The Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary was also adopted by the United Nations, i.e. also by many non-democratic states. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/Independ...
Legislature having the right to infer into important judiciary cases, such as shielding someone from prosecution is undemocratic and violating the Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary.
Hence it's a sham in all United Nations countries but Italy.
The separation of powers is an essential element of the Rule of Law, and is enshrined in constitutions.
Yes, the Internet mob was happy.
But even if you disagree with my opinion that he should have gone to jail, you will surely agree that this directive by a minister is troubling, even if it is in favor of "your guy".
(Didn't the judge refuse to talk about that phone call once its existence was public, too, or am I confusing it with a different case? It's been a few years.)
There was no judge involved. That's the point. When the justice minister ordered the prosecutor to drop the case (technically, the appeal), the court could not convict, by procedural law.
As I recall, there was also other questions. Wasn't there something about where Mollath's possessions ended up, and Brixner refused to talk about that too?
In such a state, Mollath's possible guilt becomes irrelevant. Only an impartial court can sentence, and the border is between "trusted impartiality" and "not trusted". This is why judges are required to recuse themselves if there is a possibility that they may be thought partial, instead of e.g. if they can be proved to be partial, or if the balance of evidence suggests that they may.