1. Jean-Marc Sauvé is actually quite a big deal (but many French people don’t know that either), he was vice-president (a confusing term as this means he was the head of the Conseil, and therefore the top civil servant in France, the president of the Conseil being the Prime Minister) of the Conseil d’Etat (which is both the French “Supreme Court” equivalent for administrative matters, i.e. any dispute arising with the state or its agents defined broadly, but also the top advisory body to the government on any legal matter - so much for separation of powers...) for years, and very ably so.
The bishops chose him precisely because he is so credible, and could well manage such a massive project, and because he is Catholic.
Not to dismiss the bishops’ laudable decision to open diocesan archives, but they don’t face anything like the endless and eye-wateringly costly litigation threats the US bishops do. Then again, the Church in France had been cash poor for a while now, so maybe they have been more « purified » than richer counterparts elsewhere.
2. On the question of the validity of the Lateran treaty being called into question by Becciu et al., I wonder if the potential consequences aren’t over-estimated a bit. It seems to me the ECHR frequently condemns many member states (including, say, Russia for having a judiciary system of unreliable independence relative to the executive power) without those states being somehow brought under ECHR dominion. Indeed, the ECHR had’s for example ruled that French prosecutors aren’t independent “judges” (they are nominated by, and answer to, the minister of justice, ie the executive) - that hasn’t stopped the French legal system from just carrying on like before.
In the hypothesis you make, the claimants would argue (first to the Italian courts, and then eventually to the ECHR) that they couldn’t be jailed in Italy because the original Vatican sentence was issued by a “kangaroo court”. The argument is not necessarily that far-fetched, but I doubt the question would revolve around the validity of the Lateran Treaty itself (a treaty which the ECHR has no jurisdiction/competence over). Rather, the ECHR would be asked to rule on whether Italy breached a fundamental right of the claimants (namely, the right to a fair trial under article 6 ECHR). If it did rule Italy violated such a right, Italy would have to find a solution around that (most likely, release the defendants, although I guess it could simply retry the case in Italian courts, if statute of limitations allowed).
This would be a big blow to the Vatican, but would have no impact on the validity of the Lateran Treaty itself. Unless someone made the specific case (to the Italian « Supreme Court », not the ECHR) that the Lateran Treaty itself was invalid because it asks Italy to ratify « kangaroo court » sentences - an unlikely outcome, and I am not even sure whether the Italian legal system allows for direct appeals against constitutional matters such as treaties.
1. Jean-Marc Sauvé is actually quite a big deal (but many French people don’t know that either), he was vice-president (a confusing term as this means he was the head of the Conseil, and therefore the top civil servant in France, the president of the Conseil being the Prime Minister) of the Conseil d’Etat (which is both the French “Supreme Court” equivalent for administrative matters, i.e. any dispute arising with the state or its agents defined broadly, but also the top advisory body to the government on any legal matter - so much for separation of powers...) for years, and very ably so.
The bishops chose him precisely because he is so credible, and could well manage such a massive project, and because he is Catholic.
Not to dismiss the bishops’ laudable decision to open diocesan archives, but they don’t face anything like the endless and eye-wateringly costly litigation threats the US bishops do. Then again, the Church in France had been cash poor for a while now, so maybe they have been more « purified » than richer counterparts elsewhere.
2. On the question of the validity of the Lateran treaty being called into question by Becciu et al., I wonder if the potential consequences aren’t over-estimated a bit. It seems to me the ECHR frequently condemns many member states (including, say, Russia for having a judiciary system of unreliable independence relative to the executive power) without those states being somehow brought under ECHR dominion. Indeed, the ECHR had’s for example ruled that French prosecutors aren’t independent “judges” (they are nominated by, and answer to, the minister of justice, ie the executive) - that hasn’t stopped the French legal system from just carrying on like before.
In the hypothesis you make, the claimants would argue (first to the Italian courts, and then eventually to the ECHR) that they couldn’t be jailed in Italy because the original Vatican sentence was issued by a “kangaroo court”. The argument is not necessarily that far-fetched, but I doubt the question would revolve around the validity of the Lateran Treaty itself (a treaty which the ECHR has no jurisdiction/competence over). Rather, the ECHR would be asked to rule on whether Italy breached a fundamental right of the claimants (namely, the right to a fair trial under article 6 ECHR). If it did rule Italy violated such a right, Italy would have to find a solution around that (most likely, release the defendants, although I guess it could simply retry the case in Italian courts, if statute of limitations allowed).
This would be a big blow to the Vatican, but would have no impact on the validity of the Lateran Treaty itself. Unless someone made the specific case (to the Italian « Supreme Court », not the ECHR) that the Lateran Treaty itself was invalid because it asks Italy to ratify « kangaroo court » sentences - an unlikely outcome, and I am not even sure whether the Italian legal system allows for direct appeals against constitutional matters such as treaties.