To help understand what the ECHR may understand relating to its job - which relevant to Knox v. Italy is to judge whether or not there have been any violation(s) of Knox's rights under the European Convention of Human Rights, to declare in its judgment any such violation(s), and to indicate in its judgment what it considers necessary individual and general measures to redress any such violation(s), which may include suggestions for the reforms in the practice or laws of a respondent state found in violation.
Here's an annotated list of some of the implications of the excerpt for the ECHR case Knox v. Italy.
1. The Boninsegna court found Knox's allegations, in light of the testimony of the witnesses, to have credibility: "the chosen investigative practices induced in the defendant the conviction, or the reasonable doubt, that she was being subjected to a planned, oppressive and unfair investigative action - this also takes into account Knox’s definitive acquittal in the main criminal trial because she did not commit the crime of murder - in light of the overall way in which her interrogation was performed.
There is, therefore, an absence of the evidence to place beyond a reasonable doubt that the events did not indeed occur as the girl related and that she was fully aware of the non-involvement of the Prosecutor in the way the investigations concerning her were performed.
Pursuant to article 530 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure,
acquits Knox Amanda Marie for the charge under letter a), because the facts do not exist, and for the charge under letter b), because the facts do not exist and because the act does not constitute an offense, as regards the accusations addressed to Dr. Giuliano Mignini."
2. Intense psychological pressure, especially when accompanied by the denial of defense rights such as warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have a lawyer present, and the provision of an uninvolved, neutral interpreter, in an interrogation by investigators to obtain a statement to incriminate the person questioned or another person is highly likely to be considered a violation of Convention Article 3 by the ECHR, not as torture, but as inhuman or degrading treatment.
3. The statements made by Knox during the interrogations of Knox on Nov. 5/6 by the police and Mignini had already been declared unusable against her by the Gemelli CSC panel. The use of her statements against her for the charge of calunnia against Lumumba because of her "defensive" statement after the interrogation, as allowed by that CSC panel, may be considered arbitrary and a violation of the Convention by the ECHR, because she was still denied a lawyer, required under Italian law and ECHR case-law, at the relevant time. Mignini apparently did not follow Italian law in denying lawyers for Knox and Sollecito in the period Nov. 5 to Nov. 8.
4. The police and prosecutor are obligated under Italian law to record, using audio or audiovisual methods, questioning of a detained person. Even if the audio or audiovisual equipment were unavailable, detailed minutes are required by Italian law, including the start and finish times, who was present, and of course, the questions and answers, when a suspect is questioned. The presence of a defense lawyer for the suspect is also required, except under specified circumstances, and must be validated in writing and approved by a magistrate.
5. An interpreter is required at all stages of a criminal proceeding, including questioning of a suspect, when the suspect does not fully understand the language used in the questioning, according to the Convention. The interpreter must be neutral and fair.
6. The measures adopted by the police and their interpreter of suggesting amnesia and also of embracing and/or touching Knox would be likely to constitute violations of the Convention under Article 8. While not all violations of Article 8 against a suspect imply violations of Article 6 (unfair trial), it is likely these do, because of the intent to induce the person questioned to make a statement against herself or another person.
7. A clear statement by Boninsegna of the issues indicating a violation of Convention regarding the interpreters, when the statements obtained in the questioning are used against the person questioned or another person.
8. Again, Boninsegna indicates (indirectly) the violation of Italian law in the way the activities of the questioning of Nov. 5/6 were not recorded. This type of violation of domestic law which results in use of statements obtained from the questioning to convict someone is likely to be considered a violation of the Convention.
9. The Boninsegna MR language is likely to give the ECHR exactly the type of information it seeks to find a violation of Convention Article 6 with Article 3, because in its case-law, violations of the dignity of a person under the control of the authorities is a violation of Article 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment).
10. This language may induce the ECHR to find a violation of the presumption of innocence, whether or not Knox listed that specific allegation in her application. The ECHR will sometimes, as the master of the facts and the law under the Convention, specify violations of the Convention based upon the facts, even when not specifically requested by the applicant.
