The Constitutional Court declared five referendum questions on justice admissible but inadmissible the one on the direct civil liability of judges, on cannabis and yesterday on euthanasia. “It is a pity that the referendum was not on euthanasia but on the murder of the consenting party,” said the president of the Constitutional Court Giuliano Amato at a press conference at Palazzo della Consulta. Read also Abrogation of the provisions on non-compliance, limitation of precautionary measures, separation of the functions of magistrates, elimination of the lists of presenters for the election of the togates of the CSM, the questions deemed admissible by the Constitutional Court. “We have declared admissible the referendum on the functions to be recognized to the judicial councils in their complete composition”, explained Amato. CANNABIS – “We have declared inadmissible the referendum on narcotic substances, not on cannabis – said the president of the Constitutional Court – The question is divided into three sub-questions and the first foresees that the cultivation of the narcotic substances of which to tables 1 and 3, which do not even include cannabis but include poppy, coca, the so-called hard drugs. This alone would be enough to make us violate international obligations “. “If the question is divided into three sub-questions, I cannot touch this train: if the first wagon derails, it takes the other two with it,” he added. JUSTICE – “We have declared inadmissible the referendum on the direct responsibility of magistrates. Because since the rule of indirect responsibility has always been the rule for magistrates, the introduction of direct responsibility makes the referendum more than abrogative” explained the president of the Constitutional Court. “Here we are talking about the responsibility of the magistrates for whom – he added – the rule, unlike other public officials, had always been of indirect responsibility”. EUTHANASIA – As for the ‘legal euthanasia’ referendum, “it is a pity that the referendum was not on euthanasia but on the murder of the consenting party”, said the President of the Constitutional Court. “It hurt us to hear that those who have decided in this way do not know what suffering means. But it is the word euthanasia that has brought all this. The referendum was on the murder of the consenting party”, reiterated Amato. “The question about the murder of the consenting party – said the president of the Constitutional Court – opened up criminal immunity for anyone who kills someone with that someone else’s consent”.