BTW Vixen: you do realise, do you not (probably not, actually) that if the SC had accepted any ruling that this print was positively identifiable as Sollecito's, then almost without doubt it would have convicted Sollecito - and very probably also Knox - on that piece of evidence alone?
After all, there can be no possible reason why an innocent Sollecito could or would have left his bare partial print in the victim's blood on that bath mat. Sollecito said he was never in the house without footwear on at any time after the night of the murder - so it would be fundamentally incompatible with Sollecito's defence to identify that print as his.
But as the rational-thinking world knows very well - and, fortunately, as the Italian Supreme Court found exceedingly easy to figure out - that print can in no way be matched to Sollecito. Nor, for that matter, can it be excluded as Guede's. You have been told that the conditions of the creation of that bath mat print (the dilute, soaking medium, the tufted, raise, uneven pile of the bathmat, the wicking effect of the pile upon the spread of the liquid, the lack of knowledge about the nature of the footfall which created the print) makes it IMPOSSIBLE to conduct anything but the very broadest measurement analysis to that print for identification purposes. And as you have been told, the best that any honest and competent forensic technician can say is that it's compatible with an adult with a pretty normal-shaped foot, with a shoe size of around 42-45. It can therefore be used to exclude, e.g. females with a size 36 foot, or males with a size 49 foot. But beyond any doubt it cannot exclude (or positively identify) either of Sollecito, Guede or any other individual with a foot size of 42-45.
It's Guede's print.