I'm hopeful that Strasbourg will acknowledge the lates calunnia thing as unfair. But after dealing with a court this is an assumption and not a prediction.
In the meantime, I'm interested in Sollecito's decision, which, while not identical to Knox's case, is certainly related to it. Therefore, I imagine the judges will decide on the admissibility of Knox's second plea only after a decision on Sollecito. Unfortunately, I don't remember where or how the reasons for denying compensation could be found, but as far as I remember, one of the arguments was that he would have been compensated if he confirmed the judge's finding that Knox was "there."
(This Calunnia nonsense is monstrous anyway: 1. I'd like to know if a real "Calunnia criminal" in Italy has ever served three full years for this. 2. Guede's reduction from 30 to 16 years was due, among other things, or perhaps primarily, to his naming "the others." 3. In their blind error, the highest judges are, so to speak, retrospectively inciting someone who wouldn't exchange this untruth for concessions or a deal to commit this very crime.)
I remember how, during the 2016 communication phase of the Knox case, the judges prominently addressed the Boninsegna Report, which was still almost fresh off the press. It was encouraging that an inherently bureaucratic apparatus like any court is capable of responding quickly to a recently submitted document. Therefore, it is one of my dreams that Sollecito's team will supplement their submission with Knox's latest conviction as information.
I'm confident, based on ECHR case law, that the ECHR would find the re-trial and re-conviction of Knox a violation of Convention Article 6.1 (fair trial violation) with 6.2 (violation of the presumption of innocence) because of the blatant way the MR states that it is re-interpreting the ambiguous statements in Knox's Memoriale.
For Sollecito v. Italy, review of the Communication to Italy is useful. Here's the introductory information (Google translation; my emphases by bolding and intalics):
The application concerns the dismissal of the claim for compensation for the pre-trial detention of the applicant, accused of participation in the crimes of sexual violence and murder of a British national. At the material time, the applicant was the boyfriend of A.K., the victim's roommate. On 2 November 2007, the police went to the victim's home and, after forcing the door to her bedroom, discovered her body lying on the floor.
During the following days, the applicant was questioned twice and, in the absence of a lawyer, answered questions from the judicial police, in accordance with Article 351 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to the acquisition of summary information. He was questioned, in particular, about the sequence of events and A.K.'s movements during the hours preceding the murder. On 6 November, the prosecutor ordered the arrest of the applicant, A.K. and a third person, and he brought charges of sexual assault and murder against them (for further details, see Knox v. Italy, no. 76577/13, 24 January 2019).
Following his final acquittal, the applicant filed a claim for compensation for "unfair" pre-trial detention under Article 314 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The domestic courts dismissed the claim, finding that, through his conduct and contradictory statements, the applicant had contributed through gross negligence to arousing suspicion against him and thus causing his detention.
In particular, the grounds cited the statements made by the applicant before his indictment, which were unusable in the criminal proceedings under Article 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In these statements, the applicant recounted in detail the events of the previous day, in particular A.K.'s behavior and movements during the day before the discovery of the victim's body.
The domestic courts also referred to certain passages in the judgments of the courts on the merits, relating to the assessment of the applicant's criminal responsibility.
Here are the questions to Italy (and secondly to Sollecito):
1.
Was the challenge to the applicant's right to compensation for "unjust" detention heard fairly, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (López Ribalda and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 1874/13 and 8567/13, § 150, 17 October 2019)?
In particular,
taking into account Article 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the relevant domestic case-law (see, among others, judgments of the Court of Cassation nos. 3620/2008, 38181/2009, 49771/2013, 17845/2014 and 882/2018),
were the statements made by the applicant before his indictment admissible by the courts hearing the claim for compensation for "unjust" pre-trial detention? How were these statements assessed by these same courts?
2.
Was the right to the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention respected in this case with regard to the applicant (Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, § 94, ECHR 2013; Vlieeland Boddy and Marcelo Lanni v. Spain, nos. 53465/11 and 9634/12, §§ 38-49, 16 February 2016)?
In particular, given that the Court of Cassation examined the arguments raised by the applicant in his appeal, do the grounds provided by the high court cast doubt on the applicant's innocence? Do they refer to the applicant's possible criminal liability or to the persistent suspicions against him?
----
Looking at the above Communication text, it is very clear that a major question of the ECHR is whether or not the violation of CPP Article 63, which made Sollecito's interrogation statements inadmissible during the criminal trial, also made them inadmissible during the hearing for compensation for unjust detention. Based on ECHR case law, when the request for compensation is part of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the request for compensation must definitively be considered an extension of the criminal proceedings, and all the relevant laws of the Code of Criminal Procedure must apply to it. So CPP Article 63 must apply, and his interrogation statements are inadmissible to the request fro compensation hearing, and he must be compensated since the alleged negligence disappears. At least, that is how I see the case unfold, whenever that will be.
I believe that the ECHR will find against Italy for the violation of Convention Article 6.2 as well.
hudoc.echr.coe.int
