The amount of time it takes for an Indian trial to conclude often ends up being so long that it becomes a punishment of its own. Take the so-called fast track Supreme Court-monitored trial against two Italian marines, who are accused of having killed two Indian fisherman off the coast of Kerala in 2012. It’s been two years since the marines have been arrested, and yet, despite assurances from the Indian government and constant demands from the Italians, the trial has yet to begin.
Just because the trial hasn’t begun, however, doesn’t mean the case hasn’t been endlessly interesting.
On Friday, the Supreme Court allowed one of the murder-accused marines, Massimiliano Latorre, to return to Italy for four months because of health issues. Latorre suffered a brain stroke on August 31 and had asked to be able to return home to recover.
The Indian government chose not to oppose this application, leaving the decision in the court’s hands. One of the complainants in the case, however, did file a petition before the apex court, asking it to constitute a panel of doctors to ascertain whether Latorre needed the medical attention.
The court made its decision based on an “unequivocal and unambiguous undertaking” from the marine that he would return to India after four months. The Italian ambassador had also told the court that his country would abide by any condition imposed on it so that Latorre could return home.
Vienna Unconvention
The last time this happened, India was nearly caught in the middle of a diplomatic controversy that almost led to a breach of the Vienna Convention, which laid down standards for the way diplomats are treated the world over. The marines had been permitted to return to Italy ostensibly so that they could vote in their elections, at a time when their continued detention in India had become an electoral issue. After getting there, however, Italy suddenly said that they wouldn’t be coming back.
This happened even though Daniele Mancini, Italy’s ambassador to India, had given what essentially amounted to a sovereign undertaking to the Supreme Court that he – speaking on behalf of the Republic of Italy – would be responsible for the return of the accused marines. Normally embassies only advise their citizens in criminal matters rather than becoming party to the case.
Although then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called Italy’s move “unacceptable,” it seemed unlikely that India would be able to do anything at the time. The Supreme Court, however, stepped in and restrained the ambassador from leaving the country without its permission, forcing the government to inform airports that he should not be allowed past immigration.
If this had been enforced, it might have amounted to a breach of the Vienna Convention, which confers diplomatic immunity. India, however, argued that Mancini had waived his immunity by giving a direct undertaking in the Supreme Court. For a few days, however, the issue simmered with huge potential implications if either side decided to make a move.
Patriotic opposition
Eventually, the two governments brokered an arrangement with Salman Khurshid, the external affairs minister at the time, assuring the Italian government that the penalty hadn’t even been “envisaged” for the marines. The marines were then returned to India, with the government claiming a diplomatic victory.
Then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, who is now the prime minister, also saw the incident as an opportunity to bash the government of the day. Taking advantage of the Congress President’s Italian background, Modi openly questioned her patriotism.
This time around, Modi’s government claimed that it wouldn’t stand in the way of the marines return to Italy if the court so ordered. “We will not oppose the bail plea of the Italian marine. If the marine wants to go home and if the court allows, he can,” external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj said.
While India and Italy have no doubt learnt from the last incident, meaning it is unlikely there will be another diplomatic standoff, the fact that such issues are still coming up – with the trial not even having begun – means there will be plenty more fodder for controversy in times to come.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
Just because the trial hasn’t begun, however, doesn’t mean the case hasn’t been endlessly interesting.
On Friday, the Supreme Court allowed one of the murder-accused marines, Massimiliano Latorre, to return to Italy for four months because of health issues. Latorre suffered a brain stroke on August 31 and had asked to be able to return home to recover.
The Indian government chose not to oppose this application, leaving the decision in the court’s hands. One of the complainants in the case, however, did file a petition before the apex court, asking it to constitute a panel of doctors to ascertain whether Latorre needed the medical attention.
The court made its decision based on an “unequivocal and unambiguous undertaking” from the marine that he would return to India after four months. The Italian ambassador had also told the court that his country would abide by any condition imposed on it so that Latorre could return home.
Vienna Unconvention
The last time this happened, India was nearly caught in the middle of a diplomatic controversy that almost led to a breach of the Vienna Convention, which laid down standards for the way diplomats are treated the world over. The marines had been permitted to return to Italy ostensibly so that they could vote in their elections, at a time when their continued detention in India had become an electoral issue. After getting there, however, Italy suddenly said that they wouldn’t be coming back.
This happened even though Daniele Mancini, Italy’s ambassador to India, had given what essentially amounted to a sovereign undertaking to the Supreme Court that he – speaking on behalf of the Republic of Italy – would be responsible for the return of the accused marines. Normally embassies only advise their citizens in criminal matters rather than becoming party to the case.
Although then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called Italy’s move “unacceptable,” it seemed unlikely that India would be able to do anything at the time. The Supreme Court, however, stepped in and restrained the ambassador from leaving the country without its permission, forcing the government to inform airports that he should not be allowed past immigration.
If this had been enforced, it might have amounted to a breach of the Vienna Convention, which confers diplomatic immunity. India, however, argued that Mancini had waived his immunity by giving a direct undertaking in the Supreme Court. For a few days, however, the issue simmered with huge potential implications if either side decided to make a move.
Patriotic opposition
Eventually, the two governments brokered an arrangement with Salman Khurshid, the external affairs minister at the time, assuring the Italian government that the penalty hadn’t even been “envisaged” for the marines. The marines were then returned to India, with the government claiming a diplomatic victory.
Then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, who is now the prime minister, also saw the incident as an opportunity to bash the government of the day. Taking advantage of the Congress President’s Italian background, Modi openly questioned her patriotism.
Italian marines mercilessly killed our fishermen. If Madam is so 'patriotic' can she tell us in which jail are the marines lodged in?
— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) March 31, 2014This time around, Modi’s government claimed that it wouldn’t stand in the way of the marines return to Italy if the court so ordered. “We will not oppose the bail plea of the Italian marine. If the marine wants to go home and if the court allows, he can,” external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj said.
While India and Italy have no doubt learnt from the last incident, meaning it is unlikely there will be another diplomatic standoff, the fact that such issues are still coming up – with the trial not even having begun – means there will be plenty more fodder for controversy in times to come.
