Cass. pen. Sez. Unite, (ud. 10-07-2008) 23-09-2008, n. 36527
"E' applicabile l'indulto (di cui, nella specie, alla L. 31 luglio 2006, n. 241) alle persone condannate all'estero e trasferite in Italia per l'espiazione della pena con la procedura stabilita dalla Convenzione di Strasburgo del 21 marzo 1983 sul trasferimento della persone ordered, ratified and implemented in Italy by Law July 25, 1988, No 334.
Conduct of case 1. - By decision of 07.19.1999, the Court of Appeal of Milan, under the Strasbourg Convention of 21 March 1983 on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons and the effects of 'execution of the sentence in Italy, acknowledged the decision of the Crown Court in Strafford 06.15.1989 (UK), in which NOS was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, resulting in thirty years' imprisonment, the sentence to be executed in the Italian State.
By order of the Court itself declared unenforceable 31/5/2007 at No. pardons under Law No. 241 of 2006 richiamando l'orientamento della giurisprudenza di legittimità che aveva costantemente escluso l'applicabilità dell'indulto alle persone condannate all'estero e trasferite in Italia per l'espiazione della pena ai sensi della citata Convenzione, sul duplice assunto che lo Stato di esecuzione è vincolato alla natura e alla durata della sanzione stabilite dallo Stato di condanna e che la modifica della durata della pena in senso favorevole al condannato è ipotesi eccezionale, prevista dall'art. 12 della Convenzione solo per effetto di "grazia, amnistia e commutazione della pena", ma non di indulto, istituto ivi non contemplato e l diverso dalla commutazione della pena.
2. - Avverso detta ordinanza ha proposto ricorso per cassazione N., who called for its cancellation denouncing the violation of art. 606 cpp, Lett. b)-c)-c) in relation to Articles. 174 Criminal Code, Art. 9, 12 and 14 of the Convention of Strasbourg of March 21, 1983, Art. 672 Code of Criminal Procedure and the Law No 241, 2006.
supports the applicant, even with the next defense is that the expression "commutation of the sentence" referred to in art. 12 are to include a pardon, an institution that has no equivalent in Anglo-Saxon terminology nor in French, if it is always manifested the desire to facilitate the enforcement stage of the foreign court the application of the generality of the benefits they have to effect the reduction of sentence and that are established by legislation both substantive and procedural law of the State condemning both the State in which the sentenced person is transferred in the art. 9 entrusted the responsibility of enforcement.
interpretation differ from that claimed, according to the applicant, would expose the law ratifying the Convention to doubt the constitutionality of subjecting the person sentenced abroad in Italy and transferred to an unreasonably inferior treatment compared to the person judged and condemned in Italy.
3. - The first section, felt obliged to share the solution to the constant address different interpretations of legitimacy, which motivates the inapplicability of the pardon to the convicted person and transferred abroad in Italy with regard to the wording and the exceptional nature of Article. 12 of the Convention on the ground that it in fact, means by the term "pardon, amnesty and commutation of the sentence" any institution in the corresponding individual legal exercise of a power of clemency, either alone or generalized, by order of 12 / 3 - 22/5/2008, there is a situation of potential conflict of case law, referred the decision to the United Sections, to which the appeal was assigned by the first President for today's hearing in closed session.
The Attorney General at the Court, agreeing with the applicant's argument and pointing out the chief objectives of the Convention give input during the execution of the sentence in any more favorable treatment to the offender, amended the earlier conclusions and has asked the court to set aside the order under appeal. Reasons for Decision
1. - The joint sections are called upon to answer the question "whether it should apply the pardon (which, in this case, the L. July 31, 2006, No. 241) and transfer of sentenced persons abroad in Italy for the expiation of pain with the procedure established by the Strasbourg Convention of 21 March 1983 on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, ratified and implemented in Italy by Law 25 July 1988, n. 334.
The question of law the Supreme Court has long expressed interpretative guidance unique in the sense that, under Articles. 9:12 of the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, the benefit is not applicable in favor of the pardon of the convicted person held in Italy and abroad (Cass., Sec. 1 ^, January 29, 2008 No 10266, Nogarin; Sez . 1 ^, 20 December 2007 No 2106, PG proc. Falcone, Sec. 1 ^, 5 December 2007 No. 47 005, Lenses, Sec. 1 ^, 31 October 2007 No 42 420, Now, rv. 237,971; Sez . 1 ^, 25 October 2007 No 40804, PG in proc. Perino, Sec. 1 ^, 11 April 2007 No 19444, Greek, Sec. 6 ^, March 21, 2007 No 17804, Melina, rv. 236,583; Sez . No 19,076 1.14 March 2007, PG in proc. Poma, rv.
238,434, Sec. 1 ^, 23 January 2007 No 17583, Cutrona, RV. 236510, Sec. 4th, December 14, 2000, Di Cesare, RV. 217967, Sec. 1st, February 28, 1997, Giacomazzi, RV. 207188, Sec. 6th, October 7th, 1994, PG in proc. Falci, RV. 199937, Sec. 1st, June 22, 1994, Pileggi, RV. 198,914).
The reasons given in support of the now-established hermeneutic solution can be briefly identified: a) in the bond under Article. 10 of the Convention for the State of enforcement, which should, in principle, conform to the legal nature and duration of the penalty as imposed by the sentencing State; b) entry in order to conclude from the literal fact that Article . 12 of the Convention authorizes the State to implement the change in the length of the sentence in favor of the condemned only in cases of pardon and amnesty or commutation of the sentence, without including the other institution of the pardon, c) unable to assimilate the pardon provided for in institutions 'Art. 12, each with a precise technical meaning and legal d) in exceptional and narrow interpretation of the provision contained in art. 12, therefore not susceptible of interpretation by analogy or extensive.
is added, in one of the most recent elaboration of the theme (Section 1 ^, No. 42420/07, now, cit.), The lemma "switching" has a precise technical meaning into domestic law:
l'art. 174 c.p., stabilisce che "l'indulto ... condona in tutto o in parte la pena inflitta, ovvero la commuta in una altra specie di pena stabilita dalla legge", con l'effetto alternativo di estinguere, in tutto o in parte, la pena (condono), ovvero di trasformarla in un'altra sanzione meno afflittiva prevista dalla legge (commutazione); sicchè l'art. 12 della Convenzione farebbe riferimento solo a una delle due forme dell'indulto, la commutazione della pena, ma non anche al condono, istituto questo peculiare del nostro ordinamento e non comune alla generalità degli ordinamenti degli Stati firmatari della Convenzione.
2. - E però, deve darsi atto che la linea interpretativa stabilmente seguita dalla Court of Cassation is much criticized by the doctrine and has not met with unanimous Court on the merits, not lacking in that decision (App. Caltanissetta, 05.09.2002, 30 ^; App Rome, 21/9/2006 , B. App and Catanzaro, 1/12/2006, Vizza, in Foro It., 2007, 2 ^, 60), in open and informed dissent from the Court's legitimacy, said positions in favor of the pardon application transferred to the condemned in Italy for the expiation of punishment imposed abroad. Sections
United, like a careful assessment of the reasons given in support of either argument, meditate properly with regard to the comments and criticisms della Sezione rimettente sia del Procuratore Generale, ritengono che l'indirizzo, pur costantemente enunciato finora dalla giurisprudenza di legittimità, non possa essere condiviso e che l'opposta soluzione sia sorretta da argomenti maggiormente affidabili sul piano logico e sistematico.
3. - Mette conto preliminarmente di sottolineare che il metodo interpretativo da adottare per l'esatta ricostruzione del contenuto delle norme della Convenzione di Strasburgo del 21 marzo 1983 sul trasferimento delle persone condannate deve ispirarsi alle direttive contenute nella Convenzione di Vienna sul diritto dei trattati, stipulata il 23 maggio 1969, ratificata e resa esecutiva in Italia con L. 12 febbraio 1974, n. 112, che stabilisce criteri ermeneutici non similar to those used for the interpretation of provisions of Procedure.
With particular regard to the provisions contained in Article. 31 (General rule of interpretation "), art. 32 (" Supplementary means of interpretation ") and Art. 33 (" Interpretation of treaties authenticated in two or more languages) of section 3 of Part 3 ^ of the Convention, on " interpretation of treaties ", note the following criteria: any expression of a treaty must be interpreted in" good faith "is presumed, unless otherwise simple intention of the parties, that the objective meaning of a given period coincides with the" ordinary meaning "the same;
this must be sought in the "context" and in the light of the 'goal' and 'object' of the Treaty, the "context" includes, in addition to the text, the preamble and any other agreement or instrument to it equated between the parties, such as Explanatory Report;
supplementary means of interpretation are allowed to obtain confirmation or clarification of the meaning resulting from the hermeneutic conducted on the basis of the main criteria.
peacefully is also considered as constituting a general rule of treaty interpretation, implicitly included in the anus. 31 par. 1, the principle ut res magis quam valent Pereat, depending on which of several meanings to a particular expression, it must preference to those which allow the rule to produce an effect, rather than making it unnecessary, and adds that all the principles listed should be considered as a whole, can not be regarded as complete an interpretation that excludes one of them, having everyone together, help to determine the exact meaning of a single provision.
4. - The Strasbourg Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, adopted March 21, 1983, was submitted for parliamentary ratification was ongoing to examine the government bill "effects of foreign criminal judgments and enforcement of foreign criminal judgments Italian "presented in the 9 th Legislature (S/1741), reintroduced in the next Legislature (S/774) and then abandoned the outcome of the ratification of the Convention and to secure the approval of the new code of ritual. It should be noted, though it may be relevant to the historical reconstruction of the problem of interpretation at issue, which is included in the bill, among other districts, 20 that "are governed by Italian law the extinction of penalties resulting from the recognition the foreign decision and the granting of grace, amnesty and the pardon. "
The Strasbourg Convention is an instrument developed by the Council of Europe in order (expressed both in the Preamble and in the Explanatory Report) to facilitate the transfer to the State citizenship of persons convicted abroad by means of a simple, fast and flexible.
cooperation, in a uniform framework that subject to individual agreements between Member States in a simplified form in turn affected the decision on the transfer of enforcement, is directed to the proper administration of justice and social reintegration and rehabilitation of convicted in the social environment of origin (purpose, this, that the Explanatory Report, para. 23, defines "primary purpose" of the Convention), noting that the repatriation of prisoners in the State of nationality, conditional on the consent of the prisoner and justified for humanitarian reasons (difficulty comunicazione, alienazione dalla cultura e dalle tradizioni locali, assenza di contatti con i familiari), deve comunque costituire "the best interest of the prisoners as well as of the governments" (Rapporto esplicativo, par. 9).
Una volta raggiunto tra gli Stati interessati l'accordo per il trasferimento della persona condannata, l'art. 9 della Convenzione indica due, alternativi, meccanismi opzionali di riconoscimento della sentenza ai fini dell'esecuzione: la continuazione (art. 10) o la conversione della pena (art. 11).
Lo Stato di esecuzione, mentre con la prima procedura prosegue idealmente l'esecuzione della condanna già iniziata presso lo Stato che l'ha pronunciata, pur con taluni possibili adattamenti, con la seconda procedura di riconoscimento ("ex equatur") sostituisce il titolo esecutivo originario con una propria decisione, senza entrare nel merito dei fatti accertati, così che l'esecuzione non è più basata direttamente sulla sentenza dello Stato di condanna.
Nella L. 25 luglio 1988, n. 334, di ratifica ed esecuzione della Convenzione è stato indicato (art. 3) nella "continuazione" il meccanismo scelto dall'Italia, mentre la L. 3 luglio 1989, n. 257, recante, tra l'altro, norme di attuazione della Convenzione sul trasferimento delle persone condannate, stabilisce che neldeterminare la pena la corte d'appello applica i criteri previsti nell'art. 10 della Convenzione (art. 3, comma 2) e che tale corte is equivalent, to all intents and purposes, the judge who pronounced sentence in ordinary criminal proceedings (Article 4, paragraph 1):
measures, they, who are then integrated with the art. Cpp 738, paragraph 1 and to which "... the penalties resulting from the recognition are carried out according to Italian law." 4.1. - Whatever the option chosen, the execution of the sentence is governed by state law enforcement (art. 9. Par. 3):
reference which is to be interpreted "in a wide sense" au sense large ", so to understand "for example, the rules for eligibility for parole, since it must be clear that the Directive requires that" the State Administering Alone Shall Be Competent to take all appropriate Decisions "(Explanatory Report, para. 47).
Article. 10 to turn down, as to the mechanism of continuation, that the State shall be bound to the legal nature and term of the sentence as determined by the sentencing State. It implies "that the sentence be carried out, subject to any subsequent decision of the executing State, for example on conditional release or reduction of the sentence" remission "remise de peine"), corresponds the amount of the original sentence, taking into account the period already suffered and any reduction gained in the sentencing State before the transfer "(Explanatory Report, para. 49). Expectations the differences between the penal systems of the States Parties, the Convention also allows those who opt for the continuation of "adapt" the sentence ("merely to sanction the ADAPT"), provided it meets certain limits: the punishment should fit well, possibly , correspond to the tax, not having in any case be more severe in nature or duration, and must not exceed the prescribed maximum penalty prescribed by law for the same conduct by the State of execution (Explanatory Report, para.
50). Orca
the relationship between the rule laid down by art. 9, par. And the constraint imposed by Article 3. 10 for executing State to respect the amount of the penalty imposed by the sentencing State, this Court has repeatedly stated that if it complied with "the sentence" in the adaptation of the sentence to prison and the treatment modalities for measures relating to it at the stage must, however, apply the legislation of the State of execution (Cass ., Sec. 1 ^, March 30, 1999, Di Carlo, rv.
213,490 and Sec. 6th, October 7th, 2003 No 42996, Mazzucchetti, rv. 228 190, in terms of early release and, respectively, in custody test). The only prohibition concerns the applicability of a measure more serious nature or duration of the sanction imposed in the sentencing State, while there is no prohibition to impose a sentence in a less severe than that of the State condemning (Cass., Sec. 6th, January 13th, 1999 No 180, PG in proc. Van Dijck, rv. 212568).
The scope of the rule set out in Article. 9, par. 3 of the Convention may also be noted the Report to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe Recommendation 1527 (2001) of 27 June 2001, approved January 23, 2003 (doc. CM / AS (2003) Rec 1527 final, Annex, paragraph 9 , iii), with whom he called upon the Committee:
to clarify that the Convention is not designated to be used for the immediate release of the convicted person once repatriated, to request the Contracting States not to refuse the transfer to because of the possibility of the offender to benefit from early release in the executing State;
to specify the minimum sentence that must be served (for example, 50%), under which states may legitimately refuse the transfer, but above which should facilitate it.
the basis of this recommendation, there was, among other things, the Report of the Committee on Legal and Human Rights of the Council of Europe on June 7, 2001 (Doc. No. 9117 of 07.06.2001 "Operation of the Council of Europe. Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons - critical analysis and recomendations, part 2, p. D, par. 24 et seq.), which illustrate the problems related to differences in the way of execution of the sentence under the laws of the States concerned, rilevava che il meccanismo della Convenzione comporta, sulla base dell'art. 9 par. 3, che la pena da scontare possa essere ridotta rispetto a quella imposta in origine: ciò in quanto l'esecuzione è governativa dalla legge dello Stato che accoglie la persona trasferita, che è l'unico competente ad adottare tutte le decisioni "on remission of sentence, parole, early release etc.", determinando un trattamento più clemente e la liberazione anticipata del condannato.
4.2. - L'art. 12 della Convenzione prevede che ogni Parte può accordare "pardon, amnesty or commutation of the sentencs" - "la gace, l'amnistie ou la commutation de la peine", conformemente alla Costituzione e alle proprie leggi. Il Rapporto esplicativo, par. 59, chiarisce che, benchè lo Stato di esecuzione sia l'unico responsabile per l'esecuzione della pena, "inclusa ogni decisione correlata (ad esempio, la decisione di sospendere l'esecuzione)", i relativi provvedimenti possono essere accordati anche dallo Stato di condanna, sicchè la norma costituisce un'eccezione alla regola stabilita dall'art. 9, par. 3 della Convenzione.
Sull'ampiezza del potere attribuito ad entrambi gli Stati dall'art. 12, mentre l'Italia non ha espresso alcuna riserva, hanno avanzato dichiarazioni procedurali soltanto l'Azerbaijan, per cui le decisioni riguardanti l'applicazione di "pardons and amnestoes" in relazione a sentenze pronunciate in tale Stato dovranno essere concordate con the competent authorities, and Germany, which has reserved the right to transfer a convict only if, on the basis of a statement made on a case by case basis or in general by the State of enforcement, "pardon" will be granted the latter ' last only in agreement with the competent German authorities.
Article. 14 of the Convention provides that the State should stop implementing the execution of the sentence when the sentencing State has informed of any measure that will cut off the enforceability of the same, such as those referred to in art. 12 (Explanatory Report, para. 63).
In any case, the executing State shall inform the sentencing State on execution status (Article 15), particularly when it considers enforcement of the sentence ended, or if it is "served sentence, remission, conditional release, pardon, amnesty, commutation" - "condamnatio purgeè, remise, conditionelle liberation, grace, amnesty, commutation (Explanatory Report, para. 64).
4.3. - In order to improve cooperation arrangements contained in the Strasbourg Convention of 1983, the program of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition in criminal matters between the European Union countries, was drawn to the proposal - not yet formally approved (for the most recent text see doc. No 5602/08 of 21 April 2008 - COPEN 12) - framework decision "on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (EU Council Doc No . 5597/05 of 24.01.2005). In it certain explicit rules already contained in those agreements, such as enforcement of the sentence in accordance with the laws of the State of execution (Article 17), noting that the authorities of the executing State alone shall be competent to decide on the "mode of execution and to determine all the measures relating thereto, including the early release or parole. When required, sentencing State may obtain information regarding the relevant provisions for early release or probation, to revoke the transfer request. On the measures of clemency, art. 19 confirms that "an amnesty or pardon may be granted by the issuing State and the State of enforcement."
Identical provisions are contained in the Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA, approved February 24, 2005 and on the application of the principle of mutual recognition of financial penalties in relation to which the L. February 25, 2008, No 34 (Community Act 2007) shall bear the delegation to the Government for the adoption of legislative implementation of the decree, in the sense of 'predict that any amnesty or pardon may be granted by the State for a decision by the Italian State "(Article 32, read. m).
4.4. - The regulatory framework regarding the transfer of sentenced persons to be integrated Finally, with the recall of certain provisions contained in bilateral treaties signed by Italy.
In cooperation treaty for the enforcement of criminal judgments with Thailand on 28 February 1984, ratified by Law 27 July 1988, No. 369, states that the receiving State may apply its own laws and procedures governing the manner of execution of imprisonment or other forms of restriction of liberty, probation and "words" as well as those that regulate the "reduction of terms of imprisonment" because of actions of "words", or conditional release of "other" type of measure (or Com "). It also provides that it "also" to the State transferring the power to pardon the offender or commute his sentence.
In the treaty with Peru on 24 November 1994, ratified by Law March 24, 1999, No 90, provides in Article. 10 that the Transferring State reserves the right to pardon or grant amnesty or pardon to the offender and the sentence of the person transferred shall be carried out in accordance with the rules of the penitentiary system of the recipient, including benefits contemplati dalla sua legislazione e quelli concessi dallo Stato trasferente.
Nel trattato con Hong Kong del 18 dicembre 1999, ratificato con L. 11 luglio 2002, n. 149, si stabilisce all'art. 6 che si applicano le leggi e le procedure dello Stato di esecuzione in ordine alla riduzione del periodo di reclusione, ai provvedimenti di "parole", remissione, commutazione, liberazione condizionale ed "altro".
Nel trattato per l'esecuzione delle sentenze penali tra Italia e Cuba del 9 giugno 1998, ratificato con L. 18 luglio 2000, n. 207, si prevede all'art. 12 che "ognuno degli Stati potrà concedere grazia, amnistia o indulto alla persona condannata, in conformità alle sue leggi, comunicandolo immediatamente all'altro Stato". 5. - Tanto premesso, le Sezioni Unite ritengono, in primo luogo, che il dato letterale che fa leva sull'omessa menzione dell'indulto nel testo dell'art. 12 della Convenzione di Strasburgo del 1983 non assuma decisivo rilievo ermeneutico, atteso che: - la Convenzione è redatta nelle due lingue ufficiali del Consiglio di Europa; - la traduzione in lingua italiana non è ufficiale; - l'"indulto" - "condono", totale o parziale, della pena ai sensi dell'art. 174 c.p., comma 1 (diverso dall'indulto meramente commutativo, pure unitariamente delineato nella medesima norma), a differenza della grazia, dell'amnistia e della commutazione della pena, corrisponde ad un istituto ignoto ovvero definito in termini non analoghi negli laws of other States Parties, in particular the United Kingdom and France.
The Explanatory Report makes clear, in fact, that is within the powers of the state of implementation of any decision to "remission of the penalty" - the remise de peine "(par. 49 and 64) and it is interesting to note that this expression has been translated the notion of "amnesty" in some EU documents drawn up in Italian (official language), for example, in the proposal for a Council Decision establishing the European information system on the System (ECRIS: doc. No. COM ( 2008) 332 of 27 May 2008), including the common parameters of accidents on the sentencing measures subject to registration, is provided in versione italiana, l'indulto (remission of the penalty" - "remise de peine"), oltre alla grazia e all'amnistia.
Del pari, l'indulto previsto dalla legge italiana è identificato nella "remise de peine" dalla giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti dell'uomo (Cedu, 13 maggio 1980, Artico c. Italia, par. 45;
Cedu, 10 luglio 2003, Grava c. Italia, par. 31 ss.; Cedu, 2 marzo 2006, Pilla c. Italia, par. 19), come in altri documenti di fonte internazionale.
Definisce "remise de peine" (d'origine parlamentaire) l'indulto secondo la legge italiana uno studio comparativo condotto dal Senato francese nel 2007 sugli istituti demenziali previsti in taluni Stati europei (Les documents de travail du Senat, series Legislation Comparée, amnesty et la grace, doc. LC 177, October 1, 2007), noting that in Italy and Portugal are expected to form part of the remises de Parliament, similar to the "collective grace" (pardon coltective), which is traditionally granted by the President of the Republic on the occasion of the French national holiday involves a "remise de peine partiell" for those detained or sentenced to be calculated on the sentence to be served, according to that study, also in Belgium and the Netherlands have been used by a collective, granted by the King and the French Court of Cassation (Cour de Cassation, Chambre Criminelle, March 10, 1998, No. 97-81151), in relation to the transfer of a sentenced the United Kingdom, argued that, according to the ARA. 9, par. 3, and 10, par. 1 of the Convention of Strasbourg, the remaining sentence to be served will apply French law, excluding, however, in this case, but soloratione temporis, the application of a "remise de peine du Décret de grace Resultant collective" issued prior to the transfer of the convicted in France .
In particular, about the figure of the "collective pardon", the documents of the Council of Europe that this institution, distinguished by the amnesty, is expected not only in Italy (as defined in the pardon under Law No. 241 of 2006) in Austria, Armenia, Belgium, France, Moldova, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Macedonia.
I "collective pardon", sono presi in considerazione nell'Appendice par. 23 alla Raccomandazione R(99)22 adottata il 30 settembre 1999 dal Comitato dei Ministri del Consiglio d'Europa, riguardante il sovrapopolamento delle carceri, che, nell'incoraggiare lo sviluppo di misure per ridurre la durata delle pene da scontare, indica la preferenza per misure individuali come il provvedimento di parole, rispetto a misure collettive per lo svuotamento delle carceri (amnesties, collective pardons).
L'eterogeneità degli istituti di clemenza previsti dalle legislazioni dei Paesi europei è stata rilevata, d'altra parte, sia dalla Commissione europea nel Libro verde sull'avvicinamento, il reciproco riconoscimento e l'esecuzione delle criminal sanctions in the European Union (doc. No. COM (2004) 334 of 30 April 2004, para.
3.1.8., p. 36.), that "the laws of Member States differ on amnesty and pardon significantly, both the Attorney General of the Court of Justice of the CEC in the Opinion on 8 April 2008 in Case 297/07 G (Part D, para. 80), concerning the question of the principle of ne bis in idem failure to execute the sentence due to "amnesty." By this term, said the Attorney General, is defined in a broad sense, "any measure of pardon or remission of punishment, including grace" (translated in Italian "pardon" from the original text in English), which is characterized by individuality, unlike other measures of clemency addressed to a group of people, without however altering the common effect of extinctive right to punish "in all states.
It 'also important to note that Portugal, which has a similar institution of clemency all'indulto (so-called parliamentary pardon or general) provided in the law on international judicial cooperation in criminal matters (L. 31 August 1999, No 144 et seq. modd., art. 101) that in case of transfer of enforcement in Portugal, amnesty, the "perdao generic" and pardon may be granted by both states.
Ultimately, it is clear comparativistic the survey clearly not perfect overlap of the institutes of amnesty and pardon, covering their knowledge in diverse situations all different countries, so that the mere textual data, which relies on the failure to mention the indult art. 12 of the Convention, it does not have a real impact hermeneutics to the outcome of the legal question at issue.
The systematic reconstruction of the true scope of the framework is rather to be entrusted to the most solid hermeneutical criteria established by the "equivalence of legal institutions" and the "ratio" of the rules laid down by the Convention, in view of rationality and the organic system based on supranational and multilateral sources and in accordance with the method of interpretation can be deduced by the directives of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 6. - On the other hand, the contrary view of the pardon application is not supported even by the alleged exceptional and narrow interpretation of the provision in art. 12 of the Convention, since the legal regime of enforcement for the prisoners transferred to Italy is designed along the lines of principle laid down by art. 9, par. 3 that "the execution of the sentence is governed by the law of the executing State and that State has sole competence to take all appropriate measures in this regard and the procedures under which execution of the sentence must conform to the fundamental principles of the Italian State.
that the discipline of Articles. 9 and 10 of the Convention is without prejudice to the law of the executing State, its principles and its constitutional rules has been categorically stated by the Constitutional Court (Corte cost., Sent. No. 73 of 2001), which called for rule, in the matter of transfer from the United States of an Italian citizen BS on the constitutionality of Law July 25, 1988, No 334, Art. 2, in that, in applying the 1983 Convention, would depart by the conclusion of the transfer agreements, the implementation of institutions to protect of fundamental human rights, thus rebuilding the array and the spirit of the Strasbourg Convention: a) the sentencing State may potestative pay or withhold consent to the transfer of the offender, if he considers that the legal regime for enforcement in the country's potential execution, respectively, whether or not substantially equivalent to that provided by its legal system and, because it can make its own determinations with knowledge of the facts, be informed about the character of this regime in the executing State; b) the executing State in turn, must maintain the legal nature and duration of the penalty, what is provided in the State system of sentencing, "but non al di là del limite superato il quale si determinerebbe una rottura del proprio ordinamento", essendo possibile per evitare tale conseguenza, in caso di disomogeneità degli ordinamenti, operare l'adattamento che la salvaguardia dei principi fondamentali di quello interno, in particolare le sue regole costituzionali, rende strettamente necessario; c) è chiaramente esclusa, tuttavia, "l'eventualità che il soggetto trasferito sia sottoposto a un vero e proprio regime di esecuzione speciale e personale, concernente i diritti, oltre che i doveri, che lo riguardano come detenuto".
Va segnalato al riguardo che alla B. è stato applicato l'indulto ex L. n. 241 del 2006 dalla Corte d'appello di Roma, con ordinanza irrevocabile del 21/9/2006, cit., e che il Ministero della Giustizia, sulla richiesta di collaborazione avanzata in un caso analogo dalla Corte d'appello di Caltanissetta, aveva già espresso l'avviso, con nota del 4 dicembre 2001, che la mancata indicazione dell'indulto all'interno della norma dell'art. 12 della Convenzione si giustifica, secondo gli uffici ministeriali, con il fatto che non è previsto, nelle legislazioni dei Paesi aderenti alla Convenzione di Strasburgo, un istituto che produca gli stessi effetti nè si rinviene, sul piano della terminologia francese e anglosassone, un'espressione equivalente, non potendosi escludere che nel termine "commutazione" vada ricompreso anche l'indulto, in quanto "appare logicamente undeniable that the longer contain the least ".
The thesis supports the exclusion of the exhaustive nature of the guidelines laid down by Article. 12, due to the simplification of formulas, including necessarily equivalent institutions in a multilateral context, is, on the other hand, decisive support in the numerous, precise and unambiguous indications of the Explanatory Report.
Indeed - in the par. 47, stated that the criterion for the execution of the sentence is governed by state law enforcement, it is stated that the reference to that law should be interpreted broadly, so as to include, for example, "conditional release, a measure also not listed in Art. 12 of the Convention, - par. 59 warns that the only recognition in the State of enforcement responsibility for the implementation of the sentence is understood, for example, the right to have them suspended, - par. 64, with reference to Article. 15 of the Convention relating to the information on death penalty, a list of various causes of the cessation of enforcement (for example, "served their sentences, the same remission, parole, pardon, amnesty, commutation) some of which are certainly not attributable to individual institutions mentioned in Article. 12. 7. - At the end of the previous surveys believe the United Sections of exegesis that is not responsive to corretta interpretazione dell'art. 12, nè tantomeno allo spirito e alle finalità della Convenzione di Strasburgo, la tesi che esclude l'applicazione dell'indulto in base alla pretesa natura eccezionale e tassativa della disciplina ivi contenuta.
Puntuali e decisivi argomenti logici e sistematici militano, per contro, a favore della tesi che - in contrasto con la soluzione accolta dalla pur costante giurisprudenza di legittimità - interpreta il citato art. 12 nel senso che gli Stati contraenti hanno fatto riferimento alla grazia, all'amnistia e alla commutazione della pena non con l'intento di limitare i benefici concedibili ai condannati, ma per designare qualsiasi, equivalente, istituto che, nell'ambito dei singoli ordinamenti, amount to the exercise of a power of clemency, whether individual or general, directed to the substantial reduction of sentence.
E 'was clearly observed in this regard that amnesty can be represented as a concentric circle is larger than all'indulto, the latter being included in the first, so that, for the purposes of Article discipline. 12, draw distinctions between the two schools is not a reasonable means of discriminating, without any prejudice, plausible rationale for a solution that permits the application of the amnesty (which extinguishes the crime and, consequently, the corresponding penalty), and simultaneously , deny the application of the pardon, which ha effetti ben più contenuti, incidendo soltanto sulla pena.
Va infine rilevato che l'eventuale interpretazione di segno difforme potrebbe indurre ad un rilievo d'incostituzionalità della legge di ratifica della Convenzione, in quanto esporrebbe il cittadino italiano condannato all'estero che sia stato trasferito in Italia per l'esecuzione della condanna ad un trattamento (irragionevolmente) deteriore rispetto agli altri detenuti, italiani e stranieri, i quali potrebbero beneficiare nella fase esecutiva della generalità degli istituti demenziali e dei benefici previsti dalle rispettive legislazioni: e ciò nonostante lo scopo dichiarato del trasferimento del condannato che è quello di favorirne il reinserimento sociale nel Pese d'origine.
8. - Di talchè, aderendo alla soluzione ermeneutica prospettata sia dalla Sezione rimettente che dal Procuratore Generale, può enunciarsi il seguente principio di diritto: "E' applicabile l'indulto (di cui, nella specie, alla L. 31 luglio 2006, n. 241) alle persone condannate all'estero e trasferite in Italia per l'espiazione della pena con la procedura stabilita dalla Convenzione di Strasburgo del 21 marzo 1983 sul trasferimento della persone condannate, ratificata e resa esecutiva in Italia con L. 25 luglio 1988, n. 334".
E, poichè la ratio decidendi dell'ordinanza impugnata non risulta coerente col principio di diritto suindicato, il ricorso va accolto disponendosi, di conseguenza, l'annullamento with referral of the contested measure. PQM
Cancel the order under appeal and refer for further examination to the Court of Appeal in Milan.
Decided in Rome, July 10, 2008.
lodged with the Registrar 23 September 2008
0 comments:
Post a Comment