1.
Can you provide a translation of para 2 that includes your quote?
2.
Why do you not acknowledge that no one but Vixen is claiming a specific difference in legal consequences? Please produce what you demand stating there is absolutely no difference.
How about I'm totally skeptical of your and others here that claim there is no difference knowing anything about the issue and certainly not as much as Cheli. Apparently Luca
hahahaha. He said it as clear as day.
1. In Italian - previously given in post #3803:
Art. 530 - Sentenza di assoluzione
1. Se il fatto non sussiste, se l'imputato non lo ha commesso, se il fatto non costituisce reato o non è previsto dalla legge come reato ovvero se il reato è stato commesso da persona non imputabile o non punibile per un'altra ragione, il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione indicandone la causa nel dispositivo.
2. Il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione anche quando manca, è insufficiente o è contraddittoria la prova che il fatto sussiste, che l'imputato lo ha commesso, che il fatto costituisce reato o che il reato è stato commesso da persona imputabile.
3. Se vi è la prova che il fatto è stato commesso in presenza di una causa di giustificazione o di una causa personale di non punibilità ovvero vi è dubbio sull'esistenza delle stesse, il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione a norma del comma 1.
4. Con la sentenza di assoluzione il giudice applica, nei casi previsti dalla legge, le misure di sicurezza.
In English translation (from Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa) - previously given in post #3765:
CPP Article 530 Judgment of acquittal
1. If the criminal act did not occur, the accused did not commit it, the act is not deemed an offence by law or it has been committed by a person who cannot be accused or punished for a different reason, the judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal, mentioning the cause in the operative part of the judgment.
2.
The judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal also in case of insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof that the criminal act occurred,
the accused committed it, the act is deemed an offence by law, the offence was committed by a person with mental capacity.
3. The judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal under paragraph 1 if there is proof that the underlying causes of the committed act are either a reason for justification or a personal reason for exemption from punishment or there is a doubt on the existence of such reasons.
4. By means of the judgment of acquittal, the judge shall apply the security measures, in the cases provided for by law.
Italian Constitution, Article 27 (clause 2)
2. A defendant shall be considered not guilty until a final sentence has been passed.
In the English translation, I bolded the language that is the equivalent of "the accused did not commit the act (crime)". If there is an acquittal, the defendant did not commit the crime in accordance with the proof (evidence) being insufficient, contradictory or lacking.
The logic is that one can only be judged to have committed the crime if there is proof (evidence) of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (CPP Article 533.1).
If the proof does not meet that standard, one has not committed the crime, according to the law.
Furthermore, in giving a verdict of acquittal, an Italian court gives a specification of the type of acquittal. There are only five types of specification of acquittal under Italian law. In the Knox - Sollecito case, the Marasca CSC panel's specification was "the appellants {the accused} did not commit the act (crime)". So by the verdict specification, the CSC indicates that is what it meant within CPP Article 530.2, which has other types of specifications within it (for example, that "the criminal act did not occur" - note in 530.2 this is also preceded by the phrase "insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof").
2. Who else maintains that there are different legal consequences - on ISF, Mach; I believe Vixen and Mach had the same or essentially the same arguments. Do you know of anyone else? Did they have citations from the CPP to support their claims? On checking the CPP, were the claims verified?
In terms of no different legal consequences for an acquittal with specification "the accused did not commit the act (crime)" under CPP Art. 530.2 compared to 530.1, I have already provided that information. I will summarize here.
CPP Art. 648 Irrevocability of judgments and criminal decrees
1. Judgments delivered at trial which are not subject to an appelate remedy other than revision are final.
CPP Art. 629 Convictions subject to revision
1. The revision of judgments of conviction ... may be performed at any time and in the cases established by law in favour of the convicted persons, even if the sentence has already been enforced or is extinguished.
{There is no revision possible for an acquittal.}
CPP Art. 649 Ne bis in idem (no double jeopardy)
1. The accused person who has been dismissed or convicted by a judgment or criminal decree that has become final shall not be prosecuted again for the same offence, even if his conduct is considered differently in terms of legal definition, stage of the offence or circumstances....
{"Dismissed" here is a general term meaning "acquitted" or "dismissed for other reasons" (such as, for example, time-barred by statute of limitations)}
CPP Art. 652 Effects of the criminal judgment of acquittal in trials for civil or administrative damages
1. The final criminal judgment of acquittal delivered after a trial shall have binding effect, with relation to either the ascertainment that the criminal act did not occur, or
the accused did not commit it or the act has been carried out to perform a duty or to exercise a legal right, in the civil or administrative trial for restitution or compensation of damages brought by the injured person or in his interest, provided that the injured has joined the proceedings as a civil party or has been given the possibility to join the proceedings....
