Here is the text of the Resolution dd. 25.06.2010 of the Criminal Chamber of Bolzano.
"acting ABSTENTION
The Directors of the Criminal Chamber of Bolzano, the emergency meeting following a report received by the lawyer. Marco Ferretti difensore di G.S.,
rilevato
che il Sostituto Procuratore della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Bolzano dott. Axel Bisignano con decreto di data 17/6/2010 ha disposto la perquisizione personale dell’indagato e della cella della Casa circondariale ubicata in Bolzano, via Dante, presso la quale si trovava ristretto, al fine di sequestrare appunti difensivi, da lui redatti, in relazione ai fatti specificamente contestati allo stesso;
che le ragioni della perquisizioni venivano indicate nei seguenti termini:
“sono emersi ulteriori elementi indizianti anche a carico di terze persone che necessitano di approfondimento;
in particolare, da articoli comparsi sulla stampa emerge che l’indagato "Want to talk about [...] Also during the interrogation of warranty, the suspect is using notes he had prepared, containing, obviously, circumstances relevant to the findings of fact and, in particular, useful information in relation to the involvement of other person in the phenomenon of widespread corruption revealed "
, therefore, the search has been ordered to acquire notes taken from inquiring held for defensive purposes in aid of memory;
that the seizure of documents and pleadings shall be prohibited from ' ordering and is very serious infringement of constitutional right under Article. 24, par. 2 of the Constitution;
that, recently, the court of Bolzano, by order of date of 06/06/2008, implementing peaceful principles, rejected the request of the prosecution to use documents obtained in the PC of a defendant and drawn by him for defensive purposes;
that the question has also been professed ex addressed by the Constitutional Court with the well-known sentence nr. 229, 19.06.1998, extensor Prof. Giuliano Vassalli, with which it was stated inter alia that:
"Art. 237 Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows the acquisition, including office, any document emanating from the defendant, must be read in coordinated relationship with the constitutional principles for the protection of the human person and the right of defense of the accused and suspects, as well as the procedural rules laid in defense of those rights by limiting the incidence of invasive means of searching for evidence and precluding, therefore, the seizure of the pleadings that the accused has pinned itself to facilitate the answers to your questioning . "
that in the Grounds of the Constitutional Court states that the seizure of notes taken from asking for self-defense is considered" contrary to the rules of the process and directly violates constitutional principles. Indeed, the fact that the measure qualifies as a search function to the apprehension of the clipboard, ... results in a clear direct violation of the inviolable rights of the person even before the right to self-defense. So much to reveal the arrangement by the court of an instrument of that invasiveness of privacy (in noting that nothing in this case, the accused was in Vinculis), just to the right of vulnerable manned by art. 24, second paragraph of the Constitution, liable, moreover, as a covert criticism of the lesion in terms of interrogation rules dictated by the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In addition, through the use of instruments specified in a capacity-intrusive methods not unlike those of such art. 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure precludes the possibility of use as such, which evidence that the results can be achieved. All according to the rules even before they were coded are the expression of the fundamental principles of legal culture "
that the measure, according to the Criminal Chamber, is illegal and detrimental to the immediate right of defense and individual rights, especially if in custody and therefore more vulnerable to acts of invasive dignity and personal freedom;
that the severity of the episode determines the need for a protest in defense of constitutional principles, the right of defense and the inviolable rights of the person in its fully extended;
proclaims
abstention from the hearings and any other legal activity, within the limits laid down in self-regulatory code of abstentions from the audience of lawyers
7 to 14 July 2010 and at the same time
calls
the Attorney General of the Court of Appeals of Trento, the Advocate General at the sub-office of the Court of Appeals of Bolzano and Trento Prosecutor at the Court of Bolzano to intervene, as the responsibility, under Article. 16 of Royal Decree 31 May 1946, No 511.
Leave this resolution to the Board of the Union of Italian Criminal Chambers and recipients indicated in Art. 2 of the Code of self-regulation.
Bolzano, there June 25, 2010.
President Mr. Benjamin Migliucci
The Board Attorney Elena Valenti - Mr. Federico Fava "
0 comments:
Post a Comment