ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Reply
Old 6th August 2020, 06:28 AM   #2881
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,277
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
To conclude as to how the United States could have used extradition to embarrass Italy....

Canada's intervention forced Wisconsin to give Bembenek, essentially, a new trial - at which the State called it even an sentenced her to "time served". She also faced no sanction for being illegally at large following her 1990 escape from prison.

Imagine the USA attaching similar conditions to any theoretical extradition request for Knox!
I don't think such conditions would be negotiated. Knox had already been acquitted by the Hellmann Appeal Court, based on the lack of any credible evidence of guilt. The C-V report, for example, totally demolished the alleged DNA evidence against Knox (and Sollecito).

There was no new evidence of guilt brought out by the Chieffi CSC panel in its quashing the Hellmann acquittal. It's argument to quash the acquittal was largely based on absurdities, such as its failures to understand the forensic significance of contamination of DNA samples and of the failure of Stefanoni to follow scientifically adequate methods in her DNA testing. The one issue of any significance was the perceived need to test one additional DNA sample from the knife blade. This testing did not require Knox's presence in Italy. In fact, when this sample was tested by the Carabinieri scientific lab, it was found to be not incriminating; it was identified as Knox's DNA, not Kercher's, and possibly dislodged from the handle.

My view is that the US State Department would have viewed the judicial proceedings from the Chieffi CSC panel quashing up to the Marasca CSC panel final acquittal as an internal Italian struggle, possibly to wind up before the ECHR, over Italy's compliance with its own laws and human rights treaty obligations.

Thus, there would have been no US legal basis for the US to extradite Knox, had there been a request from the Italian Government. Any State Department effort to extradite would have undergone US federal court review, where the person to be extradited can seek release under habeas corpus. That, and the possible investigation by the US Congress, would have embarrassed the US Government officials allowing the extradition.

Nor would the US Government attempt to officially embarrass the Italian Government. There would be no benefit to US - Italy relations by such official embarrassment. Any potential wrongful final conviction of Knox while she was resident in the US could be addressed by her through an application to the ECHR, as was done by her for the conviction for calunnia against Lumumba.

Last edited by Numbers; 6th August 2020 at 07:40 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2020, 07:33 AM   #2882
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,277
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post

Doing some more searching, I found a cache of the cables from 2009, apparently from prison visits and attendance at the court trial. All content except for the identification, criminal charges, whether the cable documents a visit or court attendance, and notices of upcoming hearings are redacted. Thus, there are no summaries of the court hearings by the Embassy/Consular staff or of Knox's conditions, only blank pages.

Hilariously, apparently some (PIP as well as PGP) apparently interpreted this lack of information due to redaction as a lack of interest by the US Department of State.

The site is: https://www.scribd.com/doc/33433132/Knox-Cable-Traffic

Paragraphs 1, Name, and 24, Remarks, of the post - 2011 acquittal cable are reproduced at:

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/docume...fOctober11.pdf

The clarity of the characters in the text suggests but does not prove that the document is a retyped copy of the original cable. It's not clear, therefore, whether there were official redactions within paragraphs 2 through 23 or whether those paragraphs were deleted by the copyists. Of course, we cannot be sure whether the given document, if indeed retyped, is a fair and accurate rendering of the original cable.

The last sentence of Paragraph 24 is:



It is clear from this last sentence, as we found earlier, that the "case closed" applies to the "Post", that is, the US Embassy in Rome and its participation. It doesn't relate, as Vogt and some PGP have claimed, to the Italian judicial processes.
One other important point some are missing about the role of the US Embassy Rome or other US embassies working with Knox or other arrested Americans:

The services they get are from a department or office called (according to the letterhead of the cable):

"Overseas Citizens Services".

Obviously, this office specializes in assistance to US citizens in foreign countries. Once the US citizen returns to the US, that office is no longer responsible for assistance. The Departments of State and of Justice in Washington, DC would have any remaining responsibility.

Last edited by Numbers; 6th August 2020 at 08:14 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2020, 08:48 AM   #2883
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,750
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Thus, there would have been no US legal basis for the US to extradite Knox, had there been a request from the Italian Government. Any State Department effort to extradite would have undergone US federal court review, where the person to be extradited can seek release under habeas corpus. That, and the possible investigation by the US Congress, would have embarrassed the US Government officials allowing the extradition.
"Allowing" is one thing. A lawyer friend explained to me that the Canadian demands in the Bembenek case was the tip of an iceberg. Canada could have just said no, and left it at that. But for some reason Canada chose to embarrass Wisconsin as well as Milwaukee, thinking that the latter would never proceed under the terms outlined. He'd said he would have loved to have listened in on what he'd imagined had been heated calls between Madison and Ottawa.

His view was that Wisconsin (for some unkniwn reason) chose to be embarrassed, almost immediately recognizing that instead of trying Bembenek for being unlawfully at large, they had to reopen the original indictment. The outcome resulting in her release was a successful burying of the can of worms they should never have fooled with.

This is just me, but in the Knox case, I bet some extradition court in the U.S., or even the State Department would have attached similar riders to any extradition deal, which would have similarly forced Italy to put up or shut up. If Italy had been smarter than Wisconsin they wouldn't have even have made the request. The request results in no win options.

Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Nor would the US Government attempt to officially embarrass the Italian Government. There would be no benefit to US - Italy relations by such official embarrassment. Any potential wrongful final conviction of Knox while she was resident in the US could be addressed by her through an application to the ECHR, as was done by her for the conviction for calunnia against Lumumba.
Then why did Canada go out of its way to embarrass Wisconsin?
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2020, 08:54 AM   #2884
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,277
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post

Doing some more searching, I found a cache of the cables from 2009, apparently from prison visits and attendance at the court trial. All content except for the identification, criminal charges, whether the cable documents a visit or court attendance, and notices of upcoming hearings are redacted. Thus, there are no summaries of the court hearings by the Embassy/Consular staff or of Knox's conditions, only blank pages.

Hilariously, apparently some (PIP as well as PGP) apparently interpreted this lack of information due to redaction as a lack of interest by the US Department of State.

The site is: https://www.scribd.com/doc/33433132/Knox-Cable-Traffic

Paragraphs 1, Name, and 24, Remarks, of the post - 2011 acquittal cable are reproduced at:

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/docume...fOctober11.pdf

The clarity of the characters in the text suggests but does not prove that the document is a retyped copy of the original cable. It's not clear, therefore, whether there were official redactions within paragraphs 2 through 23 or whether those paragraphs were deleted by the copyists. Of course, we cannot be sure whether the given document, if indeed retyped, is a fair and accurate rendering of the original cable.

The last sentence of Paragraph 24 is:



It is clear from this last sentence, as we found earlier, that the "case closed" applies to the "Post", that is, the US Embassy in Rome and its participation. It doesn't relate, as Vogt and some PGP have claimed, to the Italian judicial processes.
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
To conclude as to how the United States could have used extradition to embarrass Italy....

Canada's intervention forced Wisconsin to give Bembenek, essentially, a new trial - at which the State called it even an sentenced her to "time served". She also faced no sanction for being illegally at large following her 1990 escape from prison.

Imagine the USA attaching similar conditions to any theoretical extradition request for Knox!
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I don't think such conditions would be negotiated. Knox had already been acquitted by the Hellmann Appeal Court, based on the lack of any credible evidence of guilt. The C-V report, for example, totally demolished the alleged DNA evidence against Knox (and Sollecito).

There was no new evidence of guilt brought out by the Chieffi CSC panel in its quashing the Hellmann acquittal. It's argument to quash the acquittal was largely based on absurdities, such as its failures to understand the forensic significance of contamination of DNA samples and of the failure of Stefanoni to follow scientifically adequate methods in her DNA testing. The one issue of any significance was the perceived need to test one additional DNA sample from the knife blade. This testing did not require Knox's presence in Italy. In fact, when this sample was tested by the Carabinieri scientific lab, it was found to be not incriminating; it was identified as Knox's DNA, not Kercher's, and possibly dislodged from the handle.

My view is that the US State Department would have viewed the judicial proceedings from the Chieffi CSC panel quashing up to the Marasca CSC panel final acquittal as an internal Italian struggle, possibly to wind up before the ECHR, over Italy's compliance with its own laws and human rights treaty obligations.

Thus, there would have been no US legal basis for the US to extradite Knox, had there been a request from the Italian Government. Any State Department effort to extradite would have undergone US federal court review, where the person to be extradited can seek release under habeas corpus. That, and the possible investigation by the US Congress, would have embarrassed the US Government officials allowing the extradition.

Nor would the US Government attempt to officially embarrass the Italian Government. There would be no benefit to US - Italy relations by such official embarrassment. Any potential wrongful final conviction of Knox while she was resident in the US could be addressed by her through an application to the ECHR, as was done by her for the conviction for calunnia against Lumumba.
Imagine the embarrassment of the US Government if there had been a request for Knox's extradition from Italy and the Secretary of State decided to proceed with the process.

Knox would by arrested by federal marshals. The case would have first been reviewed for procedural conformity to the extradition treaty by a federal magistrate. Almost all cases pass that review. So assume that Knox would be detained for extradition.

But the next step would be significant - Knox, through her lawyer, would file a petition for habeas corpus with the US federal district court. One possible discovery request by Knox would be the cables sent by the US Embassy in Rome to the Department of State about the case. Recall that the 2009 cables, insofar as they have been made public under FOI, have page after page totally blank - I believe (and this is very likely) redacted by the DoS to prevent Italy from being embarrassed by the Embassy observer's commentary on the arbitrary, legally flawed, or unlawful proceedings in the Massei court. What would be the response of the US federal court or of the US Congress and the media and public when they learned that the DoS was attempting to extradite someone who had been subjected to a legally flawed trial, as stated publicly by US Senator Cantwell?
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2020, 09:21 AM   #2885
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,277
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
"Allowing" is one thing. A lawyer friend explained to me that the Canadian demands in the Bembenek case was the tip of an iceberg. Canada could have just said no, and left it at that. But for some reason Canada chose to embarrass Wisconsin as well as Milwaukee, thinking that the latter would never proceed under the terms outlined. He'd said he would have loved to have listened in on what he'd imagined had been heated calls between Madison and Ottawa.

His view was that Wisconsin (for some unkniwn reason) chose to be embarrassed, almost immediately recognizing that instead of trying Bembenek for being unlawfully at large, they had to reopen the original indictment. The outcome resulting in her release was a successful burying of the can of worms they should never have fooled with.

This is just me, but in the Knox case, I bet some extradition court in the U.S., or even the State Department would have attached similar riders to any extradition deal, which would have similarly forced Italy to put up or shut up. If Italy had been smarter than Wisconsin they wouldn't have even have made the request. The request results in no win options.



Then why did Canada go out of its way to embarrass Wisconsin?
Wisconsin doesn't have an NHL team so no embarrassment would be of concern.

Or, to be more direct, that embarrassment is minor compared to all the self-inflicted embarrassment of various government actions in the US. I think that for some other countries, such as Italy, there may be more concerns if some Italian government or judiciary mistake is pointed out by a foreign government.

Perhaps Wisconsin considered the Canadian extradition conditions the equivalent of well-intentioned credible constructive criticism.

Last edited by Numbers; 6th August 2020 at 09:44 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2020, 10:23 AM   #2886
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,750
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Perhaps Wisconsin considered the Canadian extradition conditions the equivalent of well-intentioned credible constructive criticism.
I have some land in Florida for sale. Maybe a bridge in the Arizona desert.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2020, 11:05 AM   #2887
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,410
All this discussion is just an offshoot from Vixen's ongoing claims that the 2015 annulment of the guilty verdicts was 'corrupt' because "Bruno-Marasca had it taken out of their hands," and "they were back chanelled by the US State Department's view that an American citizen will never be extradited". Of course, this is just nonsense and has been disproved by the evidence presented that the majority of extradition requests by Italy of US citizens have been granted.

It also stems from Vixen's unsupported claims that "the US State Department saw Knox as being protected by double jeopardy", it "saw the Hellman Court as final", and " Italy was well aware that once Knox had flown there was no way they were ever going to extradite her." As evidence, Vixen presents, well....a cable from the US embassy basically stating that its role is over as Knox has left Italy, a British right wing tabloid claiming some unidentified "US State Dept. official" says Knox will never go back to Italian jail", and "investigative author" Ergon (LOL!!!!!) has figured out that source is 'diplomat' James Moninger, who is, in fact, a mere immigration officer.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2020, 12:37 PM   #2888
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,750
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I don't think such conditions would be negotiated. Knox had already been acquitted by the Hellmann Appeal Court, based on the lack of any credible evidence of guilt. The C-V report, for example, totally demolished the alleged DNA evidence against Knox (and Sollecito).
With all respect, extradition in the Knox case would have followed the Nencini conviction, as if in an alternate universe had been upheld by the Marasca-Bruno ISC panel.

As such, potentially conditions would have been negotiated. Nencini accepted Stefanoni's DNA work and seemed to trash C-V, although when actually read through it shows that Nencini had not known what he was talking about. He held himself as the "expert of the experts" that, in reality, Marasca-Bruno had noted as one factor in acquitting the pair.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 6th August 2020 at 12:47 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2020, 12:47 PM   #2889
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,750
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
All this discussion is just an offshoot from Vixen's ongoing claims that the 2015 annulment of the guilty verdicts was 'corrupt' because "Bruno-Marasca had it taken out of their hands," and "they were back chanelled by the US State Department's view that an American citizen will never be extradited". Of course, this is just nonsense and has been disproved by the evidence presented that the majority of extradition requests by Italy of US citizens have been granted.

It also stems from Vixen's unsupported claims that "the US State Department saw Knox as being protected by double jeopardy", it "saw the Hellman Court as final", and " Italy was well aware that once Knox had flown there was no way they were ever going to extradite her." As evidence, Vixen presents, well....a cable from the US embassy basically stating that its role is over as Knox has left Italy, a British right wing tabloid claiming some unidentified "US State Dept. official" says Knox will never go back to Italian jail", and "investigative author" Ergon (LOL!!!!!) has figured out that source is 'diplomat' James Moninger, who is, in fact, a mere immigration officer.
All of this is moot. Marasca-Bruno, on behalf of the Italian Supreme Court, acquitted the pair. Extradition, therefore, could never be on the table. (Being "back-channelled" makes no sense in this.)

As it were, though, lawyers at the time (c. 2014) who commented on extradition, seemed to be all over the map. Me, I went with Jeffery Toobin on CNN who told Piers Morgan that if the ISC eventually **did** sign-off on a conviction - that the US would never honour an extradition request which might have followed.

My memory of his comments as Piers Morgan was trying to deal with the various rabbit holes in this case (again, c. 2014): "Look, let's cut to the chase. Knox isn't going anywhere. No extradition court in the U.S. is going to extradite based on this evidence. Someone can live a full and long life within the large expanse of the U.S. If it ever gets to that, I'd advise her to just forget about Italy - convicting her is their problem." (He didn't mention that it would have also been Raffaele's problem!)
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2020, 12:56 PM   #2890
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,410
As you said, it's a moot point and all speculation. No one know what would have happened and that includes Vixen who has a habit of stating her opinions as facts.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2020, 01:33 PM   #2891
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 704
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Comparisons are odious.
I want to bookmark this statement. I think it will come in handy.
whoanellie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2020, 01:57 PM   #2892
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,277
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
With all respect, extradition in the Knox case would have followed the Nencini conviction, as if in an alternate universe had been upheld by the Marasca-Bruno ISC panel.

As such, potentially conditions would have been negotiated. Nencini accepted Stefanoni's DNA work and seemed to trash C-V, although when actually read through it shows that Nencini had not known what he was talking about. He held himself as the "expert of the experts" that, in reality, Marasca-Bruno had noted as one factor in acquitting the pair.
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
All of this is moot. Marasca-Bruno, on behalf of the Italian Supreme Court, acquitted the pair. Extradition, therefore, could never be on the table. (Being "back-channelled" makes no sense in this.)

As it were, though, lawyers at the time (c. 2014) who commented on extradition, seemed to be all over the map. Me, I went with Jeffery Toobin on CNN who told Piers Morgan that if the ISC eventually **did** sign-off on a conviction - that the US would never honour an extradition request which might have followed.

My memory of his comments as Piers Morgan was trying to deal with the various rabbit holes in this case (again, c. 2014): "Look, let's cut to the chase. Knox isn't going anywhere. No extradition court in the U.S. is going to extradite based on this evidence. Someone can live a full and long life within the large expanse of the U.S. If it ever gets to that, I'd advise her to just forget about Italy - convicting her is their problem." (He didn't mention that it would have also been Raffaele's problem!)
This is why the idea of a (theoretical) extradition with conditions in the Knox case could have occurred seems farfetched.

However, look at another case where someone - Ira Einhorn - a US citizen accused of murdering his (ex) girlfriend in Pennsylvania - was extradited to the US after hiding out in France for 17 years. The US accepted a number of conditions to obtain his extradition. Not only did Pennsylvania assure France that he would not be sentenced to death (in fact, the state did not have the death penalty), but after he was tried and convicted in absentia, Pennsylvania passed a law assuring that he would be granted a new trial on his return.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Einhorn

As you mention, Toobin and some other lawyers recognized that a potential extradition would not have happened because the alleged evidence against Knox was not credible. This lack of credibility was shown by the Hellmann court in 2011. The Nencini court judgment did nothing to restore the credibility of the alleged evidence. An objective legal observer, understanding the basic requirements of DNA forensics, would see the Nencini (and Massei) convictions, and thus any final conviction as arbitrary. If one assumes that the US Secretary of State at the time of the (theoretical) request for extradition was an objective legal observer, then the request would be diplomatically refused.

The legal opinions by alleged experts contrary to this position assumed that the Secretary of State would not inquire into the reasoning of the conviction.

Some of these alleged experts seem not to have read the extradition treaty, which (like all such treaties) includes provision for the Secretary of State to deny, with an explanation of the US reasons, any extradition request.

Of course, this is all moot since the acquittal by the Marasca CSC panel.

However, it is informative in terms of understanding the US extradition process. A key element is that a person whose extradition may be requested is entitled to petition the Secretary of State regarding the (alleged) unfairness of a past or anticipated trial in the requesting country, and such issues may be brought up (but not necessarily heard) before a federal court in a habeas corpus petition should the Secretary of State advance the extradition. And it would not be Italian judicial procedures which amount to double jeopardy in the US that would be the unfairness, but rather the use of blatantly non-credible evidence to convict someone. That the Secretary of the State would refuse extradition in those circumstances is highly likely, although not certain. We see currently, however, in the request by Turkey for the extradition of Fethullah Gulen, that the request has been refused because the evidence was apparently not credible.

Last edited by Numbers; 6th August 2020 at 02:14 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2020, 02:17 PM   #2893
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,410
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
I want to bookmark this statement. I think it will come in handy.
I thought the same thing. Along with these:

“I have no problem admitting I’m wrong. I am first to put my hand up, and it’s immediate. It is a mystery to me why anyone would refuse to admit an error, apart from politicians, I suppose.”
Continuation 27, #3997

Lousy pic below but it says "I am rarely wrong as my assertions are based on well-founded facts or sources."



Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2020, 05:21 PM   #2894
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,277
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
This is why the idea of a (theoretical) extradition with conditions in the Knox case could have occurred seems farfetched.

However, look at another case where someone - Ira Einhorn - a US citizen accused of murdering his (ex) girlfriend in Pennsylvania - was extradited to the US after hiding out in France for 17 years. The US accepted a number of conditions to obtain his extradition. Not only did Pennsylvania assure France that he would not be sentenced to death (in fact, the state did not have the death penalty), but after he was tried and convicted in absentia, Pennsylvania passed a law assuring that he would be granted a new trial on his return.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Einhorn

As you mention, Toobin and some other lawyers recognized that a potential extradition would not have happened because the alleged evidence against Knox was not credible. This lack of credibility was shown by the Hellmann court in 2011. The Nencini court judgment did nothing to restore the credibility of the alleged evidence. An objective legal observer, understanding the basic requirements of DNA forensics, would see the Nencini (and Massei) convictions, and thus any final conviction as arbitrary. If one assumes that the US Secretary of State at the time of the (theoretical) request for extradition was an objective legal observer, then the request would be diplomatically refused.

The legal opinions by alleged experts contrary to this position assumed that the Secretary of State would not inquire into the reasoning of the conviction.

Some of these alleged experts seem not to have read the extradition treaty, which (like all such treaties) includes provision for the Secretary of State to deny, with an explanation of the US reasons, any extradition request.

Of course, this is all moot since the acquittal by the Marasca CSC panel.

However, it is informative in terms of understanding the US extradition process. A key element is that a person whose extradition may be requested is entitled to petition the Secretary of State regarding the (alleged) unfairness of a past or anticipated trial in the requesting country, and such issues may be brought up (but not necessarily heard) before a federal court in a habeas corpus petition should the Secretary of State advance the extradition. And it would not be Italian judicial procedures which amount to double jeopardy in the US that would be the unfairness, but rather the use of blatantly non-credible evidence to convict someone. That the Secretary of the State would refuse extradition in those circumstances is highly likely, although not certain. We see currently, however, in the request by Turkey for the extradition of Fethullah Gulen, that the request has been refused because the evidence was apparently not credible.
To perhaps belabor this topic of extradition from the US, here are some of the relevant sections from the US - Italy extradition treaty*:

First, the treaty makes clear that extradition is not automatic; an extradition request may be refused, although the reasons for the refusal are to be supplied:

Quote:
ARTICLE XIII Decision and Surrender

1. The Requested Party shall promptly communicate to the Requesting Party through the diplomatic channel its decision on the request for extradition.

2. The Requested Party shall provide reasons for any partial or complete rejection of the request for extradition and a copy of the court's decision, if any.
Second, the request for extradition must be accompanied by documentation that enables the requested party to make a decision to extradite; this information differs somewhat depending on whether the individual sought is to be brought to trial, has been already convicted, or has been convicted in absentia or contumacy {= refused to appear at trial or refused to obey a court order}. Note that for an already convicted person, the requesting party must supply the judgment of conviction - which would be at a minimum the short form verdict, but could be the full motivation report, in the case of the requesting party being Italy.

Quote:
ARTICLE X Extradition Requests and Supporting Documents

I. Requests for extradition and supporting documents shall be transmitted through the diplomatic channel, which shall include transmission as provided for in paragraph 8 of this Article.

2. All requests for extradition shall be accompanied by:

(a) documents, statements or other information which set forth the identity and probable location of the person sought, with, if available, physical description, photographs and fingerprints;

(b) a brief statement of the facts of the case, including the time and location of the offense;

c) the texts of the laws describing the essential elements and the designation of the offense for which extradition is requested;

(d) the texts of the laws describing the punishment for the offense; and

(e) the texts of the laws describing the time limit on the prosecution or the execution of the punishment for the offense.

3. A request for extradition which relates to a person who has not yet been convicted shall also be accompanied by:

(a) a certified copy of the arrest warrant or any order having similar effect;

(b) a summary of the facts of the case, of the relevant evidence and of the conclusions reached, providing a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offense for which extradition is requested; in the case of requests from Italy such a summary shall be written by a magistrate, and in the case of requests from the United States it shall be written by the prosecutor and shall include a copy of the charge; and

(c) documents establishing that the person sought is the person to whom the arrest warrant or equivalent order refers.

4. A request for extradition which relates to a person who has been convicted shall, in addition to those items set forth in paragraph 2 of this Article, be accompanied by:

(a) a copy of the judgment of conviction, or, in the case of the United States, if the person has been found guilty but not yet sentenced, a statement by a judicial officer to that effect;

b) if the penalty has been pronounced, a copy of the sentence and a statement as to the duration of the penalty still to be served; and

(c) documents establishing that the person sought is the person convicted.

5. If the person sought has been convicted in absentia or in contumacy, all issues relating to this aspect of the request shall be decided by the Executive Authority of the United States or the competent authorities of Italy. In such cases, the Requesting Party shall submit such documents as are described in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of this Article and a statement regarding the procedures, if any, that would be available to the person sought if he or she were extradited.

6. The documents which accompany an extradition request shall be made available in English and Italian by the Requesting Party.
Third, if the requested party finds that the information supplied is insufficient to make a decision, it is entitled to request additional documentary information, imposing a reasonable time limit for submission of the documents:

Quote:
ARTICLE XI Additional Documentation

1. If the Requested Party considers that the documentation furnished in support of a request for extradition is incomplete or otherwise does not conform to the requirements of this Treaty, that Party shall request the submission of necessary additional documentation. The Requested Party shall set a reasonable time limit for the submission of such documentation, and shall grant a reasonable extension of that time limit upon an application by the Requesting Party setting forth the reasons requiring the extension.
Let's see how the above would apply to a hypothetical where Knox's conviction for the murder/rape of Kercher by the Nencini appeal court would have been made final, rather than annulled with an acquittal, by a CSC panel.

We will assume a Secretary of State (SoS) and officials of the Departments of State and of Justice who sincerely attempts to fulfill their oaths of office and are neither idiots nor robots.

We also assume that the SoS has been monitoring the case at least through the end of the Hellmann Appeal Court trial and acquittal - recall the numerous cables, many with page after page of redacted text, from the US Embassy Rome to the DoS.

1. The SoS would be given a copy of the "judgment of conviction". If that does not include the motivation report containing the reasons for conviction, the SoS may request that and any additional supporting information.

2. The DoS records on the case would include the Embassy cable announcing Knox's 2011 acquittal by the Hellmann Appeal Court and the information that she had been legally freed from prison and was legally allowed to depart from Italy with no legal obligation to return or other preconditions.

3. The SoS and DoS staff, possibly with the help of the DoJ, would attempt to reconcile the final conviction with the earlier acquittal. This may require them to seek additional documentation from Italy.

4. The SoS must determine what step to take with regard to the request, in view of their oath of office**.

5. From a legal viewpoint, the SoS's next step would depend on the analysis of the case, including the contrasting motivation reports and the relevant documented evidence, such as the Conti-Vecchiotti report.

* Source: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/upl...ion-Treaty.pdf


** 5 U.S. Code § 3331. Oath of office

An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331

Last edited by Numbers; 6th August 2020 at 05:26 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2020, 10:50 AM   #2895
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,277
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
To perhaps belabor this topic of extradition from the US, here are some of the relevant sections from the US - Italy extradition treaty*:

First, the treaty makes clear that extradition is not automatic; an extradition request may be refused, although the reasons for the refusal are to be supplied:



Second, the request for extradition must be accompanied by documentation that enables the requested party to make a decision to extradite; this information differs somewhat depending on whether the individual sought is to be brought to trial, has been already convicted, or has been convicted in absentia or contumacy {= refused to appear at trial or refused to obey a court order}. Note that for an already convicted person, the requesting party must supply the judgment of conviction - which would be at a minimum the short form verdict, but could be the full motivation report, in the case of the requesting party being Italy.



Third, if the requested party finds that the information supplied is insufficient to make a decision, it is entitled to request additional documentary information, imposing a reasonable time limit for submission of the documents:



Let's see how the above would apply to a hypothetical where Knox's conviction for the murder/rape of Kercher by the Nencini appeal court would have been made final, rather than annulled with an acquittal, by a CSC panel.

We will assume a Secretary of State (SoS) and officials of the Departments of State and of Justice who sincerely attempts to fulfill their oaths of office and are neither idiots nor robots.

We also assume that the SoS has been monitoring the case at least through the end of the Hellmann Appeal Court trial and acquittal - recall the numerous cables, many with page after page of redacted text, from the US Embassy Rome to the DoS.

1. The SoS would be given a copy of the "judgment of conviction". If that does not include the motivation report containing the reasons for conviction, the SoS may request that and any additional supporting information.

2. The DoS records on the case would include the Embassy cable announcing Knox's 2011 acquittal by the Hellmann Appeal Court and the information that she had been legally freed from prison and was legally allowed to depart from Italy with no legal obligation to return or other preconditions.

3. The SoS and DoS staff, possibly with the help of the DoJ, would attempt to reconcile the final conviction with the earlier acquittal. This may require them to seek additional documentation from Italy.

4. The SoS must determine what step to take with regard to the request, in view of their oath of office**.

5. From a legal viewpoint, the SoS's next step would depend on the analysis of the case, including the contrasting motivation reports and the relevant documented evidence, such as the Conti-Vecchiotti report.

* Source: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/upl...ion-Treaty.pdf


** 5 U.S. Code § 3331. Oath of office

An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331
I will belabor this topic, moot for the Knox case, to make some additional points about the relationship between a hypothetical request for Knox's extradition to Italy, in light of the facts of the case, and US Constitutional and statute law.

First, I will return to the fallacy of some PGP and of some lawyers who have commented on the Knox case that extradition from the US occurs essentially automatically upon request for a "fugitive" by the foreign country. In the apparent view of some of those commentators, and perhaps of some others, extradition from the US would be as automatic as the operation of a vending machine - one inserts some money into the machine and the machine (if working properly) releases a product, for example, a can containing a soft drink.

In my previous post (quoted above), I showed that the text of the US - Italy extradition treaty explicitly includes the possibility that either state was allowed to reject, while providing reasons, an extradition request from the other.

US extradition law gives the Secretary of State the authority to order or refuse (not order) an extradition:

Quote:
18 U.S. Code § 3186. Secretary of State to surrender fugitive

The Secretary of State may order the person committed under sections 3184 or 3185 of this title to be delivered to any authorized agent of such foreign government, to be tried for the offense of which charged.

Such agent may hold such person in custody, and take him to the territory of such foreign government, pursuant to such treaty.

A person so accused who escapes may be retaken in the same manner as any person accused of any offense.
The term "may order" suggests an option to "order", in contrast to "shall order" or "must order", and since the treaty shows that extradition may be refused, it is consistent that "may order" indicates an option to order or not. Here's an example of a case where the US has to date refused extradition, as reported in a media article about an indictment of some individuals allegedly illegally failing to notify the US Government that they were hired as agents by a foreign country to generate negative publicity about a person whose extradition was sought by that country:

Quote:
According to the indictment, Turkey’s government asked the United States in July 2016 to arrest and extradite Mr. {Fethullah} Gulen, whom Turkish officials have accused of trying to overthrow Mr. Erdogan in the military coup that month.

The Justice Department {advising the State Department} rejected Turkey’s request, the indictment said, because it had not met “the legal standards for extradition.”
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/17/u...ijan-kian.html

Second, I want to clarify what the oath taken by the Secretary of State (and other such US officials) means, since some of the terminology may seem unusual. Specifically, "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States ... I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same {Constitution of the US} ... I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter." The term "true faith" and "faithfully" is meant as acting in "good faith", the opposite of the legal term "bad faith". A definition of "bad faith" is "the fraudulent deception of another person; the intentional or malicious refusal to perform some duty or contractual obligation" or "violating basic standards of honesty".

Third, I suggest that the Constitutional issue with a hypothetical extradition of Knox, assumed finally convicted based upon the Nencini judgment of conviction, would not necessarily be the prohibition of "double jeopardy" itself, which was so widely discussed after the Nencini conviction, but rather the US Constitution's insistence upon "due process". Here's the text of the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution:

Quote:
Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The reason for the prohibition of "double jeopardy" was to prevent an acquitted person, presumably innocent, to be repeatedly retried by the Government until found guilty.

In the interpretation of US courts, the clause requiring "due process" does not mean only that there are defined laws and procedures, but also that criminal proceeding are conducted fairly. "Due process" may be defined as "A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious."*

The application to the hypothetical Knox extradition is that there was no credible evidence to convict Knox of the murder/rape charges, as shown by contrasting the Nencini and Hellmann court verdicts, including their reasoning and use of alleged evidence. Thus, extradition of Knox based upon the Nencini conviction would have constituted a violation of due process, a violation of the Constitution by the Secretary of State, contrary to his or her oath of office.

* Source: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedict...Process+of+Law

Last edited by Numbers; 7th August 2020 at 11:54 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2020, 02:56 PM   #2896
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,277
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Not yet. We can only conjecture based on other cases that have some similarity to hers and on what is known about Italian law (as documented in the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure).

An example is the ECHR case of Cafagna v. Italy 26073/13. Cafagna was convicted of a crime based solely or primarily on the pre-trial statement of an accuser. That accuser then did not appear at the trial as a witness, and was never cross-examined. The ECHR ruled that Italy's conviction of Cafagna had violated his right to a fair trial under Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3d (right to have witnesses appear at trial and for them to be cross-examined.)

In that case, Italy paid the just satisfaction and, upon request of Cafagna for a revision hearing, acquitted him. There were also general measures adopted by Italy, primarily involving training of the prosecutors and judges as to the substance of Italian law (including Supreme Court of Cassation judgments) and the Convention.

Here's a brief summary from the CoM Department of Execution of Judgments of the ECHR:



Description of the case:

The case concerns the applicant's conviction on the basis of the testimony given by a person (C.C.) who alleged that he had been attacked by him, in the absence of a hearing of this person during the proceedings. The Court considers that the domestic courts, as rigorous as their examination was, could not properly and fairly assess the reliability of CC's depositions. It finds that the applicant's rights of defense have been limited [in a manner] incompatible with the requirements of a fair trial (Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3d)).

Execution status:

An action report was submitted on 6 November 2018 followed on 14 January 2019 and 28 November 2019 with additional information concerning the individual measures. The information provided can be summarized as follows.

As regards individual measures, just satisfaction has been paid and the applicant's request to reopen the criminal proceedings has been accepted. In the new proceedings before the Lecce Court of Appeal, the applicant was acquitted and his conviction was quashed.

With regard to general measures, the authorities draw attention to the high level of judicial training and to the consolidated case-law of the Court of Cassation in this area, which is aligned with that of the European Court.

Source: http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-48796

Translation by Google with my help.
There's an update on this case.

Google translation.

Quote:
A consolidated action plan/report was submitted on June 25, 2020. It is currently being assessed.

Previously, the authorities had submitted an action report on November 6, 2018 followed on January 14, 2019 and November 28, 2019 by additional information on individual measures. The information provided can be summarized as follows.

From a letter from Italy to the CoM:

Referring to the action plan presented by the Italian Government on November 6 2018 and concerning the case in question, I have the honor to send you the judgment of the Court of Appeal de Lecce of March 8, 2019, filed with the registry on May 22, 2019 (annex 1), which, by welcoming the
request for review presented by Mr. Cafagna, revoked the judgment of the
Court of Trani handed down on April 11, 2005 against him and acquitted him for not having committed the facts.

As it appears from the minutes of the hearing of March 8, 2019 (Annex 2),
the witness, Mr. Carmi Cosimo Damiano, whose statements were the sole evidence for determining the guilt of Mr. Cafagna, was untraceable.
Please accept, Madam, the assurance of my highest consideration.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2020, 12:52 PM   #2897
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,277
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
There's an update on this case.

Google translation.
As a reminder, the Cafagna v. Italy ECHR case is significant as evidence that Italy will revise judgments of convictions when found in violation of the Convention, as it has in the Knox v. Italy case.

Also, Cafagna v. Italy gives some hints about the very long time frame required by Italy to complete the ECHR and CoM requirements.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2020, 10:16 AM   #2898
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,277
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
As a reminder, the Cafagna v. Italy ECHR case is significant as evidence that Italy will revise judgments of convictions when found in violation of the Convention, as it has in the Knox v. Italy case.

Also, Cafagna v. Italy gives some hints about the very long time frame required by Italy to complete the ECHR and CoM requirements.
Here are some broad comparisons of the two ECHR cases, Knox v. Italy and Cafagna v. Italy.

Knox v. Italy 76577/13, in which the ECHR found violations of Convention Article 3, Article 6.1 with 6.3c, and Article 6.1 with 6.1e, was broader in scope than Cafagna v. Italy 26073/13, in which the ECHR found only a violation of Article 6.1 with 6.3d.

This difference is reflected in the difference in the theme domains for the two cases under the CoM classification. For Knox v. Italy, it is "Access to and efficient functioning of justice: Unfair judicial proceedings (criminal charges), Right to life and protection against torture", while for Cafagna v. Italy it is "Access to and efficient functioning of justice: Unfair judicial proceedings (criminal charges)".

The Application Date of Knox v. Italy was 24 November 2013, while Cafagna v. Italy was 27 March 2013.

The Communication Date to Italy (the initial official ECHR notice and questions to the respondent state) was 24 April 2016 for Knox v. Italy, and 16 March 2016 for Cafagna v. Italy. That is, it took 2 years and 5 months for the ECHR to Communicate Knox v. Italy and almost 3 years for the ECHR to Communicate Cafagna v. Italy. Thus, contrary to the false claims of the PGP, the ECHR not only considered the Knox v. Italy case admissible, it dealt with it relatively quickly, considering the large backlog of ECHR cases.

However, perhaps because of the difference in complexity of the two cases, the ECHR took longer to reach judgment in Knox v. Italy than in Cafagna v. Italy. The ECHR judgment in Knox v. Italy was on 24 January 2019, about 2 years and 9 months after the Communication. In Cafagna v. Italy, the ECHR judgment was on 12 October 2017, about 1 year and 7 months after the Communication.

In Knox v. Italy, the ECHR judgment on all the violations was unanimous for all 7 judges of the Chamber. In Cafagna v. Italy, one judge dissented, so the finding of a violation was by the majority of 6 to 1 of the judges of the Chamber.

The judgments in both cases became final 6 months after publication, in accordance with the Convention. Italy had submitted a request that the Grand Chamber re-examine the case Knox v. Italy, but the ECHR review panel turned down this request, suggesting that the issues brought out in Italy's request had no merit or significance in terms of the Convention and ECHR case-law. I have found no indication, by a HUDOC and ECHR document search, that Italy had sought a Grand Chamber re-examination of Cafagna v. Italy.

Payment of the Just Satisfaction in Knox v. Italy was reported by Italy to the ECHR on 3 January 2020, about 6 months after the judgment became final. For Cafagna v. Italy, Italy reported payment of the Just Satisfaction on 7 November 2018, about 10 months after the judgment became final.

Italy provided a first preliminary communication to the CoM on Knox v. Italy, implicitly indicating acceptance of the ECHR judgment, on 10 January 2020, about 6 months after the judgment became final. The CoM did not accept this communication as constituting the required Action Plan. In contrast, for Cafagna v. Italy, Italy sent a communication to the CoM on 6 November 2018, about 9 months after the judgment became final, which the CoM accepted as a first Action Plan.

For concrete Individual and General Measures Italy is required to take, to date for Knox v. Italy only the Just Satisfaction (an Individual Measure) has been paid and the ECHR judgment has been translated into Italian and distributed to the courts and published on the Ministry of Justice web site (General Measures). With no CoM-approved Action Plan, no proposed Individual or General Measures have been yet published on HUDO EXEC. Thus, Italian actions will be required before the CoM closes the case. For Cafagna v. Italy, as an Individual Measure, besides the payment of the Just Satisfaction, Cafagna was provided with a Revision Hearing at which his conviction was quashed and he was acquitted. Revisions to Italian law or jurisprudence may also have been undertaken. A proposed consolidated final Action Report was submitted by Italy 25 June 2020 and is being reviewed by the CoM; the case is not yet closed by the CoM.

Last edited by Numbers; 9th August 2020 at 11:57 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2020, 11:59 AM   #2899
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,634
Delete
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 9th August 2020 at 12:03 PM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2020, 12:01 PM   #2900
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,634
Duplicate....delete
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2020, 12:57 PM   #2901
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,277
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Here are some broad comparisons of the two ECHR cases, Knox v. Italy and Cafagna v. Italy.

Knox v. Italy 76577/13, in which the ECHR found violations of Convention Article 3, Article 6.1 with 6.3c, and Article 6.1 with 6.1e, was broader in scope than Cafagna v. Italy 26073/13, in which the ECHR found only a violation of Article 6.1 with 6.3d.

This difference is reflected in the difference in the theme domains for the two cases under the CoM classification. For Knox v. Italy, it is "Access to and efficient functioning of justice: Unfair judicial proceedings (criminal charges), Right to life and protection against torture", while for Cafagna v. Italy it is "Access to and efficient functioning of justice: Unfair judicial proceedings (criminal charges)".

The Application Date of Knox v. Italy was 24 November 2013, while Cafagna v. Italy was 27 March 2013.

The Communication Date to Italy (the initial official ECHR notice and questions to the respondent state) was 24 April 2016 for Knox v. Italy, and 16 March 2016 for Cafagna v. Italy. That is, it took 2 years and 5 months for the ECHR to Communicate Knox v. Italy and almost 3 years for the ECHR to Communicate Cafagna v. Italy. Thus, contrary to the false claims of the PGP, the ECHR not only considered the Knox v. Italy case admissible, it dealt with it relatively quickly, considering the large backlog of ECHR cases.

However, perhaps because of the difference in complexity of the two cases, the ECHR took longer to reach judgment in Knox v. Italy than in Cafagna v. Italy. The ECHR judgment in Knox v. Italy was on 24 January 2019, about 2 years and 9 months after the Communication. In Cafagna v. Italy, the ECHR judgment was on 12 October 2017, about 1 year and 7 months after the Communication.

In Knox v. Italy, the ECHR judgment on all the violations was unanimous for all 7 judges of the Chamber. In Cafagna v. Italy, one judge dissented, so the finding of a violation was by the majority of 6 to 1 of the judges of the Chamber.

The judgments in both cases became final 6 months after publication, in accordance with the Convention. Italy had submitted a request that the Grand Chamber re-examine the case Knox v. Italy, but the ECHR review panel turned down this request, suggesting that the issues brought out in Italy's request had no merit or significance in terms of the Convention and ECHR case-law. I have found no indication, by a HUDOC and ECHR document search, that Italy had sought a Grand Chamber re-examination of Cafagna v. Italy.

Payment of the Just Satisfaction in Knox v. Italy was reported by Italy to the ECHR on 3 January 2020, about 6 months after the judgment became final. For Cafagna v. Italy, Italy reported payment of the Just Satisfaction on 7 November 2018, about 10 months after the judgment became final.

Italy provided a first preliminary communication to the CoM on Knox v. Italy, implicitly indicating acceptance of the ECHR judgment, on 10 January 2020, about 6 months after the judgment became final. The CoM did not accept this communication as constituting the required Action Plan. In contrast, for Cafagna v. Italy, Italy sent a communication to the CoM on 6 November 2018, about 9 months after the judgment became final, which the CoM accepted as a first Action Plan.

For concrete Individual and General Measures Italy is required to take, to date for Knox v. Italy only the Just Satisfaction (an Individual Measure) has been paid and the ECHR judgment has been translated into Italian and distributed to the courts and published on the Ministry of Justice web site (General Measures). With no CoM-approved Action Plan, no proposed Individual or General Measures have been yet published on HUDO EXEC. Thus, Italian actions will be required before the CoM closes the case. For Cafagna v. Italy, as an Individual Measure, besides the payment of the Just Satisfaction, Cafagna was provided with a Revision Hearing at which his conviction was quashed and he was acquitted. Revisions to Italian law or jurisprudence may also have been undertaken. A proposed consolidated final Action Report was submitted by Italy 25 June 2020 and is being reviewed by the CoM; the case is not yet clgosed by the CoM.
The French language texts in the documents from the Italian Government describing Italy's General Measures in the case Cafagna v. Italy that appear on HUDOC EXEC seem to be extremely verbose and perhaps not so easy to understand without several readings.

I believe in summary that they state that the Italian judges were grievously in error in convicting Cafagna solely on the basis of a pre-trial statement by a witness who refused to be brought to court for the trial and cross-examination (he or she fled). So this conviction of Cafagna by the Italian judiciary, according to the long-winded explanation, was in contradiction to contemporaneous Italian law as spelled out in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the jurisprudence (case-law) of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC), and Article 111 of the Italian Constitution.

The General Measure adopted is to reinforce the training of the judges on the law, the jurisprudence, and the Constitution.

The Italian Government asserts this miscarriage of justice was a one-off event and that it won't happen again because the judges of the Italian courts will undergo extensive training on Italian law, jurisprudence, and Constitution.

According to the Status of Execution on HUDOC EXEC, there was a change in Italian law:

Quote:
La loi du 23 juin 2017 n. 103 a modifié l’art. 630 du code de procédure pénale (« Renouvellement de l’instruction lors des débats ») qui statue : « en cas d’appel du parquet contre le jugement d’acquittement pour des raisons concernant l’appréciation des preuves orales, le juge dispose le renouvellement de l’instruction ». Ces changements ont été positivement accueilli par les juridictions nationales.
By Google translate with my help:

The law of June 23, 2017 n. 103 amended CPP Article 630 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Renewal of the investigation during the trial") with the new provision: "in the event of an appeal by the public prosecutor's office against an acquittal judgment for reasons relating to the assessment of oral evidence, the judge disposes of the renewal of the investigation”. These changes have been positively received by national courts.
_____

There are a few problems with understanding the text in the HUDOC EXEC summary. CPP Article 630 is about Revision trials, and thus Article 630 may be a typo. Also "the judge disposes [arranges, cancels, decides on?] of the renewal of the investigation" appears unclear in translation.

Last edited by Numbers; 9th August 2020 at 01:29 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:35 AM   #2902
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,277
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The French language texts in the documents from the Italian Government describing Italy's General Measures in the case Cafagna v. Italy that appear on HUDOC EXEC seem to be extremely verbose and perhaps not so easy to understand without several readings.

I believe in summary that they state that the Italian judges were grievously in error in convicting Cafagna solely on the basis of a pre-trial statement by a witness who refused to be brought to court for the trial and cross-examination (he or she fled). So this conviction of Cafagna by the Italian judiciary, according to the long-winded explanation, was in contradiction to contemporaneous Italian law as spelled out in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the jurisprudence (case-law) of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC), and Article 111 of the Italian Constitution.

The General Measure adopted is to reinforce the training of the judges on the law, the jurisprudence, and the Constitution.

The Italian Government asserts this miscarriage of justice was a one-off event and that it won't happen again because the judges of the Italian courts will undergo extensive training on Italian law, jurisprudence, and Constitution.

According to the Status of Execution on HUDOC EXEC, there was a change in Italian law:



By Google translate with my help:

The law of June 23, 2017 n. 103 amended CPP Article 630 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Renewal of the investigation during the trial") with the new provision: "in the event of an appeal by the public prosecutor's office against an acquittal judgment for reasons relating to the assessment of oral evidence, the judge disposes of the renewal of the investigation”. These changes have been positively received by national courts.
_____

There are a few problems with understanding the text in the HUDOC EXEC summary. CPP Article 630 is about Revision trials, and thus Article 630 may be a typo. Also "the judge disposes [arranges, cancels, decides on?] of the renewal of the investigation" appears unclear in translation.
To follow-up on the above, there is indeed an Italian law enacted on 23 June 2017 n. 103, which may be found online by searching for "legge 2017 n. 103". It has 95 provisions (many of which have there own sub-provisions) instituting changes in identified articles of the Italian Criminal Code (Codice Penale), Code of Criminal Procedure (Codice di Procedura Penale), and other laws, including the laws regulating the penitentiary system (Ordinamento Penitenziario).

I was unable to find any provision specifically calling out CPP Article 630. So that may indeed be a typo in the CoM text.

However, I can offer some clarification on the CoM text based on a review of Italian legal terminology or idioms. According to the glossary in the text The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation, edited by M. Gialuz, L. Luparia, and F. Scarpa, "istruzione dibattimentale" (literally, "instruction hearing") should be translated as "trial evidentiary hearing". Then, the French translation of the Italian "istruzione" is "instruction", which in English may be translated as "investigation" or "examination" as well as "instruction", depending on context. This explains some of the confusion in the English translation of the French summary of Italian legal procedures.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:17 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.