Between the lines: International Law

While I'd like to focus on the Italian extradition case, I thought this little tidbit from last week's Economist special on Brazil would help understand the circumstances a bit better.

In a piece entitled "The self-harming state," the author includes a short explanation about some of the challenges of the Brazilian judicial system. Because of endless appeals for many types of cases, the Brazilian Supreme Court received 100,000 cases in 2008. In Rio de Janeiro, the state cited as having "the most efficient" in the entire country, there are 800 cases in the appeals level of the courts, and 800,000 cases pending in the first level of the courts. The oldest case currently pending in the Rio courts is from 1911. (On a personal note, I recently found out that Eli's grandparents' court battle for their home lasted not ten, but twenty years.)

So with that, let's talk about Battisti.

For those of you unfamiliar with the case, here is a basic summary:

Cesare Battisti, an Italian, was part of a communist extremist group in the 1970s in Italy. In the early 80s, he was charged with four murders committed by said group, as well as robberies and other crimes. He fled the country and lived in France for a time, and then made his way to Brazil in 2004. He was arrested in 2007 and imprisoned in Brasilia, where he has remained until now. But early in 2009, President Lula granted him political amnesty. This did not sit well with Italy, which has an extradition agreement with Brazil (enshrined in Brazilian law). Finally, last week, the Supreme Court voted to extradite Battisti.

However, what was interesting to note was that despite the definitive decision--one of the judges claimed due to the nature of his crimes, Battisti could not be considered a political refugee, since crime is crime despite political motives--the judges ultimately left the decision to the President, making their decision more symbolic than anything. (Lula was a bit busy this week and has yet to announce his decision).

I found this odd because of another case making its way to the Supreme Court, the Goldman kidnapping case. In the United States, a similar case involving a Cuban boy was resolved in less than year due to intervention on behalf of the executive branch, and the boy was returned to his father. But when Brazil had the opportunity to take a similar approach, the executive branch repeatedly stated that Brazil is a sovereign nation with an independent judiciary, which would be the sole entity responsible for deciding the American boy's fate. They also stressed the judiciary would perform its duties in a timely fashion, which has not been the case. Meanwhile, a similar kidnapping case with a Canadian child in Brazil was resolved in the courts--they ordered the child to be sent back to his father in Montreal--but the order was never executed, and the child is still in Brazil, over two years later.

Italy has threatened the Brazilian government about the Battisti case, but since the threats mostly involved soccer and tourism, they weren't taken very seriously. But the country is closely watching the case, and the Italian government has made its stance clear. The US has not formally made any threats against Brazil with the Goldman case, though a bill was submitted in Congress to remove Brazil's trade preferences unless Brazil fulfills its commitment to the Hague Convention (the bill has not yet been passed).

In both instances, the competent jurisdiction to try the cases are in fact in Italy and the US, respectively, according to international law. But Lula, who as a leftist himself, is sympathetic to Battisti (he was jailed by the dictatorship back in the 70s), as well as to Sean's kidnappers (Sean's stepfather's family has political ties to Lula). I'm not sure why Lula chose to intervene in one case and not the other (or why the Supreme Court came to the decision to let him do so), but it would seem that moral relativism, political pressure and personal sympathies played a role. In both cases, the legal outcome seems clear: both foreigners should be sent back to their countries of origin, where trials will be held to decide their fates. But it seems unclear if this will happen, and justice has yet to be had. The outcome of these cases will be critical for Brazil to prove that it is not a haven for criminals, kidnappers, and accused terrorists--especially ones with political ties close to the president's heart.

Comments

[RogerPenna]

in the end, there is no such thing as "international law", sadly. All countries will boast about being sovereign in their decisions.

didn the US kidnap and moved to other countries mere suspects of terrorism? They dont give a damn about international law. In the end, each country only obeys "international law" when they care to do it. This is quite true to the US too, you know it.

[Jessica Lauren]

Hello. What a joy your blog is, thank you for sharing. I am a proud creator of a new blog and would love your support and suggestions. I am a Brazilian born, American raised, France bound woman, who loves fashion, writing, art and all things beautiful.

I can be found at
http://odestinofantasticodejessicalauren.blogspot.com/

Thank you.