is it really true that we all want ‘just’ justice?
In the last session, the Commission examined and approved a draft law for the reform of the penal code. A reform expected for years to ensure that our penal system was in line with what happens in all other modern European systems. A text of law, for this reason, born not only from the majority who wanted it to fulfill precise indications of the Great and General Council, but from the work of a technical group made up of Magistrates of all levels, representatives of the Bar Association and of the State Attorney’s Office and Officials of the Secretariat of State for Justice, coordinated by Canzio, who unanimously decided to introduce one in the protection of the innovations that will make San Marino among the European states mainly at the forefront in the protection of the innovations that will make San Marino among the European states the rights of due process and the right to defense. Among the innovations there are greater guarantees in the adoption of personal and real precautionary measures, through a re-examination phase, the introduction of the plea bargain, the non-punishment due to particular tenuousness of the fact, greater guarantees for the defense, increase of instruments that make faster trials, and the introduction in the Republic of San Marino of a third degree of criminal judgment (which has existed for some time in civil and administrative law). All this with the aim of further strengthening our rule of law and increasing the most effective prosecution of crimes by the state. It is really surprising, therefore, that the opposition forces and also one of the trade unions, the CSdL, have tried in recent days to draw attention to this reform, focusing in particular on the introduction of the third degree of judgment, trying to paint this important instrument of guarantee, as a danger for the carrying out of criminal proceedings linked to the so-called “Mazzini account”. Then it is necessary to clarify. The possibility of recourse to the third instance is not at all “a blow in the sponge” as instrumentally one would have us believe; the law indicates precisely which are the four cases in which this appeal is possible: 1) case in which a more serious sentence has been ordered on appeal than in the first instance 2) examination on appeal of one or more reasons 3) violation the right to be heard during the appeal phase 4) confiscation cases without conviction. Therefore cases in which the accused could be convicted even in the presence of important defects in the process. Should we therefore think that this was not the right time to introduce them? Is this the “fair trial” they have in mind and the trust they have in the judiciary thinks whether politics must decide to ask for certain guarantees? The PDCS looks forward to this reform with satisfaction and continues to work so that, thanks also to this, the quality of the exercise of justice in the country can increase. We are not afraid of the results of the “Mazzini account” and we hope that the judiciary will be able to fully fulfill its task; on the contrary, we strongly reject the attempt at political exploitation in progress because this leads us to think that obstacles to the affirmation of the justice that we all say we want in words may arise.
Cs Pdcs
All rights reserved ©