Italy will send Marines Back to India for Trial
- Thread starter Blackwater
- Start date
sayareakd
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2009
- Messages
- 17,734
- Likes
- 18,952
A ‘Diplomatic Victory’ for India - India Real Time - WSJ
suddenly victory has many fathers, if this would have been failure on the part of Govt and Hon'ble SC, i dont think anyone would have said we are responsible for this
nrupatunga
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2013
- Messages
- 2,310
- Likes
- 960
No death penalty, but they can shoot and kill indians. No jail for them but will stay in italian embassy. Anyways whatever court says, they will be sent back to italy and will serve over there. Since recently a treaty was signed wherein prisoners can be swapped. So staying in embassy, it's a paid vacation for marines, maybe they would want to ensure a loooooooooong trial.
This is government's so called "victory"
This is government's so called "victory"
Last edited:
nrupatunga
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2013
- Messages
- 2,310
- Likes
- 960
Rediff: Italian marines return to India
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,594
No death penalty, IMHO. Moreover, if they are staying in the embassy, at least GoI will not have to feed them. I am fine with that as well. However, they will not have diplomatic immunity. Moreover, it is important to treat them the way we would treat any Indian who shot and killed another person(s). The fact that they are Italians, and that Sonia Gandhi is also Italian, should be a matter of mere coincidence; and I am sorry this will not be palatable for some members, but that is what it should be.No death penalty, but they can shoot and kill indians. No jail for them but will stay in italian embassy. Anyways whatever court says, they will be sent back to italy and will serve over there. Since recently a treaty was signed wherein prisoners can be swapped. So staying in embassy, it's a paid vacation for marines, maybe they would want to ensure a loooooooooong trial.
This is government's so called "victory"
Let the court decide whether it was deliberate killing or a matter of knee-jerk (over-)reaction on part of the Italian marines.
Italy foreign minister resigns over marines' return to India | Reuters
Italy foreign minister resigns over marines' return to India
(Reuters) - Italian Foreign Minister Giulio Terzi declared on Tuesday that he was resigning because he did not agree with last week's decision to send two marines back to India to face trial for murder.
"I can no longer be part of this government and I announce my resignation," Terzi said during testimony to the lower house of parliament. "My reservations about sending the marines back to India were not listened to."
Mario Monti's caretaker government on Friday reversed a March 11 decision not to send the marines back to face trial for the murder of two Indian fisherman during anti-piracy duty on a commercial tanker in February 2012.
Italy foreign minister resigns over marines' return to India
(Reuters) - Italian Foreign Minister Giulio Terzi declared on Tuesday that he was resigning because he did not agree with last week's decision to send two marines back to India to face trial for murder.
"I can no longer be part of this government and I announce my resignation," Terzi said during testimony to the lower house of parliament. "My reservations about sending the marines back to India were not listened to."
Mario Monti's caretaker government on Friday reversed a March 11 decision not to send the marines back to face trial for the murder of two Indian fisherman during anti-piracy duty on a commercial tanker in February 2012.
sayareakd
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2009
- Messages
- 17,734
- Likes
- 18,952
may be he should spend year or so in Indian Jail and enjoy our hospitality.
Here's an interesting revelation by the Italian PM.
We risked getting isolated internationally, says Italy PM
We risked getting isolated internationally, says Italy PM
We risked getting isolated internationally, says Italy PM - The Hindu
LurkerBaba
Super Mod
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2010
- Messages
- 7,882
- Likes
- 8,125
Grifo
Regular Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2013
- Messages
- 33
- Likes
- 2
In a few days will begin the trial of the two italian marines accused of the death of two fishermen off the Kerala coast.
Reading the threads all seem convinced that they are guilty, and that, as the Indian press reporting confidences of the NIA:
- Sources in the agency said investigation into the case was at an advanced stage and there was enough evidence and witness statements to support the prosecution case. (Times of India)
I think the contrary, and I am convinced who the Indian media have not informed well you, giving up any critical analysis.
I am a Court Expert with many years of experience on complicated cases of aeronautical accidents, and if the administration of forum allows my intervention to describe the reasons innocence, I will.
Therefore appearance for a confirmation before proceeding.
I state that I consider the behavior of the Italian governments have handled in the affair a shame for us Italian citizens, but unfortunately it is.
I will not write on issues of jurisdiction because it is not my profession, I am an expert in judicial technical analysis.
If I write will be only technical topics verifiable by everyone.
I think for this dialogue might be important and interesting. But if for various reasons this is impossible on a defense forum, patience.
Reading the threads all seem convinced that they are guilty, and that, as the Indian press reporting confidences of the NIA:
- Sources in the agency said investigation into the case was at an advanced stage and there was enough evidence and witness statements to support the prosecution case. (Times of India)
I think the contrary, and I am convinced who the Indian media have not informed well you, giving up any critical analysis.
I am a Court Expert with many years of experience on complicated cases of aeronautical accidents, and if the administration of forum allows my intervention to describe the reasons innocence, I will.
Therefore appearance for a confirmation before proceeding.
I state that I consider the behavior of the Italian governments have handled in the affair a shame for us Italian citizens, but unfortunately it is.
I will not write on issues of jurisdiction because it is not my profession, I am an expert in judicial technical analysis.
If I write will be only technical topics verifiable by everyone.
I think for this dialogue might be important and interesting. But if for various reasons this is impossible on a defense forum, patience.
If you browse topics here you will know though this is a defense forum in name, it is much more than that. So your contributions will be welcome. More so because it will help us see the 'other' side of many issues.
Grifo
Regular Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2013
- Messages
- 33
- Likes
- 2
The first task of the Court Expert of the defense, just received the assignment, is to verify the legal validity of technical analysis on the finds made "‹"‹by the prosecution.
Basically to see if you have respect for the rights of the defense. These rights of the defense are not a gift of the judiciary, but the inalienable rights of defence, at the base of each process.
In the case of technical analysis on the finds these analyzes must be repeatable, to allow to the defense the opportunity to check it, or integrate it with new type of technical analysis.
So the first point of dispute is the sinking of the fishing vessel St. Antony. It for decision of the judiciary in Kerala has been returned to the owner Mr. Freddy Bosco that left him sink. And therefore rendered unusable as an object for tecnical analysis of defence.
It is therefore a lack of custody of the specimen judiciary by the magistracy, which has seriously undermined the rights of the defense, and that makes
legally invalidate the technical analysis made "‹"‹on the vessel. They can not be used in court.
The second point of dispute is the omission to investigate other potential culprits.
In the same hour of the incident Enrica Lexie one other ship, the Greek tanker Olympic Flair, denounces a pirate attack in front of the port of Kochi (Cochin). I know for sure that:
- The Olympic Flair has obscured the identification AIS system for a week, from 13/2 to 20/2/2012, and so you can not verify its real position at the time of the pirate attack.
- The Olympic Flair was carrying Contractors of greek company Diaplous. This was admitted by the shipowner to an Italian journalist in April 2013, whereas before it had been denied.
- There is a serious clue about the responsibilities of the Olympic Flair, linked to the statements of Mr. Freddy Bosco on his return to the port of Neendakara, clue to the use of hand-rockets against the vessel St. Antony. The Italian marines did not have the rockets, which are used by the Contractors of Diaplous (there are videos and images)
Although the Olympic Flair denounces the same incident which denounces Enrica Lexie, and in the same time. But it is not called in port and on it is not done investigation.
This is omission in the investigation, and involve the nullity of the legal investigation.
The third point of dispute is the non-admission of the Italian Court Expert to the analysis techniques, in particular the ballistics report that had to know the type and origin of the bullets found on the vessel.
They were two Carabinieri officers, expert in terminal ballistic, which were allowed only to the tests firing with rifles seized, but not admitted to the next ballistics for a decision of the court of Kerala.
Therefore the accusation could write on ballistics what he wanted, without control of the defense court expert
If I were really the Court Expert defense I should ask the court not to use the information gathered in the process against the rights of the defense.
On 13 march 2013 I filed to the Prosecutor of Rome a document with these objections, which I then sent to the Embassy of India translated into english.
On 30 march 2013 the Indian judiciary has declared invalidate the surveys conducted in Kerala and ordered the NIA of redoing from scratch .
I do not mean to have influenced the decision, but evidently my interpretation was correct.
Now of course I'll have to check how the NIA was able to redo the technical investigations with the vessel unusable, redo the investigation into the Olympic Flair to 18 months later, and the non-admission of the defence Court Expert to ballistics analysis.
I am sorry not to be able to post pictures, because all the description would be much more effective.
This is the first group of dispute, preliminary.
Waiting for your opinions before proceeding any further.
Basically to see if you have respect for the rights of the defense. These rights of the defense are not a gift of the judiciary, but the inalienable rights of defence, at the base of each process.
In the case of technical analysis on the finds these analyzes must be repeatable, to allow to the defense the opportunity to check it, or integrate it with new type of technical analysis.
So the first point of dispute is the sinking of the fishing vessel St. Antony. It for decision of the judiciary in Kerala has been returned to the owner Mr. Freddy Bosco that left him sink. And therefore rendered unusable as an object for tecnical analysis of defence.
It is therefore a lack of custody of the specimen judiciary by the magistracy, which has seriously undermined the rights of the defense, and that makes
legally invalidate the technical analysis made "‹"‹on the vessel. They can not be used in court.
The second point of dispute is the omission to investigate other potential culprits.
In the same hour of the incident Enrica Lexie one other ship, the Greek tanker Olympic Flair, denounces a pirate attack in front of the port of Kochi (Cochin). I know for sure that:
- The Olympic Flair has obscured the identification AIS system for a week, from 13/2 to 20/2/2012, and so you can not verify its real position at the time of the pirate attack.
- The Olympic Flair was carrying Contractors of greek company Diaplous. This was admitted by the shipowner to an Italian journalist in April 2013, whereas before it had been denied.
- There is a serious clue about the responsibilities of the Olympic Flair, linked to the statements of Mr. Freddy Bosco on his return to the port of Neendakara, clue to the use of hand-rockets against the vessel St. Antony. The Italian marines did not have the rockets, which are used by the Contractors of Diaplous (there are videos and images)
Although the Olympic Flair denounces the same incident which denounces Enrica Lexie, and in the same time. But it is not called in port and on it is not done investigation.
This is omission in the investigation, and involve the nullity of the legal investigation.
The third point of dispute is the non-admission of the Italian Court Expert to the analysis techniques, in particular the ballistics report that had to know the type and origin of the bullets found on the vessel.
They were two Carabinieri officers, expert in terminal ballistic, which were allowed only to the tests firing with rifles seized, but not admitted to the next ballistics for a decision of the court of Kerala.
Therefore the accusation could write on ballistics what he wanted, without control of the defense court expert
If I were really the Court Expert defense I should ask the court not to use the information gathered in the process against the rights of the defense.
On 13 march 2013 I filed to the Prosecutor of Rome a document with these objections, which I then sent to the Embassy of India translated into english.
On 30 march 2013 the Indian judiciary has declared invalidate the surveys conducted in Kerala and ordered the NIA of redoing from scratch .
I do not mean to have influenced the decision, but evidently my interpretation was correct.
Now of course I'll have to check how the NIA was able to redo the technical investigations with the vessel unusable, redo the investigation into the Olympic Flair to 18 months later, and the non-admission of the defence Court Expert to ballistics analysis.
I am sorry not to be able to post pictures, because all the description would be much more effective.
This is the first group of dispute, preliminary.
Waiting for your opinions before proceeding any further.
hi.
i am no lawyer,but i will share my views on your opinion
[The first task of the Court Expert of the defense, just received the assignment, is to verify the legal validity of technical analysis on the finds made "‹"‹by the prosecution.
Basically to see if you have respect for the rights of the defense. These rights of the defense are not a gift of the judiciary, but the inalienable rights of defence, at the base of each process.
In the case of technical analysis on the finds these analyzes must be repeatable, to allow to the defense the opportunity to check it, or integrate it with new type of technical analysis.]
the things are same here in indian courts.nothing much to worry
[So the first point of dispute is the sinking of the fishing vessel St. Antony. It for decision of the judiciary in Kerala has been returned to the owner Mr. Freddy Bosco that left him sink. And therefore rendered unusable as an object for technical analysis of defence.
It is therefore a lack of custody of the specimen judiciary by the magistracy, which has seriously undermined the rights of the defense, and that makes
legally invalidate the technical analysis made "‹"‹on the vessel. They can not be used in court. ]
these comments which i consider to be gross accusations on indian courts.never did i hear such case where courts left the evidences to be destroyed.without proper links i should say these comments have no value and derogatory remarks.
http://newindianexpress.com/states/...t/2013/05/28/article1609357.ece?service=print
this link says that police have the ship with them
once if a forensic expert gives his opinion in the court that itself is enough for the prosecution,only will be allowed for re-examination in exceptional cases,if there is any doubt in the report submitted, only at the discretion of the court.the admission of the fact of shooting by two italian marines and the statement given by the ship's captain adequately provides the picture of things happened there,so less likely for courts to order a re examination..
though the possession of ship increases prosecutions stand,lack of it never nulls theirs.
[The second point of dispute is the omission to investigate other potential culprits.
In the same hour of the incident Enrica Lexie one other ship, the Greek tanker Olympic Flair, denounces a pirate attack in front of the port of Kochi (Cochin). I know for sure that:
- The Olympic Flair has obscured the identification AIS system for a week, from 13/2 to 20/2/2012, and so you can not verify its real position at the time of the pirate attack.
- The Olympic Flair was carrying Contractors of greek company Diaplous. This was admitted by the shipowner to an Italian journalist in April 2013, whereas before it had been denied.
- There is a serious clue about the responsibilities of the Olympic Flair, linked to the statements of Mr. Freddy Bosco on his return to the port of Neendakara, clue to the use of hand-rockets against the vessel St. Antony. The Italian marines did not have the rockets, which are used by the Contractors of Diaplous (there are videos and images)
Although the Olympic Flair denounces the same incident which denounces Enrica Lexie, and in the same time. But it is not called in port and on it is not done investigation.
This is omission in the investigation, and involve the nullity of the legal investigation. ]
secondly the incident happened some 20.5 nautical miles from cochin,and now you are dragging in a some third unknown party with no proof's however.
how does omission of unaccused nullifies investigation??
had you been given/have any info regarding such,you are free to give such info to indian media/courts.necessary actions will be taken in such directions.
[The third point of dispute is the non-admission of the Italian Court Expert to the analysis techniques, in particular the ballistics report that had to know the type and origin of the bullets found on the vessel.
They were two Carabinieri officers, expert in terminal ballistic, which were allowed only to the tests firing with rifles seized, but not admitted to the next ballistics for a decision of the court of Kerala.
Therefore the accusation could write on ballistics what he wanted, without control of the defense court expert ]
In the 11 May 2012 military investigation report, compiled by a team of Italian military investigators sent to India to probe the Enrica Lexie shooting,[8][9] Rear Admiral Alessandro Piroli provides a detailed chronology of events on board the Enrica Lexie. The report also highlights serious anomalies in the behaviour of the captain of the tanker through his non-compliance with the procedures provided in case of suspected pirate attack. The report acknowledged that the fishing boat had navigational right of way and that the tanker should have manoeuvred out of the collision course as soon as the fishing vessel was spotted on radar. Rear Admiral Alessandro Piroli also pointed out the striking similarities between photos of the fishing boat taken from on board the Enrica Lexie with other photos available in the news media and those taken during the forensic examination of the St. Antony fishing boat. The report clearly states that the bullets in bodies of the two Indian fishermen were manufactured in Italy and shot from the barrels of guns assigned to two soldiers on-board Enrica Lexie : First Corporal Andronico Massino and Sergeant Vogilano Renato.[10][11]
2012 Italian shooting in the Laccadive Sea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
hope this link is enough to show that italian defence investigators had been there.though there are no ballistic experts present,why should Indian courts allow foreign experts when we have our own.this is a diplomatic issue between two countries not between courts of two nations.
Did italian govt. approach indian courts in such manner- no as far as my knowledge concerned.
posting of comments against an expert appointed by court,that he is against accused without any proper evidence itself is contempt of court.
your military investigators itself concluded the event chronology and it matched with the accused and attacked people.
[On 13 march 2013 I filed to the Prosecutor of Rome a document with these objections, which I then sent to the Embassy of India translated into english.
On 30 march 2013 the Indian judiciary has declared invalidate the surveys conducted in Kerala and ordered the NIA of redoing from scratch .]
to my knowledge the courts ordered NIA to start investigation from scratch, never knew that it was nulled.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court will pronounce on Friday its order on the Italian government's plea against the invoking of a stringent act and the NIA investigation into the killing of two Indian fishermen off Kerala coast by its two marines February 2012.
A bench of Chief Justice Altamas Kabir, Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice Vikramajit Sen deferred the pronouncement of its order which was listed on Thursday, as it wanted the presence of Attorney General C.E. Vahanvati in the court.
As Chief Justice Kabir said that the order would be pronounced in the presence of the Attorney General, Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaisingh told the court she could address any query that the court may like answered.
However, the court said that it would pronounce its order on the Italian plea when Attorney General Vahanvati is present.
Earlier, the order was to be pronounced Monday; the matter was deferred to Thursday, and then to Friday.
The Italian government has contended that if convicted, its two marines would face death sentence, a mandatory punishment if a person is convicted under the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Maritime Navigation and Fixed Platforms on Continental Shelf Act (SUA), 2002.
On March 22, after the return of the marines from Italy, External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid told parliament that India had offered Italy an assurance that its marines, Massimiliano Lattore and Salvatore Girone, would not get the death penalty if they returned by the deadline set by the Supreme Court.
Mr Khurshid said the case did not fall in the category of "rarest of rare cases" that attracts the death penalty in India, so there was no fear of that.
However, the Italian government and the marines moved the apex court after the two security detail were booked under the SUA and investigation was entrusted to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
In the course of the last hearing of the case on April 16, senior counsel Mukul Rohtagi had assailed the NIA for invoking the SUA, under which, he noted, "death is answered by death"." The SUA has a mandatory death penalty, he said.
Section 3(g)(1) of the SUA says that the offender who causes death to any person, (he) shall be punished with death. The section deals with the offences against ship, fixed platform, cargo of a ship, maritime navigational facilities, etc. and provides for punishments.
On February 15, 2012, the two marines, posted on security duty aboard an Italian-registered oil tanker, Enrica Lexie, mistaking a boat of fishermen for pirates, shot and killed two Indian fishermen, Ajay Binki and Gelastine.
The incident occurred about 20.5 nautical miles off the coast of Kerala.
The case was initially tried in Kerala. The Italians have been contesting the jurisdiction of Indian courts in the matter, saying the incident occurred in international waters. The trial then shifted to the apex court, which has now deferred its judgment twice.
Lexie case: Documentary evidence transferred to High Court
this above link also provides you that court/police have possession of the boat
non-admission/admission of ballistic analysis from italian defence expert is purely at the discretion of Indian supreme court.there is nothing you can do about it
no formal agreement exist between our two nations in that way
i am no lawyer,but i will share my views on your opinion
[The first task of the Court Expert of the defense, just received the assignment, is to verify the legal validity of technical analysis on the finds made "‹"‹by the prosecution.
Basically to see if you have respect for the rights of the defense. These rights of the defense are not a gift of the judiciary, but the inalienable rights of defence, at the base of each process.
In the case of technical analysis on the finds these analyzes must be repeatable, to allow to the defense the opportunity to check it, or integrate it with new type of technical analysis.]
the things are same here in indian courts.nothing much to worry
[So the first point of dispute is the sinking of the fishing vessel St. Antony. It for decision of the judiciary in Kerala has been returned to the owner Mr. Freddy Bosco that left him sink. And therefore rendered unusable as an object for technical analysis of defence.
It is therefore a lack of custody of the specimen judiciary by the magistracy, which has seriously undermined the rights of the defense, and that makes
legally invalidate the technical analysis made "‹"‹on the vessel. They can not be used in court. ]
these comments which i consider to be gross accusations on indian courts.never did i hear such case where courts left the evidences to be destroyed.without proper links i should say these comments have no value and derogatory remarks.
http://newindianexpress.com/states/...t/2013/05/28/article1609357.ece?service=print
this link says that police have the ship with them
once if a forensic expert gives his opinion in the court that itself is enough for the prosecution,only will be allowed for re-examination in exceptional cases,if there is any doubt in the report submitted, only at the discretion of the court.the admission of the fact of shooting by two italian marines and the statement given by the ship's captain adequately provides the picture of things happened there,so less likely for courts to order a re examination..
though the possession of ship increases prosecutions stand,lack of it never nulls theirs.
[The second point of dispute is the omission to investigate other potential culprits.
In the same hour of the incident Enrica Lexie one other ship, the Greek tanker Olympic Flair, denounces a pirate attack in front of the port of Kochi (Cochin). I know for sure that:
- The Olympic Flair has obscured the identification AIS system for a week, from 13/2 to 20/2/2012, and so you can not verify its real position at the time of the pirate attack.
- The Olympic Flair was carrying Contractors of greek company Diaplous. This was admitted by the shipowner to an Italian journalist in April 2013, whereas before it had been denied.
- There is a serious clue about the responsibilities of the Olympic Flair, linked to the statements of Mr. Freddy Bosco on his return to the port of Neendakara, clue to the use of hand-rockets against the vessel St. Antony. The Italian marines did not have the rockets, which are used by the Contractors of Diaplous (there are videos and images)
Although the Olympic Flair denounces the same incident which denounces Enrica Lexie, and in the same time. But it is not called in port and on it is not done investigation.
This is omission in the investigation, and involve the nullity of the legal investigation. ]
secondly the incident happened some 20.5 nautical miles from cochin,and now you are dragging in a some third unknown party with no proof's however.
how does omission of unaccused nullifies investigation??
had you been given/have any info regarding such,you are free to give such info to indian media/courts.necessary actions will be taken in such directions.
[The third point of dispute is the non-admission of the Italian Court Expert to the analysis techniques, in particular the ballistics report that had to know the type and origin of the bullets found on the vessel.
They were two Carabinieri officers, expert in terminal ballistic, which were allowed only to the tests firing with rifles seized, but not admitted to the next ballistics for a decision of the court of Kerala.
Therefore the accusation could write on ballistics what he wanted, without control of the defense court expert ]
In the 11 May 2012 military investigation report, compiled by a team of Italian military investigators sent to India to probe the Enrica Lexie shooting,[8][9] Rear Admiral Alessandro Piroli provides a detailed chronology of events on board the Enrica Lexie. The report also highlights serious anomalies in the behaviour of the captain of the tanker through his non-compliance with the procedures provided in case of suspected pirate attack. The report acknowledged that the fishing boat had navigational right of way and that the tanker should have manoeuvred out of the collision course as soon as the fishing vessel was spotted on radar. Rear Admiral Alessandro Piroli also pointed out the striking similarities between photos of the fishing boat taken from on board the Enrica Lexie with other photos available in the news media and those taken during the forensic examination of the St. Antony fishing boat. The report clearly states that the bullets in bodies of the two Indian fishermen were manufactured in Italy and shot from the barrels of guns assigned to two soldiers on-board Enrica Lexie : First Corporal Andronico Massino and Sergeant Vogilano Renato.[10][11]
2012 Italian shooting in the Laccadive Sea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
hope this link is enough to show that italian defence investigators had been there.though there are no ballistic experts present,why should Indian courts allow foreign experts when we have our own.this is a diplomatic issue between two countries not between courts of two nations.
Did italian govt. approach indian courts in such manner- no as far as my knowledge concerned.
posting of comments against an expert appointed by court,that he is against accused without any proper evidence itself is contempt of court.
your military investigators itself concluded the event chronology and it matched with the accused and attacked people.
[On 13 march 2013 I filed to the Prosecutor of Rome a document with these objections, which I then sent to the Embassy of India translated into english.
On 30 march 2013 the Indian judiciary has declared invalidate the surveys conducted in Kerala and ordered the NIA of redoing from scratch .]
to my knowledge the courts ordered NIA to start investigation from scratch, never knew that it was nulled.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court will pronounce on Friday its order on the Italian government's plea against the invoking of a stringent act and the NIA investigation into the killing of two Indian fishermen off Kerala coast by its two marines February 2012.
A bench of Chief Justice Altamas Kabir, Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice Vikramajit Sen deferred the pronouncement of its order which was listed on Thursday, as it wanted the presence of Attorney General C.E. Vahanvati in the court.
As Chief Justice Kabir said that the order would be pronounced in the presence of the Attorney General, Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaisingh told the court she could address any query that the court may like answered.
However, the court said that it would pronounce its order on the Italian plea when Attorney General Vahanvati is present.
Earlier, the order was to be pronounced Monday; the matter was deferred to Thursday, and then to Friday.
The Italian government has contended that if convicted, its two marines would face death sentence, a mandatory punishment if a person is convicted under the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Maritime Navigation and Fixed Platforms on Continental Shelf Act (SUA), 2002.
On March 22, after the return of the marines from Italy, External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid told parliament that India had offered Italy an assurance that its marines, Massimiliano Lattore and Salvatore Girone, would not get the death penalty if they returned by the deadline set by the Supreme Court.
Mr Khurshid said the case did not fall in the category of "rarest of rare cases" that attracts the death penalty in India, so there was no fear of that.
However, the Italian government and the marines moved the apex court after the two security detail were booked under the SUA and investigation was entrusted to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
In the course of the last hearing of the case on April 16, senior counsel Mukul Rohtagi had assailed the NIA for invoking the SUA, under which, he noted, "death is answered by death"." The SUA has a mandatory death penalty, he said.
Section 3(g)(1) of the SUA says that the offender who causes death to any person, (he) shall be punished with death. The section deals with the offences against ship, fixed platform, cargo of a ship, maritime navigational facilities, etc. and provides for punishments.
On February 15, 2012, the two marines, posted on security duty aboard an Italian-registered oil tanker, Enrica Lexie, mistaking a boat of fishermen for pirates, shot and killed two Indian fishermen, Ajay Binki and Gelastine.
The incident occurred about 20.5 nautical miles off the coast of Kerala.
The case was initially tried in Kerala. The Italians have been contesting the jurisdiction of Indian courts in the matter, saying the incident occurred in international waters. The trial then shifted to the apex court, which has now deferred its judgment twice.
Lexie case: Documentary evidence transferred to High Court
this above link also provides you that court/police have possession of the boat
non-admission/admission of ballistic analysis from italian defence expert is purely at the discretion of Indian supreme court.there is nothing you can do about it
no formal agreement exist between our two nations in that way
Things which surely go against the marines
1.Running away from scene of incident-being caught on run
2.Refusing to return back to country -where their credibility have gone down.ruling out any chance for decreasing the term of punishment for such persons
both are of serious in nature
apart from which pls look into these
Vice-Admiral K.N. Sushil, Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Southern Naval Command and Commander-in-Chief (Coastal Defence) of the Southern Zone, opined that the Italian marines erred in judgement :
"If they thought they were being chased by a pirate vessel, they should have carried out evasive manoeuvres to alter the course of the ship, as enunciated by the guidelines. If the skiff was still after them, they would've fired a few warning shots well above the bow of the pirate vessel to deter it. Unfortunately, they do not seem to have done any of this. The Italians are claiming that this was a successful anti-piracy operation, but it is crystal clear that the fishermen were unarmed and were not attempting to come alongside the tanker to board it. As the tanker crew claims to have been fired upon, I sent INS Kabra to ascertain if there were bullet marks on it. It went around the ship to find that there was none. I've also asked my men to verify the tanker's logbook to account for the number of rounds fired by the guards. This is to see if they had fired any warning shot at all. What are you talking about the fishing vessel giving you a chase when the maximum speed it can attain is just about eight knots?"[7]
Indian court documents revealed statements given by Massimiliano Latorre and Salvatore Girone to Indian investigators regarding the use of live-fire in the direction of an approaching fishing boat : Latorre fired 12 rounds of ammunition and Girone eight in two bursts as warning shots.
Speaking to an Indian television channel on 18 May 2012, Staffan de Mistura, the Italian Deputy Foreign Minister, said: "They (Italian naval marines) had tried to send some signals. They shot into the water and fired warning shots, some of which went in the wrong direction". He described the death of the two fishermen caused by the shooting as an "accidental killing" and an "unfortunate incident which everyone regrets. Our marines never wanted this to happen, but unfortunately it took place".[2][3][4]
Italian news agencies have quoted Vice-Captain Charles Noviello as a witness to the incident of 15 February 2012 as saying : "I'm sure the boat that came close was not the St.Antony. They do not match some details of the vessel I have seen and what I have been shown in the picture of the officials of the Indian Merchant Navy." In a telephone interview with Agenzia Nazionale Stampa Associata (ANSA), he added "I remember the cabin, where there was the helm, was of a different color from what I saw later in the picture." Noviello, who was present at the time when Massimiliano Latorre and Salvatore Girone opened fire, added that "none of the people on the boat fell to the ground". The officer said that "the boat was 40-50 meters from the tanker" when he reversed course. "I saw that there were 5 or 6 people on board, but I'm not sure if it was more." [13] [14]
After the incident, the Enrica Lexie continued sailing for almost three hours and covered a distance of 39 NM from the original position. It was also stated that the vessel had not immediately reported the incident to the IMB piracy reporting centre, which is the mandatory procedure. Only after interception in the area east of Kalpeni & Minicoy islands in the Lakshadweep archipelago and being forced to proceed to Kochi port by the Indian Coast Guard did the vessel send an e-mail reporting the incident to her owner at approximately 19:17 IST.
Italian investigations[edit source | editbeta]
On 26 February 2012, a five-member team of Italian naval officials examined the fishing boat Saint Antony berthed at Neendakara fishing harbour. The Italian team consisted of Major General Paolo Romano, Admiral Alessandro Piroli, Major Luca Flebus, Major Paolo Fratini and Commander Geam Paul.[49]
Italian Prosecutor Elisabetta Ceniccola opened an investigation for criminal negligence against Massimiliano Latorre and Salvatore Girone of the San Marco Regiment attached to the Military Protection Department in accordance with Article 575 (homicide) of the Italian penal code."[50][51][52][53] Italian Deputy Foreign Minister Staffan De Mistura described the killing of the fishermen as accidental but insisted that Indian courts did not have jurisdiction over the incident.[54][55][56] He added: "Whatever be the judicial verdict in India, the marines would be tried for murder in Italy".[57]
On 10 May, prosecutors Cennicola and her colleague Francesco Scavo interviewed the other four marines after they had arrived back from India. Sergeant Vogilano Renato, First Corporal Andronico Massino, Third Corporal Fontano Antonio and Corporal Conte Alessandro reportedly replied they didn't witness the shooting. The actual interrogations, the computer of the military team and digital photographs remain classified.[58]
On 3 January 2013, when Massimilano Latorre and Salvatore Girone were in Italy for a Christmas leave conceded by Indian court, and just before they had to go back to Kerala, Prosecutor Cennicola and her colleague Giancarlo Capaldo interviewed them for 5 hours.[59][60] Mr. Capaldo also stated to press that the international rogatory letter they had sent to their Indian counterparts has not yielded any results yet: no documentary material about investigation carried out in India had arrived to Rome so far.[60]
On 20 March 2013, the two marines were summoned by a military tribunal in Rome when they returned for a second time to Italy to vote in the Italian general elections. Military Prosecutor Marco De Paolis has been tasked with deciding whether the marines should be charged in Italy or whether the case against them should be discarded.[61][62]
2012 Italian shooting in the Laccadive Sea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1.Running away from scene of incident-being caught on run
2.Refusing to return back to country -where their credibility have gone down.ruling out any chance for decreasing the term of punishment for such persons
both are of serious in nature
apart from which pls look into these
Vice-Admiral K.N. Sushil, Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Southern Naval Command and Commander-in-Chief (Coastal Defence) of the Southern Zone, opined that the Italian marines erred in judgement :
"If they thought they were being chased by a pirate vessel, they should have carried out evasive manoeuvres to alter the course of the ship, as enunciated by the guidelines. If the skiff was still after them, they would've fired a few warning shots well above the bow of the pirate vessel to deter it. Unfortunately, they do not seem to have done any of this. The Italians are claiming that this was a successful anti-piracy operation, but it is crystal clear that the fishermen were unarmed and were not attempting to come alongside the tanker to board it. As the tanker crew claims to have been fired upon, I sent INS Kabra to ascertain if there were bullet marks on it. It went around the ship to find that there was none. I've also asked my men to verify the tanker's logbook to account for the number of rounds fired by the guards. This is to see if they had fired any warning shot at all. What are you talking about the fishing vessel giving you a chase when the maximum speed it can attain is just about eight knots?"[7]
Indian court documents revealed statements given by Massimiliano Latorre and Salvatore Girone to Indian investigators regarding the use of live-fire in the direction of an approaching fishing boat : Latorre fired 12 rounds of ammunition and Girone eight in two bursts as warning shots.
Speaking to an Indian television channel on 18 May 2012, Staffan de Mistura, the Italian Deputy Foreign Minister, said: "They (Italian naval marines) had tried to send some signals. They shot into the water and fired warning shots, some of which went in the wrong direction". He described the death of the two fishermen caused by the shooting as an "accidental killing" and an "unfortunate incident which everyone regrets. Our marines never wanted this to happen, but unfortunately it took place".[2][3][4]
Italian news agencies have quoted Vice-Captain Charles Noviello as a witness to the incident of 15 February 2012 as saying : "I'm sure the boat that came close was not the St.Antony. They do not match some details of the vessel I have seen and what I have been shown in the picture of the officials of the Indian Merchant Navy." In a telephone interview with Agenzia Nazionale Stampa Associata (ANSA), he added "I remember the cabin, where there was the helm, was of a different color from what I saw later in the picture." Noviello, who was present at the time when Massimiliano Latorre and Salvatore Girone opened fire, added that "none of the people on the boat fell to the ground". The officer said that "the boat was 40-50 meters from the tanker" when he reversed course. "I saw that there were 5 or 6 people on board, but I'm not sure if it was more." [13] [14]
After the incident, the Enrica Lexie continued sailing for almost three hours and covered a distance of 39 NM from the original position. It was also stated that the vessel had not immediately reported the incident to the IMB piracy reporting centre, which is the mandatory procedure. Only after interception in the area east of Kalpeni & Minicoy islands in the Lakshadweep archipelago and being forced to proceed to Kochi port by the Indian Coast Guard did the vessel send an e-mail reporting the incident to her owner at approximately 19:17 IST.
Italian investigations[edit source | editbeta]
On 26 February 2012, a five-member team of Italian naval officials examined the fishing boat Saint Antony berthed at Neendakara fishing harbour. The Italian team consisted of Major General Paolo Romano, Admiral Alessandro Piroli, Major Luca Flebus, Major Paolo Fratini and Commander Geam Paul.[49]
Italian Prosecutor Elisabetta Ceniccola opened an investigation for criminal negligence against Massimiliano Latorre and Salvatore Girone of the San Marco Regiment attached to the Military Protection Department in accordance with Article 575 (homicide) of the Italian penal code."[50][51][52][53] Italian Deputy Foreign Minister Staffan De Mistura described the killing of the fishermen as accidental but insisted that Indian courts did not have jurisdiction over the incident.[54][55][56] He added: "Whatever be the judicial verdict in India, the marines would be tried for murder in Italy".[57]
On 10 May, prosecutors Cennicola and her colleague Francesco Scavo interviewed the other four marines after they had arrived back from India. Sergeant Vogilano Renato, First Corporal Andronico Massino, Third Corporal Fontano Antonio and Corporal Conte Alessandro reportedly replied they didn't witness the shooting. The actual interrogations, the computer of the military team and digital photographs remain classified.[58]
On 3 January 2013, when Massimilano Latorre and Salvatore Girone were in Italy for a Christmas leave conceded by Indian court, and just before they had to go back to Kerala, Prosecutor Cennicola and her colleague Giancarlo Capaldo interviewed them for 5 hours.[59][60] Mr. Capaldo also stated to press that the international rogatory letter they had sent to their Indian counterparts has not yielded any results yet: no documentary material about investigation carried out in India had arrived to Rome so far.[60]
On 20 March 2013, the two marines were summoned by a military tribunal in Rome when they returned for a second time to Italy to vote in the Italian general elections. Military Prosecutor Marco De Paolis has been tasked with deciding whether the marines should be charged in Italy or whether the case against them should be discarded.[61][62]
2012 Italian shooting in the Laccadive Sea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Grifo
Regular Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2013
- Messages
- 33
- Likes
- 2
hi.
i am no lawyer,but i will share my views on your opinion
these comments which i consider to be gross accusations on indian courts.never did i hear such case where courts left the evidences to be destroyed.without proper links i should say these comments have no value and derogatory remarks.
this link says that police have the ship with them
once if a forensic expert gives his opinion in the court that itself is enough for the prosecution,only will be allowed for re-examination in exceptional cases,if there is any doubt in the report submitted, only at the discretion of the court.the admission of the fact of shooting by two italian marines and the statement given by the ship's captain adequately provides the picture of things happened there,so less likely for courts to order a re examination..
though the possession of ship increases prosecutions stand,lack of it never nulls theirs.
We only found a difference between the Italian and the Indian judicial system.
In Italy is not at the discretion of the judge. During the preliminary investigation the prosecutor may appoint its own experts and technical investigations to be carried out, but with the prohibition of carrying out acts unrepeatable. When was an offense any expert's report ordered by a court must have present the experts appointed by the judge together with those of the defense and the victim. I myself in various tasks I have covered all the roles, the contradiction between the parties is also and mainly on technical analysis. For example a few weeks ago in a serious car accident to examine a bus plunged off a bridge, the judge appointed three experts, and the investigates owner of the bus one expert, and together they examined the bus producing two separate reports.
So no offense, only the evidence of two different legal systems. What for us is a defect of the rights of defense for you it is not.
Evidently in India the Judge has more power than in Italy.
secondly the incident happened some 20.5 nautical miles from cochin,and now you are dragging in a some third unknown party with no proof's however.
how does omission of unaccused nullifies investigation??
had you been given/have any info regarding such,you are free to give such info to indian media/courts.necessary actions will be taken in such directions.
I have already written that after depositing the document on 13.03.2013 to the Prosecutor of Rome to give legal value in Italy, I sent the Embassy of India, the NIA and defense lawyers.
I expect that during the process is explained why the Greek tanker Olympic Flair was not called to port to be investigated, as reported exactly the same incident reported by Enrica Lexie, on the same day in the same area and during the same hours.
I am not saying that the Olympic Flair is the culprit (this is not my job, it is the task of the judge), I want to know why it was not called for investigations into port, and I want to know to the process, not to the newspapers.
In the 11 May 2012 military investigation report, compiled by a team of Italian military investigators sent to India to probe the Enrica Lexie shooting,[8][9] Rear Admiral Alessandro Piroli provides a detailed chronology of events on board the Enrica Lexie. The report also highlights serious anomalies in the behaviour of the captain of the tanker through his non-compliance with the procedures provided in case of suspected pirate attack. The report acknowledged that the fishing boat had navigational right of way and that the tanker should have manoeuvred out of the collision course as soon as the fishing vessel was spotted on radar. Rear Admiral Alessandro Piroli also pointed out the striking similarities between photos of the fishing boat taken from on board the Enrica Lexie with other photos available in the news media and those taken during the forensic examination of the St. Antony fishing boat. The report clearly states that the bullets in bodies of the two Indian fishermen were manufactured in Italy and shot from the barrels of guns assigned to two soldiers on-board Enrica Lexie : First Corporal Andronico Massino and Sergeant Vogilano Renato.[10][11]
The Admiral Piroli report looks at the state of the Indian investigation to 11/5/2012, and is disclosed in part by the Italian newspaper La Repubblica on 06/04/2013.
I asked the report Piroli the Italian navy, and they replied that they have not (Piroli is the second in a position in the Navy). In April 2013 the Italian Foreign Minister Giulio Terzi said on television that he had never received ... Italian mysteries.
It is not clear why a document went public on a government newspaper must be kept secret. However, I can show you many pictures of fishing boats very similar to St. Antony.
Instead, it is very interesting that the ballistics of Kerala is said to have fired the gun with the serial number of the marines Andronico and Voglino, not those of the two accused Girone and Latorre.
Can you give me an opinion on this? How is this possible?
your military investigators itself concluded the event chronology and it matched with the accused and attacked people.
No military investigation. They have value only the results of investigations and prosecutions, the rest are personal opinions.
Admiral Piroli can not prove what he says, except the part about the serial numbers of the rifles because derived from the assignments previously made and recorded. If 11/05/2012 Piroli had information to the defense of Girone and Latorre had to say to the Italian prosecutor, do not fly the fantasy.
The incident occurred about 20.5 nautical miles off the coast of Kerala.
The accident at the Enrica Lexie is 20.5 nautical miles from the coast, at 16/16: 30 IST (4/4: 30 PM IST), and in a specific geographical location also accepted by the Indian authorities.
The position of the vessel St. Antony do not know, because the fishermen witness positions and times always different
- At 9:30 PM IST upon landing at Neendakara (Mr. Freddy Bosco, front of the media and a policeman )
- At "Evening" on 17/2/2012 in The Hindu. At 14 nm off Alappuza, the evidence is that cell phones were taking (says Mr. Clemens, all fishermen present)
- At 4:00 PM IST on 04/03/2012 to Deccan Chronicle, "off Cherthala coast" (in this position they are about 40km north of Enrica Lexie) (Mr. Freddy Bosco)
- At 4:15 PM IST 21/3/2012 to the "Oggi" (Italian newspaper), 20.5 nm off Kollam (in this position they are about 50km south of Enrica Lexie) (all fishermen)
The case was initially tried in Kerala. The Italians have been contesting the jurisdiction of Indian courts in the matter, saying the incident occurred in international waters.
I have no skills to speak of jurisdiction
this above link also provides you that court/police have possession of the boat
Now the boat is a useless piece of wood, washed and deformed from the sea and weather, on which any person has gone up.
non-admission/admission of ballistic analysis from italian defence expert is purely at the discretion of Indian supreme court. there is nothing you can do about it
no formal agreement exist between our two nations in that way
Ok, I take note
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Covid-19 Started in Italy, in September 2019, Not in China in December | Science and Technology | 29 | |
| W | Italy approved $762-mn arms sales to Pakistan in 2018 | Pakistan | 1 | |
| W | Pakistan has recived 80 Italy Puma 6x6 APC. | Pakistan | 1 | |
| B | Italy joins China's New Silk Road project | China | 2 |
