Our Services - Prism Centre AURA

Supreme Criminal Appeal 3674/2011

Criminal Appeal 3674/2011
The journalist should not do processes: what the courts!
The journalist should not influence the key player in colpevolista.A each his own: the investigators responsible for carrying out the investigations to the court to determine the truth, the task of the journalist give notice, in the exercise of the right to inform but not to influence the collettività.13.2.2011

Cassation, sez. V Penal 10/27/2010 - 01/02/2011 No 3674

Conduct of case

With sentence 09/21/2009, the Court of Appeal of Rome, in the reform of the court's ruling S.5.06 the same branch, said not having to take legal action against RTC for the death of the accused, confirmed, in respect of GHP, the declaration of extinction for statute of limitations for defamation to the detriment of BS. GH defender has lodged an appeal for the following reasons: 1. violation of the law with reference to Article. Cpp 129, paragraph 2, for failure to recognize the outcome of freedom of the press. The Court of Appeal has recognized the merits of the defense argument, that the correspondence between what is narrated (the statements of the collaborator with justice, the financier Ra.) And what happened does not affect the fact that those statements were contained in an official report secret. He also recognized that the control over the veracity of the news should not extend to the veracity of reported the collaborator with justice, but only to the correspondence between the content and the text of the article. From this premise did not draw the logical conclusion on the evidence of proof that the disputed fact is not a crime, for exonerating the exercise of freedom of the press. He however noted that considerations were contained in statements taken from other other parties involved in the investigation into alleged funding of the mafia group Fininvest. These additional considerations appear directly to validate the credibility of the declarant, realizing the function of feedback, which must be called to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court. According to the applicant, this reasoning is self-contradictory: the freedom of the press is also exerted by informing readers that, in the same survey, there are other statements that are to be linked with the first already mentioned. Given that these other statements were accurately reported, evidence of the truth of the facts should be considered obvious, hence the evidence of the cause of justification, as laid down in Art. Cpp 129, paragraph 2. 2. lack of reasoning: the court did not explain the reasons for which best reflect the statements of Ra. in exercise of the freedom of the press and, instead, best reflect or have other statements reported the contents of other documents (listed in detail and filed in this case) precludes the configurability of the justifications, at least in terms of "evidence." The apparent illogicality of the grounds of the lack of feedback on each step, and Article lack of indication of any of the profiles of its defamatory affermazioni.Motivi decisioneIl of action does not deserve accoglimento.L 'extenuating circumstance invoked in this process is those involving the exercise of the right to inform the public on the progress of judicial investigations against other subsidiaries, namely the right to report legal proceedings. E 'interest of citizens to be informed of any violations of criminal and civil rules, know and control the progress of the investigation and the reaction of the organs of the state before the illegality in order to be able to conduct assessments on the state aware of the institutions and the level of legality that characterizes the rulers and the ruled, in a particular historical moment. According to a shared interpretative guidance, the right to report news, judicial or otherwise, falls under the broader category of subjective public rights relating to freedom of thought and the right of citizens to be informed so that they can make informed choices in of social life. And 'the right of society to receive information on who was involved in a proceeding criminal or civil, especially if the players have positions in social, political or judicial. Slope of criminal investigations and court findings against a citizen, they can not be granted the right to protect its reputation when the limits of freedom of the press are respected, the lesion loses its character as antigiuridicità. It should however be noted that the reputation of the person involved in criminal investigations and is not protected with respect to statements of facts and the expression of critical opinions, as long as they are in connection with the operation of the process. That falls in the exercise of freedom of the press to report court proceedings investigations and proceedings by the State censors coming, but not allowed to carry out reconstruction, analysis, evaluations tend to precede and complement activities of law enforcement officers, regardless of the results of these activities. E 'therefore in stark contrast to the right and duty to tell the facts already occurred, without indulging in narratives and assessments "for future reference, the work of the journalist who confuse news about events that occurred on prognosis and future events. In doing so, he, independently, suggests and anticipates the evolution and outcome of investigations into key culprits, compared with no beginning and no official investigation concluded, without being able to demonstrate the reliability of these investigations and private correspondence to the historical truth of their outcome. It offers citizens a process agarantista, before which the citizen concerned, as the only guarantee of protection, the lawsuit for diffamazione.E 'therefore fully agree with the decision of the contested decision, where, in this case, exclude the evidence of proper exercise of freedom of the press, institutionally recognized for information of events have already happened: the reporter's statements integrated with other data source finding a match, making the investigation and evaluation function called to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court. E 'therefore fully consistent with the findings of the proceedings and their rational evaluation, the conclusion of the court on the merits, that the published text can not be considered an aseptic reproduction of statements - regardless of their privacy - Ra., but an articulate speech, including other historical data, tends to support unequivocally the truth the content of these, compared with their ongoing investigations to ascertain this verità.A each his own: the investigators responsible for carrying out the investigations to the court to determine the truth, the journalist with the task of giving notice exercise of the right to inform, but not to influence the collettività.L 'lack of truth of the facts narrated - funding from the ascendant mafia manager of information and entertainment television-smear involves the apparent charge of the narrative and the total absence of evidence to the proper exercise of judicial reporting. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs and the applicant to pay the court costs and to pay the costs incurred by the plaintiff, paid by a total of € 1200.00, as well as accessories for legge.PQMRigetta the appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the costs and to pay the costs incurred by the plaintiff in a position, paid by a total of € 1200.00, as well as accessories for the law.

Our Services - Prism Centre AURA

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Hammerhead 150 Cc Gtr

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Vicodin Withdrawal Remedies Help

Rubbermaid Configurations Closetmaid