Assessment of Personal Precautionary Measures in Judgment No. 19608 of 2023

Judgment No. 19608 of January 25, 2023, issued by the Court of Cassation, addressed a highly relevant issue in criminal law: personal precautionary measures. Specifically, the Court analyzed the assessment criteria for the application of house arrest, emphasizing the importance of adequate reasoning not based on mere assumptions.

Context of the Judgment

The case concerned M. P. M. Seccia Domenico, for whom the precautionary measure of house arrest had been ordered. However, the Messina Court of Liberty deemed this measure inadequate, initiating a review proceeding. The Court of Cassation, in reviewing the case, considered it essential to clarify the criteria for assessing the adequacy of precautionary measures.

CHOICE OF MEASURES (CRITERIA) - House arrest – Assessment of inadequacy regarding containment of precautionary needs - Reasoning - Content. In matters of personal precautionary measures, the assessment of the inadequacy of house arrest cannot be based on mere suppositions or abstract hypotheses, the occurrence of which is possible 'in rerum natura', but not probable according to rules of common experience. Instead, it must be founded on the prognosis of the subject's failure to observe the prescribed conditions, which can be concretely assessed based on specific elements indicating their limited self-control.

Principles Established by the Court

The Court established that the assessment of the inadequacy of house arrest must be based on a concrete prognosis and not on mere hypotheses. In other words, it is not sufficient to state that the individual might not comply with the conditions; concrete and specific elements must be provided to demonstrate their limited self-control. This principle is crucial for ensuring respect for individual rights and for avoiding excessive or unsubstantiated precautionary measures.

Legal and Jurisprudential References

The judgment explicitly refers to several articles of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, in particular:

• Article 274: General provisions on precautionary measures.
• Article 275 bis: Criteria for applying precautionary measures.
• Article 284: Rules on the reasoning for precautionary measures.

Previous case law, such as judgments No. 12095 of 2021 and No. 209 of 2021, has already addressed similar issues, confirming the importance of reasoning and concreteness in the assessment of precautionary measures.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 19608 of 2023 represents a significant step forward in the protection of individual rights within the context of precautionary measures. It reiterates that decisions must be supported by concrete evidence and not by suppositions, thereby ensuring a balance between the demands of justice and the rights of the accused. Judicial authorities are called upon to reflect on these principles to ensure the correct application of personal precautionary measures, contributing to a fairer legal system that respects fundamental rights.