Chief Prosecutor Defends Vatican Legal System After Recent Criticism of Pope’s Absolute Power

FILE – Pope Francis attends a meeting with participants of the 50th Italian Catholic Social Week in Trieste, Italy, July 7, 2024. The Vatican’s chief prosecutor staunchly defended the integrity and fairness of the city-state’s justice system, amid criticism that Pope Francis’ absolute power and his interventions in the recently concluded “trial of the century” violated the fundamental rights of the accused. (AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino, File)

ROME (AP) — The Vatican’s top prosecutor staunchly defended the integrity and fairness of the city-state’s justice system in response to criticism that Pope Francis’ absolute authority and his interventions in last year’s so-called “trial of the century” violated the defendants’ fundamental rights.

Prosecutor Alessandro Diddi’s defense comes as the Vatican tribunal finalizes written reasons for its December 2023 rulings. The tribunal convicted the cardinal and eight others of various financial crimes related to the Holy See’s €350 million investment in a London property, but has not yet explained its decisions.

Diddi published the essay last month in the peer-reviewed Italian journal Law and Religion, though the online article did not identify him as the Vatican’s chief criminal prosecutor. Legal experts said such a publication in an academic journal was unusual because Diddi is a party to the lawsuit.

He was essentially responding to two scientists — and lawyers representing some of the 10 defendants — who raised questions about whether the two-year trial and investigation that preceded it were fair.

Their criticism raised questions about whether a fair trial is even possible in an absolute monarchy, in which the pope holds ultimate legislative, executive and judicial power – and he used it in this case.

These critics cited Pope Francis’ role in the trial, since he secretly issued four decrees during the investigation that changed Vatican procedures to benefit prosecutors. They also questioned the independence and impartiality of the tribunal itself, since its judges swear allegiance to Francis, who can hire and fire them at will.

Francis recently appointed several friendly cardinals — none of whom have experience in Vatican law — to serve as judges on the Vatican’s highest appeals court and issued new rules on judges’ salaries and pensions.

In his essay, Diddi argued that the trial and the Vatican system itself were certainly fair. He insisted that the tribunal and its judges were fully independent and that the defense had every opportunity to present its case. He said the pope’s four decrees merely filled regulatory gaps in the Vatican’s peculiar legal code and had no impact on the outcome of the trial or the rights of the accused.

“Although the Holy See is not a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, it does not place itself outside the international community and does not deviate from the principles that inspire it,” Diddi wrote.

Four secret executive decrees were signed by the pope in 2019 and 2020, giving Vatican prosecutors broad powers to investigate, including through unsupervised wiretaps and derogations from existing laws, allowing them to detain suspects without a judge’s order. The decrees were not released until just before the trial, were never officially published, and did not provide a rationale or time frame for supervision or detention, nor did they provide oversight by an independent judge.

Diddi denied the decrees affected the rights of suspects. He said they simply provided an “authentic interpretation” of Vatican norms by the pope.

He argued that regardless, the decrees merely “disciplined certain specific aspects of the investigation” and “did not find any violation of the guarantees given to the suspects.”

Geraldina Boni, a canon lawyer who wrote a legal opinion in defense of Cardinal Angelo Becciu, wrote that the decrees were a clear violation of the right to a fair trial because suspects were unaware of the broad powers granted to prosecutors. One defendant who showed up for questioning was sentenced by prosecutors to 10 days in jail.

Diddi noted that Swiss and Italian courts had previously recognized the independence and impartiality of the Vatican City State’s legal system by agreeing to provide legal assistance in freezing the suspects’ assets.

However, those rulings were made before the current trial concluded and the existence of the decrees was revealed. In addition, a British judge ordered the assets of one of the suspects to be released after finding “appalling” distortions and omissions in the Diddi case.

Questions about the impartiality and fairness of the Vatican City State’s legal system could have future implications for the Holy See, as the Vatican relies on the cooperation of other states to conduct investigations and execute judgments.

Moreover, whenever the Holy See signs commercial agreements with non-Vatican entities, it insists that any contractual disputes be resolved by its own tribunal. This contractual clause can become difficult to negotiate if there are doubts about whether the other party will be treated fairly by the Vatican court.

Less hypothetically, the Holy See is subject to periodic scrutiny by the Council of Europe’s Moneyval Commission, whose experts analyse the effectiveness of the judicial system in combating money laundering and terrorism financing.

In a related development, the Vatican’s third-most senior official wrapped up three days of testimony in a London court on Monday as part of a counterclaim filed by one of the accused Vatican officials.

Raffaele Mincione, a London financier, is seeking a ruling from Britain’s Supreme Court that he acted “in good faith” in his dealings with the Vatican over a London property deal, hoping to clear his name and repair the reputational damage he says he and his company have suffered as a result of the Vatican’s lawsuit.

Mincione also filed a complaint with the UN human rights office in Geneva, alleging that the pope had violated his rights by authorizing surveillance through decrees. The Vatican rejected that claim, saying in a press statement that the investigation was in compliance with all relevant laws and international agreements and that no surveillance of Mincione had actually been ordered.

Mincione and the other defendants announced they would appeal.