Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 27

[Numbers]

....

11. Examining this sequence of events, the ECHR will have no problem with Knox's choice of remedy and clearly the remedy was exhausted.

Here's a specific case to illustrate the ECHR's case-law.

Amanda Knox complained of police mistreatment in court and in each of her appeals against the judgment of conviction for calunnia, and on Nov. 6, 2007, soon after her interrogation reported the police mistreatment in writing (Memoriale 1) delivered to the police, but did not file a formal complaint to the authorities.

Some posters have argued that this means that she did not exhaust domestic remedies regarding her claim before the ECHR of a violation of Convention Article 3, the prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.

However, this situation of an individual complaining of police mistreatment in court but not filing a formal complaint has come up previously.

The ECHR has found that the complaint in court is sufficient, because the States ("The High Contracting Parties" including Italy) that have signed the Convention treaty have pledged on the basis of Article 1: "The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention." These rights include, of course, Article 3.
Here's an example from ECHR case-law:

Grinenko v Ukraine 33627/06 15-11-2012

Grinenko maintained that Ukraine had violated his rights under Convention Articles 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty, prohibition against arbitrary detention), and 6 (right to a fair trial) in the course of a criminal case: an allegation that he had ordered a murder for hire.

Before the ECHR, Ukraine's defense was that Grinenko's application for violation of Article 3 was inadmissible because he had not followed proper procedures for a complaint in the Ukrainian justice system. He had repeatedly mentioned his complaint in court proceedings, but had not filed the appropriate formal complaint with the authorities.
ECHR judgment: State authorities must take action whenever there is any credible allegation of mistreatment by State agents, and statements by an alleged victim in court are adequate to bring such allegations to the level of requiring an effective investigation. Failure of Ukraine to conduct an effective investigation was thus a violation of Convention Article 3.
The relevant excerpt from the ECHR judgment:

61. The Court reiterates that where an individual makes an arguable claim that he has been ill-treated by the State authorities in breach of Article 3, that provision, read in conjunction with the State’s general duty under Article 1 of the Convention, requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation. ....

62. ... [T]he Court considers that the applicant made an arguable complaint of ill-treatment before the domestic authorities which triggered their procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation of the alleged facts. Meanwhile, the applicant’s allegations were examined exclusively by the courts in the course of legal argument concerning the admissibility of evidence at trial. ....
_____

With all the evidence in the above posts, including the specific case-law of Grinenko v. Ukraine, a reasonable and objective person would conclude that Knox had met the ECHR criteria for exhausting domestic remedies.

 

[Numbers]

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.

Apparently, the guilters have concluded that the ECHR is a hoax, because they have looked for it in Brussels and there was no sign of it there.

 

[Numbers]

Here's another ECHR case which has relevance, because the ECHR explicitly listed factors it used in evaluating the police mistreatment of the victim. Unlike the situation for Knox, in this case, the victim was seriously injured and the ECHR judged a violation of Article 3 amounting to torture.

In the following excerpt, inline references, with one exception, have been omitted for clarity.

POMILYAYKO v. UKRAINE 60426/11 11/02/2016

Ms. Pomilyayko and her colleagues were employees of a company where some equipment had been stolen. She and one or more colleagues were suspects in the theft.

"7. The Kharkiv Ordzhonikidze District Police Department invited the applicant and one of her colleagues for questioning in respect of the theft.

8. On 8 November 2008, at 11.15 a.m., the applicant came to the police station.

9. At about 11.35 a.m. on 8 November 2008 a senior detective officer, T., accompanied the applicant to the fourth floor of the police station. He asked her to wait in the corridor and entered office no. 56. Five minutes later the applicant heard a woman’s scream emanating from that office. T. opened the door and directed an officer passing by to take the applicant to his office. She was made to wait there for about twenty minutes. Then T. took her to office no. 56. He pushed her inside, twisted her arms behind her back and handcuffed her, even though she had offered no resistance.

10. T. and his colleague, S., who was also in the office, intimidated the applicant with a view to making her confess to the investigated theft. They told her that her colleague, Ms L., had already started to “crack”. The applicant noticed Ms L.’s belongings on the floor. She concluded that it was her scream that she had heard.

11. Having failed to obtain a confession from the applicant, T. and S. made her sit on a chair, put a plastic bag over her head and started to strangle her. At the same time they struck her head, face and mouth so that she could not bite through the bag. The applicant fainted several times. When she told the officers she needed to use the toilet, S. hit her in the stomach and the head. She fainted once again and urinated involuntarily. Sometime later the applicant noticed the presence of another officer, P., in the office.

12. After several hours of ill-treatment, the applicant was taken to another office where she stayed for about twenty minutes. Thereafter she was brought before a female officer, who conducted her formal questioning.

13. At about 6 p.m. the applicant signed the official report of the questioning. She was then taken to the office of the head of the search unit, who stated that she was the main suspect in the theft case and that all her colleagues had indicated her as the likely thief. The applicant complained about her ill-treatment. Her complaint was ignored.

14. She was taken again to office no. 56, where the officers threatened her and tried to pressure her into confessing. She repeatedly refused to do so and professed her innocence. The applicant was forced to write a statement that she had no complaints about the way the police had treated her.
....
47. ...[T]he Court notes that on the day following the alleged ill-treatment the applicant was diagnosed with numerous injuries, for which she underwent in-patient hospital treatment for eighteen days; she then remained on sick leave for another three weeks. Doctors at the hospital in which she was treated found it necessary to immediately inform the police of her injuries ....

50. The Court has consistently pointed out in its case-law that, in respect of a person who is deprived of his liberty, or, more generally, is confronted with law-enforcement officers, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his or her own conduct diminishes human dignity and is an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3....

51. The Court considers in the present case that the applicant suffered a serious violation of her physical integrity and dignity. In assessing the gravity of the ill-treatment in question, the Court attaches weight to: the applicant’s gender and the overwhelming power of the three trained male police officers who subjected her to violence; the aim of the ill-treatment, which was to extract a confession to a criminal offence; the nature of the ill‑treatment, involving a plastic bag placed over the applicant’s head and attempted or simulated strangulation; the extent of the applicant’s injuries, as documented by the hospital following her release; the psychological pressure on the applicant arising from the simultaneous questioning (and, possibly, ill-treatment) of her colleague, and, lastly, the applicant’s humiliation in respect of her involuntary urination while being in a state of complete helplessness. The Court considers these considerations sufficient to conclude that the applicant suffered ill-treatment serious enough to constitute torture (see Article 1 § 1 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, cited by the Court in [other cases] ...)."

52. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb.
____
Looking at Paragraph 51 and the weighting factors, it is clear that some of these apply directly to the Knox v. Italy case, but certainly Knox did not suffer any reported visible injuries. However, the pressures on Knox resulted in her false statements, which unfairly affected the legal proceedings against her. The factors applying to Knox v. Italy would be:

1. Gender; 2. Power of the authorities, including the arbitrary exercise of that power to threaten and slap her without legal justification; 3. The aim of the mistreatment, which was to extract a confession or statement implicating another about a murder case; 4. The nature of the ill-treatment, which included but was not limited to threats, slaps, misrepresentations, repetition, sleep-deprivation, and suggestions designed to overcome her will and corrupt her memory; 5. The psychological pressure of the approximately simultaneous questioning of her boyfriend, Sollecito, and apparently the police telling her that he had stated she had left his apartment at the relevant time or otherwise did not support her alibi; and 6. Humiliating her by preventing her from using bathroom facilities.

 

[Bill Williams]

Exactly.
But it goes a little deeper:

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.

This.

We all must remember that neither Knox nor Sollecito had been charged with anything for almost the first year of their precautionary detention. In her book, Knox outlines how her lawyers urged caution in what either she or her family said until the PM decided exactly what charges to bring. It would have been no good to have had the murder charges disappear only to be charged with defamation instead. Indeed, this is exactly what happened - bring a complain about a minor issue (relatively speaking) like being slapped at interrogation, and they just bypass investigating that claim and move directly to charging the accuser.

Indeed, that'd how the charge and eventual conviction for calunnia functioned. All the courts, including the exonerating ones, could give the prosecution something, anything rather than say that they'd booted badly the investigation of a horrible murder.

It's why I am not as optimistic as you, Numbers, that the ECHR will right things.

 

[TruthCalls]

Courts expect proof.
Proof starts with filing a complaint, as soon after the incident as is reasonable.

There's certainly proof she was not provided a lawyer and that the translator provided was not independent nor did she limit her actions strictly to translation. As to whether she was given food and drink, allowed to go to the bathroom and whether she was slapped and threatened, I suppose we could turn to the recording of the interrogation....

Vixen, I wonder; if you were detained by the police in a foreign country, threatened, slapped around, not given anything to eat or drink, not allowed to sleep or use the bathroom, not given a lawyer, provided an interpreter who works for and acted on behalf of the police.... if they didn't record the interrogation and the police coerce a false statement out of you... what would be your plan for proving the police did this to you?

And btw, the case before the ECHR is an appeal of Amanda's calunnia conviction, and is based in part on the fact that she was treated in an inhuman and degrading manner. She did not file criminal charges against the police so I have no idea why you think some kind of formal complaint would be required. It's clear she documented her treatment within 24 hours of the interrogation and the courts were very well aware of it. All the ECHR needs to do is determine if there is sufficient grounds to consider her accusations reasonable. I'm thinking her acquittal of calunnia against the police will go a long way in that decision.

 

[Numbers]

This.

We all must remember that neither Knox nor Sollecito had been charged with anything for almost the first year of their precautionary detention. In her book, Knox outlines how her lawyers urged caution in what either she or her family said until the PM decided exactly what charges to bring. It would have been no good to have had the murder charges disappear only to be charged with defamation instead. Indeed, this is exactly what happened - bring a complain about a minor issue (relatively speaking) like being slapped at interrogation, and they just bypass investigating that claim and move directly to charging the accuser.

Indeed, that'd how the charge and eventual conviction for calunnia functioned. All the courts, including the exonerating ones, could give the prosecution something, anything rather than say that they'd booted badly the investigation of a horrible murder.

It's why I am not as optimistic as you, Numbers, that the ECHR will right things.

Can you detail your statement's meaning?

Are you expressing a concern about the potential ECHR judgment, the response of the Italian authorities to the ECHR judgment, or both, or to some other issue?

 

[Bill Williams]

It's why I am not as optimistic as you, Numbers, that the ECHR will right things.

Can you detail your statement's meaning?

Are you expressing a concern about the potential ECHR judgment, the response of the Italian authorities to the ECHR judgment, or both, or to some other issue?

Every court along this tortured path has tossed something to the original prosecution. Even Hellmann upheld the calunnia conviction, despite anecdotal reports that he later regretted it.

The Marasca/Bruno 5th Chambers of the ISC was clear that the original investigation was "amnesiac", and that lower court judges substituted themselves for the experts; implying that overruling experts like Conti-Vecchiotti was an overruling incompatible with the evidence.

Yet even M/B dug in on the ECHR appeal with regard to the calunnia charge/conviction. Against the tenor of the rest of their report, they implied that there was no basis for appealing that conviction outside of Italy.

The Boninsegna court, acquitting Knox of defamation for claiming that she'd been hit at interrogation, was the closest thing to simply calling it was it was.

There's something about the need for the calunnia conviction against Knox in relation to Lumumba which makes it mandatory to stick around. It may have something to do with (as John Follain related in his book), that Mignini (even though thinking Knox a complete liar) felt compelled to arrest Lumumba on Knox's say-so, and her say-so alone.

This is before considering that it is only Mignini's say-so that Knox had been the one to "bring Lumumba into the room". Perhaps we should review the interrogation videos from Nov 5/6 2007 just to make sure. For some reason Mignini needs judicial protection for that one decision - to arrest Lumumba on Knox's say-so - while he was considering her a liar. I see no reason for that judicial protection not to extend to the ECHR, even if Mignini had/has been completely embarrassed since 2011.... all the way to 2017 when he was forced to withdraw his defamation claims against Sollecito and Gumbel.

That calunnia conviction seems like a thread, which once tugged on will really reveal that Mignini had no clothes. And for some reason they simply won't go there. Not Marasca/Bruno, not even Hellmann.

So it seems a 50%-50% chance that ECHR will do the same. I wish I was as convinced as you that it's a 95%-5% chance that they will toss the calunnia conviction back to Italy for review.

 

[bagels]

That's why it would be interesting to get an (informed) opposing take on the ECHR but the PGP don't offer anything interesting, either irrelevant spam (Vixen) or the circular reasoning that she committed calunnia and therefore is guilty of calunnia (Mach).

Numbers is the only one actually looking into case history and procedures.

I could never get any PGP to give me an example of what they think the cops would have had to additionally do to violate Knox's human rights and undue the calunnia charge, except sarcastic remarks about literal medieval torture (which I suppose they view as the baseline for coercion, which says a lot).

 

[Numbers]

Every court along this tortured path has tossed something to the original prosecution. Even Hellmann upheld the calunnia conviction, despite anecdotal reports that he later regretted it.

The Marasca/Bruno 5th Chambers of the ISC was clear that the original investigation was "amnesiac", and that lower court judges substituted themselves for the experts; implying that overruling experts like Conti-Vecchiotti was an overruling incompatible with the evidence.

Yet even M/B dug in on the ECHR appeal with regard to the calunnia charge/conviction. Against the tenor of the rest of their report, they implied that there was no basis for appealing that conviction outside of Italy.

The Boninsegna court, acquitting Knox of defamation for claiming that she'd been hit at interrogation, was the closest thing to simply calling it was it was.

There's something about the need for the calunnia conviction against Knox in relation to Lumumba which makes it mandatory to stick around. It may have something to do with (as John Follain related in his book), that Mignini (even though thinking Knox a complete liar) felt compelled to arrest Lumumba on Knox's say-so, and her say-so alone.

This is before considering that it is only Mignini's say-so that Knox had been the one to "bring Lumumba into the room". Perhaps we should review the interrogation videos from Nov 5/6 2007 just to make sure. For some reason Mignini needs judicial protection for that one decision - to arrest Lumumba on Knox's say-so - while he was considering her a liar. I see no reason for that judicial protection not to extend to the ECHR, even if Mignini had/has been completely embarrassed since 2011.... all the way to 2017 when he was forced to withdraw his defamation claims against Sollecito and Gumbel.

That calunnia conviction seems like a thread, which once tugged on will really reveal that Mignini had no clothes. And for some reason they simply won't go there. Not Marasca/Bruno, not even Hellmann.

So it seems a 50%-50% chance that ECHR will do the same. I wish I was as convinced as you that it's a 95%-5% chance that they will toss the calunnia conviction back to Italy for review.

Mignini is nothing to the ECHR. The case is only about human rights - as guaranteed in the Convention and ECHR case-law, Knox, and Italy.

I am very confident that the ECHR will rule against Italy, and for Knox, and that provisions of the judgment will include that the trial convicting her of calunnia against Lumumba was unfair and, therefore, that Knox is entitled to request a new trial in which all her Convention rights are respected.

I cannot predict whether or not Italy would fulfill Knox's request for a revision trial, because the Italian courts have a group of judges who do not follow the Italian Constitution or Italian laws, and certainly not the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

[Stacyhs]

With all the evidence in the above posts, including the specific case-law of Grinenko v. Ukraine, a reasonable and objective person would conclude that Knox had met the ECHR criteria for exhausting domestic remedies.

Well, there's your problem! You're qualifying it with the person being "reasonable and objective".

 

[Bill Williams]

Mignini is nothing to the ECHR. The case is only about human rights - as guaranteed in the Convention and ECHR case-law, Knox, and Italy.

Mignini should have been nothing to Italy's judiciary outside of Umbria. The 2013 Chieffi 1st Chambers tried it's best to resurrect Mignini's case, even directing the 2014 Nencini court to reevaluate "sex game gone wrong" motive. We all know what happened to that.

This case should have ended in 2011, and Hellman should never have convicted on calunnia. Yet he did. Even the M/B report draws a line in the sand on that.

Italy is part of the European Community, my bed is there is already back channel to'ing and fro'ing about this, regarding issues which have never made it to print.

 

[bagels]

Mignini should have been nothing to Italy's judiciary outside of Umbria. The 2013 Chieffi 1st Chambers tried it's best to resurrect Mignini's case, even directing the 2014 Nencini court to reevaluate "sex game gone wrong" motive. We all know what happened to that.

This case should have ended in 2011, and Hellman should never have convicted on calunnia. Yet he did. Even the M/B report draws a line in the sand on that.

Italy is part of the European Community, my bed is there is already back channel to'ing and fro'ing about this, regarding issues which have never made it to print.

I think you have a fair point, but if they take the case and issue a ruling I suspect it will be favorable. I have a hard time picturing a Chieffi style report coming out of Strasbourg. If it's political they'll find a reason to drop it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Mignini should have been nothing to Italy's judiciary outside of Umbria. The 2013 Chieffi 1st Chambers tried it's best to resurrect Mignini's case, even directing the 2014 Nencini court to reevaluate "sex game gone wrong" motive. We all know what happened to that.

Just to add.....

Chieffi's 1st Chambers not only wanted to resurrect Mignini's failed motive - a motive which neither the Massei nor Hallmenn court found reasonable - but it wanted also to resurrect the DNA evidence presented by Stefanoni.

Why? As it said, if the criticisms of Stefanoni were accepted, then that called into question all DNA-cases in Italy since 1986. That's what Chieffi wrote in 2013.

So there was at least one reason (outside of Mignini and outside of Umbria) for the 1st Chambers to side with the original prosecution. The only technical reason for overturning Hellmann, so it seems, is that Hellmann allowed Conti-Vecchiotti to make the de facto legal decision as to whether or not Sample 36I should have been tested. Remember, Chieffi's was a criticism of Hellmann not necessarily of Conti-Vecchiotti - which others have (wrongly IMO) criticized.

But Mignini probably WAS nothing to Italy's judiciary, except as the buffoon who tried to make a reputation with his Monster of Florence investigation/wrongful charges which resulted in even him being charged with abuse of office.

All that being said, I am not as confident that Strasbourg is as immune from the silliness as Rome.

 

[Planigale]

Mignini should have been nothing to Italy's judiciary outside of Umbria. The 2013 Chieffi 1st Chambers tried it's best to resurrect Mignini's case, even directing the 2014 Nencini court to reevaluate "sex game gone wrong" motive. We all know what happened to that.

This case should have ended in 2011, and Hellman should never have convicted on calunnia. Yet he did. Even the M/B report draws a line in the sand on that.

Italy is part of the European Community, my bed is there is already back channel to'ing and fro'ing about this, regarding issues which have never made it to print.

To be clear the ECHR is NOT part of the EU.

Astonishing as it may seem to our US readers Russia is subject to ECHR rulings and surprisingly actually follows them. Russia actually allows itself to be held up to an external body and recognises the concept of human rights; something that the USA could and would not do.

I have no doubt that the ECHR is not subject to any political considerations as far as Italy is concerned.

 

[Numbers]

Mignini should have been nothing to Italy's judiciary outside of Umbria. The 2013 Chieffi 1st Chambers tried it's best to resurrect Mignini's case, even directing the 2014 Nencini court to reevaluate "sex game gone wrong" motive. We all know what happened to that.

This case should have ended in 2011, and Hellman should never have convicted on calunnia. Yet he did. Even the M/B report draws a line in the sand on that.

Italy is part of the European Community, my bed is there is already back channel to'ing and fro'ing about this, regarding issues which have never made it to print.

I think that the conviction of Knox for calunnia against the police was a given from the judgment of the Gemelli CSC panel stating that although Knox's interrogation statements could not be used against her because of the violation of CPP Article 63 by the police during the interrogation, they could be used against her specifically because she had written a defensive document, Memoriale 1, after the interrogation. The Gemelli CSC panel MR did not mention the police coercion that Knox alleged in Memoriale 1. I believe that Knox was convicted of calunnia as a means to protect the "honor" of the police and to prevent them from being charged with any crime in relation to their coercive and abusive interrogation tactics.

Why would the ECHR protect a prosecutor or the police in any country, when nearly every day it issues judgments stating that countries, including Italy, have violated rights guaranteed under the Convention. The ECHR was instrumental in "encouraging" Italy to change its constitution and laws to enhance defense rights. The ECHR, however, does not have direct power over the practices of any state, and even the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has only "supervisory" oversight power to ensure that states carry out the judgments of the ECHR.

Italy currently has 4120 finally judged ECHR cases that have been submitted to it for resolution under Committee of Ministers supervision since October, 1955, and only 2004 of these cases have been closed by final resolution of the Committe of Ministers. That means 2116 ECHR cases judged against Italy are awaiting resolution.

In contrast, the UK currently has 434 finally judged ECHR cases that have been submitted to it for resolution under CoM supervision since September, 1953, and 418 of these cases have been closed by final resolution of the CoM. That means 16 ECHR cases judged against the UK are awaiting resolution.

That's quite a difference in the cases pending resolution for Italy and the UK and illustrates the concern about Italy's relatively large number of violations of the Convention and its slowness or even non-compliance in reaching final resolutions.

 

[Numbers]

To be clear the ECHR is NOT part of the EU.

Astonishing as it may seem to our US readers Russia is subject to ECHR rulings and surprisingly actually follows them. Russia actually allows itself to be held up to an external body and recognises the concept of human rights; something that the USA could and would not do.

I have no doubt that the ECHR is not subject to any political considerations as far as Italy is concerned.

There certainly are those who confusedly believe that the ECHR is part of the EU. The ECHR is the human rights court of the Council of Europe (CoE), which is a much larger group of states than the group of European Union (EU) states.

The EU is concerned largely with trade issues and secondarily with other issues such as human rights, while the CoE is concerned solely with human rights.

All the EU member states and the EU itself have signed up to be members of the CoE.

 

[Bill Williams]

To be clear the ECHR is NOT part of the EU.

Astonishing as it may seem to our US readers Russia is subject to ECHR rulings and surprisingly actually follows them. Russia actually allows itself to be held up to an external body and recognises the concept of human rights; something that the USA could and would not do.

I have no doubt that the ECHR is not subject to any political considerations as far as Italy is concerned.

You know more about this than me. Also, my record for predicting things is perfect. I've never predicted any decision in this case correctly.

 

[Stacyhs]

You know more about this than me. Also, my record for predicting things is perfect. I've never predicted any decision in this case correctly.

You could have followed the PGP prediction pattern and had better results: guilty in every single case. But they still had a less than stellar record of being correct.

 

[Vixen]

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

You are talking more sense than usual.

 

[Vixen]

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.

I don't seem to have made it clear enough as you are still in the dark and know not why you stumble.

It means nothing to 'mention it in the witness statement/the memoriale to the police'. You have to follow the correct complaints procedure. The court can do exactly ZIPPO, NADA, ZILCH.

The court cannot campaign on behalf of anyone who appears in front of it. That is the barristers' job. Dalla Vedova did not make a complaint about police torture and human rights abuses at any time, much less file a report via the right channels.

Imagine you are a shop selling white goods and I buy a washing machine from you.

I get it home. The blessed thing doesn't work. Kaput. What should I do? Should I:

1. Issue a press release calling you a crook and a conmerchant warning people not to go near your shop; go on tv interviews moaning about your shop and its shoddy products; file a complaint with the Courts suing you for damages for distress caused and when that fails, lodge a claim with the ECHR citing Article 6 and Article 3.

2. Be reasonable and notify you of my dissatisfaction, requesting you replace the faulty product or refund my money.

No doubt you will go for (1) because you have a belief simply whinging is enough and who cares if it's libel and could cause you serious and reckless reputation damage?