Hi Mach,
I don't believe you have fully explained the non-adversarial inquisitional foundations of the Italian judicial system. I agree you have pointed out the fast-track trial path (apparently based on clause [sentence number] 9 on Article 111) and that the prosecutors are in the judiciary, but the constitutional validity of the transport of "judicial facts" that have not been examined by defendants from one (fast-track) trial, where they were not represented, to their own adversarial trial, is not clear to me. Could you expound a bit on the constitutional logic involved in this transport?
And doesn't clause 5 entitle the defendants at their adversarial trial to receive the electronic data files, the best evidence of the results from the DNA profile tests, for their defense purposes?
I look forward to your response.
For convenience, I have copied Article 111 below.
From the website of the Senate of the Italian Republic:
https://www.senato.it/documenti/repo...ne_inglese.pdf
{I have numbered and highlighted the sentences of Article 111 for ease of reading and reference.}
Art. 111
1) Jurisdiction is implemented through due process regulated by law.
2)
All court trials are conducted with adversary proceedings and the parties
are entitled to equal conditions before an impartial judge in third party
position.
3) The law provides for the reasonable duration of trials.
4) In criminal law trials, the law provides that the alleged offender shall be
promptly informed confidentially of the nature and reasons for the charges
that are brought and shall have adequate time and conditions to prepare a
defence.
5)
The defendant shall have the right to cross-examine or to have
cross-examined before a judge the persons making accusations and to
summon and examine persons for the defence in the same conditions as the
prosecution, as well as the right to produce all other evidence in favour of
the defence.
6) The defendant is entitled to the assistance of an interpreter in
the case that he or she does not speak or understand the language in which
the court proceedings are conducted.
7)
In criminal law proceedings, the formation of evidence is based on the
principle of adversary hearings.
8)
The guilt of the defendant cannot be established on the basis of statements by persons who, out of their own free choice, have always voluntarily avoided undergoing cross-examination by the defendant or the defence counsel.
9) The law regulates the cases in which the formation of evidence does not
occur in an adversary proceeding with the consent of the defendant or
owing to reasons of ascertained objective impossibility or proven illicit
conduct.
10) All judicial decisions shall include a statement of reasons.
11) Appeals to the Court of Cassation in cases of violations of the law are
always allowed against sentences and against measures affecting personal
freedom pronounced by ordinary and special courts. This rule can only be
waived in cases of sentences by military tribunals in time of war.
12) Appeals to the Court of Cassation against decisions of the Council of State and the Court of Accounts are permitted only for reasons of jurisdiction.
