L’essere e l’apparire imparziale del Magistrato del Pubblico Ministero

In our legal system, it is stated that the Public Prosecutor is an ‘impartial party.’ An oxymoron, often subject to countless doctrinal and jurisprudential controversies, probably resolvable if considered in terms of the duty of impartiality, in the dual role of the Public Prosecutor understood as loyalty towards protecting the offended subjective interests and respecting procedural guarantees and the dignity of those subjected to a legal process to ascertain responsibility. Thus, the indissoluble link between the public prosecutor and the criminal action informs the various functions that the latter performs in the different procedural phases. On a more specific level, the issue of judicial control over the exercise of criminal prosecution highlights the connection between the public prosecutor and the action, since it recalls the presence of a judge vested with investigative powers who, who, instead of playing ‘a merely passive role as a spectator,’ contributes to the formation of the accused’s case. If it is true that the process should be accusatory, ‘characterized by the presence of a specific prosecuting body distinct from the judicial body,’ the ethic of doubt, which combines form and essence of the criminal process even before any legislative reform, should emphasize that, in the world of legal professions, any decision affecting a person’s freedom cannot be driven by motives other than the pursuit of truth. Therefore, for these reasons, it is necessary to navigate through virtuous cognitive paths, respecting procedural rules that reject superficiality and disorder.