Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
It was Knox who brought up Article 3.
Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 27
- Thread starter Stacyhs
- Start date
- Status
It was Knox who brought up Article 3.
Vixen do you bother to read the excellent posts above?
From the ECHR ruling above.
105. The Court reiterates that it may well suffice that the victim is humiliated in his own eyes for there to be degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. Indeed, it does not doubt that even one unpremeditated slap devoid of any serious or long-term effect on the person receiving it may be perceived as humiliating by that person.
So if Knox was slapped, 'even one unpremeditated slap devoid of any serious or long-term effect', this would be a breach of article 3 according to the ECHR.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
You just don't get it, do you? It is no good complaining to the court. All the court does is listen. It cannot and should not give you legal advice.
If you have a complaint about, say Amazon, why would you go and tell Google about it.
Find out the correct complaints procedure and use it.
Either Dalla Vedova has falsely claimed brutality and torture on behalf of Knox, or he was grossly negligent in not going through the proper complaints procedure on behalf of his client, as his inaction means an application to the ECHR will be rejected as their Directions set out that all internal complaints procedures must be followed first.
This applies to consumer law, employment law, small claims, faulty goods, etc.
You must give the other party an opportunity to make redress or rectify the matter.
In fact, it is common knowledge that Italian Contract Law is a nightmare, so Dalla Vedova has no excuse to not know of the compulsory requirement to mediate before going to court.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Where is the medical report? We only have Knox' word and we know how crafty she is. Not a reliable witness at all.
And her lawyers did not file a complaint.
Last edited:
bagels
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2015
- Messages
- 2,275
Why don't you settle down and let the ECHR worry about the ECHR. You'll find out with the rest of us how wrong you are.
bagels
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2015
- Messages
- 2,275
I can't even comprehend what the PGP think the ECHR is for if it's not for a criminal suspect detained without charges, denied a lawyer, given a fake cop translator, and slapped around and told to sign a self incriminating statement unlocked from their supposed trauma induced amnesia or they would go to prison for 30 years.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Courts expect proof.
Proof starts with filing a complaint, as soon after the incident as is reasonable.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
What part of what has been quoted to you from the ECHR are you not understanding? Is it this part?
Or is it this part?
Please quote directly from Boninsegna where they "agreed the police treated Knox too kindly" because it's not in the MR that I've read. Boninsegna refers to the police description of the treatment of Knox but does not agree or diasage that is what actually occurred. Indeed, Boninsegna says their
description of their treatment of Knox was called "apparently sugarcoated, is certainly not an elegant counterpoint to, but rather in irreconcilable conflict with the immediately subsequent incarceration of the woma". And, if it actually were as they described, it was not the appropriate manner in the first place.
No, the police are not your mates, nor are they allowed to physically strike you.
bagels
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2015
- Messages
- 2,275
Here's some random English words I found on the internet as long as we're not contributing anything to the discussion: copper explain ill-fated truck neat unite branch educated tenuous hum decisive notice
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
It's amazing, but unsurprising, how you continue to fall back on "procedure" as if that negates or minimizes the fact that Knox did report the abuse in her written statement within hours of the interrogation.
Once again you set yourself up as an authority on what Dalla Vedova should or should not have done in his capacity as Knox's defense lawyer. YOU are not a lawyer, and especially not one versed in Italian law. Dalla Vedova IS a lawyer versed in Italian law. Additionally, you have failed to cite a single source that supports your claim that, under Italian law, he had a duty and obligation to report the police abuse. Your one attempt to do so was exposed as having nothing to do with your claim. Your posts are no more than so much bloviating.
It's amusing that the guilters (PGP) seem entirely ignorant of the ECHR processes and rules, although the ECHR and Council of Europe have expended considerable effort in publishing online information on the ECHR processes and rules. I suppose that ignoring these online publications is consistent with giving the guilters more flexibility in their malicious and uninformed attacks on Knox and Sollecito, who were definitively acquitted of the murder/rape of Kercher by the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation more than 2 years ago.
Here's some of the information available from the ECHR publications about admissibility and the exhaustion of domestic remedies. Inline references are omitted for clarity. I have previously posted some excerpts from these publications.
ECHR case-law considers raising an issue regarding a violation of Article 3 in court absolutely equivalent to filing a complaint with the police or a prosecutor. Even a hand-written note presented to the police, claiming in substance a violation, such as Amanda Knox's Memoriale 1, would qualify, because it is the absolute obligation of the prosecutor under Italian law to launch an investigation when notified of a crime.
According to ECHR case-law, it is the responsibility of the authorities to effectively and independently investigate any credible allegation of a violation of Article 3, whether that allegation is made to the police, a prosecutor, or in court. If the allegation is presented in testimony before a first-instance court and addressed by appeal at each subsequent court level, and finally and definitively rejected, then all domestic remedies have been satisfied, according to ECHR case-law. Since Knox testified on the matter in the Massei Court and appealed to each subsequent court, including the final one for the calunnia conviction, the Chieffi CSC panel, all domestic remedies were exhausted.
Article 35 § 1 – Admissibility criteria
“1. The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law …”
61. The Court is intended to be subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights and it is appropriate that the national courts should initially have the opportunity to determine questions regarding the compatibility of domestic law with the Convention....
63. The rationale for the exhaustion rule is to afford the national authorities, primarily the courts, the opportunity to prevent or put right the alleged violations of the Convention. It is based on the assumption, reflected in Article 13, that the domestic legal order will provide an effective remedy for violations of Convention rights. .... It applies regardless of whether the provisions of the Convention have been incorporated into national law ....
64. The exhaustion rule may be described as one that is golden rather than cast in stone. The Commission and the Court have frequently underlined the need to apply the rule with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism, given the context of protecting human rights .... The rule of exhaustion is neither absolute nor capable of being applied automatically .... For example, the Court decided that it would be unduly formalistic to require the applicants to avail themselves of a remedy which even the highest court of the country had not obliged them to use....
65. Applicants must comply with the applicable rules and procedures of domestic law, failing which their application is likely to fall foul of the condition laid down in Article 35.... However, it should be noted that where an appellate court examines the merits of a claim even though it considers it inadmissible, Article 35 § 1 will be complied with .... This is also the case regarding applicants who have failed to observe the forms prescribed by domestic law, if the competent authority has nevertheless examined the substance of the claim .... The same applies to claims worded in a very cursory fashion barely satisfying the legal requirements, where the court has ruled on the merits of the case albeit briefly ....
66. If more than one potentially effective remedy is available, the applicant is only required to have used one of them .... Indeed, when one remedy has been attempted, use of another remedy which has essentially the same purpose is not required .... It is for the applicant to select the remedy that is most appropriate in his or her case. To sum up, if domestic law provides for several parallel remedies in different fields of law, an applicant who has sought to obtain redress for an alleged breach of the Convention through one of these remedies is not necessarily required to use others which have essentially the same objective....
68. Applicants are only obliged to exhaust domestic remedies which are available in theory and in practice at the relevant time and which they can directly institute themselves – that is to say, remedies that are accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of their complaints and offering reasonable prospects of success....
72. The existence of remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice. In determining whether any particular remedy meets the criteria of availability and effectiveness, regard must be had to the particular circumstances of the individual case....
74. The Court must take realistic account not only of formal remedies available in the domestic legal system, but also of the general legal and political context in which they operate as well as the personal circumstances of the applicant....
75. According to the “generally recognised rules of international law”, there may be special circumstances dispensing the applicant from the obligation to avail him or herself of the domestic remedies available.... The rule is also inapplicable where an administrative practice consisting of a repetition of acts incompatible with the Convention and official tolerance by the State authorities has been shown to exist, and is of such a nature as to make proceedings futile or ineffective....
In cases where requiring the applicant to use a particular remedy would be unreasonable in practice and would constitute a disproportionate obstacle to the effective exercise of the right of individual application under Article 34 of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant is dispensed from that requirement....
76. Where the government claims non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, it bears the burden of proving that the applicant has not used a remedy that was both effective and available .... The availability of any such remedy must be sufficiently certain in law and in practice .... The remedy’s basis in domestic law must therefore be clear .... The remedy must be capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant’s complaints and of offering reasonable prospects of success....
79. Once the government has discharged its burden of proving that there was an appropriate and effective remedy available to the applicant, it is for the latter to show that: − the remedy was in fact used ...; or − the remedy was for some reason inadequate and ineffective in the particular circumstances of the case ..., or a remedy which is normally available, such as an appeal on points of law, but which, in the light of the approach taken in similar cases, was ineffective in the circumstances of the case .... ; or − there existed special circumstances absolving the applicant from the requirement....
80. One such factor may be constituted by the national authorities remaining totally passive in the face of serious allegations of misconduct or infliction of harm by State agents, for example where they have failed to undertake investigations or offer assistance. In such circumstances it can be said that the burden of proof shifts once again, so that it becomes incumbent on the respondent government to show what it has done in response to the scale and seriousness of the matters complained of....
Source: http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=caselaw/analysis&c=#n1347458601286_pointer
See PDF: Admissibility Guide (aka Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria)
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
This question has already been answered but as you seem to have missed it, I'll post it here again:
Continuation 27 post #228
It doesn't matter if her lawyers filed a complaint or not. Her claim is part of the court records. Stop trying to divert from this fact with nonsense.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
By George, I think you've got it! Which is exactly why RS and AK were acquitted of murder: because there was no proof.
Once again, you are not a lawyer, much less an Italian lawyer. You don't know what is required by Italian law when it come to how this was required to have been handled. You simply make statements as if they are fact but present not a shred of evidence in support. That is simply not good enough. Come back when you have that evidence. Otherwise, you are just wasting our time.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
For heaven's sake quit with the "torture" meme. It's getting tiring.
Knox reported it as part of her court testimony. Comodi said so multiple times in justifying charging Knox with defamation FOR REPORTING IT. Knox's parents were also charged with defamation for mentioning her testimony in John Follain's newspaper piece.
This is idiotic. The Bogninsegna court acquitted Knox for being charged with defamation FOR REPORTING IT.
Quit with the idiotic posts.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
This whole tactic reminds me of someone else's MO: bloviate, divert, lie, misrepresent then repeat... and hope idiots will fall for it. Only this is the wrong forum for that.
whoanellie
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,471
I have no doubt that the appropriate forms were available in Amanda's cell in English.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
At least she seems to have read Article 3, unlike you. Get back to the thread when you've read it and discover your mistake.
Exactly.
But it goes a little deeper:
1. Knox REPORTED being mistreated by the police in her Memoriale 1, written in English on Nov. 6, 2007, soon after the interrogations, including that by Mignini, were completed.
2. The police filed the REPORT, Memoriale 1, in her case file. One must assume the prosecutor, Mignini, was aware of this REPORT.
3. The police and prosecutor took NO ACTION TO INVESTIGATE, including no attempt by them to obtain a formal complaint. Under Italian law, it is the responsibility of the prosecutor to assure that persons making "informal" complaints are made aware of any formal requirements and that complaints are investigated and prosecuted when the investigation shows that grounds to prosecute exist.
4. The Italian courts were AWARE of Knox's REPORT, Memoriale 1, which is a complaint under ECHR case-law.
5. In particular, the Gemelli CSC panel was AWARE of Knox's REPORT, but it did not instruct a lower court to order an independent INVESTIGATION by police not involved with the interrogation or the Rome or Perugia police command, which it had authority to do.
6. The Gemelli CSC panel ACKNOWLEDGED that Knox was or became a SUSPECT during the interrogation, and that CPP Article 63 had been VIOLATED by the police. Thus, neither of the two INTERROGATION STATEMENTS signed by Knox could be used against her according to the Gemelli CSC panel judgment.
7. Then, in the same judgment, the Gemelli CSC panel decided that Knox's REPORT, Memoriale 1, was a DEFENSIVE STATEMENT, referencing the matter of the INTERROGATION STATEMENTS. Because it was a document originating solely from the accused, the Gemelli CSC panel ruled it could be used as evidence against Knox. Therefore, the Gemelli CSC panel ruled that Knox's INTERROGATION STATEMENTS could be used as evidence against Knox, but only for the charge of CALUNNIA against Lumumba.
8. Thus, it appears the Gemelli CSC panel predetermined that Knox was to be punished for her REPORT alleging mistreatment by the police by being CONVICTED of CALUNNIA against Lumumba.
9. Therefore, the prejudicial actions of the Gemelli CSC panel would indicate that it was not advisable for Knox to file a FORMAL COMPLAINT against the police, since any such FORMAL COMPLAINT would used to wrongfully accuse Knox of CALUNNIA against the POLICE.
10. Instead, Knox choose to testify about her mistreatment by the police in open court, and to include reference to it in each of her appeals. For this testimony and the appeals, Knox was charged with the crime of continuous aggravated calunnia against the police. The aggravating factors, "continuous" and "aggravated", were added to the charge because: 1) her statements about the police mistreatment were repeated in each appeal, and 2) the prosecutor alleged that her statements against the police were intended to cover up another crime - Knox's alleged calunnia against Lumumba.
11. Examining this sequence of events, the ECHR will have no problem with Knox's choice of remedy and clearly the remedy was exhausted.
Last edited:
To remind ourselves, the ECHR is well aware of the Boninsegna court judgment and presumably all the history inherent in it; that judgment is mentioned explicitly by the ECHR in the April, 2016 Communication to Italy of Knox v. Italy.
That Communication (as is typical of essentially all [initial] communications) asks Italy whether domestic remedies have been exhausted. The response from Italy would have been received in 2016, and the current Country Profile for Italy lists Knox v. Italy with all the complaints lodged by Knox intact.
Here's relevant excepts from the Communication:
Communiquée le 29 avril 2016
*
PREMIÈRE SECTION
Requête no 76577/13
Amanda Marie KNOX
contre l’Italie
introduite le 24 novembre 2013
....
GRIEFS
1. La requérante soulève plusieurs griefs concernant le manque d’équité de la procédure pénale à l’issue de laquelle elle a été condamnée à trois ans de réclusion pour dénonciation calomnieuse.
a) Invoquant l’article 6 §§ 1 et 3 a) de la Convention, la requérante se plaint de ne pas avoir été informée dans les meilleurs délais et dans une langue compréhensible de la nature et des motifs de l’accusation formulée à sa charge.
b) Sous l’angle de l’article 6 §§ 1 et 3 c), elle dénonce en outre ne pas avoir été assistée par un avocat lors des interrogatoires du 6 novembre 2007.
c) Invoquant l’article 6 §§ 1 et 3 e), la requérante se plaint également de ne pas avoir été assistée par un interprète professionnel et indépendant au cours de son interrogatoire et de ce que l’agente de police l’ayant assistée pendant les interrogatoires du 6 novembre 2007 a exécuté des fonctions de « médiatrice » ainsi suggérant des hypothèses sur le déroulement des faits.
2. Invoquant l’article 3 de la Convention, la requérante se plaint de ce que les tapes sur la tête qu’elle a subies (scappellotti) ont constitué des traitements inhumains et dégradants.
3. Invoquant l’article 8 de la Convention, elle dénonce la violation de son droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale, au motif que, le 6 novembre 2007, elle a été obligée de répondre à des questions concernant M. D.L. alors qu’elle se trouvait en défaut de discernement et de volonté (incapacità di intendere e volere) et sous pression psychologique.
*
*
DEMANDE DE RENSEIGNEMENTS
*
1. La requérante est invitée à produire une copie de l’arrêt du tribunal de Pérouse du 5 décembre 2009, concernant sa condamnation pour dénonciation calomnieuse, ainsi qu’une copie du recours en appel et du pourvoi en cassation concernant cette procédure.
*
2. Les parties sont invitées à indiquer si l’arrêt du tribunal de Florence du 14 janvier 2016 a été attaqué ou s’il est devenu définitif ainsi qu’à fournir une copie des documents pertinents.
QUESTIONS AUX PARTIES
1. La requérante a-t-elle épuisé les voies de recours internes qui lui étaient ouvertes pour se plaindre de la violation de l’article 3 de la Convention, concernant les tapes (scappellotti) prétendument subies, et des articles 6 §§ 1 et 3 a), c) et e) et 8 de la Convention ?
*
2. Dans l’affirmative :
*
a) la requérante a-t-elle été soumise, en violation de l’article 3 de la Convention, à des traitements inhumains ou dégradants ?
*
b) La requérante a-t-elle, comme l’exige l’article 6 § 3 a) de la Convention, été informée, dans le plus court délai, dans une langue qu’elle comprenait et d’une manière détaillée, de la nature et de la cause de l’accusation portée contre elle pour dénonciation calomnieuse ?
*
c) La requérante a-t-elle pu avoir l’assistance d’un défenseur de son choix, comme l’exige l’article 6 § 3 c) de la Convention, notamment lors des interrogatoires du 6 novembre 2007 ?
*
d) La requérante a-t-elle obtenu l’assistance gratuite d’un interprète, au sens de l’article 6 § 3 e) de la Convention ?
*
e) La pression psychologique prétendument subie par la requérante lors des interrogatoires du 6 novembre 2007, a-t-elle porté atteinte au droit de celle-ci à un procès équitable, au sens de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention, et au droit au respect de sa vie privée, protégé par l’article 8 § 1 de la Convention ?
The following translation is by Google with my help:
Communicated on 29 April 2016
*
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 76577/13
Amanda Marie KNOX
against Italy
lodged on November 24, 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 that she understood of the nature and cause of the accusation against her.
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 the interrogation of 6 November 2007 performed the duties of a "mediator", thereby suggesting hypotheses about what events had taken place.
2. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the slaps on the head that she suffered (scappellotti) constituted inhuman and degrading treatment.
3. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, she denounces the violation of her 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 unable to exercise 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?
_____
* The Boninsegna court judgment. It is a final and definitive acquittal.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Aw...come on, Numbers! Stop trying to disprove Vixen's false and unsupported statements with actual facts. You know darn well everything you just posted is a hoax initiated and perpetuated by the G-M paid shills.
Last edited:
- Status