The guilters apparently have not noticed that Amanda was acquitted of continuing aggravated calunnia against the police and Mignini by the Boninsegna court, and the Italian authorities - that is, the prosecutor in that case - did not appeal that judgment of acquittal, making it final.
The ECHR has mentioned the Boninsegna judgment in its Communication to Italy, even including an excerpt from the Boninsegna motivation report in its summary of the history of the case. The attention of the ECHR to the Boninsegna MR suggests how the ECHR will judge the merits of the case.
Here is a translation of the ECHR's excerpt:
"Meanwhile, the applicant was the subject of another criminal trial for false accusation, in particular concerning the statements she had made on 13 March, 12 June and 13 June 2009 against the police officers who carried out her interrogations. {1} By a judgment of 14 January 2016, the Florence Court {of Judge Boninsegna} acquitted the applicant.
In particular, {2} the court considered that the applicant had been subjected to intense psychological pressure from the investigators, leading her to formulate the name of Mr. DL {Diya Lumumba} for the sole purpose of terminating a treatment contrary to the {legally guaranteed} rights of a person under investigation. The relevant passages of this judgment, as far as the present application is concerned, read as follows:
"{3} The investigation activities (...) concerning the applicant {Knox, the accused in the case} are characterized by numerous procedural irregularities which led the Court of Cassation to consider [1 April 2008] that the statements collected were not usable. (...)
{4} Due to the deficiencies of the [investigation] activities, the minutes are not reliable as to the starting time of the activities. Moreover, the minutes do not indicate the closing times. (...)
{5} The totally inappropriate choice of interpreters was also irregular. These were agents of the Perugia Police Bureau. Thus they were placed in a situation of professional collaboration with the colleagues who were carrying out the investigations. This resulted in emotionally empathic behavior [with the applicant]. This was taking place in an extremely delicate context, not only for the investigations (the declarations relating to them having been considered {by the CSC} unusable thereafter) but also concerning the position [of the applicant] who was at that time under investigation.
{6} This ambiguous quality of the person performing auxiliary duties for the police and, at the same time, belonging to the investigators' own team was accompanied by maternal attitudes and overwhelmingly strong emotion (in particular regarding the behavior not required and at least atypical of [two interpreters] and one of the police officers [some having taken familiar attitudes tending to create empathy with the applicant and the other having taken her hand in hand and hugging {embracing} (abbracciata) her while she was making accusations against Mr. DL)] (...).
{7} The interpreters should have been uninvolved and neutral in relation to the ongoing criminal procedure with the obvious and basic aim of avoiding contaminations that affect the professional performance of the auxiliary {task of interpretation}. (...)
{8} All these circumstances do not appear in the minutes (...). {9} The only appropriate approach in this case was to inform the person under investigation of her rights of defense, declared inviolable in our Constitution. This was for the obvious reason that she was a person who was to be put in a position to defend her personal freedom in relation to the authority of the State, the latter having already attributed to [the applicant], by the investigators' bias, the quality of the person being a suspect. (...)
{9} This situation is in contradiction with the applicant's immediate subsequent detention, although she had just been treated with a maternal attitude and kind affection. This course of events certainly created some embarrassment, especially for the person concerned, which should have been avoided (...) in order to safeguard the dignity [of the applicant] (...), as well as her personal freedom as a fundamental and inviolable right of the person, which constitutes an aspect ... of fundamental human rights. (...)
[In this context]{10} the principle of the presumption of innocence was also ignored. (...) »"
Translated from the French ECHR original by Google translate with my help.
To help understand what the ECHR may understand relating to its job - which relevant to Knox v. Italy is to judge whether or not there have been any violation(s) of Knox's rights under the European Convention of Human Rights, to declare in its judgment any such violation(s), and to indicate in its judgment what it considers necessary individual and general measures to redress any such violation(s), which may include suggestions for the reforms in the practice or laws of a respondent state found in violation.
Here's an annotated list of some of the implications of the excerpt for the ECHR case Knox v. Italy.
1. The Boninsegna court found Knox's allegations, in light of the testimony of the witnesses, to have credibility: "
the chosen investigative practices induced in the defendant the conviction, or the reasonable doubt,
that she was being subjected to a planned, oppressive and unfair investigative action - this also takes into account Knox’s definitive acquittal in the main criminal trial because she did not commit the crime of murder - in light of the overall way in which her interrogation was performed.
There is, therefore, an absence of the evidence to place beyond a reasonable doubt that the events did not indeed occur as the girl related and that she was fully aware of the non-involvement of the Prosecutor in the way the investigations concerning her were performed.
Pursuant to article 530 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure,
acquits Knox Amanda Marie for the charge under letter a), because the facts do not exist, and for the charge under letter b), because the facts do not exist and because the act does not constitute an offense, as regards the accusations addressed to Dr. Giuliano Mignini."
2. Intense psychological pressure, especially when accompanied by the denial of defense rights such as warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have a lawyer present, and the provision of an uninvolved, neutral interpreter, in an interrogation by investigators to obtain a statement to incriminate the person questioned or another person is highly likely to be considered a violation of Convention Article 3 by the ECHR, not as torture, but as inhuman or degrading treatment.
3. The statements made by Knox during the interrogations of Knox on Nov. 5/6 by the police and Mignini had already been declared unusable against her by the Gemelli CSC panel. The use of her statements against her for the charge of calunnia against Lumumba because of her "defensive" statement after the interrogation, as allowed by that CSC panel, may be considered arbitrary and a violation of the Convention by the ECHR, because she was still denied a lawyer, required under Italian law and ECHR case-law, at the relevant time. Mignini apparently did not follow Italian law in denying lawyers for Knox and Sollecito in the period Nov. 5 to Nov. 8.
4. The police and prosecutor are obligated under Italian law to record, using audio or audiovisual methods, questioning of a detained person. Even if the audio or audiovisual equipment were unavailable, detailed minutes are required by Italian law, including the start and finish times, who was present, and of course, the questions and answers, when a suspect is questioned. The presence of a defense lawyer for the suspect is also required, except under specified circumstances, and must be validated in writing and approved by a magistrate.
5. An interpreter is required at all stages of a criminal proceeding, including questioning of a suspect, when the suspect does not fully understand the language used in the questioning, according to the Convention. The interpreter must be neutral and fair.
6. The measures adopted by the police and their interpreter of suggesting amnesia and also of embracing and/or touching Knox would be likely to constitute violations of the Convention under Article 8. While not all violations of Article 8 against a suspect imply violations of Article 6 (unfair trial), it is likely these do, because of the intent to induce the person questioned to make a statement against herself or another person.
7. A clear statement by Boninsegna of the issues indicating a violation of Convention regarding the interpreters, when the statements obtained in the questioning are used against the person questioned or another person.
8. Again, Boninsegna indicates (indirectly) the violation of Italian law in the way the activities of the questioning of Nov. 5/6 were not recorded. This type of violation of domestic law which results in use of statements obtained from the questioning to convict someone is likely to be considered a violation of the Convention.
9. The Boninsegna MR language is likely to give the ECHR exactly the type of information it seeks to find a violation of Convention Article 6 with Article 3, because in its case-law, violations of the dignity of a person under the control of the authorities is a violation of Article 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment).
10. This language may induce the ECHR to find a violation of the presumption of innocence, whether or not Knox listed that specific allegation in her application. The ECHR will sometimes, as the master of the facts and the law under the Convention, specify violations of the Convention based upon the facts, even when not specifically requested by the applicant.
