Exclusive interview with former Third Instance Judge Oliviero Mazza who explains the reasons for his resignation.
“I resigned to defend the rule of law undermined by violations of the principle of legality and by the creation of a fourth degree of extra ordinam judgment”
“Whoever contributed to creating this situation, bringing San Marino to the European Court for such serious and obvious violations, must be held accountable”
In an exclusive interview with San Marino information (dated 28 October 2026) the former Third Instance Judge Oliviero Mazza responds to journalist Antonio Fabbri’s questions on the ruling ECHR of last October 22 on the “Casali case”which highlighted violations of the rule of law that should not be overlooked. The full interview in the newspaper San Marino information in all newsstands in Titan.
Below is the full interview published later
The ECHR ruling of 22 October on the “Casali case” highlighted violations of the rule of law that should not be overlooked.
Until now the Government, personally involved in the Strasbourg appeal with improvident positions that have resulted in a disastrous epilogue, is silent.
But the then Judge of Third Instance, Oliviero Mazza, had already pointed out that that affair was an obvious stretch, with a letter inviting primarily the Regency and the San Marino and European institutions. However, he was treated badly by the Judicial Council which criticized his position.
That letter, which the Judicial Council itself and the government did not want to make public, was briefly referred to in some of its contents by the ECHR ruling. A letter “addressed to the highest national bodies and other international representatives (of the Council of Europe) and, for information purposes, to the Judicial Council”, which, in addition to defending the sentences of Judge Mazza systematically subjected to the undue ax of the complaint nullitatis, had “expressed concern for the principle of independence of the judiciary following the sentences of the judge for extraordinary remedies”.
While that letter and the now evident short circuits of San Marino justice are the subject of a question to which the government will have to answer, we wanted to ask Professor Oliviero Mazza, in an exclusive interview, some questions.
The ECHR ruling on the “Casali case” recognized that the annulment of his acquittal decision had taken place without an adequate regulatory basis and reopens the debate on his resignation, as well as on the maintenance of the rule of law in San Marino. But the direct question, without beating around the bush, is: why did he resign? What were the reasons that led you to leave the position of Judge of the third criminal instance of the Republic of San Marino?
“I resigned to defend a principle, that of legality, which is the basis of the rule of law and, therefore, of every democracy. In criminal matters, then, it is the citizen’s supreme guarantee against arbitrariness: no one can be judged, convicted or be exposed to a sentence except in the cases, in the ways and before the judges established by law. When this principle gives way, it is not a technical rule that is undermined, but the very idea of democracy. This is why I consider the matter very serious.
The Judge for the Third Criminal Instance is, by law, at the top of the San Marino jurisdiction. When an irrevocable decision of acquittal is annulled by a judge who grants himself a power of review not provided for by any law, that summit no longer exists.
It happened in the Casali case. A citizen who I definitively acquitted for a legitimate political criticism was sentenced to prison, without a new trial, thanks to a complaint nullitatis, a remedy that the law reserves only for civil judgments (art. 3, paragraph 5, Constitutional Law no. 1/2021). In the criminal field the only extraordinary remedy is the revision of the art. 200 cpp, however not applicable to acquittal decisions. The idea of a fourth level of judgment that transforms an acquittal into a conviction was Dr. Gianfranco Iadecola, in the role of Judge for Extraordinary Remedies. I have reported the matter to the Captains Regent. Only the Judicial Council, chaired by the Director Dr. Giovanni Canzio, who did not address the legal problems I raised, but limited himself to a sterile reprimand. That resolution, made public only with my name in evidence, then provided the pseudo-juridical inspiration for the subsequent recusal requests which led to the paralysis of the third instance jurisdiction.
When I specifically asked what the legal basis was for the power of self-cancellation attributed by Dr. Iadecola, I have not received any response.
My impression, already reported in the resignation letter, is that the last word of a guaranteeist judge was not tolerated, not very in line with the different approach of former Italian magistrates who occupy decisive roles in the system. To remedy this, a fourth degree of extra ordinam judgment was created.
On 22 October 2026, however, the European Court of Human Rights confirmed the validity of all my doubts: the Judge for Extraordinary Remedies was not a “court established by law” when it annulled my decision in the Casali case, with the consequence that the subsequent conviction without trial for a crime of opinion represented an illegitimate interference with freedom of expression. In my resignation letter I wrote exactly that it would be Strasbourg that would ascertain how much that decision called into question the cornerstones of San Marino democracy. This duly happened, but I feel no satisfaction in having foreseen it.”
You were then targeted by multiple requests for recusal and ended up at the center of a harsh institutional confrontation. How did you personally feel, also considering your role as a university professor and jurist?
“With bitterness, but without losing serenity. The bitterness arises from seeing the defense of an elementary guarantee, the intangibility of the acquittal judgement, transformed into a presumed “personal fact”. The organic independence of the judge has been confused with impartiality. Maintaining that defending the procedural law is equivalent to having an interest in the judgment is circular reasoning to say the least.
Further bitterness comes from how the entire Casali proceeding was handled, beyond the illiberal idea that political criticism could lead to imprisonment. Already on appeal the citizen had suffered an unfair trial. As I ascertained in the third instance ruling, the Judge of Appeal, Dr. Renato Bricchetti, had not examined decisive reasons, including the failure to acquire the general criminal record of the offended person. During the hearing he had also behaved incompatibly with his duties: he invited the defense to refer to the written documents, he interrupted the defender, he showed impatience with the oral discussion. A conduct detrimental to the right of defense and the appearance of impartiality, confirmed by the declaration signed by those present. Then, while my judgment was pending, a proceeding for slander was even officially opened against the lawyer who had denounced the falsity of the report in the appeal, a proceeding subsequently closed.
It remains inexplicable to me how retired and long-experienced magistrates, who perfectly know the minimum rules of fair trial, were able to create a path which, in its effects, went beyond procedural legality and conditioned the independence of the Third Instance. As a jurist, even before a judge, this is the thing that struck me the most.
Serenity comes from my history as a scholar and lawyer. Guaranteeism is a scientific belief before a professional choice: the end never justifies the means, and the legitimacy of the path is what makes the decision right. I have acted like this for almost five years, always and not only in the Casali case, and I would do it again.”
What consequences should this sentence have on the San Marino judicial system? In essence, it is a question of fundamental rules and principles that are missing or of how they apply or, rather, do they not apply?
“The rules exist, they are very clear and should not be changed because they mark the limit of judicial power. Article 3, paragraph 5, of Constitutional Law no. 1/2021 limits the complaint nullitatis to civil judgments. Article 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regulates the review, but only in bonam partem. The mandatory nature of appeals applies, which in criminal matters is a safeguard of freedom. The problem was a creative exercise of jurisdictional power, who replaced the legislator. The European Court reminds us that judges have interpretative margins, but the judicial organization and the rules of the criminal trial cannot depend on the discretion of those who judge: nullum judicium sine lege. A judge who creates his own power denies the rule of law precisely when he should guarantee it. I defended the Republic knowing that a prison sentence for a crime of opinion, moreover pronounced by a judge without competence and following an unfair trial, would have exposed it to the censure of Strasbourg. I said it in time, in writing and in its own offices, I even appealed to the College guaranteeing the constitutionality of the rules, without being heard.
Whoever contributed to creating this situation, bringing San Marino to the European Court for such serious and obvious violations, must be held accountable. I resigned due to the impossibility of remedying a situation that was outside procedural legality; whoever caused it should, all the more reason, draw the necessary consequences from it. A democracy measures its maturity on its ability to recognize a mistake and correct it.”
Antonio Fabbri
