To those who wonder what I think, and whether I believe I am right, the answer is yes, I absolutely know I am right.
My quick answers to the court's "questions" (
) are those below:
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 cannot 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 client 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 time, 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 actually no element of evidence in support of that besides the applicant's writing, while there are elements that 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).
However a more general observation shall also be made. The dossier submitted by the applicant (Knox) is a
narrative, not a full report. That is a main point. Narratives are misleading and false accounts that basically tell a false story. The reason why they are false is not that they just report false facts, but above all they cherry pick some facts, while they omit others. The problem here is not just that the dossier reports false facts, but rather that it omits a number of documents. Knox defence's sure "forgot" to brief the Strasbourg Court about the Cassazione final verdict of 2013, which definitivey quashes part of the Hellmann reasoning about Calunnia, finalizing part of the findings of 2009 but annulling other parts of the reasoning. Cassazione annulled specifically the reasoning of Hellmann about the logical link between calunnia and murder, but also finalised other parts pointing out that the false accusation was not confined withi an interrogation but was a "prolonged behaviour" that Knox repeated on multiple occasions. The same final status of finding was remarked by the Bruno/Marasca verdict about the calunnia, which sure Knox's lawyers forgot to quote. They also "forgot" to deposit Anna Donnino's testimony.
