Topics

The Cross-Justice research project

The phenomenon of remote participation in a trial, introduced in Italy in 1998 with a 'sunset clause’ first relegated to implementing provisions and subsequently consolidated, has been progressively expanded. The Iaw of 23 June 2017, no. 103, radically changes its scope by actually turning an exception into a rule, whose reflections on the efficacy of a cross-examination and on the exercise of right to defence are indisputable, since 'virtual' participation cannot be compared to the defendant's physical presence in court. Hence the need to reconsider the conclusions outlined by the Italian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights with regard to previous legislation, also in order to avoid the risk that remote participation may in future become the ‘norm’ in a trial involving parties in vinculis, whatever the procedure that originated the status detentionis may be.

For many years, in the context of international criminal law, the rights of the defence have taken a back seat to the need of prosecuting and punishing the alleged perpetrators of international crimes. In such a scenario the Rome Statute, through which the International Criminal Court was established, represents the highest normative evolution in guarantee of the fundamental rights of those being investigated and prosecuted before the Court. The purpose of the present article is to evaluate whether or not, and how, the rights of the defence are safeguarded, not only “on paper”, but also in the concrete application of the Statute, with particular reference to the confirmation of charges stage of the proceedings.

This article examines the fundamental characteristics of the comprehensive reform of criminal law proposed by Minister Orlando and currently under examination at the Senate. This reform should have an impact on many institutions of substantive criminal law – e.g., the extinguishment of a crime due to preparatory conducts and especially the statute of limitations for a crime – as well as on a number of procedural criminal law standards, which share the aim to make procedural developments more effective, even by means of a stricter deadline system for the different turning points.

Gli ultimi due decenni hanno visto rafforzarsi nello scenario multiculturale europeo una concezione fortemente partecipativa di giustizia penale che, dovuta specie all’opera della giurisprudenza di Strasburgo, sta progressivamente diffondendosi in diversi settori del diritto processuale penale negli ordinamenti nazionali. All’interno del quadrante dell’Unione europea, superata la prima fase di normazione all’interno del III Pilastro, l’entrata in vigore del Trattato di Lisbona ha posto le basi per l’avvio di un impegno delle istituzioni dell’Unione vòlto al consolidamento di standard minimi di tutela del diritto di difesa in relazione non solo alle procedure di cooperazione ma anche ai procedimenti nazionali. Sebbene ciò abbia dato avvio a una nuova stagione d’intensa attività normativa, il carattere abbastanza frammentario delle riforme varate fa sì che la voce e la partecipazione di privati all’amministrazione della giustizia penale sia ancora debole. Il presente scritto analizza il cammino percorso dall’Unione europea negli ultimi due decenni verso il rafforzamento di difesa nell’ambito di procedure sia nazionali sia transfrontaliere, verificando inoltre se e in che misura l’armonizzazione operata dall’Unione soddisfi i livelli di tutela richiesti dalla giurisprudenza di Strasburgo e stabiliti nei sistemi costituzionali nazionali.