Italian Marines Case: Government to accept international arbitration tribunal order

Italian Marines Case: Government to accept international arbitration tribunal order

Author: Rupa Paul, Amity University, Kolkata.

Abstract

The Central Government has informed the Supreme Court of its decision to accept the award of the International Arbitration Tribunal which ruled that the Italian Marines involved in the Enrica Lexi case should be tried by Italy and not India. New Delhi may seek compensation for the deaths of fishermen killed in the incident off the coast of Kerala. Two Italian Marines, Massimiliano Latorre and Salvadore Girone, killed two crew members on an Indian fishing boat. The case has led to controversy between the two countries. Its spatial waters. Italy claimed that the ship had hoisted the Italian flag, and that the crew could be prosecuted under Italian law.

INTRODUCTION

The High Court later allowed the two Marines to leave the country and fly to Italy. Following a court adjournment on August 26, 2015, Italy took the matter to an international tribunal set up under the UN Convention on the Seas in The Hague, the Netherlands. The tribunal ruled on May 21, 2020 that Italian Marines would try but India could seek compensation for the deaths of fishermen. In the latest application filed in the court on Thursday, the Central Government, through the Standing Council, BV Balaram Das, decided to accept the tribunal award final and without any appeal. The application asked the court to close the trial, which has been pending since 2012. It said it has “decided to accept and abide” by the Tribunal’s order which held that India is entitled to claim compensation from Italy and precluded from exercising its jurisdiction over the marines.

As a result of a recent ruling in the Enrica Lexie Court by the Court of Appeal, an application has been filed on behalf of the Union of India, seeking that the case be pending in the Supreme Court with respect to Italian war charges in connection with the indictment relating to the shooting of a fishing boat off the coast of Kerala on February 15, 2012. The three items ‘are the Republic of Italy & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors. ‘,’ Chief Master Sargeant Massim Lat. Vs. Union Of India ‘ne’ Kilsariyan vs. Union Of India ‘, reported the legal news website LiveLaw.in.

The union said it had “decided to accept and abide” by an order passed by the Supreme Court that India had the right to claim compensation from Italy and that India had been barred from exercising its mining power. The complaint relates a series of incidents that led to the entire process in India as a result of an order passed by the International Tribunal on Law of the Sea (ITLOS), which previously stated that both Italy and India would suspend all courts. In addition, via a modified order dated September 2, 2015 it was adjudged by the Supreme Court which also set aside all pending decisions in India.

The Tribunal has unanimously stated that India has the right to claim compensation in Italy. It was also maintained (3: 2 majority) that the Marines have the right to defend themselves against the actions they committed during the 15th of February 2012, and that India was banned from exercising its powers in the Marines. The Tribunal has announced ,with regards to the Enrica Lexie Case that Italy acted in contravention of Article 87, paragraph 1, subsection (a), and Article 90 of the United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea and that India has the right to pay compensation in respect of “loss of life, physical injury, damage to property (including” St. Antony “) and moral damages inflicted on the captain and other members of the” St. ” Antony “”, by his nature cannot be done well in restoration. The Court also unanimously stated that India had not violated Article 87 of UNCLOS by asking Enrica Lexie to change her course and keep her in the Kochi harbour after the shooting on February 15, 2012.

In addition, both countries have been invited to negotiate with respect to an agreement on compensation for India. It is clear that the Arbitral Tribunal will retain power if the Party or both parties want to apply for a decision from the Arbitral Tribunal regarding the amount of compensation on behalf of India.

INDIA BEING ORDERED BY TRIBUNAL

The Tribunal ordered India to take the necessary steps to stop using its criminal powers over the navy. In the latter case, the union stated that the Republic of India would accept and adhere to the Order awarded by the court and while presenting the Award to the Supreme Court in writing on the said matter, stated that the process would continue to be discontinued in accordance with the Award.

“The Applicant declares and submits that the Republic of India has decided to accept and comply with the Prize passed by the said Tribunal which will contribute to the continuation of the proceedings before this Hon’ble court. that the proceedings in respect of the incident dated 15.2.2012 be removed in accordance with the Award passed by the above-mentioned Tribunal on 21.5.2020, “it said.

ENRICA LEXIE INCIDENT

On February 15, 2012, at about 4:30 PM, about a mile [20.5 km] off the coast of India, the ‘St Antony’ fishing boat passed by “Erica Lexie”, an Italian flag carrier. Two soldiers on board – Massimilano Latorre and Salvatore Girone – thought ‘St Antony’ was a criminal boat, and they fired. This led to the deaths of two fishermen – Valentine Jalastine and Ajesh Binki. The First Information Report (FIR) was filed by local anti-seafaring police. 302 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in connection with the shooting incident that resulted in the deaths of two Indian fishermen.

Following this, the Republic of Italy filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the criminal charges against the waters of Kerala. The court held that the reference to the “wandering incident” in Art.97 of UNCLOS could not be extended to criminal activity, which involved the killing of two Indian fishermen on an Indian fishing boat.

The court also ruled that Article 97 would apply only to the ‘Great Seas’, which are not part of the Exclusive Economic Zone, Territorial Waters or Internal Waters of any country. It was further alleged that India has jurisdiction over the Contiguous Zones under the Maritime Zones Act. Justice Kabir said in the judgment that, “The shooting of an Italian ship on the Indian ship took place within the Contiguous Zone, the Union of India has the right to prosecute the two Italian forces under a system of justice prevalent in the country.”

The court also ruled that the state of Kerala had no jurisdiction to investigate the incident. This assumed that only the Union Government had control over the Contiguous Zone under the Maritime Zones Act. Following the verdict, the investigation into the case was taken by the National Investigation Agency from the Kerala police.

COLD BLOODED MURDER CASE

“What happened was a headless massacre, and those on the water were given a seven-star treatment [in India]”, said attorney general K.N. Balagopal, who appeared in Kerala in the case before the High Court in the case. “Compensation is provided anyway in such cases;” The march should have been sued in our courts for the crimes committed. “

Several years later, when the case became a political issue in India, Italy decided to apply to the International Court of Justice (ITLOS) International Court of Justice (ITLOS) in August 2015. The court ordered the continuation of the pending Italian Permanent Court case.and Arbitrage in The Hague in the Netherlands. The Supreme Court, which had been hearing the case, adjourned the proceedings for some time.

In its case, Italy blamed the Indian government for holding a march without charge and for making their lives miserable in the event of a delay. The issue led to a long delay in the relations between India and Italy, which was re-established only in 2016, when Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj visited Rome at the inauguration of Mama Teresa and met with her Italian counterpart.

CONCLUSION

When removing the piracy angle, a common trial had to be held. The Union government should have taken the lead in prosecuting and ensuring a speedy trial. However, as legal disputes were resolved, and India was embroiled in a collapse, diplomats were able to obtain orders to leave the country. The Supreme Court ruled that only the Center, not Kerala, could prosecute marines. A major legal crisis, which caused significant delays, came later. The National Investigation Agency has requested funding for illegal maritime security measures and the recording of platforms in the Continental Shelf Act, 2002.

This has led to widespread violence as it provides for the death penalty. The EU has threatened to impose sanctions on trade. Eventually, it took some time for these cases to be dropped. The PCA award, which is final and accepted by India, is a huge setback for the expectation that the two soldiers will face criminal charges in India. Eventually, Italy succeeded in getting the matter out of India’s hands. It must now fulfill its commitment to ensuring that the navy is tested under its own domestic laws. Taking over India should be academic, in the legal and communication fields, which can be taken from experience.

REFERENCES

1. Hornby, Catherine (14 December 2012). “Italy disappointed at India delay on marine trial”. Reuters.

2.“Italy urges India court to rule on marines case before Christmas”. Agence France-Presse. 14 December 2012.

3. “Italian marines charged with murder on the way to New Delhi: India”. The Straits Times. 21 March 2013.

4. “India’s embassy in Rome gets hate mails, live bullet over Italian marines’ issue”. Oman Tribune. 21 February 2014.

5. “India confirms embassy threats amid marines row”. Gazetta Del Sud. 21 February 2014.

6.“Marò finally takes the hard line”. Il Giornale. 17 December 2012.

7.“Memorandum by Valerio Carrara, the Chairman of the Defence Committee of the Italian Senate, harshly criticizes India”. notizie.tiscali.it. 15 December 2012.

8. Sinha, Amitabh (12 February 2013). “If convicted, Italian marines can serve jail term at home”. The Indian Express. Retrieved 18 March 2014.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: