Dear:
I would like to highlight the following ruling of the Constitutional Court. Substance actually declaring unconstitutional a piece of art. 268 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Specifically the section that does not allow for the defender to get the transcripts of recordings of intercepted conversations before the service or execution of the remand.
arrives at these conclusions, however, judging from the transcript made as PG and brief summary, defines the operation of copying a very complex operation spent "interpretation" " The quality of the recordings may not be perfect, and impose a real business of 'interpretation' of words and phrases recorded, especially if the conversations are used dialects or foreign languages. In any case, are often relevant to the intonations of voice, pauses, which, for the same transcription of phonemes, can change throughout or part of the sense of a conversation. There is no doubt that the transcription of the talks is an expert mode evaluation of the test more reliable than it is in fact the police operator and, a fortiori, the synthesis that may be contained in the "waste books".. stresses for the first time that the expert must be an expert and as such can add information to the mere implementation of work (not only in the case of translating dialects); points out that the transcript must be complete and incomplete transcripts for the presence of too many incomplete or missing parts can not be used as evidence because inaffidbili; Another important fact concerns the concept of reality and its interpretation that the difference between the sound and its transcript. This fact is only a representation of reality, interpreted by the expert. We say this for years is now being recognized not only by the Supreme Court but also by the Constitutional Court. " However, the same Court of legitimacy is also constant and uniform in stating that the transcript (also the expert) does not constitute direct evidence of a conversation, but it should be regarded as a representative transaction in the form of graphic content evidence obtained by recording audio.
I would like to highlight the following ruling of the Constitutional Court. Substance actually declaring unconstitutional a piece of art. 268 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Specifically the section that does not allow for the defender to get the transcripts of recordings of intercepted conversations before the service or execution of the remand.
arrives at these conclusions, however, judging from the transcript made as PG and brief summary, defines the operation of copying a very complex operation spent "interpretation" " The quality of the recordings may not be perfect, and impose a real business of 'interpretation' of words and phrases recorded, especially if the conversations are used dialects or foreign languages. In any case, are often relevant to the intonations of voice, pauses, which, for the same transcription of phonemes, can change throughout or part of the sense of a conversation. There is no doubt that the transcription of the talks is an expert mode evaluation of the test more reliable than it is in fact the police operator and, a fortiori, the synthesis that may be contained in the "waste books".. stresses for the first time that the expert must be an expert and as such can add information to the mere implementation of work (not only in the case of translating dialects); points out that the transcript must be complete and incomplete transcripts for the presence of too many incomplete or missing parts can not be used as evidence because inaffidbili; Another important fact concerns the concept of reality and its interpretation that the difference between the sound and its transcript. This fact is only a representation of reality, interpreted by the expert. We say this for years is now being recognized not only by the Supreme Court but also by the Constitutional Court. " However, the same Court of legitimacy is also constant and uniform in stating that the transcript (also the expert) does not constitute direct evidence of a conversation, but it should be regarded as a representative transaction in the form of graphic content evidence obtained by recording audio.
Luciano Romito - Associate Professor of Phonetics and Phonology Laboratory of Phonetics
- Università della Calabria
luciano.romito@unical.it
- Università della Calabria
luciano.romito@unical.it
tel 0984-494097 fax 0984494114
0 comments:
Post a Comment