House Arrest and Electronic Bracelet: Analysis of Judgment No. 15939 of 2024

The recent judgment No. 15939 of March 14, 2024, issued by the Court of Liberty of Turin, provides significant insights regarding the interpretation of the electronic bracelet within the framework of personal precautionary measures. In particular, the judge emphasized that the use of such a device does not represent a form of innovative coercive measure, but rather constitutes an ordinary mode of execution of house arrest.

The Legal Context of the Judgment

The case addressed by the judgment concerns the request to replace the measure of custody in prison with that of house arrest, enhanced by the adoption of the electronic bracelet. However, the Court deemed that, given the peculiarities of the contested fact and the danger posed by the accused, custodial imprisonment was the only adequate measure. This decision is based on a rigorous interpretation of the rules, particularly Articles 274 and 275 of the New Code of Criminal Procedure, which govern precautionary measures.

The Electronic Bracelet: An Ordinary Execution Measure

The crux of the decision lies in the following maxim:

Prescription of the so-called "electronic bracelet" - Mere ordinary execution mode of house precaution - Request for substitution of the measure of custody in prison - Rejection due to the danger posed by the accused and the peculiarities of the fact - Motivation on the inadequacy of the self-custodial measure even if reinforced by the application of the electronic bracelet - Necessity - Exclusion - Reasons. In the matter of house arrest, the prescription of the so-called "electronic bracelet" does not configure a new type of coercive measure, but a mere ordinary execution mode of house precaution, so that the judge, if he deems custodial imprisonment the only adequate measure due to the danger posed by the accused and the peculiarities of the contested fact, is not obliged to specifically motivate the inadequacy of house arrest, even if characterized by the adoption of the bracelet.

This jurisprudential position clarifies that, although the electronic bracelet may seem a technological advancement in precautionary measures, it does not alter the assessment of the danger posed by the accused. Therefore, the judge may decide not to provide further motivation on the inadequacy of house arrest measures if deemed insufficient to protect public safety.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 15939 of 2024 marks an important step in understanding precautionary measures, highlighting that the implementation of the electronic bracelet does not introduce a new form of custody, but merely modifies the execution modes of house arrest. This implies that the judge must always consider, as a priority, the danger posed by the individual and the specificities of the contested crime, thus ensuring a balance between individual rights and collective security.

Bianucci Law Firm