Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Pope's immunity could be challenged in Britain

Pope's immunity could be challenged in Britain
By PAISLEY DODDS (AP) – 1 day ago
LONDON — Protests are growing against Pope Benedict XVI's planned trip 
to Britain, where some lawyers question whether the Vatican's implicit 
statehood status should shield the pope from prosecution over sex crimes 
by pedophile priests.
More than 10,000 people have signed a petition on Downing Street's web 
site against the pope's 4-day visit to England and Scotland in 
September, which will cost U.K. taxpayers an estimated 15 million pounds 
($22.5 million). The campaign has gained momentum as more Catholic sex 
abuse scandals have swept across Europe.
Although Benedict has not been accused of any crime, senior British 
lawyers are now examining whether the pope should have immunity as a 
head of state and whether he could be prosecuted under the principle of 
universal jurisdiction for an alleged systematic cover-up of sexual 
abuses by priests.
Universal jurisdiction — a concept in international law — allows judges 
to issue warrants for nearly any visitor accused of grievous crimes, no 
matter where they live. British judges have been more open to the 
concept than those in other countries.
Lawyers are divided over the immunity issue. Some argue that the Vatican 
isn't a true state, while others note the Vatican has national relations 
with about 170 countries, including Britain. The Vatican is also the 
only non-member to have permanent observer status at the U.N.
Then again, no other top religious leaders enjoy the same U.N. 
privileges or immunity, so why should the pope?
David Crane, former chief prosecutor at the Sierra Leone war crimes 
tribunal, said it would be difficult to implicate the pope in anything 
criminal.
"It's a fascinating kind of academic, theoretical discussion," said 
Crane, who prosecuted Sierra Leone's Charles Taylor when he was still a 
sitting head of state. "At this point, there's no liability at all."
But Geoffrey Robertson, who as a U.N. appeals judge delivered key 
decisions on the illegality of conscripting child soldiers and the 
invalidity of amnesties for war crimes, believes it could be time to 
challenge the immunity of the pope — and Britain could be the place. He 
wrote a legal opinion on the topic that was published Friday in the U.S. 
news site The Daily Beast and Saturday in the British newspaper the 
Guardian.
"Unlike in the United States, where the judges commonly uphold what the 
executive says, the British courts don't accept these things at face 
value," Robertson told The Associated Press on Saturday. "The Vatican is 
not a state — it was a construct of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini."
But Jeffrey Lena, the California attorney who argued — and won — head of 
state immunity for Benedict in U.S. sex abuse cases, said the pope could 
not successfully be prosecuted for crimes under international law.
"Those who would claim that 'universal jurisdiction' could be asserted 
over the pope appear to completely misunderstand the sorts of 
violations, such as genocide, which are required to assert such 
jurisdiction," he said in a statement to the AP.
Still, Israeli officials, including former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, 
have recently been targeted by groups in Britain under universal 
jurisdiction. The law principle is rooted in the belief that certain 
crimes — such as genocide, war crimes, torture and crimes against 
humanity — are so serious that they are an offense against humanity and 
must be addressed.
It's a tactic that the British government would likely abhor, but 
British judges have often gone against government wishes in lawsuits.
Recent examples include British judges who issued an arrest warrant 
against Israel's former foreign minister for alleged war crimes, and a 
British court ruling this year that forced the government to release its 
intelligence exchanges with U.S. officials about the torture claims of a 
former Guantanamo detainee.
Prosecution in the deepening cleric sex abuse scandal, however, 
ultimately rests on the question of immunity. If British judges do 
challenge the pope's immunity, there are a handful of possible legal 
scenarios — all of them speculative.
The pope could be served for a writ for civil damages, a complaint could 
be lodged with the International Criminal Court, or abuse victims could 
try to have Benedict arrested for crimes against humanity — perhaps the 
least likely scenario.
Lawyers question whether an alleged systematic cover-up could be 
considered a crime against humanity — a charge usually reserved for the 
International Criminal Court — and whether it could be pursued under 
universal jurisdiction.
Attorney Jennifer Robinson in London, who has been researching the 
possibilities, says rape and sexual slavery can be considered crimes 
against humanity.
Others, like Hurst Hannum with the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy at 
Tufts University near Boston, are skeptical.
"No one would question that the Church's response to widespread abuses 
has been atrocious, but it's very difficult for me to see how that would 
fit 'crimes against humanity,'" said Hannum.
Robertson is more in favor of challenging the immunity question.
"Head of state immunity provides no protection in the International 
Criminal Court," said Robertson, who represented The Associated Press 
and other media organizations who sought to make U.S.-U.K. intelligence 
exchanges public in the case of former Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed.
"If acts of sexual abuse by priests are not isolated or sporadic events 
but part of a wide practice both known to and unpunished by their de 
facto-authority — i.e. the Catholic Church ... then the commander can be 
held criminally liable," Robertson said.
Even though the Vatican — like the United States — did not sign the 
accord that established the international court, a crime would only have 
to occur in a country which did sign, like Britain. Still, lawyers would 
have to prove that the crimes or an alleged cover-up occurred or 
continued after the court was set up in July 2002.
In a 2005 test case in Texas that involved alleged victims of sex abuse 
by priests, the Vatican obtained the intervention of President George W. 
Bush, who agreed the pope should have immunity against such prosecutions 
because he was an acting head of a foreign state.
It was around 1929 when Mussolini decided that the Vatican — a tiny 
enclave about 0.17 of a square mile with some 900 people — was a 
sovereign state.
"The notion that statehood can be created by another country's 
unilateral declaration is risible," Robertson said.
Others say the last 80 years of history have turned the Vatican into a 
state, and it would be almost impossible to strip the pope of his 
immunity now.
"My guess is the weight of opinion would allow the pope to enjoy 
immunity," said Hannum. "It's not automatically clear that the Holy See 
is a state, although it's treated as one for almost every purpose."
Last year, a Palestinian bid to have Barak — the Israeli defense chief 
who also served as prime minister until 2001 — arrested for alleged war 
crimes during a visit to Britain failed when the courts determined that 
he should be given immunity from arrest.
But months later, pro-Palestinian activists persuaded a London judge to 
issue an arrest warrant for Israeli politician Tzipi Livni, who was 
foreign minister during the 2008-2009 war in Gaza. The warrant was 
eventually withdrawn after Livni canceled her trip.
Spain and Britain jointly pioneered the universal jurisdiction concept 
when, in 1998, Britain executed a Spanish arrest warrant for former 
Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet on torture claims. Pinochet was kept 
under house arrest in London until he was ruled physically and mentally 
unfit to stand trial and released in 2000.
When he was arrested, however, Pinochet was no longer head of state.
In 2001, activists brought Israel's then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to 
trial in Belgium in connection with a 1982 massacre at a Beirut refugee 
camp. Sharon canceled a planned trip to Belgium and was tried in 
absentia in a Belgian court. He was not convicted but the case provoked 
diplomatic protests and prompted Belgium in 2003 to tighten the law that 
had permitted the trial.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has vowed to block private groups from 
taking legal action against visiting foreign dignitaries but any new law 
is unlikely before Britain's expected May 6 election.
The pope plans to visit Malta, Portugal and Cyprus before traveling to 
Britain on Sept. 16. A trip to Spain is planned for later in the fall.
Associated Press Writers Gregory Katz and Raphael Satter in London, 
Nicole Winfield in Rome and Daniel Woolls from Madrid contributed to 
this report.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gcxiBTY31XjpK5oDY9h3emUID9FwD9ESAVU80

 Pope's immunity could be challenged in Britain
si potrebbe dire lo stesso dei politici israeliani...

 si potrebbe dire lo stesso dei politici israeliani...
Che il Papa sia un capo di stato non c'è dubbio. Anche il Robertson
ammette che il Regno Unito mantiene una ambasciata presso la S. Sede,
quindi è pacifico che il Regno Unito riconosca il Vaticano come stato
indipendente, al di là delle bischerate che scriveva il Robertson.
Viceversa i politici israeliani che non occupano cariche governative, ed
ancor più i militari qualche rischio di essere arrestanti nel Regno
Unito lo corrono. Ed infatti prudentemente evitano di andarci.

 Che il Papa sia un capo di stato non c'è dubbio. 
magari anche in quel caso ci sono di mezzo delle statistiche falsate, 
vai a sapere...

si potrebbe dire lo stesso dei politici israeliani...
e cosa c'entrano costoro? 

 e cosa c'entrano costoro?
la trave e la pagliuzza