Smuggling of Migrants: A Search for New Land, New Home, New Life.

Written by Garima Tiwari
In this picture, victims of human smuggling are intercepted along the Southern border of the United States of America. Photo credit/Wordpress

In this picture, victims of human smuggling are intercepted along the Southern border of the United States of America. Photo credit/Wordpress

On May 16th, 2013 Ecuador smashed a ring that smuggled immigrants from India and Sri Lanka into the US through Ecuador. Among the six people were arrested including three Indian nationals and two members of Ecuador’s immigration police. They brought in nationals from India and Sri Lanka, and arranged refuge for them in various hotels. The smugglers charged USD 5000 per person and after entering Ecuador illegally, the migrants would be sent to Central America and from there to the United States.[i]   Continue reading

Russian Organized Crime and its Trajectories

This month,  Dr. Serguei Chloukhine sits down with A CONTRARIO to discuss Russian organized crime and its impact on society. Professor Serguei Cheloukhine, is a Professor in the Department of Law, Police Science and Criminal Justice at John Jay College in New York, USA. He is the author of many articles and books on Russian organized crime, including:  Russian Organized Corruption Networks and their International Trajectories (2011). Continue reading

Mafia’s Most Dangerous Bullets: The Close Link Between Mafia and Health

Written by: Andrea Domenici, LLM International Crime and Justice, University of Turin

There is a close link between mafia and health and it is not a matter of only bullets and bombs.

Often the public reaction to Mafia groups takes place only on occasions of bloodshed, especially when these acts involve people who were able to direct public attention for their efforts against these criminal organizations. In Italy the cases of Judges Falcone and Borsellino were emblematic; the killing of the two magistrates and their bodyguards by the mafia created general indignation in the public opinion with the effect of extensive and engaging street demonstrations and the State was forced, both on a legal than an operational plan, to deal with decision against the problem of Cosa Nostra in Sicily. Continue reading

Italian Organised Crime, a silent threat to the European Union and worldwide

By David Ellero, Senior Specialist at Europol

“… do not ever forget, when you hear the progress of lights praised, that the loveliest trick of the Devil is to persuade you that he does not exist”[1].

 

When asked to write on Italian Organised Crime (ITOC), the first thing that comes into my mind is the above mentioned quote, which summarizes the main threat the latter poses to the European Union. In Italy of course the situation is quite different, since the experience Judiciary authorities and Law Enforcement have built up in the course of decades of fights against ITOC have refined both their skills and most importantly their legislative tools.

One for all, the Italian Criminal Code has a specific definition for “Mafia-type Organised Crime”[2] which constitutes a crime per se and identifies the “Mafia” as an Organised Crime Group whose participants:

  • commit criminal offences;
  • Manage or in any way control, either directly or indirectly, economic activities, concessions, authorizations, public contracts and services;
  • Obtain unlawful profits or advantages for themselves or for any other persons;
  • Prevent or limit the freedom to vote, or to get votes for themselves or for other persons on the occasion of an election,

All this by taking advantage of the intimidating power of the association.

 

In Italy it is in fact the condition of submission derived from the intimidating power of the criminal group which is tackled and inherently differentiates a group of criminals perpetrating a crime from a “Mafia-type” organised crime group.

But when I started this article, it was my intention to identify the main threat Italian Organised Crime poses to the European Union and I will therefore move forward.

Whilst in the areas of origin of the main ITOC groups[3] the latter have an extremely tight control over the territory and its population (which effectively constitutes the base of their power, to the point that often little or no crimes are committed without permission from the local Clans) this rarely happens outside, where economic power is sought rather than military.

In this period of economic turmoil, infact, the Italian Mafias face the opposite problem of legitimate businesses: the latter struggle to receive money to invest, the first have too much money and constantly attempt to inject it in the “legitimate” economy.

To give an idea of the scope of these criminal groups and their economic capabilities, the Ndrangheta alone has recently been estimated to have a 44 Billion Euro a year income, 62% of which deriving from drug trafficking alone[4].

At this point it is easy to determine the main threat these groups pose to the EU, which consists in undermining the real economy: since they do not need to produce with a margin of profit (their purpose is mainly money laundering) in the long run little or no legitimate businesses will be able to afford the competition and will be out of the market.

As a simple example, Mafias have always been particularly active in the construction industry and in the real estate market: these two fields are closely related to each other and often investigations uncover large criminal networks that manage to control all the phases related to these crime fields.

In an ideal, simplified scenario:

  • through the power of intimidation deriving from being associated to a Mafia Clan (or through corruption or simply thanks to unlimited economic resources), a certain group can acquire (in or outside Italy) a certain portion of land;
  • through links to the local administrative offices (again, corruption, infiltration or simple intimidation is often enough), the portion of land can change its destination, i.e. from agricultural use to building residential apartments;
  • Mafia-owned (or controlled) construction companies build the residential apartments;
  • Mafia-owned real estate agencies put them on sale on the real estate market;
  • “investors” are called to invest in these residential apartments, and often do so by moving assets through numerous banks located in several different countries, in order to “conceal” their real nature.

Often all the steps above are managed by the same OCG that can therefore create an effective method to launder money without exposing too much to Law Enforcement attention.

Of course if all these steps would take place in Italy, i.e., with the tools provided to the investigators by Italian law it would be quite manageable to identify this scheme and pursue those responsible. This is extremely difficult when the scheme takes place in different countries.

Firstly, as I mentioned at the beginning of this article, in Italy “Mafia” is a crime per se and can therefore be investigated effectively through wiretappings, interceptions and other technical means regardless of the predicate offence. In this scenario the investigative hypothesis would be that Mafia related subjects are carrying out a series of activities to infiltrate the real estate and this would be enough to start up an investigation. An indication that individuals sentenced for Mafia are constantly present of the construction sites or that their relatives or acquaintances are present in the companies that are carrying out the building activities on site is often key to incriminate the latter and confiscate the whole series of properties, in some cases even without a criminal sentence of the suspects[5]

Would these simple indicators be enough for another country to kick off an effective investigation? Would another country wiretap a suspect just based on his affiliation to a Mafia group? These are just a few of the key issues to which the EU legislator (EU Parliament – Committee on Organised Crime, Corruption and Money Laundering – CRIM) is currently trying to find a solution, but this is extremely difficult since EU Member States have extremely different juridical cultures.

In the meanwhile Europol has set up a dedicated project on Italian Organised Crime created to support those countries who wish to fight against these specific syndicates. Because of its position at the centre of the EU’s security architecture Europol is infact best placed to inform its operational partners on the risks linked to the presence of Italian organised crime within their respective boundaries. It’s a first step against an effective and comprehensive anti-Mafia strategy, but the only way to fight these specific OCG is by sharing all information related to them and promoting efficient Law Enforcement cooperation.


[1] Charles Baudelaire, “The Generous Gambler” (1864)

[2] Article 416 bis Italian Criminal Code

[3] Mafia in Sicily, Ndrangheta in Calabria, Camorra in Campania

[4] 2008 EURISPES study

[5] Misure di Prevenzione Patrimoniali

Victim Rights: Are We Victimising the Perpetrators?

Victims have rights. No doubt about it. Since the 1960’s the need for the criminal justice system to take into account the needs of the victims has been emphasized. These efforts-mostly driven by non profits-have borne fruits. The international community has paid attention. In 1985 the United Nations Declaration of the Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power was adopted by the General Assembly[1]. This Declaration recognized the vulnerability of victims of crime and that there was a need for judicial and administrative processes to respond better. Part of the better response included “allowing the views and concerns of victims to be presented and considered at appropriate stages of the proceedings where their personal interests are affected, without prejudice to the accused and consistent with the relevant national criminal justice system”[2]. In almost similar fashion, the General Assembly subsequently adopted the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law[3]. This instrument provided, inter alia that “A victim of a gross violation of international human rights law or of a serious violation of international humanitarian law shall have equal access to an effective judicial remedy as provided for under international law”[4].

The right of victims to actively participate in the criminal trial process has also been reflected in international criminal law. Thus, whereas previous international tribunals such as the Nuremburg Tribunals, the ICTR, the ICTY among others, did not offer any role to the victim during the trial, the Rome Statute has been very generous in this regard. The Statute sets up a Victim and Witnesses Unit within the Registry charged with the responsibility of undertaking “protective measures and security arrangements, counselling and other appropriate assistance for witnesses, victims who appear before the Court, and others who are at risk on account of testimony given by such witnesses”[5]. In addition, Article 68 provides that ‘‘Where the personal interests of the victims are affected, the Court shall permit their views and concerns to be presented and considered at stages of the proceedings determined to be appropriate by the Court”[6]. The only qualification to this right is that it ought to be conducted “in a manner which is not prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial”[7]. The ICC has had occasion to interpret this rather wide provision. In the Lubanga case[8], for example, the victims were allowed to directly participate in the investigations and the prosecution of the case. In the Kenyatta case[9] and the William Ruto case[10], victim participation during the trial process included allowing the Victim’s Representative to ask questions during the trial.

Whereas this development in the recognition of the victim rights is applaudable, I am concerned that the international criminal jurisprudence could end up tipping to the other side: ‘victimising’ the alleged perpetrator in the name of recognizing the victim(s)’ rights. Let me explain. The entire adversarial nature of criminal trials hangs on an assumption of the equality of arms between the protagonists. The prosecution and the accused person should have equal resources and the same opportunities to argue their cases. However, this balance will be interfered with when the Victim is provided an opportunity to participate in the trial. Since the victim would naturally be on the opposing side from the accused person, his/her participation would essentially be a second cross examination of the accused person and his witnesses. An unfair result no doubt.

Secondly, victim participation in proceedings negatively affects the pace of proceedings. This also has negative repercussions on the rights of the accused to have his case determined fast. The Victim will not only spend time during the cross examination stage but he will also have a right to make interlocutory applications and appeal on any Rulings therefrom. This could in turn take an inordinate amount of the court’s time. As an example, Elisabeth Baumgartner estimates that in the Lubanga case “out of a total of 45decisions rendered by Pre-Trial Chamber I from the issuing of the warrant of arrest in February 2006 tothe referral of the case to the Trial Chamber in September 2007, 20 decisions (13 per cent of all decisions) were directly related to victim participation (not counting decisions on victim protection issues)”[11]. In a court where each second counts in terms of the cost implications, this is significant.

Thirdly, the primary role of the criminal justice process is to determine the guilt or otherwise of the accused person. In other words, “the criminal law system cannot serve therapeutic purposes, since it does not have the resources needed and was not designed to attend to the victims.”[12] All other roles such as victim support are ancillary and ought to be in support of this objective. The participation or none participation of a victim at this stage does not affect the guilt or otherwise of the accused person[13]. Admittedly the court needs to understand the pain and circumstances of the victim as a result of the alleged crimes. However, such information is only relevant at the sentencing stage, not in trial. When the victim participates at the hearing stage the smooth functioning and possibly the eyes of the court are taken away from the primary goal (guilt or innocence of the accused) to ancillary issues (plight of the victims

Lastly, the victims interests in court are (or ought to) be adequately represented by the Office of the Prosecutor. Limiting the participation of the victims during the trial will compel them to co-operate more with the Office of the Prosecution. Rather than pursuing their own independent strategy, the victims will work with the objective of the prosecutor. This is a good thing for international criminal law.

In a word therefore for the above mentioned reasons there is need to rethink the participation of the victims   in the trial process. Too great an involvement is not only disruptive but “might not be the most judicious path towards the recovery and reparation desired by the victim”[14].


[1] Resolution No. A/RES/40/34,29 November 1985, 96th plenary meeting

[2] Annex to the Resolution, Access to Justice and Fair Treatment, Paragraph No. 6(b)

[3] Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 60/147 of 16 December 2005

[4] Annex to the Resolution, Access to Justice, Paragraph 12

[5] Article 43 Paragraph 6

[6] Paragraph 3

[7] Ibid

[8] ICC, Decision on the applications for participation in the proceedings of VPRS 1 to VPRS 6 in the Case Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ICC-01/04-01/06-172, 29 June 2006

[9] ICC-01/09-02/11 The Prosecutor v. Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali

[10] ICC-01/09-01/11 The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang

[11] Aspects of victim participation in the proceedings of the International Criminal Court by Elisabeth Baumgartner, International Review of the Red Cross, Volume 90 Number 870 June 2008, Footnote No 39

[12] Victims and International Criminal Justice: A Vexed Question? by Mina Rauschenbach and Damien Scalia, International Review of the Red Cross, Volume 90 Number 870, June 2008.umber 870 June 2008Volume 90 Number 870 June 2008

[13] Of course, the limitation to this is when the victim testifies in court as a witness for the prosecution

[14] Supra Note 12