For heaven's sake... I put 'already' in inverted commas - as in 'already won'. I used the phrase because Italy has no defence - Knox had no lawyer nor independent interpreter. That's it - slam and dunk. The other Art 6 claim regarding her being properly informed of charges etc I cannot knowledgeably comment on at this point as I cannot recall the evidence. But I'm sure we can find out.
The question I asked you with regard to any possible defence to these Art 6 claims was the clue you needed in order to understand I was making no claim that the ECHR had already ruled. But if and when they do rule, they will rule in Knox's favour. There is no rational reason to suppose they can do otherwise, as even you will be able to work out if you try to answer my question.
FWIW here's Machiavelli's potted opinion:
My quick answers to the ECHR questions 1. 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?
No.
In fact, the applicant did not even initiate the process to seek a remedy through Italian law.
The point is particularly relevant not only because of the obvious status of inadmissibility of the application before the ECHR (no domestic remedy was attampted), but also as for its probative value as for assessing the credibility of the version of facts provided by the applicant.
This is because of the following legal provisions under Italian law: a) the crimes of beating (cp 581), or physical violence or threat (cp. 610-612) require the victim to file a complaint in order to allow prosecution of the charge, otherwise investigation cannt initiate; b) the Ethics Code of lawyers requires a defence attorney to file a charge if he/she collects a claim by a client under detention, and to properly inform the clinet about the necessity to file a complaint; c) if a lawyer is informed by a client under detention that the same client suffered a violence or offence by authorities, and does not take proper legal steps, the lawyer would commit an extremely serious criminal offence called "infedele patrocinio" (betrayal of the interest of clint) besides breaching the Ethics Code; d) a defence attorney is also required to object any irregularity of breach of the code that could be suffered by the client, namely, in the particular case, if the applicants current claims had been made at the tiem, the lawyers shoud have denounced the breach of Procedure Code claiming that a prosecution interrogation had taken place (thus, that would mean breaching the Procedure code that prevents prosecution from questioning a suspect prior to his/her appearence before a judge), but the defence attorney never raised such claim.
Therefore, the failure to initiate procedure for domestic remedy by the applicant on this claim, not only causes the request to be inadmissible on this point, but also undermines any possible credibility of the claim itself.
2. If so:
a) Does the applicant have been submitted, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, inhuman or degrading treatment?
It is impossible to know for certain whether she received a slap at the back of her head, while it is impossible to prove it. There is actualy no element of evidence in support of that besides the applicant's writing, while there are elements tat indicate the opposite, that is: the defences' failure to make the necessary step for complain and initiate a process to investigate the claim; the testimony of interpreter Anna Donnino who was present at the police interrogation, a reliable witness who denies any mistreatment ever took place in her presence.
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?
Yes, the charge for false accusation anyway was issued much later. She was not a suspect for that crime at the time of the interrogation nor in the following days.
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?
No interrogation took place on 6 November 2007 (except the police questioning that ended at 01.45 am).
Had interrogation taken place later that day, it would have been illegal. Knox's defence should have rised a complaint to the court immediately if that happened. They never raised such claim.
d) Has the applicant obtained the free assistance of an interpreter, within the meaning of Article 6 § 3 e) of the Convention?
Yes, she had an interpreter, but the applicant was not suspected of that charge at the time, and was not undergoing an interrogation, but only a police questioning which is inadmissible as testimony in court, therefore she was not in the condition of being entitled to have an interpreter in the meaning of Art. 6 of the Convention (which refers to papers usable in a court).
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?
The applicant later in court she claimed of having suffered of a False Memory Syndrome.
It needs to be pointed out that there was only one interrogation reported in trial papers, that lasted overall a time between 22.30 and 01.45, that is three hours.
The final judgements of Cassazione deposited in 2013 and 2015 point out that the calunnia committed by the applicant was a prolonged behaviour, that she committed on multiple occasions, and that the statement she released on Nov. 6 recorded on paper by a prosecutor at the presence of an interpreter, was a spontaneous statement, not an interogation (and as said, the applicant's defence position was to not claim there was any prosecution's interrogation).
ETA : The dossier submitted by the applicant (Knox) is a narrative, not a full report. Narratives are misleading and false accounts. The reason why they are misleading is not that they just report false facts, but that they cherry pick some and omit others. The problem here is not just that the dossier reports false facts, but rather that it omits a number of documents. (Machiavelli)
