Subdivision (b) (1) (O). The amendment requires the court to include a general statement that there are consequences of immigration of the conviction in the deliberation given to the defendant before the court accepts a plea of the guilty or Nolo Contendre. Under Italian law, a good deal does not need an admission of guilt (there are no pleas in Italy); for this reason, a negotiating penalty is merely an acceptance of the sentence in exchange for the closing of the investigation and the procedure and has no binding cogenity in other trials, particularly in civil trials where parties of the same facts are dealt with on the effects of civil liability and in other criminal proceedings where the accused`s accomplices who have sought and received a trial sentence are treated.  Where victims have been allowed to make contributions in oral arguments, the right has generally been granted in two phases of the criminal proceedings: (1) during the referral of the prosecutor during oral arguments and (2) during oral or written speech to the court, before the introduction of the plea. Depending on the law of a given state, a victim may be given the opportunity to comment on the proposed remedy at either stage. The amended Rule 11 (e) is a new provision of Rule 32 e, in force, which deals with the finality of a guilty plea or Nolo`s application after the Conviction by the Tribunal. The provision makes it clear that it is not possible for a defendant to withdraw a remedy after sentencing. The subsection (5) of Section c of Rule 11 differs qualitatively from the other sections of the rule. It is not a question of whether the plea is done knowingly or voluntarily, nor whether the plea has been accepted and whether the judgment has been rendered.
Rather, it is the possible consequences of an event that may or may not occur during the trial itself, namely, to swear an oath to the defendant. Whether this event will occur is entirely under the control of the presiding judge. If the event is not to occur, there is no need to inform the defendant of its consequences. If a presidential judge intends not to swear an oath to an accused during a trial, but to amend it at some point, only then would it be necessary to inform the defendant of the possible consequences of the oath.