The Vatican’s chief prosecutor, Alessandro Diddi, has staunchly defended the integrity and fairness of the Vatican’s justice system amid criticisms that Pope Francis’ absolute power and interventions in last year’s high-profile trial compromised the defendants’ fundamental rights. This defense comes as the Vatican tribunal prepares to finalize its written reasonings for its December 2023 verdicts, which convicted a cardinal and eight others of various financial crimes related to a 350 million euro investment in a London property. The tribunal has yet to explain its decisions.
Diddi’s defense was articulated in an essay published last month in the peer-reviewed Italian journal “Diritto e religioni” (Law and Religion). Although he was not identified as the Vatican’s top criminal prosecutor, legal experts noted that such a publication is unusual, given that Diddi is a party to a trial heading into the appeals phase. His essay responded to two academics and lawyers representing some of the ten defendants who questioned the fairness of the two-year trial and preceding investigation. These critiques have raised broader concerns about the possibility of a fair trial in an absolute monarchy where the pope holds supreme legislative, executive, and judicial power.
Critics have pointed to Pope Francis’ role in the trial, noting that he secretly issued four decrees during the investigation that altered Vatican procedures to benefit prosecutors. They have also questioned the independence and impartiality of the tribunal, given that its judges swear obedience to the pope, who can hire and fire them at will. Recently, Francis appointed several of his closest allies—cardinals with no experience in Vatican law—to sit as judges on the Vatican’s highest court of appeal and issued new rules on judges’ salary and pension benefits.
In his essay, Diddi argued that the trial and the Vatican’s legal system were fair. He insisted that the tribunal and its judges were fully independent and that the defense had ample opportunity to present its case. He claimed that the pope’s four decrees merely filled regulatory gaps in the Vatican’s unique legal code and did not affect the trial’s outcome or the defendants’ rights. “Even though the Holy See isn’t a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, it doesn’t place itself outside the international community and doesn’t renege on the principles that inspire it,” Diddi wrote.
The four secret decrees, signed by the pope in 2019 and 2020, granted Vatican prosecutors extensive powers to investigate, including unchecked wiretapping and the ability to detain suspects without a judge’s warrant. These decrees only came to light just before the trial, were never officially published, and provided no rationale or timeframe for the surveillance or detention, nor oversight by an independent judge. Diddi denied that the decrees impacted the suspects’ rights, stating they merely provided an “authentic interpretation” by the pope to Vatican norms. He argued that the decrees only “disciplined some particular aspects of the investigation” and “did not determine any failure in the guarantees offered to the suspects.”
Geraldina Boni, a canon lawyer who provided a legal opinion for the defense of Cardinal Angelo Becciu, has written that the decrees represented a clear violation of the right to a fair trial since the suspects were unaware of the broad powers granted to prosecutors until they were on trial. One defendant was jailed for ten days by prosecutors after coming in for questioning.
Diddi noted that Swiss and Italian courts have previously recognized the independence and impartiality of the Vatican City State’s legal system in agreeing to provide judicial assistance in freezing the suspects’ assets. However, these rulings were issued before the current trial ended and the decrees’ existence was known. Additionally, a British judge ordered the release of one suspect’s assets, citing “appalling” misrepresentations and omissions in Diddi’s case.
Questions about the fairness and impartiality of the Vatican City State’s legal system could have significant implications for the Holy See. The Vatican relies on other countries to cooperate in law enforcement investigations and implement its sentences. These countries might be less willing to cooperate if they doubt the fairness of the system. Furthermore, whenever the Holy See signs commercial contracts with non-Vatican entities, it insists that any contract dispute be handled by its own tribunal. This contractual clause could become difficult to negotiate if there are concerns about whether the other side will be treated fairly by the Vatican court.
Less hypothetically, the Holy See is subject to periodic review by the Council of Europe’s Moneyval commission, whose evaluators analyze the effectiveness of the judicial system in fighting money laundering and terrorist financing.
In a related development, the Vatican’s No. 3 official recently concluded three days of testimony in a London court in a spinoff counter-suit brought by one of the Vatican defendants. Raffaele Mincione, a London-based financier, is seeking to have the British High Court declare that he acted “in good faith” in his dealings with the Vatican over the London property. He hopes to clear his name and repair the reputational harm he claims to have suffered as a result of the Vatican trial. Mincione has also filed a complaint with the U.N. human rights office in Geneva, alleging that the pope violated his rights by authorizing surveillance via the decrees. The Vatican has rejected the claim, stating that the investigation followed all relevant laws and international agreements and that no surveillance was actually ordered for Mincione. Mincione and the other defendants have announced appeals.
Source: Various sources
