FIRST SECTIONRequest n o 76577/13
Amanda Marie KNOX
against Italy
introduced November 24, 2013FACTSThe applicant, Mr daughter Amanda Marie Knox is a national, born-unienne states in 1987 and lives in Seattle. She is represented before the Court by M e Carlo Dalla Vedova, a lawyer in Rome.the circumstances of the caseThe facts of the case as they were incurred by the applicant, may be summarized as follows.1. The sequence of events and statements issued November 6, 2007November 2, 2007, the police, alerted by third parties, went to the home of the applicant, who was at the scene with her boyfriend, MRS There, she discovered the lifeless body of M lle MK, roommate's request, her throat cut.On 6 November 2007 the applicant was heard twice from the police station of Perugia. The first declarations were made at 1:45 am in front of four police officers and, second, at 5:45 am, before a magistrate.With some variations, in both circumstances, the applicant stated that on the evening of 1 st November 2007, MDL, owner of a pub where she worked from time to time, went into the apartment of the applicant, that celui- it retired to the bedroom in the company of M lle MK and, some time later, she heard shouts of M lle MK come from the bedroom.On 6 November 2007, at 12:00, the applicant was remanded in custody.November 9, 2007, she wrote two memoirs by hand, it transmitted to his lawyers. The relevant portions of thereof are as follows:"[Speaking of the interrogations in the night between 5 and 6 November 2007] They asked what I had done me [between 1 st November at 15:00 and 2 November at 1:30] and I realized not not have a lot of memories. I told their seeing a film with R., having dined with him (...). They told me I was lying, they knew that I had not been with R. and, against I met someone and they had evidence that night I was home. That really put me in a state of confusion. I told them that I was not lying, and they started to get angry, saying "stop lying, we know that you were there." (...) I was scared because I could not remember what I had done in the time they had indicated. (...) They told me they knew I told R. lying. I told them that this was not true. Then we talked about the message sent by [MDL] who told me not to go to work that night. They asked me if I had responded to that message. I could not remember at that time, so I answered "no". They then took my phone and they showed me a message in which I said " The vediamo, buona serata - See you, good evening." They called me a "stupid liar" and they told me I was trying to protect someone. They put before me pieces of paper for me to write the name of the murderer, but I did not know. I had no evidence to answer their questions and it terrified me. Because I could not remember. The interpreter then told me that she had had a terrible accident and not having had any memories of what had happened during one year. She told me that maybe I had seen something terrible that I could not remember. As I could not have memory, I began to think it was true. (...) They incited me to provide the name of the murderer, otherwise I would have spent the next thirty years in prison. They said they had already taken the murderer and they just wanted me to sort his name, but I knew nothing. One officer hit me in the head twice. In my head, I was looking for answers. I was really confused. (...) So I asked to see the message on my phone to see if I remembered to have sent and when I saw the message I thought [MDL]. I imagined meeting him at the basketball court, I imagined outside my house, I imagined cover my ears not to hear the cries of [M lle MK] and then I said " MDL ". I told [MDL], and now I regret it completely because I know what I said to hurt anyone and I have no idea if it was involved in this history or not. Then I behaved myself hysterically, I cried and I was worried about what had happened to me. I was so confused. They told me I had to write everything but I said I was not sure (...) and that this did not seem real. Then they let me rest. I thought of all (...) and as and when I calmed down I was getting some things I'd say to [MDL] were not true. But I do not even remembered what I had done with my boyfriend after dinner. "By a decision of 9 November 2007 the Court of Perugia ordered the detention of the applicant. He took into account in particular the results of the autopsy, examination of the DNA of the applicant and MRS, testimonials and collected environmental interceptions and some contradictions in the account of the facts provided by the applicant. The injunction was upheld by the court on 30 November 2007 and subsequently by the Court of Cassation on 1 st April 2008, following an appeal by the applicant.As part of that order, the Court of Cassation held that the statements made by the applicant at 5:54 November 6, 2007, unlike those given on the same day at 1:45, were not usable. It turns out that, at 5:45 am, the applicant was heard by a magistrate, acquiring the status of "person under investigation" ( indagata ), though his defense is housed in accordance with the law.2. The different phases of the criminal proceedings against the applicant and SRM have beenThe various stages of the criminal proceedings can be summarized as follows: a) judgment against the Court of Assizes of Perugia of 5 December 2009 issued against the applicant and MRS for, among others, competition in sexual violence and murder. The applicant was sentenced to more false accusation, for MDL accused of the death of M lle MK, knowing the innocent. Under this procedure, the applicant was heard on 13 March, 12 and 13 June 2009. During the hearing, it confirmed the version of events resulting from his memoirs, especially as regards the position of the interpreter and pressure from the latter and by the police and the tapes allegedly suffered. These statements were the subject of a subsequent criminal proceedings for false accusation initiated against the applicant (see paragraph i) below); b) stop of the 2010 Supreme Court ordering MRG, knowledge of M Miss K., a final sentence of sixteen years in prison for murder and sexual violence perpetrated against it. That judgment was delivered after a shortened procedure; c) judgment of acquittal of the applicant and MRS delivered by Perugia appeals court October 3, 2011 as the heads of competition sexual violence and murder and confirmation of the conviction of the appellant for false accusation. In the relevant parts of the judgment reads as follows:"False accusationThe "spontaneous" statements made by Amanda Knox November 6, 2007 and his memoirs were acquired on file.(...) The statements, although they can be used for the slanderous denunciation of offense, they can not be used as for the other offenses M lle MK was a victim, as was noted by the Court of Cassation in its judgment of 1 st April 2008, as these, made in the absence of a defender, are affected by absolute nullity.To assess the scope of the "spontaneous" statements and memoirs, written in the last, right after, we must consider the context in which the statements were made and memories were written.Obsessive duration of interrogations, conducted in days and nights, by several people, against foreign young girl who, at the time, included neither spoke good Italian, who was unaware of his rights, private assistance of a defender (which would have been entitled, in view of what it had been under investigation for serious crimes) and, in addition, assisted by an interpreter (...) does was not limited to translating, but encouraged him to remember explaining that, probably, because of the trauma, she was confused in his memory, makes it quite understandable that [the applicant] was in a pressure situation important psychological - the word "stress" would be limited - likely to arise doubts about the spontaneity of the statements made. Spontaneity that was singularly manifested at night, after hours of interrogation. "d) judgment of the Court of Cassation of 25 March 2013 annulling the relative judgment acquitting the two accused and referring the case to the Appeal Court of Assizes of Florence. The Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for false accusation, and sent that part of the case concerning the existence of an aggravating circumstance, namely having slandered MDL in order to not be prosecuted homicide; e) order of the Court of Cassation on 30 September 2013 with the renewal of certain evidence at the request of the applicant and MRS; f) decision of the Appeals Court of Assizes of Florence of 30 January 2014 ordering the applicant to twenty-eight years and six months in prison for assistance in murder and sexual violence and ordered the applicant to slanderous denunciation, with the aggravating circumstance to three years in prison, making this final sentence; g) the applicant appealed on points of law. It argued, inter alia, that "spontaneous" declarations of 6 November 2007 had been made under pressure, recalling the relevant parts of the judgment of the Court of Cassation on 1 st April 2008. It denounced not have been assisted by counsel and have suffered pats on the head ( scappellotti ) during the interrogation, recalling the contents of its memory of 9 November 2007; h) decision of the Supreme Court filed September 7, 2015, acquitting the applicant and MRS of the charges on the grounds that the disputed facts had not produced ( " perchè it fatto non sussiste" ): i) the meantime, the applicant was the subject of other criminal proceedings for false accusation, especially concerning statements she had made on 13 March, 12 and 13 June 2009 against the police officers who carried his interrogations. In a judgment of 14 January 2016, the Florence court acquitted the applicant.He considered in particular that the latter was under strong psychological pressure from investigators, causing it to make the name of MDL for the sole purpose of ending treatment contrary to human rights implementation in Person . The relevant parts of the judgment, for what interests the query object, are as follows:"The investigative activities (...) concerning the applicant are characterized by numerous procedural irregularities which led the Supreme Court to consider [the 1 st April 2008] that the statements made were not usable. (...)For defects activities [of investigations], the minutes are not reliable as to the schedule of commencement of operations. Moreover, the minutes do not indicate the timetable for their closure. (...)The totally inappropriate choice of performers was also irregular. They were agents of the police station of Perugia. So they were placed in a situation of professional collaboration with colleagues who were trying to carry out the investigations. This has translated into a behavior tending to emotionally empathize [with the applicant]. This was in an extremely difficult context, not only for investigations (relevant declarations have been considered unusable thereafter) but also on the position of [the applicant] who was at that time under investigation.This ambiguous quality person performing auxiliary functions for the police and at the same time, belonging to the same team of investigators was accompanied by maternal attitudes and emotional transportation (especially regarding the required behavior and not the least of atypical [two performers] and one of the police officers [who, some, familiar attitudes taken for the establishment of empathy with the applicant, and the other took it together and 'having embraced ( abbracciata ) while she formulated the charges payable by MDL)] (...).Interpreters should have been foreign and neutral in relation to the ongoing criminal proceedings in the elementary and obvious purpose of avoiding contamination that affect the professional behavior of the auxiliary. (...)This set of circumstances is not in the minutes (...). The only approach that was required in this case was to inform the indictment of its rights of defense, declared inviolable in our Constitution. This for the obvious reason that it was someone who had to be put in a condition to defend their personal freedom with respect to the authority of the state power, the latter having already assigned to [the applicant], by through investigators, quality person under investigation. (...)This situation arises in contradiction with the immediately subsequent detention of [the applicant], who had just been treated with motherly attitude and a friendly affection. This sequence of events certainly created some embarrassment, while less for the person concerned, which should have been avoided (...) to safeguard the dignity of [the applicant] (...) and personal freedom as fundamental and inviolable human right, which is one aspect (...) fundamental human rights. (...)[In this context] the principle of the presumption of innocence was also disregarded. (...) "3. Other items about the progress of the interrogation of the applicanta) The wiretaps collected by the Perugia police office November 4, 2007It appears from the minutes relating thereto that the applicant told his interlocutor have been under strong pressure and stress by the authorities. She looked to be in lack of sleep for only two hours sleep the night before. MRS, which also intervened in the conversation, indicated that the police were trying to "squeeze the brain" of the applicant (literally "to take his brain kicked").b) The minutes of the hearing on 13 March 2009, in particular regarding the testimony of M me ADM me AD, police officer also performing as interpreter, was present at the interrogation of the applicant the night between 5 and 6 November 2007.Upon arrival at the police station of Perugia, about 00:30 on 6 November 2007 the applicant was already being questioned by two police officers.According to the testimony of M me AD, the applicant was at first fairly quiet. However, at some point she claimed not to have responded to an SMS that was sent to him by MDL Once his answer on the laptop was shown to him, the applicant had an "emotional shock" began to cry wanting to hands ears and shake his head, saying "That's him! It's him I feel desperately wicked. "According to this testimony, the applicant was surrounded by police officers who were consolidating, one of them also took her hands to reassure her. The applicant would not have suffered ill-treatment, it would not have been hit on the head. No one threatened her with phrases like "get thirty years of prison." Nobody would have said at any time "if you appoint a lawyer for you, it's worse."It also appears from this evidence that, at some point of the interrogation, M me AD, in order to establish a human relationship and trust with the applicant, would have told him stories about his private life, such as having two girls of about the same age as the applicant, and a traumatic episode she had lived (a broken leg) because of which she had lost her memory about the facts that occurred .During his testimony, M me AD also claimed a role of "mediator" in the sense that his work was not only the translation of statements but also the fact to weave a human relationship with the caller in order to "collect needs of the person and bring them. "M me AD then said he was asked the applicant if it wished to appoint a lawyer and she replied in the negative. This circumstance was however not transcribed in the minutes.According to M me AD, the applicant then rested dozing in a chair that had been placed at his disposal. At 8:00 the witness was replaced by a colleague.c) The minutes of 12 June 2009, concerning in particular the hearing of the applicantDuring this hearing, the applicant claimed to have been struck in the head twice by police during interrogation. She explained that the police were using it with an altered tone and they were screaming. The applicant also indicated that did not allow him to use the phone to call his mother. In addition, she reported that, after I indicting statements MDL, she asked several times to be heard again because she was not sure what she had said, given the situation of confusion and stress emotional.The applicant also stated to have asked to be assisted by a lawyer and that, however, it was recommended to him by the police stating that "the presence of a lawyer would have worsened the situation, as it showed as not wanting to cooperate with the police ". The applicant therefore renounced the assistance of a legal.Finally, during the hearing, she argued that statements made during against MDL, she was in a state of incapacity, given the strong psychological pressure exerted against him.4. The publication of personal informationDuring his detention in the prison of Perugia, the applicant was examined by a prison doctor institute on the occasion of an alleged control of the HIV virus. On this occasion, the doctor asked him to give all the people with whom she had sexual relationship.The following days, these private information were published in newspapers and times by different media.The applicant started a civil procedure in compensation for the violation of his right to remain undisclosed personal information. In a judgment of 20 March 2014, the Milan Court acknowledged the violation of the right of the applicant and ordered the defendant to pay compensation for the damage she had suffered.COMPLAINTS1. The applicant raises several complaints concerning the fairness of the criminal proceedings following which she was sentenced to three years in prison for false accusation.a) Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3) of the Convention, the applicant complained of not being informed promptly and in a language understandable to the nature and cause of the accusation his charge.b) In terms of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 c), she also alleges that he was not assisted by a lawyer during the interrogation of 6 November 2007.c) Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 e) The applicant also complains that he was not assisted by a professional and independent interpreter during interrogation and that the police officer who assisted during interrogation of 6 November 2007 performed the duties of "mediator" suggesting hypotheses about the sequence of events.2. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the pats on the head she suffered ( scappellotti ) constituted inhuman and degrading treatment.3. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, she denounces the violation of his right to respect for private and family life, on the grounds that, on 6 November 2007, she was forced to answer questions about MDL so that she was in default judgment and will ( incapacità di intendere volere e ) and under psychological pressure.
INFORMATION REQUEST 1. The applicant is requested to produce a copy of the judgment of the Perugia court of 5 December 2009 regarding his conviction for false accusation and a copy of the appeal and of the appeal regarding this procedure. 2. The parties are invited to indicate whether the judgment of the Florence Court of 14 January 2016 was attacked or if it has become final and to provide copies of relevant documents.QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES1. The applicant has she exhausted the domestic remedies available to him to complain about the violation of Article 3 of the Convention, concerning the steps ( scappellotti ) allegedly suffered, and Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 a), c) and e) and 8 of the Convention? 2. If so: a) Does the applicant have been submitted, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, inhuman or degrading treatment? b) The applicant she has, as required by Article 6 § 3 a) of the Convention, was informed in promptly, in a language they understand and in detail, of the nature and cause of the charge against him for false accusation? c) Does the applicant have had the assistance of counsel of his choice, as required by Article 6 § 3 c) of the Convention, especially during interrogation of 6 November 2007? d) Has the applicant obtained the free assistance of an interpreter, within the meaning of Article 6 § 3 e) of the Convention? e) The psychological pressure allegedly suffered by the applicant during interrogations of 6 November 2007, she has violated the right of the latter to a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and the right to respect for private life protected by Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?
In fact I think the recent revival of the wind cart thread at TR and my again finding myself unsure about all the facts involved is what inspired my interest in the how and why of such threads.
