Domestic Abuse: Reflections on the Supreme Court Ruling

Ruling no. 34027 of the Supreme Court of Cassation, issued on June 6, 2024, addresses a case of domestic abuse that has sparked widespread debate in both legal and social spheres. The case in question concerns A.A., convicted of domestic abuse against his wife, B.B., and for intentional personal injury. This ruling offers important insights into the evaluation of testimonies and the application of laws concerning abuse.

Legal Context

The Court of Appeal of Milan, upholding the first-instance conviction, held that the victim's statements must be considered reliable, despite the defendant's objections regarding their vagueness and inconsistency. A.A. appealed, arguing that the evidence against him was insufficient, as it was based almost exclusively on B.B.'s statements.

• The first ground of appeal was deemed inadmissible by the Supreme Court.
• The second ground concerned the challenge of aggravating circumstances, which was also considered irrelevant.
• The third ground, relating to the request for sentence substitution, was instead accepted.

The crime of domestic abuse is constituted by repeated behaviors, even if not systematic, that violate the dignity of the victim.

Evaluation of Testimonies

One of the central points of the ruling is the evaluation of the victim's statements. The Supreme Court affirmed that B.B.'s statements cannot be considered false because, although they presented some inaccuracies, they are corroborated by external evidence such as medical reports and third-party testimonies. This aspect is crucial, as it demonstrates how the Court adopted a holistic approach in evaluating evidence, considering not only direct testimony but also external confirmations.

Implications of the Ruling

The Supreme Court's decision has significant implications for domestic abuse cases. It emphasizes that:

• The asymmetrical context of family relationships is fundamental for the commission of the crime.
• Abusive conduct does not need to be systematic to constitute the crime, but it must still violate the dignity of the victim.
• The evaluation of evidence must be rigorous, but also flexible, to recognize the complexity of family dynamics.

Conclusions

The Supreme Court's ruling represents an important step forward in the fight against domestic abuse, highlighting the need for careful and contextualized evaluation of evidence. The Court has shown that, even in the presence of contradictions, testimonies can be fundamental in recognizing domestic violence. It is hoped that this decision will encourage a more sensitive and aware approach in handling abuse cases, both by judicial authorities and civil society.