CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 août 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 15 September 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 28232/20 Vincenzo MANGIONE against Italy lodged on 26 June 2020 communicated on 26 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the impossibility for the applicant to question a witness in the course of revision proceedings, as well as the alleged lack of reasoning of domestic decisions in this respect. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for multiple murders, mainly on the basis of statements made by I.A., a co-defendant. The conviction was upheld by the Court of Cassation and became final on 25 October 2005. In separate criminal proceedings brought against other defendants but concerning the same event, new witnesses declared that the applicant had had no role in the crime. On 4 August 2014, the applicant requested the Messina Court of Appeal to open revision proceedings in respect of the final judgment against him, which was accepted. During the revision trial, the new witnesses declared that the applicant had not participated in the crime, while I.A., refused to testify, invoking, as a co-defendant, his right to silence. On 28 June 2017, the Court of Appeal upheld the original judgment against the applicant, considering the new witnesses as unreliable and confirming its assessment of the original statements made by I.A. By a judgment published on 26 September 2019, the Court of Cassation upheld the decision without specifically addressing the applicant’s argument concerning I.A.’s refusal to testify and the weight given to his original statements. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the Court of Appeal did not take into due consideration I.A.’s refusal to testify when assessing the evidence, thereby mainly basing the conviction on the statements of a witness, whose reliability was not effectively confronted with the statements of the new witnesses. He also complains of the lack of reasoning by the Court of Cassation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair trial, during the revision proceedings, in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the judgment of the Court of Cassation sufficiently reasoned with respect to the applicant’s arguments concerning his inability to question I.A. (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 84, 11 July 2017, and Felloni v. Italy , no. 44221/14, §§ 24-31, 6 February 2020)?   2.     Was the applicant given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question the witnesses against him, in particular I.A., during the revision proceedings, as required by Article 6 §   3 (d) of the Convention (see, Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, ECHR 2015, and Al ‑ Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011; see also Strassenmeyer v. Germany , no. 57818/18, §§ 68, 73-74, 2 May 2023)?