Analysis of Judgment No. 13384 of 2024: Pre-trial Statements and Criminal Liability

With judgment No. 13384 of February 15, 2024, the Court of Cassation addressed a crucial issue in criminal law: the admissibility of pre-trial statements made in the absence of adversarial proceedings as a basis for determining criminal liability. The decision, which rejects the appeal filed, is based on principles consolidated by European and Italian jurisprudence.

Pre-trial Statements and Their Use

Pursuant to Article 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pre-trial statements may be used in court, provided that adequate procedural safeguards are respected. The Court emphasized that, to be considered valid, such statements must be subjected to an accurate assessment of credibility, capable of ensuring that their use is not arbitrary.

Pre-trial statements made in the absence of adversarial proceedings - Admissibility as an exclusive and decisive basis for determining criminal liability - Compatibility with conventional law – Conditions. Pre-trial statements acquired pursuant to Article 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may constitute, in accordance with the interpretation – which has the nature of "established law" – expressed by the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR in the judgments of December 15, 2011, Al Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom, and December 15, 2015, Schatschaachwili v. Germany, the "exclusive and decisive" basis for determining liability, provided they are made in the presence of "adequate procedural safeguards," identifiable in the accurate assessment of the credibility of the accusatory content, carried out also through scrutiny of the collection methods and the compatibility of the statement with contextual data.

Required Procedural Safeguards

The Court specified that procedural safeguards are essential to ensure a fair trial, as provided for by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Among the required conditions, the following are highlighted:

• The statements' assessability by the judge;
• Verification of the statements' compatibility with the evidence gathered;
• Scrutiny of the methods used to collect the statements;
• Verification of the declarant's credibility.

In the case at hand, the Court found that the victim's statements, corroborated by photographic identification and other testimonies, were sufficient to guarantee the validity of the determination of liability.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 13384 of 2024 reiterates the importance of ensuring adequate procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings, especially when pre-trial statements are used. It offers an important reflection on the compatibility between Italian judicial practices and European regulations, emphasizing that respect for fundamental rights is indispensable for a fair and just legal system.