An accusation of severe personal injury or facial disfigurement may stem from a violent act, but its criminal qualification is not derived solely from the perceived gravity of the episode. What matters is which health consequence is ascertained, whether it is permanent, whether it concerns the face, and whether it can be precisely linked to the contested conduct. Therefore, even an initial formulation of the accusation does not replace the proof of its elements.
If you are looking for a criminal defense attorney in Milan for this type of allegation, I want to help you distinguish severe personal injuries from the autonomous offense of permanent facial disfigurement or scarring. We will see what must be proven, why a scar does not automatically equate to disfigurement, which circumstances may affect the penalty, and which points deserve to be clarified right from the start.
When an Injury Is Considered Severe
Severe personal injury is defined by the consequences on the injured party. Article 583 of the Italian Criminal Code includes, among others, an illness that is certainly or probably incurable, the loss of a sense, the loss of a limb or its use, the loss of the capacity to procreate, and a permanent and severe difficulty in speech. For these hypotheses, the provision indicates imprisonment from six to twelve years.
Therefore, it is not enough to prove that a person was injured or received significant medical treatment. A consequence falling within the category provided by law is required. For example, a temporary functional limitation does not coincide with the loss of use of an organ; a long therapy alone does not prove an incurable illness. The difference depends on the actual clinical data, the prognosis, and the stability of the outcome.
Grievous injuries and severe injuries are not the same thing. A grievous injury may depend, for example, on an illness that puts life in danger or an inability to attend to ordinary occupations for over forty days. Severe injury, instead, requires one of the most incisive outcomes listed in the second paragraph of Article 583. The referenced text of Articles 583 and 585 of the Italian Criminal Code can be consulted in the Official Journal, regulatory references to the criminal code.
Permanent Facial Disfigurement or Scarring: An Autonomous Offense
The disfigurement of appearance through permanent facial injuries is now subject to a distinct discipline. Article 583-quinquies of the Italian Criminal Code punishes anyone who causes an injury from which permanent facial disfigurement or scarring derives. It is no longer the aggravating circumstance that, in the past, appeared among the severe injuries of Article 583: since 2019, it has been an autonomous title of offense.
The rule concerns both disfigurement and permanent scarring. Disfigurement consists of a profound alteration of the appearance and symmetry of the face; scarring, on the other hand, is a permanent alteration of the harmony of the face that does not necessarily reach that level of disfigurement. The distinction is not merely descriptive: it prevents using the two terms as synonyms and requires an assessment adherent to the concrete result.
It is not necessary for the event to take place within an affective or family relationship. Article 583-quinquies was introduced by Law no. 69 of 2019, but it describes a common offense: it can involve persons of any gender and different contexts. Neither the use of acid is an indispensable element of the offense, although corrosive substances may constitute an aggravating circumstance together with, in certain situations, the use of weapons, disguise, or the action of multiple persons.
The baseline penalty provided by the rule is imprisonment from eight to fourteen years. However, the Constitutional Court, with judgment no. 83 of 2025, established that the penalty can be reduced by up to one third when the act proves to be of minor entity by nature, means, methods, or circumstances of the action, or due to the particularly minor nature of the offence or danger. The same decision eliminated the automatic perpetual interdiction from guardianship, curatorship, and support administration offices: the judge may apply it, evaluating the concrete case, within the maximum limit indicated by the Court. You can read the ruling in the judgment no. 83 of 2025 of the Constitutional Court.
What Must Be Proven in the Trial
The permanence of the outcome is a central point. An injury on the face, a scar, or an asymmetry observed immediately after the event does not automatically prove permanent scarring or disfigurement. It is necessary to ascertain whether the mark or alteration remains stable over time and what incidence it has on the appearance of the face. The treatments performed, those scheduled, and their possible efficacy can assume relevance precisely because they help define the final result.
The causal link connects the contested act to the health consequence. The public prosecution must prove that the action attributed to the defendant produced that specific injury and that the permanent outcome contested derived from the mishap. Previous pathologies, further traumas, treatments intervened after the event, or a different origin of the damage are not marginal details: they can affect the attribution of the event and the legal qualification.
The reconstruction of the episode counts as much as the medical report. Statements, footage, messages, calls, law enforcement reports, and health certifications may offer versions that do not perfectly overlap regarding dynamics, instrument used, number of persons present, and the moment the injury was produced. The defense does not consist of denying the reported damage in the abstract, but of verifying whether every step of the accusation finds reliable backing.
The subjective element must also correspond to the contested offense. A contestation for intentional personal injury requires ascertaining the voluntariness of the damaging conduct according to the rules applicable to the case. If the accusation describes a negligent act, namely due to negligence, imprudence, or lack of skill, the legal framework cannot be automatically superimposed on that of the disfigurement crime provided by Article 583-quinquies. It is essential to distinguish what a person intended to do from what, according to the accusation, happened as an unintentional consequence.
The Qualification of the Accusation Changes the Consequences
A permanent outcome on the face must not be automatically traced back to Article 583. The article number of Article 583 that concerned disfigurement and permanent scarring was repealed when Article 583-quinquies was introduced. If the fact concerns the face and a permanent disfigurement or scar is held to be proven, the issue is therefore the application of the autonomous offense; if that requirement is missing, it is necessary to identify with precision which other hypothesis of injury may possibly take shape.
The qualification may depend on a very concrete medical difference. A permanent loss of the use of an organ or a severe stable difficulty in speaking may integrate severe personal injuries pursuant to Article 583, even without involving the face. Conversely, a facial injury may require the specific verification of permanent disfigurement or scarring. The anatomical site alone does not decide the applicable article.
Aggravating circumstances cannot be taken for granted. Article 585 provides for penalty increases in the presence of certain circumstances, including those recalled by Articles 576 and 577, the use of weapons or corrosive substances, disguise, or the action of multiple persons gathered together. Each aggravating circumstance has its own prerequisites: a generic reconstruction of the aggression is not sufficient to affirm it. The current text of the amendment relating to Article 585 is available in Law no. 181 of December 2, 2025, published on Normattiva.
Which Steps Can Guide the Defense
The first useful step is to understand which event is being contested. It is necessary to distinguish between an injury, its duration, functional damage, a scar, permanent scarring, and disfigurement. Words used informally after a violent event may have a different meaning from the technical-legal one. The contestation must instead indicate the event deemed to have occurred and allow it to be compared with the collected elements.
Health documentation must be read in its evolution. An emergency room visit photographs an initial phase; specialist visits, subsequent reports, and medico-legal evaluations can clarify whether the outcome is temporary, improvable, or stabilized. It is not correct to ignore the first assessment, but neither is it correct to treat it as a definitive answer when the permanence of the outcome is still uncertain.
An effective defense separates admitted points from truly controversial ones. It may happen that the presence of a scuffle is not discussed, while it remains to be clarified who caused the injury, with what conduct, what the link with the final damage is, and whether the result reaches the threshold of the contested offense. This distinction avoids both indiscriminate denials and admissions broader than what the facts demonstrate.
The time of the procedure does not replace the assessment. In crimes of this gravity, the criminal initiative does not simply depend on a subsequent choice by the injured party. For this reason, it is important not to entrust the defense line to informal clarifications or to the mere hope that the personal conflict will be resolved: the qualification of the accusation and the available evidence require an orderly and timely examination.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a scar on the face always constitute permanent scarring?
No, not automatically. The scar must be permanent and such as to appreciably alter the harmony of the face. The judgment does not depend solely on its existence or immediate perception after the fact. What counts is the stabilization of the outcome, location, characteristics of the mark, and medico-legal evaluation in the context of other evidence.
What is the difference between facial scarring and disfigurement?
Disfigurement is the most profound alteration. It concerns an incisive change in the symmetry or physiognomy of the face; permanent scarring instead disturbs the harmony of the face without necessarily causing defacement. Both fall under Article 583-quinquies, but the difference remains relevant to correctly describe the concrete fact.
Can I be accused of facial disfigurement without the use of acid?
Yes. The use of corrosive substances is not necessary for the offense provided by Article 583-quinquies: the rule considers the event of disfigurement or permanent scarring resulting from the injury. Corrosive substances can, however, affect as an aggravating circumstance, alongside other circumstances expressly provided by Article 585 of the criminal code.
Is the penalty for permanent scarring always from eight to fourteen years?
That is the range provided by Article 583-quinquies. Since 2025, however, the Constitutional Court has imposed a reduction of up to one third when the act is of minor entity according to the criteria indicated in the judgment. It is not an automatic reduction: the judge must evaluate nature, means, methods, circumstances, and the concrete minor nature of the damage or danger.
Does compensation automatically close the proceeding?
No. Potential compensation may have relevance on the civil plane and, depending on the procedural context, can affect evaluations that the judge is called upon to make. However, it does not automatically cancel a proceeding for an offense prosecutable ex officio nor replace the assessment of liability and the correct legal qualification of the fact.
The Point to Clarify Immediately
The defense starts from precision. If you have received a notice, a summons, or an allegation for severe personal injuries, scarring, or disfigurement of appearance, it is useful to immediately reconstruct the fact, preserve the documents received, and not confuse the accusatory hypothesis with an already ascertained outcome. I can help you frame the contestation and evaluate the pertinent defensive steps.