Analysis of Judgment No. 46705 of 2024: Return on the Detention of Suspects

The judgment no. 46705 of September 18, 2024, by the Court of Cassation has generated significant interest among legal practitioners, as it addresses a crucial issue in criminal law: the legitimacy of the reiteration of the detention of suspects. This ruling clarifies how, in the event of the acquisition of new elements, a second detention may be ordered, even though the suspect was already subject to precautionary measures.

Regulatory Context and Case Facts

The case in question involves a suspect, M. T., who had already been detained and subjected to a precautionary measure of mandatory residence. The judicial police ordered a second detention when the suspect was found on the verge of crossing the national border. The Court established that, based on Article 384, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the reiteration of detention is legitimate if new elements emerge that indicate a renewed flight risk.

Reiteration of detention at the initiative of the judicial police within the same proceeding - Legitimacy - Existence - Conditions - Case facts. A second detention of the suspect, executed urgently by the judicial police, ex art. 384, paragraph 3, Code of Criminal Procedure, within the same criminal proceeding, is legitimate if new elements are acquired that indicate the existence of a renewed and even more current flight risk, which cannot be interpreted as mere violations of the prescriptions imposed by the existing precautionary measure. (Case in which the suspect, previously subjected to detention and the precautionary measure of mandatory residence, was again detained by the judicial police while on the verge of crossing the border and leaving the territory of the State).

Implications of the Judgment

The ruling marks a significant step in jurisprudence, clarifying that the judicial police have the power to order a second detention in the presence of new clues demonstrating an actual flight risk. It is important to emphasize that this should not be interpreted as a violation of the precautionary measures already imposed. The main implications of the judgment can be summarized in the following points:

  • The reiteration of detention is possible if new elements of danger emerge.
  • The second detention is not considered a violation of the precautionary measures in place.
  • The judicial police have a wide margin of discretion in assessing the flight risk.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment no. 46705 of 2024 represents an important clarification on the legitimacy of the reiteration of the detention of suspects. It establishes that, under certain circumstances, law enforcement can intervene again to ensure the presence of the suspect in the criminal proceedings. This decision helps to better delineate the boundaries of precautionary measures and to protect the proper conduct of investigations, highlighting the importance of an adequate assessment of the flight risk by the competent authorities.

Bianucci Law Firm