreme Court set the constitutional basis of the standard of persuasion in criminal trials. The long standing standard of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt" was selected by the Court as the bedrock that protects the values at stake in a criminal case.Soon after this decision a dispute started between scholars and Courts on whether the “reasonable doubt standard" ought to be defined by jury instructions or could be considered a matter of the jurors' “original understanding," that is a “self-evident" concept. Depending on the solution of the dispute, failing to define the standard through suitable instruction could amount to a reversible constitutional error (i.e. a constitutional error that imposes reversal).In 2006 the highly discussed law n.46 introduced the standard of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt" ( prova “al di là di ogni ragionevole dubbio") in the Italian Criminal Procedure Code. The law does not define the standard but just states it.Even prior to this, in Italy, the standard at issue had been applied in important decisions by the Corte di Cassazione and some scholars had strongly argued the need of its introduction in the Italian criminal system. Both the Italian courts and Italian scholars had impliedly or explicitly referred to the U.S. legal experience for guidance.The U.S. and Italian criminal systems are notably different. Apart from the differences in substantial criminal law, those in criminal procedure are pronounced. According to these differences it is possible to argue that the same standard of persuasion might be given a different regime of application in the two systems. The present paper doesn't deal with this last issue, but is based on the premise that the concept itself of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt" has the same significance in the two systems.The aim of this paper is to show that “proof beyond a reasonable doubt," far from being a self-evident concept, needs accurate explanation.In order to do that, the paper studies the Italian and the U.S. legal cultures on the subject; that is, using Lawrence M. Friedman's words, “the ideas, values, expectations and attitudes – towards the standard - which some public or some part of the public holds."First, it focuses on the so called “external legal culture" remembering that this kind of legal culture has, through the institution of the jury, a peculiar weight in the application of the law in the U.S. criminal system. At this stage, the study also takes into account the “ideas of the standard" that emerge from movies, literature and newspapers.Afterwards the paper quickly focuses on the so called “internal legal culture," studying relevant decisions and doctrinal contributions to the subject.The consideration of the Italian and U.S. legal cultures leads to the conclusion that there is widespread confusion on the concept of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt" even within the community of lawyers and judges. For a correct understanding of the standard there is the need for a definition and, especially, for the specification of its rationales and its contents.Thus, the last goal of the paper is to point out the fundamental traits of the reasonable doubt standard with the help of the legal cultures previously assessed. A hint is also offered by some linguistic and further sociological consideration.The hope is to contribute, even slightly, to the understanding and therefore the application of such an important rule.

Paradigms of Judicial Supervision and Co-Ordination between Police and Prosecutors: The Italian Case in a Comparative Perspective

This article intends to describe and analyse the significance and the limits of judicial supervision in Italy. Observations and conclusions will be mainly based on semi-structured interviews with prosecutors, police officers and lawyers conducted in Italy in 2006. It will be argued that prosecutors can effectively supervise cases that they prioritised even though they may leave the police wide discretion in the investigation of routine cases. In so doing, fresh perspectives in the debate around judicial supervision of police investigations will be explored. The question is of intrinsic interest for the analysis of the operation of continental criminal justice systems. Italian criminal procedure is a mixture of adversarial and inquisitorial legal principles and judicial supervision is firmly based on co-ordination between police and prosecutors (who direct the investigation). Moreover, the nature of judicial supervision has also been a subject of debate within the Anglo-American literature which has examined prosecutorial practice in inquisitorial criminal justice systems. Goldstein and Marcus in 1977 and the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice in England and Wales (Runciman) in 1993 reached similar conclusions: judicial supervision is, in practice, ineffective. Other authors such as Langbein and Weinreb have suggested a different interpretation and remarked on prosecutors’ fundamental contribution, in inquisitorial criminal procedures, to the shaping of the case file. The analysis of prosecutorial practice in Italy can substantially contribute to this debate. And, more generally, it can help to conceptualise the role of prosecutors in contemporary criminal justice systems.

Negotiations 'on Evidence' and Negotiations 'on Sentence': Adversarial Experiments in Italian Criminal Procedure

Negotiations 'on Evidence' and Negotiations 'on Sentence': Adversarial Experiments in Italian Criminal Procedure

Impediments to Transnational Cooperation in Undercover Policing: A Comparative Study of the United States and Italy

This article examines fundamental differences in how the United States and Italy think about, regulate, and attempt to legitimate undercover policing. It identifies a number of ways in which normative differences between American and Italian regulation impede transnational cooperation in covert investigations. The article also uses the insights gained from the contrast between the Italian and American regulatory approaches to hypothesize about the prospects for convergence on shared regulatory norms and the institutional impediments that such changes would face in Italy. The article is based on extensive field interviews with Italian police officials, prosecutors, and judges, and on an array of sources that illuminate law-in-action, including police manuals, ministry guidelines for conducting undercover investigations, and training materials. Both the American and Italian criminal justice systems treat undercover policing as problematic, but in strikingly dissimilar ways. American regulation focuses primarily on the risk that covert operations may distort behavior and encourage crime in the process of exposing it. By contrast, Italy especially emphasizes how undercover policing poses a threat to the rule of law - in particular, to the principle that the criminal laws apply to everyone, police officer and civilian alike. In the Italian legal system, the central dilemma of undercover policing is that allowing undercover agents to participate in the offenses they investigate (e.g. by purchasing contraband) implicates them in crimes and thus violates the principle that the criminal laws apply to the police along with the rest of society. Given this concern, Italian criminal procedure proceeds from the rule that undercover agents may not violate criminal laws in their undercover rule unless a statute expressly exempts them from criminal liability for doing so. Italy applies to its agents what I term “societal norms” - rules that apply to society in general rather than to the police in particular. By contrast, the American legal system does not assume that undercover conduct is per se criminal. American regulation of undercover investigations rest on the assumption that undercover operations need to be bounded through norms specific to government actors, that is, “police norms.” The difference between Italian use of societal norms and American reliance on police-specific norms expresses itself in the two systems’ contrasting conceptions of entrapment. In the United States, entrapment is a defense afforded to targets. It is a violation of investigative norms specific to governmental actors. In Italy entrapment is a crime committed by an undercover agent when he provokes a target to commit an offense. It is a form of accomplice liability that imposes criminal liability on the undercover agent along with the target. This Italian conception of entrapment-as-complicity embodies the notion that entrapment is a violation of a societal norm. These fundamental differences between the American and Italian undercover policing systems present underappreciated obstacles to international cooperation in transnational undercover investigations. Advocates of closer coordination do not sufficiently emphasize or appreciate how extensively Italy would need to transform its domestic policing regimes to try to facilitate covert operations with American agencies. Better collaboration would require fundamental changes in a multiplicity of areas whose connection to undercover policing is not readily apparent: for instance, in the interaction of informants and police; in the rules of evidence, including the use of suppression remedies; in the defenses allowed to suspects; in the independence of Italian prosecutors from judicial oversight and executive accountability; and in the range of discretion permitted to prosecutors and judges. A comparison between the United States and Italy illuminates some of the dynamics involved in harmonizing regulatory regimes premised upon different norms.

Forensic Autopsies in Italy

Abstract In Italy, forensic autopsies are performed under one of two different statutes. Judicial autopsies are requested by the prosecutor or by the court; and nonjudicial forensic autopsies are done under a special statute whenever a proper death certificate was not filed by a treating physician. Judicial autopsies are performed by doctors chosen from a special list, after a basic check on their training and competence, on a case-by-case basis. A fee of some $350 is paid, by the Ministry of Justice, to the doctor for each case. As we have had an adversarial trial system, since 1989, we also have “adversarial autopsies” and the prosecutor, the defendant and the victim's next of kin each can appoint a forensic pathologist as a consultant to stand in at the autopsy and discuss the case. These forensic pathologists will testify in court as expert witnesses Nonjudicial autopsies, which are regulated by the National Health Service, are usually only performed by forensic pathologists in large urban areas. Elsewhere they are often omitted for lack of qualified physicians. In this article, we discuss some of the practical and legal problems arising from both the new Italian criminal procedure and the National Health Service Regulation, stressing the need to study different systems, including the medical examiner system, in order to improve the quality of forensic medical investigations.