Common Developments and Deficiencies of the Domestic Approach to Participatory Safeguards in Criminal Proceedings

Ruggeri, Stefano

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-54573-8_6

Common Developments and Deficiencies of the Domestic Approach to Participatory Safeguards in Criminal Proceedings

Stefano Ruggeri²

Chapter
First Online: 13 April 2017

246 Accesses

Abstract

The comparative analysis of the developments that have occurred in Italy and Brazil in order to enhance participatory safeguards for private parties in criminal proceedings highlights various common lines. As noted, the Brazilian 1941 code was largely inspired by the Italian codification of 1930. The subsequent history of both criminal justice systems was the constant (albeit not always linear) attempt to depart from this starting point and therefore from the strong inquisitorial tradition that had long characterised the Italian and Brazilian criminal procedural law. Yet Brazil is still governed by the old 1941 codification, whereas in 1988 Italy enacted a new code of criminal procedure, after the failed attempt to launch a new codification in the 1970s.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 149.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 199.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 199.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Cf. Chapter 2, respectively, F.II.1. and F.III.2.
2.
Chapter 2, J.III.1.
3.
Chapter 3, B.
4.
On both issues see extensively Chapter 16.
5.
Chapter 2, G.II.2.
6.
Chapter 3, D.II.
7.
Giacomolli (2014), p. 12ff. As to Italian criminal justice, see the fundamental contribution of Conso (1969).
8.
Chapter 3, B.
9.
Chapter 2, A.
10.
Chapter 2, B.I.
11.
Chapter 2, B.II.2.
12.
Chapter 3, B.
13.
Ibid.
14.
Chapter 2, B.II.1.
15.
Chapter 3, B.
16.
Chapter 2, E.I.
17.
Chapter 3, C.
18.
Chapter 2, C.I.
19.
Chapter 3, B.
20.
Chapter 2, B.II.2.
21.
Chapter 3, B.
22.
Chapter 2, C.I.
23.
Chapter 2, C.II.
24.
Chapter 2, C.I.
25.
Chapter 3, B.
26.
Chapter 3, C.
27.
Chapter 2, H.II.2.
28.
Chapter 2, C.II.
29.
Ibid.
30.
Chapter 3, C.
31.
Chapter 2, C.II.
32.
Chapter 3, C.
33.
Chapter 2, D.I.
34.
Ibid.
35.
Of a different opinion Tourinho Filho (2010), I vol., p. 163.
36.
Chapter 3, D.I.
37.
Chapter 3, D.I.
38.
Art. 412 CCP-Italy.
39.
Chapter 3, D.I.
40.
Chapter 3, D.I.
41.
Art. 411 CCP-Italy.
42.
Chapter 2, D.I.
43.
Lopes Jr (2017), p. 726.
44.
Art. 396 CCP-Brazil.
45.
Lopes Jr (2017), p. 727f.
46.
Chapter 2, E.II.3.
47.
CConst, 131/1995.
48.
Arts. 178(b) and 179 CCP-Italy.
49.
Chapter 2, D.II.1.
50.
Ibid.
51.
Ibid.
52.
Art. 17 CCP-Brazil.
53.
Chapter 3, D.II.
54.
Ibid.
55.
Art. 28 CCP-Brazil.
56.
Chapter 2, D.II.1.
57.
Art. 397 CCP-Brazil.
58.
Lopes Jr (2017), p. 733f.
59.
Art. 400 CCP-Brazil.
60.
Art. 425 CCP-Italy.
61.
Art. 422 CCP-Italy.
62.
For some criticism on this mechanism see Cordero (2012), p. 914f.
63.
Arts. 421(2) and 422(4) CCP-Italy.
64.
Chapter 3, E.I.
65.
Ibid.
66.
Chapter 2, E.I.
67.
Chapter 3, E.I.
68.
Chapter 2, E.I.
69.
Chapter 2, E.III.
70.
Chapter 3, E.I.
71.
Art. 335 CCP-Italy.
72.
Chapter 2, E.II.1.
73.
Ibid.
74.
Chapter 16, D.III.1.a.bb.
75.
Chapter 2, E.II.2.
76.
Chapter 2, E.II.1.
77.
Chapter 3, E.I.
78.
Chapter 3, C.
79.
Chapter 2, E.II.2.
80.
Chapter 3, E.I.
81.
Chapter 2, E.II.3.
82.
Chapter 2, F.II.1.
83.
Chapter 2, F.II.2.
84.
Chapter 3, E.II.
85.
Ibid.
86.
Art. 260 CCP-Brazil.
87.
Art. 490 CCP-Italy.
88.
Chapter 2, F.II.1.
89.
Chapter 16, D.II.1.a.
90.
Chapter 3, F.
91.
Chapter 2, F.II.2.
92.
Chapter 3, F.
93.
Ibid.
94.
Ibid.
95.
Chapter 2, F.II.2.
96.
Chapter 2, G.II.1.
97.
Ibid.
98.
Ibid.
99.
Chapter 3, G.I.
100.
Chapter 2, G.I.
101.
Chapter 3, G.I.
102.
Chapter 2, G.II.1.
103.
Art. 60(1) CCP-Italy.
104.
Chapter 2, G.II.1.
105.
Ibid.
106.
Chapter 2, G.II.2.
107.
Art. 7(XXI) Law 8.906/94.
108.
Art. 7(11) Law 8.906/94.
109.
Chapter 2, G.II.1.
110.
Chapter 2, G.II.2.
111.
Ibid.
112.
Chapter 16, D.IV.1.
113.
Chapter 3, G.I.
114.
Ibid.
115.
Chapter 3, G.II.
116.
Chapter 2, I.II.4.
117.
Art. 513 CCP-Italy (1988 version).
118.
Art. 513(1-2) CCP-Italy (1997 version).
119.
Chapter 2, G.II.3.
120.
Chapter 3, G.II.
121.
Ibid.
122.
Art. 503(2) CCP-Italy.
123.
Chapter 2, G.III.
124.
Chapter 3, G.II.
125.
Chapter 2, H.I.
126.
Chapter 3, H.I.
127.
Chapter 2, H.III.1.
128.
Art. 500(1) CCP-Italy.
129.
Art. 507 CCP-Italy.
130.
Art. 506 CCP-Italy.
131.
CCass, Martin.
132.
CConst, 111/1993.
133.
CCass, Joint Sections, Greco.
134.
Chapter 3, H.I.
135.
CConst, 73/2010.
136.
See Chiavario (2015), p. 531.
137.
Chapter 2, H.III.3.
138.
Ibid.
139.
Chapter 3, H.III.
140.
Art. 238 CCP-Italy.
141.
Chapter 2, H.III.3.
142.
Chapter 3, H.III.
143.
Chapter 2, H.III.3.
144.
Chapter 2, H.III.2.
145.
Chapter 3, H.II.
146.
Ibid.
147.
Ibid.
148.
Chapter 2, H.III.2.
149.
Ibid.
150.
Chapter 3, H.II.
151.
Chapter 2, H.III.2.
152.
Ibid.
153.
Chapter 3, I.
154.
Siracusano (1973), p. 167ff.
155.
Ibid.
156.
Chapter 2, I.I.
157.
Chapter 3, I.
158.
Chapter 2, I.I.
159.
Ibid.
160.
Chapter 3, I.
161.
Art. 526(1-bis) CCP-Italy.
162.
Chapter 16, D.V.2.a.
163.
Chapter 3, I.
164.
Ferrua (2012), p. 142ff.
165.
See among others Conti (2001), p. 637.
166.
See particularly Article 442(1-bis) CCP-Italy, which was introduced by Law 479/1999.
167.
Chapter 2, I.III.3.
168.
CConst, 184/2007.
169.
For a comparative analysis of hidden criminal investigations see Hauck (2014).
170.
Art. 391(1) CCP-Italy (1988 version).
171.
Art. 391(3) CCP-Italy (1988 version).
172.
The police could not exercise their general power to question the suspect, laid down in Article 350 CCP-Italy, where the person was arrested.
173.
Art. 388 CCP-Italy.
174.
See Art. 391 CCP-Italy, as amended by the Legislative Decree 12/1991.
175.
Art. 386 CCP-Italy.
176.
Art. 388(2) CCP-Italy.
177.
Art. 391(5)(first period) CCP-Italy.
178.
Art. 391(5)(second period) CCP-Italy.
179.
Art. 391(6) CCP-Italy.
180.
Chapter 3, J.II.2.
181.
Ibid.
182.
Ibid.
183.
Art. 384 CCP-Italy.
184.
Chapter 3, J.II.3.
185.
Chapter 2, J.III.1.
186.
Ibid.
187.
Chapter 3, J.II.1.
188.
Ibid.
189.
Chapter 16, E.II.4.
190.
Chapter 3, J.II.1.
191.
Ibid.
192.
Ibid.
193.
Ibid.
194.
Ibid.
195.
Art. 282-bis CCP-Italy, introduced by Law 154/2001. More than 10 years later, Law-Decree 93/2013, converted into Law 119/2013, enabled the police to remove the suspects from their family home in urgent cases. See Article 384-bis CCP-Italy.
196.
Art. 282-bis(6) CCP-Italy, as amended by Law 172/2012 and later by Law-Decree 93/2013, converted into Law 119/2013.
197.
Art. 282-ter CCP-Italy, introduced by Law-Decree 11/2009, converted into Law 38/2009.
198.
Chapter 3, J.IV.1.
199.
Chapter 2, J.III.2.
200.
Chapter 3, J.IV.1.
201.
Chapter 2, J.III.2.
202.
Ibid.
203.
Chapter 3, J.IV.1.
204.
Chapter 2, J.III.2.

References

Chiavario M (2015) Diritto processuale penale, 6th edn. Utet, Torino
Google Scholar
Conso G (1969) Costituzione e processo penale. Giuffrè, Milano
Google Scholar
Conti C (2001) Giusto processo (diritto processuale penale). In: Enciclopedia del diritto, vol V Agg. Giuffrè, Milano, pp 627–649
Google Scholar
Cordero F (2012) Procedura penale, 9th edn. Giuffrè, Milano
Google Scholar
Ferrua P (2012) Il ‘giusto processo’, 3rd edn. Zanichelli, Bologna
Google Scholar
Giacomolli NJ (2014) O devido processo penal. Abordagem conforme a Constituição Federal e o Pacto de São José da Costa Rica. Atlas S.A., São Paulo
Google Scholar
Hauck P (2014) Heimliche Strafverfolgung und Schutz der Privatheit. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Google Scholar
Lopes A Jr (2017) Direito Processual Penal, 14th edn. Saraiva, São Paulo
Google Scholar
Siracusano D (1973) Istruzione del processo penale. In: Enciclopedia del diritto, vol XXIII. Giuffrè, Milano, pp 166–204
Google Scholar
Tourinho Filho F da Costa (2010) Código de Processo Penal Comentado, vol I–II, 10th edn. Saraiva, São Paulo
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Law, University of Messina, Messina, Italy
Stefano Ruggeri

Authors

Stefano Ruggeri
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ruggeri, S. (2017). Common Developments and Deficiencies of the Domestic Approach to Participatory Safeguards in Criminal Proceedings. In: Audi Alteram Partem in Criminal Proceedings. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54573-8_6

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54573-8_6
Published: 13 April 2017
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-54572-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-54573-8
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics