The offence of torture applies in the case of a particularly violent robbery

The offence of tortureis triggered by the particularly violent robbery. The state of physical and psychological subjugation causes the victims to comply with any demand made by their tormentors, under the threat of further ill-treatment. The Court of Cassation thus rejected the defence’s objections, which contested the possibility of applying Article 613-bis of the Criminal Code to the defendants who had abducted people to force them to make withdrawals from cash machines.

According to the defence’s argument, the typical elements of a criminal offence were lacking; an offence punishable by a basic sentence ranging from 4 to 10 years’ imprisonment for ordinary citizens and from 5 to 12 years if committed by public officials, for whom it was originally intended. In the defendants’ view, for the criminal provision – introduced into the legal system by Law 110 of 14 July 2017 – to apply, there had to be extreme violence, causing severe physical suffering, and verifiable psychological trauma to a person deprived of their liberty and subject to the power of the perpetrator.

In this specific case, the victims had spoken of a violent beating involving the use of chairs, sticks, clubs and knives, but the medical reports had revealed minor injuries; nor had the acute physical suffering or psychological trauma required by the criminal provision been established. Furthermore, for the offence of torture to be established, multiple acts would be necessary. The trial court therefore appears to have confused ‘torture with ordinary acts of violence, without highlighting the particular level of severity required by the criminal provision, particularly with regard to inhuman and degrading treatment’.

A corollary that the Supreme Court refutes. In cases of violent and threatening behaviour, for the purposes of the requirement of ‘acute physical suffering’ , it is not necessary for the victim to have sustained injuries which, if present, constitute an aggravating circumstance. The suffering may, in fact, stem from ‘severe painful sensations that do not result in a pathological condition’. As for ‘verifiable psychological trauma’ – the Court clarifies – this need not necessarily result in a lasting syndrome of ‘structured psychological trauma’, but ‘may also consist of a temporary critical condition which, due to its characteristics, cannot be integrated into the victim’s previous psychological system, thereby threatening their mental cohesion; the law requires that such a condition be objectively verifiable —as stated in the judgement—and does not necessarily require an expert assessment, nor classification into predefined nosographic categories, as symptomatic elements derived from the victim’s statements, their behaviour following the perpetrator’s conduct, and the specific nature of the latter may also be relevant”.

Finally, for there to be multiple instances of aggressive behaviour, it is not required that these occur at different times and in different places; rather, ‘a series of violent acts occurring within the same chronological context’ is also sufficient. In the case under examination, the state of physical and psychological subjugation in which the individuals found themselves was clear; this coercion was aimed at a attempted robbery, which nevertheless placed them in a position where they had to comply with the defendants’ demands; the defendants were subsequently rescued by the arrival of the Carabinieri.