25 Jan current call

The case of the correo call, or call in the field, whatever you want to call it, refers to the hypothesis in which, the accusatory system is based, also, on the statements made by an accused against other co-accused or by accused for crimes connected or connected to the one for which proceedings are being carried out. From this brief definition of the institution it is easy to identify the circumstance under which the statements made during the hearing or, before that, during preliminary investigations are made by a person who, far from appearing as a third party and impartial with respect to the procedural matter, he is actually part of it as a co-defendant or co-suspect. The practical relevance of this figure is evident. It is indeed logical that, the wealth of information possessed by a person close to the accused, or even an accomplice to the same, it is very large and, especially in certain sectors – such as, by way of example only, quello della criminalità organizzata – risulta fondamentale per comprendere le dinamiche dell’azione, the structuring of the process criminis as well as, To obtain the necessary evidentiary kit on which to found the sustainability of the accusation in court. Se, therefore, undoubted is the practical utility of the call call, Equally out of doubt is also the problem underlying the reliability of these subjects in relation to which it is lacking, mainly, the requirement of typical third party and impartiality, instead, of the figure of the witness. The criminal procedure code deals with the call in correction only limited to the relevance on the test point that the same can rise. In particular, The regulatory reference is contained in paragraphs III and IV of art 192 c.p.p. who exclude that exclusive evidence can be conferred on these declarations., instead, they must be corroborated by external findings. Evidentiary relevance from the provision contained in art 192 c.p.p., therefore, it emerges that the statements made by the co-accused or the accused in connected or related proceedings are not valid, considered in themselves, full evidentiary value. So that they can constitute full evidence against the accused and consequently allow the "beyond all reasonable doubt" necessary for the purposes of a conviction to be considered complete, three requirements must be met, i.e: the reliability of the declarant, the intrinsic reliability of the statements, The extrinsic reliability of the declarations. The verification of the existence of these requirements must be made following the logical process now outlined. In particular, As regards the ascertainment of the reliability of the declarant, the jurisprudence has several times underlined how the same should be carried out in the light of elements relating directly to the person as, character, temperament, Lifetime life, Relations with the accused, the social/economic conditions, the genesis and reasons for the call in correction. Only once the examination of the declarant's credibility is positively overcome the judge can proceed with the assessment of the existence of the other requirement required, That is to say the intrinsic reliability of the call in correction. This assessment must be conducted by means of a stringent analysis of the elements characterizing the declarations made by the Correo. In light, therefore, of specific data internal to the declaration and not external. In particular, elements such as spontaneity must be taken into consideration, verisimilitude, precision, the completeness of the narration of the facts, the concordance between declarations made at different times and others of the same tenor. External feedback Once the feedback relating to the previously highlighted profiles has been positively carried out, the judge, in order to be able to use the statements of the co-conspirator as the basis for one's sentencing decision, must ascertain the extrinsic reliability of the declarations. This investigation profile concerns, essentially, in the search for elements extraneous to the declaration that can further confirm the reliability of the call. These elements of external feedback, it is good to clarify, they must not have the character of full procedural evidence expected that, otherwise, it would not be necessary to resort to the correo call. The findings, therefore, they can be of any type and nature as long as they are suitable for relating the crime to the person issuing the statement. Moreover, I would like to underline how, among the elements suitable to corroborate the declarations, other calls in complicity can also be used as long as all the accusatory declarations are characterized by convergence, independence and specificity. Multiple concurrent call In the event that the concurrent call is configured as multiple, that is, it involves a plurality of people, objective evidence must be acquired for each of the people involved in order to have so-called evidence. individualized. On the verge, the United Sections[3] they expressed themselves by specifying the need that the declarations are suitable for bringing the fact to the subject to whom the call is addressed to, individually identified. However, this penalty orientation comes from the same damned jurisprudence as, If the facts narrated by the declarant are manifold but, borne by a single person, The findings acquired even for only one of the facts are useful to confirm the others too[4]. The calling in correction of the Related has the same value as a normal call in correction but needs greater rigor in the examination of its reliability having to be verified not only with reference to its immediate author but also in relation to the original source of the accusation. The situation that is outlined is similar to that of the testimony of the related referred to in art. 195 c.p.p. with the significant difference however that, The declarations in the debate are not made by the witness who in turn deced them by third parties, extraneous to the procedural affair, but I am made by the Correo. Le Sezioni Unite hanno, In relation to this phenomenon set out the principles that the judge must follow in the evaluation of the call. In particular, The provision referred to in art is applied to the call in correction of the related 195 c.p.p.. In the event that the call is not assembled by the declarations of the direct source whose examination is impossible, may have as its only confirmation for the purposes of proving the criminal responsibility of the accused another or other calls of similar tenor, provided that the following conditions are respected: The assessment of the subjective credibility of each declarant and the intrinsic reliability of each individual declaration is positively carried out, The personal relationships between the declarant and the direct source are ascertained, There is a convergence of the various calls that must mutually respond in an individualizing manner in relation to relevant circumstances of the thema probandum, There is independence of calls, There is genetic autonomy of calls, i.e. their derivation from different sources of information. If these conditions apply, therefore, the judge can use the call as the basis for his sentencing decision. The use of the call in the context of the granting of precautionary measures. The relevance of the co-compliance call does not disappear on a purely procedural level but, the same, is evident already during preliminary investigations for the purpose of taking a precautionary measure. The use of the co-suspected declarations as a basis for the adoption of a precautionary measure against the other co-suspects is subject to the same limitations seen so far. Even in the precautionary field, and indeed, even more so in the precautionary field, in fact it is necessary that the declarations are corroborated by external evidence. This conclusion is reached in the face of the reference that the art. 273 c.p.p. which deals with the general conditions of applicability of the measure refers to the art. 192 Commi 3 e 4 c.p.p. regarding the evaluation of serious indications of guilt. In fact, jurisprudence has repeatedly underlined that for the purposes of the existence of serious indications of guilt necessary for the issuance of a personal precautionary measure, In so much, individualizing feedback is necessary for the call in correction as they are functional to the judgment of credibility of the caller, To allow the judge to overcome any errors, inconsistencies, contradictions contained in his heteroaccusatory declarations[6]. The dominant orientation, therefore, This is what - similarly to the feedback to be made in the debate - when the only source of charge against the declarations of a single collaborator are, these must be verified ab externo, that is, based on other elements not coming from the declarant himself, in order to avoid the so-called circularity of the test. This expression indicates that the verification of the reliability of the declarant is tautological and self-referential and that, definitely, the research ends up using the call itself as support for the accusatory hypothesis that is deduced from the call, that is, the same data to be found. However, the majority jurisprudential opinion has been questioned by that part of the jurisprudence which has stubbornly excluded the need for individualizing evidence, asserting sufficiency, for the purposes described, of external feedback that confirms the reliability of the caller. The rationale for this orientation was based on the need to avoid the concept of serious evidence and that of proof from coinciding, canceling itself out, thus the distinction that exists between them and which finds justification in the different functions of the two institutes. The conflict was resolved by the United Sections of the Court of Cassation. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, the corroboration, relating to a follow-up call (taken as serious evidence of guilt), that appears intrinsically reliable, must be made up of individualizing external evidence capable of demonstrating its compatibility with the thema decidendum of the ruling and of justifying, then, its rationality.