Naval guards: India moves to downgrade diplomatic ties with Italy

[Srinivas]

Really silly behaviour on part of the Italians. It was extremely likely that a jurisdictional argument might have been upheld by the court that would have tried it. The SC even asked the Italians to raise that question there. Instead, the two Italian military personnel are now being projected as fugitives from justice and the Italian ambassador, a bare faced liar. Beats me as to how the Italians became so idiotic. They have little or no sympathy whatsoever now.

Completely agree on that

 

[Developereo]

I don't think so after the recent responses from India Govt. and its stand on this issue.

If lawyers for both sides (GoI and defence) can agree to a deal, the SC will go along.

Absurd!
Trials can not be done with such mode wherein there got to be a testimony of witnesses and other complexities involved within. Is there any precedence as such?

Witnesses give testimony by video all the time, but I don't know of a precedent for remote defendants -- especially in a murder trial. In any case, no law says this case can't set a precedent.

And, at the end, if these two found guilty, would they be repatriated to India?

As I wrote above, the lawyers for both sides will have made a backroom deal, so verdict would be not guilty, or some slap-on-the-wrist. Or the SC could render a verdict that the case doesn't belong in Indian courts and let the matter shift to Italy.

 

[mehboobkz]

Witnesses give testimony by video all the time, but I don't know of a precedent for remote defendants -- especially in a murder trial. In any case, no law says this case can't set a precedent.

Can a 450 pound Sumo wrestler walk the tight rope/
Yes.
But have we seen one in ages?
No.
I thought you were practical.

As I wrote above, the lawyers for both sides will have made a backroom deal, so verdict would be not guilty, or some slap-on-the-wrist

The fierce and anti Sonia Harvard Educated lawyer Swamy has filed a case against Italy, its not going to go that cheap.....

BTW assumption are mother of all the mess-ups

 

[Bang Galore]

Can a 450 pound Sumo wrestler walk the tight rope/
Yes.
But have we seen one in ages?
No.
I thought you were practical.

That was funny.

 

[Developereo]

Can a 450 pound Sumo wrestler walk the tight rope/
Yes.
But have we seen one in ages?
No.
I thought you were practical.

There are a lot of firsts in this case already -- ambassador giving surety, SC threatening him jail, etc.

So, don't count out the possibility of creative ways to resolve this thing. Is there anything in the law that demands a defendant to be physically present in the court room?

If not, I think that's how this thing will pan out: video trial with result of acquittal or trial relocation to Italy.

 

[mehboobkz]

That was funny.

Thanks 4 yr thanx

There are a lot of firsts in this case already -- ambassador giving surety, SC threatening him jail, etc.

So, don't count out the possibility of creative ways to resolve this thing. Is there anything in the law that demands a defendant to be physically present in the court room?

If not, I think that's how this thing will pan out: video trial with result of acquittal or trial relocation to Italy.

Oopps!
You are good at counting the chickens before they are hatched!

 

[Developereo]

Oopps!
You are good at counting the chickens before they are hatched!

Not counting anything.
Merely stating one possible way this could pan out, assuming Indian law allows remote defendants.

Since my crystal ball is in for repairs, all I can offer is guesses, not certainties.

 

[mehboobkz]

Not counting anything.
Merely stating one possible way this could pan out, assuming Indian law allows remote defendants.

Since my crystal ball is in for repairs, all I can offer is guesses, not certainties.

Its about time you became the prophet of the prophets....
The infallible, the omniscient!
We are mere mortals...

 

[danger007]

There are a lot of firsts in this case already -- ambassador giving surety, SC threatening him jail, etc.

So, don't count out the possibility of creative ways to resolve this thing. Is there anything in the law that demands a defendant to be physically present in the court room?

If not, I think that's how this thing will pan out: video trial with result of acquittal or trial relocation to Italy.

I think SC said his personal present in court room... but i am not sure there will be any legal action against him...

 

[Developereo]

I think SC said his personal present in court room... but i am not sure there will be any legal action against him...

Didn't the SC order him not to leave the country? Surely the order would have consequences, implied or explicit, should he disobey.

 

[janon]

Didn't the SC order him not to leave the country? Surely the order would have consequences, implied or explicit, should he disobey.

He cant disobey that order. He will not be permitted to board an airplane, because the supreme court's order would have gone to all the airports and other points of exit. The only way he can disobey that would be to sneak out of the country somehow. I don't think the Italians are that sophisticated, to be able to smuggle their ambassador out in stealth helicopters or any other way.

 

[danger007]

article 31





1.A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State.
He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction, except in the case of:
(a) A real action relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving State,
unless he holds it on behalf of the sending State for the purposes of the mission;
(b) An action relating to succession in which the diplomatic agent is involved as executor,
administrator, heir or legatee as a private person and not on behalf of the sending State;
(c) An action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in
the receiving State outside his official functions.
2.A diplomatic agent is not obliged to give evidence as a witness.
3.No measures of execution may be taken in respect of a diplomatic agent except in the cases
coming under subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 of this article, and provided that the
measures concerned can be taken without infringing the inviolability of his person or of his residence.



http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

 

[Developereo]

He cant disobey that order. He will not be permitted to board an airplane, because the supreme court's order would have gone to all the airports and other points of exit. The only way he can disobey that would be to sneak out of the country somehow. I don't think the Italians are that sophisticated, to be able to smuggle their ambassador out in stealth helicopters or any other way.

Of course; that's why I listed this is one of the 'firsts' in this case, and why video trial of the marines may be another 'first' in Indian legal history, assuming the law allows it.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

I THINK WE LOST THE WHOLE CASE. READ THE BOLD PART.


With the Supreme Court restraining the Italian
ambassador from leaving India, complex issues
relating to diplomatic immunity and valid exemptions
have come to the fore. Diplomatic privileges are
based on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations, 1961, which has been ratified by 187
countries.
Article 29
As per Article 29
of the treaty, India
must ensure the
freedom and
dignity of the
Italian
ambassador. "The
person of a
diplomatic agent
shall be inviolable.
He shall not be
liable to any form
of arrest or
detention. The
receiving state
shall treat him
with due respect
and shall take all
appropriate steps
to prevent any
attack on his
person, freedom
or dignity"
Article 32(3)
Many people,
including
opposition leader
Arun Jaitley in
Parliament, have
argued that the
ambassador will
not enjoy
immunity as he
has submitted
himself to the
Indian judiciary.
The basis of this
argument is Article
32, section 3.
"The initiation of
proceedings by a
diplomatic agent...
shall preclude him
from invoking
immunity from
jurisdiction in
respect of any
counterclaim
directly connected
with the principal
claim"
Read in isolation, this section makes it clear that
the Italian ambassador, who gave an undertaking to
the SC, cannot invoke immunity from the fallout of
that proceeding (in this case, a contempt of court
proceeding). But section 1 and 2 of the same article
could be read to mean that any such exemption of
immunity requires an express waiver from the
sending state ( Italy , in this case). Section 4 of
article 32 makes the matter further muddled, by
stating that a waiver granted by the sending state
for civil or administrative proceedings should not be
considered a waiver of immunity for the execution
of a judgment, for which a separate waiver is
required.


Does Italy remind you of Vienna? Here are the rules - The Economic Times on Mobile