'We trusted the government to fight for us': Kerala fishermen disappointed in Italian marines case

[Dr Gupta]

is that because India agreed to it, had India refused and instead tried in Indian courts if that was an option...dont know much about these law matter just wondering

These are marines belonging to another country a European country, what you think the EU would have said? these are not civilians but soldiers belonging to another nation.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

There is no need to correct Wikipedia since it pro west stand is well established.

Of the two documents that claims Indian coast is part of "high risk area", one is an Italian white paper which was published a good 9 months AFTER the Italians marines shot the Indians as part of the Italian defence of these two marines.

The second paper which claims to be 'Anti piracy chart" has mysteriously DISAPPEARED from the UKHO web site.

Anyone who is even remotely aware of Indian ocean will know that there is NO LANDMASS Near India which can support Piracy. It is IMPOSSIBLE for pirates to operate in this zone. They only exist near Somalia in the middle east and near the south east asian end.

The second claim about "Olympic Flair" is also a bunch of lies and a desperate attempt to spin a defence to cover up the crime.

The report that Olympic Flair sent to the IMO showed that they were at ANCHOR at the Port of Cochin. While at Anchor, About 20 thieves in two boats came up with the ship in the Night and tried to Board in an attempt at theft. The lookout crew spotted the robbers, giving the alarm and called to the crew. The robbers gave up to seeing the crew movement and changed course and ran away.

There have been no injuries, kidnappings, nor there are reports about weapons used to declare them "Pirates". It was just a bunch of unarmed thieves who tried to board at night and steal some cargo while at Port.

Now how about those 50 lashes for you for attempting to spread lies and disinformation ? But I guess White Men get a free pass, be it to shoot Indians or spread lies.


India is not the US, it is pretty damn impossible to get hold of weapons .......... to find a gun in Kerala is impossible. Your pathetic theory is so full of holes at ANY Indian here will find it laughable.


Finally Indian fishermen damn well have the right to fish ANYWHERE in Indian waters. Larger ships can go around our waters if they have an itchy finger. Our Fishermen does not have to move even an inch.

No body is in any doubt about the innocence of those fishermen. Shame on you for even pretending that they were not innocent. Disgusting.

Piracy is defined as robbery at sea using another vessel. Small vessels are now preferred.
Attacks on anchored vessels in port, still counts as Piracy if You use a boat
The guys attacking Olympic Flair, thus were pirates.

Here is a map showing how the High Risk Area was reduced in 2015 from bimco.com,
which seems relevant for this type of information.
Clearly shows that the area previously extended to India.
It does not show that it was considered high risk in 2012 however.

From the Wiki on Piracy:
Starting in the 14th century, the Deccan (Southern Peninsular region of India) was divided into two entities: on the one side stood the Muslim Bahmani Sultanate and on the other stood the Hindu kings rallied around the Vijayanagara Empire. Continuous wars demanded frequent resupplies of fresh horses, which were imported through sea routes from Persia and Africa. This trade was subjected to frequent raids by thriving bands of pirates based in the coastal cities of Western India. One of such was Timoji, who operated off Anjadip Island both as a privateer (by seizing horse traders, that he rendered to the raja of Honavar) and as a pirate who attacked the Kerala merchant fleets that traded pepper with Gujarat.

So the India landmass apparently HAS supported piracy, both now and before.

The incident occured in the Economic Zone of India in International Waters.

 

[DesiGuy1403]

Fact1: The marines had been allowed to go to Italy by UPA. In fact One of them is already vacationing in Italy.

Fact2: The arbitration does not tell India to NOT prosecute the Italians. It only asks they be given bail and permission to go back to Italy while the trial progresses. read Fact1 to know that Italians are already doing that.

Fact3: The families of the victims have already taken loads of money. Not sure why they have taken money if they are crying for justice now!! Return the money before crying.

 

[dadeechi]

Let me ask you a simple question...... Same situation and UPA in power..... What would have been your post?

UPA did give a pass to Russia on Admiral Gorshkov to ensure that ties with Russia were not impacted.

Hague Court Finds Arbitration Panel Has No Jurisdiction Against Russia Pursuant to Unratified Treaty
By Peter J.W. Sherwin and Alyse F. Stach on May 4, 2016 Posted in Arbitration

The District Court of the Hague overturned a record $50 billion in damages awards issued by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”), to the former controlling shareholders of the Yukos Oil Company on the grounds that Russia had not submitted itself to the PCA’s jurisdiction.

In 2014, the PCA awarded the former Yukos Oil Company shareholders damages, unanimously finding that Russia had breached its international obligations under the Energy Charter Treaty by destroying Yukos Oil Company, expropriating its assets for political reasons and transferring its assets to the state-owned oil company Rosneft.

The arbitral awards totaled $50 billion and were the largest ever issued by an arbitration tribunal.

The arbitration was brought under the arbitration provision in the Energy Charter Treaty, an international agreement designed to provide a multilateral framework for energy cooperation including: protection of foreign investments, non-discrimination conditions for trade in energy markets, products and energy-related equipment, provisions to ensure reliable cross-border energy transit, the promotion of energy efficiency, resolution of disputes between participating states and, pertinent here, the resolution of disputes among investors and host states. Russia signed the Energy Charter Treaty but never ratified it. Thus, the Hague Court found, the Russian state had never agreed to be bound by the arbitration provision in the Energy Charter Treaty and annulled the award.

The former Yukos shareholders have stated they will appeal.

In addition GML, the company that controlled a majority of Yukos Oil Company’s shares, is pursuing enforcement action against Russia in six other countries: Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, India and the United States. Decisions in those cases are still pending and it is not clear what effect the Hague decision will have on those actions.

http://www.mindingyourbusinesslitig...medium=syndication&utm_campaign=View-Original

 

[axisofevil]

I can never understand how you have the patience to debate with some here , to them their political and religious affiliations is all than matters , they seldom bring common scene or reason in their debates.

Stfu about debates...you idiots continue to vouch for Congress when so much has come to light about massive corruption. This party ruled us for 60 odd yrs and pushed one family only to be in total control. Nothing wrong about that issue right? Where the f-k is the common sense there...

 

[Dr Gupta]

Stfu about debates...you idiots continue to vouch for Congress when so much has come to light about massive corruption. This party ruled us for 60 odd yrs and pushed one family only to be in total control. Nothing wrong about that issue right? Where the f-k is the common sense there...

Hey liberal fascists like Joe Shearer used to tell me Modi would never come to power, I told him you do not know the power of the Sangh... how is Joe these days?

Stfu about debates...you idiots continue to vouch for Congress when so much has come to light about massive corruption. This party ruled us for 60 odd yrs and pushed one family only to be in total control. Nothing wrong about that issue right? Where the f-k is the common sense there...

See from Nair's first remark? he wanting to communise the issue on party lines. In my mind I was not even thinking about Congress or BJP but he certainly was

 

[axisofevil]

Hey liberal fascists like Joe Shearer used to tell me Modi would never come to power, I told him you do not know the power of the Sangh... how is Joe these days?



See from Nair's first remark? he wanting to communise the issue on party lines. In my mind I was not even thinking about Congress or BJP but he certainly was

That guy Joe is an idiot has zero grasp on what is going on in and around the world. Its not just simply the power of the Sangh. There were many factors at play. Of all the politicians in India, Modi is definitely at the top when it comes to governance and getting things done. UPA was a total failure on a variety of issues. The loosening and warming of ties between India and Congress contributed massive corruption on Congress's part. What many fail to realize is who exactly pushed India and the US to let bygones be bygones and move forward in a different direction this century. Even the US allies were not up to par with these developments. That is the million dollar question. I know the answer very well.....it will completely surprises many of you.


As for others, these fools tend to think along such communal and political lines whereas we look at our future as a PAN INDIAN issue. We can leap forward into the future thinking small...

 

[dadeechi]

People are getting emotional here rather than understanding some finer points. The issue is not limited to crime committed but also on the jurisdiction as this case would be used as a precedent going forward.

Another important point to note is that a case cannot be taken for arbitration unless both the parties agreed to it.

In this case UPA government did not agree but NDA government agreed for the case to proceed for arbiritration.

This was expected as UPA was Russia leaning while NDA is West leaning.



Italy Vs. India: Untangling a Mess

Mar 15, 2013 1:54 pm IST
0 COMMENTS
By Yogesh Pai

Vincenzo Pinto/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
The Italian marines accused of fatally shooting two Indian fishermen, in Rome, Dec. 22, 2012.
The Supreme Court’s decision to restrain the Italian ambassador from leaving India raises the question that this may violate international law on diplomatic immunity.

This is the latest development in a deepening dispute between the two countries over where two Italian marines accused of fatally shooting two Indian fishermen should stand trial.

On Feb. 15 2012, two Italian marines on board the Italian tanker Enrica Lexie allegedly shot and killed two Indian fishermen off the coast of the Indian state of Kerala.

Onshore, the marines were then arrested by local police and charged with murder, which they deny. As the Indian judicial process took its course, courts allowed the marines to visit Italy twice. They returned to India after their first visit over Christmas, but Italy is refusing to send them back a second time, triggering strong protests in India and a diplomatic crisis.

Both India and Italy claim the other’s actions are lawful.

At this stage, it’s worth taking a step back to untangle the legal arguments in a dispute that has led Italy and India to review their diplomatic ties.

1. Who has jurisdiction in the case? India and Italy disagree over where the two men should stand trial on murder charges.

Italy has long maintained that since the incident happened in international waters, its courts have should handle the matter.

India disagrees, says it has jurisdiction over the case because the slain fishermen were Indian and on board an Indian fishing boat at the time of the incident.

In January, India’s Supreme Court ruled the marines are subject to Indian jurisdiction, saying they will be tried in a special court in Delhi.

Before the judgment, Italy hoped for a ruling in its favor. This may explain why the marines returned to India when they were allowed to visit Italy for Christmas (before the judgment was delivered), but did not return this time.

When it announced the marines would not return to India as promised, Italy said India’s position is contrary to international law.

Italy points to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which says that a ship on the high seas falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of its “flag state.” In the case of the Enrica Lexie, that would mean Italy.

Under UNCLOS, the flag state also has exclusive jurisdiction over “incidents of navigation” involving its ship on the high seas.

The Indian Supreme Court has rejected these arguments, noting that the shooting incident cannot qualify as an “incident of navigation,” and that the alleged incident happened on an Indian boat.

2. Are the marines immune from prosecution? Italy also claims that the marines, as members of the Italian armed forces, are immune from prosecution in India for acts carried out in their official capacity.

The two naval officers were positioned on the ship as a counter-piracy measure.

But it’s unclear whether counter-piracy agreements apply to incidents involving commercial ships, like the Enrica Lexie. Italy says they do.

Since India and Italy have not concluded a treaty in advance that determines whether or in what circumstances armed forces stationed abroad enjoy immunity from local criminal jurisdiction, the immunity of the Italian marines is a question of customary international law.

In this instance, Italy would have to show that customary international law grants immunity to members of a state’s armed forces in situations where a criminal act is alleged to have taken place outside of Italy, and where military personnel are responsible for security on a private vessel.

India’s presented this argument on the marines’ immunity before the Indian Supreme Court. The court did not respond to this, saying it’s up to the special court to rule on this.

3. What are the next steps? When it informed India of its decision, Italy also formally called for a diplomatic solution to the dispute through UNCLOS.

The convention requires the states to settle their disputes by peaceful means such as negotiation, conciliation, or arbitration.

In case they fail to reach a bilateral agreement through UNCLOS, they can turn to a third party for arbitration.

Here, Italy and India have several options: They can submit the dispute to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg, the International Court of Justice in The Hague, or to an ad hoc arbitration tribunal.

4. Can India force the Italian ambassador to stay put? The Supreme Court, unhappy with Italy’s decision to not return the marines, on Thursday said Italian ambassador will not be allowed to leave India without its permission.

Italian Ambassador Daniele Mancini gave his word to the Indian Supreme Court that the marines would return to India to stand trial.

It’s unclear whether the court’s order violates the terms of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which grants diplomats immunity from criminal and civil prosecution in the countries that host them, with some exceptions.

India’s foreign ministry has so far said the order does not impact New Delhi’s commitment under the convention. However, if Indian authorities enforce the order – and effectively stop the ambassador from leaving the country, should he try – some could argue this would go against the international treaty.

That convention says that a diplomat’s immunity can only be waived by his or her government. In this case, the Italian government is firmly backing the ambassador, who was acting on its behalf.

But there are exceptions to the immunity rule. Article 32 of the Vienna convention precludes diplomats from invoking immunity in legal proceedings they initiate. It’s unclear whether the exception applies in this case, as the ambassador turned to the Supreme Court not in his personal capacity but on behalf of the government of Italy.

The court’s order came in response to a contempt-of-court petition filed by Subramanian Swamy, a politician with the opposition Janata Party, earlier that day.

“I have argued that since the ambassador himself voluntarily entered India’s legal process… he has lost his immunity due to his own actions,” he said.

If Italy believes the Supreme Court’s restraint order contravenes the Vienna convention, it can take India to the International Court of Justice to resolve this dispute.

Yogesh Pai is an Assistant Professor at National Law University, Jodhpur.

http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2013/03/15/italy-vs-india-untangling-a-mess/

 

[Dr Gupta]

That guy Joe is an idiot has zero grasp on what is going on in and around the world. Its not just simply the power of the Sangh. There were many factors at play. Of all the politicians in India, Modi is definitely at the top when it comes to governance and getting things done. UPA was a total failure on a variety of issues. The loosening and warming of ties between India and Congress contributed massive corruption on Congress's part. What many fail to realize is who exactly pushed India and the US to let bygones be bygones and move forward in a different direction this century. Even the US allies were not up to par with these developments. That is the million dollar question. I know the answer very well.....it will completely surprises many of you.


As for Nair and others, these fools tend to think along such communal and political lines whereas we look at our future as a PAN INDIAN issue. We can leap forward into the future thinking small...

I tell you one thing just compare our previous defence minister Anthony who was slow, cumbersome and stuck in some kind of old mentality to our new Defence minister who yes (should dress better) but look at the way he is doing things? look at the NSA we have now?

They want to blame India on the climate change deal but fail to understand if India played spoil sport on that issue the rest of the world would have been like wtf! all countries signed it in the end it's for the greater good of the planet.

If Italy believes the Supreme Court’s restraint order contravenes the Vienna convention, it can take India to the International Court of Justice to resolve this dispute.

Here lies the core of the case, is our SC supreme or is it the Vienna international convention we signed?

Bottom line is once he goes back to Rome he is not coming back, its over kaput the fat lady has sang.. now when he gets off the plane he will give a big smile and be met with jubilant fans.. yes we been abused but hey it's not the first time? Bhopal, JEM chief? my point is when you do things 'by the book' this book is written by the west you will always loose. Learn from history and China and we also can win.

 

[Immortan.Joe]

Obviously Indian needs from Italy more than what Italy needs from India..heck an italian woman ruled India recently...May be if Indian was capable of securing Indian ocean there would be no need to post Italian marines on a cargo vessel.

There is nothing we need from Italy. It is Mexico of Europe. The worse they could do is whine in EU about big bad Indian bully and appeal to covert and overt racism of Europeans.

Every party is looking for a honourable exit from this situation as this issue has dragged on for too long.

Bottom line is once he goes back to Rome he is not coming back, its over kaput the fat lady has sang..

Which suits us pretty well.

If he does not return, he becomes a fugitive, and no precedence has been established. This means that if in future we need to take a different action, we could do so without being dragged to international court.

Also, since no international precedence is established, it give us greater latitude to act in case one of our soldier finds himself in same circumstances abroad.

Learn from history and China and we also can win.

Yes, we should learn from Chinese (Sun Tzu), Western (Clausewitz) and Indian (Chankaya) thinkers.

There is no point in picking up a war, when you do not have clear objectives, will to annihilate your enemy, and concrete benefits to attain from that war.

Italians could only whine ,even if India locks up these marines forever; but that whining would result in constant irritation for us. When there is nothing to gain from furthering this issue, we should let it pass.

Another thing we should learn from China is to gain strength and bide our time, and not show our hand too early.

 

[911]

Paying up is a fully acceptable way to resolve such matters.
In pirate infested waters, it is important that ships get protection.
Mistakes may happen and will happen.

Italy needs to apologize, money needs to be handed over, the Marines needs to be freed,
but as a precaution, not be assigned similar duties.
Fishermen need to stay away from large vessels.
No honour is beeing trampled on if this happens.

I will kill you by mistake and then say sorry.

 

[Immortan.Joe]

The line of defence of yours is weaker than a house of cards.

Piracy is defined as robbery at sea using another vessel. Small vessels are now preferred.
Attacks on anchored vessels in port, still counts as Piracy if You use a boat
The guys attacking Olympic Flair, thus were pirates.

Definition of piracy is:

"Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

• "Any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft (or) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state;
• "Any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirateship or aircraft;
• "Any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described (above)"

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/P/PiracyMaritimeLaw.aspx

Now;

1. There was no violence involved. Thievery is not piracy, and neither is it recognized as such.

2. That ship was anchored at port of Cochin (and Indian territorial waters) ,and was not on high seas. Even if violence would have happened, it would have been constructed as robbery, not maritime piracy.

Here is a map showing how the High Risk Area was reduced in 2015 from bimco.com,
which seems relevant for this type of information.
Clearly shows that the area previously extended to India.
It does not show that it was considered high risk in 2012 however.

View attachment 303799

Bull$hit remain bull$hit, whichever way someone try to spin it.

Closest incident of piracy that has been reported has been 450 nautical miles away from Indian coast and occurred way back in March 2012. Whichever way Italians try to spin this crying and complaining to their superiors (Germany and co.) in EU, they could not molest facts.

Even your own map shows High risk area to be good 200-300 Km away from Indian coastline.

From the Wiki on Piracy:
Starting in the 14th century, the Deccan (Southern Peninsular region of India) was divided into two entities: on the one side stood the Muslim Bahmani Sultanate and on the other stood the Hindu kings rallied around the Vijayanagara Empire. Continuous wars demanded frequent resupplies of fresh horses, which were imported through sea routes from Persia and Africa. This trade was subjected to frequent raids by thriving bands of pirates based in the coastal cities of Western India. One of such was Timoji, who operated off Anjadip Island both as a privateer (by seizing horse traders, that he rendered to the raja of Honavar) and as a pirate who attacked the Kerala merchant fleets that traded pepper with Gujarat.

So the India landmass apparently HAS supported piracy, both now and before.

LOL, 14th century!! What does piracy in 14th century has to do with a legal case in 2013?

Also Anjadip was in Portuguese control at that time, and it was Portuguese who supported and partook in piracy. Piracy was state policy of every/most European nation at that time, with pirates even being knighted (in England) for Caribbean piracy. Portuguese even hijacked a royal pilgrim ship of Mughals on high seas which lead to a war and defeat of Portuguese at the hand of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb.

 

[911]

I can never understand how you have the patience to debate with some here , to them their political and religious affiliations is all than matters , they seldom bring common scene or reason in their debates.

Only fascist retards like you will see it with political angle.

Hey liberal fascists like Joe Shearer used to tell me Modi would never come to power, I told him you do not know the power of the Sangh... how is Joe these days?

He and likes are busy trying proving intolerance. And mocking any policy by government, mocking Tejas just because it appeared on Zee News, mocking anything related to BJP even if they have to mock India for it and showing extreme intolerance towards anything related to Modi while calling others intolerant.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

The line of defence of yours is weaker than a house of cards.



Definition of piracy is:



http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/P/PiracyMaritimeLaw.aspx

Now;

1. There was no violence involved. Thievery is not piracy, and neither is it recognized as such.

2. That ship was anchored at port of Cochin (and Indian territorial waters) ,and was not on high seas. Even if violence would have happened, it would have been constructed as robbery, not maritime piracy.

Bull$hit remain bull$hit, whichever way someone try to spin it.

Closest incident of piracy that has been reported has been 450 nautical miles away from Indian coast and occurred way back in March 2012. Whichever way Italians try to spin this crying and complaining to their superiors (Germany and co.) in EU, they could not molest facts.

Even your own map shows High risk area to be good 200-300 Km away from Indian coastline.

LOL, 14th century!! What does piracy in 14th century has to do with a legal case in 2013?

Also Anjadip was in Portuguese control at that time, and it was Portuguese who supported and partook in piracy. Piracy was state policy of every/most European nation at that time, with pirates even being knighted (in England) for Caribbean piracy. Portuguese even hijacked a royal pilgrim ship of Mughals on high seas which lead to a war and defeat of Portuguese at the hand of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb.

Violence is not required.

The same website differentiates between "Piracy Jure Gentium" which occurs on the high seas and "Piracy"
which occurs on the territorial waters of a nation.
The first can be tried by any state, and the latter can be tried only by the nation in question.
The United Nations charter defines treaties for the high seas, and is not the only definition.
IMB has up to 2009 defined piracy also to include crimes within territorial waters.
While they are moving towards the INCLOS definition, the definition is not used in practise.

"Further support as to why the definition of piracy under UNCLOS is the most appropriate mechanism for determining whether an unlawful act should be classed as such could be found from the fact that the IMB’s annual reports since 2010 adopts this view. In fairness, it seems that the IMB has taken steps to rectify the confusion with its definition of piracy, but this has not had any impact since its statistics are not broken into separate heads for international waters and territorial waters, whereas most players in the global maritime industry rely on the IMB’s statistics in making crucial decisions, such as designating High Risk Areas (HRA) as well as fixing insurance premiums and freight rates."

Interesting enough, the INCLOS definition does not rule out that the attempt in the harbour was piracy.
Clause (ii) says that once a ship has committed an act of piracy on the high seas,
all acts onboard that vessel including swiping the deck
is piracy, regardless whether on international waters or not.

The map shows the old zone (pre-2015) and the new zone. The old zone extends to India.
It was claimed that India is totally unsuitable for pirates.
History shows that statement to be wrong.

Finally, the differentiation between international waters and territorial waters matters to the states involved and the pirates. It matters not to the vessel under attack.
As per above, IMB would have reported the attack on Olympic Flair, the Italians would have taken that into considerations when Indian Fisherboats approached them ON INTERNATIONAL,WATERS (but within the Economic Zone).

I maintain the view that if fishermen do not want to be treated like pirates, they should not act like pirates.
I have no knowledge about the exact movement of the Indian ship, but if they were clearly following the Italian ship, changing course as the Italian ship changed course, "playing pirates", even without intention to actually
commit piracy, then they are engaging in reckless behaviour, and should bear part of the responibility.

It is suspicious to me, that they are only 50 meters from the Italian Ship, unless there are hundreds or thousands of ships in the vicinity.

 

[nair]

I can never understand how you have the patience to debate with some here , to them their political and religious affiliations is all than matters , they seldom bring common scene or reason in their debates.

Well I am used to it now......

I agree Political and religious affiliation of few are soo strong that, they would jump any point opposing their party/religous lines......It is the same with both BJP and UPA supporters..... You feel more of BJP as they have higher number of supporters in this forum..... Most of them are same in real life too... Being a mallu, I feel the worst one's are CPM supporters..... for them their god is party and party stand..... So I am used to this kind of environment.........