Amanda Knox

[...]
Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair hearing / right to legal assistance), the applicant
alleges that she was not assisted by a lawyer during the interviews of 6 November 2007. She
complains that the proceedings were unfair. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) (right to be informed
promptly of the accusation), she submits that she was not informed promptly, in a language she
understood, of the nature and cause of the accusations against her. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3
(e) (right to the assistance of an interpreter), she complains that she was not provided with a
professional or independent interpreter during her police interviews of 6 November 2007 and that
the police employee who assisted her had played a role of “mediator”, encouraging her to imagine
hypothetical scenarios.
Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (right to
respect for private and family life), Ms Knox complains that she suffered ill-treatment during a police
interview of 6 November 2007. She says she was slapped on the head twice, was subjected to
extreme psychological pressure and forced to speak at a point where she was incapable of showing
discernment or willpower

The case concerned proceedings leading to the conviction of Amanda Knox for malicious accusation.
During a police interview on 6 November 2007 Ms Knox accused a pub manager of killing her
flatmate. The man was subsequently found to be innocent and she was sentenced to three years’
imprisonment for making a malicious accusation.
In today’s Chamber judgment1
in the case of Knox v. Italy (application no. 76577/13) the European
Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
a violation of the procedural limb (investigation) of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman
or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights
The Court held in particular that Ms Knox had not had the benefit of an investigation capable of
shedding light on the facts and any responsibility, further to her allegation that she had been
ill-treated on 6 November 2007 at a time when she had been entirely under police control. In spite
of her repeated complaints, no investigation into the alleged treatment had been forthcoming.
no violation of the substantive limb of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading
treatment) of the Convention
The Court found that it did not have any evidence to show that Ms Knox had been subjected to the
inhuman or degrading treatment of which she had complained.
a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to legal assistance)
The Court took the view that the Italian Government had not succeeded in showing that the
restriction of Ms Knox’s access to a lawyer, at the police interview of 6 November 2007 at 5.45 a.m.
– when there was a criminal charge against her – had not irreparably undermined the fairness of the
proceedings as a whole.
a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (e) of the Convention (right to the assistance of an interpreter).
The Court held that the authorities had failed to assess the conduct of the interpreter (who had seen
herself as a mediator and had adopted a motherly attitude towards Ms Knox while the latter was
formulating her statement), to examine whether her interpreting assistance had been consistent
with the safeguards under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (e) of the Convention, or to consider whether that
conduct had had an impact on the outcome of the criminal proceedings against Ms Knox. In the
Court’s view, that initial failure had thus had repercussions for other rights and had compromised
the fairness of the proceedings as a whole.
[...]
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Greece), President,
Ksenija Turković (Croatia),
Guido Raimondi (Italy),
Ledi Bianku (Albania),
Aleš Pejchal (the Czech Republic),
Armen Harutyunyan (Armenia),
Pauliine Koskelo (Finland),
and also Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar
[... ... ...]
The Court held that Italy was to pay Ms Knox 10,400 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage and EUR 8,000 for costs and expenses.
The judgment is available only in French.

They should have made Italy pay her compensation right now for illegally holding her in prison for four years.

When Italy is finally forced to pay compensation to Amanda and Raffaele

The court didn't follow your advice.

By whom and how?

Whether Italy does or doesn't do this, the case will then go back to the European Court of Human Rights to have them order Italy to pay Amanda and Raffaele many millions of euros.

So there are new Protocols to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to make this possible?

Could you give a link?

Could you give a link?

Quote:

oralloy wrote:
They should have made Italy pay her compensation right now for illegally holding her in prison for four years.

The court didn't follow your advice.

Although I didn't see anything questionable when I skimmed a translation of this article, it is always best to keep in mind that the media is likely to fabricate fake statements from Amanda and Raffaele.