Basic approaches to the requirement of objective identity of the accusation and judgment: The (in)possibility of modifying the factual description of the offense

Objective identity represents the rule according to which the judgment is limited by the content of the accusation. However, in judicial practice, various factors often lead to discrepancies between the factual situation stated in the accusation and the factual situation proven in trial. In such cases, the question arises: Can the verdict encompass a factual situation that differs from the one in the accusation? This issue is highly complex, and directly linked to fundamental procedural principles. Additionally, its resolution has a significant impact on the right to defense. Taking into account all the circumstances and mutual influences, relationships and consequences on the categories to which the question of objective identity refers, over time, two main approaches to this problem have emerged. The first holds that the court cannot in any case modify the factual situation given in the accusation. The second allows the judgment to include a proven factual situation that differs to a certain extent from the one described in the accusation. Our attention will be focused exclusively on the analysis of the mentioned two solutions to the problem of objective identity, all with the goal of analyzing their advantages and disadvantages. We will also suggest how it is possible to eliminate the negative consequences for the right to defense caused by the approach that permits the inclusion of facts not originally stated in the accusation.