There career separation “that’s not necessary to apply maturity process referred to in Article 111 of the Constitution, also does not make any contribution solution to problem that beset Italian criminal justice”, starting from the “unreasonable duration of trials”. On the other hand, the reforms sought by the government “risk leading to a genetic changes public prosecutor, is destined to appear increasingly as a broken organ just an example of oppressionand its increasingly dangerous consequences”: an “involution” that would lead to “progressive weakening of collateral for suspects and defendants, especially the poor.” That’s my writing 41 professors ordinary, emeritus and associate Criminal procedure in several Italian universities, in an important document (available here) on a draft constitutional law that will be the subject of a referendum in the spring. A position at odds with the board of directors of their professional association – composed almost entirely of academics/lawyers – which in recent days, without consulting the members, was dismissed by a majority vote a support for reform.
According to the council – and according to Justice Minister Carlo Nordio – separating the professional paths of judges and prosecutors serves to guarantee “more coherent and concrete implementation” on the principle of a fair trial. A thesis rejected by the 41 scholars who signed the document: “Strict separation between the functions of accusation, defense, and judgment is an indispensable feature of any procedural system that wishes to be considered authentically accusatory, but be careful and not a simple comparison with European and non-European legal systems as well as a reading of supranational jurisprudence that does not rush to show that no correlation is necessary between procedural models and career structures and, in countries with a strong tradition of accusation, it professional roots from prosecutors, lawyers, and judges it’s a common thing“, we read.
Academics also oppose two other pillars of reform: “Lo doubled from Supreme Council of Justice and introduction dry draw for the professional component”, they write, this risks undermining the protection of autonomy and independence, both for public prosecutors and (and perhaps most importantly) judges”; with regard to the High Disciplinary Court, the new body that is supposed to adjudicate judges’ ethical violations in place of the CSM, the proposed regulations “present significant critical issues in terms of composition and procedural side”. Finally, the 41 professors dispute the fact that “the definition of many fundamental questions”, such as “the method of identifying those eligible for election and the composition of the Disciplinary Tribunal panel, is entrusted to the ordinary law”: thus, they warn, there is a risk that the selection is “conditioned by the current political majority and not meditating enough.”
The article Breaking careers, 41 criminal procedural law professors oppose reform: “It will take away bail from weak defendants” comes from Il Fatto Quotidiano.
