Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[js202]

Ergon (possibly via Mignini) will be hunting down the vehicle registration documents of the ECHR judges as we speak, on the lookout for bribery sports cars

Indeed. And surely with that genius Yummi acting as boots on the ground. Only Yummi can ascertain which Ferrari's are bribery vehicles - both senses - and which are legit.

 

[Numbers]

Here is an attempt at a translation of the ECHR Communication sections of the Complaint, Request for Information, and Questions to the Parties, edited for clarity.



Communiquée le 29 avril 2016

PREMIÈRE SECTION
Requête no 76577/13
Amanda Marie KNOX
contre l’Italie
introduite le 24 novembre 2013

Application number 76577/13
Amanda Marie KNOX
Against Italy
Lodged 24 November 2013


COMPLAINTS

1. 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 [a]) of the Convention, the applicant complained of not being informed promptly and in a language understandable to her of the nature and cause of the accusation she was charged with.

b) In terms of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 c), she also alleges that she 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 she 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 Mr. DL so that she was in a state of defective 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 her 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 appealed or if it has become final and to provide copies of relevant documents.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant exhausted the domestic remedies available to her to complain about the violation of Article 3 of the Convention, concerning the slaps (scappellotti) allegedly suffered, and Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 a), c) and e) and 8 of the Convention?

2. If so:

a) Was the applicant subjected, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, to inhuman or degrading treatment?

b) Was the applicant, as required by Article 6 § 3 a) of the Convention, informed promptly, in a language she could understand and in detail, of the nature and cause of the charges against her for false accusation?

c) Did the applicant have the assistance of counsel of her choice, as required by Article 6 § 3 c) of the Convention, especially during the interrogation of 6 November 2007?

d) Did the applicant obtain the free assistance of an interpreter, within the meaning of Article 6 § 3 e) of the Convention?

e) Did the psychological pressure allegedly suffered by the applicant during the interrogations of 6 November 2007, violate the right of the applicant 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?

 

[bagels]

It will be hard for Italy to argue Amanda hasn't exhausted all domestic remedies, since they claimed not even the ECHR can undo her conviction. Although I suspect the ECHR will have a slightly different opinion.

 

[Bill Williams]

<deleted because even I don't want this to go to 30 continuations!>

 

[Numbers]

It will be hard for Italy to argue Amanda hasn't exhausted all domestic remedies, since they claimed not even the ECHR can undo her conviction. Although I suspect the ECHR will have a slightly different opinion.

This is a more complicated area than your otherwise correct statement indicates.

Each claim of a violation of each specific article will be analyzed by the ECHR for the exhaustion of domestic remedies. However, the domestic remedy must be practically available and potentially effective.

For example, if one complains of police mistreatment and then there is no effective investigation of the complaint and the person complaining is charged with the crime of falsely accusing the police of a crime, the ECHR could very well agree that there was no practical and effective domestic remedy available.

 

[Diocletus]

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant exhausted the domestic remedies available to her to complain about the violation of Article 3 of the Convention, concerning the slaps (scappellotti) allegedly suffered, and Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 a), c) and e) and 8 of the Convention?

I thought that the exhaustion of domestic remedies would be for the callunia conviction, meaning, did she exhaust her right to challenge the fairness of the callunia process (i.e., by exhausting all appeals). This question, though, seems aimed at whether she took all available measures to address the underlying substantive violations, i.e., did Knox raise all possible collateral attacks against the callunia process.

2. If so:

a) Was the applicant subjected, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, to inhuman or degrading treatment?

I.e., was the alleged "slapping" appropriately investigated?

b) Was the applicant, as required by Article 6 § 3 a) of the Convention, informed promptly, in a language she could understand and in detail, of the nature and cause of the charges against her for false accusation?

Hm. This is odd. They are asking about being informed of the callunia charges and not suspicion of murder. When exactly was Knox informed of, and charged with callunia?

c) Did the applicant have the assistance of counsel of her choice, as required by Article 6 § 3 c) of the Convention, especially during the interrogation of 6 November 2007?

Nope. See Supreme Court.

d) Did the applicant obtain the free assistance of an interpreter, within the meaning of Article 6 § 3 e) of the Convention?

Nope. See Supreme Court.

e) Did the psychological pressure allegedly suffered by the applicant during the interrogations of 6 November 2007, violate the right of the applicant 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?

Interesting question. Seems to be asking whether we have an entrapment/coercion situation.

 

[Numbers]

Here is an attempt at a translation of the ECHR Communication sections of the Complaint, Request for Information, and Questions to the Parties, edited for clarity.



Communiquée le 29 avril 2016

PREMIÈRE SECTION
Requête no 76577/13
Amanda Marie KNOX
contre l’Italie
introduite le 24 novembre 2013

Application number 76577/13
Amanda Marie KNOX
Against Italy
Lodged 24 November 2013


COMPLAINTS

1. 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 [a]) of the Convention, the applicant complained of not being informed promptly and in a language understandable to her of the nature and cause of the accusation she was charged with.

b) In terms of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 c), she also alleges that she 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 she 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 Mr. DL so that she was in a state of defective 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 her 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 appealed or if it has become final and to provide copies of relevant documents.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant exhausted the domestic remedies available to her to complain about the violation of Article 3 of the Convention, concerning the slaps (scappellotti) allegedly suffered, and Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 a), c) and e) and 8 of the Convention?

2. If so:

a) Was the applicant subjected, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, to inhuman or degrading treatment?

b) Was the applicant, as required by Article 6 § 3 a) of the Convention, informed promptly, in a language she could understand and in detail, of the nature and cause of the charges against her for false accusation?

c) Did the applicant have the assistance of counsel of her choice, as required by Article 6 § 3 c) of the Convention, especially during the interrogation of 6 November 2007?

d) Did the applicant obtain the free assistance of an interpreter, within the meaning of Article 6 § 3 e) of the Convention?

e) Did the psychological pressure allegedly suffered by the applicant during the interrogations of 6 November 2007, violate the right of the applicant 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?

I thought that the exhaustion of domestic remedies would be for the callunia conviction, meaning, did she exhaust her right to challenge the fairness of the callunia process (i.e., by exhausting all appeals). This question, though, seems aimed at whether she took all available measures to address the underlying substantive violations, i.e., did Knox raise all possible collateral attacks against the callunia process.

Each claim for each violation is evaluated by the ECHR under terms of admissibility, including exhaustion of domestic remedies.

Some of these claimed violations are tied together, however. My impression is that Amanda recounted in her court statement, and in each appeal of the calunnia conviction, of all of the claimed issues relating to the interrogation. If that impression is correct, each of those linked issues (slaps, threats and other psychological coercive pressures, lack of a free and fair interpreter, suggestion by the "mediator/interpreter", denial of a lawyer, and failure of the police to explain that Amanda could be charged under calunnia if her statement about Lumumba was false (which is how I interpret the violation of Article 6.1a), as well as failure of the police to advise her of her right to remain silent, were all exhausted by the appeals.

I.e., was the alleged "slapping" appropriately investigated?

I believe the question is more general: did it happen, and was it investigated.

I am surprised that the ECHR did not ask for the minutes and video recording of the interrogation. May be that will be in a future question to Italy.

Hm. This is odd. They are asking about being informed of the callunia charges and not suspicion of murder. When exactly was Knox informed of, and charged with callunia?

One point is that she was charged with calunnia long after she had made her statement in the Nov. 5/6, 2007 interrogation. She was not warned that she could be charged with the crime during the interrogation. If Italy maintains that she was, where is the record of that?

Nope. See Supreme Court.

Also see the Boninsegnor MR. It is more detailed and explicit. The Communication includes excerpts of that MR.

Nope. See Supreme Court.

Also see the Boninsegnor MR. It is more detailed and explicit. The Communication includes excerpts of that MR.

Interesting question. Seems to be asking whether we have an entrapment/coercion situation.

Indeed.

 

[Diocletus]

Also see the Boninsegnor MR. It is more detailed and explicit. QUOTE]

What is that?

 

[Diocletus]

Seems to me that there's a good chance that Italy just rolls over on this whole thing and reaches a settlement with Knox. They already threw the police and prosecution under the bus, anyway.

 

[LondonJohn]

Also see the Boninsegnor MR. It is more detailed and explicit. QUOTE]

What is that?

It's the motivation report from the recent court acquittal of Knox on the charges of criminal slander against the police (i.e. the police were charging that Knox had falsely accused them of mistreating her in that 5th/6th November interrogation). The court acquitted Knox and made some very interesting observations in the MR concerning the interrogation and its propriety (or otherwise).

 

[Methos]

Also see the Boninsegnor MR. It is more detailed and explicit.

What is that?

This one.
The ruling in the "Amanda Knox slandered the Police"-sattelite trial.
Acquitted because:

PQM
Visto l'art. 530 cpp,
assolve Knox Amanda Marie dal reato attribuitole al capo a), perché i fatti non sussistono, e dal reato attribuitole al capo b), perché i fatti non sussistono e perché il fatto iioii costituisce reato, quanto alle accuse rivolte al dr. Giuliaiio Mignini.

 

[LondonJohn]

Seems to me that there's a good chance that Italy just rolls over on this whole thing and reaches a settlement with Knox. They already threw the police and prosecution under the bus, anyway.

Very possible IMO too. Once one takes the malign and power-crazed influence of characters such as Mignini and various case police officers out of the equation, higher-ranking officials in the Italian state machinery may well be able to see just what a horrible, disgraceful cluster-thingy this has all been. As such, there may very well be a persuasive desire to bury this whole thing as quickly, quietly and efficiently as possible.

However, this approach might also produce an undesirable side-effect: the unwillingness/inability of Italy to analyse this case properly and thoroughly in order to assess accountability and blame. I suppose that someone in Knox's position would probably be prepared to overlook this side-effect if it meant a full and speedy resolution, but it will be a genuine disgrace (though sadly typical of the semi-failed state that is Italy right now) if the architects of this mess are not brought properly to book.

 

[Bill Williams]

Very possible IMO too. Once one takes the malign and power-crazed influence of characters such as Mignini and various case police officers out of the equation, higher-ranking officials in the Italian state machinery may well be able to see just what a horrible, disgraceful cluster-thingy this has all been. As such, there may very well be a persuasive desire to bury this whole thing as quickly, quietly and efficiently as possible.

However, this approach might also produce an undesirable side-effect: the unwillingness/inability of Italy to analyse this case properly and thoroughly in order to assess accountability and blame. I suppose that someone in Knox's position would probably be prepared to overlook this side-effect if it meant a full and speedy resolution, but it will be a genuine disgrace (though sadly typical of the semi-failed state that is Italy right now) if the architects of this mess are not brought properly to book.

The Chieffi panel proved there was appetite to protect PM's over and against the country's reputation. The Marasca/Bruno panel reversed 5hat, but the Chieffi elements have not gone away.

 

[Vixen]

Each claim for each violation is evaluated by the ECHR under terms of admissibility, including exhaustion of domestic remedies.

Some of these claimed violations are tied together, however. My impression is that Amanda recounted in her court statement, and in each appeal of the calunnia conviction, of all of the claimed issues relating to the interrogation. If that impression is correct, each of those linked issues (slaps, threats and other psychological coercive pressures, lack of a free and fair interpreter, suggestion by the "mediator/interpreter", denial of a lawyer, and failure of the police to explain that Amanda could be charged under calunnia if her statement about Lumumba was false (which is how I interpret the violation of Article 6.1a), as well as failure of the police to advise her of her right to remain silent, were all exhausted by the appeals.






I believe the question is more general: did it happen, and was it investigated.

I am surprised that the ECHR did not ask for the minutes and video recording of the interrogation. May be that will be in a future question to Italy.



One point is that she was charged with calunnia long after she had made her statement in the Nov. 5/6, 2007 interrogation. She was not warned that she could be charged with the crime during the interrogation. If Italy maintains that she was, where is the record of that?




Also see the Boninsegnor MR. It is more detailed and explicit. The Communication includes excerpts of that MR.




Also see the Boninsegnor MR. It is more detailed and explicit. The Communication includes excerpts of that MR.



Indeed.

The ECHR has not asked for minutes or for any evidence. This is because at this stage, they have merely sent out an interrogatory (questionnaire) to the parties.

The next step will be to have a preliminary hearing to decide whether there is jurisdiction to list it for a hearing.

It will be interesting to find out whether Amanda bothered to file a complaint against the police.

Raff is claiming Amanda 'was interrogated for 15 hours'.

A massive climb down from her claimed '53-hours', and in any case, at the stage she falsely accused Patrick, she was not a suspect and there was no obligation to read out the miranda (lawyers rights, etc.)

She handed the police her 'present' of accusing Patrick of rape and murder of her own volition, and, as Bruno-Marasca confirm, under conditions of privacy free from pressures.

The Supreme Court outranks Bonsegnia (_sp?)'s court. He was acting ultra vires in directly contradicting the Supreme Court in this matter.

ECHR has also classed the claim as Category 3: 'of minor legal interest'.

I should imagine it sends out these interrogatories to all ECHR applicants.

Amanda was not denied a right to complain or appeal, so I cannot see she has any case whatsoever.

In the USA she'd be serving life without parole. That would really give her something to moan about.

 

[Kauffer]

Hello all! I see there is some cause for celebration here today and a vindication not only for Amanda Knox but for all of us who correctly argued how this matter would play out at the ECHR. Nevertheless, now the games start. If I remember correctly, the outcome we imagine that Ms Knox is most desirous of - namely the overturning of the silly calunia verdict in Italy, is not something that the state of Italy is able to grant as a settlement of the matter, which, if forthcoming, would inevitably lead to the case not being adjudicated by the ECHR. Instead, I think she must resist a settlement, assuming one is to be forthcoming, since there is nothing that Italy has to offer that she wants. Indeed, from my memory of the processes in place, it is not altogether clear that Italy will not attempt to defend its position, for numerous reasons. It would seem likely that we are heading to a judgement, which will almost certainly be a year or two away. First, Italy must respond to the communication.

 

[Vixen]

Hello all! I see there is some cause for celebration here today and a vindication not only for Amanda Knox but for all of us who correctly argued how this matter would play out at the ECHR. Nevertheless, now the games start. If I remember correctly, the outcome we imagine that Ms Knox is most desirous of - namely the overturning of the silly calunia verdict in Italy, is not something that the state of Italy is able to grant as a settlement of the matter, which, if forthcoming, would inevitably lead to the case not being adjudicated by the ECHR. Instead, I think she must resist a settlement, assuming one is to be forthcoming, since there is nothing that Italy has to offer that she wants. Indeed, from my memory of the processes in place, it is not altogether clear that Italy will not attempt to defend its position, for numerous reasons. It would seem likely that we are heading to a judgement, which will almost certainly be a year or two away. First, Italy must respond to the communication.

Rubbish. ECHR has merely sent out an interrogatory to all parties. It has NOT listed the case for a hearing.

Hold your horses.

 

[Kauffer]

The ECHR has not asked for minutes or for any evidence. This is because at this stage, they have merely sent out an interrogatory (questionnaire) to the parties.

The next step will be to have a preliminary hearing to decide whether there is jurisdiction to list it for a hearing.

It will be interesting to find out whether Amanda bothered to file a complaint with the police.

Raff is claiming Amanda 'was interrogated for 15 hours'.

A massive climb down for her claimed '53-hours', and in any case, at the stage she falsely accused Patrick, she was not a suspect and there was no obligation to read out the miranda (lawyers rights, etc.)

She handed the police her 'present' of accusing Patrick of rape and murder of her own volition, and, as Bruno-Marasca confirm, under conditions of privacy free from pressures.

The Supreme Court outranks Bonsegnia (_sp?)'s court. He was acting ultra vires in directly contradicting the Supreme Court in this matter.

She was interrogated for about 50 hours or so over a number of days. This is well evidenced. In any case, nothing of what you write matters; she had no benefit of counsel, amongst other things. The case is a slam dunk; Italy has no viable defence. But what is really interesting about all this is the 180 degree turn that has now taken place. Italy will not want the case to go to judgement but is powerless to resist it, assuming, as I do, that it is in no position to quash the calunia verdict. That action will require the case to go back to the Italian courts. The state itself has no jurisdiction to tinker with verdicts.

In short, Italy is embarrassed and must watch silently, while its international human rights record is publicly trashed. Now, Amanda Knox is truly empowered. She stands above a country, which in turn is in thrall to her.

 

[Kauffer]

Rubbish. ECHR has merely sent out an interrogatory to all parties. It has NOT listed the case for a hearing.

Hold your horses.

It's not listed because the process hasn't been completed. First, Italy must respond to the charges. Nothing I wrote contradicts this. But, the outcome will not be in Italy's favour. Of that you may be assured - in fact it was and is entirely predictable. Some of us actually did predict it. You were wrong.

 

[Vixen]

It's not listed because the process hasn't been completed. First, Italy must respond to the charges. Nothing I wrote contradicts this. But, the outcome will not be in Italy's favour. Of that you may be assured - in fact it was and is entirely predictable. Some of us actually did predict it. You were wrong.

First, Amanda will have too satisfy ECHR she went through the complaints channels. This can only be bypassed in Torture cases. OK, so she's quoted Article 3 'being tapped on the head'.

Move over Nelson Mandela. We have a new Human Rights icon.

 

[Vixen]

She was interrogated for about 50 hours or so over a number of days. This is well evidenced. In any case, nothing of what you write matters; she had no benefit of counsel, amongst other things. The case is a slam dunk; Italy has no viable defence. But what is really interesting about all this is the 180 degree turn that has now taken place. Italy will not want the case to go to judgement but is powerless to resist it, assuming, as I do, that it is in no position to quash the calunia verdict. That action will require the case to go back to the Italian courts. The state itself has no jurisdiction to tinker with verdicts.

In short, Italy is embarrassed and must watch silently, while its international human rights record is publicly trashed. Now, Amanda Knox is truly empowered. She stands above a country, which in turn is in thrall to her.

That is grossly untrue. Police records, cellphone records and meticulous analysis of events proves that the true time spent at the questura was more like 17 hours at the most.

In one text message she complains she is fed up sitting around in the questura without being questioned.

So another blatant lie exposed.

Kauffer claims to be 'in thrall' of a liar.