Sunday, 24 February 2013

Hanging Rajiv’s assassins will be constitutionally incorrect: Former SC judge

விடுதலை செய்!

Hanging Rajiv’s assassins will be constitutionally incorrect: Former SC judge
Chennai, Feb 24: The recent execution of Afzal Guru has brought the spotlight back on the legality of hanging those who have been serving long sentences in jail after being awarded the death sentence.

 Thirteen years after awarding death penalty to Rajiv Gandhi's assassins, former Supreme Court judge Justice KT Thomas said that it would be constitutionally incorrect to hang them now. In an interview, Justice Thomas said the judgment itself had errors as it did not consider the antecedents, nature and character of the accused.

 The former apex court judge also called for a review of the case as their hanging would violate Article 21 of the Constitution. A three-judge bench presided over by Justice Thomas had awarded death sentence to Nalini Sriharan, Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan.

 Nalini's death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment in April 2000. The trio's case had been transferred to the Supreme Court and the court is expected to decide after the Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar case verdict.

I welcome the fact that decades of terrorism by the LTTE have come to an end.NP

I welcome the fact that decades of terrorism by the LTTE have come to an end. They were indeed a very brutal organisation.UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (HR) Navi Pillay


Govt. efforts at investigating alleged war crimes lack credibility: NP
Namini Wijedasa in an e-mail interview with UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (HR) Navi Pillay

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (HR) Navi Pillay says none of the steps taken domestically in Sri Lanka, to investigate allegations of war crimes, have inspired confidence. This made an international investigation essential. Excerpts from her email interview with the Sunday Times:
 
There is to be another resolution on Sri Lanka at the upcoming sessions. What use are such resolutions, when (as is evident from your most recent report to the Council) the last one had such little impact?
 
I disagree. It is not that the last resolution has had little impact, but rather, that the Govt. has made little progress in pursuing true accountability and reconciliation measures. But in response to the resolution, the Govt. has at least made commitments and plans of action, and there is a framework in which to measure progress. I also think the resolution has sparked a proper debate on these issues in Sri Lanka, in which, calmer and more rational voices from civil society can be heard.
 
The Govt. says it serves no purpose to introduce “resolution after resolution” on Sri Lanka, so soon after it defeated a brutal terrorist organisation; that such resolutions are impediments to reconciliation and its domestic programmes.
 
I welcome the fact that decades of terrorism by the LTTE have come to an end. They were indeed a very brutal organisation. It is, nevertheless, important to address all situations where there have been massive HR violations, so that they are not brushed under the carpet, with the inevitable result that resentments begin to fester and harden, dramatically jeopardizing the chances of long-term peace and stability. It is hard to see how real reconciliation will be possible, if the truth is not told, and if justice is not seen to be carried out.

You expressed strong concern about the impeachment of the Chief Justice (CJ) and its impact on the rule of law. The Govt. accused you of overreaching your mandate. Didn’t you?

No. My mandate is to protect and promote the HR of everyone everywhere. And for HR to be protected, obviously, you must have an effective system of rule of law. There must be all the necessary checks and balances. As a former judge myself, both at home in South Africa and in international courts, I am acutely aware of how important it is to maintain the integrity and independence of the judiciary. And I have questioned politicised actions against the judiciary in many other countries.

The CJ was impeached after last year’s resolution was passed, and pending your report to the HRC this year. What does this tell you about the Govt.’s attitude?


My concern is that the impeachment of the CJ actually runs contrary to achieving accountability and reconciliation. The Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission rightly recognised that strengthening the rule of law is necessary for Sri Lanka to overcome the legacy of the conflict, but this action has eroded judicial independence and the rule of law. It has also further divided and polarised the community, making reconciliation more difficult.

You keep calling for an international war crimes investigation, particularly, into what happened during the final stages of the war. Why is this still so important?

Because tens of thousands of civilians were reportedly killed. Because there are very credible allegations and some strong pictorial evidence and witness accounts indicating that war crimes and other serious international crimes, including summary executions, use of child soldiers and the use of civilians as human shields took place on a large scale.

These are crimes that are viewed with the utmost seriousness under international human rights and humanitarian law, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest both sides committed them. Unfortunately, none of the steps taken domestically in Sri Lanka, to investigate any of this, inspire confidence. There is a long history of national inquiries in Sri Lanka that have led nowhere, but to impunity. This makes such an international investigation essential. Crimes like these cannot simply be ignored or pushed aside. If there has been exaggeration or distortions, or unjust allegations, then such an inquiry should also expose those. There has to be justice, if there is to be lasting peace.

Why do you suppose an international war crimes investigation is nowhere close to being initiated?

There are plenty of cases where the wheels of justice ultimately turn, although it can take time. But I don’t like to see the victims suffering so long, without any justice or redress for the appalling losses and personal damage they have endured.

Could it be that, given all the crises around the world, there is little international appetite for an investigation into a war that ended three years ago?

I think there is actually increasing appetite, as people start to see more details of what happened. The HR Council is now more active on comparable situations, and it is not surprising it should be returning to this issue.

There is also little local interest (among the majority public) in Sri Lanka, for such an investigation. How would you assess such sentiment?
I think some people just want to get on and forget, or would prefer not to know the full details of what happened. That is quite understandable after a long and vicious war like this, but it is also counter-productive, because it hinders a long-term solution. The LTTE were a particularly vicious group, and people are happy to see the end of them. But the Tamil population in Sri Lanka, especially in the war-affected parts of the country, must be treated fairly. They went through a quite atrocious experience. Crimes committed against them must be investigated, just like crimes committed by the LTTE.

The HRC is genuinely accused of double standards vis--vis Sri Lanka, and some other pro-Western countries (for instance, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Occupied Territories). Is this exercise merely to inflict continuing diplomatic torture on Sri Lanka, until they fall in line with the West?

None of the countries you mention has gone through a conflict like the one in Sri Lanka. But there have just been similar inquiries on the occupied Palestinian territories: There was one on the 2009 conflict in Gaza, led by Justice Goldstone, about the same time as the last stage of the conflict in Sri Lanka began, and another major report has just been submitted to the HRC on the settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. I have personally spent considerable time and effort on the situations in Bahrain – where an international Commission of Inquiry headed by eminent international jurist Cherif Bassiouni, issued a very important report — and Yemen, where we recently opened an office and are actively engaged in transitional justice issues.

Are you aware of the recent protests against the Muslim community? If you are, do you have any concerns about this?

I am worried that the current climate in Sri Lanka is fostering intolerance and even violence towards minorities including the Muslim and Christian communities. We have seen manifestations of this before, and Sri Lanka should engage its civil society and religious leadership in preventing such tensions. That is why a visit by the Independent Expert on minority issues would be very timely, as she would be in a position to make expert recommendations on how to address the situation.

In the run-up to each HRC session, there is a heavy onslaught against Sri Lanka by rights groups and civil society. Channel 4 routinely times the release of its documentaries with some session or the other. There seems to be an orchestrated “conspiracy” against the Sri Lanka Govt. Do you think this is fair?

People should not confuse campaigns – which are legitimate activities – with conspiracies. I am not at all surprised that there are campaigns being carried out by HR activists, for all the reasons we have discussed already. This is a symptom of the fact that there has not yet been a proper independent and credible investigation into all the HR violations that took place during the conflict, with the aim of bringing sorely needed justice and reparations.

Sri Lanka states that it has engaged with the UN system consistently and transparently, and therefore, expects reciprocity from your office. Why do you not reciprocate?

I meet with Sri Lankan govt. officials, whenever they ask for a meeting. My staff engage with the Sri Lanka govt. and Sri Lanka civil society on many different levels – just as I do with other govts. and other civil society actors. I shared my report to the HRC with the Govt., and incorporated many of its comments. I have offered my office’s assistance to the Govt., and hope for a positive response.

Isn’t it the High Commissioner’s mandate to work in cooperation with member States, rather than in a confrontational manner, as HR cannot be promoted and protected without cooperation of the elected govt?

Indeed, I look for cooperation with all govts., but, at the same time, my mandate also involves acting as the voice of the victims, and speaking out when needed.

ஐ.நா.மனித உரிமை சபையின் 22 ஆவது கூட்டத்தொடரில் சமர்ப்பிக்கப்படவுள்ள சிங்களம் குறித்த அறிக்கையின் ஆரம்ப வரைபு

ஐ.நா.மனித உரிமை சபையின் 22 ஆவது கூட்டத்தொடரில் சமர்ப்பிக்கப்படவுள்ள சிங்களம் குறித்த அறிக்கையின் ஆரம்ப வரைபு

Here is the latest UNHCR draft:

1. Welcomes the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka [and urges / calls upon the Government of Sri Lanka to implement its recommendations];

2. Reiterates its call upon the Government of Sri Lanka to expeditiously implement the constructive recommendations made in the LLRC report and to take all necessary additional steps to fulfil its relevant legal obligations and commitment to initiate credible and independent actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability, [including investigations of violations of international law,] and reconciliation for all Sri Lankans;

3. Urges the Government of Sri Lanka to formally respond to outstanding requests, including by providing unfettered access, by special procedures mandate holders, in particular the Special Rapporteurs on independence of judges and lawyers; human rights defenders; freedom of expression; freedom of association and assembly; extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; minority issues; and the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances; and discrimination against women;

 4. Encourages the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights andrelevant special procedures mandate holders to provide, in consultation with, and with the concurrence of, the Government of Sri Lanka, advice and technical assistance on implementing the above-mentioned steps;

5. Requests the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, with input from relevant special procedures mandate holders, as appropriate, to present [to the Human Rights Council an interim report at its twenty-fourth session and] a report on the provision of such assistance and progress on reconciliation and accountability, including investigations of violations of international law, and the provision of technical assistance in Sri Lanka to the Human Rights Council [in an interactive dialogue] at its twenty-fifth session.”

 

Here is the latest UNHCR draft: ஐ.நா.மனித உரிமை சபையின் 22 ஆவது கூட்டத்தொடரில் சமர்ப்பிக்கப்படவுள்ள சிங்களம் குறித்த அறிக்கையின் ஆரம்ப வரைபு

Here is the latest UNHCR draft:

ஐ.நா.மனித உரிமை சபையின் 22 ஆவது கூட்டத்தொடரில் சமர்ப்பிக்கப்படவுள்ள சிங்களம் குறித்த அறிக்கையின் ஆரம்ப வரைபு


Here is the latest draft circulating in Colombo’s diplomatic community as well as in Geneva. Diplomatic sources in Colombo said further changes to the draft were likely.

“Promoting Reconciliation and Accountability in Sri Lanka
 “The Human Rights Council,
 “Guided by the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights and other
relevant instruments,
 “Recalling Human Rights Council Resolution 19/2 on Promoting Reconciliation and Accountability in Sri Lanka,
 “Reaffirming that it is the responsibility of the Government of Sri Lanka to ensure the full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms
of its entire population,
 “Taking note of the Government of Sri Lanka’s National Plan of Action to Implement the Recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation
Commission (LLRC) and its commitments as set forth in response to the findings and recommendations of the LLRC,

“Noting with concern that the National Plan of Action does not adequately address all of the findings and constructive recommendations of the LLRC,
 “Recalling the constructive recommendations contained in the LLRC’s report, including the need to credibly investigate widespread allegations of
extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances, demilitarize the north of Sri Lanka, implement impartial land dispute resolution mechanisms, re-
evaluate detention policies, strengthen formerly independent civil institutions, reach a political settlement on the devolution of power to the provinces,
promote and protect the right of freedom of expression for all and enact rule of law reforms,

“Also noting with concern that the National Plan of Action and the LLRC’s report do not adequately address serious allegations of violations of
international law,
 “Expressing concern at the continuing reports of violations of human rights in Sri Lanka [--, including] threats to judicial independence and the rule
of law, [such as the dismissal of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake; enforced disappearances; extra-judicial killings; torture; repression of the
freedoms of expression and assembly; and intimidation of and reprisals against human rights defenders--] and failure by the Government of Sri Lanka
to fulfil its public commitments, including on devolution of political authority to provinces as called for in Sri Lanka’s constitution,

1. Welcomes the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka [and urges / calls upon the Government of Sri Lanka to implement its recommendations];

2. Reiterates its call upon the Government of Sri Lanka to expeditiously implement the constructive recommendations made in the LLRC report and to take all necessary additional steps to fulfil its relevant legal obligations and commitment to initiate credible and independent actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability, [including investigations of violations of international law,] and reconciliation for all Sri Lankans;

3. Urges the Government of Sri Lanka to formally respond to outstanding requests, including by providing unfettered access, by special procedures mandate holders, in particular the Special Rapporteurs on independence of judges and lawyers; human rights defenders; freedom of expression;
freedom of association and assembly; extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; minority issues; and the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances; and discrimination against women;

 4. Encourages the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights andrelevant special procedures mandate holders to provide, in consultation with, and with the concurrence of, the Government of Sri Lanka, advice and technical assistance on implementing the above-mentioned steps;

5. Requests the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, with input from relevant special procedures mandate holders, as appropriate, to present [to the Human Rights Council an interim report at its twenty-fourth session and] a report on the provision of such assistance and progress on
reconciliation and accountability, including investigations of violations of international law, and the provision of technical assistance in Sri Lanka to the Human Rights Council [in an interactive dialogue] at its twenty-fifth session.”

Human Rights Council will hold its twenty-second regular at the United Nations Office at Geneva from 25 February to 22 March




Human Rights Council to hold twenty-second regular session from 25 February to 22 March

Human Rights Council
BACKGROUND RELEASE

19 February 2013

The Human Rights Council will hold its twenty-second regular at the United Nations Office at Geneva from 25 February to 22 March, starting with a four-day high-level segment in which over 80 ministers and other senior dignitaries will address the Council on human rights matters of national
interest and concern.

During the session, the Council will hold interactive dialogues with High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay as well as with its Special Procedures on the right to food, adequate housing, torture, human rights defenders, arbitrary detention, human rights and counter-terrorism, enforced
disappearances, freedom of religion or belief, human rights and the environment, human rights and foreign debt, the sale of children, private military and security companies and minorities.  The Council will also hear the presentation of reports from the Special Representative of the Secretary-
General on violence against children and the Fact Finding Mission on Israeli settlements.

Interactive dialogues will also be held under the agenda item on human rights situations that require the Council’s attention with experts on Syria, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Myanmar and Iran, and under the agenda item on technical assistance and cooperation with experts on Côte
d’Ivoire and Haiti.

A high-level panel on the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action will be held on the first day, as well as a panel on human rights mainstreaming on 1 March, which will include an address by Secretary-General Ban ki-moon.  The annual discussion with human rights and persons with disability will be held on 6 March, the annual full-day meeting on the rights of the child on 7 March, another panel on the impact of corruption on human rights on 13 March, and the annual thematic discussion on technical cooperation on 19 March.

The Council will consider from 13 to 15 March the final outcomes of Universal Periodic Reviews undertaken on the human rights situations in Czech Republic, Argentina, Gabon, Ghana, Ukraine, Guatemala, Benin, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Pakistan, Zambia, Japan, Peru and Sri Lanka.
 
Following its consideration of the reports, the Council is expected to officially adopt those documents, which include observations and recommendations to concretely improve the human rights situations in those countries.  This will conclude with the general debate on the Universal
Periodic Review.

On the first day, the President of the General Assembly, Vuk Jeremic, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, and the President of the Council, Ambassador Remigiusz Achilles Henczel of Poland, will make opening remarks. The high-level segment will take place from 25 February to 28 February and it will be followed by the High Commissioner presenting her annual report and an interactive dialogue with Ms. Pillay on 28 February and 1 March.  The High Commissioner and Secretary-General’s thematic reports will also be presented on 1 March.

During the week of 4 to 8 March, the Council will hold interactive dialogues with a number of its Special Procedures.  On 4 March, it will meet with the Special Rapporteurs on the right to food, the right to adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, on torture and
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and on human rights defenders.  On 5 March, it will hold interactive dialogues with the Working Group on arbitrary detention, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while
countering terrorism, the Working Group on enforced disappearances and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.  Interactive dialogues will be held with the Independent Experts on human rights and the environment and on the effects of foreign debt and other related
international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on violence against children and the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.  A general debate will be held on 7 and 8 March on the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development.

On 11 March, the Council will hold interactive discussions with the Commission of Inquiry on Syria, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar and the Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran.  In the evening, the High Commissioner and Secretary-General’s country reports will be presented, followed by a general debate.  On 12 March, the Council will hold an interactive dialogue with its Independent Expert on minorities, to be followed by the presentation of the reports of its subsidiary bodies: the Forum on Minority Issues, the Social Forum and the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee.

The Council will on 18 March hold an interactive dialogue with the independent interactive fact-finding mission to investigate the implications of the Israeli settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.  In the afternoon, the reports of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General under the agenda item on the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories will be presented, followed by a general debate.  On 19 March, general debates on the agenda items on follow-up to and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, and on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance, follow-up to and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action will be held.

On 19 March in the afternoon, an interactive dialogue with the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Côte d’Ivoire will be held.  And on 20 March, an interactive dialogue with the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Haiti will be held.  Also on the same day, general debates will be held on the agenda items on the annual report of the United nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the High Commissioner and the Secretary, and on technical assistance and capacity building.

The Council will hold closed meetings on its Complaint Procedure on Friday, 8 March in the afternoon and Wednesday, 20 March in the afternoon.

Before concluding its session, on 21 and 22 March, the Council will take action on the draft resolutions and decisions tabled during the session.

Scandals and Intrigue Heat Up at Vatican Ahead of Papal Conclave

* Gay sex scandals
* Child sexual abuse by priests
* International criticism of the Vatican Bank’s opaque record-keeping.
* Carefully orchestrated leaks meant to weaken some papal contenders.
* “Divisions, dissent, careerism, jealousies” that  plagued the Vatican hierarchy.



Osservatore Romano, via Reuters

Pope Benedict XVI praying Saturday. The Vatican issued a
sharp rebuke of reports in the Italian news media.
Scandals and Intrigue Heat Up at Vatican Ahead of Papal Conclave
By RACHEL DONADIO
Published: February 23, 2013

VATICAN CITY — As cardinals from around the world begin arriving in Rome for a conclave to elect a successor to Pope Benedict XVI, new shadows have fallen over the delicate transition, which the Vatican fears might influence the vote and with it the direction of the Roman Catholic Church.

In recent days, often speculative reports in the Italian news media — some even alleging gay sex scandals in the Vatican, others focusing on particular cardinals stung by the child sexual abuse crisis — have dominated headlines, suggesting fierce internal struggles as prelates scramble to consolidate power and attack their rivals in the dying days of a troubled papacy.

The reports, which the Vatican has vehemently refuted, touch on some of the most vexing issues of Benedict’s nearly eight-year reign, including a new round of accusations of child sexual abuse by priests and international criticism of the Vatican Bank’s opaque record-keeping. The recent explosion of bad press, which some Vatican experts say is fed by carefully orchestrated leaks meant to weaken some papal contenders, also speak to Benedict’s own difficulties governing, which analysts say he is trying to address, albeit belatedly, with several high-profile personnel changes.

The drumbeat of scandal has reached such a fever pitch that on Saturday, the Vatican Secretariat of State issued a rare pointed rebuke, calling it “deplorable” that ahead of the conclave there was “a widespread distribution of often unverified, unverifiable or completely false news stories, that cause serious damage to persons and institutions.”

The Vatican compared the news reports to past attempts by foreign states to exert pressure on papal elections, saying any efforts to skew the choice of the next pope by trying to shape public opinion were “based on judgments that do not typically capture the spiritual aspect of the moment that the church is living.”

Benedict had addressed at least one past scandal with the Feb. 15 appointment of a new head of the Vatican Bank. It is less clear why he reassigned a powerful Vatican diplomatic official to a posting outside Rome, though experts say it diminishes the official’s role in helping to steer Vatican policy.
On Feb. 11, Benedict made history by announcing that he would step down by month’s end. He said he was worn down by age and was resigning “in full liberty and for the good of the church.” But the volley of news reports that appeared since then appeared to underscore the backbiting in the Vatican that Benedict was unable to control, and provided a hint of why he might have decided that someone younger and stronger should lead the church.

At the conclusion of the Vatican’s Lenten spiritual retreat, Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, a papal contender, spoke darkly of the “divisions, dissent, careerism, jealousies” that he said plagued the Vatican hierarchy.

The recent spate of news reports were linked to an earlier scandal in which the pope’s butler stole confidential documents, an episode considered one of the gravest security breaches in the modern history of the church.

Last week, articles in the center-left daily newspaper La Repubblica and the center-right weekly Panorama, which largely did not reveal their sources, reported that three cardinals whom Benedict had asked to investigate the documents scandal had found evidence of Vatican officials who had been put in compromising positions.

The publications reported that, after interviewing dozens of people inside and outside the Vatican, the cardinals produced a hefty dossier. “The report is explicit. Some high prelates are subject to ‘external influence’ — we would call it blackmail — by nonchurch men to whom they are bound by ‘worldly’ ties,” La Repubblica wrote.

Vatican experts speculated that prelates and their associates eager to undermine opponents during the conclave were behind the latest leaks to the news media.

“The conclave is a mechanism that serves to create a dynasty in a monarchy without children, so it’s a complicated operation,” said Alberto Melloni, the director of the John XXIII Center in Bologna and the author of a book on conclaves.

Any effort to tarnish rivals is “part of the great game of the conclave, whose tools include political attacks and efforts to condition consensus,” Mr. Melloni added.

Separately, the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said the reports were trying to “discredit the church and its government” ahead of the conclave.

The scandals have flourished in the fertile ground of power vacuums, not only at the Vatican but also in Italy, which will hold national elections on Sunday and Monday. The end of Benedict’s papacy also dovetails with what appear to be the waning days of an era dominated by former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, whose media culture was marked by mudslinging.

Some Vatican experts said that recent news reports, which depict the Vatican as an unruly den of scheming Italian prelates, might convince the cardinals to choose a non-Italian pope, or someone farther removed from the Vatican hierarchy.

At the same time, other Italian news reports have seized on a petition by critics who say that Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles should not be allowed to attend the conclave, after the release of church files that show how he protected priests accused of sexually abusing minors.

Some Vatican experts read the media reports about Cardinal Mahony as an attempt to undermine any potential American papal candidates.

While the battle lines inside the Vatican hierarchy and the College of Cardinals are difficult to discern, in Mr. Melloni’s view the news reports calling attention to Vatican scandals could shore up the more conservative cardinals who would lean toward electing “a sheriff, not a pope,” a figure who would focus on discipline more than the pastoral aspects of the role.

Analysts said Benedict’s personnel decisions, meanwhile, appeared to reflect his own attempts to shift the power in the Vatican. The recent appointment of Ernst von Freyberg, a German industrialist and aristocrat, as the new director of the Vatican Bank, was aimed, according to the Vatican, at bringing the institution more in line with international banking standards.

And on Friday, the pope named Ettore Balestrero, 46, the Vatican’s undersecretary of state, as papal nuncio in Colombia, also making him a bishop. Technically a promotion, the move was also seen by many Vatican watchers as a way to move the prelate, who played a key role in overseeing the Vatican Bank, away from the power center in Rome.

On Monday, just days before his papacy ends, Benedict is expected to issue a law that would change the rules for electing a new pope, making it possible for the cardinals to start the conclave sooner than the traditional waiting period after the papacy is vacant.

Some non-Italian cardinals worry that might favor those who are based at the Vatican and already know each other rather than cardinals coming from around the world, Vatican experts said.

The same day, the pope is also expected to meet with the three cardinals who compiled the dossier on the stolen document scandal.
================
Source: New York Times