Otherwise, a fugitive from justice will not be tried until he/she has been apprehended.
Generally, in absentia trials are due to the defendant exercising his right to refuse to be present at his trial. In fact it is considered a violation of human rights to force a person to assist to his trial. In that case the defendant chooses to be represented or accepts to be represented by his/her defense lawyer.
Trials in contumacia are admitted by the European Convention of Human Rights as long as certain safeguards are guaranteed with reasonable equilibrium in harmony with the principles of a fair trial.
In a recent case before the European Court Italy was condemned not because it has in absentia trials but because judiciary authorities had not proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware of proceedings against himself (Somogyi sentence of 18 May 2004- DoDo may know about this.)
So Somogyi will be able to have a re-trial. The case is fairly convoluted for this brief space. I can send you the various sentences and laws passed concerning the case, most pdf files- all in Italian except the Strasbourg sentence in French.
Here are some rulings or arguments on the case in Italian:
http://www.neldiritto.it/appdottrina.asp?id=507
http://www.cortedicassazione.it/Notizie/GiurisprudenzaPenale/SezioniSemplici/SchedaNews.asp?ID=605
I'll have to find the links to the pdf files.
Once again, in absentia trials are not questioned by the European Court. The Strasbourg sentence ruled in merit of Somogyi's argument that he had not been informed that a trial was being celebrated against him.
Italy was ordered to modify legislation to guarantee absolute safeguards for the defendant's right to know he is to undergo a trial.
Yes, it was the process irregularities that were the problem. And even though the crucial issue Strasbourg based its ruling on was connected to starting an in absentia trial without bothering much about contacting him (they just sent one letter with name and address full of typos that thus never arrived, but didn't check back with the post, nor did they contact Hungarian authorities), that was only one of many problems in Somogyi's trials, which continued once he was apprehended when crossing the Hungarian-Austrian border. The higher instances essentially rubber-stamped the paper trail leading back to the in absentia trial, instead of thoroughly considering the evidence. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
The technical-legal problem was that Italy had no provision to have a retrial since Somogyi had not presented recourse within time limits to the appellate court after the first sentence. So his grievance to have a retrial was not accepted by the Italian courts after his arrest. The European Court's decision brought about new legislation to put the burden of proof on the State that the defendant had been informed, rather than on the defendant.
So, yes, the Italian rulings against Somogyi's plaint did not thoroughly consider the evidence he presented to prove he had not been informed properly.
The French solution seems the best to me: automatic retrial.
It wasn't just his being informed properly, also the circumstances of the arrest and extradition by Austria, and the 'proof' of his guilt. As far as I know, the only hard evidence the case was based on was a testimony by the Hungarian-Romanian girlfriend of the gang leader.
This woman first settled in Hungary with the help of Somogyi's wife, then moved on to Italy, where she met the Savi brothers (one of whom was robber with mask and police officer without), and later on, she once invited Somogyi (a used car salesman) & family to Italy to sell a car of the gang. But when she testified (playing a pentito), she brought up Somogyi's name, which was linked up (either by her or by a clumsy interrogator, see below) with gun imports, and the car as payment.
The 'testimony' was inconsistent, both internally and with what Somogyi did at home at the time, but he never got the chance to present alibis or to confront with that woman, or even to give a testimony himself (he was brought to a hearing in Bologna during which he wasn't allowed to say anything), nor were the car sale documents brought by his wife considered, nor the physical fact that the 20 kg of guns would have had no place in that small Fiat beside the family, not to mention hiding it.
Regarding the inconsistencies in the gang leader's lover's testimony, this is the most bizarre part. It may be that the woman didn't intend to get Somogyi arrested, but Somogyi was unlucky. She gave the name ('Somogyi Tamásné') and personal data of the wife! But the car Tamás Somogyi drove to Austria in was on the name of the wife, and he was arrested because the border guards first checked the car's papers...
I note that Somogyi's ordeal had the further grotesque moment that, to be closer to his wife, he asked for relocation to a Hungarian prison -- and the Hungarian state, whose diplomats and international lawiers were fighting for him, not only duly obliged but erroneously put him in a higher-security prison for serious criminals (murderers etc.)!... He was released only a year ago.
I also note that there is a domestic element of the story that would fit right in with your stories of murky conspiracies in Italy -- the real arms dealers were probably also Hungarians, but ones well-connected like the policeman Savi brother... *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
