From judges and criminal lawyers, a big green light was given to the bill, proposed by Enrico Costa (Forza Italia), which stipulatespublication obligations from news about last sentence liberation. Yesterday, from the hearing held in the House of Representatives, in the Judiciary Committee, a fundamental agreement emerged with the aim of the proposal aimed at strengthening the Guarantor’s powers for the protection of personal data, giving him the possibility to intervene when, following a request from a defendant released with an irrevocable sentence or from an acquitted suspect, director o the person in charge of the newspaper, radio, television or online publication does not publish the pronunciation or does not do it in the same way and the same evidence given in the news of the commencement of criminal proceedings or in statements, statements and documents which are the subject of the trial.
Interested parties, if the director or manager of the newspaper does not fulfill the provisions, can send a report to Guarantor which, in turn, will be decided within forty-eight hours of receipt.
The right to good fame
With other related bills the right to get good fame and confidentiality for the benefit of the recipient of the sentence of release or discontinuation or order of dismissal. The latter party has the right, within 12 months of the announcement of the action, to lack of visibility in search engines and on the internet all information and all press articles that refer to the suspect/defendant’s previous condition and personal data reported based on a court order.
For the vice president of the Association of Judges Marcello De Chiara, «these are measures that respond to the objectives shared by the Association and deemed worthy of protection. However, I would like to emphasize that the term “acquitted suspect” is inappropriate because there is no equivalent in the legislation. And then we believe that concept liberation presupposes the formulation of accusations that are not necessarily brought against the suspect. It would be better to refer to the definition of the person to whom the order of dismissal was issued.”
The cost
As for publication costsAccording to De Chiara, the solutions identified for the review of the sentences should be adopted, at the expense of the Fines Fund. However, Costa disagrees and believes that it makes more sense to let the costs be borne by the publisher, although certainly not as a result of an admission of liability, which is no longer in the presumption of regulatory intervention.
