Criminal Review: The Court of Cassation and the Requirements for New Declaratory Evidence (Judgment no. 18064/2025)

Justice, by its very nature, is not infallible. For this reason, our legal system provides extraordinary remedies aimed at correcting any judicial errors, ensuring that no one is unjustly convicted. Among these, the review of criminal proceedings stands out, an exceptional means of appeal that allows a final conviction judgment to be re-examined. However, access to this remedy is subject to stringent conditions, especially when it comes to introducing new evidence. On this point, the Court of Cassation, with judgment no. 18064 filed on 13/05/2025 (Hearing 25/03/2025), has provided important clarifications, outlining the precise requirements for the admissibility of new declaratory evidence.

Review of Proceedings: An Extraordinary Remedy for the Protection of the Convicted

The review of criminal proceedings represents one of the most significant expressions of the principle of favor rei, or preference for the defendant, which permeates our legal system. Provided for by articles 629 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it aims to protect individuals from unjust convictions, allowing for the reopening of proceedings that have already concluded with a final judgment. The grounds that can justify a request for review are exhaustively listed by article 630 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and include, among others, the discovery of new evidence which, alone or in conjunction with evidence already acquired, proves that the convicted person should be acquitted. It is precisely on the concept of "new evidence," particularly of a declaratory nature, that the Supreme Court focused in the case at hand, rejecting the appeal filed by the defendant G. M. against the decision of the Court of Appeal of Brescia.

New Declarations and Admissibility Requirements According to the Court of Cassation

The core of the decision of the Court of Cassation, presided over by Dr. R. Pezzullo and drafted by Dr. E. M. Morosini, lies in the affirmation of clear principles regarding the method of collecting new declaratory evidence. The Court has indeed specified that it is not sufficient to present new declarations, but it is essential that these have been acquired with precise guarantees. The maxim of judgment no. 18064/2025 states:

In the phase of assessing the admissibility of the request for review, if the new means of proof consist of declarations, it is necessary that these have been collected and presented to the review judge in accordance with the prescriptions established for defense investigations, which ensure, at least, that the declarant assumes the obligation to tell the truth, legally assisted by sanctions in case of violation.

This passage is crucial. The Court of Cassation requires that the declarations are not mere informal statements, but that they follow the rigorous path of defense investigations, as outlined by articles 327-bis and 391-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This implies that the declarations must be:

• **Collected by a lawyer:** The lawyer has the task of recording the declarations, ensuring the formal and substantial correctness of the act.
• **With the assumption of the obligation to tell the truth:** The declarant must be informed of the obligation to tell the truth and the criminal consequences in case of false or reticent statements, similar to what happens in a formal judicial context.
• **Under the aegis of criminal sanctions:** Violation of the obligation to tell the truth entails specific sanctions, such as those provided for perjury, thus ensuring a high degree of reliability of the evidence.

This approach is aimed at preserving the seriousness and reliability of the procedural system, preventing review from becoming a tool for introducing easily manipulable evidence or evidence lacking formal verification. The Court, also referring to previous case law (such as judgment no. 45612 of 2003), reiterates the importance of a rigorous filter on admissibility, essential to avoid undermining the certainty of the judgment.

Regulatory Context and Ratio Decidendi

The norms referred to by the judgment, such as article 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (on unlawfully acquired evidence) and articles 327-bis and 391-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure (on defense investigations), underline the importance of legally compliant evidence collection. The ratio decidendi, or the reason for the decision, is clear: only evidence collected with the guarantees of adversarial proceedings (or in any case with procedures that mimic their seriousness, such as those of defense investigations) can be considered suitable to undermine the force of a final judgment. The Court of Cassation thus intends to ensure that review, while being a bulwark against judicial error, does not turn into an easy way for indiscriminate reopening of cases, to the detriment of the stability of judicial decisions and legal certainty.

Conclusions: The Importance of Careful and Professional Defense

Judgment no. 18064/2025 of the Court of Cassation is an important warning for all those who intend to avail themselves of the review of criminal proceedings. It reiterates that the search for new evidence, especially if declaratory, must be conducted with extreme professionalism and in compliance with the rigorous procedures provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure. Relying on a lawyer experienced in criminal law and defense investigations becomes, in this context, not only advisable but absolutely essential. Only through meticulous and legally impeccable evidence collection will it be possible to hope for the acceptance of a request for review, thus ensuring the full protection of the rights of the convicted person and the correct application of justice.