You have simply repeated what I provided, but with a somewhat different translation, for CPP Article 530.1 and 530.2. You haven't shown what the alleged LEGAL difference is for the two allegedly different types of acquittal.
In my source (Mitja Giuluz et al., The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation), the text is slightly different, as I quoted earlier. CPP Article 530.2 reads "The judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal also in case of insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof that the criminal act occurred, the accused committed it, the act is deemed an offense by law, the offence was committed by a person with mental capacity".
In other words, CPP Art. 530.2 states, among other reasons for acquittal, that if there is no proof (which to convict must be beyond a reasonable doubt, according to CPP Art. 533) that the accused committed the crime, the judge must acquit. This is no different than the grounds for acquittal in a US court.
Anyone in the US legal system, who was convicted, and then later found by an appeal court or retrial, to have not been guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, would be acquitted and thus exonerated.
Thus, Knox and Sollecito by US standards as well as by the laws of Italy are fully acquitted.
You have not shown any legal difference in terms of the consequences or effects of their CPP Article 530.2 acquittal compared to an Article 530.1 acquittal. Point out any specific legal difference in consequences or effects, or acknowledge that the difference is only one of perception among some.
I have previously posted a quote from Gialuz pointing out how this Italian procedural law semantic confusion in Article 530 was passed down from the pre-1988 inquisitorial justice system, and is now clarified by conviction only based on proof of guilt BARD, as required by CPP Article 533.1. I repost that quote here:
"With regard to the final decision, the CPP instead has solely eliminated the acquittal for insufficient evidence, which was inherited from the inquisitorial system based on the presumption of guilt. The Code only established that "the judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal also in case of insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof that the criminal act occurred, the accused committed it...." It was not clear, however, which was the required standard to convict a person and therefore Article 530 was considered one of the least successful provisions of the 1988 reform."
{The CSC in the 1990's began to reference a BARD standard for certain evidentiary situations; in Joint Chambers (United Chambers) in 2002, the BARD standard was declared to be the fundamental standard of proof for conviction.}
"In 2006, Law no. 46 embodied this evolution and changed Article 533, par. 1, by introducing a norm whereby the "judge shall deliver a judgment of conviction if the accused is proven to be guilty of the alleged offence beyond a reasonable doubt". This step has represented a step towards completion, from an accusatorial viewpoint, of the Italian criminal justice system."
Source: Gialuz et al., p. 37-38
