Even in this case, whoever made the mistake should pay. Instead, in addition to the bad impression for failure to respect the rule of law, the financial penalty will fall on the community
From San Marino information (by Antonio Fabbri) – Wanting to simplify as much as possible, the European Court of Human Rights with the latest ruling on the case of Ingrid Casalicondemned the undue creation of a non-existent fourth degree of judgment and effectively used to cancel an unwelcome acquittal sentence.
What to endorse such a forcing – that is, to apply the nullitatis complainta civil institute, in criminal matters without any law providing for it – whether they were jurists, judges, the Judicial Council in which the Director of the court takes part, a part of the legal profession and subsequently the government in the international headquarters through the legal profession, requires more than one reflection on the reason for such a stubborn position towards an evident distortion
of law and justice.
Yet everyone seems to pretend nothing happened, including the government. While waiting for all those affected by this colossal slip-up to give plausible explanations, the community will once again have to pay for the damages caused, which would instead have the right to sensible, fair justice that respects the fundamental principles to which the State of San Marino draws inspiration precisely by virtue of Article 1 of its Charter of Rights, which the ECHR itself recalls in the sentence. Even more so since in this case, as the Criminal Chamber was right to point out, legal practitioners – although not all – had warned of the danger of these forcings. And the Judge of Third Instance had also done so, Oliviero Mazzawith a letter, but was instead treated badly by the Judicial Council which criticized his position.
That letter that the Judicial Council itself and the government did not want to make public and whose contents in a nutshell are hanging on it
from the sentence of the ECHR which in paragraph 48 reports that the Judge of Third Instance, in the letter “addressed to the highest national bodies and other international representatives (of the Council of Europe) and, for information purposes, to the Judicial Council”as well as defending his sentences systematically
subjected to the undue cleaver of nullitatis complaint, “expressed concern about the principle of judicial independence following the
judge’s sentences for extraordinary remedies”.
In light of the ECHR ruling, the various cases in which the nullitatis complaint in criminal matters, they now risk being overwhelmed. We’ll see which one
will be the evolution of the issue. Meanwhile, the State, therefore the community, will have to pay another 24 thousand euros, which are in addition to the other compensation already established by the ECHR and those on which the government has reached an agreement.
Now, the propaganda narrative that justice has turned the corner and everything is fine now does not seem to hold up. Nor does the one he would like to attribute hold up
the problems to situations of the past, considering that this very case unmasks the fact that the problems are of the present and fall twice on the citizens:
the first, when justice is not administered correctly; the second when they are the ones who have to pay for the mistakes of others.
af
(Published in full the next day)
