Commentary on Judgment No. 39722 of 2024: Concurrent Offenses of Mistreatment and Torture

The recent judgment No. 39722 of July 9, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, has sparked intense debate within the legal field regarding the delicate issue of concurrent offenses in the realm of domestic mistreatment and torture. The Court established that the crime of mistreatment, aggravated by cruelty and trivial motives, can concur with the crime of torture, especially when the victim is a minor family member. This article aims to analyze the key points of the ruling and clarify the legal and social implications of this important decision.

The Concurrence of Mistreatment and Torture

The Court highlighted that the two crimes protect different legal goods: psycho-physical integrity in the case of mistreatment and the dignity of the person in the case of torture. This distinction is fundamental to understanding how the two offenses can coexist without overlapping, making it possible to impose further punishment for acts of torture when they manifest as additional physical or psychological abuses.

• Domestic mistreatment: includes violent and persecutory behaviors.
• Torture: refers to physical or psychological suffering inflicted with the intent to humiliate or dehumanize the victim.
• Aggravating condition: the presence of a minor increases the severity of the situation.

Concurrence with the crime of aggravated torture under Article 613-bis, paragraph four, of the penal code - Existence - Reasons - Hypothesis. The crime of domestic mistreatment aggravated by cruelty, trivial motives, and diminished defense, and the crime of torture against a minor family member can concur due to the differing legal goods protected - the psycho-physical integrity of family members in the first case and the dignity of the person in the second - and the structural non-overlapping of the incriminated behaviors, given that the crime of torture gains independent relevance when the conduct, besides being functional to the mistreatment, manifests in further physical and psychological abuses of the victim, causing acute physical suffering or verifiable psychic trauma. (In the reasoning, the Court deemed the conviction of the defendant under Article 613-bis, paragraph four, second period, of the penal code, rather than under Article 572, paragraph three, last period, of the penal code, for having caused the death of his two-year-old son, in light of the time gap between the initial violence, perpetrated through insults, beatings, injuries, and threats, and the subsequent acts in which the defendant had relentlessly acted upon the victim, depersonalizing and dehumanizing him to the point where he could no longer cry, merely to give vent to his bestial impulses, thus transforming him into a "res" at his mercy).

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling represents a significant step in the fight against domestic violence and provides a clear indication of how violent behaviors, especially towards minors, must be prosecuted rigorously. The Court emphasized the importance of recognizing the inflicted suffering not only as mistreatment but also as torture, paving the way for harsher penalties for such crimes. This approach aligns with European regulations aimed at protecting the rights of minors and ensuring that justice is served adequately and promptly.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 39722 of 2024 offers a clear and detailed interpretation of the law concerning the concurrence of offenses in the area of mistreatment and torture. It not only clarifies the differences between the two crimes but also highlights the importance of ensuring justice for victims, particularly for the most vulnerable, such as minors. Case law continues to evolve, along with the need to protect the fundamental rights of individuals within family dynamics.