The suspension of proceedings was meant to help broker an agreement. Instead, when debate resumed, political clashes erupted over the issue of gender violence. The majority put forward its own motion (which was later approved), Rete objected to the process and withdrew its proposal, while Repubblica Futura and Domani Motus Liberi announced they would abstain. The attempt to reach a shared government commitment ended there.
The confrontation flared up during the continuation of the debate in the joint commission examining updated data on gender violence cases in San Marino. Matteo Zeppa (Rete) presented a proposal and invited discussion. He called for greater economic and housing support for victims, psychological assistance for minors even without a formal complaint from parents, and mandatory, monitored rehabilitation programmes for perpetrators. His requests also included expanding the list of offences prosecutable ex officio, introducing relationship and emotional education in schools, stronger protections for those who report abuse, and reinforcing the listening centre at the Women’s Health Centre (Centro salute donna).
Proceedings were suspended in an effort to find wording that both majority and opposition could agree on. However, no agreement was reached. When the session resumed, it was Guerrino Zanotti (Libera) who presented the majority’s motion, committing the government to prevention programmes in schools, confidentiality for those reporting abuse, economic support, microcredit schemes and access to independent housing. The motion also calls for rehabilitation programmes for perpetrators and potential perpetrators, consideration of an independent authority for the protection of rights, and a further meeting with the Equal Opportunities Authority by 28 February 2027.
Zeppa was scathing in his response. He described the majority’s text as “a slapdash piece of work,” arguing it had been drafted at the last minute without any involvement from the opposition. His criticism also extended to the level of attention given to the debate: “After fifteen years, I’m still astonished that I have to discuss gender violence in a joint commission where three-quarters of the commissioners are talking about councillor expenses. It’s truly disheartening.” He then announced that Rete was withdrawing its proposal.
Marinella Loredana Chiaruzzi (PDCS) rejected this account of events. She explained that the majority had already prepared a draft and had waited until the end of the speeches to finalise it, incorporating input from Secretary of State Luca Beccari and from Miriam Farinelli. “The debate wasn’t over, the issues at stake are extremely sensitive, and attention to them has been high.” She then confirmed that the majority would vote in favour.
For Matteo Casali (RF), however, the problem lay with the content itself. In his view, several requests from the Equal Opportunities Authority remain unanswered: a consolidated legal framework, electronic precautionary measures, emergency foster care arrangements, and a dedicated anti-violence hotline. Casali also objected to the proposal to amend staffing requirements through a parliamentary motion. RF therefore announced it would abstain, calling for further study of the issue.
Gaetano Troina (D-ML) took the same position. He complained that the majority’s proposal had only been handed to the opposition during the session itself, and expressed doubt that the commitments outlined would translate into concrete action.
Before the clash, the debate had focused mainly on the need to give victims the tools to escape violence. Luca Beccari had stressed the need for ongoing support and for protected housing to remain available beyond the initial days of an emergency. He had also proposed creating an ombudsman — an independent authority for the protection of human rights — explaining that the Justice Secretariat was already examining the idea, and confirmed the commitment to strengthening the Gendarmerie’s dedicated unit.
On economic support, the Secretary had also raised the possibility of a revolving microloan fund: “Very often, violence is rooted in an unequal relationship between the perpetrator and the victim — economically, and in terms of each one’s ability to build a different life.” Immediate protection, he argued, must therefore be followed by assistance that allows victims and their children to find housing and become independent.
Miriam Farinelli (RF) had pressed for rehabilitation programmes for abusive men, linked to healthcare, social services, law enforcement and the judiciary. “Any serious policy knows that protection isn’t enough if we leave the perpetrator of that violence untouched.” But she set a clear boundary: “Rehabilitating the man can never be made conditional on reconciling the couple, nor can it become a promise of change used to secure the victim’s forgiveness.”
Zanotti had called for earlier intervention as well, through education on relationships and sexuality and by involving local associations. Giovanni Francesco Ugolini (PDCS) had highlighted the importance of coordination between services and the role of schools in reporting abuse: “The data shows a phenomenon that isn’t decreasing, but which, thanks to better coordination between services, is now being caught earlier.” He had hoped for a jointly agreed motion. In the end, the suspension of the session was not enough to achieve it.
