Posted on

Police Complaint Mechanism

POLICE COMPLAINT MECHANISM

In cases of violence committed by police officers against citizens, the police itself usually investigates crimes allegedly committed by their colleagues. Often camaraderie reigns and police officers protect each other. As a result, most of the cases are dismissed. In addition, in the very few cases that go to court, judges hold police officers as highly credible and they often end with an acquittal. If a complaint against a police officer is filed, the response is often that the police files a counter-complaint against the victim of police violence for resistance or other offences.

Moreover, the broad majority of cases remain unreported. The estimated number of unreported cases is as high as five times the reported cases.

To build trust in the rule of law, to end impunity and to prosecute cases of police violence properly, experts have suggested that the establishment of an independent mechanism, which is not part of the police but well equipped with sufficient powers and resources, is an adequate response.

Policy paper on an independent complain mechanism

***

MÉCANISME INDÉPENDANT DE PLAINTES CONTRE LA POLICE

Dans les cas de violences commises par des policiers contre des personnes, c’est généralement la police elle-même qui enquête sur les crimes qui auraient été commis par leurs collègues. Souvent, la camaraderie règne et les policiers se protègent mutuellement. En conséquence, la plupart des affaires sont rejetées. De plus, dans les très rares cas qui sont portés devant les tribunaux, les juges considèrent que les agents sont très crédibles et les procès se terminent souvent par un acquittement. Si une plainte est déposée contre un policier, la réponse est souvent que la police dépose une contre-plainte contre la victime de violence policière pour résistance ou autre infraction.

En outre, la grande majorité des cas ne sont toujours pas signalés. Le nombre estimé de cas non signalés est jusqu’à cinq fois plus élevé que le nombre de cas signalés.

Pour instaurer la confiance dans l’état de droit, mettre fin à l’impunité et poursuivre correctement les auteurs de violences policières, les experts ont estimé que la mise en place d’un mécanisme indépendant, qui ne fait pas partie de la police mais dispose de pouvoirs et de ressources suffisants, était une réponse adéquate.

téléchargez le document

***

MECANISMO INDEPENDIENTE DE DENUNCIA DE LA POLICÍA

En casos de violencia cometida por agentes de policía contra personas, es por lo general la propia policía la que investiga los delitos presuntamente cometidos por sus colegas. A menudo reina la camaradería y los agentes de policía se protegen unos a otros. Como resultado, la mayoría de las demandas son desestimados. Además, en los pocos casos que llegan a los tribunales, los jueces consideran a los agentes de policía altamente creíbles y los juicios suelen terminar en absolución. Si se presenta una denuncia contra un agente de policía, la respuesta suele ser que la policía presenta una contrademanda contra la víctima de la violencia policial por resistencia u otros delitos.

Además, la gran mayoría de los casos no se denuncian. El número estimado de casos no denunciados es hasta cinco veces mayor que el de los casos denunciados.

Para fomentar la confianza en el estado de derecho, poner fin a la impunidad y enjuiciar debidamente los casos de violencia policial, los expertos han sugerido que el establecimiento de un mecanismo independiente, que no forme parte de la policía pero esté bien dotado de poderes y recursos suficientes, es una respuesta adecuada.

Descargar/Leer documento

 

Posted on

Stop Police and Judicial Cooperation with the Turkish Republic!

Press release, 26.11.2019

 

We call for the immediate Stop of Police and Judicial Cooperation with the Turkish Republic!

Turkey’s recent history has been marked by the destruction of internal standards of the rule of law and external aggression and war crimes contrary to international law. Neither the bombing of its own civilian population in 2015 and 2016 nor the transformation of the Turkish state into a presidential authoritarian regime in subsequent years resulted in a decisive reaction from our Governments. Neither the dismissal of more than one hundred thousand civil servants, the imprisonment of hundreds of journalists and lawyers, the draconian persecution and punishment of those who exercised their democratic rights, election manipulations, nor the non-recognition of election results Erdoğan did not like, as well as the attack on the Syrian-Kurdish region Afrin, which violated international law, were grounds for our Governments to question the cooperation with the Erdoğan regime. An unspeakable reason for this silence is the alliance formed with Erdoğan to prevent the further migration of refugees to core Europe.

In view of the current events in Northern Syria, we demand from our Governments to finally draw the long overdue consequences given the violations of human rights and international law by the Turkish authoritarian regime.

Athens-based lawyer Yiota Massouridou of AED-EDL explains: »The Turkish state has openly justified its aggression against the North-Syrian Kurds, which is contrary to international law, with the aim of exchanging the current population. A state which propagates ethnic ›cleansing‹, in which fundamental civil and human rights do not apply, in which arbitrariness prevails and which commits crimes against international law must not be treated as a partner by any European government«.

We demand:

  • the immediate cessation of police and judicial cooperation with Turkey
  • the termination of the so-called refugee deal and
  • the revocation of any powers of persecution in State security proceedingsrelating to Turkey. The Turkish state in its current constitution can neither be a partner in refugee policy nor an object of protection under criminal law.

In view of the political persecution of any opposition, the violent oppression of the Kurdish minority and the obvious cooperation of the Turkish state with terrorist organizations such as the Islamic State, police and judicial cooperation with the Republic of Turkey bears the real danger of the involvement of European authorities in oppression, torture and state terrorism.

Berlin-based Lawyer Stefan Kuhn of the Organisationsbüro der Deutschen Strafverteidigervereinigungen clarifies: »Only by strictly refraining from judicial and police cooperation with Turkish authorities, it can be ruled out that repressive measures, torture and unjust judgments are carried out in Turkey through information provided by any European authority. Conversely, courts and authorities in EU member states may not use any information suspected of having been obtained by methods contrary to the rule of law. The EU Governments must not support a criminal regime«.

Avocats Européen Démocrates / European Democratic Lawyers (AED/EDL)
European Association of Lawyers for Democracy & World Human Rights (ELDH)  Komitee für Grundrechte und Demokratie e.V.
Organisationsbüro der Strafverteidigervereinigungen
Republikanischer Anwältinnen- und Anwälteverein e.V. (RAV)
Vereinigung Demokratischer Juristinnen und Juristen e.V. (VDJ)

 

Kontakt:

Republikanischer Anwältinnen- und Anwälteverein Geschäftsstelle
kontakt@rav.de
www.rav.de

Tel. +49 (0)30 41 72 35 55

Posted on

Statement on the Judgement of the Spanish Supreme Court on the Catalan Referendum Case

in English:

Berlin, on the 23rd of November 2019

 

The AED was part of the dozens of international organizations monitoring the Trial on the Catalan Referendum Case in Madrid. In a statement this February we warned of the lack of procedural guarantees and the danger of violating human rights if there were a conviction.

On Monday, the 14th of October, the Spanish Supreme Court issued an unprecedented ruling in Europe, condemning the Catalan political and social leaders to a total of 100 years in prison. In this sentence, peaceful demonstrations or peaceful resistance represented the crime of sedition (“public uprising and tumultuary“). This sentence clearly restricts the exercise of freedom of expression, the right to peaceful assembly, as well as public political participation.

The Court dropped the State Prosecutor’s charges of rebellion, but issued severe sentences for the crimes of sedition, embezzlement of public funds, and disobedience, in the context of the Referendum on the Independence of Catalonia, on the 1st of October 2017.

The AED recalls that the referendum was a non-violent act of civil disobedience, organized peacefully to allow the voices of many Catalans to be heard. The only violence on the 1st October was perpetrated by the Spanish Police, in actions of disproportionate violence.

AED considers:

– These have been political proceedings, putting people on trial for their political ideas.

– The prison sentences imposed represent a historical error, which, far from solving the problem, worsens it.

– The powers of the Spanish Kingdom have done nothing to resolve this situation, which should have been solved politically through dialogue, and not through the involvement of the judicial power and therefore with the intervention of the State Prosecutor’s Office, directly appointed by the Spanish Government.

– Far from providing any solution, the verdict against the political prisoners shifts the conflict to the European arena and the international courts of Justice, which will not solve the problem either. If the international community, particularly the European Union, does not play an active role in helping resolving the conflict, an international call for dialogue and a peaceful and democratic solution is needed.

AED condemns the violation of Human Rights (civil and political rights listed and recognized by Treaties and Conventions dully signed by the Kingdom of Spain), the violation of criminal and procedural principles, as well as the criminal law principles of fragmentation, proportionality and last resort, by the criminal proceedings and its sentence of last 14th of October 2019.

The grave violation of the abovementioned rights and principles in this sentence and its logic, renders it impossible to analyze from a strictly legal point of view. Any earnest attempt at interpreting this sentence based on technical and legal concepts, such as sedition, uprising, violence or fundamental right becomes partially unsuccessful. The reason is because it is an ideological resolution aimed at replacing the political solution that is needed in the conflict in Catalonia.

AED asks the executive powers of both the Spanish and Catalan governments to seek through dialogue and compromise to end the criminal response to the underlying political problem, to put an end to the repression by police, to free the prisoners and bid the safe return of the exiles and, instead, finally seek to start a negotiation to find a political solution to the conflict based on dialogue and respect.

 

in French:

Motion sur l’arrêt de la Cour suprême espagnole sur l’affaire du référendum catalan

Berlin, le 23 novembre 2019

L’AED a participé avec dizaines d’organisations internationales dans l’observation du procès sur l’affaire du référendum catalan. Dans une déclaration faite en février dernier nous avons mis en garde contre l’absence de garanties procédurales et le risque de bafouer les droits de l’homme des accusés en cas de condamnation.

Lundi 14 octobre, la Cour suprême espagnole a rendu un arrêt sans précédent en Europe, condamnant les dirigeants politiques et sociaux catalans à 100 ans de prison au total. Dans cette arrêt, les manifestations pacifiques ou la résistance pacifique représentaient le crime de sédition (“soulèvement public et tumulte”). Cette phrase restreint clairement l’exercice de la liberté d’expression, le droit de réunion pacifique, ainsi que la participation politique publique.

La Cour a abandonné les accusations de rébellion portées par le Procureur de la République, mais a prononcé des peines sévères pour les crimes de sédition, de détournement de fonds publics et de désobéissance dans le cadre du référendum sur l’indépendance de la Catalogne, le 1er octobre 2017.

L’AED rappelle que le référendum était un acte non violent de désobéissance civile, organisé pacifiquement pour permettre à de nombreux Catalans de faire entendre leur voix. La seule violence du 1er octobre a été perpétrée par la police espagnole, dans des actes de violence disproportionnée.

L’AED observe que

  • Il s’agit de procédures politiques, de poursuites judiciaires contre des personnes pour leurs idées politiques.
  • Les peines d’emprisonnement imposées représentent une erreur historique qui, loin de résoudre le problème, l’aggrave.
  • Les pouvoirs du Royaume d’Espagne n’ont rien fait pour résoudre cette situation, qui aurait dû être résolue politiquement par le dialogue, et non par la participation du pouvoir judiciaire et donc par l’intervention du Procureur, directement nommé par le gouvernement espagnol.
  • Loin d’apporter une solution, le verdict contre les prisonniers politiques déplace le conflit vers l’arène européenne et les tribunaux internationaux de justice, ce qui ne résoudra pas non plus le problème. Si la communauté internationale, en particulier l’Union européenne, ne joue pas un rôle actif dans la résolution du conflit, un appel international au dialogue et à une solution pacifique et démocratique est nécessaire.

 

L’AED condamne la violation des Droits de l’Homme (droits civils et politiques énumérés et reconnus par les Traités et Conventions dûment signés par le Royaume d’Espagne), la violation des principes pénaux et procéduraux, ainsi que les principes de fragmentation, de proportionnalité et de dernier recours du droit pénal, par cette procédure pénale et l’arrêt du 14 octobre 2019.

La violation grave des droits et principes susmentionnés dans cette phrase et sa logique rendent impossible une analyse d’un point de vue strictement juridique. Toute tentative sérieuse d’interprétation de cette phrase fondée sur des concepts techniques et juridiques, tels que la sédition, le soulèvement, la violence ou les droits fondamentaux, échoue partiellement. La raison en est qu’il s’agit d’une résolution idéologique visant à remplacer la solution politique nécessaire dans le conflit en Catalogne.

L’AED demande aux pouvoirs exécutifs des gouvernements espagnol et catalan de chercher, par le dialogue et le compromis, à mettre fin à la réponse criminelle au problème politique sous-jacent, à mettre fin à la répression policière, à libérer les prisonniers et à demander le retour des exilés en toute sécurité et, enfin, à entamer une négociation pour trouver une solution politique au conflit basée sur le dialogue et le respect.

 

 

 

Posted on

No to the aggression of the people of North-East Syria (Rojava)

The AED-EDL expresses its firm condemnation of Turkish military
operations aiming at the invasion of Northern Syria-Rojava.

This invasion has the sole purpose of putting an end to the experience
of the North-East Syrian Democratic Autonomous Administration, and will
cause suffering and mourning primarily in the civilian population.

The Autonomous Administration was born of the common struggle of the
people of North-East Syria, in all their ethnic and religious components
(not only Kurds but also Arabs, Armenians, Turkmen, Chechens, Yazidi,
Alevi, Muslims, Christians) against ISIS while experimenting a new model
of real democratic coexistence.

The invasion of the Turkish troops with the consent of the American
President, aims to annihilate this political project while terrorizing
and massacring, not only those who valiantly fought and beat the ISIS
but also the civilian population.

This invasion risks returning the area to a reconstitution of the
Islamic State.

Realpolitik cannot justify the inertia towards this crime of countries
that proclaim themselves democratic.

We strongly ask that the European Governments:
– Condemn the aggression of the people living in this region: Kurds,
Arabs, Armenians, Turkmen, Chechens, Yazidi, Alevi, Muslims, Christians
– Impose with immediate effect a ban on arms trade with Turkey

As peace and justice are under threat as result of this military
operation, we demand:
– the immediate suspension of the EU-Turkey agreement, because Turkey is
not a safe third country;
– the resettlement of refugees from Turkey to Europe

We express our solidarity with our Kurdish and Turkish colleagues whose
working and living conditions will be even worse in a state of war. We
also want to show our solidarity to all the Turkish citizens who in
spite of the new wave of repression, protest against this military
aggression. Furthermore, we express our solidarity to the people of the
region, asking from now for an international investigation of the facts.

Amsterdam, Athens, Barcelona, Berlin, Brussels, Colmar, Madrid, Milan,
Paris, Rome, Toulouse, Turin….2019

Posted on

Sea Watch 3 and European Rights adrift

The grave case of the ship Sea Watch 3, which has been denied access to Italian ports after rescuing 42 migrants at sea and waiting for more than 14 days between Libya and Sicily for more than 14 days, is the case of fundmental rights in Europe.

Maritime laws requires the rescue of those in danger at sea through the identification of a place of safety.

 

The European Convention on Human Rights prohibits collective expulsions and inhuman and degrading treatment.

 

The Convention on the status of refugees imposes the principle of non-refoulement to a place where the person would be at risk of persecution.

 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to leave a country.

All these international treaties and conventions are violated for political interest.

In this case as in many other cases, people, at risk of dying at sea, escaping from war and Libyan concentration camps, are used as pawns in political negotiations and as instruments of propaganda.

By denying the landing in the port of Lampedusa, the Italian government violates these conventions and the rights of people; turning to the other side, the European governments and the European Union itself violate those conventions and the rights of those people.

The European Court of Human Rights, by not applying precautionary measures, is not justifying this situation,it is merely saying that it was not certain if  Italian jurisdiction was applicable because the Sea Watch 3 was still in international waters. Furthermore it decided there was no imminent danger to the lives of the people. Whether this decision is correct or not, it does not state that it is permissible to leave them at sea. Nor does it say that the Italian Minister of the Interior is right when he states that Lybia is a safe haven. The reports of all international organizations and UNHCR have long established that migrants in Libya are locked up in real concentration camps, tortured, mistreated, killed.

One day there will be a Nuremberg of the Sea, which will condemn those who today refused to help and legitimized torture in Libya, but we can not wait for this day.

As lawyers and as jurists, we strongly demand that human rights, the principles of international law and law be restored as soon as possible in Europe and in each of its Member States.

We demand

 

that Sea Watch and all ships working to save lives from shipwrecks and avoiding that migrants return  to Libya,

 

that shipwrecked people be allowed to go ashore and seek protection in Europe,

 

that it be recognised that those who save migrants at sea obey the rules of the natural right of solidarity, and  have committed no crime.

 

Il caso della Sea Watch 3 e la deriva dei diritti in Europa

 

Il gravissimo caso della nave Sea Watch 3, da oltre 14 giorni in mare tra la Libia e la Sicilia dopo aver salvato 42 migranti, alla quale è negato l’approdo nei porti italiani, ci interroga sul rispetto dei diritti fondamentali in Europa.

Il diritto del mare che obbliga al salvataggio di chi è in pericolo in mare e all’individuazione il più preso possibile di un place of safety, la Convenzione Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo che vieta le espulsioni collettive e i trattamenti inumani e degradanti, la Convenzione sullo status dei rifugiati che impone il principio di non refoulement verso un luogo ove la persona sarebbe a rischio di persecuzione, la stessa Dichiarazione Universale dei Diritti dell’Uomo che sancisce che ogni individuo ha diritto a lasciare qualunque paese, sono calpestate per interessi politici e propagandistici.

In questo come in molti altri casi persone che rischiavano di morire in mare, fuggite dalla guerra e dai campi di concentramento libici, sono usate come pedine di trattative politiche e come strumenti di propaganda.

Negando l’approdo nel porto di Lampedusa il Governo italiano viola quelle convenzioni ed i diritti di quelle persone; girandosi dall’altra parte i Governi europei e la stessa Unione Europea violano quelle convenzioni e i diritti di quelle persone.

La Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo, non applicando misure cautelari, non giustifica tutto questo: essa si limita a dire che non vi è certezza della giurisdizione italiana sulla situazione in cui si trovava la nave (con una decisione presa quando la Sea Watch era in acque internazionali) e che non vi sarebbe un pericolo imminente per la vita di quelle persone. Corretta o meno che sia questa decisione, non dice che è lecito lasciarli in mare. Tantomeno dice che ha ragione il Ministro dell’Interno italiano, quando dice che un porto sicuro c’era ed era in Libia. I rapporti di tutte le organizzazioni internazionali e dell’UNHCR hannno da tempo accertato che in Libia i migranti sono rinchiusi in veri campi di concentramento, sottoposti a torture, maltrattamenti, uccisi.

Ci sarà un giorno una Norimberga del mare, che condannerà chi oggi ha rifiutato aiuto e ha legittimato le torture in Libia; ma non possiamo aspettare questo giorno.

Come avvocati e come giuristi chiediamo con forza che venga rispristinato al più presto in Europa e in ognuno degli Stati membri il rispetto diritti umani, dei principi del diritto internazionale, del Diritto.

Chiediamo che venga autorizzato l’approdo della Sea Watch e di tutte le navi che operano per salvare le vite umane dai naufragi e dal rischio di respingimento in Libia, che venga concesso ai naufraghi di scendere a terra e di chiedere protezione in Europa, che venga riconosciuto che chi li ha salvato ha obbedito alle regole del diritto naturale della solidarietà, e non ha commesso alcun reato.

 

 

Posted on

THE CATALAN REFERENDUM TRIAL

After gathering in Madrid on the morning of February 9th, 2019 and discussing the impending Catalan Referendum Trial, which will begin in the Spanish Supreme Court on February 12th, 2019, Avocats Européens Democrates-European Democratic Lawyers (AED-EDL) has reached the following CONCLUSIONS:

1.- There is concern that all the procedural guarantees may not be met during the trial, due to the following reasons:

– The first trial session (February 12th) was set on February 1st. This does not give enough time for the defence teams to prepare properly.

–  The different defence teams do not have full access to the total information on the trial. For instance, they do not know the identity of the police officers who will testify during the hearings, only their identification numbers.

–  Most of the witnesses during the trial will be police officers. Several of the witnesses proposed by the defence teams have been rejected by the Court.

–  Nine out of the twelve defendants are in pre-trial detention and have been in this situation for several months, which clearly difficults the preparation for the hearings. They are currently being held in prisons in Madrid, hundreds of kilometres away from their defence attorneys and families.

–  There are three accusing parties in this trial: the State Prosecutor, the State Attorney and the far right-wing political party, Vox; each of them with their own accusation and agenda.

2.- There is concern regarding the prohibition of arbitrary detention:

–  We call for the immediate release of the nine defendants in pre-trial detention. We believe they are in prison due to political reasons and call for this situation to stop1.

–  In regards to the imprisoned elected officials, we would like to point out that the recent European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey judgment, issued on 20 November 2018, concluded that Turkey had violated Article 18 of the Convention (limitation on use of restrictions on rights, i.e., the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed) and the right to vote and hold office, with regards to Demirtaş’ pre-trial detention. There is an undeniable similarity to the case of the imprisoned elected officials.

– The nine defendants who are in pre-trial imprisonment will be transferred daily back and forth from the prisons they are being held at to the Court. This implies waking up at 6 am on a daily basis, travelling during at least two hours a day, and being held in separate quarters during breaks in each session. This will happen on a daily basis for three months. It can have negative implications on the ability to defend oneself. The conditions of transport from Catalan prisons to the detention centres in Madrid have been denounced in the past on the basis of being mocked and ill-treated by police officers3. We would like to remind the public that the ECHR in the recent Mariya Alekinha and others v Russia judgment4, the Court considered that the conditions of the applicants’ transport to and from the trial hearings exceeded the minimum level of severity and amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

3.- There is concern regarding the interpretation of the right to peaceful assembly carried out by all of the accusations (State Prosecutor, State Attorney and far right-wing political party Vox):

– A non-restrictive interpretation of what is “violence” is extremely dangerous for our fundamental rights and civil liberties. One must tread carefully on these grounds.

– According to the accusations, on September 20th, 2017, thousands of people gathered on the street, in a demonstration, which blocked the work the police was carrying out and resulted in damages in two police cars. These events, according to the prosecuting parties, warrants charges of rebellion or sedition, which can imply prison sentences that could reach up to 25 years per defendant.

– If what took place on this date was an act of peaceful civil disobedience, as all defence teams claim (something which shall be determined during the outcome of the trial), we believe that any conviction could result in a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights.

4.- This is not a Spanish affair, but a European one, which can have serious effects on the rule of law. If peaceful civil disobedience is criminalized, all social movements in Europe must fear for their future existence.

5.- There is concern regarding the right to a fair trial:

–  Members of the Supreme Court are elected by the Government of Judges (CGPJ), which is elected by the Spanish Parliament. This can have a serious effect on the independence and political inclinations of different magistrates.

–  We challenge the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to try this case instead of the natural judge.

– The fact that the defendants are being tried in the Supreme Court eliminates the possibility of appealing. An eventual conviction would have to be taken up to the Constitutional Court, with the procedural limitations this presents.

Bearing all these facts in mind, the AED-EDL believes it is of vital importance that a well- informed and respectful of the Spanish judicial system international observation is carried out during the entire duration of the trial. Therefore, members of AED-EDL from different European countries will be traveling to Madrid during the following months in order to attend hearings, engage with other international observers and study in depth the legal aspects of the Catalan Referendum Case from a Human Rights perspective.

In Madrid, on February 9th, 2019

 

Download this press statement as pdf

Posted on

¿QUÉ ESTÁ HACIENDO EL ESTADO ESPAÑOL CON EL BARCO DE OPEN ARMS?

Nadie en Europa puede decir que desconoce la situación de vulnerabilidad extrema en que se encuentran las personas migrantes que se trasladan desde países de Oriente próximo y África hasta Europa, debido a las situaciones de guerra y/o crisis humanitaria que sufren. El drama de los/as refugiados/as, que ha convertido el mar Mediterráneo en un cementerio, ha supuesto una crisis en la concepción de Europa como un espacio común fundado sobre valores de dignidad humana, igualdad y solidaridad, y nos ha obligado a todos a cuestionar el papel de Europa en el mundo.Ni las instituciones europeas ni los Estados Miembros han estado a la altura, e incluso algún estado está manteniendo posturas inadmisibles desde la perspectiva de los Derechos Humanos, como pasa con el VicePresidente Salvini en Italia. Efectivamente, han surgido iniciativas que pretenden convertir, fraudulentamente, la crisis humanitaria que sufrimos en un problema de orden público. Evitar la muerte de cientos de personas no es una mera cuestión de orden público ni puede serlo. Construir muros y sellar las fronteras, separando pueblos y despojando a las personas migrantes de su dignidad, no es una respuesta admisible desde la perspectiva de Derechos Humanos. Además, estas políticas exponen al/la migrante a los peligros de elegir cada vez rutas más inseguras, favorecen la aparición de las mafias y su consecuencia más cruda es el naufragio de miles de personas en nuestro mar mediterráneo.

Es esa decepcionante actitud de las instituciones europeas y de los estados miembros de la Unión Europea la que ha provocado que organizaciones como Open Arms intervenga con acciones esenciales de vigilancia y salvamento, salvando miles de vidas en el mar. Estas organizaciones se na puesto, por ello, en el punto de mira de la opinión pública, y también dentro de los objetivos represivos de algunos Estados, que han intentado, también fraudulentamente, criminalizar su actuación. Recientemente el barco de Open Arms llegó a España con 310 personas rescatadas, pues los países más cercanos al lugar de rescate (Italia, Malta) incumplieron sus obligaciones internacionales y negaron el acceso a sus puertos a Open Arms.

El día 8 de enero de 2019 el barco de Open Arms debió haber salido del puerto de Barcelona rumbo a la zona SAR de Libia para continuar con su labor esencial de salvar vidas. Sin embargo Capitanía Marítima, dependiente del Ministerio de Fomento, ha bloqueado el buque en el puerto de Barcelona alegando que pese a no ser imputable al propio barco, con su último regreso a España se incumplieron diversos preceptos de la normativa marítima. Como medida preventiva y para evitar futuros incumplimientos, deniega la salida hasta que no se garantice que existe un acuerdo para el desembarco de los auxiliados con las autoridades responsables de las zonas SAR concernidas, algo que difícilmente ocurrirá, pues ni Italia, ni Libia, ni Malta facilitan estos acuerdos.

Tenemos que volver a poner de manifiesto, en voz alta y clara, que es el incumplimiento habitual del resto de países de su deber de auxilio lo que está en el origen del problema, que no es otro que las muertes en el mar. No puede atribuirse ningún incumplimiento normativo a quien precisamente presta ese auxilio, porque el derecho a la vida ha de priorizarse siempre respecto de cualquier normativa marítima. Con el bloqueo del buque no está en juego únicamente su derecho a navegar sino que se pone en riesgo la vida de las personas migrantes a quienes rescata Open Arms ante la pasividad de quienes están obligados a actuar en virtud del derecho internacional humanitario.

Por ello reclamamos que no se obstaculice la labor humanitaria del buque Open Arms anclado en el puerto de Barcelona y exigimos que los incumplimientos de terceros Estados sean denunciados por el Gobierno de España al órgano competente para su sanción, y que, entretanto, colabore activamente con el respeto de los derechos humanos y contribuya a solucionar la crisis humanitaria en que estamos inmersos, en vez de impedir la labor de quienes salvan vidas en el mar.

Barcelona, 18 de enero de 2019

Posted on

COMMUNIQUE: sur l’extradition de Cesare Battisti

Cesare Battisti, ancien membre du groupe “Les Prolétaires Armés pour le Communisme” durant les ‘années de plomb’, vient d’être extradé de Bolivie, où il venait de se réfugier après l’arrivée au pouvoir au Brésil, où il résidait auparavant, du candidat d’extrême-droite Jaïr Bolsonaro.

En 1988 il a été condamné par la Cour d’assises de Milan, par contumace, à la réclusion à perpétuité pour deux assassinats et deux complicités d’assassinat. S’il a toujours assumé politiquement son parcours, il s’affirme innocent des crimes qui lui sont reprochés : ils ont été commis entre juin 1978 et avril 1979 alors qu’il affirme avoir renoncé à la lutte armée suite à l’assassinat d’Aldo Moro le 16 mai 1978.

Emprisonné en 1979 puis condamné en 1981 pour “appartenance à bande armée”, il s’évade peu après et commence un long périple qui va le mener d’abord au Mexique, puis en France et enfin au Brésil.

Réfugié en France en 1990, il va bénéficier de fait de la “doctrine Mitterand”, se faire connaître comme auteur de plusieurs romans policiers, pris sous son aile par Fred Vargas, et reçoit le soutien de nombreuses personnalités. La Chambre d’instruction de la cour d’appel de Paris ayant rendu un avis favorable à son extradition en juin 2004 et le président Chirac allant y donner suite – alors que sa demande de naturalisation allait aboutir -, il prend la fuite pour se réfugier au Brésil.

Arrêté en mars 2007, il sera relâché en juin 2011 et le Conseil National d’Immigration lui accordera le statut de résident permanent, le président Lula ayant entretemps refusé son extradition le 31 décembre 2010…sur laquelle la justice brésilienne s’est prononcée finalement favorablement en octobre 2018. Les faits pour lesquels il est poursuivi, et qu’il conteste, remontent à 37 ans.

Une amnistie serait la bienvenue, ou à tout le moins l’assurance d’un nouveau procès véritablement équitable. On peut en douter au vu des dernières déclarations du ministre de l’Intérieur, d’extrême- droite, Mattéo Salvini, véritable homme fort de l’actuel gouvernement italien. En tout état de cause, nous espérons que Battisti se verra néanmoins accorder les droits qui sont dus à toute personne soumise à la justice italienne, tout en respectant le principe constitutionnel selon lequel la punition ne peut jamais être une vengeance de l’État et que les droits et le respect de sa dignité sont toujours garantis au condamné.

18 janvier 2019

Posted on

AUDIO: New Tools of Repression of Social Movements and Counterpractices in Europe

On the 20th of October the AED organized a European Colloquium in Turin.

Here are the interventions in their original language: