While Government and institutions continue to be silent on “issues that are so vital for democracy”, majority councilor Giuseppe Morganti takes a position on social media
Libera’s advisor on the violations found by the Court: “Regimes do it, not democracies.” RF’s Nicola Renzi urges him: “What will you do concretely?”
From San Marino information – The ruling of the European Court of Human Rights of 22 October on the Casali case found serious violations of the guarantees of the rule of law: the annulment of the acquittal in the Third Instance took place without an adequate legislative basis and the judge who ordered it was not a court established by law. A ruling that would have required a clear stance on the part of the San Marino institutions. Yet, so far, no statements have come from the Government and the majority, at least publicly, commensurate with the scope of the European decision. (…)
The social debate takes on particular importance because the discussion involved, among others, Giuseppe Maria Morgantimajority advisor of Free. His comment deserves particular attention, precisely because it comes from a member of the majority, while there have been no public positions taken by the Government and the leaders of the majority itself on the heavy European pronouncement.
Morganti wrote: “Even those without legal expertise cannot help but consider the use of legal instruments not provided for by law to act against a person’s freedom to be a violation of the rule of law. Regimes do it, not democracies.”
And again, with a statement that calls into question much broader responsibilities than those of a single pronouncement: “Whoever pronounced the sentence in a non-existent fourth degree of judgment must be stigmatized, but even whoever made its application possible is still responsible”. (…)
And it is precisely on this point that he intervened in the social debate Nicola Renziopposition councilor of Future Republicagreeing with Morganti: “I agree Peppe! But how was it possible? I said it in every place I could. I was laughed at, and not only that.”
Then the question, direct and inevitable, addressed to the majority colleague: “What will you do concretely?”.
This is the political issue that emerges, in the face of a disconcerting silence 10 days after the sentence, maintained by the Government and the court.
