Vatican City - “The Court of Cassation declares the appeal lodged by the Promoter of Justice inadmissible and declares the judgment delivered by the Tribunal of the State to be final.” Cutting words that fall like a blade upon the head of the Promoter of Justice Alessandro Diddi. On 9 January 2026, the Court of Cassation of the State of Vatican City closed one of the most delicate and controversial chapters of the recent Vatican judicial season.
The decision is contained in Order No. 25/25, adopted by the panel presided over by Cardinal Kevin Farrell and composed of Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, Cardinal Ángel Fernández Artime, Judge Chiara Minelli and Judge Patrizia Piccialli. The Court met in chambers and delivered the ruling after examining the appeal lodged by the Office of the Promoter of Justice against the order of the Court of Appeal which had declared the prosecution’s appeal inadmissible in criminal proceedings No. 26/23 R.G.P.C.A.
A rejection without mitigating factors
The Court of Cassation does not enter into the merits of the charges, but strikes at the very heart of the prosecution’s action: the total absence of specific grounds of appeal. The order states that the Promoter of Justice “limited himself to attaching to the notice of appeal the closing submissions delivered before the Tribunal, without ‘setting out’ the grounds of appeal, as required by Article 131 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
A particularly significant passage clarifies that the specificity of the grounds “is essential in order to delimit the factual and legal issues on which the discussion between the parties and the examination by the appellate judge are to take place.” This is therefore not a formal defect, but a structural deficiency of the appeal, which prevents the judge from understanding which points of the judgment are being challenged and why. It is humiliating, for the State of Vatican City, to have to observe that its own prosecuting authority demonstrates in this way that it has no knowledge of the State’s Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court further notes that the so-called “additional” grounds were filed out of time, when any possibility of remedy was already precluded. Hence the conclusion: the appeal of the Promoter of Justice is inadmissible and cannot be re-examined.
The non-existence of “abnormality”
Also particularly relevant is the rejection of the argument by which the prosecution attempted its final move: the alleged “abnormality” of the order of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Cassation clarifies that abnormality concerns only acts “detached from the entire procedural legal order” or exercises of power outside any normative provision. None of this applies in the present case: the Court of Appeal exercised an expressly recognised power, correctly invoking the applicable rules. The result is definitive: the judgment of the Tribunal of the State of 16 December 2023, insofar as it did not recognise the criminal liability of the defendants, becomes irrevocable. This represents an unprecedented defeat for the State’s prosecuting authority, but above all a bitter and difficult-to-evade finding: substantial financial resources have been deployed to support procedural initiatives lacking an adequate legal foundation, with a significant and far from marginal impact on the budget of the State of Vatican City.
Alessandro Diddi out of the proceedings
Alongside this ruling, the Court of Cassation also delivered Order No. 24/25, concerning the recusal of the Promoter of Justice Alessandro Diddi. Here too the decision is instructive. The Court notes that, on the very day scheduled for the decision on the recusal, Diddi filed a declaration of abstention. An act which, as the Court states, “exempts this Court, at this stage, from taking any decision with regard to the recusal.”
In other words: no assessment on the merits, because Diddi removed himself from the proceedings of his own accord. “Someone made it clear to the Promoter that he had to step out of the proceedings for the good of the Institution. This theatre could no longer continue,” commented a cardinal, making it clear that Diddi no longer enjoys the protections he had under Pope Francis.
A scene already seen
This carries even greater weight when one recalls what happened on 21 September 2025, when Diddi himself declared in court: “I finally have the opportunity to defend myself against a series of insinuations. I thank the defence teams for this initiative. I wish to make use of the three-day period to express my considerations calmly, in order to dispel the doubts that have arisen in recent months regarding the conduct of the investigations.” That ostentatious confidence has proved unfounded in the light of the facts: on that occasion Diddi even went so far as to leave the courtroom. And, as the months passed, those words lost all substance. There were no truly solid elements to respond to the objections, so much so that, aware of the foreseeable outcome before the Court of Cassation, the Promoter preferred to file an abstention, avoiding a ruling that would have definitively compromised his credibility.
A problem of institutional credibility
These two rulings, read together, present a troubling picture. It is not merely a procedural defeat, but confirmation of a structural inadequacy in the role of Promoter of Justice. Serious errors, such as the failure to formulate grounds of appeal, carry a very high cost in terms of procedural economy and produce direct damage to the credibility of the State of Vatican City. The issue, however, runs even deeper. Alessandro Diddi is not qualified to hold the role he exercises: he has never obtained any qualification in canon law or Vatican law. Yet he was entrusted with a function that requires highly specialised expertise and a rigorous knowledge of the legal system in which one operates. The outcome of these events clearly shows how deleterious it is to entrust key roles to professionals lacking adequate training. Vatican justice today pays the price for choices that privileged criteria other than competence, producing years of litigation, high costs and an erosion of international trust in the State’s institutions.
The Court of Cassation, with its characteristic restraint, does not pronounce political judgments. But its orders speak for themselves. And they tell of a season in which improvisation and inadequacy have left deep marks, difficult to erase.
fr.M.E.
Silere non possum