In recent decades, the Vatican judiciary has never faced such a complex trial and trial, with such a large number of defendants.
The Vatican Inquiry, which began with the sale of London property, and the subsequent Initial Inquiry, cannot be compared to the inquiries and trials that have taken place between Vatican walls in recent decades. This is evident in the number of persons charged after the investigation and the large amount of evidence collected, the computer equipment used, the number and severity of the alleged crimes. The complexity of different knitting cases. It all started with an internal inquiry approved by Pope Francis almost three years ago, who reiterated the importance of the fact that the abuses and subsequent complaints came from the Vatican regulatory body. So the beginning of the trial can be said to be a test of strength for a real “pressure test” on the judiciary of the Vatican City State.
Among the peculiarities, it is certain that the Code of Procedure differs from the Criminal Procedure Code of 1913 in force in Italy, in which the most important standards were recently added, but in no case before the trial. Take its current definitions. This has created objective issues for all parties to the inquiry, and a century ago the legislature was certainly asked to apply this code to real situations that could not have been predicted. Suffice it to say, for example, tapping on the phone or confiscating and using computer equipment. On the other hand, the Vatican Attorney’s Office, which has conducted investigations exclusively with Gendermary as a judicial police force, has often had to deal with substantial and unprecedented complex questions. The enormous amount of documents and numerous letters needed to restructure foreign currency make arguments against it.
As is usually the case at the beginning of any trial, the guardians’ initial objections are to certain decisions and certain behaviors adopted by the Advertiser’s Office, based on different interpretations of the law used in the particular case. This is a stage that is considered “physiological” when the activity performed by the plaintiffs is brought before the judge and the defensive committees are called upon to perform their essential function. On the side of the investigation, the advertiser’s office itself expressed its opinion “Praise for the normal dialectic between the parties, prosecution and defense”, At the same time confirming the validity of the investigations conducted and the documents obtained.
During the trials so far, the Vatican City State Tribunal proved it, and wrote it in black and white in one of its orders, guaranteeing the right to self-defense and a fair trial in general. . This last policy, implemented by the Vatican with the law of July 11, 2013, applies to the framework of law in force in the Vatican City State, a few months after the current pope took office.
It is precisely in the logic that guarantees a fair trial, in this case the right to self-defense, following the invalid exceptions raised by the court-defendants, the skepticism about the interpretation and claims of the law. Received from the Government in this case as well – returned the documents to the Advocate for Justice in order to provide for the missing hearings of the defendants. As is known, the law of 1913 ordered the court to file all documents, including audio and video recordings of the hearings of defendants and witnesses made with apparently unimaginable tools.
The Office of the Advertiser has, therefore, pointed out that its office has filed all audio and video recordings of the hearings in accordance with the court order of October 6th. “All documents that are evidence are found in the records of the investigation”. Also, the advertiser explained about the omissions In some parts of the investigation reports, they are “Unrelated Reports” This is the investigation and that they are subject to “Confidential requirements because they are subject to independent inquiry into other procedures”.
The court, as announced by the president during a hearing, is now waiting for the promoter of justice to define the positions of some of the defendants, with a dismissal or a fresh request for a hearing. This phase will end in mid-January 2022 and will be determined as a result. At that point, all decisions regarding other exceptions made by the defendants, which the court has not yet ruled on, can only begin the treatment of merit – one way or another – once they have been made. The whole investigation, thus entering into the heart of the procedural phase of examining the large-scale actions and documents that make up the alleged argument.