28 March 2012
Support our work: become a Friend of Statewatch from as little as £1/€1 per month.
Criminalising
solidarity, part II
Italy/Tunisia: Fishermen on trial for rescuing migrants
The trial of seven Tunisian fishermen
began in Agrigento (Sicily) on 22 August 2007, two weeks after
their two fishing boats rescued passengers from a dinghy in distress
carrying 44 migrants in international waters around 40 miles
south of the Pelagian islands (Lampedusa, Linosa and Lampione)
that had sent out an SOS on 8 August.
According to the testimony in court of a Moroccan man who was rescued, the Mortadha and Mohammed el-Hedi intervened when the passengers had been without food for days, with a two-year-old child crying constantly, two other children including one who was spastic, a pregnant woman who lay on the deck, in a dinghy whose front had deflated and had been held up by passengers while the engine drove them forward. They switched the engine off while requesting assistance, which was denied by several other boats. The crews and captains, who acted in accordance with the law of the sea that demands that everything possible be done to rescue vessels in distress, were arrested on arrival and face charges of assisting illegal immigration for profit, an offence that carries a prison sentence of between one and 15 years, after fast-track judicial proceedings were initiated. On 10 September, the fishermen were released from custody, and the captains of the two vessels were placed under house arrest in a nearby reception centre in Licata. Court hearings are scheduled to resume on 20 September.
In spite of the boats being closer to Lampedusa than to Tunisia,
the port authority did not authorise their entry into Italy,
ordering them to turn back towards the north African country,
although they had been previously ordered to head into Italian
waters to allow inspection. A doctor had boarded the fishing
boats in Italian territorial waters to inspect the passengers
and certify that none of them were in particularly serious conditions,
so as to exclude the possibility of them docking in the port
of Lampedusa due to a "state of necessity". The captains
disobeyed, taking them into the port as it was closer, apparently
also because the sea was rough, resulting in their arrest and
that of the five crew members on arrival, and in the seizure
of the boats, caught in the act of breaching the prohibition
to dock. Four of the passengers were carried to a hospital in
Palermo by helicopter.
The charges of facilitating illegal immigration relate to the
prosecution's assertion, based on the absence of nets or ice
for chilling the catch on board, that the fishing boats were
in fact "mother ships" involved in migrant smuggling
networks, responsible for carrying the migrants in international
waters before disembarking them into smaller vessels (that have
not been found) nearer to the island. The disappearance of the
dinghy, a vessel that, it is argued, does not normally sink,
is a further element in the reconstruction on which the charges
are based. The defendants claim that they were on a duly authorised
fishing expedition in international waters in which their role
consisted in lighting the sea bottom to help another vessel to
drag its nets, and that the dinghy sunk as it filled with water
as its passengers climbed onto the fishing boats.
There was a strong mobilisation in support of the Tunisian defendants among associations active in the field of immigration and MEPs, with 103 of them signing a request for their release and a delegation travelling to Agrigento to express their solidarity during a demonstration on 7 September.
In a legal analysis of the incident, Fulvio Vassallo Paleologo of Palermo University highlighted some concerns raised by the incident. Firstly, he notes that the incident is not isolated, referring back to a precedent in late June of this year involving the rescue of 23 shipwreck victims (five people drowned in the incident according to the rescued migrants) holding onto its tuna cages in international waters between Libya and Malta by the Icelandic trawler Eyborg, which was ordered to transport them to Misurata in Libya. The captain refused to do so in spite of having been threatened with arrest, arguing that Libya was not a safe destination for Erithrean asylum seekers, a view supported by reports of the detention and repatriation of Erithreans (there were also Ethiopians, Nigerians and Somalis) by Libya. Malta eventually accepted to take charge of the shipwreck victims after pressure from different EU states and a promise that the burden would be shared between different states, and the captain was not arrested.
In reference to the inspection by a doctor (above), Paleologo
notes that the duty of rescue at sea and the prohibition of refoulement
do not depend on the migrants' health conditions when they enter
territorial waters, and that involvement in "humanitarian"
rescue and assistance to migrants in need are expressly excluded
from being construed as criminal offences by the Italian immigration
law. Legal doctrine has also established that the state has a
duty to co-operate in the finalisation of sea rescues, "allowing
shipwreck victims to disembark" irrespective of its power
to pursue people facilitating illegal immigration or to adopt
measures against illegal migrants, with due guarantees.
The analysis also notes that the police reconstruction ignores
the fact that were potential asylum seekers among the shipwreck
victims, including Erithreans, and that returning them to Libya
or Tunisia may have resulted in their repatriation and in the
violation of the principle of non-refoulement contained in the
Geneva Convention and of guarantees in the Italian constitution,
among others, and that the duty of rescue and assistance not
only involves saving peoples' lives at sea, but also to make
them disembark in a "safe place". Thus, Paleologo argues
that if the reconstruction provided by the crew members is confirmed
in court proceedings, the incident should not be liable to have
any penal relevance.
In spite of Tunisia's formal adherence to the Geneva Convention
on refugees and its apparent recognition by European border police
forces as a "safe third country", there have been reports
of intercepted migrants being immediately detained in its 11
detention centres and subsequently expelled to neighbouring countries
(including Libya) where they were likely to suffer ill-treatment.
Fishermen are increasingly wary of intervening to save migrants
in distress as a result of the risk of facing criminal charges
and often limit themselves to informing military authorities.
Cases in which military vessels have forced boats back to the
region from which they set off have been documented, although
an interministerial decree issued by the Berlusconi government
in 2003 to make the practice of inspecting and escorting them
back to their port of origin commonplace has largely remained
unimplemented due to its contravening the international law of
the sea (except for cases involving terrorism, piracy or environmental
pollution) and to the Italian navy's efforts to rescue vessels,
described as "exemplary" by Paleologo.
Sources
"Lampedusa: salvarono naufraghi, oggi rischiano il carcere",
Fortress Europe 27.8.2007, and "Agrigento: scarcerati i
pescatori tunisini; audizione a Strasburgo", Fortress Europe,
10.9.2007, both available at: http://fortresseurope.blogspot.com;
"Ancora sotto accusa chi salva la vita in mare", 18.8.2007,
in-depth analysis by F. Vassallo Paleologo, Palermo University
and ASGI, available at: http://www.meltingpot.org/stampa10973.html
.
"Trial in Agrigento : No to the criminalisation of solidarity", appeal, Migreurop website
Previous Statewatch coverage
Criminalising
solidarity, part 1: Cap Anamur trial underway
Spotted an error? If you've spotted a problem with this page, just click once to let us know.
Statewatch does not have a corporate view, nor does it seek to create one, the views expressed are those of the author. Statewatch is not responsible for the content of external websites and inclusion of a link does not constitute an endorsement. Registered UK charity number: 1154784. Registered UK company number: 08480724. Registered company name: The Libertarian Research & Education Trust. Registered office: MayDay Rooms, 88 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1DH. © Statewatch ISSN 1756-851X. Personal usage as private individuals "fair dealing" is allowed. We also welcome links to material on our site. Usage by those working for organisations is allowed only if the organisation holds an appropriate licence from the relevant reprographic rights organisation (eg: Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK) with such usage being subject to the terms and conditions of that licence and to local copyright law.