I was expecting an ECHR case involving Russia or Transylvania to support why Amanda’s legal team did zip and left it to Amanda to make her accusation on the witness stand, I wondered if they knew? Guess not otherwise they would have advised her of the possible outcome.
Welcome back, CoulsdonUK.
I was taking a little nap while awaiting the motivation report, but your mention of the ECHR was a clear sign that I could contribute some information.
I regret, however, that the case-law I will cite does not involve Transylvania, but rather a neighboring State.
Hajnal v Serbia 36937/06 19-06-2012
Violation of Article 3, Substantive and Procedural aspects.
Regarding the procedural aspect:
Para. 94-95. The Government claimed that the applicant failed to file the appropriate written complaint as required. Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence that the applicant had been abused. The applicant maintained that he had brought his claim of abuse properly to the attention of judges and the competent prosecuting authorities.
Para. 96-99. The Court (ECHR): There must be an official investigation of credible assertions of abuse. Even when, strictly speaking, no complaint has been made, an investigation must be started if there are sufficiently clear indications that ill-treatment has been used. In the present case...the Court further notes that the applicant had indeed complained of having been abused by the police. He did so before the investigating judge and the deputy public prosecutor, as well as the trial and appellate chambers. Yet, despite the Convention and the domestic law requiring that an allegation of this sort be explored ex officio, no separate abuse-related investigation...was ever instituted by the competent authorities....there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
I hope the above satisfies your needs and those of others with questions about this matter. To tie in the above ECHR case-law with the Knox calunnia conviction against Lumumba, and her claims of abuse at her Nov. 5/6, 2007 interrogation, let us recall that Knox alerted the authorities about the alleged abuse in her Memoriale 1 of Nov. 6, soon after the interrogation. This was handed over to the police. It was the obligation of the Italian authorities upon receipt of that document to launch an investigation, which could have included having Knox fill out any complaint forms their bureaucracy would like.
Based upon prison phone intercepts, it is believed that Knox had been warned (perhaps by her lawyers) to not file a formal complaint, for fear that the Italian authorities would retaliate by worsening her conditions of incarceration. She did, however, testify to being abused, and apparently followed up by mentioning the alleged abuse in each appeal. Furthermore, the Italian authorities did not conduct an independent, effective investigation of her allegations. Instead, they retaliated against her by charging her with calunnia against the police. Her trial for that charge will have a hearing on 7 September 2015. There was also a retaliation by the police against her parents for repeating her allegations to the UK journalist, John Follain; her parents, but not Follain or his newspaper, were sued for defamation.
I believe all of these facts will be considered by the ECHR when it judges Knox's case, which will happen probably sometime in the next 1, 2, or 3 years.
