INSPECTION (CORPORAL, REAL, AND LOCAL)
— Recognition and access are two means of proof offered to the judge to enable him, through his personal intervention, to acquire elements useful for the resolution of the case concerning certain places, objects, or persons.
The difference between the two institutions lies in the fact that recognition generally takes place within the tribunal, so that the judge examines the objects or persons brought before him, while access is carried out by the judge’s displacement and his direct examination *in loco* of persons and things relevant to the case.
In both cases, but more properly in the case of access—which, from the aforementioned perspective, has a broader meaning and a more marked singularity—the so-called direct, ocular inspection by the judge is realized. This inspection will be corporal, real, or local, depending on whether it concerns persons, things, or places. As can be seen, these are two means of instruction with singular subjective and objective characteristics, in that, on the one hand, the judge can add elements of his own personal evaluation to those alleged in court by the parties, and, on the other hand—especially in the case of local inspection—he can give strong emphasis to objective situations that would be only with difficulty and often incompletely proven by expert or testimonial evidence.
From a technical-procedural standpoint, recognition must be considered more limited than access, in that it may or may not constitute an element of the latter. Local inspection in the form of access, unlike that carried out through simple recognition, cannot be ordered except in cases of proven necessity and in the form of a decree (CIC, can. 1806), which must be issued *auditis partibus* and must specify, particularly in relation to the purpose intended to be achieved by the access, the measures useful for the proper conduct of the proceeding, as well as the determination of the sum to be deposited for the special expenses to which the latter gives rise.
Inspection, whether in the form of access or recognition, can be ordered at the request of a party or *ex officio* in any type of case and can even be carried out *a futura memoria*.
As for the time at which it can be carried out, it should be noted that, as a rule, it must be ordered during the probative period (cf. *Regulae Rotae*, § 160).
Both recognition and access can be carried out by the judge instructor or delegate (CIC, can. 1807). In such a case, it is evident that the instructive means loses somewhat its typical efficacy, which derives from the fact that the judge, by using it, must directly inspect the places, things, and persons relevant to the dispute. Yet it is no less evident that, in the case of a collegial judge, the practical utility of delegating a member of the judging panel to carry out the inspection is often recognized.
Since inspection is an extraordinary means, it is logical that everything useful to make it exhaustive be done. Therefore, the judge carrying it out is permitted to avail himself on the spot of the work of experts and to examine witnesses produced by the party or indicated *ex officio* (can. 1810). The parties, for their part, are generally enabled to attend the judicial recognition or access, either in person or through a proxy, subject to the judge’s power to prohibit such presence if there is a well-founded fear that disturbances or brawls may result (can. 1809).
Judicial access (can. 201 and 1367) cannot be carried out outside the territorial limits of the jurisdiction without the authorization of the bishop to whom the area subject to the inspection is subject; if such authorization is denied (cf. *Regulae Rotae*, §§ 166–167), the inconvenience can be remedied by requesting a verbal regularization from the judge of the place.
The notary must certify (can. 1671) in the appropriate record the individual operations carried out during the judicial recognition or access.
The expenses of recognition and access must be liquidated by the parties in the proportion and measure applied in the case of proof by witnesses or experts. In particular, therefore, the expenses will be borne by the party who requested the judicial inspection or by both parties if the inspection was requested by both parties or ordered *ex officio*, subject to the final liquidation of judicial expenses.
From what has been said, it follows that the purpose of inspection, among other things, is to enable the judge to ascertain the exact value to be attributed to other proofs through a more direct examination by him of the state of the matter.
Evidently, either of the two means of instruction under discussion can be admitted *ex officio*, that is, without a prior request by the parties, even in cases of private interest.
The judge may also order—where this is useful—that a description of the places be made in topographic maps or that a recognition of maps already submitted in court be carried out (cf. *Regulae Rotae*, § 170).
Finally, it should be noted that in criminal cases, access is generally ordered so that the judge may have an exact knowledge of what is called the *corpus delicti*.
Fernando Della Rocca