On October 17, 2025, San Marino found itself at the center of a heated political and institutional debate following the conviction of a San Marino citizen in Italy for sexual violence against four minors. The case, widely reported by San Marino RTV and echoed in official communications from the Segreteria di Stato per la Giustizia, has sparked urgent calls for procedural clarity, institutional responsibility, and above all, the protection of minors within the microstate.
The Consiglio Grande e Generale, San Marino’s legislative council, responded to the mounting public concern by approving a specific Order of the Day. This measure, adopted by majority vote after broad debate that included opposition parties, established a technical-administrative commission. The commission’s mandate is clear: to identify and verify any procedural gaps, operational responsibilities, and organizational or informational shortcomings that may have contributed to the handling of the case. According to the Segreteria di Stato per la Giustizia, this commission represents the institutional mechanism through which San Marino intends to scrutinize its own processes and ensure that such grave incidents are never repeated.
Transparency and strict adherence to procedure have become the watchwords of the Segreteria in these sensitive circumstances. In an official statement, the office emphasized its commitment to acting "with transparency and respect for institutional prerogatives." The Secretary of State for Justice, Stefano Canti, made it clear that the establishment and functioning of the commission were not matters for unilateral determination by the opposition, but rather the result of a collective decision by the Consiglio Grande e Generale. "It is not up to the opposition to determine the ways to ascertain any responsibilities," Canti stated. "Rather, it is for the Consiglio Grande e Generale, which, after a thorough debate, approved an Order of the Day that established a technical-administrative commission. If it is truly the will of the opposition to shed light on the facts, the sooner this commission is established, the sooner we will achieve our goal."
Despite the urgency, the process has hit a bureaucratic snag. In order to make the commission operational, the Segreteria di Stato per la Giustizia reached out to all council groups—both majority and opposition—requesting the names of their representatives for the commission. However, as of October 17, the opposition had not submitted any nominations. This delay, the Segreteria warned, could undermine the commission’s ability to conduct a rapid and thorough analysis. "The debate on whether the commission should be parity-based or not cannot and must not become a pretext for paralyzing the necessary verification process," the Segreteria cautioned, urging the opposition to match its calls for action with concrete institutional collaboration.
Meanwhile, the issue of how best to conduct the investigation has become a point of contention. The opposition has advocated for a parity-based investigative commission, seeking equal representation and oversight. The Segreteria, however, insists that the technical-administrative commission already approved by the Consiglio is the appropriate vehicle for inquiry, and that further debate over its composition should not stall the urgent work at hand.
The question of accountability extends beyond the political arena. In response to requests from the opposition to hear from the Director of the Tribunal, Giovanni Canzio, in the Justice Affairs Commission, Secretary Canti confirmed the director’s willingness to participate. However, he clarified that calling the commission meeting is not within the Segreteria’s remit but must be coordinated with the President of the Justice Affairs Commission. This point, seemingly procedural, underscores the complex web of institutional responsibilities and the need for coordinated action among San Marino’s various governing bodies.
Outside the halls of government, civil society has also raised its voice. The group Genitori Sammarinesi, representing local parents, has thrown its support behind the opposition’s call for the commission. But their demands go further. In a forceful statement, the group declared: "Commission, yes, but also immediate laws. Anyone convicted of abuse against minors must be suspended instantly. The precautionary principle must prevail over any other consideration; we cannot wait for the paperwork to run its course." Their intervention brings an added layer of urgency to the debate, highlighting the deep public anxiety surrounding the case and the perceived need for swift, decisive action to protect vulnerable children.
At its core, the government’s stated objective remains unequivocal: to ensure the maximum protection of minors and to equip San Marino’s legal system with the necessary tools to safeguard the community. "The ascertainment of the facts is the first, fundamental step in this direction and its realization now also depends on the prompt response of the opposition," the Segreteria reiterated.
The broader context of the case cannot be ignored. San Marino, a small republic surrounded by Italy, has long prided itself on its independent legal system and strong sense of community. But the cross-border nature of this crime—committed by a San Marino citizen but prosecuted in Italy—has brought to light questions about cooperation, information flow, and the adequacy of existing protective measures for minors. The technical-administrative commission, if and when fully constituted, will be tasked with examining these very issues: Were there lapses in communication between San Marino and Italian authorities? Did procedural or organizational shortcomings allow the perpetrator to evade scrutiny? And, perhaps most critically, what reforms are needed to prevent such tragedies in the future?
As the debate continues, the pressure on all political actors is mounting. The government’s call for swift action is matched by the opposition’s insistence on robust oversight, while parents and advocacy groups demand not just investigation but immediate legislative change. The Secretary of State for Justice has sought to balance these competing demands, appealing for unity and focus. "If it is truly the will of the opposition to shed light on the facts, the sooner this commission is established, the sooner we will achieve our goal," Canti reiterated, underscoring the need for both urgency and institutional discipline.
For now, the ball remains in the opposition’s court. The Segreteria di Stato per la Giustizia has made its move, the commission framework is in place, and the public’s expectations are clear. What happens next—whether the commission is swiftly activated, whether new laws are introduced, and whether San Marino emerges from this crisis with a stronger, more protective legal system—will depend on the willingness of all parties to put aside procedural wrangling and focus on the paramount goal: the safety and well-being of the republic’s children.
As San Marino grapples with the aftermath of this harrowing case, the coming weeks will test not only its institutions but also its collective resolve to confront uncomfortable truths and enact meaningful change.