There are some places that technology is yet to penetrate. Italian courtrooms are one of those places. The most common way to document proceedings is using a stenotype machine. However, law enforcement agents still have to take notes by hand during interrogations. For the Prosecutors the situation is a little bit better. Once they have arrested someone they have to use an audio or audio-video recording. If they are just questioning someone they can choose between video or audio recording.

Fortunately, in the Courts, judges can choose the best method of documentation. And they tend to choose audio recordings at public hearings, whereas in chamber hearings recordings are not always carried out. Public prosecutors also frequently make audio recordings of interrogations, usually using portable equipment, rather than taking full minutes.

How recording interrogations worked in Britain

Why should all statements and interrogations at every stage of the criminal proceedings be recorded?

In 1984, in Britain, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (applied in 1986) made it obligatory to audio-record all police interrogations. These recordings are now a very important source of evidence in the British system. The police originally contested this move because they believed that the interrogations would no longer be useful, that the agent would be limited and that the registration would be another important burden in addition to their work. In reality, after an initial period of adjustment, the police started to notice the advantages of making recordings.

Making recording compulsory bought up the fact that agents need better training in interrogation techniques. Secondly, it unburdened police personnel from the task of taking notes (which were prone to errors and omissions) this allowed them to focus exclusively on interrogating suspects, with full transcripts available afterwards. Moreover, recording interrogations protects both suspects and investigators: it protects suspects against mistreatment, and protects officers against accusations of abuse.

Recording should be mandatory in Italy

Thanks to the research "Procedural rights observed by the camera - Audio-visual recording of interrogations in the EU" (available here in Italian) Antigone studied how interrogations carried out by law enforcement agencies, the public prosecutor's office and in the courtroom are recorded. The study not only collected information on the practice, but also on the positions of some actors involved in the criminal proceedings. The study recommended introducing wider use of audio or audio-video recordings. Considering the widespread use in practice of the audio recording of hearings, it would be feasible to make this mandatory. For defendants who do not speak Italian, it should be obligatory to record the interpreter’s translation as well. Only in this way would it be possible to check if the statements made by the defendant correspond to the statements made into the microphone by the interpreter.

Video and audio recording should be the norm

However, for interrogations outside the courtroom, interrogators are obliged to record suspects "by audio recording or audio-visual recording". Given the alternative of the obligation, the use of the audio recordings is already fully respected. On the other hand, given the particular vulnerability of persons deprived of their personal liberty, it would be appropriate to establish an obligation for video recording, which would better guarantee the person questioned. In the case of suspects not subject to custodial measures, it would be appropriate to provide that the interrogations made to by the Public Prosecutor's Office or by the Judicial Police were audio-recorded. To act against abuses and for a better documentation of the interrogation, and finally to allow an ex-post evaluation of the reliability of the statements made.

Police stations should have cameras everywhere

A final proposal that would strengthen the guarantees of those arrested would be to install cameras in police stations and in the holding cells at courts. This would help protect detainees against abuse, and law enforcement against false claims of mistreatment. It would mean that everything that happened in a police station would be on record. The importance of video recording is obvious if you think of how its presence would have shed light what happened in the tragic story of Stefano Cucchi.