With reference to the second complaint [e.[/I] use of 1.45, 5.45 and memoriale against Amanda], the Court notes that the defensive indizianti statements are characterized by a different regime in terms of subjective usability.
Where they come from the person by whom there were already indications concerning the same crime or offense [i.e. suspects] related to or connected with that attributed to the third the same can not be used not only against himself, even against the same defendants crime [or defendants of crimes related to or connected). [cannot be used against the suspect or other suspects]
The system of absolute uselessness of Article. 63, second paragraph, cpp, operates instead, to exclude cases in which the registrant is asked to respond in the same or another process, for a crime or crimes attributed to third parties, which have no connection with the case for which shall, in respect of which he assumes the status of a witness. [this strikes me as a bizarre interpretation of Article 63 paragraph 2 - see below]
In fact, in the first case, by virtue of the intimate connection and interdependence between themselves and the fact that others also arises the need to protect the right to silence of the registrant, in the second case, however, the position of alienation and indifference by the declarant compared to the facts of the case makes it immune from any manipulation made by the investigative bodies (Court of Cassation, Sec. A. February 13, 1997, Carpanelli).
The light of those principles, the statements made by AMK at 1.45 on 6 November, 2007, of which the report was suspended and she was placed at the
disposal of the judicial proceeding, emerging evidence against her, are can only be used against alios, while "spontaneous declarations" of 5.54 hours or can not be used against the suspect or against other persons accused of complicity in that crime, without the guarantees made as part of a defensive person who had already formally assumed the role of suspect.
Instead, a memorial written in English by K. and translated into Italian is fully usable, pursuant to art. 237 Code of Criminal Procedure, because it is derived from asking document, which was the spontaneous author material for defensive purposes. The provision in question provides evidence of attaching importance to document not only in itself and for its representative content, but also under the special bond that links the suspect (or defendant), so highlight the review of eligibility that the court is required to operate.
