No lawyer = No valid statement
You seem to be confused. The conclusion of law is that there was no "coercion" as defined by Italian law. Here are the conclusions of fact:
the interrogation was:
-of obsessive length
-carried out during [both] day and night
-carried out by more than one person
-carried out on a young and foreign girl
-carried out on a young and foreign girl who at the time did not speak Italian at all well,
-carried out on a young, foreign girl who was unaware of her own rights,
-carried out on a young, foreign girl who did not have the assistance of an attorney (which she should have been entitled to, being at this point suspected of very serious crimes),
-the interpreter did not limit herself to translating, but induced her to force herself to remember, explaining that she [Amanda] was confused in her memories.
The conclusion of law (in Italy): No coercion.
The conclusion of law under the ECHR: coercion.
{emphasis added to quote}
Diocletus,
Thanks for dividing up Hellmann's statement this way. It helps clarify the issues involved in Amanda's interrogation.
Attempting to look at the interrogation from the viewpoint of ECtHR, the primary issue may be the lack of a lawyer; I highlighted and bolded that text.
1. On its own, use by the prosecution in a trial of a statement from a subject under interrogation who does not have a lawyer present, and who has not validly waived such representation, is a violation of Convention Articles 6.3c and 6.1. That is, the trial is unfair. The term "coercion" need not be used; it is, as I understand it, assumed by the ECtHR that the absence of a lawyer during the interrogation is equivalent to coercion, or a denial of rights forcing self-incrimination.
2. In another aspect, when an interrogation employs inhuman or degrading treatment against a subject, in violation of Convention Article 3, to gain incriminating evidence, whether true or false, that is important evidence used to convict the subject at trial, then the trial in unfair - a violation of Article 6.1. {See the bottom of post 3762, #139, copied from Guide on Article 6 (Criminal Limb).} It is arguable that the interrogation techniques used on Amanda included inhuman and degrading treatment.
3. The use of subterfuge, such as practiced by the "interpreter/mediator" Donnino, on the person subjected to interrogation, Amanda, to bend his/her will and thereby elicit an incriminating statement, and use of that statement at trial for a conviction, also leads to a violation of Convention Article 6.1. {See #127 in post 3762 or in the Guide on Article 6.}
From the above, it is clear that Amanda's case against Italy regarding her conviction for calunnia before the ECtHR is very strong.
In evaluating Mach's attempts at confusing the issues, one should look at the actual case law provided by the ECtHR, as you have done.
