Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)85
Dorigo Paolo against Italy (violation of the right to a fair trial)
(Application No. 33286/96) Interim Resolutions DH(99)258, DH(2002)30 and DH(2004)13
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 12 October 2005,
at the 940th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of former Article 32 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Having regard to its decision of 15 April 1999 (Interim resolution DH(99)258) under former Article 32 of the Convention in the case Dorigo Paolo finding a violation of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention on account of the applicant's conviction in 1993 on the basis of statements made before the trial by three “repented” co-accused, the applicant not having been allowed to examine these statements or to have them examined, in conformity with the law which was then in force until 1997; and
Recalling that, given the serious doubt that this violation shed on the outcome of those proceedings and the absence of any action on the part of the Italian authorities to erase the serious consequences which have resulted for the applicant, the Committee has adopted the following interim resolutions:
- ResDH(2002)30 noting that the absence of means to reopen the proceedings at issue has made it impossible fully to rectify the serious and ongoing consequences of this violation and encouraging the Italian authorities promptly to adopt new legislation in conformity with the principles set out in its Recommendation Rec(2000)2 on reopening and
- ResDH(2004)13 noting that the legislative process had not yet borne fruit and strongly urging the Italian authorities to ensure that measures making it possible to erase the consequences of the violation for the applicant in this case should be adopted quickly;
Deploring the fact that, more than six years after the finding of the violation in this case, the Italian authorities have taken no measure to erase as far as possible the consequences of the violation (restitutio in integrum) and that alternative solutions such as a presidential pardon, have proved fruitless;
Noting accordingly that reopening of the proceedings at issue remains the best means of ensuring the restitutio in integrum in this case;
Aware in this connection that, since 2001 and 2005 respectively, bills to this effect have been pending before the Italian Parliament but that at present the first of these bills excludes the Dorigo case from its field of application whilst the second, despite its broader scope, contains no transitional disposition explicitly establishing its applicability to this case,
FIRMLY RECALLS the obligation of all authorities concerned to ensure the adoption of appropriate measures in favour of the applicant and CALLS for prompt adoption of legislation authorising the re‑examination of the Dorigo case at domestic level under conditions in conformity with the Convention;
DECIDES to continue to examine this case at each of its “Human Rights” meetings until such time as Italy respects its obligations under the Convention.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy