Repubblica Futura responds to the joint statement with which, on Sunday, the entire State Congress replied to its accusations regarding the Simoncini case, arguing that the Judicial Council’s resolution had been approved unanimously. In its note, the party disputes that reading, delves into the substance of the 23 September act, and returns to the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. The full statement follows below.
After reading the statement issued over the past few days by Secretary of State Teodoro Lonfernini regarding the so-called parallel plan, we sincerely thought Sammarinese politics might take a step forward in terms of courage, freedom of expression and independence of powers.
Unfortunately, Sunday’s joint statement from the entire State Congress proved us spectacularly wrong.
We imagine, with a certain amusement, Secretary of State Canti, on a mission in the Gulf, drafting the learned statement the State Congress chose to dedicate to us. In truth, we doubt he wrote it himself, and indeed we wonder who actually put it together.
But perhaps this alone already marks a clear distinction between us and a certain kind of politics. We put our own faces on the line, we don’t act as ventriloquists, we know that taking positions comes at a cost, but fighting the right battles is a duty for anyone who wants to do politics in a country whose room for manoeuvre is, unfortunately, ever more limited.
But let’s get to the substance. How can we not mention, once again, the Adesso.sm government, the typical talisman brandished in distorted fashion whenever things get difficult? Well, it will not have escaped members of the government that none of the decisions taken by that “notorious” government had the dubious honour of receiving condemnatory rulings from the European Court of Human Rights — something that has by now become routine for the much-praised new era of justice. Have the members of the State Congress truly forgotten the repeated warnings from the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, from the Commissioner for Human Rights, and the letter that various judges of the Sammarinese court themselves chose to send to precisely these bodies at the time, denouncing what was later dubbed, in journalistic shorthand, the “chickpea land” affair? Is it not precisely that same retroactive interpretation sanctioned by the Strasbourg Court that led, on one hand, to the demotion of Dr. Simoncini and, on the other, to the removal of Professor Guzzetta from his role as head of the Court?
Gentlemen, let’s not fool ourselves! Is it not precisely Constitutional Law no. 1 of 2021, which this majority keeps defending, that is being seriously called into question by the ECHR ruling? Can you actually read?
We don’t know how much longer this “everything is fine” rhetoric can go on; by now, surely everyone has understood that it doesn’t hold up, and that you’re trying to pretend the ECHR rulings simply don’t exist.
Finally, as for the member proposed by RF and appointed by the Grand and General Council (Consiglio Grande e Generale) to the Judicial Council, he has our full esteem, and precisely by virtue of that esteem — as with all appointments we make — he has complete freedom and autonomy to behave, argue, decide and vote as he sees fit within the body he belongs to, without having to answer to anyone, neither to RF nor, still less, to the State Congress. Perhaps this is yet another thing that proudly sets us apart from those who treat appointees to various bodies as mere button-pushers.
As for the Judicial Council’s resolution, we can only point out a few issues.
The resolution from the Judicial Council’s session of 23 September does not approve the preliminary report of 8 September, which was meant to guide the body’s decision, but merely takes note of it. Evidently it contained elements the Judicial Council could not fully endorse — further proof of just how complex this affair is, and of the enormous difficulties that the retroactive 2020 measure, the one a well-known politician of the past had foreshadowed as the infamous “chickpea land,” continues to pose for our country.
Moreover, the reiterated position that the Sammarinese legal system cannot review or revoke civil or administrative rulings that have become final appears to be openly contradicted by the Collegio Garante (Guarantor Panel) which, by a cruel twist of fate, meeting at the very same time as the Judicial Council, seems to have reached conclusions opposite to those stated by the Council.
Ultimately, as regards the conclusions of the resolution — namely the absence of the prerequisites for reinstatement to the role of magistrate, a role unlawfully revoked under the notorious Qualified Law no. 1 of 2020, as the ECHR ruled — there remains, in any case, a need for further assessment and for the final judgment of the very Council of Europe bodies responsible for verifying whether the rulings are actually being enforced.
Repubblica Futura
