Vatican City, 7 December 2015 (VIS) –
The Holy See Press Office today issued the following communique:
“This morning at 9.30, in the Vatican
City State Tribunal, a further hearing was held in the criminal trial
for the dissemination of confidential news and documents.
The defendants were all present,
accompanied by their respective lawyers (all five of whom are
currently recognised as 'private' lawyers: E. Bellardini for Msgr.
L.A. Vallejo Balda, L. Sgrò for F. I. Chaouqui, R.C. Baffioni for N.
Maio, L. Musso for E. Fittipaldi and R. Palombi for G. Nuzzi).
The College of judges (President Prof.
Giuseppe Dalla Torre, and the members Prof. Piero Antonio Bonnet,
Prof. Paolo Papanti-Pellettier and Prof. Venerando Marano) heard the
oral presentation from the defence, along with the objections and
demands already submitted in writing prior to the established
deadline (Saturday 5 December).
With regard to each objection and
demand submitted, the opinion of the Promoter of Justice represented
by Prof. Milano and Prof. Zannotti was heard.
The College therefore retired to the
Counsel Chamber shortly before 10.30 for around one hour. Finally, it
communicated its decisions, providing the proper detailed
motivations. The hearing concluded before midday.
The objection presented by Chaouqui’s
defence regarded the presumed lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal
given that the events took place in Italy and were carried out by a
person declared a 'political refugee' in Italy. The objection was
rejected, and the College clarified that the current law attributes
without doubt the jurisdiction of the Vatican City State Tribunal,
and observed that Chaouqui, by appearing before the investigators and
the Tribunal, had in practice recognised such jurisdiction.
The demand presented by the Msgr.
Vallejo Balda’s counsel for the defence for a psychological
evaluation of the defendant was rejected. The Promoter of Justice
explained that the Vatican legal system admits requests for a
'psychiatric evaluation' but not for a 'psychological evaluation',
and that aspects of the personality and behaviour of the defendant
can emerge adequately during the proceedings.
Practically all the other demands were
admitted, in particular:
- A technical evaluation requested by
Chaouqui’s counsel for the defence regarding the documentation
available via PC and telephones, to be carried out by an expert
designated by the Tribunal accompanied by an expert selected by the
defence. The Promoter of Justice approved this request.
- The acquisition of various further
elements of documentation and evidence required by various counsels
for the defence (texts of email messages referenced in the
investigation, text messages, articles published in various
newspapers, and a 'psychiatric evaluation' of Msgr. Vallejo Balda
previously carried out and conserved in his home). The Promoter of
Justice was in favour of all the above.
- The College considered it suitable to
admit the requests for further witnesses, presented by various
counsels for the defence and for different reasons (including clergy
such as Cardinals Santos Abril and Parolin, Archbishop Krajewski and
Msgr. Abbondi, and figures from the worlds of journalism and
communications, such as Mario Benotti, Paolo Mieli, Paolo Mondani,
Paola Brazzale and Marco Bernardi), although the Promoter of Justice
had expressed a contrary opinion in some cases”.
No comments:
Post a Comment