Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

The point is that absent some coercive end-game to force compliance, there is no such thing, really, as either inside or outside obligations.

Most international relations, especially between friendly powers, don't rely on coercion or threat. The Council of Europe States signed up for a reason to that organization including the ECHR for a reason; no other country forced any one of them to obligate itself to the Convention and ECHR. The eastern European States, for example, signed up in the years after the fall of the Warsaw Pact and Communism to help develop their democratic processes and human rights practices after a long time of neglect. Italy has sometimes been slow to follow ECHR rulings, but that may be due to the complexities of Italian politics and a tendency for some decisions to be delayed as long as possible.

 

[Dougm]

I can't agree with this. Countries voluntarily enter into arrangenents and take on obligations. Coercion is really not going to be necessary. These are agreements. When countries fail to keep to their international agreed obligations, you move closer to war. In Europe, we're rather keen, mostly, to avoid that.

I think various forms of coercion go on all the time. It is similar to what goes on in corporate business.

For example: Someone I know used to work for a large US corporation, and was in charge of managing a marketing program that was designed to roll out to hundreds of franchised, yet independently owned, retail outlets throughout the nation. (an example would be $1 cheese burgers for the month of February). About 40% of these independently owned outlets, who, by law, are not required to participate, replied back to headquarters, "no" we don't want to be part of that. They were asserting their legal right not to be part of it, and were following the rules under their contractual obligations, just as a country might follow their obligations (or lack thereof) under their contracts and treaties.

One thing though. Corporate HQ needed all these outlets to participate, or the program was not going to work. So a couple of weeks and a bit of polite (or not so polite) arm twisting later, 98% of the outlets had signed on to the program.

I suspect this is similar to how a lot of international relationships work, even between close allies. My point is that there is a lot of coercion that we never hear about, because it is done behind closed doors, and never escalates to any public disputes, much less wars.

Not sure if any of that has gone on here, yet. But just because there are rules and obligations, that is no guarantee those will be followed to the letter.

 

[Desert Fox]

I think various forms of coercion go on all the time. It is similar to what goes on in corporate business.

For example: Someone I know used to work for a large US corporation, and was in charge of managing a marketing program that was designed to roll out to hundreds of franchised, yet independently owned, retail outlets throughout the nation. (an example would be $1 cheese burgers for the month of February). About 40% of these independently owned outlets, who, by law, are not required to participate, replied back to headquarters, "no" we don't want to be part of that. They were asserting their legal right not to be part of it, and were following the rules under their contractual obligations, just as a country might follow their obligations (or lack thereof) under their contracts and treaties.

One thing though. Corporate HQ needed all these outlets to participate, or the program was not going to work. So a couple of weeks and a bit of polite (or not so polite) arm twisting later, 98% of the outlets had signed on to the program.

I suspect this is similar to how a lot of international relationships work, even between close allies. My point is that there is a lot of coercion that we never hear about, because it is done behind closed doors, and never escalates to any public disputes, much less wars.

Not sure if any of that has gone on here, yet. But just because there are rules and obligations, that is no guarantee those will be followed to the letter.

If you remember, WikiLeaks dumped a bunch of items from the US government into publicly accessible places. While some of the stuff I agree with releasing, some of the material is normal political arm twisting that every side does to every other side.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

The point is that absent some coercive end-game to force compliance, there is no such thing, really, as either inside or outside obligations.

Turkey has failed to pay compensation to Greek Cypriots as instructed by the ECHR and Turkey is still a member state of the ECHR. Just saying.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

If you remember, WikiLeaks dumped a bunch of items from the US government into publicly accessible places. While some of the stuff I agree with releasing, some of the material is normal political arm twisting that every side does to every other side.

One those WikiLeaks covered communications between US and Italian officials regarding the prosecution of 23 CIA agents, we all know how that ended up for the US and Italian governments of the day.

 

[Desert Fox]

One those WikiLeaks covered communications between US and Italian officials regarding the prosecution of 23 CIA agents, we all know how that ended up for the US and Italian governments of the day.

Actually what I am referring to is some hardware and weapon sales strong-arm deals with Norway. Being honest, the US is pretty dirty with regards to the CIA members (The CIA seemed to be simply nuts under Bush) but they really could not turn them over or it would be losing faith with them.

The Mario Lozano affair though shows that Italy plays the same games. Interestingly, the case against him was dismissed about two weeks before Ms Knox was arrested.

 

[Numbers]

Turkey has failed to pay compensation to Greek Cypriots as instructed by the ECHR and Turkey is still a member state of the ECHR. Just saying.

The vast majority of ECHR cases involve a national of the respondent country, that is, an Italian citizen files an application against Italy, or a British citizen files an application against the UK. So the international implications are not the same as for the occasional cases where a citizen of one country files an application against a second country.

And the Turkish view of the Cyprus situation where there was a military or civil conflict is different than the Amanda Knox calunnia conviction case where there is an alleged criminal case in Italy, not a military or civil conflict.

 

[Dougm]

The vast majority of ECHR cases involve a national of the respondent country, that is, an Italian citizen files an application against Italy, or a British citizen files an application against the UK. So the international implications are not the same as for the occasional cases where a citizen of one country files an application against a second country.

But in the Knox case, we have a citizen of the US filling an application against Italy. So it could have some of the implications that you are referring to, depending on developments.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

The vast majority of ECHR cases involve a national of the respondent country, that is, an Italian citizen files an application against Italy, or a British citizen files an application against the UK. So the international implications are not the same as for the occasional cases where a citizen of one country files an application against a second country.

And the Turkish view of the Cyprus situation is different where there was a military or civil conflict is different than the Amanda Knox calunnia conviction case where there is an alleged criminal case in Italy, not a military or civil conflict.

Well of course it is.

Call it a wild guess on my part, but I think the Italian judiciary as an institution might have a different view of your observations regarding their laws and the Caluunia application to ECHR.

 

[Numbers]

But in the Knox case, we have a citizen of the US filling an application against Italy. So it could have some of the implications that you are referring to, depending on developments.

Yes, I almost forgot, there is a military conflict aspect to this. Italy, with its ally, Germany, declared war on the United States of America on December 11, 1941, four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The US then declared war on Italy and Germany. That similarity to the Turkish - Greek situation in Cyprus explains the Amanda Knox case. (?)

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/11/newsid_3532000/3532401.stm

Excerpts from the article:

Today Italian dictator, Benito Mussolini, made his declaration first - from the balcony over the Piazza Venezia in Rome - pledging the "powers of the pact of steel" were determined to win.

Then Adolf Hitler made his announcement at the Reichstag in Berlin saying he had tried to avoid direct conflict with the US but, under the Tripartite Agreement signed on 27 September 1940, Germany was obliged to join with Italy to defend its ally Japan.

"After victory has been achieved," he said. "Germany, Italy and Japan will continue in closest co-operation with a view to establishing a new and just order."

He accused President Roosevelt of waging a campaign against Germany since 1937, blamed him for the outbreak of war in 1939 and said he was planning to invade Germany in 1943.

Over in Washington, President Roosevelt told Congress the free world must act quickly and decisively against the enemy.

"The forces endeavouring to enslave the entire world now are moving towards this hemisphere...."

 

[Dougm]

Yes, I almost forgot, there is a military conflict aspect to this. Italy, with its ally, Germany, declared war on the United States of America on December 11, 1941, four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The US then declared war on Italy and Germany. That similarity to the Turkish - Greek situation in Cyprus explains the Amanda Knox case. (?)

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/11/newsid_3532000/3532401.stm

Excerpts from the article:

Today Italian dictator, Benito Mussolini, made his declaration first - from the balcony over the Piazza Venezia in Rome - pledging the "powers of the pact of steel" were determined to win.

Then Adolf Hitler made his announcement at the Reichstag in Berlin saying he had tried to avoid direct conflict with the US but, under the Tripartite Agreement signed on 27 September 1940, Germany was obliged to join with Italy to defend its ally Japan.

"After victory has been achieved," he said. "Germany, Italy and Japan will continue in closest co-operation with a view to establishing a new and just order."

He accused President Roosevelt of waging a campaign against Germany since 1937, blamed him for the outbreak of war in 1939 and said he was planning to invade Germany in 1943.

Over in Washington, President Roosevelt told Congress the free world must act quickly and decisively against the enemy.

"The forces endeavouring to enslave the entire world now are moving towards this hemisphere...."

I don't think a 70 year old declaration of war has much to do with this, but the fact that the person appealing to the ECHR is not a citizen of the country to she is filing against might.

 

[Diocletus]

Call it a wild guess on my part, but I think the Italian judiciary as an institution might have a different view of your observations regarding their laws and the Caluunia application to ECHR.

No one cares what a bunch of Italian judges think of an application to the echr.

 

[Numbers]

Well of course it is.

Call it a wild guess on my part, but I think the Italian judiciary as an institution might have a different view of your observations regarding their laws and the Caluunia application to ECHR.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

So is it your opinion that:

1) The Italian judiciary rejects the Council of Europe and Convention treaty signed by the Italian government and ratified in 1955? or

2) The Italian judiciary merely doesn't accept that ECHR human rights case-law is the supreme law of the land for Italy and all the CoE States (unless their own laws are more generous of human rights)? or

3) The Italian judiciary does not feel the need to always follow Italian law and the Constitution of the Italian Republic?


http://www.coe.int/en/web/about-us/who-we-are

The Council of Europe is the continent's leading human rights organisation.
It includes 47 member states, 28 of which are members of the European Union. All Council of Europe member states have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, a treaty designed to protect human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

 

[Numbers]

I don't think a 70 year old declaration of war has much to do with this, but the fact that the person appealing to the ECHR is not a citizen of the country to she is filing against might.

But you're aware the issue with the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish government and ECHR has its roots in the military action and civil conflict between persons identifying as Greek and Turkish on Cyprus, and the invasion of Cyprus by Turkey on July 20, 1974, following a coup d'etat by Cypriot followers of the Greek military dictatorship?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus

 

[Dougm]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

So is it your opinion that:

1) The Italian judiciary rejects the Council of Europe and Convention treaty signed by the Italian government and ratified in 1955? or

2) The Italian judiciary merely doesn't accept that ECHR human rights case-law is the supreme law of the land for Italy and all the CoE States (unless their own laws are more generous of human rights)? or

3) The Italian judiciary does not feel the need to always follow Italian law and the Constitution of the Italian Republic?


http://www.coe.int/en/web/about-us/who-we-are

The Council of Europe is the continent's leading human rights organisation.
It includes 47 member states, 28 of which are members of the European Union. All Council of Europe member states have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, a treaty designed to protect human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

I can't help but wonder if the answer to the above is YES for all 3, given the number of complaints filed to the ECHR re: Italy. Re: point 3, the Italian judiciary has not followed either Italian law or it's constitution in this case, so unless that changes, I would have to say emphatically "yes" to that one.

 

[Dougm]

But you're aware the issue with the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish government and ECHR has its roots in the military action and civil conflict between persons identifying as Greek and Turkish on Cyprus, and the invasion of Cyprus by Turkey on July 20, 1974, following a coup d'etat by Cypriot followers of the Greek military dictatorship?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus

I wasn't, really, although I understand that is part of the point you are making. I was just pointing out that, although you had said that most ECHR cases are citizens filling applications against their own country, this is different. Not an earthshaking observation, of course, I just wanted to point out that, if push comes to shove, there could be some behind the scenes manipulation because two different countries with varying interests are involved.

You are much more into the detail of the ECHR cases than I am, and I appreciate the information you are bringing to our attention.

 

[Numbers]

I don't think a 70 year old declaration of war has much to do with this, but the fact that the person appealing to the ECHR is not a citizen of the country to she is filing against might.

Most of the applications to the ECHR from Italy are from Italian citizens (at least their names seem Italian - see HUDOC and look for cases against Italy); I don't believe those relatively few from non-Italians make much difference. There are so many from Italians that Amanda Knox's application will in a sense be hardly noticed.

Similarly, most cases against any of the ECHR CoE States are from their own nationals.


http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/CP_Italy_eng.pdf

Italy
Applications pending before the
court on 04/07/2014

Total pending Applications 23347
Applications pending before a judicial
formation: 15497
Single Judge 480
Committee (3 Judges) 4406
Chamber (7 Judges) 10610
Grand Chamber (17 Judges) 1

 

[Numbers]

I wasn't, really, although I understand that is part of the point you are making. I was just pointing out that, although you had said that most ECHR cases are citizens filling applications against their own country, this is different. Not an earthshaking observation, of course, I just wanted to point out that, if push comes to shove, there could be some behind the scenes manipulation because two different countries with varying interests are involved.

You are much more into the detail of the ECHR cases than I am, and I appreciate the information you are bringing to our attention.

Do you think Italy or the US will try to manipulate the system?
What do you believe that they would do?
Do you believe that the ECHR judges can be influenced?

 

[Desert Fox]

Do you think Italy or the US will try to manipulate the system?
What do you believe that they would do?
Do you believe that the ECHR judges can be influenced?

I was discussing this case on a Science Fiction Board, StarDestroyer.Net, and some of the non American posters seemed to assume Amanda was guilty just because she is American. Only thing I am afraid of is something like that.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

So is it your opinion that:

1) The Italian judiciary rejects the Council of Europe and Convention treaty signed by the Italian government and ratified in 1955? or

2) The Italian judiciary merely doesn't accept that ECHR human rights case-law is the supreme law of the land for Italy and all the CoE States (unless their own laws are more generous of human rights)? or

3) The Italian judiciary does not feel the need to always follow Italian law and the Constitution of the Italian Republic?


http://www.coe.int/en/web/about-us/who-we-are

The Council of Europe is the continent's leading human rights organisation.
It includes 47 member states, 28 of which are members of the European Union. All Council of Europe member states have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, a treaty designed to protect human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

Gosh, well no just that the Italian judiciary, as an institution more than likely will have a different opinion to yours.

Numbers, let us all keep in mind that none of us know the basis of the caluunia application, sure you can make educated guesses but you don’t know its content this for me at least is an important point, I don’t understand how this point seems to have been forgotten.