First the indignant note, then the escaped words, finally the ambassador’s call, it is in this Rossini crescendo that Italy risks a diplomatic incident with Switzerland and takes a lesson in liberal constitutionalism from Bern. The subject of the dispute is the release on bail by the Swiss judiciary of Jacques Moretti, owner of the Crans-Montana restaurant where the New Year’s Eve massacre took place.
You may not like the institution of bail, which also exists in the United States, and which in recent days is rightly causing discussion for the potential inequity that institutionalizes the impact of the economic factor in a judicial system, introducing a difference before the law between those who can pay and those who cannot. In Italy it doesn’t exist and it’s a good thing that it does. It is legitimate to say this even from a Government.
But it’s one thing to say this, it’s one thing to criticize a decision in the right way, it’s another to mess with institutional settings and give the impression of demanding that the Swiss federal government interfere in the decisions of the cantonal judiciary, obtaining in exchange a lesson on the separation of powers. Because there are institutional spaces that are not just etiquette but fundamental principles that must be respected.
In this case: there is an Italian Prosecutor’s Office that is investigating the case, having the right to do so because there are Italian victims, and which can communicate by requesting documents from the Swiss judiciary through the institution of the international letter rogatory, which has already been done. There is the State Attorney General’s Office which the Government can activate to support the victims’ lawyers in their defense action. These are all legitimate things, perhaps even necessary. It can also be verified whether the legal conditions exist for a joint criminal investigation, provided for by European law but generally for cases such as transnational crimes of organized crime or terrorism.
What you cannot do is interfere with the judicial decisions of another country or expect that country’s politics to do so, even just to solicit answers.
And indeed to Italy, which made it known that it subordinates the ambassador’s return to Switzerland «to the start of effective collaboration between the judicial authorities of the two States and to the immediate establishment of a joint investigative team so that the responsibilities for the Crans-Montana massacre of 1 January 2026 can be ascertained, without further delay» the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland responded with polite firmness. The DFA announced that it “has taken note of Italy’s request for close collaboration between the Swiss and Italian judicial authorities to clarify the circumstances of the tragic fire in Crans-Montana”, specifying however that the response “concerns the competent judicial authorities”, i.e. the cantonal judiciary. Switzerland and Italy, the Department specifies, “pursue the same objective” and “the circumstances that led to the death of 40 young people from numerous countries must be clarified quickly, transparently and comprehensively, and the people responsible must be held accountable”, adding that the competence lies “with the Valais justice system and not with politics”. Because, “a fundamental principle of our democratic system is the separation of powers, which attributes its own roles, tasks and responsibilities to each state power”. A lesson in constitutional law, therefore, even with the connotations of good education and open diplomatic channels.
The Swiss media are less polite and criticize the actions of the Italian Government and their interference, also attributing them to the internal climate and the imminent referendum on justice.
For our part, it remains to be understood whether the Italian Government really considers it normal to act as if it considers the judiciary subordinate to politics or whether it is instead giving in to penal populismseeking consensus, starting from the case of citizens who are already very tried, who should not be deluded by interference that cannot exist, but who can and must be helped with all the correct tools and channels that a country has at its disposal.
Furthermore, many inconsistencies come to light in this mess: on the one hand it is stated (Nordio a month ago) that it wants to tighten precautionary custody in Italy, on the other hand it demands precautionary custody from the magistrates of another country. On the one hand it is stated that it has no intention of shaking up the separation of powers in the homeland with the reform of careers and CSM, on the other it behaves as if it were not recognized in other people’s homes.
