"De Relato" Testimony and Admissibility: Cassation Court Ruling No. 23193/2025

In criminal procedural law, evidence management is paramount. "De relato" testimony – indirect testimony where a person reports what they learned from another – is often debated. Its admissibility and usability balance the ascertainment of truth with the guarantee of the defendant's rights. The Court of Cassation has ruled on this matter with judgment no. 23193 of 29/04/2025 (filed on 20/06/2025), offering a crucial clarification on the parties' burden regarding the examination of the direct source.

"De Relato" Testimony: Regulatory Framework and Critical Issues

Article 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (c.p.p.) governs "de relato" testimony. A witness may report facts learned from others (paragraph 1), but if a party requests it, the judge must arrange for the direct source to be heard to ensure the adversarial principle. Case law has debated the evidentiary value of such statements when the original source is not heard. The issue becomes more complex if the statements are acquired with the parties' agreement (e.g., reading of minutes). Here, the Supreme Court (President R. C., Rapporteur M. T. B.) intervenes to clarify the procedural burden.

The Principle of Ruling No. 23193/2025: The Party's Burden

The case, involving defendant G. C., concerned the admissibility of indirect statements. The Court of Appeal of Bari had rejected an appeal, and the Cassation Court upheld this decision. The headnote of ruling no. 23193/2025 is clear:

In matters of "de relato" testimony, where such statements have been acquired by agreement of the parties pursuant to Article 431, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is the burden of the interested party to request the examination of the direct source. Therefore, if this does not occur, the statement thus acquired is fully admissible.

This principle is crucial. If indirect statements were introduced into the proceedings with the consent of the parties (under Article 431, paragraph 3, c.p.p.), it is incumbent upon the party wishing to contest their validity to ask the judge to summon the original source. If such a request is not made, the "de relato" statement acquired with the initial agreement retains full validity and can be used. One cannot subsequently complain about the failure to hear the source if they did not request it in a timely manner.

Practical Implications for Lawyers and Parties

The Cassation Court's decision has a significant impact on procedural strategy. For lawyers, it is essential to be aware of this burden. It is not enough to object to the unreliability of indirect testimony; active steps must be taken, requesting the examination of the primary source if one wishes to contest its full admissibility.

• For the defense: If a "de relato" statement is unfavorable and its credibility is to be challenged, the lawyer must promptly ask the judge to hear the original source. Failure to make this request, especially if acquired by agreement, will render it fully admissible against the defendant.
• For the prosecution: The Public Prosecutor, while able to rely on "de relato" statements acquired by agreement, must support their validity or, if necessary, request the examination of the direct source to strengthen the evidentiary framework.

This ruling underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the diligence of the parties. Criminal proceedings are based on the responsibility to actively pursue and verify evidence, especially with specific procedural tools such as requesting the examination of the direct source (Article 195, paragraph 1, c.p.p.) within a context of agreement on its acquisition (Article 431, paragraph 3, c.p.p.).

Conclusions

Ruling no. 23193/2025 of the Cassation Court, presided over by R. C. and with M. T. B. as rapporteur, clarifies a crucial aspect of "de relato" testimony. It reiterates that the parties' agreement on acquisition (under Article 431, paragraph 3, c.p.p.) shifts the burden of requesting the examination of the direct source to the interested party. Without such a request, indirect testimony is fully admissible. This reinforces the importance of a careful and proactive procedural strategy, reminding legal professionals that vigilance and timely action are essential to protect interests and ensure the correct formation of evidence while respecting the adversarial principle.