SAN MARINO – Repubblica Futura intervenes in the political debate linked to the San Marino judicial affair and the consequences of the sentences of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), criticizing the positions expressed by the Congress of State.
The party particularly disputes the references to the Ora.sm experience and claims that none of the decisions adopted by that government have received condemnations from the ECtHR. The note also recalls the interventions of the Council of Europe and the Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as the affair of the so-called “chickpea land”.
According to Repubblica Futura, the ruling of the Strasbourg Court would also have called into question constitutional law no. 1 of 2021 and the consequences of the retroactive rules adopted in subsequent years. The party therefore criticizes what it calls an “all is well” narrative, arguing that ECHR rulings cannot be ignored.
On the representative proposed by Repubblica Futura and appointed by the Great and General Council in the Judicial Council, the party reiterates its position on the autonomy of the nominees. “He has our respect and, precisely by virtue of this – as for all the appointments we make – he has full freedom and autonomy to behave, argue, decide and vote as he sees fit”, states the note, specifying that the representative does not have to answer either to Repubblica Futura or to the State Congress.
The note then focuses on the resolution of the Judicial Council of 23 September. According to Repubblica Futura, the provision would not approve the preliminary report of 8 September, but would simply take note of it. The party interprets this element as a confirmation of the complexity of the matter and the consequences of the 2020 retroactive provision.
Repubblica Futura also highlights an alleged contradiction between the position of the Judicial Council, according to which the San Marino legal system could not review or revoke civil or administrative sentences that have become final, and the conclusions reached by the Supervisory Board.
Regarding the failure to be reinstated as a magistrate, the party finally maintains that further assessments and the final judgment of the Council of Europe bodies responsible for verifying the effective execution of the sentences of the ECtHR are necessary.
