From"Liberazione 12-6-98"

By Lucio Manisco

A useless mess from Strasbourg

The Baraldini case, a step back?!

It is difficult to identify the one only positive element with the 
communication of the Strasbourg committee on the Baraldini case, while the
negative elements or simply the uninfluential ones, needed to bring back 
to Italy our co-citizen, in the respect of her own rights, of the local
legislation as well as the international treaties.

Such a negative evaluation of the case, not shared by the Italian
delegation which has held a determining role in the Drawing of the 
document, derives from the opinions gathered amongst the Committee 
members of the executive panel.

For foreign-criminal charges of the European Council, primarily the
opinions of the Swedish and French, gathered after three days of animated
discussions in private meetings and assemblies.

All, without the exemption of any, have sustained the right earned by the
accused, on the basis of the Strasbourg convention, To be transferred to
a penal institute in her own country, after spending sixteen years in the
worst penitentiary of the USA; all concerned have harshly criticised, the 
intolerance and the arrogance shown by the two American representatives, 
Drew Arena and George Brooks, whom have very promptly secured their
position by not signing, underwriting or even acknowledging the written 
communiqué. 

Due to the lack of Italian social interest, there is no trace in the 
whole document of any criticism towards the two public officials from 
Washington. Therefore, even the pressures on the overseas authorities, 
from the final deliberation from the Strasbourg Tribunal, was useless.

Article 23, of the Convention, to which our government has appealed, with 
a three years delay quotes:

"The European Comittee for Criminal affairs in the European Council, will 
be notified on the application of this Convention and will fulfil any
necessary act the facilitate the friendly solution to any difficulties 
that may arise from its direct application."

Any, "necessary act etc,etc,," presumes that, even in a friendly way, the
responsibilities of the defaulting-party, will be ascertained.. This
procedure has not been followed on behalf of the Italian officials, others
then the ill feelings expressed by the retiring magistrate Giuseppe di
Gennaro, on the intemperance of George Brooks, the macroscopic violations
of the US judicial system that have taken place for the past nine years,
were not contested.

One of these violations, if not the worst one, has been that of which,
imposing arbitrarily the extra-territoriality of the laws and the penal 
rules of the US on the judicial system of another country. It has not
been known to us, that our official representatives have quoted on this
proposal another Convention which regulates the conformity of the
treaties, the Vienna Convention of 1969, article 27, just to quote
one, writes: " One of the contracting parties, will not Invoke the
provisions of his internal laws, as a mean of justifying the default in
observing the treaty".

Judging from the communiqué released in Strasbourg, the Italian requests 
have been opposite, they have tried if not to avail, at least to meet the
US request to make heed the American judicial and penal code; instead of
engaging uniquely in the fulfilment of the respect the mandate of the
convention, that in its article 9 imposes the fulfilment of the penal
sentence in the country of origin, in the terms compatible to its 
legisations.

It is true that the principle is mentioned in three paragraphs of the 
Strasbourg document, but it is then made useless in any other of its 
chapters for all the various imprecision. It is true, for instance, that
during the post-war period the Italian Parliament has never lodged
proceeding for grace to a sentenced criminal. Within the hypothetical 
scenarios, it is indicated that the Baraldini case could be sentenced to
30 years and pass in our goals other 14 years, adding extra 4 to the ones
she would have to serve in the US. Even if one would design the maximum
penalty in comparison to the worst most extensive crimes attributed to the
case in the US, the sentencing would never reach a 30 years sentence.

What does it mean to ascertain that it is the duty of the Tribunale di Sorveglianza Italiano (Italian Surveillance
Tribunal)

To decides on any modifications of the sentence or eventual law benefits , then give power of veto to the
American authorities, after transferring and on the basis of previous behaviours of the prisoner in an US prison?

What else to say on one of the last paragraphs, the one that makes the United States the only arbitrators-after
"17 years of detention and given "the serious nature of the crimes committed" of the applications of the
Convention in its dual

Ending to a final justice and of the prisoner social rehabilitation ?.

It is a real mix of failures and judicial approximations , the Italian officials have generated , many perplexities in
both the Swedish and French colloquies, which at the end was of not use to any one.

It is true that Mr. Brooks and Mr. Arena , officials in of second and third order , all but recommendable,

have left slamming the door.