Commentary on Judgment No. 39722 of 2024: Concurrence between Mistreatment and Torture

The recent judgment No. 39722 of July 9, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, has sparked heated debate in the legal field regarding the delicate issue of the concurrence of offenses concerning family mistreatment and torture. The Court has established that the crime of mistreatment, aggravated by cruelty and frivolous motives, can concur with the crime of torture, especially when the victim is a minor family member. This article aims to analyze the salient points of the judgment and clarify the legal and social implications of this important decision.

The Concurrence between Mistreatment and Torture

The Court highlighted that the two crimes protect different legal interests: psycho-physical integrity in the case of mistreatment and the dignity of the person in the case of torture. This distinction is fundamental to understanding how the two offenses can coexist without overlapping, making further punishment possible for acts of torture when these manifest as further physical or psychological abuse.

• Family mistreatment: includes violent and persecutory behavior.
• Torture: refers to physical or psychological suffering inflicted with the intent to humiliate or dehumanize the victim.
• Aggravating condition: the presence of a minor increases the severity of the situation.

Concurrence with the crime of aggravated torture under art. 613-bis, fourth paragraph, of the Criminal Code - Existence - Reasons - Case. The crime of family mistreatment aggravated by cruelty, frivolous motives, and diminished defense, and that of torture against a minor family member can concur with each other due to the diversity of the legal interest protected – the psycho-physical integrity of family members in the first case and the dignity of the person in the second – and the structural non-overlap of the incriminated conduct, given that the crime of torture acquires independent relevance when the conduct, in addition to being functional to the mistreatment, manifests in further physical and psychological abuse of the victim, causing them acute physical suffering or verifiable psychological trauma. (In its reasoning, the Court deemed the defendant's conviction under art. 613-bis, fourth paragraph, second sentence, of the Criminal Code, rather than art. 572, third paragraph, last sentence, of the Criminal Code, correct for causing the death of his two-year-old son, given the time gap between the initial violence, perpetrated with insults, beatings, injuries, and threats, and the subsequent acts with which the defendant had gratuitously abused the victim, depersonalizing and dehumanizing him, to the point that the latter could no longer cry, solely to vent his bestial impulses, thus transforming him into a "thing" at his mercy).

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment represents a significant step forward in the fight against domestic violence and provides a clear indication of how violent conduct, especially towards minors, must be rigorously prosecuted. The Court emphasized the importance of recognizing the suffering inflicted not only as mistreatment but also as torture, paving the way for more severe penalties for such offenses. This approach aligns with European regulations aimed at protecting the rights of minors and ensuring that justice is served adequately and promptly.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 39722 of 2024 offers a clear and detailed interpretation of the law regarding the concurrence of offenses in the context of mistreatment and torture. It not only clarifies the differences between the two crimes but also underscores the importance of ensuring justice for victims, particularly for the most vulnerable, such as minors. Jurisprudence continues to evolve, and with it, the need to protect the fundamental rights of individuals within family dynamics.