All Go for Atalanta-A few comments regarding the verdict.Pirates Trial Hamburg‏

http://reclaim-the-seas.blogspot.de/2012/11/all-go-for-atalanta.html

All Go for Atalanta

Posted: 06 Nov 2012 11:14 PM PST
A few comments regarding the verdict.

“I am feeling a great injustice,” said one of the defendants. “The
freedom of international maritime trade is affected,” said the judge.

The 'Piracy' trial against 10 Somali that has been dragging on for
almost two years finally came to an end on October 19, 2012. After 105
trial days, the verdict came rather suddenly.

Two days earlier, after the defendants had had their 'last words', one
of them announced having another witness. The witness was supposed to
prove that another defendant who had promoted himself to the status of
'crown witness' was in fact lying. But, as with most applications made
by the defence, this one was also declined.

Then, for the sixth time, the judge declared the trial to be over and
proceeded to announce the verdict.

He spoke calmly for four hours, after a lengthy break so that the media
and the chief prosecutor could attend the performance. Guilty of
kidnapping and armed assault on a shipping vessel.

Time and place of the incident: April, 2010, 500 nautical miles off the
coast of Somalia on board the German-flagged container ship MV Taipan.

The sentences: two years imprisonment for the under-age defendants, who
have already served two years in remand and are therefore free. Between
six and seven years for the others. Even the 'crown witness' was given
six years, despite the prosecution having asked for a discount of four
years for him compared to the others.

The detailed reasoning of the corroborating and the exonerating
circumstances for each defendant sounded like a summing up of the
criticism that observers had voiced all along: the destruction of
fishing grounds by foreign fishing fleets, illegal waste dumping and
colonial justice.

The judge even spoke of “subsistence piracy” - a term that certainly was
not part of his vocabulary prior to the trial. Many of those present
were surprised by the obvious learning curve.

The prison sentences are based on two arguments. Firstly, the assumption
that the defendants had not been forced to participate as they had
claimed. This argument had been made possible by the court's refusal
throughout the trial to hear even a single witness who could have
supported the defendants' version of the events. Secondly, the allegedly
professional equipment and military style of the attack, supposedly
proven by the skiffs and the weapons used, as well as the damage done to
the Taipan.

Anyone who has seen the pictures of the accused at the time of their
arrest, dressed in flip-flops and t-shirts, will wonder what a
non-military group would look like in the eyes of the judge. And to what
degree the damage sustained by the Taipan was caused by the covering
fire from the Dutch frigate during their operation was never investigated.

There were many aspects where the judge had to admit that even 105 trial
dates were not sufficient to reveal the truth. It was never established
who entered the Taipan first, who took control of the helm, and who
actually fired shots.

However, the judge acknowledged that the accused had not been the ones
who had planned the attack and that they had no intention to kill.

The timid attempt of the court to acknowledge the difficulties inherent
in applying German judicial concepts to events that took place off the
coast of Somalia did not stop it from handing down long prison
sentences. Instead, the sentencing sounded in parts like emotional assault.

Two items made it clear how the court was willing to risk
re-traumatising the defendants.

One of the defendants had stated his age as 13 years. Had the court
accepted this, he could not have been held in custody and he could not
have been tried in a criminal court in Germany. Therefore every attempt
was made to make him older. His birth certificate, school records and
even an affidavit by his own mother were ignored on the basis that
Somalia was not a functioning state, therefore it could not have issued
valid documents.

Instead, the dubious methods of the Hamburg forensic institute were
employed. After his arrival in Hamburg, the accused was taken there to
have his age assessed. There was no translator present and his hands and
feet were in cuffs. His was gestured to put his hand under an x-ray
machine. The young Somali, who had never seen modern medical equipment,
assumed that his hand was about to be chopped off.

Another one of the accused has been suffering from mental health issues
for a long time. His small son had been kidnapped in Somalia to force
repayment of debt. He had claimed that the reason he had participated in
the attack on the Taipan had been to earn money to release his son.
However, he had not repeated this in his closing words.

For the judge, this meant that his claim was implausible. The accused
was expected to repeat the traumatising story in order to be credible.
The thought that it may have been unbearable for him to tell the story
again did obviously not cross the judge's mind.

All this indicates that the entire programme, including the sentencing
had been primarily driven by the desire to publicly justify a
multi-million Euro military presence. The most powerful nations do not
deploy dozens of well equipped war ships in order to stop a hand full of
flip-flop wearing pirates. These ships are deployed to control the flow
of goods between the producer and consumer regions.

Bron : marily