Free Trieste Movement

RULE OF LAW VS STATE OF FACTS

The recent intervention of the UN Security Council which, with document S/2015/809 of 23 October 2015 confirmed the legal status of the Free Territory of Trieste rises many questions also on the judicial side, where the legal battle for the recognition of the rights of the Trieste citizens continues since longer than 4 years.

Once determined that, as confirmed by the UN Security Council, the Free Territory of Trieste has the right to have its own judiciary system, separate from that of the State of Italy, which as for this question is a mere third State, the problem becomes inescapable.

All legal decisions (on civil, criminal, amministrative matters or concerning taxation) in which the jurisdiction of the State of Italy over the Free Territory of Trieste is under question cannot, in facts, be assigned to Italian magistracy, rather, only to an impartial judge, to whom Italian lawyers would not have political obligations. And the appointment of this judge cannot be a choice of Italian authorities either.

In compliance with the specific, international obligations, the appointment of that judge is actually due to the Governments of the United States of America and of the United Kingdom, for they hold the primary mandate of Government of the Free Territory of  Trieste (Treaty of Peace, Annex VII, article 1; Memorandum of understanding of London of 5 October 1954), or else to the UN Security Council, as guarantor of the Free Territory of Trieste (UNSC Resolution S/RES/16 of 1947; Treaty of Peace, art. 21 and Annex VI, art. 2).

During the appointment process of the new judge and when identifying both parties, it is also necessary keeping into account the pertinent provision of the Peace Treaty, especially the Final Clauses for the resolution of disputes (articles 87 and 86) as well as articles 21 and 90, which, establishing the Free Territory of Trieste as a new sovereign State at the coming into force of the Treaty (15 September 1947) did also entitle it with the status of party in all disputes which involve it – direct or indirectly.

Now it is all about understanding how the Italian Government, which is directly referred on the matter intends to react to solve a solution that has already gone beyond all limits of tolerability, with dozens of citizens of the Free Territory of Trieste investigated and, sometimes, even convicted by illegitimate courts – and for one only reason: they exercised the rights established by the Treaty of Peace that Italy, with its judged, is not willing to recognize: a state of fact (Italy) against the rule of the law (the Free Territory of Trieste).

Translated from blog “Ambiente e Legalità” – “Environment and Legality” by Roberto Giurastante

19 thoughts on “RULE OF LAW VS STATE OF FACTS