Nothing ‘Third World’ about Italian justice

Italy stands accused of running a judicial system of Third World standards, according to American critics of Amanda Knox's conviction by a Perugia court for murdering her British housemate Meredith Kercher.

We shouldn't be surprised by this. There is a track record of serious friction between the Italians and the US on judicial matters over the past 30 or 40 years.

Last month a court in Milan convicted in absentia 22 CIA employees and a US Air Force colonel for the 'extraordinary rendition' of the Egyptian cleric Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr , seized in broad daylight on a Milan street. The US steadfastly refused to extradite the Americans to stand trial, and refused to recognise the Milan court.

In 1998 a US Prowler aircraft involved in illegal low flying snagged the wire of a ski lift gondola at Cavalese in the Dolomites, killing all 20 aboard. Under Nato rules the crew stood trial in the US, and were acquitted of manslaughter, though later they were dismissed from the military for falsifying records, including the destruction of the video recording of the incident.

Italians naturally resent the abuse - usually staggeringly ill-informed - that is thrown at their judges and courts in cases like that of the kidnapped cleric, and the Kercher murder trial. Speaking with admirable restraint, Franco Frattini, Italy's foreign minister, said of Knox's conviction: "The case seems right and normal". The full appeal procedure – which might take years – will be followed.

Giuliano Mignini, who led the prosecution team in Perugia and has come in for a torrent of personal abuse, revealed: "At the various levels in this case, from the preliminary investigating judge to the trial itself, the evidence was scrutinised by no less than 19 judges."

This is not abnormal. Italian jurisprudence operates a different mechanism from England and America to achieve the same end – conviction or acquittal. It is at the same time both more and less formal than the Anglo-Saxon model.

Unlike in Britain, magistrates are brought in at every stage, and they have to record in writing their thoughts and conclusions in the case. The system is similar to that which operates in France: just remember all those cases in which Georges Simenon's hero, Inspector Maigret, had to rush off to the investigating magistrate within 24 hours of being put onto a case.

The investigating magistrate directs and coordinates the investigating team drawn from either the state police or, in some cases, officers of the corps of Carabinieri. The team of investigating magistrates, often referred to as ‘il pool', then draws up a prosecution case which has to be sent to the instructing judge - il Giudice Istruttore - who then draws up the formal case to be presented in court by the prosecution, il Pubblico Ministero (literally, Public Ministry).

The atti d'accusa - the chapters of accusation - of the prosecution case then go into the public domain. The atti d'accusa against former prime minister Giulio Andreotti for being involved in a Mafia hit against an investigative journalist – also heard by a Perugia court - became a bestseller.

Once in court, the case is heard by a presiding judge, with the verdict being given by a jury of two professional judges and six 'lay' judges – giudici laici (mistakenly referred to as 'jurors' by the majority of the western press during the Kercher trial).

The six laymen or women are guided by the two professionals throughout their deliberations. They hope to get to the truth through a process of 'interrogation' or examination of evidence by the prosecutor and defence counsels, concluding with the ‘debate' phase where the truth is expected to emerge through argument and dialectical debate.

As the 11-month Kercher murder trial showed, this can be a lengthy process. It is lengthier still if it goes to full appeal, which this one probably will, involving up to three more court proceedings. These could comprise two levels of appeal court, the second being Italy's Supreme Court. In between, the case could be taken to the Court of Cassation, to scrutinise any procedural irregularities.

The Italian judiciary has not been without its problems and scandals, not least in its constant battle with Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi who continually refers to the Milan pool of investigative magistrates as a 'red scourge', a communist conspiracy. Judges have been bribed or intimidated by the Mafia. A notorious Cassation Judge, Corrado Carnevale, threw out Mafia cases so regularly that he was known as Signor Amazza Sentenze (the conviction slayer) and, eventually, was given a hefty jail sentence for conspiracy with the Mafia.

Into this story we must place the city of Perugia and its magistracy. Over the years they have had a tough time, particularly in the Andreotti case which led first to acquittal of the then octogenarian statesman, then conviction and sentence to 24 years, and acquittal on further appeal. But Perugia's judges and prosecutors have a reputation for being among the toughest and most accomplished in all of Italy. The city and its courts are the setting of Michael Dibdin's "Rat King", the first stories of the deeds of the sardonic cop Aurelio Zen – as good as Maigret at his best.

One wonders what the ever-sceptical Aurelio Zen would have made of the conviction of Amanda Knox and her friend Raffaele Sollecito. Perhaps the more intemperate critics should read his chronicles to get a deeper understanding of the Italian way of law. After all, laws of Rome and the jurisprudence of Italians like Cesare Beccaria in the Enlightenment are the building blocks of our law today, almost as much as Magna Carta and the Constitution of the United States.

Amanda Knox may or may not have her conviction overturned on appeal, we shall see. But American critics who write off the Seattle girl's hearing in Perugia as some sort of Third World farce are way off the mark.