The issues regarding the Italian authorities' unjustified disclosure of Amanda Knox's private writings, her private life, private conversations, and their false statements about her character and private actions may be better described as violations of Convention Article 8:
ARTICLE 8
Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family
life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the
exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the
law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of
national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the
country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection
of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms
I bow to your superior knowledge Numbers.
It's just that I think the leaks were more to do with helping get a conviction by swaying public opinion, and IMO have more to do with violating her rights to a fair trial than with her right to privacy in this case.
Mr Fied,
You may have a point that the leaks of material were meant to prejudice the trial outcome against Amanda. This would imply a potential violation of Convention Article 6. Of course, the final verdict was that Amanda and Raffaele were not guilty (innocent), so the leaks of case materials or other private information may not fall, strictly speaking, under Article 6.
ECHR case-law does provide precedent for considering leaks from a prosecution case-file or from the State's other information, whether true or false, of a suspect's or accused's private life, as a violation of Convention Article 8.
One example of the ECHR finding that leaks of information from a case-file is a violation of Article 8 is:
Apostu v. Romania 22765/12 03/02/2015 {from the legal summary:}
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Leak of information from criminal investigation file to the press: violation
Facts – In 2011 the applicant, a former mayor, was placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of corruption and forgery. Before he was committed to stand trial, several newspapers published information and documents from the investigation file, quoting extracts from intercepted telephone conversations and referring to aspects of the applicant’s private life unrelated to the trial. The criminal proceedings against the applicant were still pending at the time of the European Court’s judgment.
Law – Article 8: Excerpts from the prosecution file concerning the applicant’s case had become public before the beginning of the adversarial phase of the proceedings and their content had put the applicant in an unfavourable light, giving the impression that he had committed crimes. Moreover, parts of the telephone conversations of a strictly private nature had not served to advance the criminal prosecution and their publication had thus not corresponded to a pressing social need. The leak of that information by the authorities thus constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life.
Under the domestic law, public access to information contained in a criminal case file was possible only after the case had been lodged with a court but even then it was limited and subject to judicial control. However, in the applicant’s case the possibility for a judge to assess whether a piece of information should be disclosed to the public had been impaired because it had already been leaked to the press. The respondent State had thus failed to provide safe custody of the information in their possession in order to secure the applicant’s right to respect for his private life or to offer him any means of redress once the breach of his rights had occurred.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).