Gênese da reforma constitucional do “giusto processo” na Itália

dialnet-ar-18-ART0001219276

dialnet

Dialnet

Dialnet AR

Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, ISSN 2525-510X, null 3, Nº. 2, 2017, pags. 661-688

Portuguese

Giusto processo
evidence
declarative evidence
accusatorial system
confrontation
constitutional court
constitution
Italian criminal procedure
Giusto processo
prova
prova declarativa
sistema acusatório
contraditório
Corte constitucional
Constituição
processo penal italiano

Giusto processo
evidence
declarative evidence
accusatorial system
confrontation
constitutional court
constitution
Italian criminal procedure
Giusto processo
prova
prova declarativa
sistema acusatório
contraditório
Corte constitucional
Constituição
processo penal italiano
Ferrua, Paolo
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).

Article

Ferrua, Paolo

Ferrua, Paolo

Ferrua, Paolo

Gênese da reforma constitucional do “giusto processo” na Itália

Gênese da reforma constitucional do “giusto processo” na Itália

Gênese da reforma constitucional do “giusto processo” na Itália

Gênese da reforma constitucional do “giusto processo” na Itália

Gênese da reforma constitucional do “giusto processo” na Itália

gênese da reforma constitucional do “giusto processo” na itália

2017

https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=6118961

1709746178408579072

dialnet-ar-18-ART00012192762017-10-03Gênese da reforma constitucional do “giusto processo” na ItáliaFerrua, PaoloGiusto processoevidencedeclarative evidenceaccusatorial systemconfrontationconstitutional courtconstitutionItalian criminal procedureGiusto processoprovaprova declarativasistema acusatóriocontraditórioCorte constitucionalConstituiçãoprocesso penal italianoThis 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 processo”. 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 ouro”, 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).2017text (article)application/pdfhttps://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=6118961(Revista) ISSN 2525-510XRevista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, ISSN 2525-510X, null 3, Nº. 2, 2017, pags. 661-688porLICENCIA DE USO: Los documentos a texto completo incluidos en Dialnet son de acceso libre y propiedad de sus autores y/o editores. Por tanto, cualquier acto de reproducción, distribución, comunicación pública y/o transformación total o parcial requiere el consentimiento expreso y escrito de aquéllos. Cualquier enlace al texto completo de estos documentos deberá hacerse a través de la URL oficial de éstos en Dialnet. Más información: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI | INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS STATEMENT: Full text documents hosted by Dialnet are protected by copyright and/or related rights. This digital object is accessible without charge, but its use is subject to the licensing conditions set by its authors or editors. Unless expressly stated otherwise in the licensing conditions, you are free to linking, browsing, printing and making a copy for your own personal purposes. All other acts of reproduction and communication to the public are subject to the licensing conditions expressed by editors and authors and require consent from them. Any link to this document should be made using its official URL in Dialnet. More info: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI