WPC  7UB@fPY@l$wZ%]皻k#ZH9ea޼KBN z7#DYR{*b댁l/(YlO;,@(Uo uƼS6Oe`ϸcQ?-;/$$H%:\:bΏ^xq6A#^`%+ xF@r6-͑=:nHfXwΩ欴/D{i-:2,o <<=Xőp 8@I0k߯4op>6BxēR4_wH*Rxt ) rN3kM8f>? ӕvZ WlZH*%pΐ/?u1GbyW" SD,r7/}d@Gj-t@d )Q|ɗUfU> 0 0<q 0Y 0_ 0ie 06 0: > 0 0( D+ AM( ( ( u 0N 0 # UNJ %M(N^ w4 m\  `&Times New Roman' A. P. et al. v. Italy, Communication No. 204/1986 (2 November 1987), U.N. Doc.CCPR/C/OP/14 U.N. Doc.CCPR/C/OP/1"Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   6F , 4Heading 3 S p^S   XXX p^S<:Default Para64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    < :Normal (Web) S =jS =jS0.Strong 42Emphasis Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2$ E!..      XuXXXXuXXXu  ($'dxd A<< c#|x(O$(E$..      Xo>XXXXo>XXXo>HP LaserJet 4000 Series PS0(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularXrb) oY)c(CorelU E!..      XuXXXXuXXXu  _ HUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEE  A.P.v.Italy | CommunicationNo.204/1986 H 2November1987  d ADMISSIBILITY     Submittedby:A.P.(namedeleted)on16January1986 x  Allegedvictim:Theauthor D  Stateparty:Italy ` Declaredinadmissible:2November1987(twentyfirstsession)* ,   DecisiononAdmissibility     1.Theauthorofthecommunication(initialletterdated16January1986andafurtherletter @ of7September1987)isA.P.,anItaliancitizenbornon12March1940inTunisia,at &v presentresidinginFrance.Heclaimstobethevictimofaviolationofarticle14,paragraph  \ 7,oftheCovenantbytheItalianGovernment.Heisrepresentedbycounsel. B 2.1.Theauthorstatesthathewasconvictedon27September1979bytheCriminalCourt  ofLugano,Switzerland,forcomplicityinthecrimeofconspiringtoexchangecurrency  notesamountingtothesumof297,650,000fire,whichwastheransompaidfortherelease   ofapersonwhohadbeen_kidnapped_ԀinItalyin1978.Hewassentencedtotwoyears' p!  imprisonment,whichhedulyserved.HewassubsequentlyexpelledfromSwitzerland. V"! 2.2.ItisclaimedthattheItalianGovernment,inviolationoftheprincipleof   nonhisinidem, "$r#  L  isnowseekingtopunishtheauthorforthesameoffenceasthatforwhichhehadalready %X $ beenconvictedinSwitzerland.HewasthusindictedbyanItaliancourtin1981(afterwhich %>!% heapparentlyleftItalyforFrance)andon7March1983theMilanCourtofAppeal &$"& convictedhim   inabsentia.    On11January   1985, h   theSecondDivisionoftheCourtof ' #' CassationinRomeupheldtheconvictionandsentencedhimtofouryears'imprisonmentand (#( afineof2millionlire. )$) 2.3.Theauthorinvokesarticle14,paragraph7,oftheCovenant,whichprovides: R+&+ Nooneshallbeliabletobetriedorpunishedagainforanoffenceforwhichhehasalready -n(- beenfinallyconvictedoracquittedinaccordancewiththelawandpenalprocedureofeach  country.  HefurtherrejectstheItalianGovernment'sinterpretationofthisprovisionasbeing b applicableonlywithregardtojudicialdecisionsofthesameStateandnotwithregardto H decisionsofdifferentStates. . ~ 2.4.Theauthorfurtherindicatesthatin1984theItalianGovernmentaddressedan  J extraditionrequesttotheGovernmentofFrance,butthattheParisCourtofAppeal,by  0 judgementof13November1985,deniedextraditionbecauseitwouldviolateFrench   _ordre_    public "  tomaketheauthorsuffertwotermsofimprisonmentbasedonthesameeffects.    3.TheCommitteehasascertainedthatthesamematterhasnotbeensubmittedtoanother x  procedureofinternationalinvestigationorsettlement. ^  4.Byitsdecisionof19March1986,theWorkingGroupoftheHumanRightsCommittee *z  transmittedthecommunicationunderrule91oftheprovisionalrulesofproceduretothe ` Statepartyconcerned,requestinginformationandobservationsrelevanttothequestionof F theadmissibilityofthecommunication,inparticulardetailsoftheeffectiveremedies , availabletotheauthorintheparticularcircumstancesofhiscase.ItalsorequestedtheState  partytoprovidetheCommitteewiththetextofanycourtordersordecisionsofrelevance  tothecase,includingthe1981indictmentoftheauthor,thejudgementof7March1983of  theMilanCourtofAppealandthejudgementof11January1985oftheCourtofCassation t inRome. Z 5.1.Initssubmissionunderrule91,dated24June1987,theStatepartyprovidescopiesof &v thecourtordersanddecisionsintheauthor'scaseandobjectstotheadmissibilityofthe  \ communication,whichitconsidersunfounded   (sans_fondement_). c  Inparticular,theStateparty B arguesthatMr.P.wastriedfortwodifferentoffencesinSwitzerlandandinItaly. ( 5.2.TheStatepartyfirstprovidesanoutlineofthefactualsituation:  Afewmonthsafterthe_kidnapping_ԀofM.G.M.,inMilanon25May1978,andthepayment p!  byherfamilyof1,350millionlife,attemptsweremadeto"launder"sumsderivingfromthe V"! crime.Inparticular,on4September1978,apersonlateridentifiedasJ.M.F.attemptedto <#" convertintoabank_cheque_Ԁthesumof4,735,000lireattheMilanbranchofthe_Banca_ "$r# _Nazionale_Ԁdel_Lavoro_;on6September1978,thesameindividualnegotiatedthesumof120 %X $ millionlifeatseveralbanksinLugano(Switzerland);on12September1978,againat %>!% differentbanksinLugano,M.M.F.,thistimeaccompaniedbytheauthorchanged100 &$"& millionlifeintoSwissfrancs.Onthatoccasion,theSwisspoliceintervenedandJ.M.F. ' #' absconded.whileA.P.wasarrested.Sometimelater,afurthersumof57,650,000lifewas (#( foundhiddeninarentedcarthathadbeenusedbyJ.M.F.andA.P.totraveltoSwitzerland. )$) 5.3.TheStatepartythenrejectstheauthor'scontentionthatarticle14,paragraph7,ofthe R+&+ Covenantprotectstheprincipleof"international   non_bis_Ԁinidem". g  IntheopinionoftheState 8,', party,article14,paragraph7,mustbeunderstoodasreferringexclusivelytothe -n(- relationshipsbetweenjudicialdecisionsofasingleStateandnotbetweenthoseofdifferent  States.  6..Inhiscomments,dated7September1987,theauthorcontendsthathisallegationswith b respecttoaviolationofarticle14,paragraph7,arewellroundedandarguesthatarticle14, H paragraph7,oftheCovenantshouldbeinterpretedbroadly,soastoapplytojudicial . ~ decisionsofdifferentStates.  d 7.1.Beforeconsideringanyclaimscontainedinacommunication,theHumanRights  0 Committeeshall,inaccordancewithrule87ofitsprovisionalrulesofprocedure,decide    whetherornotitisadmissibleundertheOptionalProtocoltotheCovenant.    7.2.TheCommitteenotesthattheStatepartydoesnotclaimthatthecommunicationis x  inadmissibleunderarticle5,paragraph2,oftheOptionalProtocol.Withregardtoarticle5, ^  paragraph2(a),theCommitteeobservesthatthemattercomplainedofbyA.P.hasnotbeen D  submittedtoanotherprocedureofinternationalinvestigationorsettlement.Withregardto *z  article5,paragraph2(b),theStatepartyhasnotclaimedthattherearedomesticremedies ` whichtheauthorcouldstillpursueinhiscase. F 7.3.Withregardtotheadmissibilityofthecommunicationunderarticle3oftheOptional  Protocol,theCommitteehasexaminedtheStateparty'sobjectionthatthecommunication  isincompatiblewiththeprovisionsoftheCovenant,sincearticle14,paragraph7,ofthe  Covenant,whichtheauthorinvokes,doesnotguarantee   nonhisinidem #  withregardtothe t nationaljurisdictionsoftwoormoreStates.TheCommitteeobservesthatthisprovision Z prohibitsdoublejeopardyonlywithregardtoanoffenceadjudicatedinagivenState. @ 8.Inthelightoftheabove,theHumanRightsCommitteeconcludesthatthecommunication  \ isincompatiblewiththeprovisionsoftheCovenantandthusinadmissible   _ratlone_Ԁ_materise_ B  %  underarticle3oftheOptionalProtocol. ( 9.TheHumanRightsCommitteethereforedecides:  (a)Thatthecommunicationisinadmissible; p!  (b)Thatthisdecisionshallbecommunicated~otheStatepartyandtheauthorofthe <#" communication. "$r# ___________ &$"& */Pursuanttorule85oftheCommittee'sprovisionalrulesofprocedure.Committee (#( memberMr.Fausto_Pocar_Ԁdidnottakepartintheadoptionofthedecision.__