Inadmissibility of Statements: The Supreme Court with Judgment No. 25390/2025 Strengthens Defense Guarantees

In the complex landscape of Italian criminal law, the protection of defense guarantees represents a fundamental pillar of the rule of law. Every citizen, regardless of their procedural status, has the right to be informed and assisted at every stage of the investigation and trial. It is on this principle that the recent and significant ruling of the Court of Cassation, Judgment No. 25390, filed on July 9, 2025, is based, providing essential clarifications regarding the inadmissibility of statements made without the due guarantees.

The Context of the Judgment: Protection of Defense Guarantees

The Supreme Court's decision is situated within a well-defined regulatory framework, focused on protecting the rights of the suspect and the defendant. The Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly Articles 63 and 64, outlines the procedures for taking statements from a person against whom there are indications of guilt. Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes a cardinal principle: statements made by someone who should have been heard from the outset with the defense guarantees provided for a suspect or defendant, but was not, are inadmissible. This inadmissibility is not a mere formality but an absolute procedural sanction, aimed at preserving the integrity of the adversarial process and the right to defense. The Court of Cassation, presided over by C. F. and with T. G. as rapporteur, forcefully reiterated this principle, annulling with referral the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Trieste of September 26, 2024, in the case of defendant J. H.

The inadmissibility provided for by Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure also applies in cases of statements made during the investigation phase by someone who, from the beginning of the examination or after indications of guilt emerged during such act, without the latter being interrupted, should have been heard as a suspect or defendant in a connected or related offense pursuant to Article 371, paragraph 2, letter b), of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Case concerning an offense under Article 12, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree of July 25, 1998, No. 286, in which the Court deemed inadmissible in the abbreviated trial statements made without defense guarantees by foreign citizens brought before border authorities for illegal entry into national territory, for whom indications of the offense under Article 10-bis of the aforementioned Legislative Decree had therefore already emerged).

This assertion is of fundamental importance because it extends the scope of inadmissibility. It is not only about the case where a person, from the beginning of the interrogation, should have been treated as a suspect. The Court specifies that the same sanction applies even when indications of guilt emerge during the act itself and the examination is not promptly interrupted to allow for the application of the required guarantees. This means that investigative authorities have a duty to constantly monitor the position of the person being questioned and, as soon as elements emerge that link them to a crime, they must interrupt the act and proceed with the typical formalities for interrogating a suspect or defendant, including the notification of the right to remain silent and the presence of legal counsel. The example provided by the judgment, concerning foreign citizens brought to border authorities for illegal entry, for whom indications of the offense under Article 10-bis of Legislative Decree 286/1998 had already emerged, is emblematic. Their statements, made without legal assistance, were deemed inadmissible in the abbreviated trial, regardless of whether they were acquired in an apparently "administrative" context or for mere identification purposes.

Practical Implications and the "Connection" Between Offenses

The Cassation ruling is crucial for several practical reasons. Firstly, it underscores the importance of the principle of procedural fairness: investigations must be conducted in full respect of the fundamental rights of the individual. The inadmissibility of unguaranteed statements, in fact, is an extreme but necessary measure to prevent the prosecution from being based on elements that are flawed from the outset. Secondly, the judgment focuses on the concept of "connected or related offense" under Article 371, paragraph 2, letter b), of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This article defines when multiple offenses can be considered connected, for example, if they were committed to execute or conceal another offense, or if they were committed by multiple individuals in conspiracy. The extension of guarantees even to those suspected or accused of a connected or related offense ensures that there are no loopholes to evade defensive protection.

The consequences for investigations are clear:

• Constant Attention: Judicial police officers and public prosecutors must pay the utmost attention to the position of the person being questioned, assessing the possible emergence of indications of guilt against them.
• Interruption of Examination: If indications emerge, the examination must be immediately interrupted.
• Guaranteed Formalities: The person must be heard with all the guarantees provided for a suspect, including the appointment of legal counsel and notification of the right to remain silent.

The Cassation, in this case, examined a specific situation related to illegal immigration, where foreign citizens, initially identified, found themselves in a position where they should have been considered suspects for the offense under Article 10-bis of Legislative Decree 286/1998 (illegal entry and stay in the State territory). Their statements, acquired without the required guarantees, were declared inadmissible in the abbreviated trial, demonstrating the seriousness with which criminal procedural law addresses these violations.

Conclusions: A Bulwark for Fair Justice

Judgment No. 25390/2025 of the Court of Cassation stands as an important bulwark in defense of fair justice and the right to defense. It forcefully reiterates that procedural guarantees are not mere formalities but indispensable tools for ensuring the correctness of criminal proceedings and the protection of fundamental individual rights. The ruling calls upon all actors in criminal proceedings to scrupulously observe the rules governing the acquisition of statements, reminding them that any violation, even if seemingly minor, can irreparably compromise the validity of the acquired evidence. For a judicial system that aims to be just and effective, respect for these guarantees is not only a legal obligation but an ethical imperative.