Just closure : On Italian marines case (The Hindu)

Mains Paper 2: International 
Prelims level:Permanent Court of Arbitration
Mains level: Important International institutions, agencies and fora, their structure, mandate

Context: 

• Two Kerala fishermen were killed by the Italian marines on February 15, 2012. 
• It may seem pragmaticto keep any pending litigation alive until all dues relating to it are paid and all legal issues are settled. 
• However, it is somewhat puzzling that the Supreme Court of India has said it would keep the Italian marines’ case alive until “hefty” and “adequate” compensation is paid by Italy.

No point in delaying:

• The Court has indicated that it would not allow the closure of the trial until such compensation is paid. And it has ordered that the families of the victims be heard on this matter. 
• Union government has declared that it would abide by the ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague, which granted immunity to the marines.
• India also favoured Italy as the appropriate jurisdiction where the marines could be tried for the crime. 
• It does not seem proper to delay the process of bringing closure to the matter. 
• For one thing, the PCA, an arbitral tribunal that adjudicatesdisputes under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), has itself ruled that India is entitled to compensation. 
• Second, it hardly needs emphasis that the pendency of the matter in court should not become a bargaining point that delays the reaching of a fair settlement. 
• Continuing hearings may also be seen as India being reluctant to ceaseall criminal proceedings against the marines as per the ruling.

Needless objections:

• The Court’s resolve to obtain adequate and hefty compensation for the families of the victims is welcome, though it would be difficult to have a judicial determination of what quantum would satisfy these requirements. 
• The Centre may have approached the top court for formal permission to close the pending trial proceedings as a matter of abundant caution. 
• But as far as the law goes, it could have approached the trial court itself through the public prosecutor for withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 of the CrPC. 
• Article 253 of the Constitution says Parliament may enact a law to give effect to any international treaty or convention.
• This has been cited by government to argue that in view of the PCA court’s finding on jurisdiction being in conflict with the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2013 that the Union government alone can try the case, a law may be needed before the trial is closed. 
• This is just needless quibblingas the conflict has ceasedafter India agreed to abide by the tribunal’s ruling in keeping with its obligations under UNCLOS. 

 Conclusion:

• India’s focus should now be on negotiating for compensation and ensuring a purposive criminal trial in Italy.
• The focus must be on adequate compensation for families of fishermen killed by marines.

Online Coaching for UPSC PRE Exam

E-Books Download for UPSC IAS Exams

General Studies Pre. Cum Mains Study Material

Prelims Questions:

Q.1)With reference to the ammonium nitrate, consider the following statements:
1. In its pure form, ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) is a white, crystalline chemical which is soluble in water. 
2. Pure ammonium nitrate is an explosive on its own and classified as an oxidiser (Grade 5.1) under the United Nations classification of dangerous goods. 

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2

Answer: A

Mains Questions:
Q.1) What is the Italian Marines case? What are the Permanent Court of Arbitration said and about UNCLOS?