ROMA (ITALPRESS) – The Constitutional Court has accepted the appeal, raised by the Court of Rome as part of the trial on the murder of Giulio Regeni, concerning the issue of the right of defence related to the costs of technical consultations. The College had prepared an expert on the translation of an Arabic document which was considered relevant for the purpose of the judgment. The office defenders of the defendants had asked to be admitted to appoint a party consultant at the expense of the State, while at the same time exercising the constitutional illegitimacy of the discipline of technical consultancy in the part where, in the special case hypothesis in the absence of which it is concerned, it does not provide that the relative expenses are anticipated by the State. The process, which had been suspended pending the decision of the Consultant, will now be resumed. In particular, the Constitutional Court declared the constitutional illegitimacy, for violation of Article 24 of the Constitution, of Article 225, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the part in which – for the exceptional hypothesis introduced by the judgment of the same Court number 192 of 2023 – it does not provide that the on-time and expenses paid to the consultant of party appointed by the defender of office are anticipated by the State.
Without prejudice to the right to repeat its amounts to the defendant who subsequently becomes available, and dismissed by the magistrate in the measure and in the manner provided for in Article 83 of the single text of the costs of justice for the possibility of admission to free sponsorship. This exceptional hypothesis is that in which one of the crimes provided for in Article 1 of the New York Convention against Torture occurs when, due to the failure of the State of belonging to the defendant, it is impossible to have proof that, while aware of the slope of the proceedings, he was informed of the slope of the process. The Consulta, first of all, reaffirmed the constitutional importance of the aid of technical-scientific knowledge in the criminal process. When the ascertainment of responsibility requires specific competences, the technical consultant is “an integral part of the defence office”, so that any limitation imposed on the possibility, for the same defendant, to assert its contribution is resolved in a menomation of the right of defence guaranteed by Article 24 of the Constitution. In the judgment it is underlined that this need for protection is not revisable in the process in the absence, in which the renunciation of the defendant to present the judgment involves all its participatory rights, including that of being assisted by an expert.
However, it is the case, described above, examined by the Court, in which it proceeds in absence as the call in judgment was made impossible by the non-cooperation of the State of belonging to the defendant. In this exceptional hypothesis, without a renunciation of the accused to exercise the participatory rights in the process at its expense, the principle of effectiveness of the defence makes it necessary to compensate for the restriction of protection that inevitably follows its absence, raising the defender of office that needs a technical aid from the economic burden deriving from the appointment of a consultant. The Constitutional vulnus notes the judgment, must be cured with the introduction of an exceptional hypothesis of the historical anticipation of the honors and expenses of the technical consultant, save the possibility for the state to recover the relative amounts against the defendants in case they become available. The regulatory data appropriate to fill the detected gap has been identified in the erosion, except recovery, provided for in favor of the defendant’s office defender irreperible from Article 117, of the single text justice expenses.
– photo IPA Agency –
(ITALPRESS).
