Gênese da reforma constitucional do “giusto processo†na Itália

This paper analyzes the complicated scenario that, starting with the promulgation of the current Italian criminal procedure code, in 1999 resulted in the constitutional reform of the "giusto processo". Inspired by an accusatory logic, the 1988 Code had introduced the contradictory "golden rule" in the formation of evidence, establishing the irrelevance of declarations secretly collected by the preliminary investigation actors. Unhappily received by the majority of the judiciary, the accusatory principles were suppressed in 1992 by the "inquisitorial revolution" caused by three constitutional court decisions (No. 24, 254, 255). Assuming that the contradictory in evidence production violates the search for the truth, the Constitutional Court has demolished the "golden rule," attributing probative value to all (or almost) statements unilaterally collected in the preliminary investigation by the prosecutor or the police. In fact, the mistake of the Constitutional Court was not figuring that the function of the criminal process is the revelation of the truth, which must be sought by any process that aspire the confidence of the citizens. The mistake was actually considering the contradictory as an obstacle to the pursuit of truth, causing an unfortunate opposition between two values that should be closely related. Essential to the cognitive function of the process is, in fact, the contradictory, the method which, as science clarifies, consists in subjecting the hypotheses to be proved to the most severe attempts of confrontation and falsification; while, on the other hand, it seems entirely reasonable to distrust what has been formed in secrecy, and especially the declarations that inevitably take preference to influence those who, in a position of authority, have unilaterally collected them. A reticent and partial attempt to recover the contradictory was later operated by Law 267 of 1997, which denied the probative value of previous statements on the responsibility of other co-defendants who afterwards exercised their right to silence. The law, however, even by reason of its objective inconsistencies, has been declared illegitimate once more by the Constitutional Court, with sentence 361 of 1998. But this time, together with the Union of Criminal Chambers, also appear the political forces, wounded by the censorship of a law that had been adopted almost unanimously shortly before. After that, promptly was approved the constitutional reform of the "giusto processo" (Constitutional Law No. 2 of November 23, 1999), which affirms that "criminal proceedings are regulated by the contradictory principle in the production of evidence (Article 111, paragraph 4, Const).Este escrito analisa o complicado cenário que, a partir da promulgação do vigente código de processo penal italiano, em 1999 resultou na reforma constitucional do “giusto processoâ€. Inspirado em uma lógica acusatória, o código de 1988 tinha introduzido a “regra de ouro†do contraditório na formação da prova, estabelecendo a irrelevância probatória das declarações secretamente recolhidas pelos órgãos de investigação preliminar. Mal recebidos pela maioria da magistratura, os princípios acusatórios foram suprimidos em 1992 pela “revolução inquisitória†ocasionada por três sentenças da Corte constitucional (n. 24, 254, 255). Partindo do pressuposto de que o contraditório na formação da prova viola o accertamento da verdade, a Corte constitucional demoliu a “regra de ouroâ€, atribuindo valor probatório a todas (ou quase) declarações unilateralmente recolhidas na investigação preliminar pelo MP ou pela polícia. De fato, o erro da Corte constitucional não foi ter colocado como finalidade do processo penal o accertamento da verdade, o que precisa ser almejado por qualquer processo que aspire a confiança dos cidadãos. Ele foi, na verdade, ter considerado que o contraditório como um obstáculo à busca da verdade, ocasionando uma infeliz oposição entre dois valores que deveriam se relacionar intimamente. Essencial para a função cognitiva do processo é, de fato, exatamente o contraditório, ou seja, o método que, como ensina a ciência, consiste em submeter as hipóteses a serem provadas às mais severas tentativas de confrontação e falsificação; enquanto, por outro lado, parece totalmente razoável desconfiar daquilo que foi formado em segredo e, especialmente, das declarações que inevitavelmente tomam primazia na influência de quem, em posição de autoridade, as tenha unilateralmente recolhido. Uma tímida e parcial tentativa de recuperação do contraditório foi posteriormente operada pela lei 267 de 1997, que negou valor probatório às anteriores declarações sobre a responsabilidade de outros coimputados que depois em juízo tenham exercido o direito ao silêncio. A lei, todavia, até mesmo em razão das suas objetivas incongruências, acaba novamente declarada ilegítima pela Corte constitucional com a sentença 361 de 1998. Dessa vez, porém, surgem, junto com a União das Câmeras penais, também as forças políticas, feridas pela censura a uma lei que pouco antes tinha sido aprovada quase que unanimemente. Rapidamente acaba aprovada a reforma constitucional do “giusto processo†(lei constitucional n. 2 de 23 de novembro de 1999), com a qual se afirma textualmente que “o processo penal é regulado pelo princípio do contraditório na formação da prova†(tradução livre, art. 111, inciso 4° Const)

Ammissibilità della prova e divieti probatori

'Admissible' evidence is anything that can be legitimately evaluated about a proposition to be proved. 'Inadmissible' evidence is the one that the judge does not have the power to undertake and, as such, belongs to the sphere of the legal irrelevancy. Issues related to the evidence admissibility must be distinct from those regarding to evidence efficacy, ie persuasiveness. Equally, there must not be confusion between the evidence as a probative premise, which states a mere potentiality (the evidence on x), and the evidence as a result (the evidence of x), which indicates a positive outcome. Concerning the probative premises, the controversial distinction between declarative evidence and critical-circumstantial evidence remains fundamental. Observing the evidence "obtained in violation of the prohibitions established by law", the art. 192 c.p.p. has been interpreted in various ways: according to some, it refers only to the evidence object of an exclusionary rule, ie inadmissible; according to others, even the evidence 'obtained' through any violation of the law (criminal, procedural or substantive, or even civil). A question of legitimacy has recently been raised on the statement that evidence taken in violation of constitutionally protected rights cannot be used, even in the absence of an explicit exclusionary rule. The Constitutional Court has, however, declared the question inadmissible with unconvincing arguments. Consequently, the precious opportunity for the definitive clarification of a fundamental question was lost.Prova ‘ammissibile’ è tutto ciò che può essere legittimamente valutato in ordine a una proposizione da provare. Prova ‘inammissibile’ è quella che il giudice non ha il potere di assumere e, come tale, appartiene alla sfera del giuridicamente irrilevante. Occorre tenere ben distinte le questioni relative all’ammissibilità della prova da quelle relative all’efficacia probatoria, ossia alla persuasività. Analogamente non va confusa la prova come premessa probatoria, che esprime una mera potenzialità (la prova su x) con la prova come risultato (la prova di x), che indica un esito positivo. Con riguardo alle premesse probatorie, resta fondamentale la controversa distinzione tra prove dichiarative e prove critico-indiziarie. Parlando di prove «acquisite in violazione dei divieti stabiliti dalla legge», l’art. 192 c.p.p. è stato variamente interpretato: secondo alcuni, va riferito alle sole prove oggetto di un divieto probatorio, ossia inammissibili; secondo altri, anche alle prove ‘ottenute’ attraverso una qualsiasi violazione della legge (penale processuale o sostanziale o persino civile). Di recente è stata sollevata una questione di legittimità sul presupposto che le prove assunte in spregio dei diritti costituzionalmente tutelati non possano essere utilizzate, anche in assenza di un esplicito divieto probatorio. La Corte costituzionale ha, tuttavia, dichiarato inammissibile la questione con argomenti poco convincenti. Si è così persa la preziosa occasione per il definitivo chiarimento di un fondamentale interrogativo.Â

Ammissibilità della prova e divieti probatori = Admissibility of evidence and exclusionary rules

- DOI: https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v7i1.533Define o que é evidência 'admissível' e prova 'inadmissível'. Enfatiza que as questões relacionadas com a admissibilidade da prova devem ser mantidas distintas daquelas relacionadas com a eficácia da prova, ou seja, a persuasã

A prova no processo penal

This paper analyzes the three components of the evidence operation: proof premises or evidence in the strict sense, with particular regard to the distinction between evidence declaration and critical/circumstantial evidence; the propositions to be proved, principal or incidental, final or intermediate; the act of proving, connoted by the rule of beyond all reasonable doubt. While the first two terms vary according to the procedural context, the third remains indefectible, since it is incongruous to consider any proposition to be 'proven' while there is a reasonable reason to doubt it. With regard to the distribution of the burden of proof, the structure of the case and its legal qualification, whether substantial or procedural, are decisive. Therefore, it is possible to identify, for each decision alternative, the term 'marked', which conveys the proposition to be proved, and the opposite 'consequential' term, which derives from the failure to reach the proof: for example, with respect to the main object in trial, the term 'marked' is the conviction, the term 'consequential' the acquittal.Lo scritto analizza le tre componenti dell’operazione probatoria: le premesse probatorie o prove in senso stretto, con particolare riguardo alla distinzione tra dichiarazioni di prova e prove critico- indiziarie; le proposizioni da provare, principali o incidentali, finali o intermedie; l’atto del provare, connotato dalla regola dell’oltre ogni ragionevole dubbio. Mentre i primi due termini variano in funzione del contesto processuale, il terzo resta indefettibile, essendo contraddittorio ritenere ‘provata’ una qualsiasi proposizione allorché vi sia un ragionevole motivo per dubitarne. Quanto alla ripartizione degli oneri probatori, determinante è la struttura della fattispecie, sostanziale o processuale. In base a questa è possibile individuare, per ogni alternativa decisoria, il termine ‘marcato’, che veicola la proposizione da provare, e l’opposto termine ‘consequenziale’, che deriva dal mancato raggiungimento della prova: ad esempio, rispetto al tema principale del processo, termine ‘marcato’ è la condanna, termine ‘consequenziale’ il proscioglimento.Este artigo analisa os três elementos da operação probatória: a premissa probatória ou prova em sentido estrito, com especial atenção à distinção entre declarações probatórias e prova crítica-indiciária; as proposições a serem provadas, principais ou incidentais, finais ou intermediárias; o ato de provar, definido pela regra de “além da dúvida razoávelâ€. Enquanto os dois primeiros variam de acordo com o contexto processual, o terceiro permanece inalterado, uma vez que é contraditório considerar qualquer proposição "comprovada" enquanto houver uma razão razoável para duvidar disso. No que diz respeito à distribuição do ônus da prova, é determinante a estrutura do tipo legal, seja substancial ou processual. Com base nisso, é possível identificar, para cada alternativa decisória, o elemento "marcado", que transmite a proposição a ser provada e o elemento "consequencial" oposto, derivado da falha na comprovação: por exemplo, em relação ao objeto principal em julgamento, o elemento "marcado" é a condenação, e o elemento "consequencial" é a absolvição

Use of an Elastomeric Knee Brace in Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome: Short-Term Results

Purpose This article verifies the effectiveness of a new brace on patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) in adjunct to a specifically developed rehabilitation program. Methods Two groups of 30 patients with PFPS were prospectively and randomly allocated to a rehabilitation protocol, with (group A) or without (group B) the use of a specific brace. All the patients were assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months using the disease specific Kujala scale and a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain; time to return to sport and patient satisfaction with the brace were also recorded. Results Kujala scale’s values showed constant and progressive improvement. The mean score at 6 months was 79.8 � 6.8 points in group A and 76.8 � 8.6 in group B, rising at 12 months to 80.9 � 7.5 in group A and 78.4 � 8.3 in group B. VAS scores significantly differed (p < 0.05) between the two groups at both 6 and 12 months; the score recorded at 12months was 0.9 � 1.3 in the brace-treated group and 1.8 � 1.6 in the controls. The patients who used a brace showed a quicker return to sports and 75% of the patients in this group were satisfied. Conclusion All the scores improved progressively in both groups. The most significant improvement concerned pain, showing that the brace used in this study may allow a better subjective outcome and a quicker return to sport. Level of Evidence Level 2, prospective randomized controlled trial

B-cell reconstitution after lentiviral vector-mediated gene therapy in patients with Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome

Background Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome (WAS) is a severe X-linked immunodeficiency characterized by microthrombocytopenia, eczema, recurrent infections, and susceptibility to autoimmunity and lymphomas. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation is the treatment of choice; however, administration of WAS gene-corrected autologous hematopoietic stem cells has been demonstrated as a feasible alternative therapeutic approach. Objective Because B-cell homeostasis is perturbed in patients with WAS and restoration of immune competence is one of the main therapeutic goals, we have evaluated reconstitution of the B-cell compartment in 4 patients who received autologous hematopoietic stem cells transduced with lentiviral vector after a reduced-intensity conditioning regimen combined with anti-CD20 administration. Methods We evaluated B-cell counts, B-cell subset distribution, B cell-activating factor and immunoglobulin levels, and autoantibody production before and after gene therapy (GT). WAS gene transfer in B cells was assessed by measuring vector copy numbers and expression of Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome protein. Results After lentiviral vector-mediated GT, the number of transduced B cells progressively increased in the peripheral blood of all patients. Lentiviral vector-transduced progenitor cells were able to repopulate the B-cell compartment with a normal distribution of B-cell subsets both in bone marrow and the periphery, showing a WAS protein expression profile similar to that of healthy donors. In addition, after GT, we observed a normalized frequency of autoimmune-associated CD19+CD21-CD35- and CD21low

Targeted NGS Platforms for Genetic Screening and Gene Discovery in Primary Immunodeficiencies

Background: Primary Immunodeficiencies (PIDs) are a heterogeneous group of genetic immune disorders. While some PIDs can manifest with more than one phenotype, signs, and symptoms of various PIDs overlap considerably. Recently, novel defects in immune-related genes and additional variants in previously reported genes responsible for PIDs have been successfully identified by Next Generation Sequencing (NGS), allowing the recognition of a broad spectrum of disorders.Objective: To evaluate the strength and weakness of targeted NGS sequencing using custom-made Ion Torrent and Haloplex (Agilent) panels for diagnostics and research purposes.Methods: Five different panels including known and candidate genes were used to screen 105 patients with distinct PID features divided in three main PID categories: T cell defects, Humoral defects and Other PIDs. The Ion Torrent sequencing platform was used in 73 patients. Among these, 18 selected patients without a molecular diagnosis and 32 additional patients were analyzed by Haloplex enrichment technology.Results: The complementary use of the two custom-made targeted sequencing approaches allowed the identification of causative variants in 28.6% (n = 30) of patients. Twenty-two out of 73 (34.6%) patients were diagnosed by Ion Torrent. In this group 20 were included in the SCID/CID category. Eight out of 50 (16%) patients were diagnosed by Haloplex workflow. Ion Torrent method was highly successful for those cases with well-defined phenotypes for immunological and clinical presentation. The Haloplex approach was able to diagnose 4 SCID/CID patients and 4 additional patients with complex and extended phenotypes, embracing all three PID categories in which this approach was more efficient. Both technologies showed good gene coverage.Conclusions: NGS technology represents a powerful approach in the complex field of rare disorders but its different application should be weighted. A relatively small NGS target panel can be successfully applied for a robust diagnostic suspicion, while when the spectrum of clinical phenotypes overlaps more than one PID an in-depth NGS analysis is required, including also whole exome/genome sequencing to identify the causative gene

Colchicine for prevention of postpericardiotomy syndrome and postoperative atrial fibrillation : the COPPS-2 randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE: Postpericardiotomy syndrome, postoperative atrial fibrillation (AF), and postoperative effusions may be responsible for increased morbidity and health care costs after cardiac surgery. Postoperative use of colchicine prevented these complications in a single trial. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of perioperative use of oral colchicine in reducing postpericardiotomy syndrome, postoperative AF, and postoperative pericardial or pleural effusions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Investigator-initiated, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial among 360 consecutive candidates for cardiac surgery enrolled in 11 Italian centers between March 2012 and March 2014. At enrollment, mean age of the trial participants was 67.5 years (SD, 10.6 years), 69% were men, and 36% had planned valvular surgery. Main exclusion criteria were absence of sinus rhythm at enrollment, cardiac transplantation, and contraindications to colchicine. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive placebo (n=180) or colchicine (0.5 mg twice daily in patients 6570 kg or 0.5 mg once daily in patients <70 kg; n=180) starting between 48 and 72 hours before surgery and continued for 1 month after surgery. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Occurrence of postpericardiotomy syndrome within 3 months; main secondary study end points were postoperative AF and pericardial or pleural effusion. RESULTS: The primary end point of postpericardiotomy syndrome occurred in 35 patients (19.4%) assigned to colchicine and in 53 (29.4%) assigned to placebo (absolute difference, 10.0%; 95% CI, 1.1%-18.7%; number needed to treat\u2009=\u200910). There were no significant differences between the colchicine and placebo groups for the secondary end points of postoperative AF (colchicine, 61 patients [33.9%]; placebo, 75 patients [41.7%]; absolute difference, 7.8%; 95% CI, -2.2% to 17.6%) or postoperative pericardial/pleural effusion (colchicine, 103 patients [57.2%]; placebo, 106 patients [58.9%]; absolute difference, 1.7%; 95% CI, -8.5% to 11.7%), although there was a reduction in postoperative AF in the prespecified on-treatment analysis (placebo, 61/148 patients [41.2%]; colchicine, 38/141 patients [27.0%]; absolute difference, 14.2%; 95% CI, 3.3%-24.7%). Adverse events occurred in 21 patients (11.7%) in the placebo group vs 36 (20.0%) in the colchicine group (absolute difference, 8.3%; 95% CI; 0.76%-15.9%; number needed to harm\u2009=\u200912), but discontinuation rates were similar. No serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients undergoing cardiac surgery, perioperative use of colchicine compared with placebo reduced the incidence of postpericardiotomy syndrome but not of postoperative AF or postoperative pericardial/pleural effusion. The increased risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects reduced the potential benefits of colchicine in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT0155218