Judgment No. 28050 of 2024: Clarity in the Request for Interrogation during Preliminary Investigations

The judgment of the Court of Cassation No. 28050 of June 14, 2024, offers an important reflection on the method of submitting the request for interrogation by the suspect, highlighting the need for clarity and recognizability. This legal aspect is part of the preliminary investigations, where every action must respect the principles of procedural fairness and correctness.

The Regulatory Context and the Judgment

According to the judgment, the request for interrogation does not necessarily need to follow specific formal wording, but must be formulated clearly and easily recognizable. This principle is based on the duty of loyalty incumbent upon the defense counsel and the need to avoid abuse of process. The Court has specifically excluded the suitability of a request expressed incidentally, as in the case where the phrase "requests interrogation" was included in a broader context aimed at requesting changes to the indictment.

Notice of conclusion of investigations - Request for interrogation - Method of submission - Specific formal wording - Necessity - Exclusion - Clarity and easy recognizability of the request - Necessity - Reasons - Case law. The request for interrogation made by the suspect who has received the notice of conclusion of preliminary investigations does not require specific formal wording, but, in compliance with the duty of loyalty incumbent upon the defense counsel and the need to avoid conduct constituting abuse of process, it must be clear and easily recognizable, even if contained within a memorandum. (Case law where the Court excluded the suitability of the request for interrogation expressed, in the defense brief, with the phrase "requests interrogation" inserted, incidentally, in a broader sentence, aimed at deducing arguments exclusively for the purpose of requesting dismissal or a modification of the indictment).

Practical Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has significant repercussions for lawyers and suspects. Here are some key points:

• Clarity in communication: Lawyers must formulate requests for interrogation explicitly, avoiding ambiguous or incidental phrases.
• Respect for the principle of loyalty: Correctness in the legal approach is fundamental to ensuring a fair trial.
• Prevention of abuses: The Court emphasizes that clarity is necessary to prevent possible abuses of process.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 28050 of 2024 represents an important step forward in defining the methods of interaction during preliminary investigations. The clarity and recognizability of the request for interrogation not only protect the rights of the suspect but also ensure the correctness of the criminal proceedings. It is essential that all legal operators adhere to these guidelines to ensure a fair and transparent process.