Talk:Cesare Battisti (1954-)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

Contents 1 Writer or revolutionary? 2 Exile??? 3 Why? 4 Does ECHR recommend new trials... 5 Paragraph removal 6 Minor edits 7 An amazing story about the French trial in absentia and the ECtHR 8 Proposals 9 'We must also remember' 10 Title?

[edit] Writer or revolutionary?

The most important thing about Battisti is that he is a former member of a revolutionary organization and condamned to life term in Italy for four murders. Then comes the writing activity. For this reason, I'll change "Battisti is a writer and..." to "Battisti is a former member of revolutionary organization and..." as it was before Tazmaniac's edit. -- Lasah 20:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Current activity precedes past activities. Battisti has forsaken armed struggle since Aldo Moro's 1978 assassination. You don't start an article on François Mitterrand by saying: "He was a far-right sympathisant", neither an article on Jacques Chirac by saying "he was a Communist sympathisant, who signed the Stockholm Appeal in the 1950s". Tazmaniacs 15:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Mitterand is mainly famous for being a French former politician and head of state. Same goes for Chirac. They both are widely known and perceived as such. OTOH, Battisti is first and foremost known due to his criminal deeds during the 70's, and due to his much-debated judiciary cases. His books are not as nearly as famous compared to his judicial history. --Hauteville 22:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exile???

Why did they write exile? If i killed somebody and i ran away, would you say i am in "exile"?????

[edit] Why?

Because many self-styled "progressive" "intellectuals" consider that extreme leftwingers, who have been condemned in Italy for trifles such as murder etc , and have run away, actually went "in exile".

This sounds, obviously, more romantic. This whole article seems written by someone who thinks that the Italian Republic and Italian justice are a joke. Personally, I disagree.

By the way, Cesare Battisti "is considered a national hero in Italy". No, sorry that's the "other" Cesare Battisti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesare_Battisti), an exilee who however was hanged by Austria-Hungary for acting on his political convictions . He has exactly 10 lines on Wikipedia.

Clearly, the former PAC (armed proletarian for communism) Cesare Battisti deserves much, much more attention.|Giordaano]] 23:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does ECHR recommend new trials...

...for the defendant who voluntarily absent themselves - which is what most defendants do, at least in Italy? It seems very unlikely to me to say the least. I only inserted a citation request for now, in case I might be wrong - I'll delete it if no citation is collected in a reasonable amount of time. --Hauteville 22:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I fail to understand this paragraph:

Finally, events after 1993 would be subjected to the European Arrest Warrant, effective since 1994.

The European Arrest Warrant was not yet effective in 1994 - its framework was adopted in 2002 by the EU and it did not came into force in Italy before 2005! I hope a citation will help clarifying things :-) --Hauteville 03:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It must be a confusion with Schengen, which unified European policy concerning security matters. Tazmaniacs

You should discuss my edits instead of blindly reverting.That would be proper Wikipedia behaviour.Giordaano 07:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Seeing the massive edits you are doing, I don't think so. You are mixing legitimate copy-edit with very POV edits, not to say some of them senseless ("robbing in the tradition of robberies" - sic - just because you legitimately do not agree with "propaganda of the deed" theory. Your POV here, as mine, is irrelevant. Italian justice itself has made a difference between politically-motivated robberies and ordinary robberies - in the Sofri case for example. You are entitled to think that these politically-motivated robberies in no way distinguish themselves from common law crimes; this does not entitle you to erase the discourse which accompanied these acts.) Please don't mix controversial edits with spelling fixes and copy-edit, that would be a start for cooperative behaviour. Thanks, Tazmaniacs 15:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am not "blindly reverting." Although many of your changes are copy-editing, you have mixed them with removal of portions of text, as well as removal of party membership of politicians (how is the reader supposed to guess from which party belongs a politician? Or will you claim that party membership of a politician is irrelevant?) Please proceed first with your copy-editing, then with content change (which you are encouraged to discuss). Thanks, Tazmaniacs 14:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Tazmaniacs, I don't have the time to deal with the hundreds of small (and big) issues which should be fixed in this article . The article, as it is, is a triumph of POV : it assumes that Italian justice is a joke, and Battisti is being unjustly persecuted. It doesn't present the main facts in a NPOV fashion, and contains a huge number of inaccuracies.

You should check (just for fun) the Italian and French articles on Battisti.

Oh well, have fun with your articles on "left wing activism" in the "lead years" (also called terrorism). In any case, they are so long and (uselessly) detailed that I'm sure that (almost) no one reads them. Bye.Giordaano 12:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are not willing to take the time to discuss things point by point and to edit in a cooperative manner. I hope you will change your mind and care to improve the article without editing unilaterally. Grazie, Tazmaniacs

I don't think Sofri was involved in any robbery; anyway, Sofri was found guilty of murder, not robbery --Hauteville 02:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph removal

This paragraph is both totally unfounded and POV against Italian justice:

"Defenders of Battisti, among whom the Human Rights League (LDH), recall that the European Court of Human Rights uphold a right to a new judgment in case of judgment in absentia, as in Battisti's case, which the Italian law does not allow (...)"

As mentioned, ECHR does not recommends new trials when a defendant decides not to attend his or her own trial - which is what many defendants in Italy do, as previously noted. Which is clearly not the case - unless we argue that Battisti was kidnapped and brought to France against his own will. Note also that, under Italian law, a convict defendant is always carried into the courtroom to attend his or her own trial (article 132 of Italian Criminal Procedure Code), using force if necessary. This means that Battisti not only would have had the chance to attend his own trial: he would have been forced to, if just he didn't escaped conviction.

And this is a fact, not "Italian's justice's opinion", or anyone else's POV.

I will thus proceed and remove this paragraph for the aforementioned reasons. --Hauteville 03:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You may contest this, but you can't deny that "defenders of Battisti recall that..." Tazmaniacs 17:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can get what you mean. Still, are we sure that Battisti's defenders - who are supposed to be lawyers - actually upheld such a point? Do we have some reliable source to support that?

I think they might have upheld a similar, but not quite identical point: i.e., that Battisti decided to flee because he could not expect a fair trial at the time, and that the resulting trial should be considered as if it had been a forced in absentia trial, which is generally considered unjust as per ECHR directions. --Hauteville 19:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, Battisti did decide to flee because of the judicial & political context of the time, as you say. But I don't know if you can make a legal distinction between a "forced in absentia" trial and "voluntary in absentia" trial (as in the imaginary example of a kidnapping that you used). In any cases, I haven't seen anyone making such a distinction, concerning the ECHR and Battisti's defendants (there is a source, LDH (where you can find more about Battisti). This said, you could add some words concerning this distinction that you have made (between "voluntary" & "forced"), in particular if you find some sources (maybe critics of Battisti) which do it. Tazmaniacs 21:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

See also this other article from the LDH:

Une condamnation par contumace devant toujours être purgée dès que la personne est présente et ce, quelque soit les motifs pour lesquels elle n’a pas pu assister à son procès. Tant et si bien qu’extrader les réfugiés italiens revient à accepter en Italie, ce que nous n’acceptons pas en France et ce que la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme n’accepte pas non plus.

(My emphasis). Tazmaniacs 21:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think if France doesn't accept one opinion I don't care nothing, I will survive. More, I don't care what Battisti's lawyers' interpretation of the CEDU is, I'm a lawyer too, it's a dirty work. But I care what ECHR - the European Court of Human Right - said about Cesare Battisti's claim about the unfairness of the italian's procedure in absentia. So I can read: on 19 march 2007 the ECHR rejected Battisti' s claim , assuming the violation of the article 6 CEDU, against the Italian Republic (trial in absentia problem). Will, now, someone stop saying that Battisti's trial was unfair, please? His claim was unlawful - so ruled the ECHR, not exactly an italian court -. His rights weren't violated by Italy. In this peculiar case the italian trial in absentia is fair. So I think that someone should study what exactly a trial in absentia is (not only in France but all around the world; maybe he could study the italian criminal trial). Better someone should hardly study when that kind of trial is forbidden and what exactly say the CEDU and the ECHR about the subject (case laws, i. e. Somogyi v. Italy , doctrine, arguments, and so on...). Just another little thing: I don't accept lessons about guarantees and trial fairness by a Country - the France - that has forbidden the death penalty only in 1981! (last execution on 1977! Was that a fair trial? Was the capital punishment fair in France in 1977?). Edoardo.Dedo

Taz,

I'm sure you can easily see the obvious difference between someone who does not want or does not care to attend his own trial and someone who is not allowed to. If the law treated both of them the same way (and it doesn't: neither in Italy, nor in France), a defendant could always decide not to attend his trial in order to get a new trial, and so on ad infinitum :-)) Which is totally out of question, of course :-)

That's why I thought that LDF meant to say that Battisti (in their opinion, of course) was forced to leave due to etc. Anyway, if you are sure LDH did not see the difference, the phrase belongs in the article (perhaps it could be edited just a bit). Also, it would be interesting to get some references for ECHR decision upon Battisti's case. --Hauteville 16:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Please edit the sentence as you find more appropriate. It would also be good to have a direct reference to ECHR (although it wouldn't make the LDH's claims irrelevant). Tazmaniacs

Ok, we must remove or correct this: " French justice pleaded that the anti-terrorist legislation enacted in Italy during the "years of lead" "went against the French conception of law," which, along with the European Court of Human Rights, prohibited in particular to extradite a person condemned in absentia if that person was denied the right to a new trial". This is untrue! Let's we read the article 6 of the European Convention of Human Right, the juridical ground of Battisti's claim:

ARTICLE 6 In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly by the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court. This is the text of the article,now: where, exactly, can you read an order of a retrial after the capture? More, can someone read not only the LDH opinions but, also, the ECHR case laws? ECHR is simply the Court who uses the European Convention of Human Right to rule his decisions. So, please, look at ECHR's Information Note, n.° 92, december 2006, does this decision say anything about the need of a retrial? it doesn't! So the European Convention of Human Right and the ECHR's case laws never order a retrial! What LDH said about the right to a new trial, in European Convention, is an INVENTION! Would you mantain this clear untrueness in the article? Another thing the French conception of law isn't the world conception of the law neither, as you can read in the information note, the ECHR conception of the law. So we can say only the particular french conception of the law established that the french trial in absentia needs a retrial after the capture of the convinct. The italian criminal trial isn't perfect, but isn't perfect french criminal trial too. In this peculiar case: Battisti v. France, ECHR ruled that the Italian trial in absentia is fair under the provisions of article 6 of European Convention of Human Right, this is a fact, this is a court decision, other things is INVENTION. Edoardo.Dedo --Dedofreg 13:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

LDH's claim is: A) untrue, B) racist and C) ridiculous

A) Untrue: "...que la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme n’accepte pas non plus". If LDH would know the CEDU and ECHR's cases laws, would know that Cedu not only doesn't forbide the trial in absentia but neither orders a new trial after the capture. Only if the accused wasn't informed of the trial, or the trial was without guarantees (i.e. without a lawyer for the accused, like in France), the trial in absentia is forbidden and void. Because it's void this needs another new judgment. The trial in absentia isn't forbidden when this trial was a judgment given against a person who was actually summoned to appear within the time usually provided for by the legal system of the State in which the judgment was given and deliberately failed to discharge his. Obviously this doesn't need another trial.

B) Racist: The LDH thinks that the only trial in absentia is the French one. So LDH says that italian trial in absentia is unfair, because...is italian! LDH should proof his affirmations, but doesn't. So: why is the italian trial in absentia unfair? And why does the italian trial in absentia need a retrial after the capture of the convinct? Only because is this the rule for the french one? The french trial in absentia is an heritage of the middle age, the italian one come down from Beccaria and Filangieri ( I have spoken about that little thing called death penalty in France. I can remember France didn't have an appeal to the Cour d'Assise's decisions until 2000 too. Italy established the Corte d'Assise d'Appello, decades before.). The trial in absentia in France and the trial in absentia in Italy aren't the same thing, they haven't the same rules of procedure and they aren't similar. They are two DIFFERENT procedures, with DIFFERENT rules. LDH doesn't know this, ECHR does.

C) ridiculous: ...et ce que la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme n’accepte pas non plus. The first lesson in Law school is: never to say what a Court may rule, you aren't in the minds of the judges and you are only one point of view in the trial. So you should avoid to predict the future in indicative tenses.

For references on ECHR decision see: ECHR's Information Note, n.° 92, on the case law of the court, december 2006. Sub art. 6, "claims inadmissible": Life sentence following a conviction in absentia (Battisti v. France).

ECHR judges - who never use LDH's opinions in their decisions - ruled :

Inadmissible: The applicant had patently been informed of the accusation against him and of the progress of the proceedings before the Italian courts, notwithstanding the fact that he had absconded. Furthermore, the applicant, who had deliberately chosen to remain on the run after escaping from prison, had received effective assistance during the proceedings from several lawyers specially appointed by him. Hence, the Italian and subsequently the French authorities had been entitled to conclude that the applicant had unequivocally waived his right to appear and be tried in person. The French authorities had therefore taken due account of all the circumstances of the case and of the Court’s case-law in granting the extradition request made by the Italian authorities: manifestly ill-founded.

Edoardo.Dedo --Dedofreg 13:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dedo. I have incorporated the ECHR decision in the page. Do you have the link to the decision ?Giordaano 13:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The full text of the decision and the link is in the discussion of the italian version. Edoardo.Dedo --Dedofreg 13:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. I introduced the link to the ECHR site.

I also modified the first paragraph of his bio - to say that he left school to "dedicate himself to social problems" when he actually proceeded to thefts and robberies (albeit politically motivated) is ridiculous. There is a limit even to euphemisms and "weasel wording"Giordaano 10:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree. Ciao Edoardo.Dedo . By the way, another thing is untrue and it should be changed. The text said: “He (Cesare Battisti) was condemned, without material evidence, on the grounds of testimonies provided by two pentiti ("repented", sic!) who benefited from lighter condemnations for their accusations. The status of pentito was established by anti-terrorist legislation enacted during this period.” Just two little things to start, the writer should know that a) “pentiti” is not a singular. "Pentito" is the singular form so is "pentito" repented in english, not, like in text: <<pentiti ("repented")>>. This is uncorrect. b)Pentito isn't the legal word for a peculiar kind of "hostile witness" in italian criminal law, but only a popular way to call him! The correct legal term is "collaboratore di giustizia"; this in Italian sounds like "the justice helper", quite different from repented - pentito -, isn't it? When you are writing in an enciclopedy it's supposed that you know exactly the subject about you are writing on. If the writer knows the Italian law like the Italian grammar…. Then, it would be more correct to remember that all western criminal codes know and use the “repenteds” (the difference is they don’t use the word “pentito”: but they aren't Italian and they don't use Italian popular words in their legislation). Can you remember Frédérique Germain (called Blond Blond)? Obviously you don’t! What's a pity! In fact she was the French repented who helped the police and the French judges to destroy Action Directe (the left wing terrorist organization) in the 80’s. She was a witness in the trial. Because she helped the police and the French justice she never was imprisoned. France – very grateful - let her free. She was an active member of Action Directe. Her friends are still in prison, she is free. In common law countries is the same thing. If you help the police – even if you are an accomplice – you will be used, by the prosecutor, like a witness and so you will avoid the trial and more, you will avoid the condemnation even if you are a killer. In this way, using the repenteds, the USA hit hardly the American Mafia in the 70’s and 80’s. The little difference is: in Italy even if the repented helps the justice he will be judged and condemned (“principio dell’obbligatorietà dell’azione penale”, I write in Italian because I can understand, by this discussion, that all the writers here, know very well the Italian criminal laws and the Italian language), but his condemnation will be lighter. Last thing, a deposition – a repented is a peculiar kind of witness: technically is like an hostile witness - in all the western criminal codes is an “evidence”! Someone should hardly study comparative law, maybe LDH first of all. Edoardo.Dedo --Dedofreg 13:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edits

Giordano, thanks for your recent edits which have improved the article. But please do consider that WP:Guidelines does not advise into making minor edits which are only aimed at changing names and terms when several terms are acceptable. I have nothing against using the term "collaborator of justice", but I do oppose your edit which aims at replacing every single occurence of the common term pentito (notwithstanding deletion of a sentence explaining lighter condemnation given in case of such collaboration) by "collaborator of justice". Why not make it clear, when the term is used in the first term, that both words are used? Wouldn't that be a more consensual edit? Thanks, Tazmaniacs 15:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Pentito" is not at all neutral. It has a negative ring to it, as if those "pentiti" were traitors, instead of having simply helped justice: the English system has, I think the definition "Crown witness" for those persons. Would you call them "squealers" (criminal jargon ?)

As Dedo has eloquently explained, "Collaboratore di giustizia" is the legal definition, "pentito", is just a colloquial, rather negative term. Since it is quite common, it should be quoted (with an explanation), but the more precise, legally correct term should be used.

By the way, "complice" is Italian, not English. "Complice" in English is archaic, and practically not used any more. In English, the correct term is "accomplice". Giordaano 16:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Armed struggle" is neutral and redirects to "guerrilla warfare". It has exactly the same meaning as "violent revolution". I am amazed how much time you dedicate to changing words to fit your views instead of giving information, like Dedo did... Tazmaniacs 18:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

These words I am changing are not synonims. "Lead years", for example, is an expression which tries to popularize the vision that Italy was involved in some sort of civil war in the 70s-80s. It tends to give some kind of roundabout legitimacy to people who are considered, by the majority of Italians (as expressed through democratic elections)as simply terrorists.

So, while the expression "anni di piombo" or "lead years" can be used (and is used) innocently, to use it systematically for defining the period of terrorist activity in Italy (70s-80s) is not at all NPOV. The same is true for "pentito" or "collaboratore di giustizia".

Same for "armed struggle". Struggle, in fact, has a positive ring in English, while "violent revolution" has a more negative undertone.

The choice of these expressions is not at all insignificant, and I hope you realize it.

In my opinion, many articles on wikipedia on 70s-80s Italy tend to put a positive gloss on terrorist activities in those years, and the language used is therefore important.Giordaano 08:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

For God's sake, Tazmaniacs, read what you edit. Once again, it's Torregiani, not Torreggiani.

On the substance : why should Valerio Evangelisti be quoted as the main source on these episodes ? he's not a legal or a balistic expert (he's a writer of science fiction). It's not logical to quote him as the main source . I have added a quote by someone with direct experience of the episode - the paraplegic son of Torregiani. Giordaano 21:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point Giordano! in the british trial pentito is a Crown witness and if you call him pentito or traitor...well have you ever listen about the british legal concept of contempt to the court? By the way Tazmaniacs, Aren't an article - 6 - of the ECHR (European Convention of Human Right) and a decision of ECtHR (European Court of Human Right) information? Are this "a point of view", Tazmaniacs? Taz, this "point of view" is a court opinion, you dislike it but it's a fact. And this fact says:" There isn't a right of retrial in European Convention of Human Right; the C.B. trial in absentia was fair and so, at last, all what LDH said on this subject - and was reported in the article before changing - wasn't true. Isn't this an information? You are writing on italian criminal trial and you don't use the correct terms and you don't know the italian criminal trial, neither the ECtHR case laws too. The European Convention of Human Right for you is like an UFO, you use it but I suspect you didn't read it! And you are blaming me that I'm not giving information! You are writing on "torture", "pentiti", "trial in absentia" but I suspect that you don't know what exactly those words mean! Should I put in note all the Codice di Procedura Penale della Repubblica italiana (the older and the new) and the Legislazione Anti Terrorismo and could you read them in italian? For the ECtHR case laws can you read here: http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/? Can you also read this: http://www.camerapenale-bologna.org/codice_procedura_penale/codice_di_procedura_penale_index.htm.? But it is very hard to put on line an entire library of comparative law (copyright problem). Is it correct, for you and is it information to use only newspaper articles or a S.F. writer opinion on a trial? Do you know that a trial like the Battisti's one - four trials in a whole - means thousands and thousands of processual pages ? Have the people you reported, Evangelisti, Vargas, read all the files? I don't believe - Vargas should know the italian criminal trial and the legal italian to read it, this is amazing! But for you this is information - For you is the same thing, or information like you said, to write: "that someone (C.B.) was condemned without material evidences..." instead : "someone was condemned on the ground of the depositions of two witnesses..."? Those two witnesses in italian are "collaboratori di giustizia" in U.K. they would be "crown witnesses", more chic I agree, but a Crown witness and a collaboratore di giustizia are the same thing. Ah! Taz, Giordano is right, the legal word is accomplice! Edoardo.Dedo --Dedofreg 06:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please try to format talk with indents, it makes for easier reading. I am not opposed, at all, to include criticisms of supporters of Battisti. I do think, however, that both sides of the story should be represented. I agree that before Giordano's edits, and your useful indication of the ECHR judgement, one side was overbalanced. But this doesn't mean that the other side should now be deleted. Valerio Evangelisti is relevant, as the sourced article is detailed, and he is one of the supporter of Battisti, that's all. May I say that I think that it is more important to include information than to fight on terms? If you think "lead years" or "pentito" is overly charged, well, that's not necessarily the point of view of everybody. "Pentito" is a common name, and you can't just remove all occurence of "pentito" from the page because you don't like the term. Same goes for "lead years". Now, you can of course contest the term, and also use others expressions such as "collaborator of justice", etc.

Concerning the "material evidence," well, a deposition from witnesses is precisely not material evidence. Material evidence rather includes things like trace evidence. Tazmaniacs 11:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? In legal english another term for "deposition" is "evidence". Let's you try to say to an English Court that they can't use a deposition because isn't a material evidence and that they need a material evidence to condemn someone :)! A Court to condemn needs only evidences! Now there is another problem. C.B. was condemned not only on the ground of those two witnesses, this is another dark legend, but on the ground of "material evidences" too, but you should read not only newspaper pages but also the sentences and the thousands pages of the trial's files. Because the collaboratore di giustizia's deposition needs material references to be acceptable by a court - in fact is a peculiar kind of witness like an "hostile witness". You also write that Cassazione innocented the Battisti's accomplice who also was accused by a "pentito" - are you happy? I use a term was invented by Mafia and terrorists...but so on -. So why did the Cassazione - the italian supreme court - rule this? Going on, you can read also what Armando Spataro - the prosecutor - said on this subject here:http://www.lexpress.fr/info/france/dossier/battisti/dossier.asp?ida=426758, is in french, but he says: "Sa culpabilité repose sur des confessions et des preuves solides. On sait qu'il a tué. Et, de plus, le groupe terroriste dont il était l'un des responsables, les PAC (Prolétaires armés pour le communisme), était à la limite de la délinquance de droit commun. C'est d'ailleurs pendant qu'il purgeait une peine de prison pour des infractions de droit commun que Cesare Battisti est entré en contact avec des terroristes.

Les PAC ont tué par mesure de rétorsion. Ils se vengeaient des personnes qui, au cours d'un hold-up, s'étaient défendues ou avaient tué leurs agresseurs. Ce fut le cas du bijoutier Pierluigi Torregiani, à Milan, et du boucher Lino Sabbadin, à Venise. Les deux assassinats avaient été organisés le même jour et revendiqués ensemble pour rendre plus spectaculaire la leçon que les PAC voulaient donner à ceux qui «auraient dû laisser agir les prolétaires contraints à voler pour survivre».

Le carabinier et le policier tués par Battisti (en 1978 et en 1979) l'ont été pour les mêmes raisons. L'un, gardien de prison, était accusé d'avoir malmené un détenu membre des PAC et l'autre avait eu la malchance de participer à l'enquête sur le bijoutier de Milan. C'était la justice prolétarienne!". Ok this is the prosecutor's voice, but you use only writers and intellectuals opinions! It's a pity that nobody has never read all the files! You must remember another thing, when C.B. escaped he was in prison, lawfully condemned. Another little problem: What exactly is a ballistic analysis? In Italian procedural code we have got two kinds of "perizia" (judicial analysis). The first one is the "perizia d'ufficio" and is ordered by the judge to a neutral expert. The defendant and the prosecutor may choose their expert to control the judge's one - perito d'ufficio -. Everyone of those experts write a "perizia" - so there will be three "perizie"-, but it is fundamental - for the decision -the judge's expert one. The others (perizie di parte) could be used to appeal the sentence. So, what is this particular ballistic analysis? Was made during the trial or out of the trial (in this case it has no value!)? Was a "perizia d'ufficio" or a "perizia di parte" (in this case is only a point of view)? This is very important when someone is writing about "material evidence". A "material evidence" exists only in the trial a perizia d'ufficio is a "material evidence" and a "perizia d'ufficio" (more than one I think) was made during Battisti's trial. The problem is, Taz, that too many person, not you obviously, want to do a trial to the trial...but this is very difficult, and I would like that everyone understands this! Edoardo.Dedo --Dedofreg 13:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dedo. Your contribution highlights an important point : we cannot reconstitute the Battisti trials here on wikipedia. We can only describe the "state of play", i.e. that Battisti was condemned and that some people think the judicial procedures were unfair.

We cannot go into the details of those procedures, examine if the evidence was sound, the witnesses trustworthy, the experts' opinions reliable etc etc Why ? well, because if we did so, we would be conducting a new Battisti trial here on wikipedia.

It's obvious that this is not the function of this article. The article, in my view, should be considerably simplified, and stick to the main events.

As you may have noticed, Taz, I did not change all the occurrences of "pentito" or "lead years". As I said before, colloquial terms can of course be used (and explained), but it's normal that the more precise terms feature in the articles.

As to Valerio Evangelisti - apart from being one of Battisti's main supporters, I don't see what titles he has in order be taken as an authority in this case. There is no lack of persons opposed to Battisti : should we include in the article an anthology of their thinking ?Giordaano 13:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree Giordano. It's very difficult to trial a trial (we have got a special Court to trial a trial!) and it's unusefull in an encyclopedia! Ah, Giordano this is a usefull link for Spataro' s thought on Battisti's affair - not exactly a right wing judge -. I'm sorry the site is in italian http://www.capperi.net/spataro.html ---Dedofreg 14:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Again, please use indents (:) when talking and go to the line, your text is a pain in the eye to read, but since you say interesting things we're forced to take this pain :) !! I've inserted the Spataro source rather than the Evangelisti concerning the circumstances of the two murders, I doubt that Giordaano will now contest this. About the "trial on the trial", well, this article has no "aim" except keeping to Wikipedia:guidelines. As Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia, with various reading levels, there is absolutely no reasons to heed Giordaano's opinion that "the article (...) should be considerably simplified", and only an aversion for truth, which no participants to Wikipedia can possess, can wish for simplification. As Dedofreg's has repeatedly demonstrated here, only a detailled explanation can permit us from going above ideological disputes, which are best followed on a forum and not on Wikipedia.

Concerning "material evidence", again, no one has said that a witness' deposition is not "evidence", but it is not material evidence such as trace evidence, etc. Of course, justice has to cross-chech witnesses' depositions with material evidences to insure that they are correct. Yet one can not qualify a confession material evidence, unless he considers words to be material, objective, and never misleading. Tazmaniacs 10:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"only an aversion for truth, which no participants to Wikipedia can possess, can wish for simplification" says Taz... not really.

Simplification means that we shouldn't confuse readers' minds and abuse their patience by posting a huge number of irrelevant details randomly mixed with the main points. An encyclopedia article on Battisti is not :

- a remake (a further appeals jurisdiction) of the trial

- a depot (reservoir) for any amount of material which can be found on this particular subject

In other words : while it's OK to post links to sites which may contain even the complete minutes of the Battisti trials, it's not OK to go through the Battisti trials, making independent (?) evaluations on whether the witnesses were trustworthy, the ballistic expertises reliable, the graphology experts independent etc etc

Wikipedia does not aim at a reproduction of the real world at a 1:1 scale. This effort is, quite obviously, self defeating.

The fact that we have to aim at some sort of "simplification", "synthesis", "overview", "resumé" etc is so obvious that it's really strange that I should have to state it.

Giordaano 13:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon Taz for the pain ;)! I'll try to write better and slowly (my english is horrible when I write quikly, but I must work too!). I can understand the difference between evidence and material evidence (I'm a lawyer!), I'm only afraid that persons could say: "No material evidence = no evidence at all" , this is untrue, as you know.

I will be clear: I think Battisti is guilty, but only for one reason: he was condemned in a lawfull trial (better: more than a trial). But it happens that persons, who have never read the trial files, build theories and speack about torture, ballistic analysis, "pentiti" (as I have written, and Giordano too, many persons, in Italy, don't like that word because was used by Mafia and terrorists - left and right - to blame a lawfull behaviour that permitted to hardly hit them. By the way a citizen should be loyal to the Republic and to the Constitution not to a gang),and so on...On the other side it is very difficult to explain a criminal trial to the people.

Battisti is also a writer, someone says a good writer, and this must be reported too. We should balance those two things and it isn't easy! --Dedofreg 08:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Both Giordaano's and your recent remarks are full of common-sense. Although there is no question of "reproducing the world" on Wikipedia (:)), it is also clear that lack of details allow for vague, ideological and empty generalities which are senseless. Actually, this article is still lacking details about the trial and what Battisti is accused, and some of them would make for easier understanding of the article. The reader should not have to read Italian sources to understand what the case is about. Tazmaniacs 13:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Taz, many sources on Battisti's trial are in Italian! I agree with your last remarks, but I think we need Italian sources too.

All the Battisti's affair starts, and can be resumed, with this phrase: The Battisti's extradition "went against the French principles of law," which, along with the European Court of Human Rights, prohibited in particular to extradite a person condemned in absentia if that person had not been in a condition to adequately defend himself during his trial...but:

A) The Battisti's extradition wasn't against the French principles of law; it was, only, against the Mitterand's doctrine - a French political principle. In fact: no more Mitterand, no more Mitterand's doctrine and so three French courts (whose the Supreme law Court - Cour de Cassation - and the Supreme administrative Court, the Conseil d'Etat) say that the Battisti's extradition is lawful for the French principles of law. By the way those curious "French principles of law" mean that the Chief of Executive, in France, can give binding orders to the judicial power; this is "quite" interesting because this peculiar "French principle of law", incidentally, violates the classical liberal democratic constitutional principles of separation of powers and the checks and balances system. Why did Mitterand create his doctrine? I don't know, but I can suppose: maybe he created his doctrine to "beg pardon" for he has been a Vichy civil servant, or to avoid to France the left wing terrorism (but those are only opinions, obviously).

By the way I've just found a beautiful decision of ECmHR which declares irreceveable an application of a woman who claimed that her extradition to the USA was not in accordance with the principles of law of France as she ran the well founded risk of being sentenced to capital punishment, while France has signed and ratified protocol n° 6 to the ECHR.

In its decision the Commission stated that: " La Commision n'exclut pas que la responsabilité d'un Etat contractant soit engagèe sur le terrain de l'article 1 du protocolle n°6 lorsqu'un fugitif est extradè a un Etat où il risque sèrieusement d'etre condamné à mort et executé" Aylor-Davis v France, appl. n° 22742/93 (during the Mitterand's age). I start to think that some states are worth of receiving back their criminals - even if they do not respect the right to life - while others not. This is a quite curious and interesting French principle of law! So for France political principles is correct to extradite someone where he risks to die but not where he risks only prison!

B) The refusal of the extradition violated, also, many treaties signed by France - not only extradition ones, but many others too-. So, as Mr Perben has said , the refusal of the extradition was becoming unsupportable, for France :"because of the European construction". This was what Castelli ( I don't like him and his party, I'll be clear another time, politically in Italy I'm center-left) said to French minister: he had to respect the international treaties signed by France. For international and european laws France was wrong, not Italy.

By those misunderstandings all the Battisti's affair was created and built on in France. --Dedofreg 10:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

“The circumstances of his condemnation have been questionned. In particular, French writers Fred Vargas, Valerio Evangelisti and Bernard-Henri Lévy considered that the trial was marked by irregularities, in particular the use of torture, and the misuse of witnesses (cited witnesses were either affected by mental troubles, or were pentito, that is testifying against others in order to benefit from a sentence reduction). Furthermore, they claim that no material proof incriminate Battisti, including ballistic analysis”

Ok the game becomes hard, and so I have several questions to do:

A) Have all those happy persons ever read the trial’s files? All? In law-Italian?

B) Use of torture: BINGO! For ECHR the use of torture in a trial is, obviously, a violation. So the trial is void either you torture the defendant or a simple witness . But the very interesting thing is: for the ECtHR rules of procedure is the State that must proof there wasn’t torture, in this peculiar case the onus probandi is inverted. So why did the Battisti’s French lawyers forget this in their claim to ECtHR? Were they idiot? Maybe yes or maybe there weren’t evidences of torture!

Source: ECtHR case law: Selmouni v France (oh Lord!)appl. n° 25803/94: "87. The Court considers that where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see the Tomasi v. France judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-11, and the Ribitsch v. Austria judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, pp. 25-26, § 34). It also points out that in his criminal complaint and application to join the proceedings as a civil party, Mr Selmouni directed his allegations against the police officers in question (see paragraph 28 above) and that the issue of their guilt is a matter for the jurisdiction of the French courts, in particular the criminal courts, alone. Whatever the outcome of the domestic proceedings, the police officers’ conviction or acquittal does not absolve the respondent State from its responsibility under the Convention (see the Ribitsch judgment cited above). It is accordingly under an obligation to provide a plausible explanation of how Mr Selmouni’s injuries were caused". in http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int////tkp197/viewhbkm.asp?action=open&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649&key=868&sessionId=10050001&skin=hudoc-en&attachment=true. Can this be an example of the memories selection theory, according to which the individuals recall only what makes them happy? You know, in this case the ECtHR held France guilty of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment!

C) cited witnesses were either affected by mental troubles: are Vargas, Evangelisti or Henry Lévy psychiatrists? Was there almost one lawful document - not words: papers– said the witnesses - by the way: how many? One, two, three, everybody! – were mental insane? Did those happy persons know the Italian rules of procedure for witnesses? If a crime would be committed in a lunatic asylum by a normal person in front of all the lunatics, could you listen anyone as witness or is this the perfect crime?

D) Pentito: could we call him: crown – better Republic – witness? It sounds so good! When all the western codes will abolish those peculiar witnesses, I agree, Italy will do the same too.

By the way: I would like to tell you a story: H.L.R v. France (It's not my fault, I swear!)appl. n° 24573/94. Once upon a time there was a colombian drug dealer who was convicted and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment by a French court. Contemporary to the sentence the so friendly French authorities ordered his deportation to Colombia. But there was a little problem: Mr H.L.R. claimed that in case of return in Colombia he would have been exposed to vengeance by the drug traffickers against whom the applicant had supplied informations to the French authorities in order to get a lighter punishment. As an important drug trafficker had been arrested convincted and sentenced thanks to the informations of Mr. H.L.R., shall we consider this process as unlawful? He was a pentito! But in France they don't use them....isn't that Mr Vargas, Evangelisti and Henry Levy?

E) Ballistic analysis. Yes, sure. But…just a moment: Battisti has ordered two murders! He was an instigator and it’s quite difficult the instigator shoots the victim! Isn’t it? So the ballistic analysis it’s unusual in those cases. For the other two murders: witnesses (not republic witnesses, witnesses) have seen him …ah yes, they are lunatic!

F) By the way, i.e.: a man – a writer - founds and leads a group called Proletari armati per il Comunismo (in English sounds: ARMED Proletarians for the Communism): what are his purposes?

1) To lead a boy scout squad; 2) To found a Salvation army model organization; 3) To participate to elections; 4) To kill to build the communism.

Could anyone answer me? If no, could we change this phrase?--Dedofreg 13:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dedo, what's the relationship between Selmouni vs. France and the Battisti case? Are you lifting that to prove that France has tortured people too? Do you think I disagree with you? Even if I did, what's the relation with Battisti? This article is not called Human rights in France, is it? Please do add the Selmouni trial to the latter article.

What's wrong with "The circumstances of his condemnation have been questionned. In particular, French writers Fred Vargas, Valerio Evangelisti and Bernard-Henri Lévy considered that the trial was marked by irregularities, in particular the use of torture, and the misuse of witnesses (cited witnesses were either affected by mental troubles, or were pentito, that is testifying against others in order to benefit from a sentence reduction). Furthermore, they claim that no material proof incriminate Battisti, including ballistic analysis"? Do you claim Vargas, Evangelisti and BHL did not claim this? You can contest their legitimacy if you wish, but you can't do anything about the fact that they have claimed this. And concerning your "crown witness", what is you intent? To argue in favor of such witnesses? Please do so at the pentito page, not here. Tazmaniacs 17:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Taz, the Italian courts have considered that there was ample proof of Battisti's guilt.

Do you claim that this is not true ? do you think that, in some way, Vargas, Evangelisti, BHL have to be considered as better legal/ballistic/graphological experts than those involved in the Italian courts? are you a ballistic/ graphological expert ? should I also post on wikipedia my personal opinions on the ballistic/graphological expertises ?

Please, be serious.

By the way, the article is written, mostly, in do-it-yourself English. It seems to be (badly) translated from French.

Giordaano 14:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Giordano you are brief and accurate. I will try to explain to Taz what I think about Vargas & co. So I will be long, I hope accurate because Vargas & co are playing to be judges, lawyers and jurors. And Taz doesn't understand my claims.

Taz, Selmouni v. France is the source – the landmark – that proofs the ECtHR case law has inverted the onus probandi in the case of torture (As we are playing to be lawyers - I am really - I use all juridical arguments I have). If as I suspect Taz you don't understand Latin: onus probandi= Burden of proof. But in legal english is commonly used onus probandi or onus of proof. This is the relationship between Selmouni v. France and Battisti v. France. Selmouni v France ruled that in case of claim of torture is the State that must proof there wasn't torture. It's harder for the State and simpler for the petitioner. In fact the State is obliged to bring material evidences or evidences that there wasn't torture, the petitioner could bring nothing and in this manner he will win the trial. If the State has not been able to bring any evidence at all.

But Battisti’s French lawyers didn’t use the strong argument of the violation of article 3 ECHR (torture) in their claim against the extradition. So why did they commit this juridical suicide? Because it wasn’t a suicide and the charge of torture was unfounded. So why do Vargas and friends talk about torture? There aren’t evidences of torture!

An International Court ruled that the Italian trial was fair and the Battisti’s claim was MANIFESTED ILL FOUNDED. Vargas and friends aren’t the judges of the judges!

At least the Selmouni case - he wasn't a writer, poor man - is important also because: I have not listened Vargas and friends crying and sobbing for Mr Selmouni and I have not read manifestoes or appeals signed or written by those “right defenders” supporting Mr Selmouni claims! Maybe because it is France and not Italy condemned for torture. If someone will give a good looking in ECtHR database he will discover that France - not Italy - is one of the more condemned country for torture! Taz you must remember that: Italy wasn't condemned for torture by ECtHR in the Battisti's case. Those interesting things proof that Vargas and friends are only Battisti’s supporters not exactly neutral observers, who are deeply afraid by the violation of human rights in the world!

Taz it’s very curious your modus procedendi. First you want sources – not Italian ones, obviosuly! We are only talking about one Italian trial, why should we use Italian sources? – but when those sources come they aren’t important.

Those sources proof that all the things Vargas and friends have said or written on the Italian trial were and are simply propaganda, and this is not a beautiful thing to report in an Encyclopaedia. I think I will delete the part on torture and so on.

Because: as I have said there wasn’t evidence of torture, so why must we report that Vargas and friends think so? Is it so important?

The "collaboratore di giustizia" story then, is the paramount of the hypocrisy and chauvinism! Vargas and Co. blame Italy for a juridical procedure that France – and all the western democracies – uses too – as I have demonstrated with sources – so why should this charge to the Italian trial remain in the article? Is this "arguing in favor of such witness"? The question is: Do you Vargas and co. blame Italy for a thing that your beloved France also does? I also remember LDH claims: France the land of the right, a teacher in law principles and human rights as we just have seen! Nice! And so tell me, when, exactly, have Vargas and co. blamed hardly France, and all the other western legal systems, for the use of pentiti? Why don't they start a campaign against the use of the crown witness all around the world? Maybe I have the answer: those gallant right defenders are simply acting in bad faith...

There were – as I have said – and were used material evidences in the Italian trials. I can’t use Italian sources, well I will play your game!

Source: Guillame Perrault – a strange Frenchman who reads the sources, only the sentences not all the trial’s files, yes, but we must remember he is a Frenchman!-. In:http://www.lefigaro.fr/litteraire/20060420.LIT000000278_battisti_persiste_et_signe.html, he writes:

Surtout, l'intéressé n'a pas été condamné sur les seules accusations d'un repenti, par ailleurs soumises à une analyse serrée pour en apprécier la véracité. Dans les différents arrêts rendus par la cour d'assises de Milan en 1988, 1990 et 1993, on constate que l'enquête produit contre Battisti les éléments de preuve utilisés dans toutes les démocraties: expertise balistique, documents rédigés par les terroristes et saisis lors de perquisitions, déclarations de nombreux témoins lors des différents attentats, aveux de cinq membres du «groupe opérationnel» des PAC. En France, bien des accusés sont condamnés sur des preuves plus fragiles et bénéficient de droits de la défense moins exigeants.

Obviously the Italian sentences are different from the French ones, in Italy the phrase unique – typical of the French law - is forbidden, and so the sentences are very long and detailed . So I will add to the article that the trials were based on material evidences too.

I think the article must report only that Vargas and co think that the trial was irregular, and obviously the three footnotes too. This is the fact better an ill founded opinion: three French writers, who have not read the sources, who don't know the law as it is in France, in Italy and in Europe, have argued that an italian trial (four italian trials) was irregular. Is it funny, isn't it? No, it is not funny, Taz, four persons are died but three wirters are still barking their ill founded inventions to the moon. Maybe I will add that they are Battisti's supporters not neutral supporters of human rights.

But all the inventions about torture and pentiti and so on must be deleted and I will do. There isn’t evidence of torture, the claim against collaboratori di giustizia (Taz, is it so difficult for you to use the correct words?) is more than ridiculous; the lunatic witness is pure science fiction. In Italy you need a sentence of a judge (Volontaria giurisdizione), after a psychiatric analysis, to declare someone mental insane, in France I see, two writers can do this! And last but not least: there were material evidences in the Italian trials. Maybe did it happen Vargas and co.- strong Battisti's supporters - have invented almost all? Please, you, now, try to proof me that this is untrue, and you can't use French sources, meanwhile I will delete all that inventions!

A last thing, when a trial is based on torture and mental insane witnesses isn't irregular, it is void! For a writer is the same thing - but he is a writer! - for a lawyer those are two different things with different consequences, you could ask to Battisti's France lawyers the difference - not to Vargas and co. obviuosly! I think they would have preferred that the trial was void! But ...there weren't evidences.--Dedofreg 07:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dedo

well, you are (quite rightly) angry. The article looks slightly better, but it's still very confused, because it goes off in all directions, it's full of repetitions and useless details, and still puts, on the same level and with the same relevance, the conclusions of legal procedures conducted in a democratic country (as confirmed in several degrees of trial), and the personal opinions of a few writers and "intellectuals".

In fact, there are two different issues involved :

- one is the legal case against Battisti, which is comparatively simple, and could be explained in 4-5 paragraphs

- the second one derives from the fact that the "Battisti case" has become a "political football" in France, i.e. an episode of internal political dissensions

Accessorily, there is a cultural/generational element to it : the heritage of 1968, of romantic involvement in revolutionary politics, of "autonomist mysticism" etc etc

And, that's all Giordaano 21:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ciao Giordano.

I agree, but this means that articles should be re-written! By the way if someone is writing on an italian trial it's unreasonable that he doesn't know the italian language, the italian law and the italian procedure, but here this amazing thing is supposed to be normal!--Dedofreg 06:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dedo, please try to be short :)! You are more than entitled to question the legitimacy of French supporters of Battisti. But in no way does that delete the fact that some people support Battisti. They may be wrong. We are not here to give the truth, but to give the positions of people. Tazmaniacs 03:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have always thought Wikipedia should give facts. Not opinions. And What I read here are facts v. opinions. Maybe Taz you could just report on one side, the story and the facts, and on the other, whishes and opinions. I try to shortly explain you this: if you are tortured in a State party to the ECHR, then you have just to go in front of the Court and tell to the Court this: "Help, State has got me in custody, and then it has tortured me. Please punish it!" and the Court once acquired that you've been phisically injured, and once acquired that the State have no justification for those injuries, will punish the State.

Shorter and clearer I hope^^. I think Dedo was using this argument because Battisti's lawyers have NEVER OFFICIALLY COMPLAINED the violation of Article 3 of the ECHR. What does it mean? That they have to close their mouth on it, because they should have used it, if it was a real claim.

[edit] An amazing story about the French trial in absentia and the ECtHR

I love Dike, the Greek goddess of Justice, because she often punishes the persons who speak too much and don’t study at all. But I love the databases too. This chapter will give you a quite accurate definition of two concepts: hypocrisy and chauvinism! Do you remember when LDH claimed :

" French justice pleaded that the anti-terrorist legislation enacted in Italy during the "years of lead" "went against the French conception of law," which, along with the European Court of Human Rights, prohibited in particular to extradite a person condemned in absentia if that person was denied the right to a new trial" ? Can you remember when this phrase was written in the article? There is still a little trace of this wrong and false statement in the article : "Defenders of Battisti, among whom the Human Rights League (LDH), consider that France's decision to extradite Battisti was illegal, since Battisti would not have the right to a new trial, after having been judged in absentia."

This is a quite long lecture but, I swear, beautiful and instructive. Taz, please, may you read all first to say that this part should be transferred under France and Human Right? You should remember you have reported all the nuts that LDH have said on the fairness of the Italian trial!

First to start you should consider that this phrase is still in the article: . WOW! Please can you remember well this part - it's quite important -: "...that person ( the defendant obviously) had not been in a condition to adequately defend himself during his trial"?

Oh Dike, I love you so much! In the European Court of Human Right: Case of Krombach v. FRANCE, Application no. 29731/96, decided on 13 February 2001, French Trial in absentia, French condemned for violation of the article 6 of ECHR, because:

“67. Although the Court accepts that the conviction is not final, it considers that the procedure whereby the accused is entitled to a retrial in the event of the contempt being purged cannot be equated to a “remedy” within the ordinary meaning of that word, since its availability depends on a circumstance, namely the accused’s arrest, which by definition is not a voluntary act on the accused’s part.

It is true that the contempt will also be purged if the accused surrenders to custody. The Court considers that that condition for obtaining a retrial means that this is not a domestic remedy that it would be reasonable to require the applicant to exhaust for the purposes of Article 35 of the Convention, since all an applicant is required to do under the prior-exhaustion-of-domestic-remedies rule is to apply in the manner and time prescribed by domestic law for remedies that are apt to alleviate the situation complained of.

Further, should a retrial be held, it will not of itself avoid or remedy violations that have occurred at the trial in absentia stage. Lastly, there is no prescribed form or time-limit for purging the contempt and it is a procedure that may prove purely hypothetical if the accused is not arrested or does not surrender to custody before the time allowed for enforcing the sentence expires.

68. Consequently, the Government’s preliminary objection must be dismissed.

(…)

B. The Court’s assessment

82. As the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 6 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by paragraph 1, the Court will examine the complaint under both provisions taken together (see Van Geyseghem, cited above, § 27).

83. The present case is distinguishable from the cases of Goddi, Colozza, F.C.B. and T. v. Italy (judgment of 9 April 1984, Series A no. 76, p. 10, § 26; judgment cited above, pp. 14-15, § 28; judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 208-B, pp. 20-21, §§ 30-33; and judgment of 12 October 1992, Series A no. 245-C, pp. 41-42, § 27), which all concerned the Italian procedure for trial in absentia, in that the applicant in the instant case was served with notice of the date of the hearing before the Paris Assize Court and it was his decision not to appear. His situation is therefore comparable to that examined by the Court in the cases of Poitrimol, Lala, Pelladoah and Van Geyseghem, cited above.

84. The Court notes that in the first of those three cases it said that it was of capital importance that a defendant should appear and that the legislature had accordingly to be able to discourage unjustified absences (see Poitrimol, cited above, p. 15, § 35). In the latter two cases, however, it added: “it is also of crucial importance for the fairness of the criminal justice system that the accused be adequately defended, both at first instance and on appeal, the more so if, as is the case under Netherlands law, no objection may be filed against a default judgment given on appeal” (see Lala, cited above, p. 13, § 33, and Pelladoah, cited above, pp. 34-35, § 40). It added that the latter interest prevailed. Consequently, the fact that the defendant, in spite of having been properly summonsed, did not appear, could not – even in the absence of an excuse – justify depriving him of his right under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention to be defended by counsel (ibid.). It was for the courts to ensure that a trial was fair and, accordingly, that counsel who attended trial for the apparent purpose of defending the accused in his absence, was given the opportunity to do so (ibid., p. 14, § 34, and p. 35, § 41).

85. It is true that proceedings that take place in the accused’s absence will not of themselves be incompatible with the Convention if the accused may subsequently obtain, from a court which has heard him, a fresh determination of the merits of the charge (see, mutatis mutandis, Colozza, cited above, p. 15, § 29). The Court cannot, however, accept the French Government’s submission that the fact that it was not possible to apply to have a conviction entered in default set aside was a decisive factor for the Court in its reasoning in Lala and Pelladoah, as the clause commencing with the adverbial phrase “the more so” was added to the judgments as a subsidiary consideration (see p. 13, § 33, and pp. 34-35, § 40, respectively).

86. The Court sees no reason to depart from that approach, which was last reaffirmed in Van Geyseghem, cited above, §§ 33 and 34, simply because the criminal proceedings in the instant case took place before an assize court and not before a criminal court or a court of appeal on appeal from a criminal court.

It has never been disputed that it is of capital importance that a defendant should appear, both because of his right to a hearing and because of the need to verify the accuracy of his statements and compare them with those of the victim – whose interests need to be protected – and of the witnesses (see Poitrimol, cited above, p. 15, § 35). That applies to trials both in the assize court and in the criminal court.

87. In the Court’s view, the procedure for a retrial after the contempt has been purged only affects the effective exercise of the defence rights if the accused is arrested, for in such cases the authorities have a positive obligation to afford the accused the opportunity to have a complete rehearing of the case in his or her presence. On the other hand, there can be no question of an accused being obliged to surrender to custody in order to secure the right to be retried in conditions that comply with Article 6 of the Convention, for that would entail making the exercise of the right to a fair hearing conditional on the accused offering up his or her physical liberty as a form of guarantee (see, mutatis mutandis, Khalfaoui v.France, no. 34791/97, §§ 43 and 44, ECHR 1999-IX).

88. The Court must now examine whether in practice the bar on defence lawyers appearing for the applicant at the trial before the Paris Assize Court adversely affected his right to a fair hearing. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the applicant had clearly manifested an intention not to attend the hearing before the Assize Court and, therefore, not to represent himself. On the other hand, the case file shows that he wished to be defended by his lawyers, who had been given authorities to that end and were present at the hearing.

89. The Court cannot adopt the Government’s narrow construction of the word “assistance” within the meaning of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention. It sees no reason for departing from the opinion it expressed on that subject in Poitrimol (see the judgment cited above, pp. 14-15, § 34), in which the Government had already suggested that a distinction should be drawn between “assistance” and “representation” for the purposes of proceedings in the criminal court.

Although not absolute, the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer, assigned officially if need be, is one of the fundamental features of a fair trial. A person charged with a criminal offence does not lose the benefit of this right merely on account of not being present at the trial. Even if the legislature must be able to discourage unjustified absences, it cannot penalise them by creating exceptions to the right to legal assistance (see Van Geyseghem, cited above, § 34).

90. In the instant case, the Court observes that the wording of Article 630 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure makes the bar on lawyers representing an accused being tried in absentia absolute and that an assize court trying such an accused has no possibility of derogating from that rule.

The Court considers, however, that it should have been for the Assize Court, which was sitting without a jury, to afford the applicant’s lawyers, who were present at the hearing, an opportunity to put forward the defence case even in the applicant’s absence as, in the instant case, the argument they intended to rely on concerned a point of law (see paragraph 44 above), namely an objection on public-policy grounds based on an estoppel per rem judicatam and the non bis in idem rule (see, mutatis mutandis, Artico v. Italy, judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, pp. 16-17, § 34). The Government have not suggested that the Assize Court would have had had no jurisdiction to examine the issue had it given the applicant’s lawyers permission to plead it. Lastly, the Court observes that the applicant’s lawyers were not given permission to represent their clients at the hearing before the Assize Court on the civil claims. To penalise the applicant’s failure to appear by such an absolute bar on any defence appears manifestly disproportionate.

91. In conclusion, there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c).2"

For the full sentence:

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=France%20%7C%20Krombach&sessionid=10131230&skin=hudoc-en

The article 630 of the French code de procedure penale - des contumaces -: Aucun avocat, aucun avoué ne peut se présenter pour l'accusé contumax. Toutefois, si l'accusé est dans l'impossibilité absolue de déférer à l'injonction contenue dans l'ordonnance prévue par l'article 627-21, ses parents ou ses amis peuvent proposer son excuse.

in: http://www.lexinter.net/PROCPEN/index.htm

Really have LDH, Vargas and co. blamed the Italian trial in absentia when the French one forbids the lawyers for the defendant? How could we define this behaviour?

I'll try to answer. For France this beahviour means that: the French principles of law - i.e. the criminal procedure code - prohibit to a person, condemned in absentia, from being in a condition to adequately defend himself during his trial. For LDH, Vargas and co. who don't know this interesting ECtHR sentence - a landmark!- this beahviour means two things: A) that LDH doesn't study and B) that Vargas and co. are writers not readers!

Oh Dike! It’s so wonderful: the French trial in absentia goes against the ECHR conception of law the Battisti's one, no! But…so all that they: LDH, Vargas, HBL and friends have said and written on Battisti’s trial in absentia and on the need of a retrial is untrue! You can see that the decision is dated 2001. And now what should I think about the others things that they have said on Battisti’s Italian trial? Maybe that they are inaccurate, inexact and mainly false and untrue!

Maybe we should re-write the article and we could re-balance all the narrative less on the French side and more on the true one. Maybe, for the sake of charity, we should delete all the POV statements reporting what "France justice" -it's true it is blind! - thinks about the Italian one. I think it would be better, we can not explain that France justice is, sometime, quite worse than Italian - that isn't perfect -, adding everytime all international sentences - not writer's opinions- that proof this! Ciao --Dedofreg 12:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you please point out which part exactly of the article you are troubled with, and we will workit out. I am more than willing to improve the article, but I am sure you understand that the point is not to give your truth, nor your opinion, but to expose third parties opinion. That you or I dislike this or that opinion is quite beside the point. Give us facts, keep it short, and let's work the formulation (and please try to improve the article, as you have done indirectly Dedo, instead of just limiting ourselves to ideological fights --- God i am tired of ideological fights, is it possible to cooperate with people who disagree ? This is the whole point of Wikipedia...) Once again, you may give valuable information, but I'm sure that discussions about Dike should be limited to Dike. The case here is about Battisti & things that revolve around him, not about claiming that France is a beautiful country or that Italy is even more lovely! Ciao! Tazmaniacs 03:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposals

Well, I have said that is difficult to trial a trial, because is long. Taz I have reported a long ECtHr decision against France, because some French writers and French organizations, by you reported in this article, said something like this: "Ohhh how is beautiful France and ugly Italy". and you write only those statements.I'm starting to think that you want only to write a pro Battisti article, but this is my opinion.

I'm turbed, as you said, by those statements:

A) Vargas and co. are Battisti's supporters. This is a Fact - by the way I add this statement in the article - They said that the trial was irregular, this is a fact. They said the trial was irregular because based on etc...: this is an opinion. Why should you report an opinion in the article? When this opinion is untrue because a fact, a sentence, of ECtHR ruled that Battisti's Italian trial was lawful.

B) LDH said that the extradition went against the French principles of law, this is an opinion. The fact is that three French courts ruled for extradition. Why should we report this untrue opinion in the article?

C) France and French writers aren't the judges of Italian trial, expecially when they don't read the sources as you do. There is in Europe a judge of the judges is ECtHR, and we have seen what the court ruled.

Ok I suggest that everytime the article gives an opinion on the Italian trial we will add a consideration explaining all the points of view, like those:

Text: "French justice concluded that the anti-terrorist legislation enacted in Italy "went against the French principles of law," which, along with the European Court of Human Rights, prohibited in particular to extradite a person condemned in absentia if that person had not been in a condition to adequately defend himself during his trial"

Add: "but after this decision, the French government rejected the Mitterand's doctrine and three French Courts ruled for the Battisti's extradition. ECtHR confirmed those decisions and ruled that the Italian trial in absentia in the Battisti's case is fair under the provisions of the ECHR. We also must remember - to understand better the French sentence above mentioned - that the French trial in absentia was condemned by the ECtHR, in the case Case of Krombach v. FRANCE, Application no. 29731/96, decided on 13 February 2001." This is not an opinion and we must add it. If not the reader could think that really the Italian trial is against the ECHR and the French one is perfect and also that a French court is the judge of an Italian one (this is forbidden). Do you want that a reader thinks this? Do you agree?

Text: "Defenders of Battisti, among whom the Human Rights League (LDH), consider that France's decision to extradite Battisti was illegal, since Battisti would not have the right to a new trial, after having been judged in absentia."

Add: " But the right of a new trial is not a guarantee - as clearly ruled the ECtHR in the case of Krombach v. FRANCE, above mentioned, and also article 6 of ECHR- the juridical ground of Battisti's claim - doesn't order a new trial. The Battisti's claim involved the defendant knowledge of the trial. The Battisti's lawyers argued that the defendant has not been able to know that in Italy there was a trial against him and so his rights was violated. But the Court ruled:....." This is not an opinion and we must add to the article. Do you agree?

Text: "The circumstances of his condemnation have been put in question. In particular, French writers - all Battisti's strong supporters - Fred Vargas, Valerio Evangelisti and Bernard-Henri Lévy considered that the trial was marked by irregularities, never proofed in a court, in particular the use of torture, and the misuse of witnesses (cited witnesses were either affected by mental troubles, or were pentito, that is testifying against others in order to benefit from a sentence reduction). Furthermore, they claim that no material proof incriminate Battisti, including ballistic analysis"

Here I suggest two ways. The first I think is the best.

A)Delete all this part:" in particular the use of torture, and the misuse of witnesses (cited witnesses were either affected by mental troubles, or were pentito, that is testifying against others in order to benefit from a sentence reduction). Furthermore, they claim that no material proof incriminate Battisti, including ballistic analysis". Because there aren't proof of those statements and reporting them in the article could give to the reader the idea that in the Italian trial there has been torture and so on. But this is not a fact, is only an opinion.

Or if you want to mantain the phrase we must add and I underline must because those are not opinions but facts:

"...cited witnesses were either affected by mental troubles"

add: "but there is not proof that an italian court - in behalf of the italian procedure - declared a witness mental insane." This is a fact not an opinion.

"... or were pentito, that is testifying against others in order to benefit from a sentence reduction"

first changing pentito with the correct legal word: COLLABORATORI DI GIUSTIZIA, then

add " but we must remember that those peculiar kind of witesses are lawful and used in France and in all the western democracies". This if you would not want that the readers think that only Italy uses the collaboratori di giustizia. This is a fact not an opinion.

"...Furthermore, they claim that no material proof incriminate Battisti, including ballistic analysis",

add: "but the analysis of the Italian sentences, more long and detailed than French ones proofs that those claims are unfounded, as Guillame Perrault has discovered reading the Italian sources."

Well as I have said I think you don't want to write an article of Wikipedia, but only a propaganda article for Battisti and against the justice of a democratic country. This because you are painting the italian trial in very dark color using the opinions and not the facts.

You think that we must report the opinions of the people. I think that an Encyclopaedia must report the facts. If, for example, Vargas - a nom de plume - said that the Earth is flat and blames Italy because she has said that the Earth is a sphere would you report this opinion in the article? Will you do this without adding that the Earth is a sphere?

Should all the opinions be in the article? Well so why do I read only the opinions of Battisti's supporters? Maybe because you have only translated the wiki.fr article and you don't read the Italian sources. By the way, because incidentally you are writing on an Italian trial, Taz, do you speak Italian? Well now I'm waiting for your answers. --Dedofreg 07:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

1. "Defendants of Battisti claim that so & so" suits NPOV guidelines. We do not have to pronounce ourselves on the veracity of their statements. Please see Wikipedia:Attribution.
2. About the Human Rights League (LDH), you write: " Why should we report this untrue opinion in the article?" Please see Wikipedia:Attribution.
3. No one is judging Italian justice, the problem is about Battisti. Tazmaniacs 02:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

A) You have not written that Vargas and co. were Battisti's supporters, you have written about "French writers..."

B) "We do not have to pronounce ourselves on the veracity of their statements". When a fact is the opposite of an opinion must we report only the opinion? should we not report the fact?

C) NOW no one is judging the Italian justice. First we have been able to read, without explications, statements like those: " "French justice concluded that the anti-terrorist legislation enacted in Italy "went against the French principles of law," which, along with the European Court of Human Rights, prohibited in particular to extradite a person condemned in absentia if that person had not been in a condition to adequately defend himself during his trial" or: ""Defenders of Battisti, among whom the Human Rights League (LDH), recall that the European Court of Human Rights uphold a right to a new judgment in case of judgment in absentia, as in Battisti's case, which the Italian law does not allow (...)". Someone else has added the ECtHR decision on the Battisti's case, not you. At last I'm not alone thinking that someone tries to judge the Italian justice in this article (read above, Hauteville, Giordaano, and so on...).

D) Why have I read only Battisti's supporters opinion here?--Dedofreg 10:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ops, By the way, I have added to the article an interesting opinion on the Battisti's affaire. In this statement the USM says and underlines that the Battisti's Italian trial was fair, and that all what has been reported by Vargas and co. is quite similar to propaganda and political struggle.Who are they? Writers? NOOO: the USM is a French judges' trade union, left wing. The union was the most voted by the French judges in their last elections; to understand better: this opinion comes from French judges, not French writers...--Dedofreg 11:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dedo

I agree that wikipedia should not necessarily include all available opinions, but only a selection of the most reliable, serious ones. And here, problems obviously start. The main problem of the article, as it stands, is that it considers on the same level the court cases conducted in Italy and the opinions of a group of writers, intellectuals etc

This is blatantly true in e.g. the case of the "alleged mental troubles" of the witnesses against Battisti. The Italian courts considered these witnesses as trustworthy. Vargas, Evangelisti etc consider them as mentally deranged. On the same line, we could of course also consider e.g.Vargas, Evangelisti and BHL as mentally deranged, and summarily dismiss the value of their opinions.

Don't worry Taz ! we won't go to such extremes. Unless we can produce adequate psychiatric expertises, recognized in court by a competent magistrate.

All the best Giordaano 09:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ciao Giordano,

Be attention :)! : you have described the Italian procedure to declare someone mental insane, but I think we should use the French one...Where can we found two writers declaring this? :)

Have you seen that Taz uses as evidences of torture (footnote n.°10) a Battisti's book preface? An amazing thing. I think that is a new juridical defence. So the defendant writes a book, one of his friends - or more - writes the preface, then the lawyer must only, bring the book to the bench to proof everything he wants! Wonderful!

B.T.W. Giordano: crown witness= collaboratore di giustizia; just above: "magistrate" the perfect English term for a common law court with only a judge and without jurors (a probate court in USA) as, mutatis mutandis, the Italian court of Volontaria Giurisdizione...I have a little suspect :) Maybe have you studied law? Ciao--Dedofreg 09:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dedo - no, I'm not a lawyer - I have degrees in Political science and philosophy. I admit - I don't know the procedure in France for declaring a person mentally insane. However,it should be somehow similar to the Italian one. Well, hopefully.... in fact,it could be totally different.

All the best Giordaano 21:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'We must also remember'

I removed this, because I don't think it is relevant to Battisti. Tazmaniacs 02:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC):

We must also remember - to understand better the 1991 French sentence above mentioned - that the French trial in absentia was also questioned, and was ultimately condemned by the ECtHR, in the case Case of Krombach v. France, Application no. 29731/96, decided on 13 February 2001, because the French trial in absentia didn't respect the right of the defendant to have an adequate defence.

I'm quite agree, you have mantained the second citation of the sentence that is more correct than the first one. But there, where was the phrase that you have removed, I will add another citation. What the French Conseil d'Etat said about the fairness of the Italian trial in the decision about Battisti's extradition. Obviously the decision of a Court is quite different from what is thinking about the law by LDH and Vargas and co., but... it often happens. The Conseil d'Etat - guess!- ruled that the Battisti's Italian trial was fair under the French principles of law and under the European Convention of Human Right...--Dedofreg 06:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title?

I find the current title of this page, 'Cesare Battisti (1954-)', pretty unsatisfactory; we never use dates in titles of people, as it just looks unnecessary. It was previously at Cesare Battisti (activist), but moved for NPOV reasons; actually, 'activist' seems like a fairly neutral description to me, and preferable to the current title, but I can see there are problems with that choice as well.

It would be best if we could simply move it to Cesare Battisti, but that name is already used for the First World War Italian patriot. Perhaps we should move that article to something else, as this person certainly seems to be the more notable Cesare Battisti... does anyone else have any suggestions on the best solution here? Terraxos (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You're looking for NPOV problems! :) Actually, if we don't use a date, the only way to distinguish him from the other Battisti is either as an "activist" or as an "author". Both are unsatisfactory, as that he was an activist in the 1970s can't be enough to characterize his literary activities today, and, on the other hand, branding him as an "author" is overlooking his past activist activities, for which he has encountered some judicial problems today. So, I think leaving it as it is now is the best, consensual, solution. Tazmaniacs (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Activist is very NPOV for a murderer and author is not at all the reason why he is known... the date remains the less bad solution --Bombastus (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Terraxos wrote: "this person certainly seems to be the more notable Cesare Battisti..." Terraxos, you must be joking.Giordaano (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)