Domestic Abuse: Analysis of the Court of Cassation Ruling
The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation, filed on July 30, 2024, addressed a complex case of domestic abuse and stalking, clarifying the legal boundaries between these two offenses. The decision, which overturned the pre-trial detention order for A.A., offers food for thought on the dynamics of domestic violence and the precautionary measures applicable in such contexts.
The Case of A.A. and B.B.
The incident originated from an act of violence that occurred on March 10, 2024, when A.A., after the end of cohabitation with B.B., threatened the woman by brandishing a knife. This behavior led to the arrest in flagrante delicto for stalking and, subsequently, to the precautionary measure of pre-trial detention. However, the defense contested this measure, arguing that A.A.'s conduct should be classified as a threat rather than domestic abuse.
The Court highlighted that harassing conduct must be assessed within the context of the existing relationship between the defendant and the victim.
Legal Distinctions
The Court of Cassation reiterated that, according to established case law, the crime of domestic abuse is constituted by the presence of a stable and lasting bond, while stalking behaviors can be prosecuted even after the cessation of cohabitation. In the case of A.A. and B.B., the judge ruled that A.A.'s conduct could not be attributed to the crime of domestic abuse, as the emotional bond had ceased.
- Domestic abuse: requires a stable emotional relationship.
- Stalking acts: can be prosecuted even after the end of cohabitation.
- Importance of legal qualification: affects precautionary measures.
Conclusions
The ruling of the Court of Cassation represents a significant step forward in understanding the dynamics of domestic violence and managing precautionary measures. It underscores the importance of a correct legal qualification of the facts, so that victims can receive adequate protection and perpetrators of crimes face the consequences of their actions fairly. It is therefore essential that jurisprudence continues to evolve to meet the needs of justice and protection for victims of domestic violence.
